When antisemites marched through Charlottesville, America was outraged. But when calls to “kill another Zionist now” were heard outside the White House this weekend, the nation shrugged.
Zionism seems to be a very negative way to say Jewish. I saw real hateful stuff over the years and they use the Zionists or the Zionist conspiracy. I also heard it used to describe a movement in the first half of the last century to establish a jewish homeland. That was established 75 years ago. I've heard Jews going to Israel they do Aliyah. I never heard anyone who supports the existence of the State of Israel (probably 90% of the country) call themselves a Zionist until 10/7. I think it is some sort of trick. It just sounds like one of those bad isms from before WWII. I support the existence of Israel, but I don't want to be called a Zionist
I do not like Mr. Trump, but being fair only to those we like is a dark road. Trump didn't say anything racist or wrong in Charlottesville, and we are all being gaslighted on this one
Trump said of the racists with the torches "they should be condemned totally". The "very fine people" were the civil libertarians in a park protesting removal of a statue.
I used to wonder whether Trump opponents had merely misunderstood what had happened. But the video of Trump's Charlottesville news conference was played at Impeachment 2 to debunk the fine people hoax, and the Trump opponents, then clearly aware of what had actually happened, still ignored the truth.
We are living during a time when the media are firmly in one camp. They begin stories with a prejudiced conclusion, and then only add facts to support that conclusion. If the actual facts are insufficient, they create their own.
Just as Trump’s comment about the Virginia demonstration, or his dictator comment, the media creates a different reality and repeats the lie continuously, hoping to embed it as fact in the brains of the voters.
Republicans and democrats both fail to call out the haters on their fringes. The issue for me is that in the democratic party among lawmakers that fringe seems to get closer and closer to the mainstream of the party, whereas for the republicans these folks seem disruptive and insane and far less organized than their dem counterparts but mostly confined to a fringe group.
So, the only people who consider this antisemitism are the Jews? For my entire life I’ve been preached at by people claiming that the only arbiters of whether something is hate, harrassment, or discrimination are the targets. Now, and just for the Jews, the only people allowed to determine whether something is antisemitism are the Jew-haters. Give me a bleeping break.
The Democrats of today are political opportunists. That's it. Are Republicans opportunists? Of course, but the degree is what's important. The Right (except for the very few on the fringes) want less government. The Left ALWAYS wants MORE GOVERNMENT. Be wary of this! Dems (of today) do not really care about saving, helping, or supporting anyone or anything that does not advance their two-fold agenda. Fold One: they want power and will do ANYTHING to gain it and maintain it. Yes, ANYTHING. Jail Trump will be next, then, if this does not work - assassination. Yes. What else is there? Fold Two: divide and conquer. Turn us against each other and then claim to have the solution to why we are so divided: more government. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. This does not mean it isn't so.
Ah, the mainstream media and its narrative. When Charlottesville happened they jumped all over it because they could rebuke Trump and his base. When 10/7 happened, well. . . there was no opportunity to strike out at Trump’s base and the only base they could strike out at was. . .their own staffers who drive the narrative and the progressives who quote them as the ultimate source of truth. So. . . they remained silent. I am a political moderate lest anyone think that this is a binary struggle for me. The media should cover all sides the same way, but save TFP it is hard to find publications and networks that do just that. What happened in the MSM this time around — with the DC protests — sadly was predictable and true to form. And then they wonder where have all their subscribers gone.
>> Biden “supports the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression” and that the protesters “have a right to speak their mind.” (I could not agree more. Where were these champions of First Amendment rights at Charlottesville?)
While anyone who supports free speech *should* support antisemitic rallies on principle, I would not blame you for doing so halfheartedly. The better question is where are these champions of the First Amendment rights when people were talking about the potential positive outcomes of Ivermectin/Hydrochloroquine as compared to Remdesivir, the origins of the virus in a lab (now known to be true), or the harmful effects of the vaccine? Where were these champions of the first amendment when people praying outside abortion clinics are arrested? Where are they when public college professors are fired for not having the correct language in a land acknowledgement statement, or for criticizing DEI?
Obviously, you should in principle be able to march around yelling about "ze jooz," but that's not the hill to die on when our rights are being attacked in so many other ways.
"TRUMP: OK. Good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? So you know what? It’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You’ve got -- you had a lot of bad -- you had a lot of bad people in the other group…"
Can we all please stop repeating this lie??? It's nuts not to know at this point.
George Clooney and his wife, the arsonists who fuel the fire of anti-Israeli hate at ICC, now raise funds for Biden, who their followers call "genocide Joe". What is their endgame? I have a question for the "liberals" who cry over the fate of refugees all over the world, especially and most hysterically of the Palestinian refugees who are well-supported by the UN to the tune of thousands of tunnels, missiles and hate-reproducing schools, what is their end game? If Israel is destroyed, not only Jews, but every Arab with Israeli passport will be either killed or become a refugee. Where will they go? Will these kindhearted liberals take none of them, will they take just Arabs as innocent civilians and let the Jews be massacred by the "peaceful Hamas", or will they forget about the entire mess they created and find another equally invalid cause to warm up their hearts and give them a chance to socialize in tuxedos and gowns at the fundraisers?
I’m being generous with the benefit of the doubt, here, but I do salute Hollywood’s general willingness to try and see the other side - we all should make at least that much effort. As actors who often must play villains, it makes sense that they would be able to embrace the villain’s motivations.
This, at least, is to be lauded; the first step in addressing any issue is to accurately define the problem.
These thespians, however, are mimics - not analysts. It is not their job to parse out the moral qualities of any particular perspective but to internalize those beliefs regardless of right or wrong so that they may exhibit such authentically. Just as soldiers sometimes “go native,” it’s perfectly understandable should a performer confuse the forest for the trees… and, in both cases, a woman is almost always a factor. Or am I just some jingoistic jackass for invoking the old adage that men think with their cocks?
My gut tells me the elite get off/make money on the perpetual war. Media gets clicks, arms manufacturers make billions, politicians get re-elected. Hamas and the Pals... they don't want a state because then they would have to govern one and then the money would dry up. Just remind yourself at how much the top brass are worth.
I don't think it is only about money. There is something interesting about the left-wing ideology in the Western world. It seems to find strength in hating capitalism and needs inspiration from outside. Before the collapse of the USSR it looked to the USSR. Once USSR vanished, they found their ideological ally in the "revolutionary" Islamists. I think it is even more successful than the alliance with the communism because it was easier to sell it as a religious tolerance and accuse anyone who questioned this premise of Islamophobia.
"Where were these champions of First Amendment rights at Charlottesville?"
