mxleader on 12/12/2023 at 01:34
The Hatfields and McCoys have been going at each other for about 4,000 years so why is everyone so upset about it now? Muslim culture says those who die for Palestine are martyrs. So it's reasonable to assume that the current propaganda campaign against Israel is likely to garner support for them to push all of Israel into the sea. The bulk of support for Palestine is coming from white female saviors and Arab countries that are known to support terrorist operations directed at the West. I wouldn't claim that Israel's actions over the years are very saintly but given that Palestinian Arabs would like to eradicate them doesn't give them many options.
Azaran on 12/12/2023 at 02:17
Quote Posted by Tocky
Several omissions from history I found amusing, like how Islam was founded at the point of a sword in the first place and how the Romans occupied the Jews (LOL assimilated) but did not wipe them out as indicated. It's as if nobody lived there from 130 AD until 600 AD when the point of sword began swinging.
Another part I liked was the ignoring of how Islam sided with Hitler and found it an excellent idea to carry out slaughters of Jews in the area. Then when their side lost comparing it with an invasion despite getting over 90% of the Ottoman Empire designated to them. That less than 10% irked them into trying to eradicate it for decades after but they failed.
Eh. At least it shows how one can one side history deftly.
That's always the case, history gets nicely whitewashed. Happened in India: Colonialist Mughal conquerors are praised in school textbooks, and their genocides and other crimes (e.g. library burnings, rapes, enslavement) craftily left out
Sulphur on 12/12/2023 at 02:38
Quote Posted by Azaran
Happened in India: Colonialist Mughal conquerors are praised in school textbooks, and their genocides and other crimes (e.g. library burnings, rapes, enslavement) craftily left out
Speaking as an Indian, while this is partly true, the prescribed school textbooks for schools following the CBSE syllabus are now shifting in the other direction, outright
erasing sections of Mughal empire history and their achievements. One of my favourite memories from school was my history teacher regaling us with stories of Mohammed bin Tughlaq's rule and his emptying of the treasury, which led to the incredible decision to mint coins with base metals, resulting in a tsunami of counterfeit copper coins. Guess that's going to be lost to the wind now, with the prevailing fanatical right-wing erasure of things that make the BJP nationalists insecure.
Tocky on 12/12/2023 at 04:08
I happen to like the title BTW. Religion has been victimizing logical man since it's inception. It's a mass delusion. It's hypnosis by those who would control. Collectively it's the worst thing to happen to mankind. It comforts those who cannot accept death but the cost is too great. Anything that asks one to give up their mind is asking too much. And freedom too? Can't eat what you want? Can't dress how you want? Can't even enjoy sex? GTFO.
Nicker on 12/12/2023 at 05:21
Restricting joy is a hallmark of monotheism. And denying female power. And exploiting the fear of death.
I can understand how belief in an afterlife gave us emotional resilience when we became sentient, a million years ago or so, but it's time to get over it. When our knowledge was bounded by our short lives, the earth and the heavens seemed immutable. But we know that everything that has form will change. Even things that mark their lives in billions of years. Why should we be different?
Hubris.
uncadonego on 12/12/2023 at 06:13
Maybe killing en masse would be harder if people believed that they are taking away someone's thoughts and emotions, and their entire consciousness, and any future they had left, rather than thinking they weren't "really" killing anyone.
When I was in Montreal as a teenager, visiting my sister, one bronze statue depicted an angel flying straight heavenward carrying a dead soldier. Really bugged me to the pit of my stomach.
Nicker on 12/12/2023 at 06:45
Quote:
You're right that it's not a clash between religions, however. It's a conflict between a secular democracy of native people in Israel, and theocratic Islamic imperialists in Hamas, who are really just a proxy for Iran.
As usual, SD, you are less than half right.
Wars are rarely just a clash of religions. Even the Crusades had strong currents of personal and political gain flowing through them. But those who stood to gain the most convinced the rank and file that god was on their side and demanded their fealty. AND that they all had a quick pass to paradise if god chose them for martyrdom. Of course the same tactic was used on both sides.
While Israel is technically a secular democracy, at this moment it is behaving no better than a theocracy. It is presently under the control of an autocrat. Benjamin Netanyahu is still under indictment for crimes but, more importantly, is very much under the thumb of powerful orthodox religious zealots, who have previously, repeatedly and violently scuttled genuine secular peace efforts by reasonable people. People who don't believe they have the divine permission of an invisible demiurge to behave like savages. You can vote all you like but when the scripture thumpers violently veto your choices and you can't stop them, you are effectively in a theocracy.
