As tensions and conflict arose between the well-funded Zionist collective growing in Palestine and the Palestinian forces who wanted the Zionist project out of Palestine, a new tone ended up showing up in Zionist literature. A noteable essay, 'The Iron Wall' by Ze'ev Jabotinsky communicates that shift fairly well.
Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.
Essentially Ze'ev concludes in his essay that the Zionist project will fail unless it takes on a fully colonialist design. This was also just after Winston Churchill prohibited Zionists from settling on the East side of the Jordan River in 1923.
These are mostly snippets of the whole history, but it is essentially the trajectory we've followed since, from what I've read.
I was thinking it probably means that "the only way for us to prevent Holocaust ever happening again is strong defence" not so much that "we need to roll tanks into Gaza" type of thing
But this is not what that quote is saying.... Do you think the person who the quote is from (who survived the holocaust - who btw died in 2016) would be okay wirh another genocide? The quote is about having the means to protect yourself, not to do whats been done to you....
Black and white thinking is what people do here in the comments. It's a good thing to have IDF tanks. If they didn't have tanks, every day would be October 7th.
The bad thing is what they do with these tanks. Tanks can be used as a force of defense. If the Ukraine had enough tanks, Russia would never have attacked. If Israeli tanks would not be used in a Genocide in Gaza, but for the protection of Israeli people, they would be a good thing.
I maintain it was John the Baptist, who was an Apocalyptic Jew, convincing The Christ that the Apocalypse was definitely going to happen within the next century or two. Despite the fact that Apocalyptic Jews has been expecting the end of the world for almost 3000 years at that point.
People expecting the world to end within their lifetimes, tend not to plan long term. Also the Zionists are doing their crap in the middle east trying to bring about the end times.
Not to agree with the other commenter leaping right to fallacies... I feel like I know how you meant it, but it's important to avoid dehumanizing people - yeah even repulsive war criminals and bigots.
Not to police phrasing in the middle of a genocide. It's just we sometimes have legit bigots or bad actors wading into these threads and trying to muddy the waters.
I didn't mean to dehumanize, I was talking about growth, both personal and collective, we are not human enough if we allow ourselves to be like this. We can do better.
Are you just conditioned to say that when you see the word true? This isn't a No True Scotsman scenario because the claim isn't that "all oppressed humans grow past a desire to become the oppressor" at all, it's saying that people that do are morally good. The post is about someone viewing the world as having oppressors and the oppressed and nothing in between (would rather have a symbol on a tank than a concentration camp prisoner's uniform). So saying "Growing out of that desire is true humanity." is describing what the commenter views as good traits for humans.
No True Scotsman fallacy is this,
All X do Y
I know someone who is X who doesn't do Y
They are not truly X.
It has to do with excluding people from a group. The commenter is clearly not trying to say people with this belief aren't humans, moreover they wouldn't have any need to do so because they're not trying to defend a point they made against someone pointing out some humans do that (because they never said it was a requisite for being a human).
I'll tell you what true humanity is. True humanity is genocide, slavery, rape, slaughter, and destruction. You can't say those traits aren't the true legacy of humanity upon this dying world. True humanity is killing itself in pursuit of worthless stacks of paper, harming countless innocents in the process. True humanity will go extinct from its greed and it won't be missed. Animal agriculture won't be missed. Coal mining won't be missed. Luxury megayachts won't be missed. Fox News won't be missed. True humanity is a blight upon this world and I would welcome its destruction if it were not for the innocent animals that will die in its wake.
And if you want true humanity to be anything different, then rise up and depose the leaders of humanity who are embodying true humanity.
I think you've confused imperialism for humanity. Its an insult to indigenous cultures that have lived for thousands of years in harmony with the environment to says "humans evil, no way around it". We havent always been a blight, and many people still arent. It does serve imperialism for you to belive that though. Everyone who gives up serves the opressors. I'm only bothering to comment because I used to think and say the same as you - ive since been exposed to different kinds of people and have realised this people-bad narrative is learned helplessness.