Well, one would have to be intellectually honest.
I don't back anyone who would chant “Jews will not replace us”...I just like pointing out inconsistencies....and there's no shortage of those in the world.
You are mistaken. Orthodox Jews, including the Hasidic, have a clearly defined concept of evil. Those wishing to live in Israel are not in that category. I would like to understand how you reached your conclusion.
There are a few jerks in every pot. Jews have them. The ones you are speaking about are an extreme fringe. Most religious Jews want nothing to do with them. But we have plenty of Jews on the far left who also hate Israel/themselves, so...
There is political Zionism and Zionism that just means the right for Jewish self determination of the ancestral homeland.
Political Zionism is what created the modern State of Israel and the way it works is still based on political Zionism. It's a left wing, secular ideology. While Israel is a lot more right wing and religious nowadays than it was in 1948, its still governed by political Zionist principles. This is what Hasidic Jews don't agree with. Many think the state of Israel shouldn't have been created until the Messiah comes.
Most of them, however, don't believe that the State of Israel should be dismantled at this point because they believe that it would come way too much bloodshed. They reluctantly accept that it exists and don't try to undermine it, with the exception of a small cult called the Neturei Karta.
Neturei Karta is a small extremist group of around 100 members who try to actively undermine Israel, even join forces with Iran or US progressives if it's necessary. They are excommunicated by major Hasidic sects.
Political Zionism is also opposed by certain "far-right" Israeli groups. (I hate the term far-right being applied to everything, but, I'm going to use it now to make a distinction.) They don't want to dismantle the state either, but want it to be a lot more religious and right wing. But they support the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Israel.
Non-Jews, however, rarely know or care about the difference between political Zionism and the other kind. The number of gentiles who support a Jewish country in the Levant but not political Zionism is probably single digit. Therefore basically all non-Jewish antizionism is also antisemitic in practice, even though in theory it might be possible to be a non-Jewish, non-antisemitic antizionist.
The video you saw was probably an anti-draft demonstration. Currently ultra-orthodox Jews (including but not exclusively Hasidic) don't have to serve in the army, but many disagree with this and want to change it. Things can get really heated in the debate. This is a separate, but not entirely unrelated issue to Hasidic antizionism.
So I'm gonna stick my neck way out and offer my uneducated opinion (don't censor me TFP):
There are a several practices and beliefs of the Palestinian people that disrespect human dignity, however this does not justify treating them as less than human. The way in which the IDF has been eliminating Hamas demonstrates quite a double standard, not to mention the American and Israeli casualties. I believe such massacre will not create a long term peace; in fact I believe it guarantees future terrorism. I say this not out of anti-semitism, but because I observed the American response to terrorism (an incredible failure, fueled by deception, hate and ignorance).
I do not think it in the interest of Israel or the Jewish people to carry on in this manner.
We must not sink to the level of evil in fighting our enemies, we must strive to set an example.
That being said, war is messy, and I won't be protesting this one. But the quote "a war is when TWO armies are fighting" is haunting...
1. After decades of wars and with the help of the US Israel signs peace with Jordan and Egypt. Small detail: Israel wants Gaza to return under Egyptian rule, Egypt refuses. Two heroic leaders, Egyptian Sadat and Israeli Rabin pay with their lives, but Israel moves forward to signing peace with Arafat. Western world rejoices.
2. Arafat, who led PLO, an organization founded on the main principle of destruction of Israel, spends about 10 years courting the West and tricking them to believe that he wants peace. He gets Nobel Prize, honors, greeted as a hero, but stops right at the moment when his signature must go on the agreement in which Israel would fully recognize Palestinian state, in January 2000. Important to mention that some time in 1980es Israeli right wing pushes Israel to what I view as their biggest mistake, settlements in West Bank and Gaza.
3. 2000-2003. Palestinians launch intifada, suicide bombings, missiles, constant attacks. Israel responds with blocking Palestinians access to jobs in Israel as a safety measure. Israel is in despair.
4. Israeli PM Sharon, once proponent of the settlements, makes a move to withdraw from the Palestinian territories in another attempt to secure peace. Gaza is first, then to be followed by West Bank. Settlers are uprooted and moved by force, leaving buildings, farms, hospitals behind, all in great shape. Soon after Sharon has a severe stroke and is removed from the office. Under supervision of US, Gaza responds with electing Hamas in free and fair elections, not because they love Hamas but because they hate PA. Hamas kills off every PA official with their families, destroys all the orchards and farms left by Israel and installs regime of terror in Gaza. Once in full control, Hamas puts all their energy into what they do the best: killing and terror against Israel.
5. Israeli public can't help but takes notice that the withdrawal from Gaza only led to increase of violence against Jews. It is clear that withdrawal from West Bank would be even more dangerous and security of Israel can no longer be viable. Israeli public once cheering on the idea of peaceful coexistence moves further and further to the right. Religious right continues to push for more settlements. In my view, Israel is in a trap between more and more violent and better armed Hamas and the public more more antagonized against Palestinian state, out of fear. You would say, after decades of intifadas, kidnapping of Israeli athletes and hijacking of planes with Israeli passengers, they have a point. They are scared. There is absolutely no trust for any Palestinian entity. Imagine if Hamas becomes that Palestinian state and can legitimately purchase bomber planes and ballistic missiles, what they can do to Israel.
The Israelis I know do not want to kill Palestinians or sink to the level of evil. Moreover, for decades Israel used to warn civilians of upcoming operation in Gaza, dropping leaflets and placing phone calls - something Western media does not disclose.
But imagine if Allies stopped in 1944 at the German border and did not do whatever it took to destroy Nazis, what do you think would have happened after? Instead, they carpet bombed German cities and killed, unfortunately, many German civilians.
Here is another point: for decades, rulers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar fueled the fire of anti-Israeli terrorism and hate, until they realized that their genie was out of the bottle threatening their own existence. Because of that, they are now ready to make peace with Israel and squash the most violent terrorism that threatens them, but the tail of the Arab street, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc, is now wagging the head.
Perfect description. Just one fact is missing. When Gaza divided between Israel and Egypt, Egypt did not want Hamas in its country. It bombed and destroyed all of Gaza on its side of the border, and today maintains strict control over that border. It has been very reluctant to allow anyone from Gaza to seek refuge.
So what of the monetary support bibi gave to hamas for years? Is it true? What was the strategy there?
I am not sure nazi and hamas are equivalent... but it does seem a strong analogy at a glance. Still, I struggle with the idea that dropping nukes in Japan was morally justifiable.
