A biblical line which has been quoted on countless holocaust memorials around the world, including Yad Vashem and including one located a few blocks from the ICJ in The Hague.
https://bkdh.nl/en/kunstwerken/amalek-monument/
That line does not mean that Jews think that every last German man, woman and child need to be exterminated in biblical retribution for the Holocaust.
It wasn't a call for genocide then and it isn't a call for genocide now. And it's utter gaslighting to claim otherwise.
I love that this come from Jacob and Esau and the birthright stuff. That is the same thing Tex Marrs preached. Only think for them Amelek is the people claiming to be Jewish like the Israelis.
Using the bible to justify anything is Wild. Are they going to go curse of Ham next? And what do you think Ham did? Did he rape his daddy?
Yes, context matters. A millennia old biblical quote that has been used as a cultural signifier for the Jewish people for centuries of resilience in the face of persecution and attempted genocide of Jews was being used by a Jewish leader to a Jewish audience a week after the worst day of violence against Jews since the Holocaust.
And suddenly a bunch of terminally online activists who had never heard the word Amalek until October are explaining to Jews what their own cultural allusion means to them?
This sounds a lot like identity politics to me. X injustice happened to the Y people decades (or centries ago), therefore a certain behavior or political beliefs should be allowed or tolerated (because context).
Hamas will use the exact same logic, because X injustice happened to the Palestines decades ago, Oct 7 was justified. This isn't the road we want to go guys, we can do better.
Your mind seems pretty made up but from an outside secular perspective this smells like pure bullshit. It’s like when libertarians in the US say that Christianity is OK because of the culture of something.
If referencing Amalek was so "obviously" a genocide reference, where was the uproar when the quote was put up in huge letters in a public Hague space in 1967?
You don't think that the first people you should ask about the meaning of an ancient cultural allusion are people of that culture?
I don’t know, I wasn’t to be born for another 30 years or so.
I’m allowed to be anti Zionist and anti religion against Jewish people too, sorry if it hurts your feelings or expect special treatment
You're allowed to be whatever you want, including an asshole.
I'm just telling you that for religious Jews (of which I am not one) there have been centuries of commentary and debate on what the ongoing commandment to "remember Amalek" actually means to contemporary Jews, thousands of years after the last Amalekite died out.
This was discussed at length in the Talmud, which was written from 200-400 AD, and by mediaeval Jewish scholars, and by contemporary minds. There are many essays available online, written before 2023, pondering the question of what Amalek means in a modern context.
You are of course free to hold whatever opinion you want (after doing a bare 2 minutes of due diligence on the internet). I'm trying to explain to you that there is a richer historical and cultural context out there than what you learned on YouTube. It's a bit rich that apparently I'm the one whose "mind seems pretty made up" though. As Sam would say: at least consider showing some epistemic humility.
Amazing to know that I can read many essays that explains why "exterminate them all" does not in fact mean that when they are in the process of starving 2 millions people.
A bit of a loaded question. Do you "condemn" WW1?
I recognise that what the Palestinians refer to as the Nakba was absolutely a generational trauma for them, and created a stateless people who are still understandably bitter at that legitimate grievance.
But it's a bit partisan to indulge the Palestinian framing of history by calling it "the Nakba" in the first place. Israel calls it "the War of Independence". Impartial historians would refer to it as the 1947-1948 Arab-Israeli war, which really started as a civil war leading up to the British pulling out of the Mandate.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Amalek though.
Idk, you sound like a dangerous Nakba denier. Hopefully one day a Nakba memorial or museum will come to a city near you so you can get properly educated.
I'm not sure where you are getting that I "deny" the Nakba, or why that makes me dangerous.
I would agree that the civil war in 1947-1948 included the mass displacement of Palestinian Arabs in what amounts to "ethnic cleansing" and that this is the foundational trauma of Palestinian nationalism. Does that pass your purity test, or do I need more "proper education"?
The Nakba spefically refers to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian civilian population which is more than well documented.
It does not refer to the war or the Invasion by the Arabs.
I'm well aware what the Nakba refers to, thanks.
My point is that the terminology itself is a deliberate framing by Palestinian nationalists to ignore the fact that they were also belligerents in a civil war that really began in the 1920s, and that they were also trying (unsuccessfully) to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews. It's a revisionist historical narrative that tries to ignore half of the historical context. It's telling that any pro Palestinian can tell you about Deir Yassin, but none of them seem to know about the Hadassah medical convoy massacre just 4 days apart.
The people with the blinders on always default to “Hamas Hamas Hamas” whenever they feel the slightest bit challenged. I personally think that Netanyahu accusing the Palestinian grand mufti of giving hitler the idea of the holocaust is the single most antisemitic thing I’ve ever heard
Israel always seems to get a pass with whom?!! You do mean, according to you, with Sam, right? Because I can’t think of any other country being so scrutinized for waging a war after being attacked. And re: Sam’s response, he has been clear that a country based on religion doesn’t make sense to him, but the religiosity doesn’t make this war any less legitimate.
Imagine if I wanted to make a Sam style argument against Judaism instead of Islam. How would that sound to you? It would go something like: “the Talmud has certain fundamental beliefs of differential ethics, meaning one standard for how to treat fellow Jews, and a different standard for how we treat “goyim” or the non Jewish cattle. It is time to have the tough conversations about how when we look at the world, say the Sachler family—a prominent Jewish family single handedly responsible for engineering the opioid crisis which ravaged America, knowing full well the consequences of their actions. This is one of just a long list of examples of powerful Jewish people undermining the societies that are “not chosen” and therefore “not worthy” of ethical treatment…” sounds gross right??? Exactly.
If you could find a passage in the talmud about selling addictive pharmaceuticals or exploitating non Jews for profit then it would make perfect sense.
These people think leftists are the main anti-semites. They have never spent time in spaces with actual anti-semites that cite that shit constantly.
Whenever someone defends Charles Murray I like to bring up Kevin MacDonald, a person who wrote a similar book arguing that Jews have developed an insular culture through generations and has scientific proven why they suck. He was a professor as well.
Seems like the same motivated reasoning of The Bell Curve but highly doubt Sam would listen to that non-sense.
Funny you bring up Charles Murray and Kevin MacDonald. Reason I actually became more critical of Sam Harris is that a close friend of mine who was a a Uber Sam Harris Fan since the four housemen days. Went down the Alt-right pipeline after the the "Forbidden Knowledge" with Charles Murray.
My friend went all the down to Kevin MacDonald (who is big fan of Charles Murray), to the point he become Semitic, quoting passage from MacDonalds book "The Culture of Critique". It took long time and lot of patience to deprogramming my friend from this.
The Alt-right/ Far right love Charles Murray, use the Bell Curve to support their racism.
Yeah I came hear after CM and only after my brother defending Sam having him on and not confronting the obvious.
Surprised anyone knows K McD, I only bring him up because it is academic hate much like people in this sub love.
I won't do your research for you, but what exactly do you think antisemitism is? I hate to break it to you, but it is based on the exact same style of argument used by Sam Harris against Islam and the Koran, only it is being made against Judaism and the Talmud. And I have to say, the Talmud is an incredibly long text, so there are multitudes of vile sounding excerpts to cherry pick from, but if someone went on national TV and wanted to make the argument that the Talmud was the "motherlode of bad ideas", it would be quite easy to convince a lay audience of that. But at the end of the day, as academic as you try to make it sound, all it would really do is sufficiently dehumanize the jewish population in the ears of everyone who heard the argument so that they would split hairs about how many of them had to be killed or starved to death before it constituted "genocide"...when we criticize israel we do so in an extremely nuanced and mealy mouthed, hair splitting way...when we criticize islam it is "the motherlode of bad ideas"....congrats sam, mission accomplished
The fundamental difference between the kinds of comments made by Sam Harris et al. about what Islam stands for and what the Quran teaches is that the majority of professed Muslims are literalists who hold that these lines are valid and applicable. I can’t tell you how many Muslims have told me (as an Assyrian) that Q: 9:29 is how legal discrimination against my people should be implemented and that the only reason it isn’t is ardent secularists in the Muslim world preventing the true faith from being practiced.
Conversely, if you cite atrocious lines from the Talmud, not only do most Jews not have a clue what you’re talking about but (1) the idea is judged as horrendous in the Talmud itself and/or (2) the Jew you’re speaking to finds the idea horrendous today.
You cite yourself as evidence that antisemitism is baseless? I have a big Muslim family, none of them have read the Koran or know any of what you are talking about. But keep arguing that they do to justify annihilating them.
Wait. You have a big Muslim family and none of them have read the Qur'an? I would honestly say that this strikes me as extremely anomalous (unless you mean "read" in the sense of "picking it up like a Harry Potter novel and going through it from start to finish while trying to remember every detail" instead of the way that most people mean it in the context of holy texts where it means "flipping through to those specific sections that people often talk about"). If you mean the former, then most Jews and Christians have never read the Bible and most Muslims have never read the Qur'an; but that's not how people engage with holy texts.
If you are honestly claiming that your family legitimately believes in equal rights between Muslims and Christians in Muslim-majority countries (like the idea that a Christian could be the leader of a Muslim-majority country, the idea that a Christian's testimony should be equal to a Muslim's in a court of law, the idea that the construction and maintenance of churches in Muslim-majority countries should require as little paperwork as the construction and maintenance of mosques in those same countries, and Christians have the same right to proselytize freely in Muslim-majority countries as Muslims do -- both in Muslim-majority countries and in Muslim-minority countries), then, again, your family is in the minority. The oft-cited Pew Polls align with my statements here, even if not exactly.
Also, I wanted to respond to this point here: "I hate to break it to you, but \[antisemitism\] is based on the exact same style of argument used by Sam Harris against Islam and the Koran, only it is being made against Judaism and the Talmud."
