Nostr

From: pam<-DerekRoss at 10/12 11:37

> when you refer to terrorist, are you referring to the Hamas, both the Hamas and the Fatah, or in general the people of Palestine?

Hamas. And to the north Hezbollah.

> 2 popular groups in Palestine - Fatah (West Bank) and Hamas (Giza). Fatah has been the moderate one, pushed for the Oslo accord - but as with a lot of leaders, has its large of share of corruption that people are stressed with. They want to draw the borders and have come to an agreement with Israel - but Hamas has always intervened.

Fatah has been less violent lately; but they still pay the families of terrorists and name streets after them, so I'm not so sure about how "moderate" they are.

> Groups like Hamas and others alike - Hezbullah, RUF, Charles Taylor, jihads, talibans - also some in syria, egypt, turkey - were formed in that late 80's / 90's period.

The groups aren't what matter so much as the ideology -- which goes back to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his alliance with Hitler. The enmity itself is biblical, going back 3,000 years or more.

> I do not know enough about these groups and I do want to read a bit more on this when i have the time. I also want to read a bit more on Nakba in 1948 , the Arab-Israel war and the creation of Israel. I also need to do a cross reference on the history of Israel, as biblically it has existed over a thousand years before Jesus died - it was there from Abraham's time I think.

(Very brief biblical history) The _land_ of Israel was given to the _people_ of Israel as "the promised land" about 3,200 years ago. Abraham lived ~800 years before that. Abraham's grandson was Jacob, whose name was later changed to Israel. The people of Israel are his descendants. Jacob took his family to Egypt where they stayed for several centuries and multiplied. The Egyptians enslaved them and Moses rescued them and led them to Canaan, the promised land, what we now call Israel.

Incidentally, Jacob's uncle was Ishmael, who also founded a nation. God told Abraham that there would always be enmity between his sons. It is a common belief that the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael.

Shortly after the death of Jesus, the Romans decided they'd had enough of the unruly jews, and dispersed them all over Europe, destroying Jerusalem, the temple and the whole place. The jews did not start to return in earnest until the late 1800s, when they started to build settlements. At the time the area was pretty deserted. Mark Twain said it was desolate and devoid of inhabitants.

That began to change as the Jews started to move in. Arabs joined them. And the two populations grew together throughout the mid 20th century. They didn't much care for each other. In the end, after WWII, the brand new UN declared a two state solution. Israel accepted and formed a state. The five surrounding Arab states immediately declared war and invaded. Israel drove them back and would not let the Arabs who had left in fear return to their homes. Their descendants are the Palestinians.

Of course it's a lot more complicated than that, but that's the rough picture.

> When it comes to university students though, even from the beatnik/hippies era, they have been a strong force of anti war - do they have a different stance ?

Apparently they don't like war unless it is war against Israel. It's hard for me to understand their rationale. I don't think it is a rationale. I think it's just brainwashed nonsense.

CC: #[4]

Until 3 days ago I was pretty settled in my view that Hamas is a terrorist organisation using barbaric tactics. Only in the last 3 days has that view changed based on lack of evidence (among much evidence). I am now uncertain, and seeking more evidence.

Fatah was the party that championed a diplomatic solution. They rule the West Bank, which Israel cuts into smaller and smaller pieces (diplomacy didn't work).

Hamas was the party that championed violent resistance. They rule Gaza and promise to get revenge on Israel. They have super-majority support in Gaza. You might think that is stupid, since any attack of Hamas will cause a much worse retaliation by Israel, but this is what the people of Gaza want. Perhaps more than their own lives, they seem to want revenge.

People were on the land before the people of Israel conquered it (they were not "given" the land, they killed people to get it, Caananites and many others as I recall, with some Ark of the Covenant supernatural device, right? ;-). And many people were on it since.

The levant wasn't "pretty deserted". People had been inhabiting it for thousands of years, as you mentioned earlier in your post. From 1881-1903, about 25000 jews immigrated there. From 1904-1914 another 35000 arrived. By 1922, the population was up to 11% Jews and 89% Arabs. That means there were still far more Arabs there even after those waves of immigration. Data from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

I could try to explain their rationale for wanting revenge on Israel, but I couldn't do it justice not being one of them. And it's so cultural that I doubt many of them remember all the stories and reasons themselves, at this point they just do.

"Terrorist" is just a word. When Jews want you to hate somebody they call that person "Terrorist" or "Nazi" ...

