Strategically, we are aligned, we are in agreement. Yes, a bi-/pluri- national successor democracy with equal rights for all people, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc, Arab, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Druze, etc. Indigenous, Migrant, Refugee, etc. Yes. With democracy and equal rights to all. With safety to all. A state and a society that would honour the Nakba AND the Holocaust.

Tactically, no. I am not denying Palestinians the right to armed resistance. I am denying them the right to cruelty. Killing, injuring, capturing soldiers in battle? That’s their right and god damn it I cheer them when they do it. Doing the same things to civilians? Fuck. No. I maintain the need for moral clarity in this shit that we are in. And that’s our difference: you are embracing a kind of pseudo-revolutionary nihilism that is willing to accept cruelty if it comes from the below. You pretend that is somehow “by all means necessary”, as if kidnapping kids is ever “necessary”. Fuck. No. Your politics is anti-political, it is a dead-end, there is no possibility for a future, just hatred and larping Malcolm X. You want an end to the violence? Good. Start acting like it.

Like I said before:

Go through my comment history buddy, you’re preaching to the choir.

Ending the occupation is the obvious solution. The occupation and the apartheid is the root of all this shit.

Here’s the catch for you though: ending the occupation is not realistic, it’s the most idealistic thing one could be asking for right now. Because the reality on the ground, created by decades of colonization is that it is simply politically impossible to extract about a million settlers from the West Bank. So “ending the occupation” is exactly the kind of idealism that I’m also pushing for (like “don’t take kids hostages”). Because if we are talking about a real liberation scenario, in the best case, we are talking about some kind of post-apartheid mess. Maybe some kind of civil war too.

So don’t you fucking run your mouth at me about history and human psychology. I’m tired of supposed hardcore know-it-alls. Hayde malaka.

You are so hardcore and knowledgeable of human history and psychology. So hardcore. Yea.

Look buddy. The world fucking sucks, right? People do horrible things. People are locked into doing horrible things. People are desperate, and brutalized and traumatized and beaten down. You can look at that and say, yea that’s how it is.

Or you can look at it and say We Should Do Better. You call that idealism? Good. In a world where reality is becoming more brutal by the hour, maybe a little idealism is what exactly we need.

If we are talking about combatants, sure. I would not flinch a moment. But civilians? Kids? Nah bro, don’t go there.

I don’t appreciate these “what else should they do” questions. I’ve been debating pro-zionist trolls for two years now and I no longer accept even their premise. I’m not going to turn around and apply it to Hamas.

The proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act give the government increased power over immigration documents in cases where public health or national security are at risk. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for students and temporary residents. The immigration changes would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada.

Not the kind of legislation I would want a Tory government to inherit (and hence “strengthen”).

The changes would also speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn.

And this kind of shit is straight up alarming.

Basically, at a time when the US is going full on fascist with respect to immigrants, I want Canada moving confidently in the opposite direction.

clutches pearls

Go through my comment history buddy, you’re preaching to the choir. The fact that the Israeli apartheid regime is committing genocide is one thing. The fact that Hamas should not have taken non-combatant hostages is another. And sorry but no, I refuse to identify Hamas with “the oppressed”. They are fanatics propped up by slave-owners in the Gulf and politically useful idiots of the Israeili apartheid regime.

I am using “should” in a moral sense, according to my own moral compass. I mean that according to my own morality they “should do the right thing”. Nothing beyond that.

That said, I agree with your analysis entirely.

Hamas should free the hostages. Frankly, they should have never taken non-combatant hostages in the first place. That was absolutely a crime.

The “concerns” are ridiculous. Anyone not involved in war crimes has absolutely nothing to fear.

Not all.

About 800,000 Germans were arrested during the war for actively resisting. That’s about 1% of the population arrested. And these were just the bravest ones. The less glorious ones are probably a bigger number.

That’s not to deny that a majority was supporting the Nazis. That’s to make the distinction between “most” and “all”.

Oh you so empathetic. I guess you can understand the Hamas attackers on October the 7th, too then? Right?

Yea that’s my point.

Punching a capitalist was a thing when capitalists were individuals. Nowadays, with the exception of the billionnairest of billionnaires, capitalists are mostly institutions.

In many countries, some of the biggest capitalists are pension funds. Should I go punch myself?

My understanding is that Israeli TV is hugely responsible for making this mainstream. Just like in Rwanda where radio played a huge role in the genocide.

It’s almost as if genocide scholars have been warning about a series of patterns over the last couple of years…

Not to be super technical but “most” is not the same as “all”.

As an atheist I don’t really have skin in the game, but unorganized religion can also be a racket. At least with organized religion there can exist some degree of accountability, whereas with new age quacks there is nothing.

Name one Christian denomination that doesn’t have a history of using scripture for political purposes.

I’m not saying misrepresenting because that’s an obvious sola scriptura protestant lens, that obviously doesn’t apply to non protestants.

Yes it is of German origin but so far back that it is basically at the root of European Enlightenment and it’s intellectual history brings together Germany and France, etc. So I wouldn’t say it is exclusive to the Nazis. As a word it has deeper roots in the European intellectual tradition.

The word “Semitic” was coined by German orientalist August Ludwig von Schlözer in 1781 to designate the Semitic group of languages—Aramaic, Arabic, Hebrew and others—allegedly spoken by the descendants of Biblical figure Shem, son of Noah. The origin of “antisemitic” terminologies is found in the responses of orientalist Moritz Steinschneider to the views of orientalist Ernest Renan. Historian Alex Bein writes: “The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his ‘anti-Semitic prejudices’ [i.e., his derogation of the “Semites” as a race].”

(quoting Wikipedia)