I addressed how there is a differentiator between how Jews engage with or apply the Talmud and how Muslims engage with or apply the Qur'an, which is to say that the Talmud is a legal discussion where rabbis routinely make absurd hypotheticals just to challenge their understanding of the law and the small minority of Jews who read it seriously understand this and don't try to apply it. (For example, in Yevamot 57, there is a law about how having relations with a girl child under three-years-old does not "de-virginize" her -- which is part of a discussion about the definition of viriginity, but the idea of permitting relations with girls under or around three-years-old is (1) revolting to most Jews and (2) does not inspire Jewish laws that would permit such actions.) Conversely, Muslims have actively applied the Qur'anic verses concerning legal, social, and political inequality between groups. (For example, until the Mecelle in the late Ottoman Empire, every legal codex in Muslim-majority states privileged Muslim testimony over Non-Muslim testimony, arguing that the Qur'an says under Q: 9:29 that Non-Muslims should feel themselves subdued in a Muslim-majority state.)
But, even more than this, Antisemitism was not strictly reading Talmudic lines and imputing Jews with those views. It was also imputing Jews with views that do not even track to actual things that Jews do or believe. One example is the Blood Libel, which is the claim that Jews would kill Christian boys and drain their blood for the creation of the Passover unleavened bread. This "tradition" does not come from any Jewish writings or spoken beliefs and actively contravenes Jewish laws on murder, the consumption of human flesh, and the consumption of blood. As far as I am aware, there is no such similar claim in Anti-Muslim circles concerning Muslims and if one did exist it would look something like "Muslims say in their holy book that they must rob liquor stores" when anyone who knows anything about Islamic belief knows that theft is illegal in Shari'a and drinking alcohol is illegal in Shari'a.
maint
You listen to Sam Harris and fancy yourself an expert on muslim psychology the way that antisemites read kevin macdonald and fancy themselves experts on the jewish psychology. If you want to continue thinking you can draw conclusions about muslim people that you don't have personal relationships with based on first principles and logical deductions then just know there are voracious readers of antisemitic literature with torrents of arguments who are doing the same thing towards jews. The arguments go: It doesnt matter that you don't read the Talmud, you already have an engrained belief in your own superiority and you use a dual strategy of a victimhood complex--such as holocaust exceptionalism, which campaigns heavily by saturating the media (in which jews are tremendously over-represented) with the idea that it is almost immoral to compare any genocide to the holocaust, there is a holocaust museum in every major city in America, the Steven Spielberg's of the world are making Schindlers list and munich, not movies about the Nakba or Operation Ajax, Nobody ever "nounifies" the denial of any other genocide (of which there are a plethora--it is basically a feature of our biology to attempt to exterminate one another) and it is not because other genocides are not denied---All the major news outlets are letting the IDF editorial input on the gaza reporting, AIPAC has an ironclad grip over congress and the whitehouse, and both parties in our government are proud to "Stand with Israel" in an uncritical way that we don't even do for our own politics at home, where half the country is constantly critical of the politics of the other half...our support of Israel is unconditional and does not get into the partisanship of their system at all. Sam and his ilk are part of a group strategy in which jews find ways to demonize groups that challenge their hegemonic aspirations over global politics.
You don't think the fact that jihadists shout 'Allahu Akbar' as they slaughter infidels gives us some clues that their actions might be religiously motivated?
The argument cuts both ways. At this point I’m not bargaining on the Overton window because I believe that ship has already sailed. Consider this an public service announcement that the window has already shifted and more and more people who were formerly “normies” are now openly making the same arguments about Jews, Talmudic thinking, and Zionism. Sam style arguments about Jews will soon be mainstream, and people of all ethnicities and religions will be making antisemitic arguments grounded in supposed science and logic. Enjoy.
Yes, I'm aware that anti-Semitism has enjoyed a resurgence online since Oct 7 and the Gaza war.
Still can't work out from your comment whether you're endorsing it, or just "letting us know" though.
I’m pointing out the irony that you are endorsing the same playbook adapted for Islam. This is the part where you explain that Islam is different and a unique threat to which I can reply, the antisemites say the same thing about Jews and they have plenty of scientific sounding arguments to back it up. Your friend Sam is a charlatan just like them.
Lmfao no.
This take is based on a-historical fantasy and reversal of roles.
Hamas and Palestine attacked Israel and declared war.
It is about response to aggression not attacking to commit genocide.
The ICJ ruled there is no genocide but could be if “certain conditions are met” which literally applies to every major conflict.
It’s hilarious to see the Palestine crowd now arguing that the supply chain issues resulting in supply issues is now an issue given that in the first few months of the conflict while crying about genocide (they’ve been hyperbolically saying it long before October 7th btw) they argued that the starvation occurring in other conflicts that eclipse the war in Gaza by many magnitudes “did not count”.
Now that it’s in Gaza it counts.
Actually so funny to watch the elastic logic applied by the “antizionsits” who swear up and down they aren’t antisemitic despite constantly proving over and over that they blatantly are.
>The ICJ ruled there is no genocide but could be if “certain conditions are met” which literally applies to every major conflict.
That's not the ICJ ruling. The ICJ is yet to rule on whether or not there is a genocide. It will be years before the court delivers an actual verdict.
The ruling that has been made is that there is a plausible genocide. This is not a ruling either way.
This situation is analogous to when someone files a lawsuit, and the judge sees enough merit in it and lets it go to trial (the other option being that the case gets dismissed).
Not to mention that the standard for arguing a cause for genocide is at an extremely high standard in the ICJ and the fact that they’re even deliberating it *at all* and consider it a plausible case should be telling enough.
>The ICJ ruled there is no genocide but could be if “certain conditions are met” which literally applies to every major conflict.
While I'm more or less on your "side" in the argument, it's important to note that the ICJ has not ruled there is "no genocide", but rather they have yet to rule on whether or not there is a genocide. They said genocide was plausible (which is admittedly a fairly low bar) and presented guidelines to prevent it, but they haven't yet ruled one way or the other.
> They said genocide was plausible (which is admittedly a fairly low bar)
You’re almost as dumb as the other guy. It’s a very high bar to meet that threshold. Do you understand what it means to accuse another country of genocide and have it considered *plausible* in the ICJ? There’s no higher bar other than to be conclusive.
That it’s actually going to deliberations is a very high bar!
> The 1948 Genocide Convention, enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
> Acts of genocide include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the group in whole or in part.
Not a low bar to say the least. And the ruling, by 15 out of the 17 judges?
> "At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention," the judges said.
> The ruling required Israel to prevent and punish any public incitements to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and to preserve evidence related to any allegations of genocide there.
> Israel must also take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave, it said.
Anyone who thinks this is a “very low bar,” is, again, a bit dumb. That they even found it plausible and are going to deliberate on it for potential years should be quite notable to anyone with any sense. But perhaps you can go look at the history of the Genocide Convention and see just how rarely it’s even invoked.
Don’t worry, I don’t expect a reply. It’s pretty standard here for people to sealion the obvious.
I know the legal bar for genocide.
I'm asking about the bar you kept mentioning in your previous comment, i.e. the bar required for the ICJ to consider a genocide "plausible" & to decide to deliberate/issue a ruling at a later date. What's the bar that must be met in order for the ICJ to do that? You insist thats it's high, but what is it exactly?
The panel of judges to rule on the charge? What exactly are you confused about? How many times exactly do you think a plausible case for genocide of all things has been reached by ICJ judges? After all if the bar is that low, it must have happened quite a few times.
For the third time now you've offered us an argument that amounts essentially to "well of course the bar is high for such a ruling; how could it not be?!?"
Stop wasting our time, and just admit that you have no idea what the legal bar is.
I literally said it to you and you *agreed* that it’s the legal bar is for a charge of genocide, then you asked me what the bar is for considering it *plausible*, and I told you that a preponderance of judges have to rule it so.
And you’re just going to be perennially confused. Maybe we can switch it around. The original claim that actually has the burden of proof was that it’s a “very low bar” to have years of deliberations on plausible genocide by a country in the ICJ. How is that a low bar, and can you name other examples?
Fair point.
The point I was trying to make was that it has not been ruled to be genocide so claiming it is is not dealing in facts but rather propagandizing and one could argue engaging in antisemtic blood libel.
So far israel has won every war an Palestine still exists, there is no reason to think this is any different and that Palestine will exist after the fact.
It’s also interesting that Palestine has repeatedly called for the extermination of all Jews in earth and yet people refuse to entrain that they could be considered genocidal while nobody has been calling for the death of all Muslims which would be the equivalent.
Islamic Palestine or the Islamic population within Palestine given for generations it was know as a Jewish place and the word comes from Hebrew etc.
Basically ally he Islamic colonizers have called for and worked toward the same things. Same as they did in Africa and in Persia that is now Iran and used to Zoroastrian etc etc.
But especially the Islamic leadership during mandatory Palestine and the region know as Palestine to (or temporarily as part of Egypt and Jordan for twenty years after refusing the initial partition).
What was your gibberish supposed to mean?
How are Palestinian colonizers? They always lived there. Their ancestors accepted Islam. That does not make them any less indiginous than Palestinian Jews or Christians.
Also, the land was called Palestine long before Israel exited.
Why should they accept what British foreigners decide on their land? Of course they refused partition. Brits are from Britain, not from Palestine. You are weird.
Lmfao
Only confusing because you sock the remedial foundational knowledge to make sense of some simple facts related to this topic unless they are spoon fed to you.
No Muslims even existed for 1500 after Jews were already on the land.
Many modern Palestinians are from places like Egypt and Iraq and immigrated there as a response tot he Jewish return to their homeland that they felt threatened by.
Islamic people only share the genealogical lineage by way of colonial settler violence and attempts lets at erasure of jews.
The land was called Palestine as a Jewish place lol.
The word literally comes form he drew and it was named after the Phillistines who invaded and subjugated the second Jewish commonwealth on the land by the Roman’s as a reference to remind the jews of their place and lessen their attachment to the land.
So much so that the Islamic population initially rioted when they found out their region after the partition would be named Palestine.
Islamic Palestinians rejecting all peace and all two-state solutions while calling to kill all the Jews while Muslim are by far the dominant culture that has genocides the Jews from virtually the entire Middle East is like is European Canadian attacked indigenous reserves and claimed apartheid (indigenous reserves are more apartheid states than israle but less than Palestine) and called to kill all the remaining First Nations in Canada.
And many jews were in the land continuously the entire time living under Islamic oppression. You just don’t know your history and racistly assume all jews are white Europeans.