They call January 6th protesters "Maga Terrorists" for example, simply because they didn't like having their election stolen, even though they didn't actually hurt a single person ...

Meanwhile if you were to call Jews simply "The Jews" you would already have your life destroyed merely for daring to name them.

The Jews get to develop labels that everybody else must live in fear of being labeled by ...

While they themselves cannot be named at all ... except in the context of their imaginary persecution ...

Sweet deal ...

From: (DissidentSound) at 10/12 21:45

> Meanwhile if you were to call Jews simply "The Jews" you would already have your life destroyed merely for daring to name them.

THE JEWS! THE JEWS! THE JEWS!

Oh, look! I'm still here. My life has not been destroyed. Nor will it be.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

wow you are very brave !

now say " the Jews are 2% of US population but 95% of Mainstream Media and Hollywood Executives "

the Jews seem very concerned about diversity yet it doesn't seem to bother them that they are 1/50th of population yet outnumber everybody else combined by 20 to 1 in positions of influence ... let's do some math here, that makes them over-represented by a factor of, oh 1,000 to 1 ... not very diverse !

since you are so brave and not afraid of the Jews why don't you bring up this issue in public. ask people if this is how "diversity" is supposed to work ...

i'm a Jew myself and even i am afraid of talking about it except on the internet and under a fake name.

Roger that 2y ago

This is how Israel call their terrorists form Irgut and Haganah which later formed IDF: "Hebrew Resistance Movement" (see blue sign).

Who is for "Palestinian Resistance Movement"?

:large

anybody who doesn't see this is to be spat on not argued with

Roger that 2y ago

You mean Fatah for their territory lost, but Gaza at least is still 100% Palestine

Interesting.

But just one tip: create an anonymous account. I don't know what they will do to your job after they read this.i just read another programmer Here lost his job for holding Israel accountable

am i not anonymous now ?

Roger that 2y ago

Sorry, inteded to say that to nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c

StackSats.IO 2y ago

nostr:note1lgptl80r8reratvx8m96xwlsypdx6f8c49pruwcg49ln25475dhqwdqshf

From: mikedilger at 10/12 21:30

> Until 3 days ago I was pretty settled in my view that Hamas is a terrorist organisation using barbaric tactics. Only in the last 3 days has that view changed based on lack of evidence (among much evidence). I am now uncertain, and seeking more evidence.

You are uncertain whether the attack last week was barbaric?

> Fatah was the party that championed a diplomatic solution. They rule the West Bank, which Israel cuts into smaller and smaller pieces (diplomacy didn't work).

Well...sort of. I mean, there were a lot of weddings, busses, and lunch bistros that were blown up by suicide terrorists coming from the West Bank. And Fatah seems willing to celebrate the attack by Hamas and encourage more such attacks.

> Hamas was the party that championed violent resistance. They rule Gaza and promise to get revenge on Israel. They have super-majority support in Gaza. You might think that is stupid, since any attack of Hamas will cause a much worse retaliation by Israel, but this is what the people of Gaza want. Perhaps more than their own lives, they seem to want revenge.

All true. To quote them: "We love death more than you love life."

> People were on the land before the people of Israel conquered it (they were not "given" the land, they killed people to get it, Caananites and many others as I recall, with some Ark of the Covenant supernatural device, right? ;-). And many people were on it since.

Certainly true. That's why I said that was a biblical story. Biblically speaking, God gave that land to the children of Israel. Of course that meant they had to take it by force. (For what it's worth, I'm neither Jew nor Christian. My opinions are not based on the Bible.)

> The levant wasn't "pretty deserted". People had been inhabiting it for thousands of years, as you mentioned earlier in your post.

Those were Mark Twain's words, and his perception as he toured the area in the 1860s. At that time the region of Palestine was governed and owned by the Ottomans. In the late 1800s funds were raised by Zionists to purchase tracts of lands from the Turkish land barons who owned it. The Zionists set up one settlement after another. Some failed, some flourished. The more that flourished the more attractive the land became to other Jews and Arabs. There was a significant increase in both populations.

>From 1881-1903, about 25000 jews immigrated there. From 1904-1914 another 35000 arrived. By 1922, the population was up to 11% Jews and 89% Arabs. That means there were still far more Arabs there even after those waves of immigration. Data from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

Correct. In the late 1800s Jerusalem held 4,000 Jews, 3,500 Christians, and 13,000 Arabs -- a rather small town of 20,000. That may be one reason why Twain chose the words he did.

