Jewish Tunnels

[mikeymikec]

Wait, are people seriously trying to argue its not genocide just because Hamas attacked Israel in October?

I don't think so (at least, I haven't heard that one yet). Here we've had "Israel hasn't slaughtered enough civilians for it to be genocide because there's been a net population increase despite the slaughter", which I've also heard once on imgur since and someone responded talking about neo-nazis who wear t-shirts saying "6 million people wasn't enough".

 

[pmv]

Quite telling, as we hold a chunk of responsibility for that exact situation, but now we should just wash our hands of the misery we helped create. Israel was created post WWII when the victorious Western alliance wanted a solution to its Jewish problem - we didn't defeat Nazi Germany to save the Jews at all, and Jews were not so well liked in many Western countries. Israel was the solution to their 'nuisance' of a Jew problem along with western colonialism to create the state of Israel without giving a shit about the natives, the the US was quite complicit in all this as the largest Western power. After all nothing happened without our say so and support pretty much, certainly not the way Israel was created, and the US has always strongly been biased to the of the side of Israel, a main reason a better solution wasn't found earlier.

So your solution is, well, we helped create this monster, but now it is so bad, let's just gloss over and ignorer our culpability, just wash our hands clean and just say those groups are crazy, we did all we can, later.

You sound like a good western colonialist. I know you aren't, but in this case, you do a good impression.

I agree but it's still not an answer. The US and the former imperial powers of Europe all have a responsibility for creating this mess, but that doesn't mean we have any obvious answer to apply that won't make things worse.

I try not to have an opinion on it, because there's clearly both uncompromising hatred and victimhood on both sides.

But the one thing that does repeatedly tempt me to climb off the fence is the one-sidedness of the US attitude. A partisanship which seems to me to be motivated by the deep-rooted racism of US culture. Americans tend to side with those they see as most similar to the dominant racial and cultural group in the US.

US support for one side in a complicated situation is, I think, less about the power of any supposed "Jewish lobby" and is more about the simple fact that the US is a deeply racist society, so is never going to take the side of darker-skinned, poorer, and culturally different people.

 

[pmv]

I'm sorry, but what exactly is important about tunnels dug next to a synagogue in New York? The article doesn't even explain why they were dug. So what are we supposed to infer?

And wow man, your tone is something else today. See how many fucks, dickwads and assholes you can fit into your next reply. Or maybe you'll get more creative.

The one thing I'd quibble with about this thread is the title, which is rather clickbait-y. There's nothing intrinsically "Jewish" about the tunnel. It just happens to have been built by a faction of a sect that happen to be Jewish, and may have been built for reasons that have very little to do with religion as such. It's absolutely a valid news story, though.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

The one thing I'd quibble with about this thread is the title, which is rather clickbait-y. There's nothing intrinsically "Jewish" about the tunnel. It just happens to have been built by a faction of a sect that happen to be Jewish, and may have been built for reasons that have very little to do with religion as such. It's absolutely a valid news story, though.

See post 47.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The one thing I'd quibble with about this thread is the title, which is rather clickbait-y. There's nothing intrinsically "Jewish" about the tunnel. It just happens to have been built by a faction of a sect that happen to be Jewish, and may have been built for reasons that have very little to do with religion as such. It's absolutely a valid news story, though.

The tunnel was actually built by individuals for the purpose of religious worship in a religious establishment during a time when they were restricted from doing so. I'm not sure you could find a more religious intent if you tried.

 

[woolfe9998]

So it's a quibble over a single word? Is that really the most important concern? Haven't noticed you quibbling about the use of the same word with respect to Russia in Ukraine.

So, we're just "quibbling" over whether a nation is attempting "genocide" or not. Ah, OK. Didn't realize I was being such a nitpicker.

I don't think I've seen people using that over Ukraine, but I'm sure someone must have.

 

[Moonbeam]

The tunnel was actually built by individuals for the purpose of religious worship in a religious establishment during a time when they were restricted from doing so. I'm not sure you could find a more religious intent if you tried.

