celeb news Noah Schnapp promotes stickers that say: “Zionism is sexy” and “Hamas is ISIS”

[Orsay]

5 minutes ago, Letemtalk said:

Why does he say Hamas is ISIS, is he just stupid, or does he think that Americans are all stupid?

Hamas and ISIS hate each other.

 

Yea, these people who say this reveal that they have no idea what they’re talking about

 

he’s a weirdo

[Gui Blackout]

4 minutes ago, Letemtalk said:

Why does he say Hamas is ISIS, is he just stupid, or does he think that Americans are all stupid?

Hamas and ISIS hate each other.

 

It's more the fact that they're both murderous terrorist groups. 

[Communion]

2 minutes ago, Gui Blackout said:

It's more the fact that they're both murderous terrorist groups. 

Prepping the "Hamas is the US Military" stickers off of Canva right now then. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Communion

[FlyPirate]

12 minutes ago, Gui Blackout said:

Wait is he selling that anywhere?

you wanna cop some?

[Thor]

If Hamas is a terrorist organization then so is the IDF. 

[Riot]

"Zionism is sexy"

 

Did Hamas steal mirrors from Israeli households too?

[wastedpotential]

6 hours ago, Communion said:

Israel does not have a right to exist, no. Ethnostates are bad. It is a settler colonial state that should be legally dissolved like Rhodesia. 

 

A one state Palestine for all to live equally is the only way to stop Israeli settlers from subjugating the Palestinian population. For as long as there exists legally a nation where Israelis are privileged by their ethnicity, the natural conclusions of an apartheid state will constantly manifest. 

I think this is an interesting point that I'd like to mildly push back against, just because I think we have two different perspectives on the issue and viable outcomes.

 

Firstly, with the exception of Iceland, a few Pacific islands, and pockets of the Amazon jungle, every single square inch of inhabited earth is a settler state, and probably a colonial project under the modern understanding as well. The desire for, and then the capture of, new land at the expense of those already living on that land is something that has been happening since humans discovered agriculture and began developing discrete societies. New Jersey, for instance, was Lenape before it was English/American, but it was occupied by various hunter-gatherers in the Hopewell tradition before the Lenape committed a genocide against them, and there were surely groups before those hunter-gatherers that modern science just doesn't know about, who were also pushed back or genocided. As a Hungarian-American, surely you're aware of the Magyar migration movements which displaced and destroyed hundreds of thousands of Gothic, Slavic, and Germanic people who were previously living in the Pannonian Plain as the Magyar tribes moved in from Siberia and settled there, and those Gothic, Slavic, and Germanic people had pushed out Romans, who then pushed out Dacians and Celts, who had pushed out Illyrians from the Mediterranean Sea and Scythics, who had also migrated to the region from Siberia, in roughly the 9th century BC. There are quite literally countless stories of stronger ethnic groups waging genocides and ethnic cleanings against weaker ethnic groups. 

 

I only bring up ancient history to try and point out that it's all a matter of perspective. From your perspective (and mine, for what it's worth), in this post-Nazi world, a state identity built on an ethnic identity, and especially one that is trying to clear land that it desires for itself of anyone who is not a member of that ethnic group, is an inherently negative thing that should be discouraged and repressed. But it not the genocide and ethnic cleansing that is a new phenomenon, but rather our objection to it. The government of Israel can look at the historical record and see that the strongest states throughout time were those which were highly militarized and were entirely focused upon the survival of one ethnic group, while the multi-ethnic empires (especially those consisting of two groups with large ideological divides) often fell apart quickly and bloodily. To you or I their logic is fatalist and barbaric, but to Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, Benny Gantz, Gadi Eizenkot, Ron Dermer, and probably millions of Israeli Jews, it's a matter of looking through history for examples of tactics used by the strongest states in the most hostile regions. You and I are only so comfortable in denouncing such actions because we believe that human society has progressed past the need for genocide and ethnic cleansing, and the Zionist movement stands opposed to that on principle. I would obviously argue that my position is better than theirs, but they hold that belief just as firmly as I hold mine, and I don't have any encouragement or enforcement mechanism to change their beliefs here, so the best we can do is to try to understand them, at the very least. 

 