I am worried that many people may be killed for supporting the wrong ideas, and I am guilty of wrong-think here in the US. Quite a lot
This is a complex issue (as is most war); so I’ll only address the moral issue with dropping nukes on Japan - and, no, I do not have a definitive answer, only some considerations that will add even more nuance:
The island-hopping campaign in the Pacific Theatre had been an unqualified success by the time US troops made it to the Ryukyu archipelago (Okinawa). It was brilliant from conception through execution, but had proved costly in both treasure and the lives of US Marines, soldiers, and sailors, as well as to Japanese servicemen and uncountable civilians (and god knows how much wildlife and flora). The potential for nuclear attack was there and FDR had hedged for the exact same reasons that likely make you question such an option. I’ve no doubt Truman struggled with that, as well (I sincerely hope we all might take at least one last look in the mirror)….
In April of 1945, Japanese troop strength was estimated at ~229,000 men. By July of that same year, those numbers had almost tripled. Take into account cultural factors such as Yamato Damashii and the Japanese disdain for surrender, both from their enemy forces and by their own, as well as the large portion of Japanese civilians who could be expected to take up arms against foreign troops on their home soil. Japan held an idea that they were divinely chosen to succeed - they would bow to nothing short of an act of god or near-total annihilation. According to his own diary, Truman was given an estimate of somewhere in the ballpark of 500,000 casualties among American servicemen, alone. The estimate of Japanese casualties from invading the island of Kyushu, alone, was over 2,000,000 - this dwarfs the number of dead from both bombs, combined.
Truman chose the act of god, as the more humane course to near-total destruction, and it was not an easy choice for any involved. Just for one example, Colonel Paul Tibbets, the pilot who dropped Little Boy (and named his plane, Enola Gay, after his mother), knew that his name would forever be associated with what some would consider humanity’s greatest atrocity and worried any physical marker would become a political target for extremists. When he died, rather than be buried at Arlington as was his right, he requested his remains be cremated and spread over the English Channel across which he’d flown so many sorties in the name of liberty.
Of course, Truman, Oppenheimer, Tibbets, et. al. weren’t too concerned with environmental impact decades later (if they even knew to consider such, at all); theirs was an immediate concern - a shit-or-get-off-the-pot moment, if you’ll allow me to be vulgar about such a serious situation. Hindsight is never as easy as it seems. Was it the right call? I have no idea. Was there a better way? I can’t think of one, even so far removed from the moment. They made the best decision they felt could be made, with the information and resources they had at the time, when they still had time to make it.
In one final defense, thanks to their efforts, the last of the Purple Heart medals minted to meet casualty expectations for WWII (at least to my knowledge) has yet to find itself pinned on a bloodied young American’s chest, almost 80 years later.
Sometimes, beautiful flowers can only be preserved through the ugly act of pruning the blighted branch. Too much is easy and unnecessary, too little is never enough.
It was not cash given by Bibi to Hamas, it was Bibi's decision to allow cash payments from Qatar to Hamas to go through Israeli territory. Here is a fairly factual story from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qatar-hamas-funds-israel-backing-intl/index.html. The surface story is to buy Israel security by being nice to Hamas. Very well could be it was to buy Bibi political longevity.
Bibi is another Israel's tragedy. It is more complex and nuanced than Trump in the US. After all, unlike Trump, Bibi had real degrees from MIT, he served honorably in the military. At some point, he made a devil's bargain, while Trump was raised in a devil's bargain. Nevertheless, people who blame the entire Israel by association with Bibi forget that they are equally associated with Trump and should be blaming themselves. Interesting detail: the largest protest against Bibi had 10% of the country marching, while the largest protest against Trump had 2.3%.
Half of Israel hates him (and I do too), but he is very clever in using the political system to its advantage.
As for Nazi and Hamas equivalence, you should read couple articles in Newsweek from Hamza Bowidy, a regular guy from Gaza who tried to protest Hamas. Here is his interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8s5mF-DNmU&t=18s
Hamza does not talk about what Hamas does to gays, but it is not any better than what Nazis did to gays. Also, politically Hamas has all the intent to spread their ideology worldwide, they just don't have Germany's industrial power and prowess to implement it, but they are quite clever in their propaganda - look at how America's brightest students now chant "death to America" exactly in their vein and write "free Palestine = free world" on the walls in my city. It might work even better than German tanks. As someone raised in the USSR, I can easily imagine what their idea of permanent anti-capitalist revolution married to the fundamentalist Islam can bring to the world.
As for nukes and Japan, I myself have been on both sides of the argument. I know a lot about what nukes did to Japan, it was horrific and should never be done again. I thought many times that if there was an excuse for the first bomb, there was no excuse for the second one. But I have explanations why Truman made those decisions, knowing what a sacrifice allied soldiers had made by August 1945. Something that escapes American public is the fact that as per agreement with Stalin, on August 9 USSR was supposed to declare war on Japan and enter China. As someone who lived in the USSR, I can tell you first-hand that if Stalin gained even more power in August 1945, it would have been a much bigger catastrophe. I also know that we are judging those decisions from the perspective of our times, with our moral codes. Much like you, I am guilty of wrong-think, and I don't have a political home. I am a pacifist who can see how futile pacifism can be at times, I am all for equal rights and equal opportunities for all but who can see how impossible a real implementation of it can be without falling into the trap of government-controlled militant communism. Maybe this is why I am not a politician, just one person staring into the abyss of the modern world in despair.
I think Mountain Goat might be conflating Netanyahu’s efforts at appeasement with earlier (pre-Hamas and pre-Bibi) efforts by the Israeli military Governorate and the subsequent Civil Administration in Gaza to fund fundamentalist mosques in an effort to offset secular Arab efforts against Israel.
While Messrs. Trump and Netanyahu are not analogous, a large segment of public opinion holds both responsible for situations far outside their influence. This is, sadly, the reality of politics and, while I’m not suggesting either of the above is unworthy, it’s the reality that keeps many better men than Woodrow Wilson, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden from tossing their hats into the ring.
*Unless otherwise specified, the use of the male gender refers to both women and men.
Any better idea? I don't believe that the Palestinians can get much more radicalized than this. Already Hamas has an 80% popularity among the Palestinian population.
Denazification through war was very effective in the Nazi Germany, even though millions of innocent civilians died.
Over the decades Israel offered them several opportunities for the Palestinians to have their own state. They either rejected them or used it against Israel.
So many are saying that "this is not the way" but nobody could come up with a better way that actually works. I'm curious, what is your idea? What could work better?