Thinking poorly of humanity doesn't make me a doomer, but believing your species is exceptional in spite of all the abuses your people have committed against the other inhabitants of this planet does make you a bigot. I didn't want to use personal labels because they make people resistant to change, but if you're taking us to this point then I have to say that believing in your race's exceptionalism while they're committing a holocaust against the animals is incredibly tone deaf and insensitive.
people often forget that “self defense” narratives like this was hitler’s excuse for institutionalizing antisemitism. he literally fed the flames of the racist narrative that jewish people were to blame for germany’s economic woes in order to get support.
like this isn’t godwins law this is literally what hitler did
pisses me off so bad when people are like “the jews and the muslims have been fighting for centuries 🥺” bitch NO ur thinking of the “christian” europeans
Jerome Chanes,[57] Pinson, Rosenblatt,[58] Mark R. Cohen, Norman Stillman, Uri Avnery, M. Klien, and Bernard Lewis all argue that antisemitism did not emerge in the Muslim world until modern times, because in their view, it was rare in pre-modern Islam.
emphasis mine, in comparison to
Antisemitic Christian rhetoric and the resulting antipathy towards Jews date back to early Christianity, resembling pagan anti-Jewish attitudes that were reinforced by the belief that Jews are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Christians imposed ever-increasing anti-Jewish measures over the ensuing centuries, including acts of ostracism, humiliation, expropriation, violence, and murder—measures which culminated in the Holocaust.[1]: 21 [2]: 169 [3] Antisemitism in Christianity
in sum, antisemitism in islam certainly exists, but the idea that it’s been always prevalent and some kind of eternal blood feud is easily dismissed, or at the very least must be understood to be fractional to the endemic and widespread nature of antisemitism in christianity.
Which Elohim made them do because the whole point of coming to earth as a human was to sacrifice himself to himself in a blood ritual and redeem all sins forever so everyone can go to heaven
To put the quotes into perspective: They are from Imre Kertész, a writer who lived through ww II. Some of his most famous works are detailing his experiences from the holocaust. Of course he'd say he is happier seeing the star of david on a tank than on his concentration camp uniform. That doesn't mean he'd agree with what Israel is doing currently.
I don't feel it fair to say things like "genocide or be genocided is a really bad mindset" after reading this quote, as this is clearly not about that. Its about having the means to protect yourself. I'm fairly certain there isnt any "lets genocide everyone else" behind it....
"Are those the only 2 options? Pretty bleak worldview.." Well what do you think, why wuld someone who survived a genocide think that having the means to protect themselves would be better than being genocided?
nah. sure, it might be called “understandable,” just as any cycle of violence has a predictable, “understandable” tendency to repeat. that doesn’t make it acceptable, though.
this quote isn’t from 1946. a quick search shows that israeli forces first used tanks extensively around 1973. this situates Kertész’s remarks not just in response to the Holocaust, but in the context of over two decades of the Nakba, displacement, destruction, occupation, and the early stages of apartheid against 1.4 million Palestinians.
i don’t see evidence that Kertész was a zealous zionist, but this quote—given the atrocity lurking behind the words—is definitely worthy of interrogation and critique. that kind of questioning is part of universal healing, understanding, and growth.
I mean... weapons can be built for self-defense. Obviously, genocide is what's happening here, not self-defense. But it's not like there couldn't be some alternate universe where ✡ on a tank is not inherently bad.
In Europe, however, the most prominent example of a religious symbol on a flag is the swastika. And Israel argued that it should be allowed into Eurovision because it's culturally European.
The swastika is also both a religious and cultural symbol. But after it got put on a nation's flag, it was deemed a hate symbol. So it will also be for the star of David, and Jewish culture will be all the poorer for the appropriation of their traditions by the zionists.
I think we can trust everyone involved to know exactly what the question meant and what the reply means.
If he would think in your categories he could have answered something like "I would be happy if it wouldn't be needed." Or reply back with "In which context?" or something.