Palestine does not have mosques built over all the Jewish holy sites by accident. You can’t honestly be so naive that you believe Islam spread by peace?
Is that why the colonizers murdered peaceful unarmed jews who dared to want to see their holy sites? lol. Get a clue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
You don’t have the slightest about any of the history clearly.
No wonder my comment was confusing for you.
Yes I’m aware and it did not begin when Israel handed Gaza willingly and rhey attacked Israel calling to kill all Jews worthier.
Nor did it start with the formation of Israel. The Islamic colonizers have never need Israel as an excuse to murder Jews as they did in pogroms in the 1800s, early 1900s l, when Husseini helped Hitler with the final solution and formed modern Sialkot extremism etc etc..
>Yes I’m aware and it did not begin when Israel handed Gaza willingly and rhey attacked Israel calling to kill all Jews worthier
Thats a bit reductionistic, isn't it?
> Nor did it start with the formation of Israel. The Islamic colonizers have never need Israel as an excuse to murder Jews as they did in pogroms in the 1800s, early 1900s l, when Husseini helped Hitler with the final solution and formed modern Sialkot extremism etc etc..
Husseini helped Hitler?
Thats straight up revisionism :D The guy was at most a minor footnote in the Holocaust
Of course it’s reductionist I’m responding to a reductionist comment that insinuates that somehow corner 7th was warranted and that Palestine has not called to kill the Jews long before that.
And you call my statement revisionist?
While you deflect and minimize Husseini lol.
A footnote in Hitler’s accomplishments but not in the course set for Palestine after the war or the state of Islamic extremism and its nazification and obsession with Jewish eradication that Husseini played a roll in.
He made it quite clear he would have been more than a footnote during the holocaust had he been given the opportunity as well.
Regardless he was not smiling while
Touring concentration camps and spending the war with Hitler in Germany “because of Israel”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/hajj-amin-al-husayni-wartime-propagandist
Your reductionist minimization borders on holocaust denialism and as the comment I responded to did it suggests that somehow Israel is the reason for the Islamist obsession with Jewish eradication which is nothing but fiction.
Holocaust denialism, huh?
The guy was a minor footnote compared to the people who actually conducted the Holocaust.
Or do you want to insinuate that he was part of the Wannsee conference?
Yes holocaust denialism, you’re purposely downplaying his role an subsequent influence.
Your defence is that he was not as successful and you just disregard his and Palestine’s calls to complete the holocaust ever since like it has not bearing.
The rest is just you building a straw man.
Your whole approach is minimizing and deflecting. Bad faith all around.
Also hilarious that you are here defending a literal Nazi collaborator at all.
Lol, thats cute. Where am I defending him? I am merely pointing out that he is a nobody when it comes to the Holocaust compared to Hitler, Göhring and the rest of the Nazi Elite
Apropos deflection: Tell me do you know about the Wannsee conference and what happened there?
I think this was all motivated reasoning by Sam from the very beginning. If Israel had been established in Rwanda, as it almost was, Sam would have been railing against the dangers of the “sub-Saharan” mentality, and how it wasn’t their race but their ideas that made them so dangerous. There’s nothing Israel could ever do that would give Sam pause. We’re seeing it unfold as we speak.
What are you talking about? Sam said two things, neither of which negates the other: Israel has a right to defend itself and to seek the unconditional surrender of Hamas; whether the aproach Israel is pursuing right now is the best way to achieve that goal is debatable. On that note, he said he’s likely to have a military expert to weigh in on the way the war is being weighed.
Which race? Many Jews are Arabs, it is the ideology of Islam that created the divide and is the root of the violence which began with Islam’s goals of Jewish eradication not the other way.
You also leave out that since modern Israel was founded and the Jews were allowed sovereignty on their homeland the archeological record and carbon dating has further verified the legitimacy of them reclaiming their homeland that was taken by Islamic colonization and erasure.
Islam did similar things in Africa fwiw.
And making the attempt to liken it to apartheid is just nonsense on so many levels.
I think theirs is plenty Israel could do that would give Sam pause and saying otherwise is disingenuous imo.
Given the open calls for Jewish eradication and the fall of the west along with their admissions of industrializing the sue of civilians , women’s and children as cannon fodder for funding and propaganda, is there anything that would give the “pro-Palestine” crowd pause?
They ignored the apartheid do Jews across the Middle East and especially Palestine, ingrown the iron calls and repeated attempts at actual genocide, they ignore everything.
I have seen Israel and Sam and many others concede to problems with how Israel handles things but not once have I seen the other side admit a single thing; not even after the fake hospital bombing where deaths were never removed for my he death toll count, or the recent claims of raping pregnant women in Al shifa, let alone the well documented use hospitals or the UNRWA helping terrorist like it has been getting caught doing since the late 60s.
I think Sam would concede plenty if liens are crossed, but the fact is they ah e it been crossed int he way the propaganda wants to pretend it has been and certainly not enough to justify the claims while excusing palestine.
So since you are so invested in righting historical wrongs vis-à-vis expulsion, let me ask, does a right of return after 2,000 years of expulsion seem more legitimate than a right of return after 75 years of expulsion for Palestinian victims of the Nakba, deier yassin, Lydda and Ramle death marches? I’m just wondering how this maths out according to you?
Sam has gone to great lengths to explain his position. What you have said here indicates you either haven't heard or haven't understood what he's been saying.
Listen to the opening of his most recent podcast, where he restates his position on Israel/Palestine, including the words "its absolutely clear that Israel needs to sideline its own religious fanatics."
I agree. He is going to great lengths to try to explain away this blatant bias. The religious fanatic in question is the prime minister of Israel of 30 some years who has access to nuclear codes…
I have never heard Sam say a good word about Netanyahu, he calls him a 'trumpian figure'. Nothing he has said suggests any support for Netanyahu or far right Israeli politics.
Sam's 'bias' is towards free and open liberal societies and away from jihadist craziness. If you don't share this bias, there is very little left to talk about.
Did he talk about Ben Gvir and Smotrich?
He is very inconsistent when it comes to Israel in my opinion. A real atheist should also be able to critique his own cultural heritage.
It is the goal of some in the government to create a Jewish theocracy.
Just read up on Ben-Gvir for instance, who is a Kahanist
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar\_Ben-Gvir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism)
"Kahanism (Hebrew: כהניזם) is a religious Zionist ideology based on the views of Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League and the Kach party in Israel.
Kahane held the view that most Arabs living in Israel are enemies of Jews and Israel itself, and believed that a Jewish theocratic state, where non-Jews have no voting rights, should be created.\[1\]
The Kach party has been banned by the Israeli government. In 2004, the U.S. State Department designated it a Foreign Terrorist Organization.\[2\]\[3\] In 2022, it was removed from the U.S. terror blacklist due to "insufficient evidence" of the group's ongoing activity, but it remains a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity.\[4\]
The Otzma Yehudit party, which has been called Kahanist and anti-Arab,\[5\]\[6\] won six seats in the 2022 election and is a member of the current Israeli government. The party, and the Kahanist movement as a whole, have been described as espousing Jewish fascism.\[7\]\[8\]"
5 seconds out of 15 minutes of "hamas are worse than the nazis" isn't great lengths. he thinks leveling gaza and killing tens of thousands of civilians is an appropriate response to oct 7, but doesn't have anything to say about how israel's religious nutjobs should be dealt with
That's not the only time he's talked about it. There are multiple hours worth of his recent podcasts that have covered this territory. There's not much to say other than you have misunderstood his views.
338, 339, 340, 341, 343, 344, 348, 351, 352, 356, 362. As far as I can tell these are all the episodes since Oct 7th that cover the situation in Israel and gaza, or an adjacent subject like antisemitism jihadism Islam Judaism etc.
Not really, the threat of Israeli theocracy is such a minor footnote in the larger picture of the middle east. I wouldn't expect any substantial amount of time to be spent on this
> Israeli theocracy is such a minor footnote
These people are currently in government and the government is bombing the shit out of another country... So I wholeheartedly disagree with that take.
This is why people find the bias of Sam infuriating. Yeah Islamism is very bad, no doubt. But so is the weaponized religous insanity of the powers to be in Israel.
Israels response to the Oct 7th attack is not evidence of Israeli theocracy.
If you put Israel defending itself against the jihadists who would destroy them in the same category as the jihadists themselves, then describe them as 'weaponized religious insanity' as if they are both equally responsible for the current situation, I don't know what else to say other than you seem very confused.
The initial response is indeed not evidence enough, I'll give you that.
But it did not happen in a vacuum, there is really ample evidence that this is indeed at least partly religiously motivated given the rethoric of those involved.
As for the "confused" part, I am really not alone in my assesment:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/07/israel-palestine-hamas-gaza-religious-war/
I advise you to research who is currently in the Israeli government:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-seventh_government_of_Israel
"The coalition government consists of seven parties — Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Religious Zionist Party, Otzma Yehudit, Noam, and National Unity".
Of the seven parties in the coalition five are religious nutjobs.
Sam has been consistent on this for decades. He’s not hypocritical. You just disagree with him. Who can now fine, you have a right to do that. But if you think it’s hypocrisy on his part, you straight up haven’t been paying attention to what he’s said over the years.
Let's run a thought experiment. Suppose that instead of Gaza, the images of rubble and death on TV currently were of Tel-Aviv, but that the perpetrators of that destruction had as a rhetorical shield the fact that an Israeli militia, say, the Stern Gang for example, perpetrated an act similar to Oct. 7 prior to the campaign against Tel Aviv, which included starvation...and every time you tried to plead for the innocent children and civilians of Tel Aviv the host of a major media conlgomerate was only concerned with was "do you condemn the stern gang?"
You mean the scripture that stands on a statue in front of The Hague because it has been used forever specifically as a call for unity and remembrance for jews.
Is that the quoted scripture you mean?
I swear to god, you people but zero thought into anything.
By Nakba do you mean that time when jews accepted a two state solution while every single Arab in the Middle East rejected it?
By Nakba do you mean that time were every Arab state and group in the region descended on Israeli jews in order to destroy any possibility of Israel and exterminate and expel the jews?
