Right—my point is that my coworker (like the previously-mentioned Baptist) was implying that Catholics were distinct from Christians, in spite of being Catholic herself.
I was raised Catholic and the distinction was always made between Catholics and Christians. I didn’t really understand that Catholics were a subtype of Christians until someone pointed it out to me when I was a teenager - I just thought Christians was a catch-all term for non-Catholics that believed in jesus.
What country were you raised in? I was raised Catholic in the Philippines and in the US and it was made explicitly clear in my education that Catholics are Christian.
I’m from Ohio and there is a massive Catholic community in my hometown and “Christian” as a term was always used as a throwaway term for the various non-denominational evangelical sects.
Catholics and Protestants do not get along, even today. When I went to college and people thought I grew up Catholic, they would try to “convert” me away from “ancestor worship and idolatry.”
To be fair, it isnt; but then neither is Evangelicism or Mormonism or any of these other wackadoo cults within which these assholes conflate their hatred and fear with faith.
What makes Catholicism fake Christianity in your view? Any faith that believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God that died for the sins of humankind meets the threshold, imo. The Catholic Church fits comfortably within that definition.
That is an institutional failing of the Catholic Church, it was never endorsed as a part of the Church’s dogma. While I would encourage any Catholic to ask themselves if they really should continue to support an organization that hasn’t done even close to enough to reckon with their many sins over the past two millennia, I still think it’s silly to act like they’re not Christian.
the only difference between the priests and pastures is the "born again" churches do not have a central structure to follow up on it so they are all just one offs.
There’s a ton of it in protestant churches too. The national Baptist church is under federal investigation for it right now. The US has always had an easier time hating Catholics.
If I were being charitable I’d label these heretical creeds as Paulity. They have very little to do with the words and deeds of Christ, or living up to them, and far more to do with how Saul of Tarsus interpreted them.
You may recall the Catholic Church was born out of the first Nicaean Council, where they canonized the four gospels that best reinforced the idea of the supremacy of the Roman state, and burned the hundreds of other so-called “gnostic” gospels, which (judging by the content of the few that survived) far better encapsulate what I would consider “real Christianity”.
That said, the whole “No True Scotsman” fallacy really isn’t worth pursuing. It’s been this way since 325 CE, and there really is no painting a happy face on one of the most destructive and inhumane ideologies history has to offer. No matter what my opinion may be, you are correct in pointing out that the Paulity is the institution that is currently regarded as “Real Christianity”, as sick and anti-Christian as it may be.
You may recall the Catholic Church was born out of the first Nicaean Council, where they canonized the four gospels that best reinforced the idea of the supremacy of the Roman state, and burned the hundreds of other so-called “gnostic” gospels, which (judging by the content of the few that survived) far better encapsulate what I would consider “real Christianity”.
I believe you are mistaken. That was next big council. The 27 books were finalized by a man who attended the Nicaean Council. When he got back he wrote a letter stating which books he considered to be canon.
Conservative Protestants have been saying that for a very long time though. The attitude is so pervasive that my wife, who grew up Catholic (but has not been one for decades), has to be reminded that Catholics are Christians.
It’s hard to imagine now , but Catholics were not considered Christians and it was ok to openly discriminate against them. I know of people fired for that. People still try and convert me to ‘Christianity’ and claim all sorts of stuff.
There a whole YouTube channel by some ex fox host called church militant… It’s all about hating gays and lesser religions. They talk shit about the Pope all the time.
It’s like everything in America is just power struggles, selfishness, greed, and crime. There’s no God or respect for life here. The “good guys” don’t even go after the “bad guys” because the bad guys are ahead now. People are so naive here they think heartless crimes are not happening when it’s right under their nose. Sometimes the good guys even get used in the plot. Just look at all the old politicians and Americans that got roped in Rogers stones mob puppeting of Trump. America had a mob affiliate for president. I think that puts in stone… Americas bullshit. It’s going to take decades to get trust and genuine patriotism back.
American Catholics have largely voted Democrat for much of the last century. This flip-flop to voting Republican is relatively recent.
It seems to me to be a bit of a religio-coup. Bishops have some autonomy, and Priests some as well. It’s become increasingly common that both are in opposition to Rome on certain behaviors related to politics, and exactly how strongly they should be pushing people to vote and for what reasons. The dehumanization of Biden (publicly refusing him Eucharist) for his nuanced pro-choice views is in direct contradiction of papal behavior going back at least to the turn of the 20th century. Telling people that in voting, any sin is forgivable except being pro-choice… well, there’s no basis in Canon Law for that attitude.
I live in a very Catholic area, and have a lot of Catholic family. Talking to them, they mention their priests say “you can vote for either party, as long as they’re pro-life”. The Abortion issue is not the only or greatest issue to Rome. It is AN issue, but disagreeing with the Church is generally not going to earn their full enmity unless you are preaching your disagreement. Biden (the target of that local church smear campaign) is absolutely not preaching pro-choice to anyone.
Pope Francis is right to be saying that because American Catholic Leadership has gone WAY astray from what Catholicism allows or mandates of them.
It sounds like they’ve already been doing that according to this article.
Many conservatives have blasted Francis’ emphasis instead on social justice issues such as the environment and the poor, while also branding as heretical his opening to letting divorced and civilly remarried Catholics receive the sacraments.
Conservatives are mostly christian, but if they aren’t catholic the pope has little sway over what they do. And they love dissing catholics so yes they will more than they have been already.
If you have a throwaway email to see comments on the Newsmax site, it is Catholics and whatnot saying the Pope isn’t the real part of the religion anymore.
No, but there are tons of people who believe something is moral as long as it’s legal, and even more people who believe something being illegal makes it inherently immoral.
I am afraid you have this very straight :/ I am so sick of our corporate-fascist world order. Big corporations are basically the worst dictator you can imagine, but with money dedicated to a PR department.
/me does that unusual thing of actually reading the article … ah, here we go “Protestors physically blocked oil tankers in the harbour… When the protestors were ordered to move to allow vehicles to pass, Greta was among those who refused. She was then dragged away by police.”
