Hamas, Israel, and Palestine: What History Will Tell

I suggest you read at least one book on the subject that wasn't written by radical leftists. 10 people repeating the same nonsense from the same primary source doesn't make it more true.
Sorry, but I only read books by authors that do not support or endorse genocide on the basis of religious supremacy for the sake of real estate.

They had a choice to either accept unrestricted immigration from Jews returning from exile abroad or accept a UN-backed partition that would limit where those Jews could settle. They chose war because they wanted the country to only be a homeland for Arabs and other colonists who joined their fold over the centuries.
They had a choice to accept an invasion of settlers and being forced off their land under threat of death and the loss of all of their autonomy and human rights? Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. Does it sound like a choice to you?

Israel never accepted limiting how many Jews could settle. That's why so many Palestinians are still being forced out of their homes by settlers. And you think that's a choice. You'd be okay if a bunch of people came to your house, told you to get out or be killed, because so and so has a religious priority over your house? No, you would not.

You'd choose war too. To suggest they simply move out because white people in Europe and the US wanted their land is absolutely colonialism and the mass slaughter that went with it, shows just how it follows the exact same path as it has in history.

There were both Jews and Arabs who behaved like Nazis and also Jews and Arabs who didn't. Those who didn't behave in this way don't deserve to be stained by the actions of those who did.
And yet, the world supports the European settlers who did behave like Nazis and continue to do so. Funny that, huh?

Yes apparently you feel this way since you only seem to care about alleged genocides when there are Jews involved and ignore when the people fighting against Israel commit even bigger massacres than the ones they accuse Israel of. No Jews, no news right?
I'm sorry, what?

How many Palestinians have died since the creation of Israel as opposed to Jewish settlers?

Let's consider since the October 7 attacks. Do you think the response is proportionate? Do you think killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, the majority of whom are women and children, is an acceptable response?

There is no alleging a genocide in Gaza. It is genocide.

All the markers are there.
I repeat, you should stop trying to justify deliberate attacks against civilians where there is no evidence of anything of military value being attacked.
You should say the same thing about Israel bombing hospitals, people's homes, schools, and refugee camps, no? But you don't. You seem to be justifying and defending it.

At no time have I justified the October 7 attacks. What I did note is that there is a certain irony in the way in which Hamas' acts were almost identical to what the Zionists forces did to numerous Palestinian villages in 1947 and 1948. Even down to parading the people they had captured and driving them through towns. The Zionists took women and children they had kidnapped and drove them through towns for the settlers to spit on, throw rocks at and abuse in the exact same fashion. A symbolism you cannot seem to grasp. It is a response to what was done to their parents and grandparents. Do you not see this? How can you not see this? I'm not saying it is acceptable. I am pointing out that understanding it and why is important.

October 7 happened because Gaza is run by the same sorts of militant Islamists who declared their intention to commit genocide against Israelis and subsequently attempted this in 1947 and many times since. If they felt that something that allegedly happened during the Nakba justified retaliation, then they could have picked military targets and enjoyed the backing of the Geneva conventions to limit Israel's right to retaliate in kind.
Think back and consider why and how Hamas came to exist.

If you lock up millions of people and deny them their fundamental human rights after forcing them from their homes and lands and then locking them up for decades, they will rise up against their occupiers and captors. You think the Nakba was "alleged"? It is well documented. In the same way other genocides and holocausts are documented. You expect a people who had little arms, who had no rights, to pick "military targets" when they couldn't even fight back against the settlers who were taking everything they owned and denied them citizenship and their fundamental human rights? Surely you jest! You're blaming the victims of genocide for what was and continues to be done to them to the point of going down the ridiculous path of denial of history?

Why would they pick military targets? Israel rarely picked military targets in the past and it certainly is not now. It didn't when they committed massacres in villages across Palestinine and it certainly did not when they contravened the Geneva Convention and set up settlements on Palestinian lands.

Hamas are outgunned by a country that has one of the best armed forces and weaponry in the world. They will pick easy targets to make a point.

Israel has never upheld the Geneva Convention and you expect Hamas to? What double standards are you smoking? The very existence of the settlements is against the Geneva Convention. Where those villages were that were attacked? Their very existence were against the Geneva Convention. Gaza and the horrors Palestinians have had to survive for decades, goes against the Geneva Convention.

How can you not understand this? If you wish to bring up the Geneva Convention, then it would behove you to understand what that means for Israel and the millions of settlers who reside there, and certainly what it means for the land they continue to steal. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/c...3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/]
 
First you argue that the Zionists were secularists willing to accept a piece of land anywhere, then you argue they were spiritualists who could only accept Israel. Most of the early Zionist movement founders were openly self-proclaimed atheists, so your argument makes even less sense in that light.

The reason they settled on migrating to Israel rather than somewhere like Uganda is because they had no justification to appropriate land in Uganda that would otherwise be reserved for locals. In Palestine only a small fraction of the total land was being cultivated prior to the return of the Jewish diaspora, and they were perfectly legitimized in appropriating unused lands and settling on purchased lands from voluntary sellers, because those were the same lands their own ancestors once lived on and were forced to leave.

They settled on Palestine because most of the land wasn't being cultivated? Seriously? You're going with the terra nullius doctrine?

Good lord, man!

Did you bother to read the link? Clearly you did not.

And "the return of the Jewish diaspora"? They weren't from there. They were Europeans. And if you really want to argue the right of return, then perhaps you should consider the right of return for the "Arabs" who were driven from their land and are now being killed for their land.

As I said earlier, the issue with Israel is one of religious superiority and the genocide they have been conducting and are currently in the process of speeding up, will not stop until there is a giant shift in the mindset of said religious superiority.