The population of the area increased rapidly after that. And the demographic ratios shifted. Jews were 11% in '22, 17% in '31, and 30% by '47. By then the population was close to two million. 630,000 Jews, 143,000 Christians, and 1.2 million Arabs.

This shift was not due solely to natural population growth. Much of it came from different rates of immigration. The Arab population grew from half a million in 1890 to 1.2 million 57 years later. The Jews grew from 43,000 to 630,000 during the same period.

There was unrest between the two groups pretty much from the start, but it was exacerbated by Nazi propaganda during the '40s. European Jews, fearing Nazi advances, fled their homes. One of their destinations was Palestine. The British, already stretched thin, would not tolerate the anticipated increase immigration, and so barred the area to immigrating Jews, but not to Arabs. Some Jews came anyway and snuck in one way or another. Those who were caught were imprisoned, by the British, in Mauritius.

The Brits, who had taken the area from the Ottomans after WWI, turned the area over to the UN after WWII. The UN plan was to divide Palestine into six areas; three for the Jews and three for the Arabs. Jerusalem was to be kept neutral and governed by the UN. The six areas were not contiguous; there were "pinch points" where the touched.

The UN General Assembly voted for this plan. The Jews accepted the plan and declared the state of Israel. The Arabs were horrified and a civil war broke out between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Arab League nations who bordered Palestine: Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, attacked simultaneously. The Israelis rallied and pushed all five of the attackers back beyond their initial borders and gained a cease fire.

In short, it's a fascinating history, with lots of twists and turns. It is nowhere near as simple as either side would like it to be. The Jews are right about one thing. If the Arabs laid down their weapons there would be peace. If Israel laid down their weapons there would be no more Israel.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

> You are uncertain whether the attack last week was barbaric?

Let's forget about arguing whether it was barbaric, because definitions can vary wildly. I'm going to be very specific.

First, I no longer believe things because the news or officials say so. I've become very skeptical, far more than I used to be, based on repeated abuse of my mind. And as a result I have to discount all of my own memory, everything I think I used to believe from the past about Hamas, because I wasn't critical of any of that information at the time.

Second, I don't have a dog in this race, but I don't like being lied to. "Truth" is my only dog in this race.

When I started to notice the claims and the video evidence being out of alignment, I made a point to gather lots of video evidence and determine what the patterns actually were. The claims were that women and children were being routinely killed, raped, tortured, heads cut off, burned alive in their homes or in their cars. What I found was that Hamas doesn't seem to kill women or children, and only kills adult men. That was the pattern. There are two videos that could lead you to think otherwise, but they are not conclusive. But there are a huge number of videos of large numbers of dead adult men. The balance in proportionality of who they are killing is immense.

I am not defending Hamas, nor am I saying it is okay to kill adult men. That would be ridiculous. I think Hamas' attack was disproportionate to what happened in East Jerusalem and to the Jewish settlements. I think judging all adult men as guilty just because they were forced by their nation to serve in the IDF is wrong. And war is horrible, I'm against all violence on both sides.

All I'm saying here is that they have been mischaracterized. They carry some sort of very non-Western ethic. They are not just randomly slaying (which is what I consider barbarism to mean).

> The Zionists set up one settlement after another. Some failed, some flourished. The more that flourished the more attractive the land became to other Jews and Arabs.

There is a whiff of a supremacist attitude in the way you said that, implying that improvements made by Jews made the area attractive, with no reference to improvements made by Arabs.

Nothing about being Arab makes people less capable of improving the land and infrastructure. The height of human civilization from the 8th to the 13th centuries were in Islamic nations. Al-gebra, Al-gorithm, the scietntific method, emission theory of optics, astronomy, chemistry, and a hell of a lot more, all came out of the Islamic world.

Since we are on that topic, the reason those in Gaza live with such shit infrastructure is that if they try to improve it, they will be shot at by IDF (injured usually not killed). The IDF disallows any infrastucture improvement for "security reasons."

And the reason Israel flourished while the Arabs in the region never did is because Britain screwed the Arabs over originally (which turned them hostile to the Jewish people) and then once Israel got large and strong enough, they continually subjugated and pounded down the Arabs.

