Yeah but can you separate Hamas from the struggle of people for liberation from imperialist oppression?
Can you?
People still can't imagine it yet, because "muh 911 never forget" but Islam isn't even the driving force behind this struggle, because that too is a political struggle for liberation from imperialist oppression. It's the religion or ideology that glues these people together as brothers and gives them the mental fortitude (or delusion) to pull this off. I say this as an atheist who isn't especially fond of Muslims. But they rightfully want the US empire out of their region, and the natural resources like oil working for the people, not the US (like it does in Iran, or it did in Venezuela before the recent economic warfare and plundering). Of course drone strike them enough and they become more and more extreme. A thousand 911s and "interventions" and psyops visited on the middle east will lead to some bad shit. Now they found an extremist for Syria that can be bought. Worst of both worlds. US Empire and Al-Qaeda, now inseparable lol.
So while you think this is progressive politics, this actually cuts pretty close to the kerfuffle about voting democrat or third party or not at all. Which is a psyop that those people are your enemies, not the plutocrats who buy votes in bulk. But even you ultra progressive slogans are pro US empire. Not even in your wildest dreams can you imagine a just world.
One tell that I think is obvious is the font. It's made to emulate being painted, but it obviously isn't (the artifacts on the first 'F' for example don't make sense for a brush, and many others). I would think maybe it's printed using a font that's supposed to look painted, but the letters are unique (each 'K' in "KKK" is totally different), so it isn't a print. That leaves either generative AI, a weird digital edit that manually did things incorrectly, or a very slim chance that it's real with a strange artistic choice. AI seems the most likely by far.
How totalitarian of you. Assuming stewardship of how people are allowed to express themselves politically and creatively. You must be like the enlightened block warden of the super duper ethical state of extra liberty. And who cares about truth anymore anyway when you can cut society into tiny pieces and shit hate all day.
I don't like this simplification. It doesn't provide the same thought. They seem like independent statements, where the OP implies they're equivalent to each other. A Christian could see this and agree with the KKK part, but then not apply the same logic to the other groups.
but the original sign is so long it's not going to be read. maybe we could co-opt "all lives matter" and make that a caption to the three closely-related statements?
All of the moderate/liberal Jews/Christians/Muslims provide a veneer of respectability for their monstrous Abrahamic faiths, a mask.
However, the Tanakh/Bible/Koran are all fundamentally fundamentalist. All three frequently take delight in the murder of others, all three provide justification for a horrifying amount of violence and injustice, and, most importantly, all three teach their followers that they are morally, spiritually, and intellectually superior to non-believers.
They will always produce the same fanatical acts from their fundamentalist followers who are inspired by their Holy books and do as directed by God (including Zionism, Al-Qaeda, and the KKK).
They can't be eliminated, unfortunately (fundies love martyrs). But... the least we could do is tax them. As it is now, we (everyone else) are funding faiths that despise us all, these religions that say that we are all shit should not be supported in any way.
I mean, can you separate those things? Like I'm not saying all Christians are KKK or anything of the sort, but there seems to be a common thread among religious extremism, and that's faith in the divine authority to justify any act of violence or malice.
Any Abrahamist who is progressive and liberal has to ignore large swaths of the religious scripture and do mental gymnastics to justify why their moral compass goes against what their religion says. If a person seriously believes everything the Book (doesn’t matter which one) says than they are by definition a fundamentalist.
Are you implying that you think implementing the regional order that ended nearly 80 years ago (like it or dont) is a legit solution for the problems we see/have?
I know that israels actions are (recently progressing) expansionistic but zionism is not the word that describes this. And using the word for other things than what it means is highly problematic.
On whatever side you stand in a conflict, accepting the un resolutions from 1948 or not, fighting for an geographical order that nearly noone alive remembers will lead to nothing but bloodshed.
At some point you need to just accept borders as they are, nearly no border was ever created or changed right- or peaceful. That doesnt mean we cant stop fighing after winning or losing a war. The same of course also applies to israel. of course its hard to define borders from.what time you want to accept (thats a diplomatic question and unfortunatly one of military power) but 80 years ago is defintily an insane timespan. The most stupid thing to fight for ist the conflict somones great-grandfsthers had.