He immediately jumped to making it "its either tanks or holocaust for us."
I guess I dislike this post because Zionists usually phrase Israeli's actions in terms of self-defense. So to people who are already anti-zionist, this post is interpretable; but to pro-zionists, it is at best nonsensical or at worst hateful. Either way -- it's polarizing.
Just seems like the way we should be not using social media.
I think, in western media at least, that the tank is rarely used as an image of defence. A tank’s artillery is not personal or protective, it obliterates its targets from a distance.
Its treads allow it to travel in terrain that has been decimated by war. The image of a tank ominously rolling over rubble and bodies in a war zone is contractually obliged to be in every war movie.
The heavy armour on a tank is perhaps its only ‘defensive’ trait, but it only exists to let the men inside blow things up for as long as possible.
It’s an all terrain cannon, and a country owning a fleet of them requires their neighbours to also invest in a fleet of them, just in case. This then causes their neighbours to invest in more tanks just to be extra ‘safe’
Jews lived mostly peaceful and Jewish communities were often thriving in Muslim majority countries. Things usually got bad when the "white European" Christians came, like during the crusades or the conquest of the Iberian peninsula. The same people whose descendants now want to blame their Antisemitism on Muslims and solve their Antisemitism by having "the Jews" live outside of their European home countries.
The Qur'an says Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all people of the book, and that they can all live in peace together. Muslims have generally not subjected Jews to the same persecution that Christians have.
Or in other words, just because white people are racist, doesn't mean brown people are too.
I might be wrong, but I think I remember something about Jews kind of being necessary for the economy. See, there's this little book called the Qur'an. And it says something about Muslims not being allowed to loan money with interest. So Jews loaned money when necessary. And they kind of became the financial people of the time. I remembered this from years ago, if I'm wrong, please correct me.
“The only way to not be exterminated is to exterminate”… chilling
"if we want to survive as a people, we must exterminate them, or else they will exterminate us"
a common excuse for genocide, as well as Literally Nazi Propaganda
Literally what the Nazis said, btw
Turns out fascism is the same no matter who’s perpetrating. :/
This is essentially the Zionist stance.
It started with a view that 'in order for Jews to escape persecution, an ethnostate for the Jewish faith must be established'. During this time it was still in contention within the movement on where Zion should be established, but it's also noteable that independant zionist groups were buying land in Palestine for establishing Zion at the same time. This was during the time that Palestinians (and Arabs within the Ottoman empire in general) were helping the British with destabilizing the Ottoman empire under the agreement that these resistance groups would be given their land back from the Ottomans.
Then the Balfour Declaration occurred in 1917 which promised British support in making Palestine a safehaven for Jews, and shortly after the promise of giving Palestinians their land was reevaluated.
As tensions and conflict arose between the well-funded Zionist collective growing in Palestine and the Palestinian forces who wanted the Zionist project out of Palestine, a new tone ended up showing up in Zionist literature. A noteable essay, 'The Iron Wall' by Ze'ev Jabotinsky communicates that shift fairly well.
Essentially Ze'ev concludes in his essay that the Zionist project will fail unless it takes on a fully colonialist design. This was also just after Winston Churchill prohibited Zionists from settling on the East side of the Jordan River in 1923.
These are mostly snippets of the whole history, but it is essentially the trajectory we've followed since, from what I've read.
Cycle of abuse mentality.
I was thinking it probably means that "the only way for us to prevent Holocaust ever happening again is strong defence" not so much that "we need to roll tanks into Gaza" type of thing
But this is not what that quote is saying.... Do you think the person who the quote is from (who survived the holocaust - who btw died in 2016) would be okay wirh another genocide? The quote is about having the means to protect yourself, not to do whats been done to you....
Black and white thinking hurts everybody, always.
Wait a minute...
Everybody, always. There's no other options, I swear!
