Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, meanwhile, called for immediate punishment for the Palestinian Authority and expanded settlement construction in the Occupied West Bank as a response.
This is unhinged, wanting to punish the PA for other countries recognizing Palestine.
Israel would "move people out of Rafah, the main humanitarian hub in the enclave, to al-Mawasi
Yeah, that's not their plan. There's 1.42 million people in Rafah right now, which is 25 square miles. That gives it a population density of 56,800 per square mile, making it the 25th most densely populated city in the world - and with intact infrastructure enough for only a tiny fraction of that number.
So, Israel supposedly wants to move all these people to al-Mawasi. Now, al-Mawasi is barren, with; the last official count I could find said there were about 1500 people living there in a small Bedouin town. It's also only about six square miles total.
Let's say that Hamas is 10% of the population - I don't think it is, but let's use that number. That means there's 1,278,000 innocent civilians they want to move to al-Mawasi. That would mean a population density of 213,000 per square mile. That would be twice the population density of Manila. And there is no infrastructure. They're just taking a million people and throwing them into a barren desert next to the sea and saying, "Not our problem." There's no food, no water, no toilets, no shelter, no medical facilities, no electricity, no shelter from the heat - and no way to quickly make any of these things appear in enough quantity to matter.
The Palestinians are already on the verge of famine. This will make things worse, and disease is absolutely going to decimate the population. And then they'll decide that al-Mawasi is hiding Hamas, and they'll go after that as well.
Let’s say that Hamas is 10% of the population - I don’t think it is, but let’s use that number.
The Palestinians are already on the verge of famine. This will make things worse, and disease is absolutely going to decimate the population.
Decimation was the Roman practice of killing 1 out of every 10 mutinous/deserter (i.e., guilty of something) soldiers to punish an entire legion while still keeping it operational as a combat unit. Here we have the opposite. It is killing 9 innocents to get to also kill 1 additional (very hypothetically) guilty person.
This is the saddest "um ackchyually" I have ever written.
More aid enters Gaza every day. The situation has been improving for months and there is zero reason to think it will not continue to improve. Daily death totals have been dropping since what, the second or third week of the war?
Tell Hamas to surrender and come out. Watch the daily deaths drop to zero.
I Just wanted to add that Northern Gaza, where the IDF physically controls all entrances, is officially in famine. Southern Gaza is fed by the entrance in Rafah.
The motive for taking Rafah could not be more clear. They intend to destroy the international aid supply line for southern Gaza. Moving so many people to a purposefully mismanaged IDP camp is just the cherry on top.
Germany depends on the votes of Spain and Ireland at the EU for a lot of things that Germany finds important.
If a measure at the EU level has enough consensus and Germany vetoes it, they'll see other members be a lot more likelly to use veto power on things that mostly matter for Germany.
Since Germany are in the curious position of being the EU member that benefits the most from the Free Market (they're the biggest exporter and their biggest market by far is the rest of the EU) and the Euro (their currency now is a lot weaker and hence they're more competitive because it's a currency union with far weaker countries, than it was back in the deutsche mark times), they can't even threathen to leave the EU as that would a bit like threatenning almost everybody else with a good time whilst they shot themselves on both feet.
Still, the most likely outcome is going to be nothing at all getting done at EU level, either way, if only because that's always the most likely outcome.
If only Germany would not be willing to recognice Palestine, then this might happen, but that is not the case. France and Italy the two next most powerfull countries do not recognice Palestine either.
Germany is usually fairly happy with the current state of the EU. The things Germany wants to change are usually also supported by Spain and that means blackmail is harder. The only exaption to that is finance. However Spain is not going to let billions go to waste to have Palestine recogniced. That is just more of a symbol, rather then massivly important.
Also Germany leaving the EU would cause some massive problems in other EU countries as well. They would hardly be cheering for it.
It's unclear were exactly France is on this, though I agree that Italy under the current far-right government is unlikelly to recognize Palestine.
I'm mostly thinking about the Financial stuff: none of the so called PIIGS forgot how they and their populations were sacrificed to save German banks and a "Let's fuck Germany" posture wouldn't at all be a hard sell in those countries plus I very much doubt that generally not doing what's good for Germany would be bad for those countries since they're almost opposite to Germany in the forms by which their economies can benefit from the Euro - they would actually grow more in an Euro without Germany.