Your words betray the fact that you have done no research on the subject before deciding to speak on it.
This isn’t merely about reclaiming land that was stolen (though what the fuck is wrong with that). Israel is an apartheid state. Palestinians are treated as subhumans, on their own land.
Even if we ignore the genocide that is currently in motion, the conditions of Palestinian treatment under Israeli rule is not tenable in the least, and has never been tenable.
Yes, and Europeans fairly acquired the Americas in the late 1400’s and defended it via war multiple times. They were repeatedly attacked for the next couple hundred years.
Interesting question, i should have made this clear in my original comment. Ill answer later when im free. Also im very interested in understanding your opinion, its very hard to learn something about or discuss this topic, both sides are deeply entrenched and emotionally loaded (which is understandable)
Yeah, I should have also asked in my first response to you. I instead focused on your assertion as to how Palestinians should or should not proceed currently. But it’s important to define our terms.
I’d like to start with your understanding of Zionism and how it relates to this post, to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you further.
i hope i dont need walls of text but ill try to explain myself:
The vague idea of zionism goes back to middle ages, largely connected to conpersecution of the jews, but the word zionism in the context of the modern state israel came up in 19th century as reaction to the ongoing and rising antisemitism in europe, later peaking in the mass murder (mostly industrialized) of 6 million jews by the nazis an their supporters until 1945.
When great britain was overwhelmed with the ongoing conflicts between arabs and jews in palestine, they gave the mandate to the UNO. The partition of palestine into an arab and a jewish state was then decided upon by a large majority of UNO members states 1947 (the arab states surrounding except of jordania were already members at this time, but voted against). Shortly after the partition, the surrounding arab states attacked israel, israel won. The UNO organized an armistice agreement between israel and the surrounding states at the green line (new borders from 1949). This was the first and last expansion of the israeli borders, the UNO-States accepted with majority. Every expansion after that was condemned by UNO (as far as i know), also of course israels recent action in gaza.
The word zionism is used for the support of the foundation of a jewish secular state (not specified where or in which borders) in the direct context of conpersecution of jews. If you talk about the expansions after 1949 in political, historical or social studies, you usually dont use the word "zionism" or if you do, you call it "neo zionism" in the context of fundamentalistic jewish settlements.
The first thing is, if you use the word zionism in a series of KKK and Al-Qaeda, i find that highly problematic, if you support the foundation of a jewish state or not.
My second opinion is, that a movement, that supports anti-zionism or uses slogans like "from the river to the sea" is also problematic (also both if you support israels foundation in palestine or not, if you support it in the borders of 1947, 1949, or whatsoever), because at some point, especially if a long time has passed (in the case of anti-zionism around 80 years) you need to accept borders as they were kept after an armistice agreement. If this was under rightful circumstances or not. history is not fair, no or nearly no nation was new established peace- or rightful. The best we can do in modern times is to respect international law (this also applies to israel of course) and dont fight over borders that established a long time ago. an the best international instrument we have (i know its not perfect in many ways and its power is very limited) to solve those conflicts without a bloodshed is UNO. I take your example from your other post about native americans:
i think we both agree, that the conquest (and many other things) of native americans by europeans were not rightful. Was it right to fight at these times for your freedom as native american? i think yes. was it advisable? i dont think so because of the massive military inequality. i get the concept of guerrilla warfare, but thats another topic. but the important question is: does it make sence, as a native american in the year 2026 to terrorize or fight or to reclaim national sovereignty from south to north america? i dont think so. Its a complicate question when to go back to accept a border, but doing it without any military chance, even with irans support (except of the possibility to terrorize civilians) is insane and leads to a bloodshed. this bloodshed of course also happens to civilians or those, who didnt decide to fight a guerrilla war against the supressors. i dont want to victim blame the massacre in palestine by israels government and its supporters and many violent settlers, also i dont want to blame the israeli victims from october 7th.