In WWI, McMahon promised the Arabs that Britian would recognize them as a state if they helped the Brits fight off the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs took the deal, fought fiercely, lost a lot of people. But there was a secret Sykes-Picot agreement, and the Brits never recognized the state of Palestine, and instead made the Balfour declaration recognizing a homeland for the Jewish people. That was the flash-point of hostility between the Arabs in the region and the Jewish immigrants. That is the modern start of enmity between the two groups,

After that, Jewish immigration was no longer welcomed by the Arabs. It just angered the Arabs. Because they knew the Jews were coming in to take over and take control over them.

I find it strange that pro-Israel accounts of history never even mention that. Gloss right past it. Gloss right past the point where enmity began.

You are right that for a time, to keep the peace, Britian put a cap on how many Jews could migrate to the region.

> If the Arabs laid down their weapons there would be peace.

If the Arabs laid down their weapons, the Jews would remove them stealing all of their land. The only reason the steal it slowly is to try not to provoke a response, to try to make it like boiling a frog.

Rudyard Kipling has the right of it:

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.

They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.

But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

From: mikedilger at 10/13 14:56

Thank you for that explanation. We're in the weeds now but I understand your point of view. The weeds don't get simpler as you try to peer through them. Sigh.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

I love you man. 🫂

I think the discussion becoming somewhat adversarial helps ensure we don't miss anything. I hope I didn't anger you.

No anger. I'm a firm believer in informed debate so long as it remains civil. I just think we reached the fractal part of that debate and it could have continued to subdivide without end. I think you understood my position, and I think I've got a grasp of yours. You gave me some things to think about, so thank you.

One day we might find a way to have a beer together. Or maybe a whiskey. ;-)

From: mikedilger at 10/13 15:22

> I love you man. 🫂

> I think the discussion becoming somewhat adversarial helps ensure we don't miss anything. I hope I didn't anger you.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

Sounds good. I like whiskey and beer both.

Can we then pull up out of the weeds? Forget the details and the long screeds. I see two fundamentally different overarching narratives:

Story #1:

Primary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

Secondary effect: Arab violence in retaliation

Tertiary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

Story #2

Primary effect: Arabs eternally hate Jews and will be violent when they can

Secondary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

Tertiary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

The first story is more believable to me. Every part of it is emminantly believable. We know if you get your land stolen you will get very very angry and that can lead to violence. We all agree (both stories) that violence of Arabs puts a security risk on the Jews. Nothing is out of place in this story.

But the second story seems crafted in order to justify land stealing. In order to pull this off, they have to invoke this concept that the eternal hatred of Arabs towards Jews is primary. The reason that is less believable is because (1) Arabs and Jews got along together before WWI, and (2) Palestinians live in peace with Jews inside of Israel right now.

Anyhow I really want to shut up now, I'm tired of this topic, but I wanted to share my high-level comparison before I quit.

I'm in favor of Story #3.

Primary effect: Jews and Arabs immigrate at different rates.

Secondary effect: Enmity arises between the two groups, helped by the politics of the day.

Tertiary effect: One side eventually outweighs the other leading to resentment, desperation, and violence.

It's a story that's played out many different times in many different places.

From: mikedilger at 10/13 15:31

> Can we then pull up out of the weeds? Forget the details and the long screeds. I see two fundamentally different overarching narratives:

> Story #1:

> Primary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

> Secondary effect: Arab violence in retaliation

> Tertiary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

> Story #2

> Primary effect: Arabs eternally hate Jews and will be violent when they can

> Secondary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

> Tertiary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

> The first story is more believable to me. Every part of it is emminantly believable. We know if you get your land stolen you will get very very angry and that can lead to violence. We all agree (both stories) that violence of Arabs puts a security risk on the Jews. Nothing is out of place in this story.

> But the second story seems crafted in order to justify land stealing. In order to pull this off, they have to invoke this concept that the eternal hatred of Arabs towards Jews is primary. The reason that is less believable is because (1) Arabs and Jews got along together before WWI, and (2) Palestinians live in peace with Jews inside of Israel right now.

> Anyhow I really want to shut up now, I'm tired of this topic, but I wanted to share my high-level comparison before I quit.

CC: #[7]

CC: #[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Story #4

1 - international Jewry declares war on Hitler's Germany

2 - ethnic Germans are persecuted in Poland to provoke Hitler, who invades Poland.

