BF2S Forums Rate the last TV Show you've seen

zionism is an ethno-nationalist ideology. it belongs to the 19th century. the fact that it relies on scripture for its ideological grounding and worldview is not really relevant to understanding the *modern* phenomenon. understanding the way that the state of israel operates today means engaging with the history of nationalism and the specific history of politics within that country. south africa and racial apartheid is far more relevant than myths about the curse of the amaleks. the political biography and career of bibi are far more instructive in understanding his current government's calculus in gaza than any age-old myths you've got about the garden of gethsemene or whatever the fuck.

would you say that there's no way to understand ISIS or al'qaeda as political organisations? that they are not the product of recent geopolitical events? or are they just timeless, essential, ahistorical expressions of the murderousness of mohammedans? well, i know what option you'd probably opt for. doesn't seem very enlightening to the rest of us, however.

people say all sorts of things to justify their worldviews. i'm not saying there isn't a sizeable contingent of religious fundamentalists in israel today, the settlers especially, who consider themselves ultra-orthodox and only acting in accordance with their ancient scripture. but we need to tackle ideology and to see ideology for what it is; it's religious 'content' is not as important as the psycho-social-political 'form' of ideology as a whole. this is basic ideology critique, and it can be applied as easily to mont pelerin neoliberal fundamentalists as it can be to near-oriental kabbalists.

this isn't complicated. a lot of the 'believers' are in a sense acting in bad faith (in the philosophical and epistemological sense rather than the sense of religious observance), and it is the power structure and logic of a modern state apparatus that has seduced them and led them down this path. invoking bronze age myths about how the tribes of israel vanquished their foes and slayed their goats and brought down their walls with the horns of jericho etc. etc. is not fucking relevant. especially not when you're just gesturing to all that stuff in a vague and aimless way that sums to 'look at these strange jews, they have been bad for all recorded time, we should hate them'.

how is the partitioning of gaza and the military occupation of the palestinian territories not political? and do you expect the international community to begin condemning them on theological grounds, or something? this whole angle of attack is just fucking stupid. read a book.

Last edited by uziq (2025-05-18 04:23:28)

the only person 'rationalising' in this discussion is you. you are almost throbbing with glee that some of your life-long enmity against jews is finally finding some dead children and bombed neighbourhoods as its alibi.

does it matter whether the form of superiority is supposedly given by god or by a misreading of darwin's theories of evolution? they are both cases of bad faith ideology that justify terrible political ends.

and, erm, there are quite clearly compelling reasons for israel to want to seize control of the gaza strip. it's fucking 25 miles of the country's seafront. what do you mean 'it's empty desert' and there's no convincing material reasons for why jews would want to expel palestinians from that land? this isn't a bunch of settlers seizing an olive tree and a farm that produces 3.5 litres of goat milk a year in the samarian hills of the west bank.

why don't you do some research, instead of just promulgating jew hate? like, for instance, looking into your own investment portfolio.

https://www.tni.org/en/article/pipeline-to-genocide
https://globalbusinessoutlook.com/magaz … -conflict/

to be clear, i don't think that bibi is prosecuting a genocide in the gaza strip today, in 2024/5, 'because of oil, maaaan!' but i think it's better to analyse israeli politics as something which is historically and materially grounded, or as a reading of the politics of an ethnostate with a leader like bibi clinging to survival, rather than prating on and on about bronze age religion. the jews had their history and beliefs for 2000 years without it involving an ethnostate.

Last edited by uziq (2025-05-18 04:39:36)

when did the 'genocide' begin, in your reading, exactly?

before people were using oil? huh?

it's literally impossible to understand the modern history of the entire middle east without taking into account the oil industry and colonialism. i know you hate to acknowledge any history whatsoever, especially if it involves companies whose stocks you are relying on for your pensionable years, but errm ... no, there was no genocide by zionists in the middle east pre-dating the oil industry? what the fuck lol.

Last edited by uziq (2025-05-18 05:03:05)

Until recently the Zionist project has had literally nothing to do with oil.
It still doesn't. It may be handy to use geopolitical stuff as a lever but its still about achieving 'greater Israel' because Yahweh or the right of the judenvolke to lebensraum in the east or something.