So of course its not my moral right to decide, if and how palestinians fight when they are invaded as long as its compatible with international law, but fighting for the reclaim of land that was taken when noone now fighting was alive (what in my understanding anti-zionism is about) is catastrophic. if every border, expanded unlawful in the last 100 years was fought, the world was one (i say it again) bloodshed. i know that in our actual word borders matter, but what matters more is the people inside those borders. And an anti-zionist movement is not helping at all, not in theory and not in practice. It will not solve the border problem, the settler problem, or the arab minority in israel problem. and especially its not helping ending the war or the terrorism (both sides say the other sides warfare is terrorism).
Anyway of course i support the end of the fascist israeli government or the bloodshed in palestine. israel highly depends on western financial and military support, so as a westerner, i guess this is the most easily accessible pressure point that I have to push israels politics back into international law and to strive to grant full sovereignty and state recognition to the remaining palestinian territories. A hungry or mutilated child doesnt care, if it lives under israeli or palestinian state law in peace.
Offtopic: What happend to Auth's comment? Deleting contrary opinions will lead to a circle jerk and both sides cant learn from each other.
46 replies
Yeah but can you separate Hamas from the struggle of people for liberation from imperialist oppression?
Can you?
People still can't imagine it yet, because "muh 911 never forget" but Islam isn't even the driving force behind this struggle, because that too is a political struggle for liberation from imperialist oppression. It's the religion or ideology that glues these people together as brothers and gives them the mental fortitude (or delusion) to pull this off. I say this as an atheist who isn't especially fond of Muslims. But they rightfully want the US empire out of their region, and the natural resources like oil working for the people, not the US (like it does in Iran, or it did in Venezuela before the recent economic warfare and plundering). Of course drone strike them enough and they become more and more extreme. A thousand 911s and "interventions" and psyops visited on the middle east will lead to some bad shit. Now they found an extremist for Syria that can be bought. Worst of both worlds. US Empire and Al-Qaeda, now inseparable lol.
So while you think this is progressive politics, this actually cuts pretty close to the kerfuffle about voting democrat or third party or not at all. Which is a psyop that those people are your enemies, not the plutocrats who buy votes in bulk. But even you ultra progressive slogans are pro US empire. Not even in your wildest dreams can you imagine a just world.
Good sentiment. But...
Just so you know, pjmv made that with AI, they be trolling like that
I'd appreciate if people would add some explanation to calling it out.
I think I can see it now, but it would be better if I wouldn't need it to be pointed out to me.
One tell that I think is obvious is the font. It's made to emulate being painted, but it obviously isn't (the artifacts on the first 'F' for example don't make sense for a brush, and many others). I would think maybe it's printed using a font that's supposed to look painted, but the letters are unique (each 'K' in "KKK" is totally different), so it isn't a print. That leaves either generative AI, a weird digital edit that manually did things incorrectly, or a very slim chance that it's real with a strange artistic choice. AI seems the most likely by far.
Thanks. Now that you say it, the sign does look like it had the text photoshopped in.
Fair. I replied to NickwithaC's comment about this, if you want to see some of the giveaways.
How can you tell?
Lighting, font, cityscape, human orientation counter to his in a protest, lack of many other signs, generation artifacts, etc.
The easiest is the sign border jumps at his left hand
Additionally the folds on his t-shirt and the way the printed text is bending don't make sense.
How totalitarian of you. Assuming stewardship of how people are allowed to express themselves politically and creatively. You must be like the enlightened block warden of the super duper ethical state of extra liberty. And who cares about truth anymore anyway when you can cut society into tiny pieces and shit hate all day.
GenAI is never justifiable. There is no moral ground to stand on justifying it.
Agree with the sentiment but this is slop.
Sure, but I think I’ll make that sign and use it anyways, because the statement itself goes pretty fucking hard.
i want to see this too! i'll suggest the following simplification
I don't like this simplification. It doesn't provide the same thought. They seem like independent statements, where the OP implies they're equivalent to each other. A Christian could see this and agree with the KKK part, but then not apply the same logic to the other groups.
but the original sign is so long it's not going to be read. maybe we could co-opt "all lives matter" and make that a caption to the three closely-related statements?