I'm also not so sure that a German exit would end up being bad for the rest of the EU, especially for the less export oriented and more peripheral countries like Spain - certainly an Euro minus Germany would actually be better for everybody else but Germany (as Germany pushes up the value of the Euro, making other Euro nations less competitive and partly explaining their anemic growth and lack of funds to restructure their Economies, which is the other big reason for their anemic growth) though granted it depends on how important are exports to Germany in each economy, though on non-Euro EU matters you might be right. In summary and as I said before, almost nobody else but Germany benefits from Germany's Euro membership and the kind of nations that would be least affected by a Deutschexit are the ones who have no borders with Germany, a group that includes Spain, Ireland and Norway (though the latter is not an EU member and hence has no vote or veto so doesn't really apply for the scenario we are discussing).
Spain has grown faster then Germany for most of the last decade(besides 2020). Out of PIIGS Portugal and Ireland also have done pretty well. Greece got hit hard and Italys economy has problems since the 90s(aka not a EU/Euro problem).
The figure is quite different if you look at the growth in nominal per-capita terms rather than in percentage of initial value as any shitty-shit growth in a poor nation looks a lot more in percentage terms.
Further, I'm living in Portugal and I can tell you that at least in quality of life terms the country has been going backwards for at least a decade, even if mathematically, thanks to a housing bubble and understating housing inflation, the GDP figures produced show "Growth" which is actually just housing inflation that has not been discounted from the Nominal GDP.
The only one of the PIIGS anywhere near catching up to Germany is the Republic Of Ireland and even those have fishy numbers because of how many international companies declare the revenue of their entire EU operations in Ireland because of just how much Ireland facilitates tax evasion - a lot of the money being "made in Ireland" is neither "made in Ireland" nor does it even pass by Ireland and it being counted as Irish GDP is just an accounting artifact.
But yeah, Norway is not an EU member, as I myself pointed out in the very post you replied to.
their currency now is a lot weaker and hence they’re more competitive because it’s a currency union with far weaker countries, than it was back in the deutsche mark times
That myth again. The Euro is a much harder currency than the DM ever was. Most of the trouble states had with the Euro was not due to Germany but them not being accustomed to having a hard currency in the first place, being used to relying on monetary fuckery to steer the economy.
As to recognising Palestine: Not a EU prerogative, simple as that. And I highly doubt states would pressure Germany over this, it'd be a lot of political capital spent on practically zero impact -- up to negative impact as Germany has a much better chance convincing Israel to recognise Palestine with its current stance, and there's simply no country with deeper diplomatic ties to Israel than Germany. If anyone can convince them, it's Germany.
Obligatory note for all the "Christians should support Israel" crowd. The Israeli minister of Security said, that Christians should be spit on. When Christians want to pray for Easter in the Church of the holy sepulcher, Israeli security forces are also harassing and attacking them. Israel is not only an ethnostate, it is also founded on religious and race supremacy, where white european/american Jews are on the top of the hierarchy and anyone else will face discrimination.
Definitely true, its just the arms companies milking your country dry want more money. So, they'll convince you all that you're no longer a super power.
Militarily speaking the US is still a force to be reckoned with, they can bitch-slap any smaller non-nuclear country anywhere in the world on a moment's notice.
Soft power wise, though, the US is in freefall. And without that soft power the hard power can't be readily employed because blowback. I'd say in the future the US is going to do a lot more riding on the EU's soft power than they're currently comfortable admitting. That is, they're not going to invade random countries to bolster election results at home, they're going to knock on Brussel's door and ask "hey anything need peacekeeping right now that would be popular with the world?", then portray it as their own initiative.
There is no ceiling. It might go up 6 or 7C. The people who have the power to change things do not give a shit if the rest of us die. They don't care, and they won't change anything. That's the world we live in.
They (selfishly) believe that allowing the problem to flourish is what will get us to solve it.
They're not wrong. There's just way better, more humane approaches.
So you're mostly right. Because they know they have the wealth to weather the discomfort in comfort. But it is accurate that humans historically are fucking aces at reacting and kinda piss poor at proacting.
Finally some good news on the climate. Our ability to fuck the Earth will mostly go away when our civilization collapses. We might even get a second Genghis Khan cooling when everyone dies.
There isn't one definitive paper I can give. They're are of course also papers claiming the opposite.
I've seen multiple articles about this. Less yield from staple crops, productivity loss with heatwaves, storm damage. There are a bunch of papers too, usually about a specific region. But roughly above 2°C, the hurt really begins with the cost to the economy exceeding almost every country's growth. Exact numbers differ per article.
Too bad, I'll have to hunt around myself. Simulation is always a bit vulnerable to assumptions when human behavior is involved, but it's definitely worth trying to model things.