Returning to the modern boogeymen of Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa (and they do generally fit your framing quite nicely as white settler states trying to assert themselves in majority non-white regions of the world, overtop of non-white populations that had existed there long before the settlers ever got there) without acknowledging that the only reason those states were punished for their actions is because they were trying to exert their will in a post-Nazi world where the US was interested in building a coalition that was better on the human rights front than the Soviets (or at the "end of history", when the Clinton Admin. foolish thought we could maybe all actually get along) for the sake of cohesion and internal superiority. That desire within the US no longer exists because there are no Soviets to try to achieve a moral victory over and there is no one who still seriously believes in the end of history, as can be evidenced by the practical non-interest the US has shown in the ethnic cleansings in Nargono-Karabakh and Myanmar or the coups in Niger or Mali, at least in comparison to what the US response may have looked like had those events happened back between the 50s and the 80s. I'm sure that we can agree that the US response to the Rwandan genocide, the Darfur crisis, or Assad's chemical weapons usage in Syria would have been very different had they happened during the Nixon/Ford, Carter, Reagan, or Bush. Sr administrations. Rhodesia and Apartheid SA provide a nice moral equivalence for the atrocities in Israel to try and convince people of the systemization of the violence (if not the severity), but they do nothing more than provide a moral example without any potential for replication. Additionally, considering that Israel had very strong relations with both the Apartheid SA and Rhodesian governments, I'd bet good money that in the 80s and 90s the Israeli government conducted a post-mortem on their fall, and came to the conclusion that they'd both fallen out of favor (or usefulness) with the great powers of the time, and have thus made a strong effort to be as indispensable and popular with the US government as possible (see AIPAC and their intelligence cooperation among many other things). Assuming that Israel will inevitably follow their path seems pretty misguided given how much Israel has worked to mitigate the circumstances of their collapse. Now, whether that can be held for the long-run going forward remains to be seen, but I'd be very surprised if the Israeli's hadn't already developed several contingency plans for a time in which the Americans no longer wanted to support them. I think where we disagree on this is in the method of the push that led to the collapse of Rhodesia and Apartheid SA, as your comment seems to imply that you believe there is something inherent about their regime style that lead to their collapse, while I'm almost positive that it came from external factors and the shifting global geopolitical stage, but I'd appreciate hearing more of your thoughts if you wish to expand. 

 

Secondly, I think you're a bit naive as to what a country's "right to exist" is and where it comes from. For better or for worse (largely for worse, imo) no country inherently has any natural "rights" to anything (and those "rights" that have been granted to most countries since the end of the Second World War rely pretty heavily on the intention of the US as an arbiter and policeman) beyond its ability to secure those rights for itself through alliance and negotiation or through might and ability. Israel's right to exist is exclusively derived from its military superiority over its neighbors, its nuclear arsenal, and the powerful friends it's managed to make, and Israel's right to existence would cease the second that its land was successfully conquered by any one of its neighbors, who would now have the "right" to do whatever they saw fit to do with that land and those people. I'm sure we agree that Darwinistic, survival-of-the-fittest and might-makes-right statecraft strategies should be left to the trash heap of history, but Israel is proving that they are just as alive and well as ever, as we speak. I honestly think it's a waste of everyone's time to be stuck in the trivialities and the moralistic back-and-forth of whether Israel should be allowed to do what they're doing, when it's clear that they have the ability to do it anyway. 

 

What I think I'm trying to say (and I don't think I articulated it especially well here) is that the actions of Israel in Palestine are in line with historic human nature, and pretending otherwise is utterly naive. I do believe that we've progressed far enough as a species to the point that we have no need to genocide and ethnically cleanse a region - even beyond the modern awakening to the concept that human rights should maybe apply to people outside of your 'in-group', there's no real need for more land in an era where you can easily buy food and water and resources from countries with a surplus and we no longer build homes out of materials that collapse under the weight of multiple stories, so there's no argument for 'lebensraum' either (not even considering the upcoming population declines anticipated around the world). However, I also believe that the Israeli government sees itself backed into a corner as the only "safe" homeland for the Jewish people (since it's entirely composed of people who chose to not live in other "safe" countries for Jews for whatever reason), and sees the existence of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank as an existential threat that must be removed at any cost. If their framework is truly "us vs. them, and there are a lot more of them than there are of us", then I can't say I'm surprised that Israel is starting to flirt with a literal nuclear option. I do not intend for this to be taken as a defense of Israel's reprehensible behavior, rather as an attempt to explain my thoughts as to why it's happening in the first place (on a macro scale).

 

Ultimately, I think that this is the general elephant in the room in a lot of the anti-Zionist conversation happening right now. Zionism only ever existed in the first place because the world powers (the Brits and then the Americans) wanted it to, and now the Israelis are too firmly entrenched in the area for them to be removed in a way without an extraordinary cost.  If tomorrow the US government was overthrown by a far left, extremely pro-Palestine group that had the support of the vast majority of the American people, I still don't think they would be able to actually affect any change. Israel has nuclear weapons pointed at Damascus, Tehran, and Beirut right now, but there's nothing to say they can't pivot that for Washington or New York if they felt truly threatened by US actions. The primary goal of the Israeli government (and the Zionist movement) is to survive, and they've gone to great lengths to make that happen. I suppose it's probably the same goal for the Palestinian people, but they've obviosuly been outdone by the Zionists on every front (as we're literally watching them get genocided without anyone rushing to their aid because they have no geopolitical power cards to play, no army to muster, and no nukes to fire). The only realistic chance for their survival at this point is probably Joe Biden finally coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are people too, at which point he can try to talk Israel down off the cliff and utilize both carrots and sticks to encourage them to back off, without existentially threatening them. I can't say my hopes are too high for that happening any time soon.  