It does. If you make it you should post it, too!
It does not go hard. It's rather depressing.
Why?
True and the KKK was never separated from Christians.
slop
Better to have fascism than ai. Right magat?
"ai" money funds fascism lol
The circle of life apparently.
I don't think this is real.
It’s probably imagegen, yeah, but the statement is absolutely valid and on-point, to the extend that I want to use it on a sign at a protest
No.
All of the moderate/liberal Jews/Christians/Muslims provide a veneer of respectability for their monstrous Abrahamic faiths, a mask.
However, the Tanakh/Bible/Koran are all fundamentally fundamentalist. All three frequently take delight in the murder of others, all three provide justification for a horrifying amount of violence and injustice, and, most importantly, all three teach their followers that they are morally, spiritually, and intellectually superior to non-believers.
They will always produce the same fanatical acts from their fundamentalist followers who are inspired by their Holy books and do as directed by God (including Zionism, Al-Qaeda, and the KKK).
They can't be eliminated, unfortunately (fundies love martyrs). But... the least we could do is tax them. As it is now, we (everyone else) are funding faiths that despise us all, these religions that say that we are all shit should not be supported in any way.
Yawn
The Nazis were also Christian.
But the KKK still isn't recognised as a terror org, interesting.
I mean, can you separate those things? Like I'm not saying all Christians are KKK or anything of the sort, but there seems to be a common thread among religious extremism, and that's faith in the divine authority to justify any act of violence or malice.
Any Abrahamist who is progressive and liberal has to ignore large swaths of the religious scripture and do mental gymnastics to justify why their moral compass goes against what their religion says. If a person seriously believes everything the Book (doesn’t matter which one) says than they are by definition a fundamentalist.
so... that's a no.
Its easier to just ban religions, all of them. They serve no purpose other than evil shit. Since its all make believe, all of it, its not even real.
Just ban the crap already and resolve half the world's problems
Well, I don’t think any of those things can be separated.
Are you implying that you think implementing the regional order that ended nearly 80 years ago (like it or dont) is a legit solution for the problems we see/have? I know that israels actions are (recently progressing) expansionistic but zionism is not the word that describes this. And using the word for other things than what it means is highly problematic. On whatever side you stand in a conflict, accepting the un resolutions from 1948 or not, fighting for an geographical order that nearly noone alive remembers will lead to nothing but bloodshed. At some point you need to just accept borders as they are, nearly no border was ever created or changed right- or peaceful. That doesnt mean we cant stop fighing after winning or losing a war. The same of course also applies to israel. of course its hard to define borders from.what time you want to accept (thats a diplomatic question and unfortunatly one of military power) but 80 years ago is defintily an insane timespan. The most stupid thing to fight for ist the conflict somones great-grandfsthers had.
Your words betray the fact that you have done no research on the subject before deciding to speak on it.
This isn’t merely about reclaiming land that was stolen (though what the fuck is wrong with that). Israel is an apartheid state. Palestinians are treated as subhumans, on their own land.
Even if we ignore the genocide that is currently in motion, the conditions of Palestinian treatment under Israeli rule is not tenable in the least, and has never been tenable.
Yes, and Europeans fairly acquired the Americas in the late 1400’s and defended it via war multiple times. They were repeatedly attacked for the next couple hundred years.
/s
Im not denying that im criticizing the usage of the word zionism in this context
What established definition of Zionism are you operating off of, and how do you think that this post contradicts that definition?
Interesting question, i should have made this clear in my original comment. Ill answer later when im free. Also im very interested in understanding your opinion, its very hard to learn something about or discuss this topic, both sides are deeply entrenched and emotionally loaded (which is understandable)
Yeah, I should have also asked in my first response to you. I instead focused on your assertion as to how Palestinians should or should not proceed currently. But it’s important to define our terms.