So she wasn’t peacefully protesting, which by the way IS legal in most places; she was being obstructive, somewhat like those Just Stop Oil muppets who glue themselves to roads. It’s fine to protest. It’s not fine to prevent others from living their lives, and that’s why she was prosecuted.
Yeah, imagine a 2D graph with axes going from legal to illegal, and legitimate to illegitimate.
Some things are legal although they are illegitimate (like ‘Destroying the planet’), and others are illegal although they are legitimate (like some forms of civil disobedience or sabotage).
In an ideal world the two are aligned, but ours is not ideal. Also worth noting legal-illegal is rather objective, while legitimate-illegitimate is rather subjective.
I found Thoreau interesting on the topic, who commented being jailed for withholding taxes to not support the war: “The bars are meant to separate bad from good people”.
Those were the days, B&W pictures of coked-up anorexic Calvin Klein jeans models shot topless from the back with maybe a bit of sideboob depending on where they put their arm.
I don’t see how it’s worse than other kinds of advertisment. We are spammed by ads everywhere. What difference does it make whether it’s an OnlyFans or a car you will never buy?
Pedophilia is a mental condition, much like homosexuality. They don’t choose to be one, they know it’s wrong. I bet there are plenty of closeted pedos (i.e. don’t act on their urges and trying to lead normal lives). The only difference is that homosexuality occurs between consenting adults, and doesn’t hurt anyone except for the sensibilities of some righteous pious {profanity}, while pedos hurt innocent children, which is fucked up.
tl;dr some pedos are (very) bad for acting on their sexual preferences, they aren’t bad for having them. Taking this conclusion a bit further - making child porn is obviously abhorrent and one of the most heinous crimes I can imagine along with rape and murder, but watching these movies once they are made without profiting the perpetrators, isn’t so morally depraved. Especially if it keeps the urge to rape a child at bay.
Modern psychology says they shouldn’t be consuming those videos, it mentally normalizes to t. They need total abstinence, possibly removal from any source of any temptation, and if need be chemical or physical suppression of their desires.
Additionally homosexuality is a normal variant on human attraction, the full equal to heterosexuality not just culturally but in the eyes of psychology. Pedophilia is now understood to be a deviation in psychosexual development.
Additionally spreading csam in right wing extremist communities isn’t necessarily an expression of desire but at times is done to trauma bond members
And finally the feelings of the victims must be considered. It cannot be safely or reasonably assumed that any significant portion of people would be comfortable with people passing around and masturbating to their childhood sexual exploitation.
There is no safe or healthy outlet for those desires.
It was not long ago that homosexuality was also categorized as deviation in psycho-sexual development. The American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1952. In 1968, DSM-II also listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM. Pedophilia is in the DSM just, as opposed to Homosexuality, because it could possibly cause harm to others - that’s the sole distinction.
There were no big studies regarding the effects of consuming child porn, but the little there is seems to suggest it does not exacerbate the condition, or lead to higher probability of a physical offense: bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/…/1471-244X-9-43
Moreover, child pornography seems to be a protective factor, according to Diamond, Jozifkova and Weis (2010). They examined the number of sexual offenses that took place in Czechoslovakia from the 70’s till the end of 2007. At the end of 1989 the velvet revolution took place; the Czech Republic became a democracy and the prohibition of pornography was lifted. During the next 17 years child pornography was accepted. Initially one would expect that the number of sexually abused children would increase, but Diamond and his colleagues concluded the opposite. During the same 17 years, they found a decrease in the number of cases of sexual abused children. Also in Japan and Denmark child sexual abuse decreased in the period when child pornography was not prohibited.
In fact, there’s a suggested investigation for treatment utilizing virtual child porn.
True. But at least the Nazi leanings are depressingly common in the German police. And they do get away with a lot of if shit, even if it’s not anywhere near as bad as in the US.
Ok, you know different cops “over here”. In Hannover they’re mostly on the simple side, more spoons in the knife drawer, candles in a lamp shop. No boookz, more harassing homeless folks or kicking teenagers. Educa-what? All in all - despicable group of people. That’s not an opinion, that’s an observation over decades btw. So - it fits and doesn’t surprise at all.
All the research I’m doing right now points to them just wanting their hostages back. Can anyone post evidence of citizens protesting the war on the grounds of genocide?
I just don’t see the humanity here… I want to see it, but I can’t find any evidence at all that they are against the actual atrocities being committed. If there is a huge vocal outcry for this, then their media (and/or ours) is doing overtime to hide it.
I’ve seen a couple and they were mostly Zionists defending the genocide. So far, they haven’t reflected well on their state, but if there’s anyone who actually doesn’t like the atrocities committed by Israel in Israel, I’d be curious to see if they exist here. The only one I’ve seen in articles is that one who sent to jail instead of participate in the IDF.
No, but I could see the misunderstanding. When I said “here”, I meant on Lemmy. I was just commenting on the people from Israel I’ve met so far on Lemmy. And how I also would love to see some more varied opinions from Israelis here on Lemmy, because the few I’ve run into were pretty pro-genocide.
I’ll start off by saying this turned out to be a VERY long post. I did my best to condense the absolutely necessary parts, and I still feel I’ve left a lot of important stuff out. Anyway, hopefully anyone who’s interested in the situation and reads this will be able to gain some insight.
The thing is, you guys are looking at the situation in Israel from your perspective without understanding the factors at play. To actually understand the situation among Jewish Israelis (who I’ll refer to as “Israelis” for simplicity’s sake) requires a thorough explanation about Israeli culture, politics and some history.
Saying “I don’t see any signs against genocide, that must mean all Israelis are pro-genocide” forces your perspective on the situation, like saying (in very broad terms) “I didn’t see any signs that talk about ‘all life matters’ in the BLM protests, that must mean they only value black lives”, so imaging that, but instead of an American saying it, it’s some dude in Thailand who has very little understanding of the racial situation on the US.