In my opinion the only way to lasting peace would be if the West held the Palestinians accountable for not keeping their parts of the agreements and engaging in terror. So far Western politicians rarely do that. They hold Israel accountable, but never the Palestinians. They even reward terror by more appeasement. So the Palestinians think they can do anything without serious repercussions. This has to change first before any kind of peace negotiations and "path to a two state solution" can start.
I don't think US war machine is to be blamed for this. US could be blamed for reluctance in supporting Israel in early years. I think US was torn between oil interests (aka being cozy with the Saudis) and standing for the advancement of democracy.
I don't think it was created by the US, but definitely enabled and even encouraged, along with the whole Western world. The British are more guilty, they were more than happy to create chaos there between the Jews and the Arabs, as well as the Nazis who encouraged Arab antisemitism. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a good friend of Hitler.
Of course, Muslim antisemitism is really old, so they didn't need that much encouragement. At the end of the day, Arab imperialism is a thing that exists independently from how the Westerners poke around there.
As for a nuke, I don't think so, unless it's in a final, desperate moment when everything is lost. And probably not against the Palestinians, but against Iran or another similar enemy. But I really hope we will never get there. I don't know of any Israeli who would want that. We want to live, not all die in a nuclear war.
I don't think Israel considers use of nukes as a tool of war. It is there as a deterrent for the crazies like ayatollahs. Even for those who don't believe in Israel's good will, it is obvious that it is not in Israel's interest to use nukes, it is small enough to be destroyed with a single bomb. This is why ayatollahs are so bent on getting the nukes.
Thank you for the clarification. Can you give a more detailed definition of the political Zionism and how it differs from the basic principle that Jews had right to establish their state after the withdrawal of Ottoman and British empires?
So in short, for political Zionism it wouldn't be a big deal to pack up Israel and place it somewhere in South America for example because it's not a religious ideology with connection to that particular piece of land in the Levant. Which isn't the case if we view Zionism as an indigenous land back ideology.
Political Zionism started in the 19th century by a Hungarian Jew called Theodor Herzl. He was a completely assimilated, secular journalist who was present at the antisemitic show trial of Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army who was falsely accused of treason.
Herzl understood that if such an accomplished person can be treated this way, then Jews aren't going to be safe anywhere except their own country.
He decided to start a campaign for establishing a Jewish country. The location wasn't that important for him, he wasn't motivated by any type of religious or "land back"-type ideology, but since at that time Israel was a mostly uninhabitable, backwater part of the Ottoman Empire, it wasn't that hard to convince the rulers to allow Jewish settlement there.
This obviously changed as Jews started working the land, bringing prosperity and making more and more of the land fertile, but at that time Herzl never in his scariest nightmares would have imagined that this little piece of land would be so coveted. It felt safe to create a Jewish homeland there, and since it's already an important location for Jews, why not?
The subsequent ideologues of political Zionism were all secular socialists, even communists. They created the Kibbutz movement, which were originally communes where nobody owned anything. They have been mostly privatized by now, because communism doesn't work, but they were influential in creating the modern State.
These ideologues rejected religion and wanted to create a country that is exactly like every other country, not a religious entity.
The early State of Israel was mostly left wing and secular. They were often quite forceful in rejecting religious or conservative views, so from day 1 there has been a huge tension of the socialist ruling elite and more religious, conservative segments of society.
The reason Israel is becoming more right wing and religious is simply because they make more babies, so the demographic is shifting, but the old ruling elite isn't happy about it. This basically sums up all the protests of the last few years, pro and contra.
While Herzl may not of cared where the Jewish country was located, the present day location of Israel is approximately the same location as ancient Israel. "Going home" is a powerful calling card.
I heard that when Israel was established in 1948, then president Veizman faced a question what to do with the religious orthodox Jews who refused to serve in the military. There were so few of them that he decided to just let them be. He was a chemist, not a demographer. Some of the tragedies of Israel, which are many, are that it is torn apart between secular and religion visions of itself, and that the liberal West which was all behind the creation of Israel turned against it and joined ranks with the most repressive and fundamentalist Islamist movements that figured out how to sell themselves as anti-colonialists.
Yes, something like this. He basically wanted to create a living museum out of them, something we can show our grandkids “you see, Jews used to live like that”. It didn't work out as well as he expected lol.
The country is absolutely torn between religion and secularism. The draft debate, for example, often resembles an estranged couple who has been arguing way too long about something and now they aren't willing to compromise anymore even though deep down they understand that the other one has a point.
no! Most definitely not!! Most Hasidic Jews support Israel, many live in Israel and currently many are also joining the army. There is a tiny little sect of Hasidic Jews called Naturei Karta that are anti-Zionists. This is not the majority. Also, it would be wrong for Jews to call for the death of anyone, let alone other Jews.
I watched much "right wing" media leading up to Charlottesville, Gavin McGinnis in particular. Since I work in academia, I can testify to the anti-white-male discourse that fostered this march in Charlottesville.
The chant was supposed to be "You will not replace us."
There is plenty of evidence to support the concept of replacing white men with anyone else. Indeed, altering the chant to "Jews will not replace us" was a bridge too far, however I read this as a reference to Soros, not anti-semitism.
What's truly horrific about all of this is that telling people I was watching Gavin McGinnis, and sympathize to a certain extent with the grievance driving the Proud Boys, is met with an idiotic assumption that anyone who would even bother to hear what a primary source has to say must be a dreaded "nazi."
I'd argue that this constant nattering about "white men" is NAZI. It's exactly the kind of narrative going on in Germany about the Jews leading up to WWII.
And, as we know, these protests always seem to take it a bit too far.
Note that Joe Biden claimed "white supremacy is our nation's biggest threat." NO ONE SHOULD VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO SPEAKS LIKE THIS AS THE LEADER OF OUR NATION.
Biden is, in effect, promoting a form of Nazi-ism.
Many of the people I’ve met don’t even understand the concept of primary source let alone read it. Your position seeks nuance, something that escape the overly-emotional knee-jerk reaction types.
The difference between right-wing and left-wing anti-semites isn't hatred of Jews. It's that the left-wing uses the euphemism "zionists".
Thank god we have the FP to tell us the truth about these ridiculous mutant festivals. Imagine having to rely on the Washington Post or NYT?
Zionism seems to be a very negative way to say Jewish. I saw real hateful stuff over the years and they use the Zionists or the Zionist conspiracy. I also heard it used to describe a movement in the first half of the last century to establish a jewish homeland. That was established 75 years ago. I've heard Jews going to Israel they do Aliyah. I never heard anyone who supports the existence of the State of Israel (probably 90% of the country) call themselves a Zionist until 10/7. I think it is some sort of trick. It just sounds like one of those bad isms from before WWII. I support the existence of Israel, but I don't want to be called a Zionist
I do not like Mr. Trump, but being fair only to those we like is a dark road. Trump didn't say anything racist or wrong in Charlottesville, and we are all being gaslighted on this one
Trump said of the racists with the torches "they should be condemned totally". The "very fine people" were the civil libertarians in a park protesting removal of a statue.