Yes, but what we are looking at here and what the OP did explicitly state by directing condemnation at fundamentalism generally even if the example was of a particular infamous NY Jewish sect, is this fascinating, to me, property of entitlement that adheres to it.

The tendency of people who practice an only religion, as most of them tend to become, tend also to be those most likely to believe they are plugged into a source of truth that is essentially divinely sanctioned and righteously far more morally proper than any other authority, and particularly secular authority that surrounds them.

As an aside, it is this particularity of habit, variable fron faith to faith, that generates negative stereotypes of minority groups by the larger community.

The point of all this that matters to me is not what here and there pups up in the news when this entitlement phenomenon manifest as some news producing event, but why this phenomenon exists in the first place. Yes, it is newsworthy in an ire provoking way, but I believe that an evolution or maturation of society needs more if that is to happed. The question for me is what produces the phenomenon of entitlement? Do I have it, do I really want to know, do I want to change? In a world full of self entitled fanatics how do I meet them head on. Should I?

 

[Moonbeam]

The one thing I'd quibble with about this thread is the title, which is rather clickbait-y. There's nothing intrinsically "Jewish" about the tunnel. It just happens to have been built by a faction of a sect that happen to be Jewish, and may have been built for reasons that have very little to do with religion as such. It's absolutely a valid news story, though.

Jut to quibble

-ish and -y

-ish and -y - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Moonbeam]

Not everyone sees no solutions:

Accused of Genocide, Israelis See Reversal of Reality. Palestinians See Justice.

Israel stands accused of committing genocide in Gaza. To Israelis, the charge is a perversion of history. But for Palestinians it creates a fleeting sense of historic justice.

web.archive.org

Everything is attitude and attitudes can change. Wisdom is born out of the realization that we are all the same, that we all share in the same kind of pain and wish for less not more of it for the other that he may wish the same.

 

[allisolm]

The tunnel was actually built by individuals for the purpose of religious worship in a religious establishment during a time when they were restricted from doing so. I'm not sure you could find a more religious intent if you tried.

Or
"Brooklyn synagogue tunneler says excavation was done to send message to ‘geezers’ to expand crowded holy site"

Kind of tarnishes that oh so religious intent.

Brooklyn synagogue tunneler says excavation was done to send message to ‘geezers’ to expand crowded holy site

A Hasid involved in digging a tunnel adjacent to the synagogue at the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement’s world headquarters said he was motivated to fix a crowding problem at the holy site.

nypost.com

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Or
"Brooklyn synagogue tunneler says excavation was done to send message to ‘geezers’ to expand crowded holy site"

Kind of tarnishes that oh so religious intent.

Brooklyn synagogue tunneler says excavation was done to send message to ‘geezers’ to expand crowded holy site

A Hasid involved in digging a tunnel adjacent to the synagogue at the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement’s world headquarters said he was motivated to fix a crowding problem at the holy site.

nypost.com

Don't get me wrong, they were in the wrong entirely no matter what their stated intent was. I was just countering @pmv's assertion that it wasn't religiously oriented, when all seems to point to the alternative.

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't get me wrong, they were in the wrong entirely no matter what their stated intent was. I was just countering @pmv's assertion that it wasn't religiously oriented, when all seems to point to the alternative.

Religious fanaticism is widely recognized by both secular and tolerant religious people to the point that we have adopted into our in our Western lexicon as a result, the notion of sacred cows and for the very reason that the Hindu religion is foreign and strangely unfamiliar and thus stands out. When it comes to our own kinds of sacred beliefs, they remain for many not so visibly obvious.

But having that term to use provides insights that most may be unwilling to admit, that the real source of fanaticism does not need a religion to manifest. I believe that what we are really dealing with is belief that is flattering to the ego, whether it be the sense that one is Gods chosen that you are a fan of the best baseball team. Fanaticism is the outward face, in my opinion, of a need to feel self important and the only reason that need is there is because the real source of self worth has been lost, substituted for by the artificial construct of ego. So the question I would ask is who is not infected with this disease. We know about the mote and the beam, or let those without sin cast the first stone, or that we are all said to be sinners, but the ego says different and because the ego is the armor of scars that prevents us from reliving our hurt consciously.