If that's true, the political landscape is going to become starkly different. We expect growth right now; it's used as the yardstick of economic success. Obviously past civilisations didn't, and we could go back, even peacefully for all I know, but it would be uncharted territory post-industrialisation.
I kind of suspect climate adaptation produces more CO2 than other forms of activity, because it would be construction heavy. I wonder if that's factored it. Actually, I wonder what the adaptation assumptions are in general.
There is a problem of lag. By the time temperatures are high enough to force the economy to stop, the amount of CO2 will be sufficient to continue pushing the temperature up considerably.
The problem is that feedback loops start to kick in above 2°C so it doesn't matter if the economy crashes.
In fact, in some cases that makes things even worse. One example is that without smokestacks and ships pumping out sulfur dioxide the albedo of the atmosphere will rapidly drop, which might cause immediate and rapid warming over a period of only a few years.
We could be pushed past 2.5°C or even 3°C without industrial forces contributing at all.
Yes and no. Renewables are now cheaper than other forms of energy but cost isn’t the only issue.
There are practical limits on how many renewables projects we can build and integrate at a time. We’re not even remotely close to building them fast enough to save anything. We can’t even build them fast enough to keep up with the ever increasing demand energy.
Nuclear is expensive as fuck but we need to be building more of it as well as renewables because we can’t build enough renewables fast enough to avert the catastrophe, and that’s about the only other tech we have that can generate energy in the massive quantities needed without significant greenhouse gas emissions.
I don't think that's quite true. Where I live it has expanded from nothing to a major power source in just a few years. We'll need grid storage of some kind to kick fossil fuels completely, but that seems surmountable. Worst case scenario we build pumped air and just eat some round trip losses.
Nuclear plants take many years to get off the ground, so I'm not sure that's actually an easier solution. Once they're up and running at scale they're actually really cheap per unit production, so I would have agreed with you a decade ago, but as it is solar and wind have just pulled ahead.
Don’t take my word for it. Look up the numbers for yourself and do the math.
Search for “National GHG inventory {your country}”.
You find a report listing (among a bunch of other things) the amount of electricity generated each year by each method, and the emissions from each. Look up the total TWh of electricity produced by fossil fuels.
Then look at the total TWh from renewables, and rate it has been growing Y-o-Y and extrapolate until it reaches the number needed to eliminate fossil fuels.
You’ll find it will take decades to build enough renewable capacity to replace fossil fuel based electricity generation.
And that’s before you realize that only about 25% of fossil fuel combustion goes to electricity generation. As we start switching cars, homes, industries to electric we’re going to need 2x-3x more electricity generation.
Yes it takes a long time to bring on a new nuclear plant, roughly 7-9 years. If it was remotely realistic that we could build enough renewable power generation in that time to replace all fossil fuel generation then I’d agree we don’t need nuclear. But we’re not anywhere close to that.
It’s also helpful to note too just how much power a nuclear reactor generates. I live in Canada, our second smallest nuclear power plant in Pickering, generates almost 5 times more electricity annually than all of Canada’s solar farms combined. It will take 1000s or solar and wind farms covering and area larger than all of our major cities combined to replace fossil fuels…
…or about 7 nuclear power stations the same size as Pickering.
Then look at the total TWh from renewables, and rate it has been growing Y-o-Y and extrapolate until it reaches the number needed to eliminate fossil fuels.
You’ll find it will take decades to build enough renewable capacity to replace fossil fuel based electricity generation.
I get ~2 decades when I extrapolate these numbers (from 2010-2023) to get to 2022 total primary energy usage for solar alone.
Energy usage will grow as well, and keeping that growth is ambitious, but it the future doesn't look that bleak too me if you look at it that way.
Did you use linear extrapolation, or something else? Because it's an actual paradigm shift happening now, I'd guess some kind of exponential or subexponential curve would be best. That would bring it even faster.
Extrapolation is tricky, and actually kind of weak, although I think it's appropriate here. This XKCD explains it really well, and I end up linking it all the damn time.
Exponential, it fits the curve very nicely. I can give you the python code if you want to. I got 2 decades for all energy usage, not only electricity, which is only one sixth of that.
I just took the numbers for the whole world, that's easier to find and in the end the only thing that matters.
The next few years are going to be interesting in my opinion. If we can make efuels cheaper than fossil fuels (look up Prometheus Fuels and Terraform Industries), we're going to jump even harder on solar and if production can keep up it will even grow faster.