 

These talking points of "one Palestinian state where all can live equally" are all fine and peace-inducing and rational until you realize that there is a small group of men in Jerusalem who believe that such a thing would only come following the destruction of them and the last of their ethnic group, and have the capability to destroy several cities worth of people and will fight to the last man to prevent it. It's telling that the vast, vast majority of the discussion I've seen regarding the end of Zionism literally only states "Zionism should be destroyed and Palestine should be returned to the Palestinians", without providing a clear path to doing that other than "well, get the US government to cut its funding and support for Israel", which A) strongly discounts the popularity of Israel amongst wealthy Americans (both Jewish and Evangelical), including those who literally own weapons and munitions manufacturing companies and would still attempt to supply Israel even if the US government tried to stop it, and B) ignores the fact that Israel has been pretty much singularly reliant on the US for external support since the 1970s and has thus almost certainly developed alternatives and 'strong negotiating tactics' to try and dissuade the US from cutting support, and to find what it needs elsewhere if the US were to actually do it. I know I'd certainly be a lot less pessimistic (and the majority of this rant would be rendered moot) if there was a viable proposal that would actually implement a plan to remove Zionist leadership from the governance of the region and to return it to a pan-ethnic and pan-religious demilitarized state (which is the only viable path short of a retributive cleansing of the Israelis by the Palestinians, which is a nonstarter). For the record, that is exactly what I think should happen, and is what I know the majority of the users in this thread want as well, but it is not what I think will happen.

 

I don't mean this to be a targeted attack, I merely want to provide my perspective for everyone who will bother to read my rambling essay, which I know is pretty radically different from yours. All this aside, Noah Schnapp is a ******* idiot who clearly has no idea what he's talking about and is on the fast-track to kill his career in the court of public opinion given where things stand (even if several Hollywood execs are probably quite pleased with this). I wish him the worst of luck in trying to maintain his comfortable lifestyle once his ST checks stop coming in like they are now, and subsequently I wish him the worst of luck in trying to secure a spot under a safe bridge to camp. Stupidity and blindly following a radical and harmful ideology is a fast-track to hell and ignorance. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by wastedpotential

[naomi24]

yikes

[needs]

9 hours ago, aotearoa said:

tiktok generation 

.

[Airlie]

6 hours ago, GhostBox said:

What that Hamas is like isis a terrorist organization? Because That’s true so 🤷

 

6 hours ago, GhostBox said:

Hamas is a terrorist organization just like Isis.  that’s not controversial to say that. 
 

people who disagree with that are literally supporting a terrorists organization. 💀
 

 

LITERALLY. And yet there’s people still downvoting these posts  how disgusting 

 

4 hours ago, St. Charles said:

First off, I don’t support Zionists and I’m Pro-Palestine.

 

That being said, are there people here who are legitimately Hamas supporters? I’m really confused but don’t want to accuse anyone of anything.

Just take a scroll through this thread or the other threads and your question will be answered. The fact that people (both on this forum and on social media) literally don’t even hide the fact they support a TERRORIST organization at this point is unfathomable. The fact the mods also allow it is disgusting. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Airlie

[Headlock]

2 hours ago, ForgottenSoul said:

Isreal is a zionist invention? 

 

I support a two-state solution you support Isreal being dissolved and Jews being wiped out. 

 

Those damn Jews how dare they be a majority of a country they should always be a minority right? 

See, you are just straight up lying here. It has been explained to you ad nauseam that Israel =/= Jewish people, and that people object to Israel as a concept due to its inherent definition, by Zionism, as a colonial ethnostate. It literally was created to be a country where the majority of its citizens were Jews, and it cannot exist any other way and still be called Israel. You literally flippantly acknowledge this very point, which is a Zionist point, with your last sentence “those damn Jews how dare they be a majority…” You are acknowledging the goals of Zionism. You are acknowledging how Israel is only able to exist by ethnically cleansing the population that lived on that land before Israel was created.

 

Saying Israel should not exist is not the same thing as saying Jews should not exist, and you know that. So for you to repeatedly frame people’s words as them saying that shows your motivations for posting in here.

[baelani]

Is it though 

 

[John Slayne]

very weird, very weird 

[Homebrand]

This guy always gave me the ick, it’s all making sense now 

[Eat The Acid]

I really liked him and now he’s admitting that he’s inherently evil. So sad. 

[ForgottenSoul]

2 hours ago, Thor said:

If Hamas is a terrorist organization then so is the IDF. 

Okay then they are both terrorists groups will you call Hamas that now? 

[Communion]

2 hours ago, wastedpotential said:

Returning to the modern boogeymen of Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa (and they do generally fit your framing quite nicely as white settler states trying to assert themselves in majority non-white regions of the world, overtop of non-white populations that had existed there long before the settlers ever got there) without acknowledging that the only reason those states were punished for their actions is because they were trying to exert their will in a post-Nazi world where the US was interested in building a coalition that was better on the human rights front than the Soviets (or at the "end of history", when the Clinton Admin. foolish thought we could maybe all actually get along) for the sake of cohesion and internal superiority. That desire within the US no longer exists because there are no Soviets to try to achieve a moral victory over and there is no one who still seriously believes in the end of history, as can be evidenced by the practical non-interest the US has shown in the ethnic cleansings in Nargono-Karabakh and Myanmar or the coups in Niger or Mali, at least in comparison to what the US response may have looked like had those events happened back between the 50s and the 80s.