So if a Jew born in Tel Aviv can trace half of their DNA back to Ice Age Canaanites, you are saying they are more alien to the land than a Palestinian born in Beirut who traces their ancestors to Turkey and Iraq?
Oh, so now you're going with racial superiority. Okay!

https://www.science.org/content/article/jews-and-arabs-share-recent-ancestry
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6

Many governments and countries in the past have tried to excuse genocide on the basis of the 'other' not being 'one of us' or being the outsider to justify their acts. You're pulling the same utter tripe here. Try harder and do better.

Frankly, you should be ashamed and embarrassed for having come out with this.

Personally I think the Palestinians should receive the equivalent of whatever they were cultivating prior to the Nakba, from some portion of the existing territory in dispute, but nothing beyond that.
I see. How nice of you!

If they were to receive the equivalent of whatever they cultivated prior to the Nakba, Israel would no longer exist.

Still pulling the white colonist mentality that the British used when they colonised Australia and committed genocide?

As far as I'm aware your ancestors weren't forcefully exiled from those territories, so I believe the answer under international law is no.
Well I'm from slave stock. And there was a facture and forced exile for one ancestor who decided to father children with his slaves and I believe, married one, thus beginning my line. There's even a region in France named after that family. Quite lovely area, actually. I don't even have to go back 400+ years on my dad's side. I can go back to my maternal grandmother who was half French and half Dutch who was exiled by her family for marrying a coloured man! So you want to try that again? Because if this is what you think is acceptable, then really, your moral compass is so skewed, it's twisted itself into a pretzel.

Also, the settlers in Israel were not forcefully exiled from Israel (Palestinians, on the other hand, have been and continue to be). If you want to go with the 'forcefully exiled' route, then those settlers should be heading back to Europe to claim what was theirs and was taken from them by the Nazis when they were forced into exile and then into the death camps.

Britain had no ancestors forcefully exiled from Australia when it settled there, just like many of the colonists who came to settle in Palestine over the centuries after Rome kicked most of the Jews out. I do however feel that there is a similarity in that most of the land wasn't being used by anyone at the time and could therefore be claimed by anyone able and willing to make effective use of it.
Didn't you just excuse and justify Israel forcing Palestinians into exile because the land wasn't cultivated? Because that's the same shit the British used against Australia's First Nations Peoples.

You are claiming religious and racial superiority in a land grab and genocide. You do understand that what you are arguing is morally repugnant, yes? You do get that, don't you?

I don't think there's much similarity there whatsoever, in part because there were no aboriginals attacking Britain or threatening and attempting genocide against it at the time when Britain asserted military control over the island.
Then you clearly do not know or understand Australian history.

Not to mention "aboriginals" is offensive and racist.

The First Nations Peoples fought. What then occurred was genocide and one that has reverberations to the population today.

Absolutely Israel's right wing settler movement is a huge problem but I don't see the point in condemning or confronting them if that's just going to provide more ammunition for people to go after everyone else in the country.
Of course. Wouldn't want to offend or confront the people who are a major component of genocide. Heaven forbid we offend their delicate sensibilities!
 
I don't think that Israel has any hope of eliminating pro-Hamas sympathies among the population of Gaza. And separating fighters from civilians will be hard, since fighters can blend back in with the civilians easily enough.
So just kill them all instead!

Case in point:
So my guess is that the Israeli objective is to destroy Hamas as an effective military force. That will require the Israeli military moving through Gaza building by building, searching for arms caches, tunnel entrances and rocket workshops. Certainly if Hamas fires on the Israelis while they are doing that, the Israelis will be happy to return fire and call in artillery and airstrikes. I expect any building from which fire comes will be flattened.
Israel has the most sophisticated armed forces in the world. Their intelligence is one of the best in the world, if not the best. And yet, to kill one or two Hamas members, they elect to flatten a refugee camp?

And I expect Israel to take over responsibility for security in Gaza.
Israel has always controlled Gaza. They have always controlled what goes into Gaza, to the point of even allowing just enough food after calculating the calorie intake required to prevent starvation.

As for Hamas. The chickens came home to roost.

But did you also know that Hamas — which is an Arabic acronymOpens in a new tab for “Islamic Resistance Movement” — would probably not exist today were it not for the Jewish state? That the Israelis helped turn a bunch of fringe Palestinian Islamists in the late 1970s into one of the world’s most notorious militant groups? That Hamas is blowback?

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. Listen to former Israeli officials such as Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s. Segev later toldOpens in a new tab a New York Times reporter that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat (who himself referredOpens in a new tab to Hamas as “a creature of Israel.”)

“The Israeli government gave me a budget,” the retired brigadier general confessed, “and the military government gives to the mosques.”

“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, toldOpens in a new tab the Wall Street Journal in 2009. Back in the mid-1980s, Cohen even wrote an official report to his superiors warning them not to play divide-and-rule in the Occupied Territories, by backing Palestinian Islamists against Palestinian secularists. “I … suggest focusing our efforts on finding ways to break up this monster before this reality jumps in our face,” he wrote.

There are embedded links in that article, if you wish to delve further.

Gaza has some attractive Mediterranean coastline and if the people waving Palestinian flags in Western cities were willing to invest real money in Gaza, it could be rebuilt into a rather nice place. It would have to be free of armed gangsters and political enforcers though, which isn't something that I foresee.
And how would Palestinians living elsewhere buy up real estate and build anything nice in Gaza?

Israel has controlled what building materials enter Gaza.

Hamas probably will always be there darkening the lives of the locals, until those locals decide to do something about it themselves.
And how would they do that?

Blaming victims for essentially being victims is something.

As I noted above.. The chickens came home to roost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
 
They settled on Palestine because most of the land wasn't being cultivated? Seriously? You're going with the terra nullius doctrine?

Good lord, man!

Did you bother to read the link? Clearly you did not.

I read the link and saw nothing about Jews forcing Palestinians off the land until the Palestinians declared war and attempted to wipe the Jews out of the region. Legally purchasing land from people under their own traditional laws is not Nazism and I'm sorry your understanding of history is so poor that you can't see that.