E-fuels are a big deal, particularly for aviation. Non-electricity emissions are also something to watch. Hydrogen as a reducing agent seems like it can work very well as long as we do phase out fossil fuels like promised, so that solves steel production and similar. Calcination CO2 from concrete kilns is a very sticky wicket apparently, since they're extremely hot, heavy, and also need to rotate, which is challenging to combine with a good seal.
Cheap grid storage is a trillion-dollar question, but I suspect even if new technology doesn't materialise, pumped air with some losses can do the trick, again subject to proper phase-out of dirty power sources.
Alright, I can't seem to find useful numbers anywhere. We went from 50% coal to nil in just a few years, though, so big changes fast are possible. If you're in Ontario, you also have to consider your local renewables penetration was really high to start with, because of those waterfalls.
And yeah, like I said to the other person, exact growth pattern matters. It's probably exponential-ish right now, not linear, because it's just unambiguously cheaper to move to renewables, and so just getting ducks in order to do it is the bottleneck.
I respect you for doing your own research. People need to understand the scope of the problem if there’s going to be meaningful action.
The reason I’m passionate about nuclear in particular is that only about a quarter of all fossil fuel consumption is from electricity generation.
Most of the rest is burned in transportation, buildings, commercial and residential applications. We have the tech already to switch most of these things to electricity, and eliminate their direct emissions, but that’s not much of a win if we’re burning fossil fuels generate that electricity. Which is what happens today when electricity demand is increased, we can’t just turn up the output of a solar/wind farm in periods of high demand, but we can burn more natural gas.
Switching to electric everything (Car, trucks, ships, heat pumps, furnaces, etc) will increase electricity demand by 2-3x.
Even if renewables growth is held to the exponential-ish curve it’s been so far (doubtful) we still need 15+ years just to get to the point of replacing current global fossil fuel electricity production in the most optimistic case, never mind enough to handle 2-3x demand.
Massive quantities of new carbon free electricity generation is needed to “unlock” the electrification technologies we need to deploy if we going to avoid the worst of the disaster. If we wait until renewables alone get us there it’ll be too late.
The more carbon free energy we can build in the next 20-30 years, the more options we have. Even if we can reach a place of excess capacity, there are a lot of things like DAC and CCS, that we could use it for that today result in more emissions from electricity generation than they sequester.
I don't mean to diminish your point about the utility of nuclear, but (a) it's subject to the same ramping up/scaling issues as anything else*, and (b) you'd be surprised how quickly we could ramp up manufacturing of renewables if The Powers That Be actually wanted to.
(* Or worse: in particular, the absolute debacle that was Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 -- delivered years late and billions overbudget, while bankrupting Westinghouse in the process -- shows that we definitely did not maintain our nuclear expertise over the past several decades of building exactly fuck-all new plants.)
Same. England for me, but I think it’ll bother the people in power who abhor people migrating and also deny climate change or at the least taking adequate action to mitigate the effects / affects (which is it).
uh no florida has already made the next play, and it was to repeal all protections for outdoor workers against the elements
in other words the next move is literally "Fuck you, die", apparently, so, good to know we're past the bullshit and can get on with actually solving the problem properly.
“Sorry best we can do is more bombs, officially define antisemitism as calling these guys assholes, and, uh, oh yeah, giving their military benefits packages!”
All that work putting together a "humanitarian help" system which was only ever meant as propaganda and never meant to actual put a dent in Israel's Final Solution of death by Starvation, and Biden throws all that aways like this.
Bet even his Campaign and Press people are pissed of at that one, though probably not for "normal person empathising with the suffering of others" reasons.
Not sure how the Jewish would think about this but I'm starting to think it's antisemitic to link the Jewish and Israel (apart from Israel defining itself as a Jewish state). Funny how that might go full circle.
I dunno. It definitely will incentivize “otherising” of the Jewish diaspora. Which may be a tertiary objective of it. And it will definitely lead to increased conflict.
Which is a shame because most the Jews I know well enough to talk to about it, are extremely anti-genocide, and they’re vocal about it because… they know “I’m Jewish, [awkward stare]” is a great way to not get dinged for politics at work. (At least when the political topic is Gaza.)
You are absolutely right on that. It keeps many anti-genocide Jews silent. It kept me silent for a very long time. I didn't even like talking about being Jewish. What changed my mind was a British documentary by a British comedian named David Baddiel called Jews Don't Count (based on his book of the same name), which is specifically about the "othering" of Jews, especially how many white people don't see Jews as white, but most non-white people don't see Jews as non-white. It's made me more vocal about things. I had already seen the documentary a few years before, but what has truly cemented it for me was the "you have said the actual truth" tweet by Elon Musk in response to someone who said Jews were oppressing white people.