 

[dank69]

So, we're just "quibbling" over whether a nation is attempting "genocide" or not. Ah, OK. Didn't realize I was being such a nitpicker.

I don't think I've seen people using that over Ukraine, but I'm sure someone must have.

Uh, genocide has been used since the very early days of the Ukraine invasion. As soon as it became apparent that Russia wasn't going to be able to waltz to Kiev (you know, like the 3rd day of the invasion) their propaganda puppets started claiming that it would be necessary to genocide all Ukrainians. And that's just what the Russians admitted in public, not some anti-Russian exaggeration.

 

[woolfe9998]

Uh, genocide has been used since the very early days of the Ukraine invasion. As soon as it became apparent that Russia wasn't going to be able to waltz to Kiev (you know, like the 3rd day of the invasion) their propaganda puppets started claiming that it would be necessary to genocide all Ukrainians. And that's just what the Russians admitted in public, not some anti-Russian exaggeration.

I never said no one used it. I can't recall hearing it, but I assume it must be out there. Which doesn't really address my point, which is why are people saying this is genocide when the US started a war in Iraq, which was also in response to a really devastating terrorist attack, but did so on lies and false pretenses, resulting in the deaths of about 200K Muslim-Arab civilians. And while we had a better reason in Afghanistan, we stayed too long and ultimately killed 70K civilians there. People are decrying Israel for a "disproportionate response" but how many people did we lose in 9/11 compared to those figures? Also, how many of you even bothered to find out how many civilians we killed there? I bet those numbers are new to most people reading them, but everyone knows Hamas' current statement of how many Palestinians have been killed.

I think the word "genocide" has become politicized. It's more like a slur we use against nations we don't like. Pretty soon it's just not going to have any factual meaning anymore.

 

[woolfe9998]

Using this logic of inevitability, the fact that the slaughter on both sides must continue because it is the only possible course of action for Israel to take, that the Palestinians will have no state government that can outlaw Hamas and that Israelites will assassinate any who attempt pease on their side, how does that not justify all terrorism against the state of Israel from the other side? Clearly by the justifications for Israeli actions presented in these two posts, they become perfectly reasonable to make and to apply from the anti-Israeli side. We must accept endless slaughter until the tiny population of Israel eliminates Islam from the world or visa versa. Agent Smith was right…….inevitability. No One can free him or herself from the machine. Ozymandias knows best.

This is completely circular reasoning. You actually have to understand the history to break your circle.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

This thread is about tunnels, right?

There's another thread about the other topic?

 

[dank69]

I never said no one used it. I can't recall hearing it, but I assume it must be out there. Which doesn't really address my point, which is why are people saying this is genocide when the US started a war in Iraq, which was also in response to a really devastating terrorist attack, but did so on lies and false pretenses, resulting in the deaths of about 200K Muslim-Arab civilians. And while we had a better reason in Afghanistan, we stayed too long and ultimately killed 70K civilians there. People are decrying Israel for a "disproportionate response" but how many people did we lose in 9/11 compared to those figures? Also, how many of you even bothered to find out how many civilians we killed there? I bet those numbers are new to most people reading them, but everyone knows Hamas' current statement of how many Palestinians have been killed.

I think the word "genocide" has become politicized. It's more like a slur we use against nations we don't like. Pretty soon it's just not going to have any factual meaning anymore.

I am pretty sure there are videos going around or Israeli soldiers and politicians alike openly calling for genocide of Palestinians.

I suppose plenty of American right-wing nutjobs were openly calling for genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know of any American soldiers or politicians or mainstream news personalities doing so on camera though.