And "the return of the Jewish diaspora"? They weren't from there. They were Europeans. And if you really want to argue the right of return, then perhaps you should consider the right of return for the "Arabs" who were driven from their land and are now being killed for their land.

If Jews whose ancestors were exiled from the Levant are native to Europe, then Palestinians whose ancestors fled during the Nakba are native to wherever they were born too.

As I said earlier, the issue with Israel is one of religious superiority and the genocide they have been conducting and are currently in the process of speeding up, will not stop until there is a giant shift in the mindset of said religious superiority.

The issue is with people not wanting Jews to have the same self-determination in their ancestral homeland that all other nations are considered entitled to.

Well I'm from slave stock.

Completely irrelevant. You're a colonist who voluntarily chooses to live off the profits of a genocide just like your ancestors and the rest of the non-indigenous people of Australia, and therefore have no business telling people born and living in their ancestral homeland somewhere else that they're aliens to their homeland.

Also, the settlers in Israel were not forcefully exiled from Israel (Palestinians, on the other hand, have been and continue to be). If you want to go with the 'forcefully exiled' route, then those settlers should be heading back to Europe to claim what was theirs and was taken from them by the Nazis when they were forced into exile and then into the death camps.

The Romans forced Jews to leave the Levant (Arab conquistadors also banned Judaism for a full century when they invaded), and the Holocaust simply proved that Europe was never their homeland. Arabs and other migrants who came later have no right to deny unused or purchased lands to Jews wishing to return from exile.

Didn't you just excuse and justify Israel forcing Palestinians into exile because the land wasn't cultivated? Because that's the same shit the British used against Australia's First Nations Peoples.

Nope, I justified Israel defending itself from genocidal Islamists who want to deny Jews from using uncultivated lands.

Not to mention "aboriginals" is offensive and racist.

In Canada it's a standard legal term and not intended in any way to be disrespectful.

The First Nations Peoples fought. What then occurred was genocide and one that has reverberations to the population today.

Has nothing to do with you or your ancestors voluntarily choosing to go live there, choosing not to return to their rightful homelands, and profiting from the genocide you admit to.
 
The IDF had to make a strong response in Gaza to the Oct 7 actions.
The raid on a hospital in the West Bank was going way too far.
The sympathy that most people have for the kidnapped hostages only goes so far.
 
Has nothing to do with you or your ancestors voluntarily choosing to go live there, choosing not to return to their rightful homelands, and profiting from the genocide you admit to.

Are you aware that Australia was a British penal colony?
 
I read the link and saw nothing about Jews forcing Palestinians off the land until the Palestinians declared war and attempted to wipe the Jews out of the region. Legally purchasing land from people under their own traditional laws is not Nazism and I'm sorry your understanding of history is so poor that you can't see that.
Are you actually trying to argue that the Nakba was legal and acceptable?

If Jews whose ancestors were exiled from the Levant are native to Europe, then Palestinians whose ancestors fled during the Nakba are native to wherever they were born too.
Except the Palestinians were also from there. Their genetic make-up proves this. And they had continued occupation, whereas the Jewish diaspora who spread through Europe left quite a long time ago and became natives of the Europe.

Given the original plan was to look at other countries before they settled on what is now Israel, says that it doesn't really have much to do with returning from the exile of their ancestors from hundreds of years ago and more to do with what they could easily access that would not anger the countries they wished to appropriate for their new homeland.

Not to mention the 'right of return' also applies to those who convert to Judaism.. In other words, someone with absolutely no connection to Israel or the "Levant", could convert to Judaism and be accepted and have the 'right to return' to Israel. Which kind of blows the whole ancestral home thing about Israel out of the water.

It's a religious state. Nothing more, nothing less. They practice apartheid and discriminate against any who do not share their religious ideology. It is as simple as that. And the rules against Palestinian residents is even harsher than it would be for a non-Palestinian. It is literally an apartheid state. We saw South Africa practice the same exact crap for decades.
The issue is with people not wanting Jews to have the same self-determination in their ancestral homeland that all other nations are considered entitled to.
The issue is that it is not just their ancestral homeland.

Completely irrelevant. You're a colonist who voluntarily chooses to live off the profits of a genocide just like your ancestors and the rest of the non-indigenous people of Australia, and therefore have no business telling people born and living in their ancestral homeland somewhere else that they're aliens to their homeland.
You're Canadian, right?

Pot meet kettle.

I'll put it this way, my ancestors were forced off their land, forced to migrate to another country and then mistreated for a few hundred years as slaves and then as 'free people'. I live in Australia, but I am also exceptionally mindful of the history of this country and how it came to be and what occurred and continues to occur. I recognise who the traditional owners are. I respect them. I don't tell them 'oops, sorry, it's mine now'. I support native title claims and I support reparations and giving them their land back and their self-determination. Can you say the same?

Can Israel say the same for Palestinians who were forced out and not allowed to return, despite being able to prove a connection to said land that goes back a thousand years or more. No, it cannot. I'll give you an example of what Israel did to claim the land as theirs. The Indigenous Peoples of Australia migrated here about 50,000+ years ago. Before doing so, they settled in parts of Asia and what is now known as Papua New Guinea, and then migrated down into the Australian continent and that occurred about 50k or so years ago. Now imagine if they now went into PNG and claimed that it's their land, because their ancestors lived there several millennia ago. Or if they went to Africa and claimed a right to that land or a right of return there, due to that ancient connection. It wouldn't happen because it would be ridiculous. The reason Indigenous and First Nations Peoples have a right to their land, is because it is their land. Palestinians, along with several Jewish tribes on what is now Israel, have a traditional ownership of that land, because that is where their ancestors settled several millennia ago. They are the First Nations Peoples of that region. And yet, you believe that the descendants of Jews who migrated to Europe in say, 67BCE, have a right to return to Israel today and Palestinians whose ancestors never left, are right to be forced out for no other reason than they are not Jewish? Then I'm sorry, but that simply does not wash.