So you're admitting that the entire concept of Western morality is built upon a performance of social conventions and geopolitics, and never has actually been rooted in anything real or substantial, and if this is your takeaway, then there is simply no reason for anyone to be offended over the realities of what occurs in the name of Palestinian liberation.

 

If there is no actual pathway to push for the US and the West to view the genocidal Israeli regime as needing to be stopped, then the only logical conclusion for anyone who is opposed to genocide would be unconditional support for the Palestinian struggle and revolution. Or to admit that genocide is not outrageous to them.

 

If your defense of genocide is "there's simply no realistic, logistical way to stop it", then you cannot feign outrage over Palestinians deciding they'll simply make the land inhabitable for everyone - themselves and the settlers occupying and killing them. If you suggest there is no "realism" to getting Israel to end its bombardment, then there is no moral argument to get the Palestinians to also end their bombardment. If the argument is that there's no actual way to get Israel to stop making life in Palestine hell, then there's no moral argument to convince the Palestinians to not themselves ensure mutual destruction and not similarly make life for the cosmopolitan Israelis who build malls on their graves just as hellish.

 

I hope to see you join me in cheering on our comrades in the DFLP and PFLP in the dismantling of the Israeli state.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Communion

[ForgottenSoul]

2 hours ago, wastedpotential said:

I think this is an interesting point that I'd like to mildly push back against, just because I think we have two different perspectives on the issue and viable outcomes.

 

Firstly, with the exception of Iceland, a few Pacific islands, and pockets of the Amazon jungle, every single square inch of inhabited earth is a settler state, and probably a colonial project under the modern understanding as well. The desire for, and then the capture of, new land at the expense of those already living on that land is something that has been happening since humans discovered agriculture and began developing discrete societies. New Jersey, for instance, was Lenape before it was English/American, but it was occupied by various hunter-gatherers in the Hopewell tradition before the Lenape committed a genocide against them, and there were surely groups before those hunter-gatherers that modern science just doesn't know about, who were also pushed back or genocided. As a Hungarian-American, surely you're aware of the Magyar migration movements which displaced and destroyed hundreds of thousands of Gothic, Slavic, and Germanic people who were previously living in the Pannonian Plain as the Magyar tribes moved in from Siberia and settled there, and those Gothic, Slavic, and Germanic people had pushed out Romans, who then pushed out Dacians and Celts, who had pushed out Illyrians from the Mediterranean Sea and Scythics, who had also migrated to the region from Siberia, in roughly the 9th century BC. There are quite literally countless stories of stronger ethnic groups waging genocides and ethnic cleanings against weaker ethnic groups. 

 

I only bring up ancient history to try and point out that it's all a matter of perspective. From your perspective (and mine, for what it's worth), in this post-Nazi world, a state identity built on an ethnic identity, and especially one that is trying to clear land that it desires for itself of anyone who is not a member of that ethnic group, is an inherently negative thing that should be discouraged and repressed. But it not the genocide and ethnic cleansing that is a new phenomenon, but rather our objection to it. The government of Israel can look at the historical record and see that the strongest states throughout time were those which were highly militarized and were entirely focused upon the survival of one ethnic group, while the multi-ethnic empires (especially those consisting of two groups with large ideological divides) often fell apart quickly and bloodily. To you or I their logic is fatalist and barbaric, but to Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, Benny Gantz, Gadi Eizenkot, Ron Dermer, and probably millions of Israeli Jews, it's a matter of looking through history for examples of tactics used by the strongest states in the most hostile regions. You and I are only so comfortable in denouncing such actions because we believe that human society has progressed past the need for genocide and ethnic cleansing, and the Zionist movement stands opposed to that on principle. I would obviously argue that my position is better than theirs, but they hold that belief just as firmly as I hold mine, and I don't have any encouragement or enforcement mechanism to change their beliefs here, so the best we can do is to try to understand them, at the very least. 

 