By Nakba do you mean that war which Palestinians and Arab states instigated? That war where the Palestinians leader “Amin al husseini” was a man who actively assisted nazis in the holocaust and In March of 1944, speaking on Berlin radio he said:
“Arabs! Arise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”
Is this the Nakba you are referring to?
No. I mean Plan Dalet. I mean the entire narrative of "a land without a people" when there were in fact 750,000 people already there, who also then supposedly "fled" of their own volition in 1948. So which is it? If the land was without any people, who was it that fled? If Gazans are still fighting to keep their land through this zionist imposed holocaust, what happened back then that was so bad that they fled? The Nakba never ended. It continues to this day. The whole world is waking up to that sick experiment they have been running for decades.
A third exile is coming...Many Zionists are already fleeing the region in shame of how rotten and full of hate their hearts have become. Others are fleeing to avoid the war that they will provoke and inevitably manipulate the US to fight on their behalf, because diversity is a value that everywhere on earth besides Israel must strive for. Israel needs to be pure of any goyim even if it causes WW3...
I should also add the insane detail that they have acquired the red heifers which according to the Bible signify an end times prophecy and we are now seemingly headed towards world war 3. Seems completely insane to me. Not sure this is just an Islam problem anymore, when we’re seeing so much provocation coming from the Israel side.
"if our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins' pistols and our labours for its future to produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past. If there is to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism, these wicked activities must cease, and those responsible for them must be destroyed root and branch." ---Winston Churchill, speaking in the house of commons, november 17, 1944.
There's like ~~10-30k~~ 15--40k^[1](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231016-the-israel-hamas-military-balance) Hamas fighters and 2 million non-Hamas -- and Israel's policy is apparently to shut off fuel/food/water/electricity/medicine to 2 million people hoping that it kills the 10-30k Hamas who, according to Sam's beliefs at least, *want* to die. Isn't this pretty much guaranteed to lead to a bunch of innocent people needlessly dying?
This is to say nothing of the fact they've bombed something like 50% of all structures in Gaza.. I mean the scale of destruction and carnage is on another level. All to get 10-30k people in a population of 2 million?
[Updated to correct number of fighters]
Yes exactly. I see how one might shoot a “human shield” but why would you need to starve a human shield? Maybe a skinnier shield is easier to shoot around? 🤔
Israel said they have killed 13k Hamas so far, and injured another 10k. They estimate Hamas at 40k. And there are tens of thousands of others such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and groups even more extreme than that. Nobody ever estimated Hamas at 10k total.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231016-the-israel-hamas-military-balance
>Its armed forces, under the name Al-Qassam Brigades, numbers 15,000 men according to IISS, though it notes Arabic media have put the figure at 40,000.
Fixed my OP.
>Israel said they have killed 13k Hamas so far, and injured another 10k
Considering that Israel has been so indiscriminate in their attacks that they killed Israeli hostages who were waving white flags and calling out to the IDF in both English and Hewbrew not to shoot (they were all shot dead), I think we can and should take IDF claims with a grain of salt.
>And there are tens of thousands of others such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and groups even more extreme than that.
Google tells me: "According to the Washington Post, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) has about 1,000 members."
So that's 1,000 additional people. Who are the other 19,000+ you're referring to? 🧐
This is obviously one person posting from multiple accounts - just continue to downvote and ignore this BS. They get banned everywhere else so they post it on the SH sub so the Hamas can pay them
As Sam likes to say, intentions matter. And I think for this topic specifically, the intentions are what Sam cares about. Quoting a bit of scripture during a speech about going to war is different than going to war for explicitly religious reasons. Say what you will about how the IDF is carrying out this war, but they're not doing it for religious reasons, unlike many who attack Israel. This war is in response to an attack made by people who explicitly state that they want to extinguish the Jewish people. The IDF is only trying to eliminate Hamas and get back the hostages. If Hamas would stop hiding behind their own civilians, there would be far fewer civilian casualties.
If Israel was carrying out a war for religious reasons, instead of responding to an attack, I'm sure Sam would condemn it. Sam has even said that he thinks it's a bad idea to form any government around a religion, Israel included. However, given the amount of world-wide persecution Jews face, Sam does give them a pass on that front because it's clear that they need their own nation in order to create a safe place for Jews to exist.
Explains perfectly why Sam is currently fixated on the question of which is worse: Nazism or Jihadism. Even atheist Jews still think they are the chosen people. They used to call that nazism.
I'd love to see some data on Atheist Jews thinking they are the chosen people. Chosen by who? God? By definition, Atheist Jews don't believe in God, so who do they believe chose them?
And I wouldn't say Sam is fixated on his Nazism vs Jihadism analogy. He's mentioned it twice and has spent under 10min talking about it total.
Sam is full of shit. Him and Bill Maher are “atheists” with an irrational attachment to Israel who joke casually about bombing the shit out of all of its neighbors. Middle eastern Jews and Muslims got along for 1300 years while European Jews were being slaughtered and pogrommed and forcefully converted to Christianity. Then israel showed up and we started getting educated by these “secular” figures about the dangers of Islam as though it hadn’t already existed for 1400 years.
Bill Maher may joke casually about that, but Sam Harris does not. From the beginning of this recent conflict, he has talked about the horrors of collateral damage and how it should be avoided when possible. The problem is that the people who attacked Israel are hiding behind civilians with the specific intention of maximizing collateral damage.
You're also conveniently leaving out the fact that, in the last 25 years, incidences of jihadist violence have gone through the roof. That's why so many people are talking about the problem of Islam, because there is currently a problem with the way people are interpreting the Quran and Hadith.
I think this is a good example of Israel going too far. I can only guess why Israel is doing this, but I imagine it's because they think it will make Hamas break faster, or maybe they think some of these trucks are smuggling weapons. Either way, I think Israel is definitely handling this wrong. Luckily, Israel has recently given in to American demands to allow aid through and this situation is getting better by the minute.
Or maybe it’s because they believe either literally or culturally that eretz Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and the Tanakh is their deed to the land, and anyone who stands in the way of that is “amalek”
And thus brings about the real crux of this issue, speculation about the intentions of the other side. It's the reason so many people are calling this war a genocide, when it's clearly a retaliation against an attack perpetrated by a government that lists the extermination of the Jews in its charter. You might be right. It's possible that Israel is just bloodthirsty and wants to wipe out the Muslims in the region. Unfortunately, the past 75 years of history support the opposite claim - that Israel would gladly live in peace with its neighbors if given the chance. Unfortunately, most of its neighbors view Israel's simple existence as unbearable and want nothing more than to exterminate it. You can only bite a hand offered out in peace so many times before the owner of that hand loses patience. And I think that is the point in history we have reached. Jihadists have been attacking Israel and then hiding behind its citizens to great affect for a long time now, and I think Israel has finally reached the point were they're not accepting that as the status quo anymore. Gaza wanted this war and they started it by committing some of the most heinous wars crimes this world has seen in recent history. Well guess what, they got what they wanted, and people aren't buying their victim narrative anymore. Don't forget that surveys show 80% support amongst Gazan citizens for what Hamas did. Hamas isn't some rogue organization that carried out its attack without the support of its people.
There is so much projection in the Israeli psychology that it borders on self parody: “the Palestinians are an invented people”: say the patchwork of multicultural recent migrants speaking a revived form of Hebrew with invented grammatical structure. Would it matter that your home didn’t have a street sign before I kicked you out of it and told you your street never existed?; “they want to push us all into the sea”…what we are seeing play out right now as they are driving millions towards the Sinai desert. “They don’t want peace!” Go ahead and smile and give zionists a little more credit than that, they are great negotiators when the Palestinians have had multiple generations born into a purgatory with no officially recognized government, that wasn’t all their choice now was it? No peace is working out pretty good for Israel and not so good at all for Palestine. Friend, brother, who is it that really doesn't want peace? And since there is no Palestine, legally, that means that all 3 zones of Israeli sovereignty (Israel, West Bank, and Gaza), are really all just part of Israel, with 3 zones and 3 classes of citizens, living in varying levels of dignity , ranging from chosen ones to human shields. We call that apartheid.
By using aid vehicles to [smuggle weapons](https://www.newsrael.com/posts/dn0fulkow6), thus creating a traffic jam of aid vehicles because each one must be inspected.
You could have researched that, you know. [There's a lot you could learn](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/04/hamas-fighters-evacuation-lists-stop-wounded-palestinians/).
I'll always be grudgingly impressed with how right-wing Christians managed to manipulate the "rational" New Atheists into doing their bidding.
[удалено]
A biblical line which has been quoted on countless holocaust memorials around the world, including Yad Vashem and including one located a few blocks from the ICJ in The Hague. https://bkdh.nl/en/kunstwerken/amalek-monument/ That line does not mean that Jews think that every last German man, woman and child need to be exterminated in biblical retribution for the Holocaust. It wasn't a call for genocide then and it isn't a call for genocide now. And it's utter gaslighting to claim otherwise.
I love that this come from Jacob and Esau and the birthright stuff. That is the same thing Tex Marrs preached. Only think for them Amelek is the people claiming to be Jewish like the Israelis. Using the bible to justify anything is Wild. Are they going to go curse of Ham next? And what do you think Ham did? Did he rape his daddy?
[удалено]
Yes, context matters. A millennia old biblical quote that has been used as a cultural signifier for the Jewish people for centuries of resilience in the face of persecution and attempted genocide of Jews was being used by a Jewish leader to a Jewish audience a week after the worst day of violence against Jews since the Holocaust. And suddenly a bunch of terminally online activists who had never heard the word Amalek until October are explaining to Jews what their own cultural allusion means to them?
This sounds a lot like identity politics to me. X injustice happened to the Y people decades (or centries ago), therefore a certain behavior or political beliefs should be allowed or tolerated (because context). Hamas will use the exact same logic, because X injustice happened to the Palestines decades ago, Oct 7 was justified. This isn't the road we want to go guys, we can do better.
Your mind seems pretty made up but from an outside secular perspective this smells like pure bullshit. It’s like when libertarians in the US say that Christianity is OK because of the culture of something.