So, let’s go:
Right now, the country is pretty divided among supporters of the current government and those opposed to it. While the government has a 53% majority in the parliament, it really never had more than 50% supporters among the population (Firstly, some left wing parties didn’t get enough votes to get into parliament. Also, right after the elections the Likud government adopted a plan proposed by the religious far-right party that would, in essence, transform Israel into a Hungry-like hybrid regime which made many liberal Likud supporters oppose the government). The opposition grew stronger after Oct. 7th, though the government still has the support of (mainly) the far right, the ultra-orthodox religious parties and the Israeli version of Trump supporters who mainly want to “own the libs”. There are weekly polls that check how many people support the current government and Netanyahu is using every trick in the book to increase support among the public because his coalition is extremely fragile.
However, regarding the war in Gaza, there is a consensus that’s shared among a very large majority of the population from both sides:
The Israeli hostages must be returned. I cannot overstate how important this is. Firstly, Israel is a tiny country, quite communal and most Israelis have large families. The hostages aren’t “citizens”, “people” or even “fellow Jews”. They’re “The niece of my dentist”, “My ex’s uncle”, “The daughter of friends of my colleague” etc. Nearly Every Israeli knows someone who knows someone who’s been kidnapped. Secondly, one of the founding ethos of Israel is to have a safe place for Jews that’s free of persecution no matter what. The Oct. 7th massacre is seen not only as a tragedy, but as the state not performing one of its core functions to some extent. Lastly, redemption of prisoners is a major commandment in the Jewish faith. This is the main point on all virtually ALL Israelis can agree upon (Let me stress that again - the agreement isn’t that the hostages “should” be returned, but that they MUST be returned. That’s important for later).
Hamas must be destroyed. If they’re allowed to exist, this will happen again (There is, however, disagreement on how best can Israel vanquish Hamas).
These two objectives are seen among many (not sure if most) as contradictory - Hamas is using the hostages to force an Israeli retreat from Gaza, and the only way they will release all of the hostages is if that secures their rule in Gaza. This is also important to remember for later.
What Israel is doing in Gaza is somewhere between unfortunate and tragic, but it’s absolutely not genocide, rather a result of Hamas integrating itself into civilian infrastructure and hiding behind civilians (again, this is the mainstream opinion, not something agreed by ALL Israelis).
I, personally, subscribe to the first two points, do not believe they are contradictory and while I believe the IDF isn’t nearly as cautious about harming civilians in Gaza as it should be and that not allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza is immoral, both things do not constitute genocide.
Those numbed three points are in the Israeli consensus, but we have one more crucial piece of context before I get to the demonstrations - There are two groups of Israelis who do not believe the 1st and 2nd points are contradictory. Each belongs to opposing ends of the political spectrum - in the right there are those who think military pressure is the only way to, somehow, secure the release of the hostages. The other group is left leaning, and it believes that withdrawing from Gaza for the release of the hostages and building a civilian opposition against Hamas Will solve the issue in the long run. They also believe the current government doesn’t really want to get rid of Hamas, rather they want to make sure Hamas will remain the only Palestinian ruler in the strip, so the government has an excuse to continue the current treatment of Palestinians (both as individuals and as a people). The first group thrives on extremism and sowing division (and if this reminds you of a certain US political party and a US politician in particular, you are absolutely on the money), and the second group is trying to build on a consensus, and make room for liberal right leaning people in order to gain influence (the opposition is actually composed of two liberal right wing parties).
Oh, wait, just one other thing - There’s a joke that goes: A Jewish man is stranded on an island for 20 years. He is finally rescued, and the rescuers see the life he built for himself. Among all the things they see, there are two synagogues. They ask the man “you were on this Island alone. Why do you need two synagogues for?” The man looks lovingly at the first synagogue and says “Well, this is the synagogue where I prayed every day for someone to come and rescue me, and this” he says while looking disdainfully at the second synagogue “is the synagogue where I wouldn’t be caught dead in”. Point is, Jews and Israeli Jews in particular, love to argue and have disagreements. Think The Life of Brian’s The People’s Front of Judea and Judean People’s Front. So when I say “there are two groups”, it’s more like “there are about 1,000 groups that can be broadly divided in two camps”.
You’d think this leads to a society that’s fractured on many levels so that it can’t really operate, but Israelis are also very good at putting differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal.
So, finally, about the protests - as you may have guessed, the people who are protesting belong to the second camp. And yes, many of them think what’s happening in Gaza is wrong. But remember the whole “putting our differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal” and the “The hostages must be returned”? That’s the strategy in a nutshell. The protesters are trying to use the single most agreed upon goal, and build a consensus for a deal from there. That’s the reason you won’t see anything about Gazans in the protests. Going outside the consensus gives the far right more ammunition to paint the protesters as traitors and to rally the moderate right against them. The push for a deal NOW (the main rally cry) will cease virtually all IDF operations in Gaza anyway, so in some of the protesters’ minds (mine included), protesting against the IDF while correct in a vacuum actually goes against that very cause. Now, I don’t really know US history that well, but think what would happen if the Vietnam anti-war movement made room for more conservatives on the grounds that the war is harming the US. Maybe Nixon’s “law and order” campaign would have failed and he’d have lost the elections. I might be talking out of my ass here, but even if I’m wrong I hope this at least gives a better understanding about the strategy used by the protesters in Israel - they’re saying “You don’t have to join us because you’re a hippie peacenik. You have to join us because that’s what’s best for our country”.
I’d like to stress that the protesters are NOT hiding their opinions. They just want to make as much room for other supporters. Some people are willing to protest for a cease-fire if that means getting the hostages back, but would not be willing to protest alongside a sign that says “The IDF is killing innocent people”.
So that was about the situation in Israel. If you came this far, I hope you found the read worth your time. Now I’d like to ask for a bit more of your time in return.
I have a question for the people who are protesting against Israel to stop the “genocide” unconditionally (or those who are in support of said protests), but are not protesting against Hamas to release the hostages unconditionally (or those who see no need for these protests) - I assume you don’t agree with Hamas’s actions on Oct. 7th, but obviously you don’t believe these actions justify what Israel is doing in harming innocent people (BTW, most Israelis would agree. If you don’t understand how this can be, refer to the 3rd point stated previously).