Returning to the modern boogeymen of Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa (and they do generally fit your framing quite nicely as white settler states trying to assert themselves in majority non-white regions of the world, overtop of non-white populations that had existed there long before the settlers ever got there) without acknowledging that the only reason those states were punished for their actions is because they were trying to exert their will in a post-Nazi world where the US was interested in building a coalition that was better on the human rights front than the Soviets (or at the "end of history", when the Clinton Admin. foolish thought we could maybe all actually get along) for the sake of cohesion and internal superiority. That desire within the US no longer exists because there are no Soviets to try to achieve a moral victory over and there is no one who still seriously believes in the end of history, as can be evidenced by the practical non-interest the US has shown in the ethnic cleansings in Nargono-Karabakh and Myanmar or the coups in Niger or Mali, at least in comparison to what the US response may have looked like had those events happened back between the 50s and the 80s. I'm sure that we can agree that the US response to the Rwandan genocide, the Darfur crisis, or Assad's chemical weapons usage in Syria would have been very different had they happened during the Nixon/Ford, Carter, Reagan, or Bush. Sr administrations. Rhodesia and Apartheid SA provide a nice moral equivalence for the atrocities in Israel to try and convince people of the systemization of the violence (if not the severity), but they do nothing more than provide a moral example without any potential for replication. Additionally, considering that Israel had very strong relations with both the Apartheid SA and Rhodesian governments, I'd bet good money that in the 80s and 90s the Israeli government conducted a post-mortem on their fall, and came to the conclusion that they'd both fallen out of favor (or usefulness) with the great powers of the time, and have thus made a strong effort to be as indispensable and popular with the US government as possible (see AIPAC and their intelligence cooperation among many other things). Assuming that Israel will inevitably follow their path seems pretty misguided given how much Israel has worked to mitigate the circumstances of their collapse. Now, whether that can be held for the long-run going forward remains to be seen, but I'd be very surprised if the Israeli's hadn't already developed several contingency plans for a time in which the Americans no longer wanted to support them. I think where we disagree on this is in the method of the push that led to the collapse of Rhodesia and Apartheid SA, as your comment seems to imply that you believe there is something inherent about their regime style that lead to their collapse, while I'm almost positive that it came from external factors and the shifting global geopolitical stage, but I'd appreciate hearing more of your thoughts if you wish to expand. 

 

Secondly, I think you're a bit naive as to what a country's "right to exist" is and where it comes from. For better or for worse (largely for worse, imo) no country inherently has any natural "rights" to anything (and those "rights" that have been granted to most countries since the end of the Second World War rely pretty heavily on the intention of the US as an arbiter and policeman) beyond its ability to secure those rights for itself through alliance and negotiation or through might and ability. Israel's right to exist is exclusively derived from its military superiority over its neighbors, its nuclear arsenal, and the powerful friends it's managed to make, and Israel's right to existence would cease the second that its land was successfully conquered by any one of its neighbors, who would now have the "right" to do whatever they saw fit to do with that land and those people. I'm sure we agree that Darwinistic, survival-of-the-fittest and might-makes-right statecraft strategies should be left to the trash heap of history, but Israel is proving that they are just as alive and well as ever, as we speak. I honestly think it's a waste of everyone's time to be stuck in the trivialities and the moralistic back-and-forth of whether Israel should be allowed to do what they're doing, when it's clear that they have the ability to do it anyway. 

 

What I think I'm trying to say (and I don't think I articulated it especially well here) is that the actions of Israel in Palestine are in line with historic human nature, and pretending otherwise is utterly naive. I do believe that we've progressed far enough as a species to the point that we have no need to genocide and ethnically cleanse a region - even beyond the modern awakening to the concept that human rights should maybe apply to people outside of your 'in-group', there's no real need for more land in an era where you can easily buy food and water and resources from countries with a surplus and we no longer build homes out of materials that collapse under the weight of multiple stories, so there's no argument for 'lebensraum' either (not even considering the upcoming population declines anticipated around the world). However, I also believe that the Israeli government sees itself backed into a corner as the only "safe" homeland for the Jewish people (since it's entirely composed of people who chose to not live in other "safe" countries for Jews for whatever reason), and sees the existence of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank as an existential threat that must be removed at any cost. If their framework is truly "us vs. them, and there are a lot more of them than there are of us", then I can't say I'm surprised that Israel is starting to flirt with a literal nuclear option. I do not intend for this to be taken as a defense of Israel's reprehensible behavior, rather as an attempt to explain my thoughts as to why it's happening in the first place (on a macro scale).

 

Ultimately, I think that this is the general elephant in the room in a lot of the anti-Zionist conversation happening right now. Zionism only ever existed in the first place because the world powers (the Brits and then the Americans) wanted it to, and now the Israelis are too firmly entrenched in the area for them to be removed in a way without an extraordinary cost.  If tomorrow the US government was overthrown by a far left, extremely pro-Palestine group that had the support of the vast majority of the American people, I still don't think they would be able to actually affect any change. Israel has nuclear weapons pointed at Damascus, Tehran, and Beirut right now, but there's nothing to say they can't pivot that for Washington or New York if they felt truly threatened by US actions. The primary goal of the Israeli government (and the Zionist movement) is to survive, and they've gone to great lengths to make that happen. I suppose it's probably the same goal for the Palestinian people, but they've obviosuly been outdone by the Zionists on every front (as we're literally watching them get genocided without anyone rushing to their aid because they have no geopolitical power cards to play, no army to muster, and no nukes to fire). The only realistic chance for their survival at this point is probably Joe Biden finally coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are people too, at which point he can try to talk Israel down off the cliff and utilize both carrots and sticks to encourage them to back off, without existentially threatening them. I can't say my hopes are too high for that happening any time soon.  