The Romans forced Jews to leave the Levant (Arab conquistadors also banned Judaism for a full century when they invaded), and the Holocaust simply proved that Europe was never their homeland. Arabs and other migrants who came later have no right to deny unused or purchased lands to Jews wishing to return from exile.
And now Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

Does that seem right to you?

Or are you still going to clutch to that one drop rule when it comes to Judaism?

Nope, I justified Israel defending itself from genocidal Islamists who want to deny Jews from using uncultivated lands.
Pity the Palestinians who have been forced to deal with genocidal Zionists with apparently no right to defend themselves, their homes or their cultivated and uncultivated lands.

Again, you're going with the Terra nullius argument, which history has shown to be bogus and absolute bullshit. Ask any First Nations People's of Australia.

Just because land is uncultivated, does not mean it's yours to take as you wish.

In Canada it's a standard legal term and not intended in any way to be disrespectful.
They prefer to be referred to as Indigenous Peoples. The term "Aboriginal" is a white man's word that was forced upon First Peoples around the world.
Has nothing to do with you or your ancestors voluntarily choosing to go live there, choosing not to return to their rightful homelands, and profiting from the genocide you admit to.
I would have absolutely no right to return to my "rightful homelands", which would include parts of Africa, France and the Netherlands. Why? Because despite my ancestors being from those countries, it's not mine. Even though one part of France literally has my name on it and it's directly named after my French ancestors whose name I still carry and use, it's not my land or ancestral land for me to claim. What part of that don't you quite understand?

My African ancestors had no choice. They were slaves. What part of this do you not understand, exactly? By your reckoning, I should have the right to return to wherever in Africa my ancestors were forced from and claim it as mine, due to it being my ancestral homeland. Do you understand that this would be wrong as it's not my land? Claiming a right of return based solely and only on religion is even worse and excluding and forcing the native population from their lands to give it to others based solely on religious ideology, is the exact same crap colonisers did in Australia, the US, Canada and elsewhere over the last few hundred years. Every other country, aside from the die hard white supremacists, understand that this is wrong. Why can't you understand that? Why can't you understand that they very concept of terra nullius is inherently wrong? Why can't you understand that discriminating based on race and religion, is inherently and abhorrently wrong?

Israel is an apartheid state that directly discriminates against anyone who is Palestinian. That is all it is. And you seem to think that is acceptable. Why?

Yep, and today it's just a colony.
I don't want to hazard a guess at your level of education, but for a Canadian to be spouting this, is interesting..
 
When did I ever say Canada wasn't also a colony? The difference is I don't sit on a high horse telling people that they're foreigners in the lands where their ancestors previously dwelt since the Ice Age before being driven out by Romans, and subsequently by Arabs who completely banned Judaism for a full century in the territories formerly known as Judea and Samaria after completing their Jihadist invasion. It seems like some people think that if their ancestors immigrated to a colony after the original colonial genocide is nearly completed, that means they're not colonists but get to label the descendants of the original colonizers as such all the same and pin the guilt entirely on those people. The fact is that if one's ancestors come to mooch off the hard work of others who committed genocide to pave the way for them, then they are as much participants in the ongoing genocide as anyone else in the country, and they should stop selling themselves to the world as victims of colonialism as opposed to perpetrators and beneficiaries. If Britain or whoever else forced one's ancestors to migrate somewhere they don't belong, then Britain and the other countries responsible for those migrations are obliged to offer them a new home.

This is all according to Bells' line of logic, not my own. By my own logic people are entitled to lay claim to and make use of lands not being used by others unless an existing treaty has already assigned their ownership to someone, and doubly so if their own ancestors were driven out of those lands in the past, even the distant past. In any case the notion that Israel's Jewish population is indigenous to Europe smacks of total ignorance and leftist circle jerking, considering that most Israeli Jews' recent ancestors came as refugees fleeing pogroms in other parts of the Middle East. As to Palestinian indigeneity, what DNA tests prove is that their ancestors come from the general region. It's already well documented that the Romans who conquered Judea and Samaria subsequently brought in Syrian and Lebanese Christians to replace the Jews they kicked out, who then subsequently converted to Islam after genocidal Islamic rapists from the Arabian peninsula came to take over the land, forming the baseline of the modern Palestinian population. Are we going to pretend that the Jews of Europe and Iraq were Lebanese Christian converts to Judaism in order to further disenfranchise them? At least unlike radical leftist circle jerkers, I'm willing to acknowledge both peoples as being indigenous to the land, which is why I'm still fully behind the idea of a two-state solution.

As to what I support, I support eliminating the Hamas terrorists who intentionally target Israeli civilians while deliberately hiding among their own civilian population so as to place it on the front lines of their conflict. The Geneva conventions do not say that Israel is obliged to stop protecting its own families the moment civilian casualties on the opposing side exceed its own, as long as those casualties were incurred as a result of Hamas choosing to place them on the front lines. If the world feels it can do a better job of eliminating Hamas as a military threat while preserving Palestinian lives, then international peacekeepers or Australian special forces or whoever should be sent to deal with the booby traps, ambushes, weapons caches and tunnel entrances being concealed in nearly every single civilian building in Gaza, especially in the hospitals, schools and mosques.

Like I said before, those who actually care about Palestinian lives would first and foremost stop trying to justify, reward and encourage Hamas and other terrorists for their disgusting and cynical usage of human shield tactics, and stop encouraging them to wage eternal Jihad at the expense of their children's futures. Unfortunately a lot of the people claiming to support Palestinians in their time of need really only care about using them as pawns to push a proxy conflict that they hope to use in turn as a means of punishing prosperous people for having better lives than themselves, and these supporters are therefore even more responsible for Palestinian suffering than Israel itself.