I’d like to ask why does this logic not work the other way around? If what Israel is doing is reprehensible regardless of anything Hamas has done previously and should be opposed, then surely what Hamas has done is also reprehensible regardless of what Israel has done previously and should be opposed. Is it just a matter of numbers, so there’s a “minimum casualty” that justifies protests, and below that the victims are SOL?
Not saying that’s the case, but that’s what I was able to come up with. Maybe I’m missing some context.
And before you say that’s just whataboutism - I don’t think it is. Both things are a part of the same situation, so I think this is more a case of a cop seeing two cars driving on the road at night and stopping only one of them (where the driver happens to be black).
Thank you so much for this thoughtful response. I’ve read it several times, and I may have to respond to it in pieces (I’ve actually had to paste it into a word doc to follow along). I may be updating my response in edits. I’m going to be trying to be as respectful as possible in my responses out of appreciation for the depth you’ve offered on this perspective, and I’d like to respond to what I think I see is your questions; firstly I’ll need to respond to some of your answers as a part of that, because I think that’s where some of the cross talk is occurring from, or perhaps confusion from the part of Israelis about how the world, and specifically the US is seeing this. I’m going to have to use metaphors in some locations because I think much of this is about perspective, and one of the metaphors you used I think has utility in this regard.
You brought up 3 points as the primary consensus shared among the Israeli population. I’m going to repeat them here to ensure my understanding of them is characterizing them correctly.
These attacks were personal, not abstract. Israellis are identifying individually, at a personal level with having been attacked. It’s also an extension of local culture that hostages ‘must’ be returned. Layered in this sentiment is the idea that this was a failure of government to defend it’s citizens. Israellis see Hamas as an existential threat to Israel (perhaps them individually, see above) and must be vanquished. Israel’s actions in Gaza are viewed as unfortunate but necessary.
I want to highlight a few additional points of context you offered:
There are two groups of Israelis who do not believe the 1st and 2nd points are contradictory. Each belongs to opposing ends of the political spectrum
the right there are those who think military pressure is the only way to, somehow, secure the release of the hostages
left leaning, and it believes that withdrawing from Gaza for the release of the hostages and building a civilian opposition against Hamas
I think this frames how you see the situation plays out in Israeli society and is useful for informing the discussion.
So to set up the discussion a bit further, it might be helpful for you to understand the context that October 7th sits in from an outside perspective. In the years and months leading up to October 7th (really the 18 months prior), the nature of the Israeli/ Palestinian relationship had been becoming increasingly, and overwhelmingly clearly an apartheid state/ concentration camp type relationship, where Israel seemed to be continuously eroding any pretense of a lasting solution, while regularly worsening conditions for Palestinians on the ground (again, prior to Oct 7). There seemed to be a regular drumbeat where it looked like public sentiment was finally about to roll over on the kind of continuous and unquestioning support for Israel that they had enjoyed from the US since it’s inception. It seemed like there would be calls for Israel to effectively stop maintaining it’s apartheid state relationship with Palestaine, because time and the scale of violence was just not on Israel’s side. The summary for this point is that there was a palpable shift in the conversation that was happening prior to October 7th, where it was becoming increasingly clear that the Israelis were pretty clearly and plainly the oppressors in this relationship.
I think there it’s also worth the context of work the BLM movement did to educate the American left’s perspectives on power and positionality. Through BLM, Americans who were receptive to it, were able to advance their perspective of how the dynamics of power and racism come to play in oppression. There is way too much to unpack here for this discussion, but understand that Americans, especially young Americans and left wing Americans have been basically been studying the dynamics of power that come into play around race and racism for the better half of a decade at this point. Most leftwing Americans probably attended at least some kind of BLM protest during the last 10 years, and many leftwing Americans have at this point directly experienced the kind of state sponsored violence that black people have continuously been saying they experience but most white people just never believed to exist because it hadn’t happened to them personally. That perspective has now shifted.
I think initially the reaction in the US to October 7th was basically shock and disappointment. It really felt like Israel was finally being dragged to the table, and that their meal-ticket of international exceptionalism was finally up, but that October 7th completely reset the clock on that. Likewise, it completely eroded any credibility that Hamas could possibly have had. But the we saw the response happen and it was like “What?” and I’m not talking days and weeks later. Like the moment Israel began it’s bombing campaign, from the outside itt was very clear that they did not give a fuck about Palestinian society what so ever, or even really going after Hamas; that these bombings were of Palestestine and the palsetian people, Hamas or no Hamas be damned.
And that basically seems to have been the way that Israel has continued to this point. The more reporting that comes out, it doesn’t seem like Israel is even bothering trying to recover hostages (I mean how can you engage in a bombing campaign if your goal is to recover hostages?).It’s so clearly about genocide and the elimination of the Palestinian people from the land, that looking from the outside there is no other word for it other than genocide. If this isn’t a genocide, then the word has lost all it’s meaning.
So I want to address the ‘left-right’ spectrum you described and offer context to where I see that fitting in how the broader community might see that. You suggested that broadly the three primary points are held up, but that the left-right axis is about whether to engage in negotiations or to bomb. From the outside, these three points are clearly all centered in an extreme-right framing of the conflict, and you are rotating around another axis orthogonal to the typical framing that the outside world is viewing the conflict through. It’s not clear at all that there is any Palestinian perspective even being peppered into that axis. It would be a ‘purely extreme right’ axis, where the framing is just about tactics.
And so I think it becomes a matter of addressing the three primary points. I think people can understand the first point without much more effort, especially millennial Americans. We lived through 9-11, many of us went to war (myself included), many of us lost family. We survive school shootings and racial violence basically constantly. Very few Americans live lives completely unscathed from a deeply personal impact of extreme violence. So there is sympathy on this first point.
The second point is much more difficult, because it’s not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith. Since then it’s been more and more and more egregious settler-colonialism from Israel, only putting into stark contrast (even moreso because of the legacy of genocide and pograms * within * the history of Judaism) the clearly apartheid nature of Israel’s foreign policy positions with Palestine. So it’s like, Israel has shown no good faith as an actor being willing to engage in a peace process? I think the headlines of the day only further emphasize this.
