• CaractacusPotts@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The difference is that Israel is considered an occupying power and has responsibilities under international law as such.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        “The difference” is that Israel’s formal position is not the elimination of Palestinian Arabs. Zionism as we know it primary exists because of widespread genocidal attitudes towards Jews.

        I’m not defending Israel’s heavy hand here by any means. I am just tired of everyone on the internet feeling free to just ignore all the historical context wrapped up in this conflict.

        • CaractacusPotts@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Israel’s formal position is not the elimination of Palestinian Arabs.

          The UN has found credible evidence to the contrary

          https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/7/un-report-finds-israeli-occupation-root-cause-of-conflict

          Zionism was from the very beginning a settler colonial enterprise. Yes genocidal attitudes towards Jews may have been used to promote the idea, but the end goal was always possession of land.

          In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Turks] must, therefore, be persuaded and convinced that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves.

          https://digitalprojects.palestine-studies.org/resources/special-focus/zionist-settler-colonialism

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ll judge Israelis on the actions and words of their representatives and armes forces.

      Doesn’t seem that much different to this extremist.

      • abuttandahalf@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Majority held views among the population are in support of Gazan genocide and withholding all food from entering Gaza. The settler society at all levels understands its interests demand genocide.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is what one guy said. It is not representative, as a lone data point, of all Jews, all Israelis, or the Israeli government. If you have more data points, feel free to share them, but this one Rabbi’s statement doesn’t prove any generalisation.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Serious question - where would we see signs of broad Israeli opposition to the genocide? I know Netanyahu is unpopular, but I don’t think the genocide is a major factor in that unpopularity.

      • FatCrab@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Unfortunately, I don’t think you’ll find that as much anymore. One of understated but equally awful side effects of Hamas’ very successful pogrom is, in targeting who it did among the Israeli population, it pushed a lot of Israeli society currently in Israel hard right even beyond standard rally around the flag effects. The Israeli left and peace activist movement effectively died last year.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Whenever some Christians are engaging in hate, they avoid people condemning the whole religion thanks to Jesus’s very anti-hate teachings. Judaism doesnt have that. All of the Old Testament’s calls for violence against enemies stand without revision, and no sin is forgiven without sacrifice.

    • FatCrab@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yea, Judaism has no such thing as a deep and extensive set of rabbinical discourses that are as fundamental as the Torah. Really solid and thoughtful observation.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        With like 50 pages arguing about how much a woman is worth based on the state of the hymen. No one ever likes to mention what the Talmud has to say on the subject.

        Care to share with the people at home the argument about why the Talmud says you can’t marry on a Friday and the counter argument and the counter counter argument?

        • FatCrab@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Why? What in the world does your arbitrary cherry picked items have to do with the topic at hand? Are you trying to say that that is the entirety of talmudic discourse and that concepts of charity, stewardship, kindness, and growth are nowhere explored in the Talmud? I’m not saying there aren’t many troubling aspects to Jewish liturgical Tesoro tradition. What I am saying is that they’re about in par with any religion and shit like the OP posted is pretty fucking ignorant and dumb.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Care to share with the people at home the argument about why the Talmud says you can’t marry on a Friday and the counter argument and the counter counter argument?