 

These talking points of "one Palestinian state where all can live equally" are all fine and peace-inducing and rational until you realize that there is a small group of men in Jerusalem who believe that such a thing would only come following the destruction of them and the last of their ethnic group, and have the capability to destroy several cities worth of people and will fight to the last man to prevent it. It's telling that the vast, vast majority of the discussion I've seen regarding the end of Zionism literally only states "Zionism should be destroyed and Palestine should be returned to the Palestinians", without providing a clear path to doing that other than "well, get the US government to cut its funding and support for Israel", which A) strongly discounts the popularity of Israel amongst wealthy Americans (both Jewish and Evangelical), including those who literally own weapons and munitions manufacturing companies and would still attempt to supply Israel even if the US government tried to stop it, and B) ignores the fact that Israel has been pretty much singularly reliant on the US for external support since the 1970s and has thus almost certainly developed alternatives and 'strong negotiating tactics' to try and dissuade the US from cutting support, and to find what it needs elsewhere if the US were to actually do it. I know I'd certainly be a lot less pessimistic (and the majority of this rant would be rendered moot) if there was a viable proposal that would actually implement a plan to remove Zionist leadership from the governance of the region and to return it to a pan-ethnic and pan-religious demilitarized state (which is the only viable path short of a retributive cleansing of the Israelis by the Palestinians, which is a nonstarter). For the record, that is exactly what I think should happen, and is what I know the majority of the users in this thread want as well, but it is not what I think will happen.

 

I don't mean this to be a targeted attack, I merely want to provide my perspective for everyone who will bother to read my rambling essay, which I know is pretty radically different from yours. All this aside, Noah Schnapp is a ******* idiot who clearly has no idea what he's talking about and is on the fast-track to kill his career in the court of public opinion given where things stand (even if several Hollywood execs are probably quite pleased with this). I wish him the worst of luck in trying to maintain his comfortable lifestyle once his ST checks stop coming in like they are now, and subsequently I wish him the worst of luck in trying to secure a spot under a safe bridge to camp. Stupidity and blindly following a radical and harmful ideology is a fast-track to hell and ignorance. 

You said a lot of what I what I want to say so much better if people here spoke to people in isreal they would understand the fear whether rightful or not of basically everyone around them wanting to kill you and finally someone makes the point that even if the USA removed support Isreal still has nukes and if they did fear that they were about to fall I do think they would use them. You have countries like Iran that are funding many groups to kill as many Jewish people as possible. 

[Shelter]

He was in a movie a few years ago 

 

Quote

Abe, a young boy, tries to cook a meal for his half-Israeli, half-Palestinian family in order to unite them. However, things do not go the way he plans.

 

[ForgottenSoul]

1 hour ago, Headlock said:

See, you are just straight up lying here. It has been explained to you ad nauseam that Israel =/= Jewish people, and that people object to Israel as a concept due to its inherent definition, by Zionism, as a colonial ethnostate. It literally was created to be a country where the majority of its citizens were Jews, and it cannot exist any other way and still be called Israel. You literally flippantly acknowledge this very point, which is a Zionist point, with your last sentence “those damn Jews how dare they be a majority…” You are acknowledging the goals of Zionism. You are acknowledging how Israel is only able to exist by ethnically cleansing the population that lived on that land before Israel was created.

 

Saying Israel should not exist is not the same thing as saying Jews should not exist, and you know that. So for you to repeatedly frame people’s words as them saying that shows your motivations for posting in here.

I mean I don't think Israel as a country exists to be all Jewish but okay. What do you think people think when they say Israel should not exist? What do you think will happen to those 9 million people living in Israel they just leave? I see honestly nothing wrong with a country that wants to exist and protect its citizens above anyone else.. Japan is that country. In every country on earth, the majority is a citizen of that country. 

 

Whats the real difference between a Jewish country lets say Israel and a over whelming majority Arab country? 

Edited November 14, 2023 by ForgottenSoul

[John Slayne]

2 minutes ago, ForgottenSoul said:

In every country on earth, the majority is a citizen of that country. 

Most modern countries (at least in Europe anyway) do exist based on the fact people with a shared culture and/or language lived in a specific geographic area, yes. But it is a white supremacist talking point to say that it ought to stay that way forever. Demographics change, people move to and from countries.

[PrettyHurts]

disgustingly brainwashed. religion is so evil

[wastedpotential]

3 minutes ago, Communion said:

So you're admitting that the entire concept of Western morality is built upon a performance of social conventions and geopolitics, and never has actually been rooted in anything real or substantial, and if this is your takeaway, then there is simply no reason for anyone to be offended over the realities of what occurs in the name of Palestinian liberation.

 

If there is no actual pathway to push for the US and the West to view the genocidal Israeli regime as needing to be stopped, then the only logical conclusion for anyone who is opposed to genocide would be unconditional support for the Palestinian struggle and revolution. Or to admit that genocide is not outrageous to them.

 

I hope to see you join me in cheering on our comrades in the DFLP and PFLP in the dismantling of the Israeli state.

