Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

The most likely goal we're aware of was to disrupt the normalization talks that were going on between israel and some other nations, with a side goal of the usual thing of provoking wildly disproportionate retaliation against the gaza civilian population, and probably at least partially to try to draw the IDF away from supporting the murderous settlers on the west bank.

The brutality the 10/7 attack involved was, to all appearances, significantly due to how little resistance hamas encountered; without that, it might have ended up largely just a hostage exchange sort of situation (this is your reminder israel holds several hundred/thousand palestinians in detention, many of them for political reasons rather than anything reasonably called criminal) rather than literally nakba mk 2. Unfortunately, the IDF had prioritized giving cover to lynchings over defending the border they shared with hamas, and here we are

The first 2 have, to all appearances, worked, incidentally. The third... sorta'. It did, but the settlers ramped up the murder and displacement efforts even with less military support, so it didn't exactly help the situation in the west bank much.

[Strongpoint]

Though I'm not sure what Hamas intended goal was kidnapping a bunch of people, murdering a bunch of people and then killing (some) of the kidnapped people.

If you take into account that Hamas gives 0 Fs to the well-being of Palestinian people, it becomes easier to understand the goals

Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, pan-Arabic religious extremists. Muslim Brotherhood doesn't even believe in a separate Palestinian nation (or any separate Arab nations) their goal was and is an Arabic Islamic Caliphate and all those talks about free Palestine are political tactics. They want to ignite a new huge Arab-Israeli war and finally throw Jews into the Sea. As said above - the major part of the motivation of the attack is to disrupt diplomatic normalization between Israel and Arab States.

Luckily, we don't live in the 1960s and countries like Egypt have around zero interest in a new war with Israel. Note that we don't even see major pro-Palestinian protests in the Arab World. They are there, but they are lesser in scale than European or North American.

[feelotraveller]

BTW, are the guys who chanted "Gas the Jews" and "Fuck the Jews" in Sydney around a month ago behind bars already?

Unknown people can't be charged.  NSW Police established Strike Force Mealing to investigate offences at the protests (and counter-protests) including this one.  Images of the offenders were widely circulated, like national news widely.  Maybe they have identified them and the process is underway or maybe not. But charges will be forthcoming if they confidently identify them.  (The images were very low resolution and pixelated but presumably the best to be had.  Pity the press didn't do a better job of like actually documenting the issue rather than propagandising it.)

One man was charged after the next protest for chanting anti-semitic drivel, and 3 people from the initial protest are facing assault charges regarding a scuffle that happened on the margins of the protest.  In both cases these people were tracked down subsequent to the protests.

Or did they do it to pressure the Australian government to lobby for a ceasefire, too?

So much hostile nonsense and for what?  Pretty sure antisemites want anything but a ceasefire.

[Bumber]

Pretty sure antisemites want anything but a ceasefire.

No, no, they want Israel to ceasefire. Hamas can keep launching rockets, resupply, and plan more attacks. Israel has the Iron Dome to protect them, after all.

[feelotraveller]

No, no, they want Israel to ceasefire. Hamas can keep launching rockets, resupply, and plan more attacks. Israel has the Iron Dome to protect them, after all.

Nice play on words.   

No one has been calling for a unilateral ceasefire, it has always been posited as mutual.  Beyond that many antisemites are also antimuslim and are happy to see both parties suffering from hostilities.

[martinuzz]

The Arabs are semites as well.

[scriver]

The most likely goal we're aware of was to disrupt the normalization talks that were going on between israel and some other nations, with a side goal of the usual thing of provoking wildly disproportionate retaliation against the gaza civilian population, and probably at least partially to try to draw the IDF away from supporting the murderous settlers on the west bank.

The brutality the 10/7 attack involved was, to all appearances, significantly due to how little resistance hamas encountered; without that, it might have ended up largely just a hostage exchange sort of situation (this is your reminder israel holds several hundred/thousand palestinians in detention, many of them for political reasons rather than anything reasonably called criminal) rather than literally nakba mk 2. Unfortunately, the IDF had prioritized giving cover to lynchings over defending the border they shared with hamas, and here we are

The first 2 have, to all appearances, worked, incidentally. The third... sorta'. It did, but the settlers ramped up the murder and displacement efforts even with less military support, so it didn't exactly help the situation in the west bank much.

I'm very conspiracy theoretical about the timing and Netanyahus popularity. But I'm not sure if I should let myself think people would go so far, it sounds too out there

[Great Order]

The Arabs are semites as well.

Well, Western antisemitism is usually not against semitic peoples and more about one specific semitic people. Specifically the one that's been victim of antisemitism for about as long as they've existed. The rest generally fall under the guise of islamophobia, where anything vaguely Middle-Eastern (Muslim or not) is attacked as a bunch of terrorists.

Out of curiosity, is anyone able to enlighten me as to why anti-Jewish sentiments have been so prevalent throughout Western history? Some's going to be coming up with reasons to seize assets of rich Jewish people (Due to religious ideas on ursury) and them being an "other", but I can't imagine that's the whole thing else we'd have likely seen other groups attacked to a similar degree.