All I know is Israel is killing a LOT of kids right now and showing absolutely zero remorse for it. I condemned Afghanistan and Iraq invasions from the start, and condemn this action by Israel equally, but Israel's disregard for civilian life seems WAY more blatant/unapologetic.

 

[woolfe9998]

I am pretty sure there are videos going around or Israeli soldiers and politicians alike openly calling for genocide of Palestinians.

I suppose plenty of American right-wing nutjobs were openly calling for genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know of any American soldiers or politicians or mainstream news personalities doing so on camera though.

All I know is Israel is killing a LOT of kids right now and showing absolutely zero remorse for it. I condemned Afghanistan and Iraq invasions from the start, and condemn this action by Israel equally, but Israel's disregard for civilian life seems WAY more blatant/unapologetic.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're leaving out the incident that started this, just like all the people calling it a genocide are. People are extremely angry right now in Israel. And while some comments to the media are intemperate or even horrible, Israel's conduct here is consistent with a mission to destroy the organization who perpetrated the act and has recently vowed to continue doing so, and I haven't seen anyone calling this genocide offer a better solution. They seem to want Israel to do nothing at all, or even suddenly grant the Palestinians a state as a reward for killing 1200 people.

Bear in mind, many of these same people have been accusing Israel of genocide for 20+ years, ever since their first military responses to the suicide bombings that started in 2000. For them, any response of Israel to terrorism is too much. Any death is a "genocide."

Looking back on how the US handled 9/11, plenty of people criticized the administration for telling lies to justify the Iraq war. We were criticized also for being incompetent, and for Abu Graib. Strangely enough, civilian deaths have never been high on the list of points of interest relative to either that war or Afghanistan. Apparently people just assumed that in war there are going to he lots of civilian deaths. And while some activists and organizations took an interest in civilian casualties, it was never at the forefront of discussion or debate, at least not to my knowledge as someone who has been involved in such debates on 4 discussions boards for over 20 years. I can't honestly recall a single person making the proportionality argument, that we lost 3000 people on 9/11 and killed 270,000 civilians in response. And that BTW is only the number of people we killed directly. Some estimates put the number at 600,000+ in Iraq as consequential deaths, i.e. deaths from ISIS, etc.

I think there are people here who have, let's say, an inconsistent world view, where they think to apply the most strident labels to one country and never even think to do so for others, including their own. That inconsistency is a product of bias.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I am pretty sure there are videos going around or Israeli soldiers and politicians alike openly calling for genocide of Palestinians.

I suppose plenty of American right-wing nutjobs were openly calling for genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know of any American soldiers or politicians or mainstream news personalities doing so on camera though.

All I know is Israel is killing a LOT of kids right now and showing absolutely zero remorse for it. I condemned Afghanistan and Iraq invasions from the start, and condemn this action by Israel equally, but Israel's disregard for civilian life seems WAY more blatant/unapologetic.

-Yeah I think *intent* and *official government policy* are two major elements here, we can't just look at proportional numbers of people killed.

For all the fuck ups associated with the US invasions, I don't think anyone could reasonably accuse the US Government of wanting to wipe out the Afghan or Iraqi or Arab peoples. Yeah, we killed a lot of people and really in the grand scheme of things dead is dead is dead no matter the cause.

However there is definitely various Israeli politicians calling for the extermination or removal of the Palestinian people from Gaza, a history of settlers displacing Palestinians from the West Bank, and the military campaign waged by Israel has displaced Palestinians and depopulated large portions of Gaza.

It's not a smoking gun, but there is a lot of circumstancial evidence that doesn't exist for the US campaign against really any of our enemies post WW2 (although strong arguments can be made for genocide as a result of our documented policy of Indian removal etc).

 

[Moonbeam]

This is completely circular reasoning. You actually have to understand the history to break your circle.

The fact that it is circular reasoning is why you always come back to the fact that Israel is no different than any other nation would be in the same circumstance, but that in their case owing to the historical prevalence of antisemitism, Israel gets tagged with genocide whereas for other nations it's at best it gets called bad policy. A flaw in your analysis, in my opinion, is that if every antisemitic critic in the world called it genocide, if it's genocide its still genocide.