I don't want to hazard a guess at your level of education, but for a Canadian to be spouting this, is interesting..

You're absolutely right. Next time I need help solving a differential equation, understanding a principle of thermodynamics or doing anything technical whatsoever that isn't completely redundant and useless to the modern world, you're the first person I'll come to for help.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I only read books by authors that do not support or endorse genocide on the basis of religious supremacy for the sake of real estate.

Here's another point I haven't had a chance to get around to addressing until now. The problem with exclusively relying on radical leftist authors and media for your information is that these groups have a tendency to care more for narrative than actual facts. The narrative they push is that all prosperous people in the world are nearly exclusively guilty for the suffering and shortcomings of those less fortunate than themselves, and every conflict between prosperous and less prosperous people must be blamed almost exclusively on the more prosperous group, especially if their skin tends to be lighter in colour than the other group's. This narrative requires that colonialism be seen as a strictly modern European invention, and that we ignore everything that countries and ethnic groups victimized by Europeans were doing to other nations and ethnic groups in the centuries prior and have resumed doing since the Europeans left.

The modern radical "anti-colonial" left has constructed its present ideology by following a similar route to the "national socialist" far right. White supremacists for example tend to grow up feeling insecure and inferior to other members of their societies; far right-wing white nationalist movements then prey on these insecurities by telling them that they're really superhumans whose destined path to glory and prosperity is being obstructed by jealous minorities who want to replace them and deny them their natural and rightful place at the top of global civilization. In a similar vein, many leftists grow up feeling insecure and inferior to other members of their societies, and may also experience various forms of oppression and discrimination that reinforce this self-perception. In some cases their struggles may have been caused primarily by poor decisions in the choice of education and careers they pursued when they were younger, or a simple lack of effort outright, and in other cases they may indeed be legitimate victims of discriminatory and judgmental societies, but the end result is that they come to consider themselves as being generally oppressed, and the global leadership behind these movements has further convinced them that the same people allegedly preventing them from becoming rich and famous are also the same people who support the right for Jews to have self-determination in their ancestral homeland; thus they feel personally tied to the Palestinian national struggle and are emotionally incapable of evaluating it objectively from a distance.

In your specific case, I note for example that you like to frequently cite Al Jazeera as a reliable information source, despite it being directly operated by the same government that currently provides the majority of Hamas financing and also has a long history of financing extremist militias around the Middle East such as ISIS. At minimum, the information on this conflict coming from Al Jazeera shouldn't be presumed to be any more reliable than the information coming from mainstream Israeli media sources, and there have been many clear examples where Al Jazeera has lied and contradicted its own broadcast footage in order to portray the Hamas victimization narrative that radical leftists want to hear about.
 
Last edited:
I read through the comments made by right wing Australian trolls on a Medicines Sans Frontiers Australia Facebook post and was not surprised that nobody else made any comments and MSF didn't remove the fanatical vitriol. I don't think that the genocide of the Palestinian is justified by right wing hatred no matter how eloquent it is, or isn't.
 
[...] The problem with exclusively relying on radical leftist authors and media for your information is that these groups have a tendency to care more for narrative than actual facts. [...]

Speaking of which... Although the New Antisemitism is sometimes construed as "left-wing antisemiticism" in some quarters (compare to examples of the classic variety), it actually seems to be a quite "inclusive territory" where all three political/cultural camps can ironically converge. Both "old-fashioned" far-right antisemitism (--> RD's background) and contemporary Islamic world antisemitism movements employ anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel as cover for flying under the radar.
-
While we certainly shouldn't conflate legit criticism of Israel (etc) with antisemitism -- i.e., the weaponization of antisemitism is doubtless a utilized tool -- neither is the New Antisemitism completely groundless. Again, the applicable issues/concepts are indeed recruited as camouflage to smuggle in the diverse complex of (whatever supposed) left species of antisemitism and the traditional fascist and pre-fascist varieties (Nazi propaganda having infected the Middle East during WWII).
- - - - - - - - - -

Eleven arrested at pro-Palestine demonstration in central London
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...monstration-in-central-london/a925789394.html

INTRO: Eleven people have been arrested at a pro-Palestine demonstration in central London. The arrests were for a string of alleged offences, including inciting racial hatred, suspicion of support for a proscribed organisation in relation to a placard, and assaulting emergency workers. [...] Among the speakers was former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Palestinian ambassador to the UK Husam Zomlot, who both called for “justice” for the Palestinian people... (MORE - details)

_
 
When did I ever say Canada wasn't also a colony? The difference is I don't sit on a high horse telling people that they're foreigners in the lands where their ancestors previously dwelt since the Ice Age before being driven out by Romans, and subsequently by Arabs who completely banned Judaism for a full century in the territories formerly known as Judea and Samaria after completing their Jihadist invasion.
Except, you are saying that very thing about the Palestinians.

Israel was created and to create the state, the native population was expelled by force, many driven into what we now know as the Gaza strip. They were stripped of their human rights, and literally imprisoned. Why? Because they are Palestinians.

Now, they are being bombed and murdered, because of a horrific attack months ago. The irony of that attack is that the terrorists, did the exact same thing, committed the same horrific crimes that Jews committed against them during the formation of Israel.

So, let's consider the response. So far, over 30,000 dead. Do you think this is an acceptable response? Is it a proportionate response?

It seems like some people think that if their ancestors immigrated to a colony after the original colonial genocide is nearly completed, that means they're not colonists but get to label the descendants of the original colonizers as such all the same and pin the guilt entirely on those people. The fact is that if one's ancestors come to mooch off the hard work of others who committed genocide to pave the way for them, then they are as much participants in the ongoing genocide as anyone else in the country, and they should stop selling themselves to the world as victims of colonialism as opposed to perpetrators and beneficiaries. If Britain or whoever else forced one's ancestors to migrate somewhere they don't belong, then Britain and the other countries responsible for those migrations are obliged to offer them a new home.
I honestly don't even understand how you could come up with that based on what I have said.