I think the third point highlights the departure most significantly. When seen from the outside, people just don’t care about the history at a certain point and become focused on just this conflict. The whole thing becomes a scoreboard where one side has killed 30,000 women and children, while the other side killed 1000 or so non-combatants. The numbers are so incomparable that it’s barely worth discussing. Obviously Oct. 7th was horrendous, but it in no way justifies what we see coming from Israel. October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel (along with I guess secretly funding Hamas? Again, headlines of the day). Like what’s the point of funding Iron Dome if Bibi is going to let things like this through for political purposes?
And that’s what the crux of this becomes from a taxpaying, leftist (or rightwing, they’re views aren’t that different) perspective. What exactly are we funding Israel for? So they can continue to genocide the Palestinians and make international conflict inevitable in the ME? It seems like that’s all we’re really getting for our money; it’s not like Israel has been a particularly good ally.
So in summary, the idea that what Israel is doing in Gaza is in any way proportional or necessary, or even effective is basically unacceptable to most of the US population in one way or another, be it anti-war/ pro-peace/ or from a purely monetary perspective. What exactly are we getting as US citizens funding this genocide? And it doesn’t seem like much. Mostly just a shittier and shittier “ally” in Israel (although they rarely act like it), and a more volatile situation in the region.
I would also point out that from an outsider perspective, your leftwing to rightwing framing doesn’t appear along a L to R axis. It looks more like a R-R axis argument about soft versus hard power. I’ve been following Israeli media this entire time, and it’s clear to me that most Israeli media outlets are not considering the damage that this has done to the Israeli people’s good graces in the world. The world had real sympathy for the Israeli position on October 8th, but that good will is long gone, and Israel is rapidly becoming a pariah state.
I’m not sure where you personally fall in the perspectives you outlined but I appreciate you enumerati
Thanks for the reply and sorry it took me a few days to answer. Also sorry if my reply seems disjointed. We broadened the scope from just the Israeli protests for a hostage deal to, really, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was hard to give the correct background while keeping it relatively short and trying to account for my own bias, so the reply was written in parts. Hopefully I was able to draw a coherent, if simplified, picture.
First of all, you got the gist of what I’m saying. There are a few things I’d say were a bit off, but most of it isn’t worth going point-by-point. I also agree with many things you said, and you’ve actually described the stance of the Israeli left as well as I could at one point (and now you have to keep reading if you want to know where…).
You’re absolutely correct saying the two camps I’ve described are not left-right. Notice I didn’t say “left”, rather “left-leaning”.
The left-right axis in Israel is best described as the answer to “Do you think Israel should aspire towards a 2 state solution with the Palestinians?” Or, how it’s usually framed, “Are the Palestinians a partner for peace?”. If this seems like a trivial question, please keep in mind this is really a mirror of the Palestinian “Is Israel a partner for peace?”, which is a highly contested question among Palestinians.
It’s also correct to say that in the last year there’s been an increase in Israeli aggression toward Palestinians (This is a view shared by a lot of Israelis, in light of the extremist government). However, in the long run, both sides are basically equally to blame(there’s A LOT of historical context I’m not going to go into. Just as a starting point, you can look up the Oslo accords in the 90s, the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the 2007 Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the blockade that followed). If the protests are against specific actions taken by the Israeli government in the last year, I’m all for it. That said, I got the distinct feeling that the protesters aren’t protesting against the treatment of Palestinians during the last year, but for a Palestinian state, in which case the protests should be directed against Hamas and Israel both. I understand why people would want to protest against Israel, but I don’t understand how one can protest against Israel and not against Hamas using the same metrics.
Hamas has been planning the Oct. 7th attack for at least a year, and invested in infrastructures to support terrorist acts for many years prior (underground tunnels, some of them leading to Israeli settlements, and some used to hide militants, weapons and hostages. After Israel’s invasion to Gaza, Hamas leadership said they have no obligation to protect Gazan civilians), so saying the Oct. 7th attack is related to Israeli aggression in the last year might have merit (talking purely about causal relationship, not justification), but there is enough reason to believe that the attack would have happened either way. Furthermore, if Hamas gets a “free pass” since their actions were a result of Israeli transgression, why does Israel not get a “free pass” as their actions are a result of Hamas aggression? This approach, where every side’s violence is justified using previous violence committed by the other side, is called a cycle of violence, and is one of the main lenses through which the Israeli left is looking at the broad confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians (we call it “the cycle of bloodshed”). I can talk about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets as of 2004, and before that there were suicide bombings going all the way back to Hamas’s foundation, and other terror attacks going back before the Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza (that is, before what you refer to as “aparthide”). I’m saying this not to try and convince you that “the Palestinians started it!”, but to explain why “They started it!” is not a call for peace, but a call for more violence.
The former paragraph also relates to the third point (Why Oct. 7th happened), but if to address that point directly - saying “October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel” is like saying "The Gazan casualties are due to Hamas investing their resources into attacking Israel instead of caring for their civilians’'. That’s blaming the victim on top of contributing to the cycle of violence (Also, and this is really a side note, as of now there are about 35,000 Gazan casualties in total. estimates are that about 2/3 of them were uninvolved in fighting).
“The second point is much more difficult, because it’s not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith.” Welcome to the Israeli left. Feel free to grab a cup of coffee and chat with the many guests we have here from the moderate centre. You came just in time for our lecture on “How Netanyahu and the far-left propped Hamas to shoot down any option for a diplomatic solution”. The highlights include Smotrich, the current Israeli minister of finance, stating that “Hamas is an asset and Fatah is a burden”, and Netanyahu saying “Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money [from Qatar] to Hamas”.
Regarding Israel being a “bad ally” to the US - I agree, and so do the Israeli left and large portions (most?) of the centrists. The way we phrase it is that the current government is creating a rift between Israel and the US and abandoning the values that are shared among both countries. For us, this is a moral issue (we kinda like those shared values), but also a practical one should the US withhold the support it gives us. Don’t know what Israeli news sources you’re following, but it was much talked about in the last weeks at least. BTW, the Israeli far-right, that de-facto controls the coalition, is very unconcerned about this due to, IMO, self delusion. But this also seems too narrow a reason to protest. If the US were to withdraw all political and financial support from Israel, and Israel would continue acting the same, would most protesters be content? And how does this explain protests in countries that don’t provide Israel with support?