What I see in your thinking, again in my opinion, is the presence of siege mentality, you have so far not bothered to address, as well an the matter of thinking and feeling kinds of knowiing I feel it rather useless to address your arguments because I get no feed back on mine. Siege mentality is the product of history and no indights as to a different future can occur when one is myred down with an attachment one's self identity imbues with the self pity of victimization. It produces entitlement, like it's okk to kill civilians and children because a terrorist group is esconsed within them. Hamas thinks the same way. Terrorism is OK for them because they are victims. To understand history is to see it's the enemy that needs to be forgotten not milked for a sense of being special and entitled to fanaticism.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Dali Lama tell China they could have Tibet rather than go to war over it?

 

[woolfe9998]

The fact that it is circular reasoning is why you always come back to the fact that Israel is no different than any other nation would be in the same circumstance, but that in their case owing to the historical prevalence of antisemitism, Israel gets tagged with genocide whereas for other nations it's at best it gets called bad policy. A flaw in your analysis, in my opinion, is that if every antisemitic critic in the world called it genocide, if it's genocide its still genocide.

And the flaw in yours has to do with you not having the facts to support the notion that it is. But you're right, IF it was actually a genocide then it wouldn't matter how antisemitic the people are who are saying it are, which of course only matters if it actually is.

It's only after looking at the facts and seeing that they do not support the allegation, and further that the allegation is not made by the same people against other groups or countries even though the facts there suggest that the case for it has equal or more merit. That's how I arrive at the conclusion that a powerful bias is involved. Because applying a double standard always means a bias. Which in the case of the individual may or may not be antisemitism, but is a bias either way.

What I see in your thinking, again in my opinion, is the presence of siege mentality, you have so far not bothered to address, as well an the matter of thinking and feeling kinds of knowiing I feel it rather useless to address your arguments because I get no feed back on mine. Siege mentality is the product of history and no indights as to a different future can occur when one is myred down with an attachment one's self identity imbues with the self pity of victimization. It produces entitlement, like it's okk to kill civilians and children because a terrorist group is esconsed within them. Hamas thinks the same way. Terrorism is OK for them because they are victims. To understand history is to see it's the enemy that needs to be forgotten not milked for a sense of being special and entitled to fanaticism.

You can call it fanaticism if you like, but Israel isn't responding to terrorism differently than other nations have in the past, or will continue to in the future.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Dali Lama tell China they could have Tibet rather than go to war over it?

Yes that is very nice, turning the other cheek and saying sure, why don't you just take away my country. I can respect that kind of pacifism, but the Dalai Lama isn't a head of state who is deciding how to respond to terrorist acts. And it's not realistic to ever expect such a response. For one thing, any leader who has to worry about re-election has to worry about how well turning the other cheek after an attack like this is going to be perceived by an electorate who is going to be quite hostile toward those who perpetrated the attack.

Your thinking is quite aspirational, but isn't exactly feasible in the real world. I just don't think humans are as enlightened as you'd like them to be.

 

[woolfe9998]

-Yeah I think *intent* and *official government policy* are two major elements here, we can't just look at proportional numbers of people killed.

For all the fuck ups associated with the US invasions, I don't think anyone could reasonably accuse the US Government of wanting to wipe out the Afghan or Iraqi or Arab peoples. Yeah, we killed a lot of people and really in the grand scheme of things dead is dead is dead no matter the cause.

However there is definitely various Israeli politicians calling for the extermination or removal of the Palestinian people from Gaza, a history of settlers displacing Palestinians from the West Bank, and the military campaign waged by Israel has displaced Palestinians and depopulated large portions of Gaza.

It's not a smoking gun, but there is a lot of circumstancial evidence that doesn't exist for the US campaign against really any of our enemies post WW2 (although strong arguments can be made for genocide as a result of our documented policy of Indian removal etc).