If you come in and remove people from their homes, take their land, take their belongings, deny them any human rights and claim ownership based off religious ideology and 'oh, our ancestors lived here a few thousand years ago', and in doing so, commit horrific human rights abuses, then I'm sorry, what you are doing is wrong. It is legally and morally wrong and cannot be justified. Committing mass murder can never be justified. October 7 cannot be justified. Israel's response cannot be justified.

This is all according to Bells' line of logic, not my own. By my own logic people are entitled to lay claim to and make use of lands not being used by others unless an existing treaty has already assigned their ownership to someone, and doubly so if their own ancestors were driven out of those lands in the past, even the distant past.
Except, that is not what happened. They didn't just take land that wasn't being used. They took all the land and did so by forcing and committing mass murder to do so. Do you understand that this is wrong?

In any case the notion that Israel's Jewish population is indigenous to Europe smacks of total ignorance and leftist circle jerking, considering that most Israeli Jews' recent ancestors came as refugees fleeing pogroms in other parts of the Middle East. As to Palestinian indigeneity, what DNA tests prove is that their ancestors come from the general region. It's already well documented that the Romans who conquered Judea and Samaria subsequently brought in Syrian and Lebanese Christians to replace the Jews they kicked out, who then subsequently converted to Islam after genocidal Islamic rapists from the Arabian peninsula came to take over the land, forming the baseline of the modern Palestinian population. Are we going to pretend that the Jews of Europe and Iraq were Lebanese Christian converts to Judaism in order to further disenfranchise them? At least unlike radical leftist circle jerkers, I'm willing to acknowledge both peoples as being indigenous to the land, which is why I'm still fully behind the idea of a two-state solution.
Dude, there are literally studies which have already been linked, that show just how genetically close Palestinians and Jews are. They all come from the same region. They share the same ancestors.

More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years.

The results match historical accounts that some Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times. And in a recent study of 1371 men from around the world, geneticist Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona in Tucson found that the Y chromosome in Middle Eastern Arabs was almost indistinguishable from that of Jews.

Intrigued by the genetic similarities between the two populations, geneticist Ariella Oppenheim of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who collaborated on the earlier study, focused on Arab and Jewish men. Her team examined the Y chromosomes of 119 Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews and 143 Israeli and Palestinian Arabs. Many of the Jewish subjects were descended from ancestors who presumably originated in the Levant but dispersed throughout the world before returning to Israel in the past few generations; most of the Arab subjects could trace their ancestry to men who had lived in the region for centuries or longer. The Y chromosomes of many of the men had key segments of DNA that were so similar that they clustered into just three of many groups known as haplogroups. Other short segments of DNA called microsatellites were similar enough to reveal that the men must have had common ancestors within the past several thousand years. The study, reported here at a Human Origins and Disease conference, will appear in an upcoming issue of Human Genetics. [https://www.science.org/content/article/jews-and-arabs-share-recent-ancestry]

This scientific fact is deemed so offensive, that studies and papers showing just how closely related both groups are were essentially ripped out and deemed offensive. The level of racism involved and that of superiority is the same level of complete BS that white supremacists used to pull in the past. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics]

So, stop trying to rewrite history. Genetic studies have shown just how closely related the two groups are. They originated from the same region. They share the same ancestors. Their only differences is cultural and religious.
 
As to what I support, I support eliminating the Hamas terrorists who intentionally target Israeli civilians while deliberately hiding among their own civilian population so as to place it on the front lines of their conflict. The Geneva conventions do not say that Israel is obliged to stop protecting its own families the moment civilian casualties on the opposing side exceed its own, as long as those casualties were incurred as a result of Hamas choosing to place them on the front lines. If the world feels it can do a better job of eliminating Hamas as a military threat while preserving Palestinian lives, then international peacekeepers or Australian special forces or whoever should be sent to deal with the booby traps, ambushes, weapons caches and tunnel entrances being concealed in nearly every single civilian building in Gaza, especially in the hospitals, schools and mosques.
Israel isn't protecting "its own families".

Israel is attempting to annihilate Palestinians living in Gaza.

It's interesting that you bring up the Geneva Conventions. You do realise that under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Palestinians are classified as 'protected person's' and Israel is recognised as the occupying force, yes? You do realise that as a result, and under international law, Israel is committing illegal acts, not to mention human rights violations, yes?

As for Hamas. You should ask Netanyahu why and how Hamas were supported by Israel for years. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/]

Israel is bombing hospitals, refugee camps, people's houses and apartment buildings and now with the latest massacre, opening fire on a starving population attempting to get food. And you are saying that Hamas is choosing to place these civilians on the front line? When Israeli soldiers shoot children, you're going to blame Hamas? Or the soldiers who committed the crime? Or do you not consider it a crime, because the children are Palestinian? [https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/202...s-media/00000188-96e8-df21-a1b8-b7edb3ce0000]

How is Israel protecting "its own families" by killing Palestinian children? Consider that the majority of the population in Gaza are children.

Like I said before, those who actually care about Palestinian lives would first and foremost stop trying to justify, reward and encourage Hamas and other terrorists for their disgusting and cynical usage of human shield tactics, and stop encouraging them to wage eternal Jihad at the expense of their children's futures. Unfortunately a lot of the people claiming to support Palestinians in their time of need really only care about using them as pawns to push a proxy conflict that they hope to use in turn as a means of punishing prosperous people for having better lives than themselves, and these supporters are therefore even more responsible for Palestinian suffering than Israel itself.
Hamas learned from Israel. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/21/israeli-soldiers-human-shield-avoid-jail]

You are literally justifying the massacre of Palestinians, most of whom are children, under the guise of religious superiority.