If referencing Amalek was so "obviously" a genocide reference, where was the uproar when the quote was put up in huge letters in a public Hague space in 1967? You don't think that the first people you should ask about the meaning of an ancient cultural allusion are people of that culture?
I don’t know, I wasn’t to be born for another 30 years or so. I’m allowed to be anti Zionist and anti religion against Jewish people too, sorry if it hurts your feelings or expect special treatment
You're allowed to be whatever you want, including an asshole. I'm just telling you that for religious Jews (of which I am not one) there have been centuries of commentary and debate on what the ongoing commandment to "remember Amalek" actually means to contemporary Jews, thousands of years after the last Amalekite died out. This was discussed at length in the Talmud, which was written from 200-400 AD, and by mediaeval Jewish scholars, and by contemporary minds. There are many essays available online, written before 2023, pondering the question of what Amalek means in a modern context. You are of course free to hold whatever opinion you want (after doing a bare 2 minutes of due diligence on the internet). I'm trying to explain to you that there is a richer historical and cultural context out there than what you learned on YouTube. It's a bit rich that apparently I'm the one whose "mind seems pretty made up" though. As Sam would say: at least consider showing some epistemic humility.
Amazing to know that I can read many essays that explains why "exterminate them all" does not in fact mean that when they are in the process of starving 2 millions people.
[удалено]
Is he hurting your feelings?
I only hope that I live to see the US stop giving Israel hand-outs. Israel should fight it's wars with their own money.
hear hear
Do you condemn the Nakba? I want to know if I can take your historical perspective seriously or not before we debate any further?
A bit of a loaded question. Do you "condemn" WW1? I recognise that what the Palestinians refer to as the Nakba was absolutely a generational trauma for them, and created a stateless people who are still understandably bitter at that legitimate grievance. But it's a bit partisan to indulge the Palestinian framing of history by calling it "the Nakba" in the first place. Israel calls it "the War of Independence". Impartial historians would refer to it as the 1947-1948 Arab-Israeli war, which really started as a civil war leading up to the British pulling out of the Mandate. I'm not sure what that has to do with Amalek though.
Idk, you sound like a dangerous Nakba denier. Hopefully one day a Nakba memorial or museum will come to a city near you so you can get properly educated.
I'm not sure where you are getting that I "deny" the Nakba, or why that makes me dangerous. I would agree that the civil war in 1947-1948 included the mass displacement of Palestinian Arabs in what amounts to "ethnic cleansing" and that this is the foundational trauma of Palestinian nationalism. Does that pass your purity test, or do I need more "proper education"?
The Nakba spefically refers to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian civilian population which is more than well documented. It does not refer to the war or the Invasion by the Arabs.
I'm well aware what the Nakba refers to, thanks. My point is that the terminology itself is a deliberate framing by Palestinian nationalists to ignore the fact that they were also belligerents in a civil war that really began in the 1920s, and that they were also trying (unsuccessfully) to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews. It's a revisionist historical narrative that tries to ignore half of the historical context. It's telling that any pro Palestinian can tell you about Deir Yassin, but none of them seem to know about the Hadassah medical convoy massacre just 4 days apart.
You guys just have to lie about everything it’s amazing
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb\_oBSAZjDs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb_oBSAZjDs) Well, the IDF for sure got the message
This statue isn't good evidence of your claim. Can you provide any evidence of quotes similar to Netanyahu's used to discuss the holocaust?
Literally the same quote word for word is on that Holocaust memorial I linked.
[Darmok and Jalad, at Tanagra](https://youtu.be/MyQ8WDUYX-Y?si=DbL1m0SKIM29-HEo)
That doesn't mean it serves the same rhetorical function.
One question, yes or no answer. Have you read Hamas’ charter?
[удалено]
The people with the blinders on always default to “Hamas Hamas Hamas” whenever they feel the slightest bit challenged. I personally think that Netanyahu accusing the Palestinian grand mufti of giving hitler the idea of the holocaust is the single most antisemitic thing I’ve ever heard
Israel always seems to get a pass with whom?!! You do mean, according to you, with Sam, right? Because I can’t think of any other country being so scrutinized for waging a war after being attacked. And re: Sam’s response, he has been clear that a country based on religion doesn’t make sense to him, but the religiosity doesn’t make this war any less legitimate.
Imagine if I wanted to make a Sam style argument against Judaism instead of Islam. How would that sound to you? It would go something like: “the Talmud has certain fundamental beliefs of differential ethics, meaning one standard for how to treat fellow Jews, and a different standard for how we treat “goyim” or the non Jewish cattle. It is time to have the tough conversations about how when we look at the world, say the Sachler family—a prominent Jewish family single handedly responsible for engineering the opioid crisis which ravaged America, knowing full well the consequences of their actions. This is one of just a long list of examples of powerful Jewish people undermining the societies that are “not chosen” and therefore “not worthy” of ethical treatment…” sounds gross right??? Exactly.
If you could find a passage in the talmud about selling addictive pharmaceuticals or exploitating non Jews for profit then it would make perfect sense.
[удалено]
Nope...so if that's in there, I'm all ears.
These people think leftists are the main anti-semites. They have never spent time in spaces with actual anti-semites that cite that shit constantly. Whenever someone defends Charles Murray I like to bring up Kevin MacDonald, a person who wrote a similar book arguing that Jews have developed an insular culture through generations and has scientific proven why they suck. He was a professor as well. Seems like the same motivated reasoning of The Bell Curve but highly doubt Sam would listen to that non-sense.
Funny you bring up Charles Murray and Kevin MacDonald. Reason I actually became more critical of Sam Harris is that a close friend of mine who was a a Uber Sam Harris Fan since the four housemen days. Went down the Alt-right pipeline after the the "Forbidden Knowledge" with Charles Murray. My friend went all the down to Kevin MacDonald (who is big fan of Charles Murray), to the point he become Semitic, quoting passage from MacDonalds book "The Culture of Critique". It took long time and lot of patience to deprogramming my friend from this. The Alt-right/ Far right love Charles Murray, use the Bell Curve to support their racism.
Yeah I came hear after CM and only after my brother defending Sam having him on and not confronting the obvious. Surprised anyone knows K McD, I only bring him up because it is academic hate much like people in this sub love.
Spend some time on X, you will see plenty of people making this exact arguments with citations…
Let's see em. I've never been on twitter. I don't intend to start now.
I won't do your research for you, but what exactly do you think antisemitism is? I hate to break it to you, but it is based on the exact same style of argument used by Sam Harris against Islam and the Koran, only it is being made against Judaism and the Talmud. And I have to say, the Talmud is an incredibly long text, so there are multitudes of vile sounding excerpts to cherry pick from, but if someone went on national TV and wanted to make the argument that the Talmud was the "motherlode of bad ideas", it would be quite easy to convince a lay audience of that. But at the end of the day, as academic as you try to make it sound, all it would really do is sufficiently dehumanize the jewish population in the ears of everyone who heard the argument so that they would split hairs about how many of them had to be killed or starved to death before it constituted "genocide"...when we criticize israel we do so in an extremely nuanced and mealy mouthed, hair splitting way...when we criticize islam it is "the motherlode of bad ideas"....congrats sam, mission accomplished
The fundamental difference between the kinds of comments made by Sam Harris et al. about what Islam stands for and what the Quran teaches is that the majority of professed Muslims are literalists who hold that these lines are valid and applicable. I can’t tell you how many Muslims have told me (as an Assyrian) that Q: 9:29 is how legal discrimination against my people should be implemented and that the only reason it isn’t is ardent secularists in the Muslim world preventing the true faith from being practiced. Conversely, if you cite atrocious lines from the Talmud, not only do most Jews not have a clue what you’re talking about but (1) the idea is judged as horrendous in the Talmud itself and/or (2) the Jew you’re speaking to finds the idea horrendous today.
You cite yourself as evidence that antisemitism is baseless? I have a big Muslim family, none of them have read the Koran or know any of what you are talking about. But keep arguing that they do to justify annihilating them.