As for my own investments, I'm trying to be more jewish about making money.
If I don't take the profits and dividends someone else will.
I you don't agree you're anti-semitic.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2025-05-18 05:13:31)

Dilbert_X wrote:

erm, so every country that ever colonised a place automatically committed a genocide?

you do realise you're a brit, living in a british colony, right?

no, a 'genocide' did not occur on 1899. you cheapen the term beyond all meaning when you cite a news article by a bunch of zionists in new york as evidence of a 'genocide'.

nobody planned to 'kill all the palestinians' or commit ethnic cleansing in 1899. what the fuck are you even talking about.

your statement was 'the genocide began before people even used oil'. i mean, the middle east was carved up by imperial powers and their state/state-adjacent oil companies from about 1908, and israel didn't even exist until 1948. i am not sure what 'genocides' apparently occurred at the hands of the jews prior to 1908? and the entire possibility of a jewish state was structured by the imperial powers and resource grabs happening in the near east; how can you say they're inextricable?

see, this is precisely why i say a little more attention to the history and politics of israel would go a long way, instead of endless reading about 'jews killed christ'-type material. you have absolutely nothing of worth to say on this topic at all, just airing your own hatreds. which, perversely, does the very opposite of helping the palestinian cause.

it's amazing to me that you don't want to analyse the genocide in gaza through the lens of politics or history, but really think your theological reading explains the whole matter. bibi's political survival? nah, he gets out of bed because of the amaleks.

what is happening in israel today seems to me to be comparable to the frenzy of bloodlust and hatred whipped up in americans post-9/11. even then, at the time, bush was expressing their retaliation in terms of holy crusades and the clash of religions. the neocons even had their own homegrown wing of fundamentalist religious nuts who were high on prophecy. now, do you look back at the misadventures in afghanistan and iraq as 'failed crusades'? or do you view them in political terms?

Last edited by uziq (2025-05-18 06:30:18)

that's all very well, but you could say 'the long-term plan' for any colonial-settler project was that. like .. the one you are participating in.

it's all very strange how you don't want to admit that racism or imperialism are bad or present in the western context, but suddenly the ethno-nationalist project of the jews, for which they took their cue from and were granted permission by the great imperial powers, are suddenly the Worst Thing Ever and Genocide From Day One. no, they weren't genocidal from day one.

again, read between the lines with bibi. he is one of the most manipulative and duplicitous world leaders on the world stage today. taking his statements at face value is astroundingly stupid. was bibi making amalek genocidal speeches 15 years ago, when it didn't suit his political aims?



wow, bush said that. i guess the last 30 years of history in the west have been a holy crusade. we should only comprehend it in theological terms.

Last edited by uziq (2025-05-18 07:11:46)

more ranting. what on earth are you talking about? displacing people is not 'by definition a genocide'. do you know what the -cide part of the word even means?

Duhbya knew what he was doing, dropping a hint to his evangelical base.
The neo-cons had a plan to cauldronise the ME for Israel's benefit, were unable to spin 9/11 onto Iran but it having been done by Arab Saudis couldn't quite do it. How much of it was christian end-of-times nuttery and how much a business opportunity for oil and military spending we may never know.

for a 'word enthusiast' i know -cide means killing. displacing people is not killing them.

there are separate legal definitions of ethnic cleansing, forced displacement and, yes, genocide.

admittedly the terms are bandied about interchangeably in common, non-specialist discourse, but from the context of your remarks you were suggesting that the agenda for israel from the very start was genocidal extermination of all palestinians in palestine. which is such arrant fucking nonsense that it's insulting.

I'm OK with the definition of genocide used by the UN, and the one written by a Polish jew.

maybe check the actual legal wording of the document instead of wikipedia? presumably international courts consult the actual document and subject it to the ordinary rules of judicial interpretation, not the 100 word summary on wikipedia.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

all of those involve the -cide aspect of the word; that is, killing or engineering their biological destruction directly. displacing people and moving them elsewhere is NOT genocide. it CAN constitute a 'crime against humanity', as per another document and legal definition from the international courts, but it's not mentioned anywhere in the documentation on genocide.

don't you know humanities students are told in week 1, introduction to campus, that wikipedia is not a source?

by your own definition, in which displacing people, occupying their land, moving them on, placing them on reservations, etc. constitutes a 'genocide', then you yourself are a genocidaire in australia.

and, again, very loose with the historical chronology and facts here. much like your comments about oil and colonialism.

what is happening in the gaza strip today has been found to be genocidal, yes. rioting in the 1940s and the first war in '48? no.

Last edited by uziq (2025-05-19 04:00:25)