I used to wonder whether Trump opponents had merely misunderstood what had happened. But the video of Trump's Charlottesville news conference was played at Impeachment 2 to debunk the fine people hoax, and the Trump opponents, then clearly aware of what had actually happened, still ignored the truth.
We are living during a time when the media are firmly in one camp. They begin stories with a prejudiced conclusion, and then only add facts to support that conclusion. If the actual facts are insufficient, they create their own.
Just as Trump’s comment about the Virginia demonstration, or his dictator comment, the media creates a different reality and repeats the lie continuously, hoping to embed it as fact in the brains of the voters.
What a great article! This Is so true. It does not matter who the victim is, and long as there is someone or something to blame!!
Republicans and democrats both fail to call out the haters on their fringes. The issue for me is that in the democratic party among lawmakers that fringe seems to get closer and closer to the mainstream of the party, whereas for the republicans these folks seem disruptive and insane and far less organized than their dem counterparts but mostly confined to a fringe group.
So, the only people who consider this antisemitism are the Jews? For my entire life I’ve been preached at by people claiming that the only arbiters of whether something is hate, harrassment, or discrimination are the targets. Now, and just for the Jews, the only people allowed to determine whether something is antisemitism are the Jew-haters. Give me a bleeping break.
The Democrats of today are political opportunists. That's it. Are Republicans opportunists? Of course, but the degree is what's important. The Right (except for the very few on the fringes) want less government. The Left ALWAYS wants MORE GOVERNMENT. Be wary of this! Dems (of today) do not really care about saving, helping, or supporting anyone or anything that does not advance their two-fold agenda. Fold One: they want power and will do ANYTHING to gain it and maintain it. Yes, ANYTHING. Jail Trump will be next, then, if this does not work - assassination. Yes. What else is there? Fold Two: divide and conquer. Turn us against each other and then claim to have the solution to why we are so divided: more government. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. This does not mean it isn't so.
Ah, the mainstream media and its narrative. When Charlottesville happened they jumped all over it because they could rebuke Trump and his base. When 10/7 happened, well. . . there was no opportunity to strike out at Trump’s base and the only base they could strike out at was. . .their own staffers who drive the narrative and the progressives who quote them as the ultimate source of truth. So. . . they remained silent. I am a political moderate lest anyone think that this is a binary struggle for me. The media should cover all sides the same way, but save TFP it is hard to find publications and networks that do just that. What happened in the MSM this time around — with the DC protests — sadly was predictable and true to form. And then they wonder where have all their subscribers gone.
Thank you. I could not have said it better.
>> Biden “supports the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression” and that the protesters “have a right to speak their mind.” (I could not agree more. Where were these champions of First Amendment rights at Charlottesville?)
While anyone who supports free speech *should* support antisemitic rallies on principle, I would not blame you for doing so halfheartedly. The better question is where are these champions of the First Amendment rights when people were talking about the potential positive outcomes of Ivermectin/Hydrochloroquine as compared to Remdesivir, the origins of the virus in a lab (now known to be true), or the harmful effects of the vaccine? Where were these champions of the first amendment when people praying outside abortion clinics are arrested? Where are they when public college professors are fired for not having the correct language in a land acknowledgement statement, or for criticizing DEI?
Obviously, you should in principle be able to march around yelling about "ze jooz," but that's not the hill to die on when our rights are being attacked in so many other ways.
-1st speech full transcript
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138906/president-trump-remarks-condemning-violence-on-many-sides-charlottesville-rally
--2nd speech - taking questions about first speech full transcript
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesville-transcript-20170815-story.html
"TRUMP: OK. Good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? So you know what? It’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You’ve got -- you had a lot of bad -- you had a lot of bad people in the other group…"
Can we all please stop repeating this lie??? It's nuts not to know at this point.
George Clooney and his wife, the arsonists who fuel the fire of anti-Israeli hate at ICC, now raise funds for Biden, who their followers call "genocide Joe". What is their endgame? I have a question for the "liberals" who cry over the fate of refugees all over the world, especially and most hysterically of the Palestinian refugees who are well-supported by the UN to the tune of thousands of tunnels, missiles and hate-reproducing schools, what is their end game? If Israel is destroyed, not only Jews, but every Arab with Israeli passport will be either killed or become a refugee. Where will they go? Will these kindhearted liberals take none of them, will they take just Arabs as innocent civilians and let the Jews be massacred by the "peaceful Hamas", or will they forget about the entire mess they created and find another equally invalid cause to warm up their hearts and give them a chance to socialize in tuxedos and gowns at the fundraisers?
I’m being generous with the benefit of the doubt, here, but I do salute Hollywood’s general willingness to try and see the other side - we all should make at least that much effort. As actors who often must play villains, it makes sense that they would be able to embrace the villain’s motivations.
This, at least, is to be lauded; the first step in addressing any issue is to accurately define the problem.
These thespians, however, are mimics - not analysts. It is not their job to parse out the moral qualities of any particular perspective but to internalize those beliefs regardless of right or wrong so that they may exhibit such authentically. Just as soldiers sometimes “go native,” it’s perfectly understandable should a performer confuse the forest for the trees… and, in both cases, a woman is almost always a factor. Or am I just some jingoistic jackass for invoking the old adage that men think with their cocks?
My gut tells me the elite get off/make money on the perpetual war. Media gets clicks, arms manufacturers make billions, politicians get re-elected. Hamas and the Pals... they don't want a state because then they would have to govern one and then the money would dry up. Just remind yourself at how much the top brass are worth.
I don't think it is only about money. There is something interesting about the left-wing ideology in the Western world. It seems to find strength in hating capitalism and needs inspiration from outside. Before the collapse of the USSR it looked to the USSR. Once USSR vanished, they found their ideological ally in the "revolutionary" Islamists. I think it is even more successful than the alliance with the communism because it was easier to sell it as a religious tolerance and accuse anyone who questioned this premise of Islamophobia.
"Where were these champions of First Amendment rights at Charlottesville?"
Well, one would have to be intellectually honest.
I don't back anyone who would chant “Jews will not replace us”...I just like pointing out inconsistencies....and there's no shortage of those in the world.
Why do hasidic jews consider zionism evil? I'm genuinely asking, having seen a video of israel police brutalize Jewish protestors...