To finish, I’d like to address the use of “apartheid” when talking about Israel. A Palestinian call fall into one of 3 categories - Those who have Israeli citizenship, those who live in the west bank and those who live in Gaza. They each live under a different legal infrastructure.
Israel has about two million Arab citizens (I’m saying “Arab” to include Palestinians, and other Arab groups like Durze as well as “ethnically” Palestinians who don’t identify as such nationally) who have the same rights as any Jewish person (small asterix - Arabs in west Jerusalem aren’t citizens, though are offered citizenship and have most of the same rights including, for example, voting in the local elections). There is institutional racism that’s more akin to the way black people are (“are”, not “were”) treated in some parts of the US. The Arabs in the (annexed) Golan heights also have full citizenship. As of 2006, Hamas is the sole sovereign in Gaza and there are no Jewish people living there, so “apartheid” doesn’t apply. We’re left with the Arabs in the west bank, who mostly do live under a discriminatory rule system (Yet still have their own government and law system). However, the distinction isn’t race, rather citizenship. For example, some Israeli Arabs moved into Palestinian settlements in the west bank (due to lower cost of living), and they still retain the same rights they had when living in Israel-proper. The Israeli left refers to the Palestinians without an Israeli citizenship as “living under occupation” and to the Israeli control of the disputed territories (excluding the Golan heights) is referred to as “the occupation” (we naturally view this as morally wrong). This, to me, seems much more correct than “apartheid”, especially considering that “apartheid” is used to specifically refer to the system in South Africa, and even the west bank is far from it. If anything, apartheid a-la South Africa is what the far-right in Israel has in mind (for both Israeli Arabs and Arabs living under occupation), and that’s one of the reasons the distinction between “occupation” and “apartheid” is important in practice - if the far-left will have their way (which seems implausible, yet not absolutely out of the question), those who say Palestinians live under apartheid now will have a hard time explaining, or even understanding, exactly how the situation changed for the worse.
No matter how developed you Hasbara troll is, Isntreal solidified it’s pariah status for the increasingly limited remainder of its illegitimate existence : the palestinian resistances have won.
Dude, thinking that Israeli Hasbara would sit quietly waiting for someone to say “hey, I wonder if there are any Israelis in the crowd, let’s hear what they have to say”, and then writing a 1,700 word reply on a small platform such as Lemmy is puzzling at best.
Calling it, even as a backhanded compliment, “developed” is mind boggling.
You won’t be able to find reliable information because Israel has a lot of ability to influence discourse especially online. They will kill and threaten journalists. They are the global leader in providing computer exploits and spy tools to nation-states. Don’t forget that nothing happened at Tienamen square, and there is no war in ba sing se.
Not to mention, he lost power before 2022 because of court battles from 2015 to 2021 after which the courts ruled he could not be held accountable for crimes of corruption, and his reinstatement also meant that the compromise-government that formed on the condition of 2 years of conservative rulership followed by 2 years of progressive/moderate rulership was cut short and it was just back to back Netanyahu-lite to Netanyahu-lager.
If you think it’s that simple you have no clue how controversial he is, and has been for roughly the entire time (increasing over the years). Israel isn’t (yet?) stuck in a two-party system, so there’s lots of different parties. Needless to say, Likkud (his party) does not get 50% of the votes. It is the largest party most of the time but not a majority.
The previous government formed with parties from opposite sides of the spectrum just to keep the Likkud out. It didn’t last long, but neither did any of Bibi’s governments in the preceding 2 years - we’ve had a political crisis because no one wanted to work with him because he’s so controversial. The only reason he won the last election is that some parties on the left didn’t pass the threshold to be represented (basically throwing away their votes) and he partnered with extremist parties on the far-right, which he previously wouldn’t have lowered himself to but he was desperate to return to power. No one would partner with him but them.
As for the number of votes Likkud does get - yeah, it’s a lot, but so are Trump voters (or pick your least favourite party/politician in your country) and it wouldn’t be fair to generalise and say all Americans support Trump, would it? Not to mention, you only get to pick from the candidates that are available.
FWIW I voted against him, to the party that didn’t pass the threshold :( it was the first time in their history this happened IIRC
Likud doesnt get a majority, but it does get a plurality for a reason. Its also far from the only murderous zionist party, the coalition formed is absolutely a majority. Even if people didnt vote for netanyahu, most of them voted for a murderous zionist party. Netanyahu isnt doing this alone.
And the German government in charge of the ticket already voiced their interest in making both tickets compatible so that people can use the traffic in either country with the ticket of the other one
Could lead to a pseudo-standard that could result in an eu-wide ticket of such type in the long run
Having public transport available without having to worry about buying a ticket just because of the subscription you already have anyway is far better than interrail
This ticket is not for long distance travel but for shorter distances - it will be an extension to interrail and not a replacement
In Germany the ticket is only for regional trains - if you want to go from Berlin to Munich you’ll have to pay money to get there in 4 hours or spend the whole day travelling in 12+ hours
That’s for member states to implement, not the EU then. EU wide would mean freedom of movement, and if you couldn’t get over a border with an EU wide ticket, it’d be shit.
I wonder… does medvedev have enough wits left to understand that if Russia has that right… then everyone … has that right?
They’re finding Ukraine difficult enough. Sure we’re sharing some toys (a lot of toys)… but they don’t have carriers or attack subs or missile destroyers…
Threatening nato is not a sane decision to make. We might just take them at their word.
The toys we’re sharing are our older toys from the 80s and 90s even. Its not even the more deadly stuff we have…and they’re fighting against a force that’s getting a few weeks training on these toys and sent out into the field. If russia truly wants a 72 hour war…all it would need to do is attack NATO.