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Obi Wan is a sith confirmed
sometimes a sith deals in generalities
Black and white thinking is what people do here in the comments. It's a good thing to have IDF tanks. If they didn't have tanks, every day would be October 7th.
The bad thing is what they do with these tanks. Tanks can be used as a force of defense. If the Ukraine had enough tanks, Russia would never have attacked. If Israeli tanks would not be used in a Genocide in Gaza, but for the protection of Israeli people, they would be a good thing.
If there wasn't an Apartheid in the first place, militant resistance to end the Apartheid wouldn't have happened
I'm glad we're all agreed that putting religious symbols on war machines is some weirdo theofash shit, Europe.
will always hold my hot take that Christianity’s greatest marketing-optics failure was that one time Constantine put the cross symbol on his shield
idk if he was the first one to hit that vibe but the trend it set off is one of humanity’s greatest blights
I maintain it was John the Baptist, who was an Apocalyptic Jew, convincing The Christ that the Apocalypse was definitely going to happen within the next century or two. Despite the fact that Apocalyptic Jews has been expecting the end of the world for almost 3000 years at that point.
To be fair to John the Baptist, Second Temple Judaism did end soon after, so maybe that might be worth some bonus points.
i don’t get how this is a bad thing tho.
john the baptist didn’t associate violence with his religion. that was the deeply important point i was making at least.
People expecting the world to end within their lifetimes, tend not to plan long term. Also the Zionists are doing their crap in the middle east trying to bring about the end times.
hmm okay so more of an indirect thing.
im not with you but i hear ya. :P
AfaIk, it wasn't the cross, but the PX symbol.
What a sweeter world that could have been…
It was both: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces
Thank you! Also, ist apparently XP, not PX.
I don't know if someone can at all be victorious when fighting under that sign.
Ask Bill Gates.
Agreed and it still amazes me how much of all of history is affected by something that small
We used to have swastikas on tanks. Now everyone hates swastikas. If they keep putting the star of David on tanks, people are gonna hate that one too
You don't have to be racist against Germans to hate the swastika. The same may soon apply to the Star of David.
Whoosh.
Oppressed often fantasizes with becoming the oppressor. Growing out of that desire is true humanity.
Not to agree with the other commenter leaping right to fallacies... I feel like I know how you meant it, but it's important to avoid dehumanizing people - yeah even repulsive war criminals and bigots.
Not to police phrasing in the middle of a genocide. It's just we sometimes have legit bigots or bad actors wading into these threads and trying to muddy the waters.
I didn't mean to dehumanize, I was talking about growth, both personal and collective, we are not human enough if we allow ourselves to be like this. We can do better.
This is how I understood it, but thank you for clarifying.
The zionist occupation predates the holocaust. And the "star of david" was a symbol that got famous for being a symbol for it.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
Oppressed here, had to grow out from my wanting to be the oppressor phase.
You've misunderstood why the No True Scotsman fallacy is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. The "No" part doesn't mean scotsmen don't exist.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Are you just conditioned to say that when you see the word true? This isn't a No True Scotsman scenario because the claim isn't that "all oppressed humans grow past a desire to become the oppressor" at all, it's saying that people that do are morally good. The post is about someone viewing the world as having oppressors and the oppressed and nothing in between (would rather have a symbol on a tank than a concentration camp prisoner's uniform). So saying "Growing out of that desire is true humanity." is describing what the commenter views as good traits for humans.
No True Scotsman fallacy is this,
It has to do with excluding people from a group. The commenter is clearly not trying to say people with this belief aren't humans, moreover they wouldn't have any need to do so because they're not trying to defend a point they made against someone pointing out some humans do that (because they never said it was a requisite for being a human).
I'll tell you what true humanity is. True humanity is genocide, slavery, rape, slaughter, and destruction. You can't say those traits aren't the true legacy of humanity upon this dying world. True humanity is killing itself in pursuit of worthless stacks of paper, harming countless innocents in the process. True humanity will go extinct from its greed and it won't be missed. Animal agriculture won't be missed. Coal mining won't be missed. Luxury megayachts won't be missed. Fox News won't be missed. True humanity is a blight upon this world and I would welcome its destruction if it were not for the innocent animals that will die in its wake.