Can jews be anti-semitic?
You are mistaken. Orthodox Jews, including the Hasidic, have a clearly defined concept of evil. Those wishing to live in Israel are not in that category. I would like to understand how you reached your conclusion.
Thank you all. Best thread I've been involved with to date, and will certainly adjust a lot of my commentary
Thank you for being open-minded and seeking the truth. It is very hard nowadays.
There were Jews who supported Hitler … at least in the beginning. Even though his anti-Semitism was well known by then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
There are a few jerks in every pot. Jews have them. The ones you are speaking about are an extreme fringe. Most religious Jews want nothing to do with them. But we have plenty of Jews on the far left who also hate Israel/themselves, so...
There is political Zionism and Zionism that just means the right for Jewish self determination of the ancestral homeland.
Political Zionism is what created the modern State of Israel and the way it works is still based on political Zionism. It's a left wing, secular ideology. While Israel is a lot more right wing and religious nowadays than it was in 1948, its still governed by political Zionist principles. This is what Hasidic Jews don't agree with. Many think the state of Israel shouldn't have been created until the Messiah comes.
Most of them, however, don't believe that the State of Israel should be dismantled at this point because they believe that it would come way too much bloodshed. They reluctantly accept that it exists and don't try to undermine it, with the exception of a small cult called the Neturei Karta.
Neturei Karta is a small extremist group of around 100 members who try to actively undermine Israel, even join forces with Iran or US progressives if it's necessary. They are excommunicated by major Hasidic sects.
Political Zionism is also opposed by certain "far-right" Israeli groups. (I hate the term far-right being applied to everything, but, I'm going to use it now to make a distinction.) They don't want to dismantle the state either, but want it to be a lot more religious and right wing. But they support the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Israel.
Non-Jews, however, rarely know or care about the difference between political Zionism and the other kind. The number of gentiles who support a Jewish country in the Levant but not political Zionism is probably single digit. Therefore basically all non-Jewish antizionism is also antisemitic in practice, even though in theory it might be possible to be a non-Jewish, non-antisemitic antizionist.
The video you saw was probably an anti-draft demonstration. Currently ultra-orthodox Jews (including but not exclusively Hasidic) don't have to serve in the army, but many disagree with this and want to change it. Things can get really heated in the debate. This is a separate, but not entirely unrelated issue to Hasidic antizionism.
You use a lot of terms, but you are either naive or just in over your head. Your distinctions of Jews only exist in your head.
So I'm gonna stick my neck way out and offer my uneducated opinion (don't censor me TFP):
There are a several practices and beliefs of the Palestinian people that disrespect human dignity, however this does not justify treating them as less than human. The way in which the IDF has been eliminating Hamas demonstrates quite a double standard, not to mention the American and Israeli casualties. I believe such massacre will not create a long term peace; in fact I believe it guarantees future terrorism. I say this not out of anti-semitism, but because I observed the American response to terrorism (an incredible failure, fueled by deception, hate and ignorance).
I do not think it in the interest of Israel or the Jewish people to carry on in this manner.
We must not sink to the level of evil in fighting our enemies, we must strive to set an example.
That being said, war is messy, and I won't be protesting this one. But the quote "a war is when TWO armies are fighting" is haunting...
For what it's worth, my 2 cents.
1. After decades of wars and with the help of the US Israel signs peace with Jordan and Egypt. Small detail: Israel wants Gaza to return under Egyptian rule, Egypt refuses. Two heroic leaders, Egyptian Sadat and Israeli Rabin pay with their lives, but Israel moves forward to signing peace with Arafat. Western world rejoices.
2. Arafat, who led PLO, an organization founded on the main principle of destruction of Israel, spends about 10 years courting the West and tricking them to believe that he wants peace. He gets Nobel Prize, honors, greeted as a hero, but stops right at the moment when his signature must go on the agreement in which Israel would fully recognize Palestinian state, in January 2000. Important to mention that some time in 1980es Israeli right wing pushes Israel to what I view as their biggest mistake, settlements in West Bank and Gaza.
3. 2000-2003. Palestinians launch intifada, suicide bombings, missiles, constant attacks. Israel responds with blocking Palestinians access to jobs in Israel as a safety measure. Israel is in despair.
4. Israeli PM Sharon, once proponent of the settlements, makes a move to withdraw from the Palestinian territories in another attempt to secure peace. Gaza is first, then to be followed by West Bank. Settlers are uprooted and moved by force, leaving buildings, farms, hospitals behind, all in great shape. Soon after Sharon has a severe stroke and is removed from the office. Under supervision of US, Gaza responds with electing Hamas in free and fair elections, not because they love Hamas but because they hate PA. Hamas kills off every PA official with their families, destroys all the orchards and farms left by Israel and installs regime of terror in Gaza. Once in full control, Hamas puts all their energy into what they do the best: killing and terror against Israel.
5. Israeli public can't help but takes notice that the withdrawal from Gaza only led to increase of violence against Jews. It is clear that withdrawal from West Bank would be even more dangerous and security of Israel can no longer be viable. Israeli public once cheering on the idea of peaceful coexistence moves further and further to the right. Religious right continues to push for more settlements. In my view, Israel is in a trap between more and more violent and better armed Hamas and the public more more antagonized against Palestinian state, out of fear. You would say, after decades of intifadas, kidnapping of Israeli athletes and hijacking of planes with Israeli passengers, they have a point. They are scared. There is absolutely no trust for any Palestinian entity. Imagine if Hamas becomes that Palestinian state and can legitimately purchase bomber planes and ballistic missiles, what they can do to Israel.
The Israelis I know do not want to kill Palestinians or sink to the level of evil. Moreover, for decades Israel used to warn civilians of upcoming operation in Gaza, dropping leaflets and placing phone calls - something Western media does not disclose.
But imagine if Allies stopped in 1944 at the German border and did not do whatever it took to destroy Nazis, what do you think would have happened after? Instead, they carpet bombed German cities and killed, unfortunately, many German civilians.
Here is another point: for decades, rulers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar fueled the fire of anti-Israeli terrorism and hate, until they realized that their genie was out of the bottle threatening their own existence. Because of that, they are now ready to make peace with Israel and squash the most violent terrorism that threatens them, but the tail of the Arab street, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc, is now wagging the head.
Perfect description. Just one fact is missing. When Gaza divided between Israel and Egypt, Egypt did not want Hamas in its country. It bombed and destroyed all of Gaza on its side of the border, and today maintains strict control over that border. It has been very reluctant to allow anyone from Gaza to seek refuge.