I’d like to start with your understanding of Zionism and how it relates to this post, to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you further.
i hope i dont need walls of text but ill try to explain myself:
The vague idea of zionism goes back to middle ages, largely connected to conpersecution of the jews, but the word zionism in the context of the modern state israel came up in 19th century as reaction to the ongoing and rising antisemitism in europe, later peaking in the mass murder (mostly industrialized) of 6 million jews by the nazis an their supporters until 1945. When great britain was overwhelmed with the ongoing conflicts between arabs and jews in palestine, they gave the mandate to the UNO. The partition of palestine into an arab and a jewish state was then decided upon by a large majority of UNO members states 1947 (the arab states surrounding except of jordania were already members at this time, but voted against). Shortly after the partition, the surrounding arab states attacked israel, israel won. The UNO organized an armistice agreement between israel and the surrounding states at the green line (new borders from 1949). This was the first and last expansion of the israeli borders, the UNO-States accepted with majority. Every expansion after that was condemned by UNO (as far as i know), also of course israels recent action in gaza.
The word zionism is used for the support of the foundation of a jewish secular state (not specified where or in which borders) in the direct context of conpersecution of jews. If you talk about the expansions after 1949 in political, historical or social studies, you usually dont use the word "zionism" or if you do, you call it "neo zionism" in the context of fundamentalistic jewish settlements.
The first thing is, if you use the word zionism in a series of KKK and Al-Qaeda, i find that highly problematic, if you support the foundation of a jewish state or not.
My second opinion is, that a movement, that supports anti-zionism or uses slogans like "from the river to the sea" is also problematic (also both if you support israels foundation in palestine or not, if you support it in the borders of 1947, 1949, or whatsoever), because at some point, especially if a long time has passed (in the case of anti-zionism around 80 years) you need to accept borders as they were kept after an armistice agreement. If this was under rightful circumstances or not. history is not fair, no or nearly no nation was new established peace- or rightful. The best we can do in modern times is to respect international law (this also applies to israel of course) and dont fight over borders that established a long time ago. an the best international instrument we have (i know its not perfect in many ways and its power is very limited) to solve those conflicts without a bloodshed is UNO. I take your example from your other post about native americans: i think we both agree, that the conquest (and many other things) of native americans by europeans were not rightful. Was it right to fight at these times for your freedom as native american? i think yes. was it advisable? i dont think so because of the massive military inequality. i get the concept of guerrilla warfare, but thats another topic. but the important question is: does it make sence, as a native american in the year 2026 to terrorize or fight or to reclaim national sovereignty from south to north america? i dont think so. Its a complicate question when to go back to accept a border, but doing it without any military chance, even with irans support (except of the possibility to terrorize civilians) is insane and leads to a bloodshed. this bloodshed of course also happens to civilians or those, who didnt decide to fight a guerrilla war against the supressors. i dont want to victim blame the massacre in palestine by israels government and its supporters and many violent settlers, also i dont want to blame the israeli victims from october 7th. So of course its not my moral right to decide, if and how palestinians fight when they are invaded as long as its compatible with international law, but fighting for the reclaim of land that was taken when noone now fighting was alive (what in my understanding anti-zionism is about) is catastrophic. if every border, expanded unlawful in the last 100 years was fought, the world was one (i say it again) bloodshed. i know that in our actual word borders matter, but what matters more is the people inside those borders. And an anti-zionist movement is not helping at all, not in theory and not in practice. It will not solve the border problem, the settler problem, or the arab minority in israel problem. and especially its not helping ending the war or the terrorism (both sides say the other sides warfare is terrorism). Anyway of course i support the end of the fascist israeli government or the bloodshed in palestine. israel highly depends on western financial and military support, so as a westerner, i guess this is the most easily accessible pressure point that I have to push israels politics back into international law and to strive to grant full sovereignty and state recognition to the remaining palestinian territories. A hungry or mutilated child doesnt care, if it lives under israeli or palestinian state law in peace.
Offtopic: What happend to Auth's comment? Deleting contrary opinions will lead to a circle jerk and both sides cant learn from each other.