I mean I'd really argue that human morality was initially designed to include ones clan of like 30-40 people at the exclusion of everyone else because of sheer scarcity and competition back in the Stone Age, and that the extension of inclusive morality to one's broader ethnic (or ideological) group was a big stretch for our species as it was. The US and the West hold to their morals when it benefits them (best example being the self-motivated abolition of slavery or the literal concept of human rights through the Christian Enlightenments of the 17th and 18th centuries), and to ignore those morals when it suits their interests (such as the famines in Bengal or the implementation of Jim Crow laws), just as everyone else does on both individual and geopolitical levels. Frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, though I do think we'd all be better off in being more honest about that fact. I don't think American morals, Israeli morals (those governing the actions of the IDF) or Western morals are rooted in anything more than self-preservation and self-furtherance any more than I think Palestinian morals (particularly the morals governing Hamas), Chinese morals, Russian morals in Ukraine, or Senegalese morals regarding LGBTQ+ people (just to tie in to other current events). Benevolence without an ulterior motive is fake and pretending (or believing) otherwise is foolish. Wasn't the noble savage myth propagated in the belief that some people just aren't evilly self-interested, and then destroyed by revelations of Iroquois genocide?  

 

Surely you can recognize and would be willing to publicly admit (lest you be intellectually dishonest) that your own individual morals can apply selectively to cases you are more or less sympathetic for, and that at least some degree of your support for Palestine comes from your own anti-Americanism. I'd have to speak with you in greater depth to determine if this comes from some internal sense of ideological rebellion against the system in which you were brought up, or if you saw something when you were younger that strongly turned you away from the US (I don't know how old you are, but maybe Iraq 2003?), or if you decided at some point that opposing the US is the right thing to do because it was the first ideology you fell in with online, and you're driven to support Palestine by a desire to feel morally superior to the supporters of the evil colonialist regime in Jerusalem? I'm not sure if you've ever elaborated on why you believe what you do believe so strongly or where the motivations driving your beliefs and morals come from, but as someone who studies stuff like this for a job, I'd love to hear more. 

 

In the real world, I don't think anyone should be offended by what actions a state (or a non-state actor such as Hamas) might do in the furtherance of their political goals, even if they may disagree with the methods. I can rationalize as to why Hamas has acted the way that it has, and I can rationalize the reasons that Israel has acted the way that it has, but that doesn't mean I'm tolerant of shooting up music festivals or bombing hospitals. 

 

There is quite literally nothing that you or I can do to support the Palestinians at this point, unless you want to go over Jerusalem and stand outside the Knesset wearing a suicide vest - and even then, the snipers on the roof would get you before you could actually accomplish anything in support of Palestine. The money that is sent (let alone the money that actually makes it into Gaza) is microscopic compared to what Israel gets from the US, and at this point it's not as if they can buy any more food or water or gas or medical supplies. The people of Gaza are going to be driven out of the strip into camps in Egypt, the stragglers will be summarily executed, and the refugee camps will be bombed and forced through man-made famines. My own personal sense of morality (be it self interested) finds that fact disgusting, but it is the inevitable. The Israelis will have no trouble outlasting the toothless UN resolutions and the peaceful protests that will eventually die down to a much quieter level and will be even easier for world leaders to ignore than they have been, and the violent protests will be stamped down upon, and life will go on for those of us fortunate enough to not have been born in Gaza. Either Joe Biden will get re-elected and the war will continue at its current pace, or Donald Trump will be elected president and the war will be sped up. There is no form of radical regime change in the US that can be forced through by a group of unarmed protesters who don't have the support of the military or of the people. To my mind, as I've said several times, this is an inevitability and pretending otherwise is naive. I'm not encouraging you (or anyone) to give up the fight, but I don't think you've got even a microscopic chance of succeeding here, and the more you try the greater the pushback. 

 

I'm going to be quite honest and say that I think that whatever it is that appeals to you about lost causes is the same thing that drives me to want to cut my individual emotional losses and move on. To my eyes, as I said earlier, this is a lost cause. I feel a deep sense of pity for Palestinians right now, but I also know better than to throw my lot in behind a cause that will only lead to more tragedy and disappointment. I hope for your sake that the payments you make to the families of the PFLP and DFLP fighters that get executed in Israeli prisons actually make it through the remittence barrier, I'm sure your sense of morality needs it 

[GhostBox]

2 hours ago, Airlie said:

 

LITERALLY. And yet there’s people still downvoting these posts  how disgusting 

 

Just take a scroll through this thread or the other threads and your question will be answered. The fact that people (both on this forum and on social media) literally don’t even hide the fact they support a TERRORIST organization at this point is unfathomable. The fact the mods also allow it is disgusting. 