And if you want true humanity to be anything different, then rise up and depose the leaders of humanity who are embodying true humanity.
I think you've confused imperialism for humanity. Its an insult to indigenous cultures that have lived for thousands of years in harmony with the environment to says "humans evil, no way around it". We havent always been a blight, and many people still arent. It does serve imperialism for you to belive that though. Everyone who gives up serves the opressors. I'm only bothering to comment because I used to think and say the same as you - ive since been exposed to different kinds of people and have realised this people-bad narrative is learned helplessness.
I didn't say no way around it, I only said humanity is dominated by evil.
Then tell them, not me.
Okay.
Hey @[email protected] true humanity is violence and oppression.
Ok doomer
Thinking poorly of humanity doesn't make me a doomer, but believing your species is exceptional in spite of all the abuses your people have committed against the other inhabitants of this planet does make you a bigot. I didn't want to use personal labels because they make people resistant to change, but if you're taking us to this point then I have to say that believing in your race's exceptionalism while they're committing a holocaust against the animals is incredibly tone deaf and insensitive.
IDK, but it shouldn't be "Genocide or be gencided".
If you are not getting genocided you are probably genociding right now!
It actually isn't.
defensive ethnic cleansing
people often forget that “self defense” narratives like this was hitler’s excuse for institutionalizing antisemitism. he literally fed the flames of the racist narrative that jewish people were to blame for germany’s economic woes in order to get support.
like this isn’t godwins law this is literally what hitler did
'Would you rather be a face being stomped by a boot or a boot stomping in a face'
I'd rather be neither though
I'd rather boot scoot and boogie
Muslims didn't do the holocaust. That was Romans. Romans have been persecuting Jews for so long it's the plot of the Bible.
pisses me off so bad when people are like “the jews and the muslims have been fighting for centuries 🥺” bitch NO ur thinking of the “christian” europeans
Lots of reading out there
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_Islam&action=edit§ion=25
yep
emphasis mine, in comparison to
in sum, antisemitism in islam certainly exists, but the idea that it’s been always prevalent and some kind of eternal blood feud is easily dismissed, or at the very least must be understood to be fractional to the endemic and widespread nature of antisemitism in christianity.
This is false. A lot of people have been oppressing people in the Bible.
Yeah but I'm talking about the main plot, where the Romans hung a Jewish prophet on a cross
At the request of Pharisees because he was rousing the rabble and cutting in on their action
Which Elohim made them do because the whole point of coming to earth as a human was to sacrifice himself to himself in a blood ritual and redeem all sins forever so everyone can go to heaven
Which further proves my point that it wasn't the fault of the Romans.
israel probably has concentration camp uniforms ready to go too so...
bs false dichotomy, as IDF are wearing that sign in the concentration camps they made to kill Palestinians.
"True safety lies in the extermination of others."
To put the quotes into perspective: They are from Imre Kertész, a writer who lived through ww II. Some of his most famous works are detailing his experiences from the holocaust. Of course he'd say he is happier seeing the star of david on a tank than on his concentration camp uniform. That doesn't mean he'd agree with what Israel is doing currently.
I don't feel it fair to say things like "genocide or be genocided is a really bad mindset" after reading this quote, as this is clearly not about that. Its about having the means to protect yourself. I'm fairly certain there isnt any "lets genocide everyone else" behind it....
"Are those the only 2 options? Pretty bleak worldview.." Well what do you think, why wuld someone who survived a genocide think that having the means to protect themselves would be better than being genocided?
nah. sure, it might be called “understandable,” just as any cycle of violence has a predictable, “understandable” tendency to repeat. that doesn’t make it acceptable, though.
this quote isn’t from 1946. a quick search shows that israeli forces first used tanks extensively around 1973. this situates Kertész’s remarks not just in response to the Holocaust, but in the context of over two decades of the Nakba, displacement, destruction, occupation, and the early stages of apartheid against 1.4 million Palestinians.
i don’t see evidence that Kertész was a zealous zionist, but this quote—given the atrocity lurking behind the words—is definitely worthy of interrogation and critique. that kind of questioning is part of universal healing, understanding, and growth.