Your willingness to ignore this and to ascribe superstitious ignorance only to Hamas, is again noted.
And "native people in Israel"? Seriously? How exactly do you define that? Naturalised citizens? First generation? Seventh generation? And aren't the Arab Semites living there also "native people"? Please explain the difference and why nativeness even matters? Is it primacy of territorial claims? God's chosenness? Do tell.
Cipheron on 12/12/2023 at 09:58
Quote Posted by SD
Seems ass-backwards to compare Hamas to Native Americans, when it's Jews who are the indigenous population in Israel..
The Zionist settlers hadn't lived there for 2000 years. Someone who hasn't lived there for thousands of years isn't the "indigenous population" of the region, just because some very distant relatives once lived there.
Functionally, the people who active live in a country are the natives, and the people coming into to take it over are the colonists. Where people lived hundreds or thousands of years ago doesn't change the situation today.
Additionally, there's no DNA evidence to show that Palestinians were invaders. There was never an ethnically homogeneous nation which was just Jews. The bible constantly talks about non-Jewish residents and neighbors living among them.
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians)
Quote:
Historical records as well as genetic studies indicate that modern Palestinians mostly descend from local ancient levantines who converted from judaism and other levantine mythologies to christianity and later to islam.
...
Southern Palestine had a large Edomite and Arab population by the 4th century BCE. Inscriptional evidence over a millennium from the peripheral areas of Palestine, such as the Golan and the Negev, show a prevalence of Arab names over Aramaic names from the Persian period, 550-330 BCE onwards.
Literally the locals.
SD on 12/12/2023 at 14:00
Quote Posted by Nicker
While
Israel is technically a secular democracy, at this moment it is behaving no better than a theocracy. It is presently under the control of an autocrat. Benjamin Netanyahu is still under indictment for crimes but, more importantly, is very much under the thumb of powerful orthodox religious zealots, who have previously, repeatedly and violently scuttled genuine secular peace efforts by reasonable people. People who don't believe they have the divine permission of an invisible demiurge to behave like savages. You can vote all you like but when the scripture thumpers violently veto your choices and you can't stop them, you are effectively in a theocracy.
Your willingness to ignore this and to ascribe superstitious ignorance only to Hamas, is again noted.
And "native people in Israel"? Seriously? How exactly do you define that? Naturalised citizens? First generation? Seventh generation? And aren't the Arab Semites living there also "native people"? Please explain the difference and why nativeness even matters? Is it primacy of territorial claims? God's chosenness? Do tell.
Technically correct, the best kind of correct.
If Israel ever becomes a theocracy as opposed to being a democracy with a few theocrats in it, then you may be justified in claiming some kind of equivalence with the likes of Iran and their proxies. Until then...
Sorry, I don't know what "Arab Semites" are. Semite is a language family, not a people.
Native people in Judea are Judeans. We call them Jews in English.
SD on 12/12/2023 at 14:11
Quote Posted by Cipheron
The Zionist settlers hadn't lived there for 2000 years. Someone who hasn't lived there for thousands of years isn't the "indigenous population" of the region, just because some very distant relatives once lived there.
Functionally, the people who active live in a country are the natives, and the people coming into to take it over are the colonists. Where people lived hundreds or thousands of years ago doesn't change the situation today.
Additionally, there's no DNA evidence to show that Palestinians were invaders. There was never an ethnically homogeneous nation which was just Jews. The bible constantly talks about non-Jewish residents and neighbors living among them.
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians)
Literally the locals.
Sorry, you're plain wrong. People don't stop being indigenous to a region just because most of them have been kicked out. This isn't musical chairs.
We know who the colonisers in the region are. They're the ones who built a mosque on top of a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and now claim ownership over the lot.
You've cherry-picked that Wikipedia article somewhat, haven't you? The Haber et al study with attendant PCA map, for instance, shows Palestinian people clustering genetically with their fellow Arabs in Arabia, while all Jewish populations cluster in the Levant with the Lebanese, who are also descended from the Canaanites.
Regardless, I don't know what your argument is. Nobody's proposing that Palestinians should be kicked out of their adopted home in Palestine, just that the Jews, who are native to the region, be allowed to live there too.