Right 💀 literally people supporting a terrorist organization that’s also murdering and has murdered the same people they are saying they care so much about 💀

[John Slayne]

5 minutes ago, wastedpotential said:

I mean I'd really argue that human morality was initially designed to include ones clan of like 30-40 people at the exclusion of everyone else because of sheer scarcity and competition back in the Stone Age, and that the extension of inclusive morality to one's broader ethnic (or ideological) group was a big stretch for our species as it was. The US and the West hold to their morals when it benefits them (best example being the self-motivated abolition of slavery or the literal concept of human rights through the Christian Enlightenments of the 17th and 18th centuries), and to ignore those morals when it suits their interests (such as the famines in Bengal or the implementation of Jim Crow laws), just as everyone else does on both individual and geopolitical levels. Frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, though I do think we'd all be better off in being more honest about that fact. I don't think American morals, Israeli morals (those governing the actions of the IDF) or Western morals are rooted in anything more than self-preservation and self-furtherance any more than I think Palestinian morals (particularly the morals governing Hamas), Chinese morals, Russian morals in Ukraine, or Senegalese morals regarding LGBTQ+ people (just to tie in to other current events). Benevolence without an ulterior motive is fake and pretending (or believing) otherwise is foolish. Wasn't the noble savage myth propagated in the belief that some people just aren't evilly self-interested, and then destroyed by revelations of Iroquois genocide?  

 

Surely you can recognize and would be willing to publicly admit (lest you be intellectually dishonest) that your own individual morals can apply selectively to cases you are more or less sympathetic for, and that at least some degree of your support for Palestine comes from your own anti-Americanism. I'd have to speak with you in greater depth to determine if this comes from some internal sense of ideological rebellion against the system in which you were brought up, or if you saw something when you were younger that strongly turned you away from the US (I don't know how old you are, but maybe Iraq 2003?), or if you decided at some point that opposing the US is the right thing to do because it was the first ideology you fell in with online, and you're driven to support Palestine by a desire to feel morally superior to the supporters of the evil colonialist regime in Jerusalem? I'm not sure if you've ever elaborated on why you believe what you do believe so strongly or where the motivations driving your beliefs and morals come from, but as someone who studies stuff like this for a job, I'd love to hear more. 

 

In the real world, I don't think anyone should be offended by what actions a state (or a non-state actor such as Hamas) might do in the furtherance of their political goals, even if they may disagree with the methods. I can rationalize as to why Hamas has acted the way that it has, and I can rationalize the reasons that Israel has acted the way that it has, but that doesn't mean I'm tolerant of shooting up music festivals or bombing hospitals. 

 

There is quite literally nothing that you or I can do to support the Palestinians at this point, unless you want to go over Jerusalem and stand outside the Knesset wearing a suicide vest - and even then, the snipers on the roof would get you before you could actually accomplish anything in support of Palestine. The money that is sent (let alone the money that actually makes it into Gaza) is microscopic compared to what Israel gets from the US, and at this point it's not as if they can buy any more food or water or gas or medical supplies. The people of Gaza are going to be driven out of the strip into camps in Egypt, the stragglers will be summarily executed, and the refugee camps will be bombed and forced through man-made famines. My own personal sense of morality (be it self interested) finds that fact disgusting, but it is the inevitable. The Israelis will have no trouble outlasting the toothless UN resolutions and the peaceful protests that will eventually die down to a much quieter level and will be even easier for world leaders to ignore than they have been, and the violent protests will be stamped down upon, and life will go on for those of us fortunate enough to not have been born in Gaza. Either Joe Biden will get re-elected and the war will continue at its current pace, or Donald Trump will be elected president and the war will be sped up. There is no form of radical regime change in the US that can be forced through by a group of unarmed protesters who don't have the support of the military or of the people. To my mind, as I've said several times, this is an inevitability and pretending otherwise is naive. I'm not encouraging you (or anyone) to give up the fight, but I don't think you've got even a microscopic chance of succeeding here, and the more you try the greater the pushback. 

 

I'm going to be quite honest and say that I think that whatever it is that appeals to you about lost causes is the same thing that drives me to want to cut my individual emotional losses and move on. To my eyes, as I said earlier, this is a lost cause. I feel a deep sense of pity for Palestinians right now, but I also know better than to throw my lot in behind a cause that will only lead to more tragedy and disappointment. I hope for your sake that the payments you make to the families of the PFLP and DFLP fighters that get executed in Israeli prisons actually make it through the remittence barrier, I'm sure your sense of morality needs it 

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is such a bleak, nihilistic, and self-serving take. It doesn't affect you so it's easy to say 'oh well, sucks to be them I guess, but we can't stop it', as if these weren't conscious paths and political decisions being taken, not just appearing out of thin air.

 

Your appeals to 'human nature' of genocide are also ahistorical and include 0 evidence for why genocide/conquest is  needed (you used this word repeatedly, which is weird to me, as I can't think of a single genocide that was in any way necessary for human development). Yes, human history is violent, but it also includes many examples of when people and nations cooperated, worked together, and rose up against injustice to better themselves. Genocide and colonisation are not inevitable consequences of civilisation, they are political decisions that ought to be resisted and pushed back against. 

 

I'm finding it hard to imagine that you'd be saying the same thing if you were in Gaza with you friends/family being carpet bombed right now. I understand that we as individuals can't save the world, but it is a worthwhile cause to campaign and exert pressure on politicians, especially in the US/UK. The pro-Palestinian movement has never been bigger and stronger and it grows every day. Things can be different, saying otherwise is just a lazy cop out. If every progressive in history took your position and just rolled with whatever the powerful decide we would still live in ancient slave societies.