More than fuck ups. Our government literally lied as justification for going to war in Iraq, and there's probably a million dead there who would be alive now had we not started a war under completely false pretenses.

You're right, number of deaths doesn't determine if something is a genocide. Intent does. So far as whether Israel has the intent that you are inferring here, I would point out that based on Palestinian population growth of 2.5% consistently since the early 90's, they added about 1.5 million population since the hot conflict started with Israel in 2000. Israel at his point has killed about 45,000 Palestinians during that 23 year period. That is less the one 30th of the number added by birthrate alone during that time, and even this year, which is by far the most Israel has killed, is about one-sixth of their expected pop growth. One would think that anyone having the intent you suggest would actually try to make a demographic dent in the targeted population. Or maybe they're just responding to attacks, in the same disproportionate manner that we've always responded to them.

It's not just that you have to reply on circumstantial evidence. It's that you also have to ignore facts on the ground which contradict the inference.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your thinking is quite aspirational, but isn't exactly feasible in the real world. I just don't think humans are as enlightened as you'd like them to be.

There is nothing aspirational about enlightenment as you put it. My experience was only made possible by the death of all hope, all aspirations if you will Neither by blood, nationality, religion am I anything. They all failed to save me from Nothing, the existential no exit that haunts us were you but aware of that feeling. All proved empty of value or meaning, all a wasted misplacement identity.

So it has nothing to do really as to what I desire because in the real world you claim to represent your way will lead to extinction and mine to the joy of being. That is just how it is. It only happens that I know it. The same will always become obvious who any who seek to know why they suffer.

May your needs to defend your position break on the rocks you face.

I am happy not to feel any need to defend a political system that bombs women and children in sufficiently small numbers that the term genocide can be argued not to apply. Hope some day you will join me. I still remember what hope was like.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

More than fuck ups. Our government literally lied as justification for going to war in Iraq, and there's probably a million dead there who would be alive now had we not started a war under completely false pretenses.

You're right, number of deaths doesn't determine if something is a genocide. Intent does. So far as whether Israel has the intent that you are inferring here, I would point out that based on Palestinian population growth of 2.5% consistently since the early 90's, they added about 1.5 million population since the hot conflict started with Israel in 2000. Israel at his point has killed about 45,000 Palestinians during that 23 year period. That is less the one 30th of the number added by birthrate alone during that time, and even this year, which is by far the most Israel has killed, is about one-sixth of their expected pop growth. One would think that anyone having the intent you suggest would actually try to make a demographic dent in the targeted population. Or maybe they're just responding to attacks, in the same disproportionate manner that we've always responded to them.

It's not just that you have to reply on circumstantial evidence. It's that you also have to ignore facts on the ground which contradict the inference.

-I don't understand the pop growth argument. Just cause you're fucking your way out of extinction doesn't mean someone isn't trying to exterminate you.

These five acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group

Three of the Five "acts of genocide" under the '48 accords pretty clearly and unambiguously apply to Palestinians. Any one of these could be defined as an act of genocide.

Genocide Convention - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[woolfe9998]

-I don't understand the pop growth argument. Just cause you're fucking your way out of extinction doesn't mean someone isn't trying to exterminate you.

These five acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group

Three of the Five "acts of genocide" under the '48 accords pretty clearly and unambiguously apply to Palestinians. Any one of these could be defined as an act of genocide.

Genocide Convention - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You really "don't understand" the point I was making? You know, where you argued that Israel had an intent to commit genocide based on reasons you gave, and I argued in response that a country wanting to commit genocide isn't going to be so bad at it that the target population is growing fast, faster in fact than the populations of most countries in this world. That argument is confusing you?

Well, I guess that was better than not replying at all, which is the typical response when I make any argument on this topic.

Regarding your link, I'll wait to see how the UN court rules on it, since the matter is pending. I will mention, however, that the UN has already rejected the accusation that our treatment of African Americans over hundreds of years of slavery and lynching was a genocide under that same standard.