[hector13]

Matthew 25.27 (or 27.25) is a big one in terms of it from Christians, certainly. It’s basically something along the lines of the Jews collectively taking responsibility for killing Jesus, and that following them through the generations. It’s also referred to as the blood curse.

Which is an utterly ridiculous take, but one that lasted many years. One of the recent popes issues a bull or something absolving then of responsibility, I think.

[Frumple]

Out of curiosity, is anyone able to enlighten me as to why anti-Jewish sentiments have been so prevalent throughout Western history? Some's going to be coming up with reasons to seize assets of rich Jewish people (Due to religious ideas on ursury) and them being an "other", but I can't imagine that's the whole thing else we'd have likely seen other groups attacked to a similar degree.

The specifics are... more than I can actually remember and would take far more effort than I care to put in to do well... but iirc it was substantially due to a few things coming together. The big ones I can recall are the effects jewish practice and inheritance had on (not) integrating with local populations mixed with old laws limiting what occupations jews (minorities of various stripes in general) could get involved with. Basically came together to make a perpetual "other", and the stuff related to the ethno-religious practice made it somewhat unusual relative to other oppressed groups.

We absolutely have seen other groups attacked to similar degrees, though. Roma are a slur on the lips of europeans to this day, and were slaughtered right alongside the jews during the holocaust, just as one example. Jews just get more proverbial screen time for reasons varied, not the least of which is not having actually been wiped out. There's other traditionally targetted minorities in human history that weren't so resilient

[Strongpoint]

The Arabs are semites as well.

I am rather tired of this take. It is not how languages work. Words mutate and two words with the same root can have very different meanings.

Antisemitism started meaning what it means when Wilhelm Marr used this term to describe his political views of the need to oppose Jews who "are destroying German society". When he founded the Antisemiten-Liga he certainly didn't mean Jews and Arabs.

Besides, "Semites" is a pseudo-scientific classification anyway.

No one has been calling for a unilateral ceasefire, it has always been posited as mutual.  Beyond that many antisemites are also antimuslim and are happy to see both parties suffering from hostilities.

Well, then there should be an equal amount of anti-Hamas and anti-Israel* slogans because Hamas is certainly no less aggressive and they openly announced that they plan to continue their attacks and it was them who broke the last ceasefire.  Instead, we see pro-Hamas stuff among the protesters (admittedly - not that much. But it is there)


*actually it should be either Anti-Hamas and anti-Likud or Anti-Gazan and anti-Israel depending on your willingness to separate leadership and country. And yes, I separate Gaza and Palestine because those are linked but different political entities

[hector13]

The Arabs are semites as well.

I am rather tired of this take. It is not how languages work. Words mutate and two words with the same root can have very different meanings.

Yet a phrase used by different groups must hold the same meaning regardless of intent and context.

You are full of contradictions.

[Strongpoint]

The Arabs are semites as well.

I am rather tired of this take. It is not how languages work. Words mutate and two words with the same root can have very different meanings.

Yet a phrase used by different groups must hold the same meaning regardless of intent and context.

You are full of contradictions.

You have me so confused. Again.

-  Words with same\simmilar root don't always mean the same thing
-  This certain phrase has an established meaning and one can't pretend that it doesn't.

How do those statements contradict each other?

[hector13]

The Arabs are semites as well.

I am rather tired of this take. It is not how languages work. Words mutate and two words with the same root can have very different meanings.

Yet a phrase used by different groups must hold the same meaning regardless of intent and context.

You are full of contradictions.

You have me so confused. Again.

-  Words with same\simmilar root don't always mean the same thing
-  This certain phrase has an established meaning and one can't pretend that it doesn't.

How do those statements contradict each other?

You understand that language is a dynamic living thing that changes over time (or, put another way, context) but simultaneously hold the idea that certain bits of language have to remain static regardless of context.

Like… the word cunt was used in street names centuries ago but these days is considered a very offensive thing to say (geographically contextual I suppose since it can be used relatively benignly in certain places), or the word damn was considered hugely offensive decades ago (to the point it was very controversial to be in the movie Gone With The Wind) but these days you’d be unconcerned to hear a child utter it in frustration.

Similarly, “Semite”, regardless of the credibility of the science behind it, was once used in the manner martinuzz used it, now that meaning is obsolete.

Like yeah, chanting “from the river to the sea etc” probably isn’t going to make Israel think twice (because in their context it is a frightening thing) but to paint hundreds of thousands of otherwise peaceful protesters as anti-semites because of it is a ridiculous position to take.

I just don’t know how you can take two mutually exclusive ideas and consider them both true.

[Strongpoint]

If you say "John is an antisemite" it doesn't mean that John hates\dislikes\opposes both Jews and Arabs because it is not an established current meaning of this word. You actually said that John dislikes\hates\opposes Jews.

If you say "From the river to the sea..." it doesn't mean that you said that you want peace between Jews and Palestinians because it is not an established current meaning of the phrase. You actually said that the Jewish state of Israel must be destroyed and replaced by the Arabic state of Palestine.

In both cases, I am against pretending that the established meaning of the word\phrase doesn't exist.