You're absolutely right. Next time I need help solving a differential equation, understanding a principle of thermodynamics or doing anything technical whatsoever that isn't completely redundant and useless to the modern world, you're the first person I'll come to for help.
And if I ever need help on justifying mass murder and genocide, I'll come to you for help!

Here's another point I haven't had a chance to get around to addressing until now. The problem with exclusively relying on radical leftist authors and media for your information is that these groups have a tendency to care more for narrative than actual facts. The narrative they push is that all prosperous people in the world are nearly exclusively guilty for the suffering and shortcomings of those less fortunate than themselves, and every conflict between prosperous and less prosperous people must be blamed almost exclusively on the more prosperous group, especially if their skin tends to be lighter in colour than the other group's. This narrative requires that colonialism be seen as a strictly modern European invention, and that we ignore everything that countries and ethnic groups victimized by Europeans were doing to other nations and ethnic groups in the centuries prior and have resumed doing since the Europeans left.
And here I thought you couldn't actually get any worse!

The modern radical "anti-colonial" left has constructed its present ideology by following a similar route to the "national socialist" far right. White supremacists for example tend to grow up feeling insecure and inferior to other members of their societies; far right-wing white nationalist movements then prey on these insecurities by telling them that they're really superhumans whose destined path to glory and prosperity is being obstructed by jealous minorities who want to replace them and deny them their natural and rightful place at the top of global civilization. In a similar vein, many leftists grow up feeling insecure and inferior to other members of their societies, and may also experience various forms of oppression and discrimination that reinforce this self-perception. In some cases their struggles may have been caused primarily by poor decisions in the choice of education and careers they pursued when they were younger, or a simple lack of effort outright, and in other cases they may indeed be legitimate victims of discriminatory and judgmental societies, but the end result is that they come to consider themselves as being generally oppressed, and the global leadership behind these movements has further convinced them that the same people allegedly preventing them from becoming rich and famous are also the same people who support the right for Jews to have self-determination in their ancestral homeland; thus they feel personally tied to the Palestinian national struggle and are emotionally incapable of evaluating it objectively from a distance.

In your specific case, I note for example that you like to frequently cite Al Jazeera as a reliable information source, despite it being directly operated by the same government that currently provides the majority of Hamas financing and also has a long history of financing extremist militias around the Middle East such as ISIS. At minimum, the information on this conflict coming from Al Jazeera shouldn't be presumed to be any more reliable than the information coming from mainstream Israeli media sources, and there have been many clear examples where Al Jazeera has lied and contradicted its own broadcast footage in order to portray the Hamas victimization narrative that radical leftists want to hear about.

I've also cited Jewish news sites, scientific sites.

Let me guess, they are all in on the conspiracy as well? Not pro genocide enough for you?

How about Human Rights Watch? https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-world-court-order-genocide-case

Or B'Tselem? https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20240108_israel_is_starving_gaza

I mean, I could go on. But you've shown your true colours.
 
Is there a reason you still haven't mentioned that this could all end in a matter of hours or days if Hamas agreed to release its remaining hostages and surrender the remaining militants and commanders responsible for committing the Oct. 7 massacre? Not the only way it can end, but would that not be the most fair and just way to do it for all sides concerned?

Israel is bombing hospitals

If hospitals are being used for military purposes then the Geneva Conventions make them legitimate military targets, provided certain precautions are taken to try to protect civilians there first. In any case if you're referring to the bombing of Al-Ahli hospital, that was an Islamic Jihad rocket hitting the parking lot, followed by a mass inflation of the casualty numbers and attribution to an Israeli airstrike by Hamas and its affiliates at Al Jazeera.
 
Last edited:
Zionism and the Jews Who Hate Jews

This is part of the story I had not yet learned; Noah Berlatsky↱ explains:

For months, Zionists have been justifying the ongoing genocide of Palestinians by insisting that Israelis and Jewish people must be strong and remorseless in prosecuting the war/committing war crimes. "We are not the Jews of trembling knees," the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt declared as the assault on Rafah escalated. Lahav Harkov, the Senior Political Correspondent for Jewish Insider boasted "We are not Jews with trembling knees." In January, Jerusalem Post columnist Ben Freeman, insisted at a Stand With Israel rally, "We are not Jews with trembling knees."

And in a Jerusalem Post editorial, Zvika Klein evoked the 1982 words of Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin in a meeting with then head of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee Joe Biden: "I am not a Jew with trembling knees."

You can find lots of other examples on social media; Zionists, individually and as a group, want to let you know that they are not those Jews. Which raises the question, who are the Jews whose lower extremities wobble? If the good, strong Jews are over here, who are the weak, worthless Jews over there?

The answers aren't exactly counterintuitive or surprising. Still, it's useful to look at the history of the phrase to understand the ways in which praise of Zionist strength and militarism are inseparable from contempt for Jewish diaspora victimization. Those who suffer are framed as contemptible—which makes the brutalization of your enemy a moral imperative, and even a joy.

Consider the prospect that certain philosemitism was always antisemitic. It is difficult to explain insofar as knowing the whole story is hard, and what comes down in non-Jewish communities is scrap and litter. But at the heart of it is an idea described, technically, as premillennial dispensationalism; as comedian Bill Maher explained accurately: Certain Christian "Friends of Israel" need Jews to hold Jerusalem so that Jesus will return and, "when Jesus comes back, the Jews have a part to play, which is, of course, to die." While the mechanics of any given thesis, such as premillennial dispensationalism, vary, the underlying idea that Christian love for Jews has something to do with the Second Coming is not new, and for generations born after the '48 usurpation, it is woven into the narrative.

But the tale is rife with uncertainty: Even the Christians who raise up future generations on that kind of expectation cannot explain it; the role of the Jewish suffering paving the way for Christian glory is long known, poorly defined, and almost entirely extemporary.