In any case, we’d probably bog down around the same time China and everyone else on that side got involved. I don’t think it would be as clean or as quick. But, yeah. We could definitely screw them pretty harshly without ever landing troops
There isn't anyone really on that side . China and NATO have differences, but China doesn't have anything to gain from helping Russia, and nthey lose a lot is NATO loses. They will sit out. Similar with India, they will stay out . Iran or a few other small counties might consider joining, but I doubt it as most are smart enough to know that is suicide.
Maybe, Xi seems just sane enough not to try, but who knows. China and Russia can't really win against NATO though they make things harder. India likely hates China enough to join NATO as well.
Of course we are talking nuclear armed countries so everyone loses is possible.
Putin made his move because Xi sounded like he was going to go at the same time.
Xi was closing on HK and planned to switch immediately to Taiwan, even started the domestic pivot, then his navy told him they needed at least 5 years (honestly its more like 15, they are just starting carrier flight ops on the Liaoning and their newer ones aren’t shaken down yet).
Putin had made his preparations, Xi hinted he might go anyway once the west was distracted.
If daddy z hadn’t stayed in kyiv history would look really bad right now.
China and Russia have no military alliance, Xi is just taking advantage of the fantastic business opportunity that opened up for him for cheap Russian imports. If Chinese troops became militarily involved in Russian territory, it would probably be to acquire their claims over eastern Siberia, dating back to the Qing Dynasty. Otherwise he’s just be supporting a state that competes with him for the dominant regional position.
The Tsar took that land from them, back in the day though. If you look at their current claimed territories, they never forgot. Maybe if Russia agreed to become a subject state of China, then they’d help militarily, but they’re certainly not friends or allies.
Russia does have actual allies, but not many. And China isn’t one of them.
That’s what everyone wants, we get west russia, China gets parts of Siberia with resources, and with it we buy peace for another 50 years while everyone consolidates.
We don't need to occupy Russia to stop them from continuing a war that they start. We can just destroy their equipment and manufacturing locations so their armed forces surrender.
Yeah, Ukraine is excited about maybe getting some F-16s and how much that could help with the air war and meanwhile a couple of F-22s could take down a whole squadron of them.
These aren't even classified. Poland and Finland have them, today.
Ukraine is keeping Russia in check with cardboard launched grenades. It's pretty amazing, honestly; both how innovative Ukraine has been under duress with almost nothing, and how bad Russia has performed in this mess they've dumped themselves in.
A few too many toes over NATO lines would decapitate the Kremlin, probably before anything could be done in response.
I have been highly impressed with the Ukrainian spirit and ingenuity.
I have also been surprised at what a cluster fuck Russia has been on the battlefield. I expected them to perform better than they did. It shows how much they have declined from being a super power.
The only issue I have is Russia has nukes and Putin is dumb enough to use them.
I just don’t understand why the americans can’t decide their stance while sitting on these wonderful advanced weapons. Either give Ukraine enough equipment to win or tell them to get lost and give up territory in exchange for peace. One risks escalation with Russia or if things go too well collapse of russia, the other risks discrediting the rules based international order (lmao).
But the status quo with delayed/half assed aid shipments is costing thousands of Ukrainian (and Russian, but who cares lol) soldiers’ lives for pretty dam questionable outcomes.
He doesn’t need to thank us, he deserves our thanks for fighting against fascism. Some of the best money the US has ever spent. Now, redirect all money from Israel to Ukraine.
Two western proxies, Israel and Ukraine, holding off two supermember states of the modern Axis of Evil/Group of Friends: Russia and Iran. Gaza and the West Bank are to Iran what Belarus and Crimea are to Russia, just further along; Russia already has a working nuclear weapons program and have parked nukes in Belarus and taken over reactors in Crimea. Nobody is going to let Iran get that far. Russia says they are fighting fascism, too. Why do you believe it when Iran says it but not Russia?
You do understand that Israel is the aggressor here? Yeab yeah, they had a huge terror attack. After 50 years of continued treating Palestinians like shit and randomly killing them whenever they want, stealing their land, and so on, they (foolishly) strike back and give Israel a bloody nose. Yes, on the personal level, it’s a huge tragedy, but on the level of a country, they got a fucking bloody nose. They then proceed to commit genocide, murder thousands of children… You’d think that of there is a single country that knows better, that it would be Israel, but alas, here we are.
Iran is basically being opportunistic here, bit also just responded to Israel bombing it’s embassy. All Ayers here are dirty as shit but You CAN’T claim Israel is even remotely a hero in any of this. Israelites are just happily stealing more land.
Nah I don’t see it that way at all. Gaza’s political and community leaders put their kids in harm’s way and and then celebrate their deaths as “martyrs,” which is just coded speech for “human shields used by fanatical warlords to increase the human price of Israel’s strikes against Hamas members and the hundreds of miles of tunnels they built under neighborhoods and schools.” Lying about it to everyone and coming to the international community with crocodile tears is the only weapon for Hamas and it’s many pan-Islamist ideological allies, other than straight up hostage-taking, indiscriminate rocket attacks, mass shootings, and suicide bombings.
Hamas would scuttle the tunnels and surrender if they had any concern about human lives in Gaza, other than their own. Maybe Gaza could have elections and international ports of entry again, bring in all the food and medicine they want, you know, if they had a legitimate legal system and government, if they ever even one single time treat a war criminal as a criminal instead of as a hero, maybe they could develop an economy based on something other than spending everything on weapons to kill Jews while the entire population is malnourished and living philanthrope-to-philanthrope.
Don’t need to think Israel is the heroes to understand, as a country, it has redeeming qualities.
Last time Palestine held an election the elected officials were in favor of maintaining peace with Israel. Then the Israeli government came in and kidnapped or killed the elected officials. They were replaced with unelected, not pro peace officials, and here we are, no more elections, no more peace.
Seriously, even if Israel wasn’t evil, it could still quite easily do whatever it’s doing by itself. Even if it wasn’t evil, it doesn’t need help doing what it does.
Rofl… Are you at least paid for this shit? Cause if not… Imagine being so fucking dumb that you actually believe that shit and on top of that, instead of preaching somewhere where you’ve got a chance, you stay on Lemmy. It’s so fucking sad, man… can’t you see it? You’re trying to sell meat to a bunch of vegans, it’s hilarious.