So what of the monetary support bibi gave to hamas for years? Is it true? What was the strategy there?
I am not sure nazi and hamas are equivalent... but it does seem a strong analogy at a glance. Still, I struggle with the idea that dropping nukes in Japan was morally justifiable.
I am worried that many people may be killed for supporting the wrong ideas, and I am guilty of wrong-think here in the US. Quite a lot
This is a complex issue (as is most war); so I’ll only address the moral issue with dropping nukes on Japan - and, no, I do not have a definitive answer, only some considerations that will add even more nuance:
The island-hopping campaign in the Pacific Theatre had been an unqualified success by the time US troops made it to the Ryukyu archipelago (Okinawa). It was brilliant from conception through execution, but had proved costly in both treasure and the lives of US Marines, soldiers, and sailors, as well as to Japanese servicemen and uncountable civilians (and god knows how much wildlife and flora). The potential for nuclear attack was there and FDR had hedged for the exact same reasons that likely make you question such an option. I’ve no doubt Truman struggled with that, as well (I sincerely hope we all might take at least one last look in the mirror)….
In April of 1945, Japanese troop strength was estimated at ~229,000 men. By July of that same year, those numbers had almost tripled. Take into account cultural factors such as Yamato Damashii and the Japanese disdain for surrender, both from their enemy forces and by their own, as well as the large portion of Japanese civilians who could be expected to take up arms against foreign troops on their home soil. Japan held an idea that they were divinely chosen to succeed - they would bow to nothing short of an act of god or near-total annihilation. According to his own diary, Truman was given an estimate of somewhere in the ballpark of 500,000 casualties among American servicemen, alone. The estimate of Japanese casualties from invading the island of Kyushu, alone, was over 2,000,000 - this dwarfs the number of dead from both bombs, combined.
Truman chose the act of god, as the more humane course to near-total destruction, and it was not an easy choice for any involved. Just for one example, Colonel Paul Tibbets, the pilot who dropped Little Boy (and named his plane, Enola Gay, after his mother), knew that his name would forever be associated with what some would consider humanity’s greatest atrocity and worried any physical marker would become a political target for extremists. When he died, rather than be buried at Arlington as was his right, he requested his remains be cremated and spread over the English Channel across which he’d flown so many sorties in the name of liberty.
Of course, Truman, Oppenheimer, Tibbets, et. al. weren’t too concerned with environmental impact decades later (if they even knew to consider such, at all); theirs was an immediate concern - a shit-or-get-off-the-pot moment, if you’ll allow me to be vulgar about such a serious situation. Hindsight is never as easy as it seems. Was it the right call? I have no idea. Was there a better way? I can’t think of one, even so far removed from the moment. They made the best decision they felt could be made, with the information and resources they had at the time, when they still had time to make it.
In one final defense, thanks to their efforts, the last of the Purple Heart medals minted to meet casualty expectations for WWII (at least to my knowledge) has yet to find itself pinned on a bloodied young American’s chest, almost 80 years later.
Sometimes, beautiful flowers can only be preserved through the ugly act of pruning the blighted branch. Too much is easy and unnecessary, too little is never enough.
It was not cash given by Bibi to Hamas, it was Bibi's decision to allow cash payments from Qatar to Hamas to go through Israeli territory. Here is a fairly factual story from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qatar-hamas-funds-israel-backing-intl/index.html. The surface story is to buy Israel security by being nice to Hamas. Very well could be it was to buy Bibi political longevity.
Bibi is another Israel's tragedy. It is more complex and nuanced than Trump in the US. After all, unlike Trump, Bibi had real degrees from MIT, he served honorably in the military. At some point, he made a devil's bargain, while Trump was raised in a devil's bargain. Nevertheless, people who blame the entire Israel by association with Bibi forget that they are equally associated with Trump and should be blaming themselves. Interesting detail: the largest protest against Bibi had 10% of the country marching, while the largest protest against Trump had 2.3%.
Half of Israel hates him (and I do too), but he is very clever in using the political system to its advantage.
As for Nazi and Hamas equivalence, you should read couple articles in Newsweek from Hamza Bowidy, a regular guy from Gaza who tried to protest Hamas. Here is his interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8s5mF-DNmU&t=18s
Hamza does not talk about what Hamas does to gays, but it is not any better than what Nazis did to gays. Also, politically Hamas has all the intent to spread their ideology worldwide, they just don't have Germany's industrial power and prowess to implement it, but they are quite clever in their propaganda - look at how America's brightest students now chant "death to America" exactly in their vein and write "free Palestine = free world" on the walls in my city. It might work even better than German tanks. As someone raised in the USSR, I can easily imagine what their idea of permanent anti-capitalist revolution married to the fundamentalist Islam can bring to the world.
As for nukes and Japan, I myself have been on both sides of the argument. I know a lot about what nukes did to Japan, it was horrific and should never be done again. I thought many times that if there was an excuse for the first bomb, there was no excuse for the second one. But I have explanations why Truman made those decisions, knowing what a sacrifice allied soldiers had made by August 1945. Something that escapes American public is the fact that as per agreement with Stalin, on August 9 USSR was supposed to declare war on Japan and enter China. As someone who lived in the USSR, I can tell you first-hand that if Stalin gained even more power in August 1945, it would have been a much bigger catastrophe. I also know that we are judging those decisions from the perspective of our times, with our moral codes. Much like you, I am guilty of wrong-think, and I don't have a political home. I am a pacifist who can see how futile pacifism can be at times, I am all for equal rights and equal opportunities for all but who can see how impossible a real implementation of it can be without falling into the trap of government-controlled militant communism. Maybe this is why I am not a politician, just one person staring into the abyss of the modern world in despair.
I think Mountain Goat might be conflating Netanyahu’s efforts at appeasement with earlier (pre-Hamas and pre-Bibi) efforts by the Israeli military Governorate and the subsequent Civil Administration in Gaza to fund fundamentalist mosques in an effort to offset secular Arab efforts against Israel.
While Messrs. Trump and Netanyahu are not analogous, a large segment of public opinion holds both responsible for situations far outside their influence. This is, sadly, the reality of politics and, while I’m not suggesting either of the above is unworthy, it’s the reality that keeps many better men than Woodrow Wilson, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden from tossing their hats into the ring.
*Unless otherwise specified, the use of the male gender refers to both women and men.
Any better idea? I don't believe that the Palestinians can get much more radicalized than this. Already Hamas has an 80% popularity among the Palestinian population.
Denazification through war was very effective in the Nazi Germany, even though millions of innocent civilians died.
Over the decades Israel offered them several opportunities for the Palestinians to have their own state. They either rejected them or used it against Israel.