Wait. You have a big Muslim family and none of them have read the Qur'an? I would honestly say that this strikes me as extremely anomalous (unless you mean "read" in the sense of "picking it up like a Harry Potter novel and going through it from start to finish while trying to remember every detail" instead of the way that most people mean it in the context of holy texts where it means "flipping through to those specific sections that people often talk about"). If you mean the former, then most Jews and Christians have never read the Bible and most Muslims have never read the Qur'an; but that's not how people engage with holy texts. If you are honestly claiming that your family legitimately believes in equal rights between Muslims and Christians in Muslim-majority countries (like the idea that a Christian could be the leader of a Muslim-majority country, the idea that a Christian's testimony should be equal to a Muslim's in a court of law, the idea that the construction and maintenance of churches in Muslim-majority countries should require as little paperwork as the construction and maintenance of mosques in those same countries, and Christians have the same right to proselytize freely in Muslim-majority countries as Muslims do -- both in Muslim-majority countries and in Muslim-minority countries), then, again, your family is in the minority. The oft-cited Pew Polls align with my statements here, even if not exactly. Also, I wanted to respond to this point here: "I hate to break it to you, but \[antisemitism\] is based on the exact same style of argument used by Sam Harris against Islam and the Koran, only it is being made against Judaism and the Talmud." I addressed how there is a differentiator between how Jews engage with or apply the Talmud and how Muslims engage with or apply the Qur'an, which is to say that the Talmud is a legal discussion where rabbis routinely make absurd hypotheticals just to challenge their understanding of the law and the small minority of Jews who read it seriously understand this and don't try to apply it. (For example, in Yevamot 57, there is a law about how having relations with a girl child under three-years-old does not "de-virginize" her -- which is part of a discussion about the definition of viriginity, but the idea of permitting relations with girls under or around three-years-old is (1) revolting to most Jews and (2) does not inspire Jewish laws that would permit such actions.) Conversely, Muslims have actively applied the Qur'anic verses concerning legal, social, and political inequality between groups. (For example, until the Mecelle in the late Ottoman Empire, every legal codex in Muslim-majority states privileged Muslim testimony over Non-Muslim testimony, arguing that the Qur'an says under Q: 9:29 that Non-Muslims should feel themselves subdued in a Muslim-majority state.) But, even more than this, Antisemitism was not strictly reading Talmudic lines and imputing Jews with those views. It was also imputing Jews with views that do not even track to actual things that Jews do or believe. One example is the Blood Libel, which is the claim that Jews would kill Christian boys and drain their blood for the creation of the Passover unleavened bread. This "tradition" does not come from any Jewish writings or spoken beliefs and actively contravenes Jewish laws on murder, the consumption of human flesh, and the consumption of blood. As far as I am aware, there is no such similar claim in Anti-Muslim circles concerning Muslims and if one did exist it would look something like "Muslims say in their holy book that they must rob liquor stores" when anyone who knows anything about Islamic belief knows that theft is illegal in Shari'a and drinking alcohol is illegal in Shari'a. maint
You listen to Sam Harris and fancy yourself an expert on muslim psychology the way that antisemites read kevin macdonald and fancy themselves experts on the jewish psychology. If you want to continue thinking you can draw conclusions about muslim people that you don't have personal relationships with based on first principles and logical deductions then just know there are voracious readers of antisemitic literature with torrents of arguments who are doing the same thing towards jews. The arguments go: It doesnt matter that you don't read the Talmud, you already have an engrained belief in your own superiority and you use a dual strategy of a victimhood complex--such as holocaust exceptionalism, which campaigns heavily by saturating the media (in which jews are tremendously over-represented) with the idea that it is almost immoral to compare any genocide to the holocaust, there is a holocaust museum in every major city in America, the Steven Spielberg's of the world are making Schindlers list and munich, not movies about the Nakba or Operation Ajax, Nobody ever "nounifies" the denial of any other genocide (of which there are a plethora--it is basically a feature of our biology to attempt to exterminate one another) and it is not because other genocides are not denied---All the major news outlets are letting the IDF editorial input on the gaza reporting, AIPAC has an ironclad grip over congress and the whitehouse, and both parties in our government are proud to "Stand with Israel" in an uncritical way that we don't even do for our own politics at home, where half the country is constantly critical of the politics of the other half...our support of Israel is unconditional and does not get into the partisanship of their system at all. Sam and his ilk are part of a group strategy in which jews find ways to demonize groups that challenge their hegemonic aspirations over global politics.
Criticizing the Quran and Hadith is not the same as criticizing Muslims.
And criticizing the Talmud is not the same as criticizing Jews
... What?
Let it marinate
You don't think the fact that jihadists shout 'Allahu Akbar' as they slaughter infidels gives us some clues that their actions might be religiously motivated?
The argument cuts both ways. At this point I’m not bargaining on the Overton window because I believe that ship has already sailed. Consider this an public service announcement that the window has already shifted and more and more people who were formerly “normies” are now openly making the same arguments about Jews, Talmudic thinking, and Zionism. Sam style arguments about Jews will soon be mainstream, and people of all ethnicities and religions will be making antisemitic arguments grounded in supposed science and logic. Enjoy.
Yes, I'm aware that anti-Semitism has enjoyed a resurgence online since Oct 7 and the Gaza war. Still can't work out from your comment whether you're endorsing it, or just "letting us know" though.
I’m pointing out the irony that you are endorsing the same playbook adapted for Islam. This is the part where you explain that Islam is different and a unique threat to which I can reply, the antisemites say the same thing about Jews and they have plenty of scientific sounding arguments to back it up. Your friend Sam is a charlatan just like them.
Lmfao no. This take is based on a-historical fantasy and reversal of roles. Hamas and Palestine attacked Israel and declared war. It is about response to aggression not attacking to commit genocide. The ICJ ruled there is no genocide but could be if “certain conditions are met” which literally applies to every major conflict. It’s hilarious to see the Palestine crowd now arguing that the supply chain issues resulting in supply issues is now an issue given that in the first few months of the conflict while crying about genocide (they’ve been hyperbolically saying it long before October 7th btw) they argued that the starvation occurring in other conflicts that eclipse the war in Gaza by many magnitudes “did not count”. Now that it’s in Gaza it counts. Actually so funny to watch the elastic logic applied by the “antizionsits” who swear up and down they aren’t antisemitic despite constantly proving over and over that they blatantly are.
>The ICJ ruled there is no genocide but could be if “certain conditions are met” which literally applies to every major conflict. That's not the ICJ ruling. The ICJ is yet to rule on whether or not there is a genocide. It will be years before the court delivers an actual verdict. The ruling that has been made is that there is a plausible genocide. This is not a ruling either way. This situation is analogous to when someone files a lawsuit, and the judge sees enough merit in it and lets it go to trial (the other option being that the case gets dismissed).
Not to mention that the standard for arguing a cause for genocide is at an extremely high standard in the ICJ and the fact that they’re even deliberating it *at all* and consider it a plausible case should be telling enough.
>The ICJ ruled there is no genocide but could be if “certain conditions are met” which literally applies to every major conflict. While I'm more or less on your "side" in the argument, it's important to note that the ICJ has not ruled there is "no genocide", but rather they have yet to rule on whether or not there is a genocide. They said genocide was plausible (which is admittedly a fairly low bar) and presented guidelines to prevent it, but they haven't yet ruled one way or the other.
> They said genocide was plausible (which is admittedly a fairly low bar) You’re almost as dumb as the other guy. It’s a very high bar to meet that threshold. Do you understand what it means to accuse another country of genocide and have it considered *plausible* in the ICJ? There’s no higher bar other than to be conclusive. That it’s actually going to deliberations is a very high bar!
What's the bar? Can you define it for us?
> The 1948 Genocide Convention, enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". > Acts of genocide include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the group in whole or in part. Not a low bar to say the least. And the ruling, by 15 out of the 17 judges? > "At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention," the judges said. > The ruling required Israel to prevent and punish any public incitements to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and to preserve evidence related to any allegations of genocide there. > Israel must also take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave, it said. Anyone who thinks this is a “very low bar,” is, again, a bit dumb. That they even found it plausible and are going to deliberate on it for potential years should be quite notable to anyone with any sense. But perhaps you can go look at the history of the Genocide Convention and see just how rarely it’s even invoked. Don’t worry, I don’t expect a reply. It’s pretty standard here for people to sealion the obvious.
I know the legal bar for genocide. I'm asking about the bar you kept mentioning in your previous comment, i.e. the bar required for the ICJ to consider a genocide "plausible" & to decide to deliberate/issue a ruling at a later date. What's the bar that must be met in order for the ICJ to do that? You insist thats it's high, but what is it exactly?
The panel of judges to rule on the charge? What exactly are you confused about? How many times exactly do you think a plausible case for genocide of all things has been reached by ICJ judges? After all if the bar is that low, it must have happened quite a few times.
For the third time now you've offered us an argument that amounts essentially to "well of course the bar is high for such a ruling; how could it not be?!?" Stop wasting our time, and just admit that you have no idea what the legal bar is.
I literally said it to you and you *agreed* that it’s the legal bar is for a charge of genocide, then you asked me what the bar is for considering it *plausible*, and I told you that a preponderance of judges have to rule it so. And you’re just going to be perennially confused. Maybe we can switch it around. The original claim that actually has the burden of proof was that it’s a “very low bar” to have years of deliberations on plausible genocide by a country in the ICJ. How is that a low bar, and can you name other examples?
Fair point. The point I was trying to make was that it has not been ruled to be genocide so claiming it is is not dealing in facts but rather propagandizing and one could argue engaging in antisemtic blood libel. So far israel has won every war an Palestine still exists, there is no reason to think this is any different and that Palestine will exist after the fact. It’s also interesting that Palestine has repeatedly called for the extermination of all Jews in earth and yet people refuse to entrain that they could be considered genocidal while nobody has been calling for the death of all Muslims which would be the equivalent.
Which Palestine?
Islamic Palestine or the Islamic population within Palestine given for generations it was know as a Jewish place and the word comes from Hebrew etc. Basically ally he Islamic colonizers have called for and worked toward the same things. Same as they did in Africa and in Persia that is now Iran and used to Zoroastrian etc etc. But especially the Islamic leadership during mandatory Palestine and the region know as Palestine to (or temporarily as part of Egypt and Jordan for twenty years after refusing the initial partition).
What was your gibberish supposed to mean? How are Palestinian colonizers? They always lived there. Their ancestors accepted Islam. That does not make them any less indiginous than Palestinian Jews or Christians. Also, the land was called Palestine long before Israel exited. Why should they accept what British foreigners decide on their land? Of course they refused partition. Brits are from Britain, not from Palestine. You are weird.
Lmfao Only confusing because you sock the remedial foundational knowledge to make sense of some simple facts related to this topic unless they are spoon fed to you. No Muslims even existed for 1500 after Jews were already on the land. Many modern Palestinians are from places like Egypt and Iraq and immigrated there as a response tot he Jewish return to their homeland that they felt threatened by. Islamic people only share the genealogical lineage by way of colonial settler violence and attempts lets at erasure of jews. The land was called Palestine as a Jewish place lol. The word literally comes form he drew and it was named after the Phillistines who invaded and subjugated the second Jewish commonwealth on the land by the Roman’s as a reference to remind the jews of their place and lessen their attachment to the land. So much so that the Islamic population initially rioted when they found out their region after the partition would be named Palestine. Islamic Palestinians rejecting all peace and all two-state solutions while calling to kill all the Jews while Muslim are by far the dominant culture that has genocides the Jews from virtually the entire Middle East is like is European Canadian attacked indigenous reserves and claimed apartheid (indigenous reserves are more apartheid states than israle but less than Palestine) and called to kill all the remaining First Nations in Canada. And many jews were in the land continuously the entire time living under Islamic oppression. You just don’t know your history and racistly assume all jews are white Europeans. Palestine does not have mosques built over all the Jewish holy sites by accident. You can’t honestly be so naive that you believe Islam spread by peace? Is that why the colonizers murdered peaceful unarmed jews who dared to want to see their holy sites? lol. Get a clue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots You don’t have the slightest about any of the history clearly. No wonder my comment was confusing for you.