Why do folks who want to sound incredulous just sound like they’re high as fuck?
That’d be your inner narrative embellishing fucking reality with filigree and lace to fit your shit-ass perspective.
Jim Jefferies said it best: “That’s the problem with crazy people; they don’t know they’re crazy”. Way to illustrate his insightful point by telling us you hear our voices in your head, dumbass.
You’re correct about the missteps of US foreign policy.
But your argument is a nonstarter because the people you’re talking about were literal dictators in authoritarian systems.
Ukraine is literally fighting to engage with the liberal West, over authoritarian East, against a foreign aggressor. And it’s done a very good job of keeping and even improving its democratic institutions through this war (I’m referring more to transparency of laws and changes to how corruption is dealt with, specifically).
the people you’re talking about were literal dictators in authoritarian systems
We’re heading dick first into the meat grinder of another Trump administration. And that’s nationally. Nevermind all the tinpot governors we’ve got running around the Gulf Coast and Midwest. What do you think happens when they’re back in charge of the national military again?
That’s before we get into the finer points of “authoritarianism” when you’re funding a proxy war overseas by rubber stamping a government takeover of a social media company at home.
Ukraine is literally fighting to engage with the liberal West, over authoritarian East, against a foreign aggressor. And it’s done a very good job of keeping and even improving its democratic institutions through this war
They’re in a turf war over the Donbas. But the deadline for elections in the Ukraine was constitutionally mandated for March 31st of 2024. We’re three weeks past that with no plans for a vote in sight. I would say Ukraine is officially off the board as a “liberal democracy”, at least as long as martial law lasts. And with the new arms shipment looking to close off the possibility of a ceasefire, that suggests elections are postponed indefinitely.
Ah, so you’re just not inclined to see reason, and toss in a little bit of whataboutism with your replies that minimalize a full scale invasion of a sovereign country as a “turf war.”
It’s my mistake for engaging with an obviously disingenuous poster. You can go fuck yourself.
If you think its reasonable to amp up the war machine and then hand it over to Cheeto Mussolini, I guess we’re working with different definitions of the phrase.
You can go fuck yourself.
My man, try touching some grass. You’re way to invested with this thread.
“My man, try touching some grass. You’re way to invested with this thread.”
Says the “person” with at least 15 replies in this thread… See, I may sound high, but at least I can admit when I’m wrong or crazy… You can’t even see how sad you are anymore.
The flood of weapons going into Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan is going to fuel the same kinds of conflicts that arms sold to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Jordan fueled 40 years ago.
When the building conflict between Poland and Ukraine goes hot…
When some of the enormous third-party arms market ramped up in these countries spills into neighboring Egypt and Turkey…
When someone with a MANPADS and nefarious intent gets within striking distance of a civilian airport…
Shit is going to pop off in a way folks just watching TV and clapping for their favorite team simply aren’t prepared for.
Sigh, the simpler times of 2012, the neoliberals really thought they’d won that one, that Russia would stop simping for dictators, start drinking democracy juice, and focus on exploiting labor instead of conquering it.
They already have. Only Roman Catholics really care what the Pope has to say. There are far more Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Presbyterian in the US than Catholics.
No, Catholic just means universal. This most Christian denominations claim to the the Catholic, aka, Universal Church. In other words, they mean to say they are the correct denomination.
That doesn’t change the fact that the Anglican Church also considers itself the Catholic Church.
The Act of Supremacy 1558 renewed the breach, and the Elizabethan Settlement charted a course enabling the English church to describe itself as both Reformed and Catholic.
Catholicity is unrelated to Protestantism. Catholicity means the church claims an unbroken line from the apostle Peter meaning they are the “real” church
The problem is much more fundamental than this. I have repeatedly had to explain to adults, in many different contexts the subset/superset relationship. People do not know that you can be part of a superset that describes all things in a subset. For some reason you are able to graduate high school without every actually figuring this out
I just can’t see the reason (there isn’t any) other than needing a conservative out group.
The reason is simple, actually. The Protestant revolution was ostensibly started with Martin Luther advertising that the pope was the antichrist.
Protestantism was basically the practice of declaring Catholicism to be a false Church. Then it evolved and they got more cordial. After 300 years of bloodshed
This is a true statement. But glass houses and stones. Let’s not forget he wrote the infamous “On the Jews and Their Lies”, and started supporting their persecution and outright murder. Many believe that his rhetoric directly caused the antisemitic attitudes of the Nazi Party. The aforementioned book was incredibly popular among Nazis.
And the Lutherans are smart to denounce that book. Catholics could learn from a religion deciding it actually did stupid things and fixing itself.
There are some differences in the details of each denominations beliefs enough to mark some Christians as not real Christians. If only God could just make an announcement over the PA to clear things up…
Related: How many denominations only allow their own denomination to take Communion?
does anyone know off the top of their head how/when Christianity became so tightly associated with the Republican party? No way it was always so extreme in US history
Having lived though it in the 1990’s there was a marked turn in the politicizing of Christianity. There was a rise of mega churches and politicians who worked to make churches align to the Republican Party for government assistance. The money for what was welfare was shuffled to churches to take up services that once were secular.
The whole tenor of conversion changed. It just got mean and only got worse from there.
Over time. It was more of a mutual benefit the government gives money to the church and the politicians got votes from the churches. At one time there were a lot more social services, not enough, but much more.
Absolutely agree. I am certain ifwe’re real and appeared in person and spouted half the stuff attributed to him in the gospel they would call him “woke” too.
Absolutely no doubt. Kind of surprised no one has done a video series where you anonomize Jesus’s teachings, then read them back to conservative Christians and ask what they think about them
Honestly, I consider that a win. A huge reason I left the catholic faith wasn’t because of the religion itself, but because of the people who claimed to follow Jesus but in practice did nothing like Jesus.
They dropped the Jesus Christ of the New Testament half a century ago, and even then they pretended he was somehow as white as mayonnaise, so why not drop his earthly mouthpiece?
euronews.com
Top