It is, however, affecting: Michael Oren↱, formerly the Israeli Ambassador to the United Stats, once recalled the story of a political gaffe that had the folks back home confused and worried. That is, he recorded a speech for American rabbis, and while his speech resonated with American conservatives, Israelis thought he lost his mind:

God, in fact, permeates America. The name appears on the currency, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and (as the Creator) in the Declaration of Independence. Testifiers in American courts swear, "so help me God," as do judges, soldiers, and presidents. Politicians, especially, even the most secular among them, must repeatedly proclaim their faith. Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his first inaugural address, mentioned it no less than 14 times; "God" was cited five times even in Donald Trump's. A president whom no one mistook for God-fearing nevertheless saw value in posing outside a Washington church holding a Bible. The same Barack Obama who once railed against those who "cling to guns and religion" defined himself at times as a born-again Christian. Each year of my ambassadorship, I watched him talk fervently about his faith to the thousands of attendees of the National Prayer Breakfast, and call the others on the dais—Republicans and Democrats alike—"my brothers in Christ."

None of this exists in Israel. There is no equivalent in Hatikvah to God Bless America, and in our Declaration of Independence, only a vague reference to the "Rock of Israel." Secular politicians do not speak about their spirituality, but neither do their ultra-Orthodox counterparts. Commandments, yes; the Almighty, no. Our current kippa-wearing prime minister has been photographed in tallit and tefillin but never once quoted on his beliefs. A country that hardly separates synagogue from state effectively excises God and faith from its public discourse.

Why? How is it that two nations with deep roots in the biblical traditions could harbor such different approaches to God and faith? And why must professions about them be lauded in one society but lambasted in another?

It is, in itself, a fascinating question, but in our moment there is another detail to note. If, for instance, "Netanyahu's military secretary, a religiously observant general, whispered, 'I like what you said but, truth be told, TMI'", it might read, in the moment of Oren's telling, like just another small detail. But if Oren had "crossed a line", what line is it? Even the former ambassador struggled to explain.

So perhaps the responses to my neo-paganism speech were somewhat predictable—standing ovations in the United States, scorn in Israel. And yet, the situation may be changing. Given the sharp decline in church attendance in the United States, future American leaders might be expected to put less emphasis on their religious beliefs. Israel is heading in exactly the opposite direction, with new and vibrant synagogues opening frequently, even in historically godless Tel Aviv. Beginning with Meir Ariel, Kobi Oz, Meir Banai, and Shotei Hanevuah ("The Fools of Prophecy"), Israeli rock music has been infused with passionate Judaism. "I do not owe anything to anyone," Religious Affairs Minister Matan Kahana, defending his kashrut reform from ultra-Orthodox attacks, recently declared. "Only to God."

Somehow, that paragraph is understated. If, only a few years ago, we might have perceived in Oren's description a rise of what looks like glitzy, charismatic, evangelical churching within Israeli Jewish communities, even that felt too easy a projection. But the unabashed, even enthusiastic, brutality of the latest Israeli pogrom is shot through with the born-again, crusading fervor familiar to American evangelical Christendom.

Berlatsky's recollection on Bialik informs and actually repairs that perception:

The phrase Jews "with trembling knees" comes from a 1904 Hebrew verse by Russian Jewish poet Hayim Nahman Bialik. The poem was called "In the City of Slaughter," and it commemorated the 1903 Kishinev Easter pogrom in Russia, in which 49 Jewish people were killed and 1500 homes were gutted. Christians also committed mass rapes of Jewish women.

Jewish writing on the atrocities of the Holocaust tends to express solidarity with victims and dwell on grief, sadness, and the breakdown of meaning ....

.... Bialik, however, takes a different tack in memorializing the earlier atrocity. He does not stand with the victims. Rather, he deliberately separates himself from them so he can judge and condemn not primarily the Christian attackers, but the Jews who were attacked.

The bitterness of the poem is its own phenomenon: "Bialik's invidious tall tales aren't just false; they're antisemitic," Berlatsky explains. "He's leaning into stereotypes which frame Jewish men as weak and unmanly, and as obsessed with dry legalism rather than with honor." And the phrase about trembling knees is a condemnation derived from Bialik's make-believe. "The comparison of Jewish victims to roaches and dogs explicitly echoes antisemitic rhetoric, and is intended to dehumanize," while "Bialik encourages readers to feel not sympathy for the victims, but repulsion and disgust." Historian Steven J. Zipperstein describes "the most influential poetic work written in a Jewish language since the Middle Ages". And inasmuch as the poem would influence the Zionist ethos by dressing its anger in antisemitism, so also is it important to recall that "proponents of Israel often insist that Israel is necessary to provide refuge and safety in case governments in the diaspora turn on Jewish populations", and while "there are various problems with this argument", Berlatsky reminds that Bialik's poem "is not really concerned with safety or with refuge. He is not nearly as concerned with preventing future violence as he is concerned with preventing future dishonor."

If your main goal is not to be viewed as a Jew with "trembling knees," if the state myth of the new militant Jew is predicated on a loathing of weakness, then victims are by definition disgusting and worthy only of scorn and hatred ....

.... Jewish people should not justify genocide and war crimes now by suggesting, with Bialik, that Jewish victims of genocidal violence in the past got what they deserved.

And, in a way, it would seem Jewish Zionists agree with their Christian Zionist neighbors, that in the end, Jews get what they deserve.

And if it feels strange, it is as strange as it ever was.
____________________

Notes:

Berlatsky, Noah. "The 120-Year Old Zionist Poem Still Being Used to Smear the Diaspora and Justify Atrocity". Everything Is Horrible. 13 May 2024. EverythingIsHorrible.net. 14 May 2024. https://bit.ly/3yc3KrV

Oren, Michael. "Are Politicians Who Talk About God Crazy?" Tablet. 12 October 2021. TabletMag.com. 14 May 2024. https://bit.ly/3oZzc6b
 
Last edited:
Back
Top