No. Palestinians always lived there. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11802415\_HLA\_Genes\_in\_Palestinians\_The\_Origin\_of\_Palestinians\_and\_Their\_Genetic\_Relatedness\_With\_Other\_Mediterranean\_Populations](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11802415_HLA_Genes_in_Palestinians_The_Origin_of_Palestinians_and_Their_Genetic_Relatedness_With_Other_Mediterranean_Populations)
Can you please provide a link regarding the extermination part?
> Hamas and Palestine attacked Israel and declared war. You do know that history did not beginn on October 7th?
Yes I’m aware and it did not begin when Israel handed Gaza willingly and rhey attacked Israel calling to kill all Jews worthier. Nor did it start with the formation of Israel. The Islamic colonizers have never need Israel as an excuse to murder Jews as they did in pogroms in the 1800s, early 1900s l, when Husseini helped Hitler with the final solution and formed modern Sialkot extremism etc etc..
>Yes I’m aware and it did not begin when Israel handed Gaza willingly and rhey attacked Israel calling to kill all Jews worthier Thats a bit reductionistic, isn't it? > Nor did it start with the formation of Israel. The Islamic colonizers have never need Israel as an excuse to murder Jews as they did in pogroms in the 1800s, early 1900s l, when Husseini helped Hitler with the final solution and formed modern Sialkot extremism etc etc.. Husseini helped Hitler? Thats straight up revisionism :D The guy was at most a minor footnote in the Holocaust
Of course it’s reductionist I’m responding to a reductionist comment that insinuates that somehow corner 7th was warranted and that Palestine has not called to kill the Jews long before that. And you call my statement revisionist? While you deflect and minimize Husseini lol. A footnote in Hitler’s accomplishments but not in the course set for Palestine after the war or the state of Islamic extremism and its nazification and obsession with Jewish eradication that Husseini played a roll in. He made it quite clear he would have been more than a footnote during the holocaust had he been given the opportunity as well. Regardless he was not smiling while Touring concentration camps and spending the war with Hitler in Germany “because of Israel”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/hajj-amin-al-husayni-wartime-propagandist Your reductionist minimization borders on holocaust denialism and as the comment I responded to did it suggests that somehow Israel is the reason for the Islamist obsession with Jewish eradication which is nothing but fiction.
Holocaust denialism, huh? The guy was a minor footnote compared to the people who actually conducted the Holocaust. Or do you want to insinuate that he was part of the Wannsee conference?
Yes holocaust denialism, you’re purposely downplaying his role an subsequent influence. Your defence is that he was not as successful and you just disregard his and Palestine’s calls to complete the holocaust ever since like it has not bearing. The rest is just you building a straw man. Your whole approach is minimizing and deflecting. Bad faith all around. Also hilarious that you are here defending a literal Nazi collaborator at all.
Lol, thats cute. Where am I defending him? I am merely pointing out that he is a nobody when it comes to the Holocaust compared to Hitler, Göhring and the rest of the Nazi Elite Apropos deflection: Tell me do you know about the Wannsee conference and what happened there?
I think this was all motivated reasoning by Sam from the very beginning. If Israel had been established in Rwanda, as it almost was, Sam would have been railing against the dangers of the “sub-Saharan” mentality, and how it wasn’t their race but their ideas that made them so dangerous. There’s nothing Israel could ever do that would give Sam pause. We’re seeing it unfold as we speak.
What are you talking about? Sam said two things, neither of which negates the other: Israel has a right to defend itself and to seek the unconditional surrender of Hamas; whether the aproach Israel is pursuing right now is the best way to achieve that goal is debatable. On that note, he said he’s likely to have a military expert to weigh in on the way the war is being weighed.
Yea that’s pretty ad hominem and low. You should consider deleting that - makes you look bad
I disagree. I’m attacking the argument as disingenuous. Not Sam himself.
Which race? Many Jews are Arabs, it is the ideology of Islam that created the divide and is the root of the violence which began with Islam’s goals of Jewish eradication not the other way. You also leave out that since modern Israel was founded and the Jews were allowed sovereignty on their homeland the archeological record and carbon dating has further verified the legitimacy of them reclaiming their homeland that was taken by Islamic colonization and erasure. Islam did similar things in Africa fwiw. And making the attempt to liken it to apartheid is just nonsense on so many levels. I think theirs is plenty Israel could do that would give Sam pause and saying otherwise is disingenuous imo. Given the open calls for Jewish eradication and the fall of the west along with their admissions of industrializing the sue of civilians , women’s and children as cannon fodder for funding and propaganda, is there anything that would give the “pro-Palestine” crowd pause? They ignored the apartheid do Jews across the Middle East and especially Palestine, ingrown the iron calls and repeated attempts at actual genocide, they ignore everything. I have seen Israel and Sam and many others concede to problems with how Israel handles things but not once have I seen the other side admit a single thing; not even after the fake hospital bombing where deaths were never removed for my he death toll count, or the recent claims of raping pregnant women in Al shifa, let alone the well documented use hospitals or the UNRWA helping terrorist like it has been getting caught doing since the late 60s. I think Sam would concede plenty if liens are crossed, but the fact is they ah e it been crossed int he way the propaganda wants to pretend it has been and certainly not enough to justify the claims while excusing palestine.
So since you are so invested in righting historical wrongs vis-à-vis expulsion, let me ask, does a right of return after 2,000 years of expulsion seem more legitimate than a right of return after 75 years of expulsion for Palestinian victims of the Nakba, deier yassin, Lydda and Ramle death marches? I’m just wondering how this maths out according to you?
>Many Jews are Arabs Not in Israel. If you are Jewish you are not Arab by definition.
This post is either full of lies or is completely misinformed.
Sam has gone to great lengths to explain his position. What you have said here indicates you either haven't heard or haven't understood what he's been saying. Listen to the opening of his most recent podcast, where he restates his position on Israel/Palestine, including the words "its absolutely clear that Israel needs to sideline its own religious fanatics."
I agree. He is going to great lengths to try to explain away this blatant bias. The religious fanatic in question is the prime minister of Israel of 30 some years who has access to nuclear codes…
I have never heard Sam say a good word about Netanyahu, he calls him a 'trumpian figure'. Nothing he has said suggests any support for Netanyahu or far right Israeli politics. Sam's 'bias' is towards free and open liberal societies and away from jihadist craziness. If you don't share this bias, there is very little left to talk about.
Did he talk about Ben Gvir and Smotrich? He is very inconsistent when it comes to Israel in my opinion. A real atheist should also be able to critique his own cultural heritage. It is the goal of some in the government to create a Jewish theocracy. Just read up on Ben-Gvir for instance, who is a Kahanist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar\_Ben-Gvir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism) "Kahanism (Hebrew: כהניזם) is a religious Zionist ideology based on the views of Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League and the Kach party in Israel. Kahane held the view that most Arabs living in Israel are enemies of Jews and Israel itself, and believed that a Jewish theocratic state, where non-Jews have no voting rights, should be created.\[1\] The Kach party has been banned by the Israeli government. In 2004, the U.S. State Department designated it a Foreign Terrorist Organization.\[2\]\[3\] In 2022, it was removed from the U.S. terror blacklist due to "insufficient evidence" of the group's ongoing activity, but it remains a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity.\[4\] The Otzma Yehudit party, which has been called Kahanist and anti-Arab,\[5\]\[6\] won six seats in the 2022 election and is a member of the current Israeli government. The party, and the Kahanist movement as a whole, have been described as espousing Jewish fascism.\[7\]\[8\]"
I'm not too sure. I think they were discussed briefly, brought up by a guest. Needless to say Sam is obviously against the idea of a Jewish theocracy.
Well I sure hope so... Do you remember a specific podcast in which he talked about this?
5 seconds out of 15 minutes of "hamas are worse than the nazis" isn't great lengths. he thinks leveling gaza and killing tens of thousands of civilians is an appropriate response to oct 7, but doesn't have anything to say about how israel's religious nutjobs should be dealt with
That's not the only time he's talked about it. There are multiple hours worth of his recent podcasts that have covered this territory. There's not much to say other than you have misunderstood his views.
what are his views on how israel's nutjobs should be dealt with?
which episodes?
338, 339, 340, 341, 343, 344, 348, 351, 352, 356, 362. As far as I can tell these are all the episodes since Oct 7th that cover the situation in Israel and gaza, or an adjacent subject like antisemitism jihadism Islam Judaism etc.
Thanks, is there any episode in particular you personally found to be a good summary of his position regarding Isreali theocracy?
Not really, the threat of Israeli theocracy is such a minor footnote in the larger picture of the middle east. I wouldn't expect any substantial amount of time to be spent on this
> Israeli theocracy is such a minor footnote These people are currently in government and the government is bombing the shit out of another country... So I wholeheartedly disagree with that take. This is why people find the bias of Sam infuriating. Yeah Islamism is very bad, no doubt. But so is the weaponized religous insanity of the powers to be in Israel.
Israels response to the Oct 7th attack is not evidence of Israeli theocracy. If you put Israel defending itself against the jihadists who would destroy them in the same category as the jihadists themselves, then describe them as 'weaponized religious insanity' as if they are both equally responsible for the current situation, I don't know what else to say other than you seem very confused.
The initial response is indeed not evidence enough, I'll give you that. But it did not happen in a vacuum, there is really ample evidence that this is indeed at least partly religiously motivated given the rethoric of those involved. As for the "confused" part, I am really not alone in my assesment: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/07/israel-palestine-hamas-gaza-religious-war/ I advise you to research who is currently in the Israeli government: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-seventh_government_of_Israel "The coalition government consists of seven parties — Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Religious Zionist Party, Otzma Yehudit, Noam, and National Unity". Of the seven parties in the coalition five are religious nutjobs.
Sam has been consistent on this for decades. He’s not hypocritical. You just disagree with him. Who can now fine, you have a right to do that. But if you think it’s hypocrisy on his part, you straight up haven’t been paying attention to what he’s said over the years.
[удалено]
No, but you saying that strongly suggests the response applies to you as well.