3 - Japanese are baited ( their funds are illegally frozen ) into attacking Pearl Harbor, when attack is imminent radars are dismantled to make the aftermath severe enough to convince Americans to join the war

4 - America helps Jewish Soviet Union to defeat Germany, Germans are genital-tortured to obtain confessions about "the holocaust" in which 6 million Jews were gassed even though the "death camps" didn't have any airtight rooms to gas anybody in, but they did have maternity wards for the inmates ...

5 - to make it up to the Jews for the fake "holocaust" United Nations charters Israel

6 - Jews immediately respond with Nakba and holocaust the Palestinians:

7 - not much love between Israelis and Palestinians since

8 - Dissdent Sound is banned from Twitter for questioning the holocaust because Jews made questioning their lies illegal in Europe and Twitter is a global company

9 - Dissident Sound joins NOSTR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie#:~:text=Corrie%20was%20part%20of%20a,the%20bulldozer%20and%20fatally%20injured.

you may not believe me but when i was a kid in Kiev, Ukraine the government leveled our garage ( they later stole our apartment ) and i still remember the urge i had to throw rocks at the head of the operator of the excavator that was destroying our garage. i didn't know what Gaza was, i heard the word but it meant nothing to me, but when you're a kid and you see an excavator or bulldozer destroying your home / garage it is almost like a reflex to grab a rock and hurl it ...

of course i didn't actually throw that rock and the government gave us another apartment ( in a worse neighborhood ) in exchange for the one they stole and remodeled for themselves, but the experience was enough that i know what side i am on in the Middle East conflict ...

there was also this:

Israeli Bulldozer ran over an American Citizen to death and Israel never apologized and it never made the news ...

and retarded Americans continue bleating " our greatest Ally ! "

LuisSP 2y ago

curious... WTF the UA government was doing confiscating buildings? URSS or post-URSS?

i lived in a "communal apartment" shared by 3 families. it was a gigantic apartment with 12 foot tall ceilings in a really old and fancy building overlooking a giant square with a fancy statue in the center. it was within walking distance of "Maidan" where all the government buildings were. this apartment was shared by 3 families because of how large it was. other apartments in the building were basically the same.

the government eventually realized the building was perfect for their own residences - they just needed to kick out the people living there and remodel it. of course they wouldn't use these apartments communally but as giant private residences.

they condemned the building as being "unsafe" ( they said it was going to collapse ) and kicked everybody out, then they remodeled it and moved in themselves. they never did any structural modifications - only cosmetic remodel. and they still live there.

the apartment was worth several million dollars just before the war ( though as i said it was shared by 3 families and also none of us ever actually "owned" it - we just lived there - there was no private property under Communism ).

this was about 5 years after USSR collapsed and Ukraine became independent. it was also a time of "privatization" which is to say when everything of value in the nation was stolen, including our residence.

LuisSP 2y ago

I know what 'comunal apt' is and that it was common for families in USSR.

And outside of USSR many older books show them (e.g., Kafka's "The Process", the protagonist rents a room).

I actually fear comunal apts will come back. First due to increasing real state pricing and general impoverishment.

Then, as an actual goal of the 'you will own nothing' gang.

But.. I heard about 'the everything is for grabs' post-soviet years, but did not know they went that far.

actually I wondered what happened with all those communal apartments owned by the state.

LuisSP 2y ago

sharia forbids treaties leaving muslim land to non muslim countries. none of it. All of Israel was ottoman ==> all peace stuff was always theater, at least w.r.t. permanent peace. It will never stop.

Egypt was able to sign a peace treaty only after Israel returned the Sinai and Egypt renounced Gaza: then, Egypt got all the lands it is responsible for, and left the unsolvable problem for the PLA - now Palestine government is responsible, unable to sign permament peace if Israel exist. Without a khalifa, no muslim government is responsible for the whole world, then there is this loophole. And even then, Sadat was murdered for that.

doubt -> the globalists let the jews go there in the 40's because:

a) they cared about the jews or at least needed a way to get them somewhere out of sight.

b) they did not know sharia and hoped stuff would settle somehow

c) they knew but salivated with the prospect of lucrative endless wars and political divide & conquer: suffering of jews and/or arabs was of no concern.

d) they knew, but better having those jews fighting and absorbing the energy of the muslim world, than having more jihad elsewhere. better them than us. if they want to go into the fire, who are we to say no?

these options are not exclusive if you consider different actors may know and want different things