So many are saying that "this is not the way" but nobody could come up with a better way that actually works. I'm curious, what is your idea? What could work better?
In my opinion the only way to lasting peace would be if the West held the Palestinians accountable for not keeping their parts of the agreements and engaging in terror. So far Western politicians rarely do that. They hold Israel accountable, but never the Palestinians. They even reward terror by more appeasement. So the Palestinians think they can do anything without serious repercussions. This has to change first before any kind of peace negotiations and "path to a two state solution" can start.
What an intractable mess. In your opinion, is any of this created in part by the US war machine?
Is there a possibility that Israel goes too far (imagine dropping a nuke)?
I don't think US war machine is to be blamed for this. US could be blamed for reluctance in supporting Israel in early years. I think US was torn between oil interests (aka being cozy with the Saudis) and standing for the advancement of democracy.
I don't think it was created by the US, but definitely enabled and even encouraged, along with the whole Western world. The British are more guilty, they were more than happy to create chaos there between the Jews and the Arabs, as well as the Nazis who encouraged Arab antisemitism. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a good friend of Hitler.
Of course, Muslim antisemitism is really old, so they didn't need that much encouragement. At the end of the day, Arab imperialism is a thing that exists independently from how the Westerners poke around there.
As for a nuke, I don't think so, unless it's in a final, desperate moment when everything is lost. And probably not against the Palestinians, but against Iran or another similar enemy. But I really hope we will never get there. I don't know of any Israeli who would want that. We want to live, not all die in a nuclear war.
I don't think Israel considers use of nukes as a tool of war. It is there as a deterrent for the crazies like ayatollahs. Even for those who don't believe in Israel's good will, it is obvious that it is not in Israel's interest to use nukes, it is small enough to be destroyed with a single bomb. This is why ayatollahs are so bent on getting the nukes.
That
Thank you for the clarification. Can you give a more detailed definition of the political Zionism and how it differs from the basic principle that Jews had right to establish their state after the withdrawal of Ottoman and British empires?
Read Einat Wilf's books. Dan Senor's podcast, Call Me Back. Lots of good info!
So in short, for political Zionism it wouldn't be a big deal to pack up Israel and place it somewhere in South America for example because it's not a religious ideology with connection to that particular piece of land in the Levant. Which isn't the case if we view Zionism as an indigenous land back ideology.
Pick Texas!
Political Zionism started in the 19th century by a Hungarian Jew called Theodor Herzl. He was a completely assimilated, secular journalist who was present at the antisemitic show trial of Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army who was falsely accused of treason.
Herzl understood that if such an accomplished person can be treated this way, then Jews aren't going to be safe anywhere except their own country.
He decided to start a campaign for establishing a Jewish country. The location wasn't that important for him, he wasn't motivated by any type of religious or "land back"-type ideology, but since at that time Israel was a mostly uninhabitable, backwater part of the Ottoman Empire, it wasn't that hard to convince the rulers to allow Jewish settlement there.
This obviously changed as Jews started working the land, bringing prosperity and making more and more of the land fertile, but at that time Herzl never in his scariest nightmares would have imagined that this little piece of land would be so coveted. It felt safe to create a Jewish homeland there, and since it's already an important location for Jews, why not?
The subsequent ideologues of political Zionism were all secular socialists, even communists. They created the Kibbutz movement, which were originally communes where nobody owned anything. They have been mostly privatized by now, because communism doesn't work, but they were influential in creating the modern State.
These ideologues rejected religion and wanted to create a country that is exactly like every other country, not a religious entity.
The early State of Israel was mostly left wing and secular. They were often quite forceful in rejecting religious or conservative views, so from day 1 there has been a huge tension of the socialist ruling elite and more religious, conservative segments of society.
The reason Israel is becoming more right wing and religious is simply because they make more babies, so the demographic is shifting, but the old ruling elite isn't happy about it. This basically sums up all the protests of the last few years, pro and contra.
While Herzl may not of cared where the Jewish country was located, the present day location of Israel is approximately the same location as ancient Israel. "Going home" is a powerful calling card.
Just thought that needed to be added.
Yes, exactly.
I heard that when Israel was established in 1948, then president Veizman faced a question what to do with the religious orthodox Jews who refused to serve in the military. There were so few of them that he decided to just let them be. He was a chemist, not a demographer. Some of the tragedies of Israel, which are many, are that it is torn apart between secular and religion visions of itself, and that the liberal West which was all behind the creation of Israel turned against it and joined ranks with the most repressive and fundamentalist Islamist movements that figured out how to sell themselves as anti-colonialists.
Yes, something like this. He basically wanted to create a living museum out of them, something we can show our grandkids “you see, Jews used to live like that”. It didn't work out as well as he expected lol.
The country is absolutely torn between religion and secularism. The draft debate, for example, often resembles an estranged couple who has been arguing way too long about something and now they aren't willing to compromise anymore even though deep down they understand that the other one has a point.
Do hasidic Jews also call for the death to Zionists?
no! Most definitely not!! Most Hasidic Jews support Israel, many live in Israel and currently many are also joining the army. There is a tiny little sect of Hasidic Jews called Naturei Karta that are anti-Zionists. This is not the majority. Also, it would be wrong for Jews to call for the death of anyone, let alone other Jews.
I watched much "right wing" media leading up to Charlottesville, Gavin McGinnis in particular. Since I work in academia, I can testify to the anti-white-male discourse that fostered this march in Charlottesville.
The chant was supposed to be "You will not replace us."
There is plenty of evidence to support the concept of replacing white men with anyone else. Indeed, altering the chant to "Jews will not replace us" was a bridge too far, however I read this as a reference to Soros, not anti-semitism.
What's truly horrific about all of this is that telling people I was watching Gavin McGinnis, and sympathize to a certain extent with the grievance driving the Proud Boys, is met with an idiotic assumption that anyone who would even bother to hear what a primary source has to say must be a dreaded "nazi."
I'd argue that this constant nattering about "white men" is NAZI. It's exactly the kind of narrative going on in Germany about the Jews leading up to WWII.
And, as we know, these protests always seem to take it a bit too far.
Note that Joe Biden claimed "white supremacy is our nation's biggest threat." NO ONE SHOULD VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO SPEAKS LIKE THIS AS THE LEADER OF OUR NATION.
Biden is, in effect, promoting a form of Nazi-ism.
Many of the people I’ve met don’t even understand the concept of primary source let alone read it. Your position seeks nuance, something that escape the overly-emotional knee-jerk reaction types.
Where are the progressive voices here denouncing all this Jew hatred?? crickets...