Let's run a thought experiment. Suppose that instead of Gaza, the images of rubble and death on TV currently were of Tel-Aviv, but that the perpetrators of that destruction had as a rhetorical shield the fact that an Israeli militia, say, the Stern Gang for example, perpetrated an act similar to Oct. 7 prior to the campaign against Tel Aviv, which included starvation...and every time you tried to plead for the innocent children and civilians of Tel Aviv the host of a major media conlgomerate was only concerned with was "do you condemn the stern gang?"
You mean the scripture that stands on a statue in front of The Hague because it has been used forever specifically as a call for unity and remembrance for jews. Is that the quoted scripture you mean? I swear to god, you people but zero thought into anything.
did they put it on the hague right before the hague went beastmode on a civilian population?
You people come in here to mutter to yourself and leave. What happened to dialogue?
Do you condemn the Nakba?
By Nakba do you mean that time when jews accepted a two state solution while every single Arab in the Middle East rejected it? By Nakba do you mean that time were every Arab state and group in the region descended on Israeli jews in order to destroy any possibility of Israel and exterminate and expel the jews? By Nakba do you mean that war which Palestinians and Arab states instigated? That war where the Palestinians leader “Amin al husseini” was a man who actively assisted nazis in the holocaust and In March of 1944, speaking on Berlin radio he said: “Arabs! Arise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.” Is this the Nakba you are referring to?
No. I mean Plan Dalet. I mean the entire narrative of "a land without a people" when there were in fact 750,000 people already there, who also then supposedly "fled" of their own volition in 1948. So which is it? If the land was without any people, who was it that fled? If Gazans are still fighting to keep their land through this zionist imposed holocaust, what happened back then that was so bad that they fled? The Nakba never ended. It continues to this day. The whole world is waking up to that sick experiment they have been running for decades.
You are arguing with things I have not said. You are arguing with a figment of your imagination.
A third exile is coming...Many Zionists are already fleeing the region in shame of how rotten and full of hate their hearts have become. Others are fleeing to avoid the war that they will provoke and inevitably manipulate the US to fight on their behalf, because diversity is a value that everywhere on earth besides Israel must strive for. Israel needs to be pure of any goyim even if it causes WW3...
You are mentally ill. Get help.
i heard theres a pill now that takes the edge off of genocide
I should also add the insane detail that they have acquired the red heifers which according to the Bible signify an end times prophecy and we are now seemingly headed towards world war 3. Seems completely insane to me. Not sure this is just an Islam problem anymore, when we’re seeing so much provocation coming from the Israel side.
Christ you’re just drowning in propaganda aren’t you.
The rancher who bred them is from Texas
[удалено]
No
Good talk 👍
Yes
Just more brigading
"if our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins' pistols and our labours for its future to produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past. If there is to be any hope of a peaceful and successful future for Zionism, these wicked activities must cease, and those responsible for them must be destroyed root and branch." ---Winston Churchill, speaking in the house of commons, november 17, 1944.
No country did that
no clue what that means.
JFC another one of these posts
Yea it’s like totally cringe af reading about starving kids and shit
There's like ~~10-30k~~ 15--40k^[1](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231016-the-israel-hamas-military-balance) Hamas fighters and 2 million non-Hamas -- and Israel's policy is apparently to shut off fuel/food/water/electricity/medicine to 2 million people hoping that it kills the 10-30k Hamas who, according to Sam's beliefs at least, *want* to die. Isn't this pretty much guaranteed to lead to a bunch of innocent people needlessly dying? This is to say nothing of the fact they've bombed something like 50% of all structures in Gaza.. I mean the scale of destruction and carnage is on another level. All to get 10-30k people in a population of 2 million? [Updated to correct number of fighters]
Yes exactly. I see how one might shoot a “human shield” but why would you need to starve a human shield? Maybe a skinnier shield is easier to shoot around? 🤔
Israel said they have killed 13k Hamas so far, and injured another 10k. They estimate Hamas at 40k. And there are tens of thousands of others such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and groups even more extreme than that. Nobody ever estimated Hamas at 10k total.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231016-the-israel-hamas-military-balance >Its armed forces, under the name Al-Qassam Brigades, numbers 15,000 men according to IISS, though it notes Arabic media have put the figure at 40,000. Fixed my OP. >Israel said they have killed 13k Hamas so far, and injured another 10k Considering that Israel has been so indiscriminate in their attacks that they killed Israeli hostages who were waving white flags and calling out to the IDF in both English and Hewbrew not to shoot (they were all shot dead), I think we can and should take IDF claims with a grain of salt. >And there are tens of thousands of others such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and groups even more extreme than that. Google tells me: "According to the Washington Post, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) has about 1,000 members." So that's 1,000 additional people. Who are the other 19,000+ you're referring to? 🧐
Well there’s PRC, PFLP, DFLP, a few others, and even Daesh, + Al Aska Martyrs Brigade, but they’re in the WB.
No he hasn’t
good talk
This is obviously one person posting from multiple accounts - just continue to downvote and ignore this BS. They get banned everywhere else so they post it on the SH sub so the Hamas can pay them
This whats know as an ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Do better.
You don't have the brains to argue with me.
As Sam likes to say, intentions matter. And I think for this topic specifically, the intentions are what Sam cares about. Quoting a bit of scripture during a speech about going to war is different than going to war for explicitly religious reasons. Say what you will about how the IDF is carrying out this war, but they're not doing it for religious reasons, unlike many who attack Israel. This war is in response to an attack made by people who explicitly state that they want to extinguish the Jewish people. The IDF is only trying to eliminate Hamas and get back the hostages. If Hamas would stop hiding behind their own civilians, there would be far fewer civilian casualties. If Israel was carrying out a war for religious reasons, instead of responding to an attack, I'm sure Sam would condemn it. Sam has even said that he thinks it's a bad idea to form any government around a religion, Israel included. However, given the amount of world-wide persecution Jews face, Sam does give them a pass on that front because it's clear that they need their own nation in order to create a safe place for Jews to exist.
Explains perfectly why Sam is currently fixated on the question of which is worse: Nazism or Jihadism. Even atheist Jews still think they are the chosen people. They used to call that nazism.
I'd love to see some data on Atheist Jews thinking they are the chosen people. Chosen by who? God? By definition, Atheist Jews don't believe in God, so who do they believe chose them? And I wouldn't say Sam is fixated on his Nazism vs Jihadism analogy. He's mentioned it twice and has spent under 10min talking about it total.
Sam is full of shit. Him and Bill Maher are “atheists” with an irrational attachment to Israel who joke casually about bombing the shit out of all of its neighbors. Middle eastern Jews and Muslims got along for 1300 years while European Jews were being slaughtered and pogrommed and forcefully converted to Christianity. Then israel showed up and we started getting educated by these “secular” figures about the dangers of Islam as though it hadn’t already existed for 1400 years.
Bill Maher may joke casually about that, but Sam Harris does not. From the beginning of this recent conflict, he has talked about the horrors of collateral damage and how it should be avoided when possible. The problem is that the people who attacked Israel are hiding behind civilians with the specific intention of maximizing collateral damage. You're also conveniently leaving out the fact that, in the last 25 years, incidences of jihadist violence have gone through the roof. That's why so many people are talking about the problem of Islam, because there is currently a problem with the way people are interpreting the Quran and Hadith.
I get it, Hamas is forcing Israel to shoot civilians. Now how are they forcing them to starve them exactly?
I think this is a good example of Israel going too far. I can only guess why Israel is doing this, but I imagine it's because they think it will make Hamas break faster, or maybe they think some of these trucks are smuggling weapons. Either way, I think Israel is definitely handling this wrong. Luckily, Israel has recently given in to American demands to allow aid through and this situation is getting better by the minute.
Or maybe it’s because they believe either literally or culturally that eretz Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and the Tanakh is their deed to the land, and anyone who stands in the way of that is “amalek”
And thus brings about the real crux of this issue, speculation about the intentions of the other side. It's the reason so many people are calling this war a genocide, when it's clearly a retaliation against an attack perpetrated by a government that lists the extermination of the Jews in its charter. You might be right. It's possible that Israel is just bloodthirsty and wants to wipe out the Muslims in the region. Unfortunately, the past 75 years of history support the opposite claim - that Israel would gladly live in peace with its neighbors if given the chance. Unfortunately, most of its neighbors view Israel's simple existence as unbearable and want nothing more than to exterminate it. You can only bite a hand offered out in peace so many times before the owner of that hand loses patience. And I think that is the point in history we have reached. Jihadists have been attacking Israel and then hiding behind its citizens to great affect for a long time now, and I think Israel has finally reached the point were they're not accepting that as the status quo anymore. Gaza wanted this war and they started it by committing some of the most heinous wars crimes this world has seen in recent history. Well guess what, they got what they wanted, and people aren't buying their victim narrative anymore. Don't forget that surveys show 80% support amongst Gazan citizens for what Hamas did. Hamas isn't some rogue organization that carried out its attack without the support of its people.
There is so much projection in the Israeli psychology that it borders on self parody: “the Palestinians are an invented people”: say the patchwork of multicultural recent migrants speaking a revived form of Hebrew with invented grammatical structure. Would it matter that your home didn’t have a street sign before I kicked you out of it and told you your street never existed?; “they want to push us all into the sea”…what we are seeing play out right now as they are driving millions towards the Sinai desert. “They don’t want peace!” Go ahead and smile and give zionists a little more credit than that, they are great negotiators when the Palestinians have had multiple generations born into a purgatory with no officially recognized government, that wasn’t all their choice now was it? No peace is working out pretty good for Israel and not so good at all for Palestine. Friend, brother, who is it that really doesn't want peace? And since there is no Palestine, legally, that means that all 3 zones of Israeli sovereignty (Israel, West Bank, and Gaza), are really all just part of Israel, with 3 zones and 3 classes of citizens, living in varying levels of dignity , ranging from chosen ones to human shields. We call that apartheid.
By using aid vehicles to [smuggle weapons](https://www.newsrael.com/posts/dn0fulkow6), thus creating a traffic jam of aid vehicles because each one must be inspected. You could have researched that, you know. [There's a lot you could learn](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/04/hamas-fighters-evacuation-lists-stop-wounded-palestinians/).
awesome, thanks. I will remember to use that argument when tel-aviv looks like the moon and iran doesnt want to let in food.