Better than seeing it on the guard of the camp.
I mean... weapons can be built for self-defense. Obviously, genocide is what's happening here, not self-defense. But it's not like there couldn't be some alternate universe where ✡ on a tank is not inherently bad.
Kind of an odd post.
Even then, I think religious symbols being national symbols and therefore on national flags and tanks is inherently bad.
fair enough, but I'll point out that having a religious symbol on your national flag is basically par for the course in the middle east.
In Europe, however, the most prominent example of a religious symbol on a flag is the swastika. And Israel argued that it should be allowed into Eurovision because it's culturally European.
The davids star is both a religious and cultural symbol - and sticking those on flags is pretty normal.
The swastika is also both a religious and cultural symbol. But after it got put on a nation's flag, it was deemed a hate symbol. So it will also be for the star of David, and Jewish culture will be all the poorer for the appropriation of their traditions by the zionists.
I think we can trust everyone involved to know exactly what the question meant and what the reply means.
If he would think in your categories he could have answered something like "I would be happy if it wouldn't be needed." Or reply back with "In which context?" or something.
He immediately jumped to making it "its either tanks or holocaust for us."
I guess I dislike this post because Zionists usually phrase Israeli's actions in terms of self-defense. So to people who are already anti-zionist, this post is interpretable; but to pro-zionists, it is at best nonsensical or at worst hateful. Either way -- it's polarizing.
Just seems like the way we should be not using social media.
Fair point.
I think, in western media at least, that the tank is rarely used as an image of defence. A tank’s artillery is not personal or protective, it obliterates its targets from a distance. Its treads allow it to travel in terrain that has been decimated by war. The image of a tank ominously rolling over rubble and bodies in a war zone is contractually obliged to be in every war movie.
The heavy armour on a tank is perhaps its only ‘defensive’ trait, but it only exists to let the men inside blow things up for as long as possible.
It’s an all terrain cannon, and a country owning a fleet of them requires their neighbours to also invest in a fleet of them, just in case. This then causes their neighbours to invest in more tanks just to be extra ‘safe’
Unfortunately humans haven't evolved from vilifying other groups of humans. What a shitty species we’ve demonstrated ourselves to be.
Human only respect ultraviolence. That's why every country should have nuclear arms.
More people should get genocided. It let's you get away with anything
Yes, based on the history of Jews for several centuries. Either Jews are attacking or are under attack.
this is such a bad take i can’t even tell if you’re zionist or antisemitic
schrodingers bad take on the middle east
Or, let's consider this real quick, just don't.
So... just lay down and die then. That's a good message in advance of rosh hashanah.
dealing in such black and white absolutes you might as well be a sith 💀
Jews lived mostly peaceful and Jewish communities were often thriving in Muslim majority countries. Things usually got bad when the "white European" Christians came, like during the crusades or the conquest of the Iberian peninsula. The same people whose descendants now want to blame their Antisemitism on Muslims and solve their Antisemitism by having "the Jews" live outside of their European home countries.
The Qur'an says Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all people of the book, and that they can all live in peace together. Muslims have generally not subjected Jews to the same persecution that Christians have.
Or in other words, just because white people are racist, doesn't mean brown people are too.
Can't wait to see how people justify it when Israel attacks Indonesia.
Brown people aren't racist?
I didn't say that.
I might be wrong, but I think I remember something about Jews kind of being necessary for the economy. See, there's this little book called the Qur'an. And it says something about Muslims not being allowed to loan money with interest. So Jews loaned money when necessary. And they kind of became the financial people of the time. I remembered this from years ago, if I'm wrong, please correct me.