It was streaming somewhere where non-Brits could see it (I think Dailymotion), but it doesn't appear to be there anymore.
I'm starting to think it's antisemitic to link the Jewish and Israel
It definitely is. There's few things more antisemitic than assuming that all Jews approve of the fascist government of an apartheid ethnostate committing genocide with impunity.
It's right up there with the Alex Jones "globalist" conspiracy theories.
And it's pretty straightforwardly so: for example claiming that somebody demonstrating against the killing of children by Israel is an anti-semite is implying that killing children is a Jewish thing to do, which is incredibly close to the "Jews eat babies" kind of propaganda from the Nazis: even the worst actual antisemites in the present day weren't going around claiming that murdering children is a Jewish thing to do.
That's just how out of control the Israeli ultra-violent and extremelly racist Fascists and their racist Fascist supporters in places like the US are.
Well, in the tribalist kind of thinking everybody must always be pro-some-faction or against-some-faction and the far-right (including Fascists tribes such as Zionists) are seldom deep thinkers and skeptics, so are almost without exception tribalists.
So it makes absolute sense that Zionists (and members of other political tribes whose "chiefs" have decided to support Zionism) claim that people who are demonstrating because of their Principles (in this case Humanist ones, like "though shall not kill innocent civilians") are doing so because of being pro-some-faction. Further, I would even say that the Zionists absolutelly believe that claim they're making and are speaking the truth as they see it: they simply cannot conceive of people being anything but tribalists who will put tribalism above all else (even any leftover Principles they might have) so people must be pro-some-faction or anti-some-faction to be demonstrating.
(PS: Whilst this is not evidence, it does match what I've observed first hand in situations like the Brexit Referendum in the UK. It also matches my observations as member of a political party in my homeland, since most political party members tend to be tribalist, even in leftwing parties, which as somebody who returned from abroad with no pre-existing "love for the team's shirt" and chose a party to join and help based on the principles they seemed to support, made me quite an atypical member and gave a wonderful chance to observe political tribalists in their "natural environment")
This is also why I believe a lot of the propaganda techniques being deployed by the Biden Campaign to try and get votes from people who are against the current actions of the Zionists because it goes against their Principles are incredibly misguided - Principled people aren't pro-Biden or even anti-Trump, they're pro or against some kinds of action no matter who does it, and things like "aversion to the murder of children" tend to be some of the stronguest principles around so likely to be much stronger for a non-tribalist that the "uuh, those other guys are bad" tribalist-heavy arguments.
I wouldn't be surprised if many people don't end up in the voting booth, intellectually ready to swallow their Principles and vote Biden purelly to stop Trump, and can't actually bring themselves to cast a vote.
Anyways, all this are theories and if Biden keeps on supporting the Zionists and their Genocide, we shall see.
It is deliberate. Zionists love antisemitism. They love it when Jews are attacked outside Israel so they can claim to be the only safe place for them in the world. They love to use antisemitism to attack Jews, who do not want to be associated with Israel or are even critical of Israels practices or worst "questioning their "right to existence"".
I am Jewish and yes, it is antisemitic to consider all Jews as Israelis. I do not support Israel, I have no affiliation with Israel, I have no interest in going to Israel apart from the archaeology. I'm from Indiana and I have a hell of a lot more in common with a Christian from Fort Wayne than an Israeli from Haifa.
Also, I know this is totally anecdotal, but every Israeli I have met in my life has been an asshole, which doesn't exactly endear me to their country.
Netanyahu is the one who benefits most from people thinking all Jews are Israeli. I sure as hell haven't benefited from it considering how many times I've had to justify myself just for who my ancestors were.
It's crazy how the media portrays the 'critisizing Israel is critizing the jewish' position. Even politicians, at least in the west, lean in to it, but this could be due to the geopolitical position of Israel as an ally I suppose.
This is just how the world works tbh. The ICC has no mechanisms for enforcement. They rely on participating countries, because they don’t have an international mandate to do well, anything, without the approval of the international community. There is no world government, or world police
Yeah sorta. But there’s no way to force the US to participate, there’s zero international law that has enforcement mechanisms. In order to pursue an ICC trial, they rely on the armies/police/prosecutors/judges of other nations, and none of those nations are going to risk fucking up their relationship with the US. In this case, the US is literally not beholden to the laws
That’s kind of the point of being a (near) hegemon
Technically the US is sending lots of weapons to Russia. Ukraine are even being real Bros about it and trying to deliver the munitions first cuz Russia keeps misplacing their stuff. Not their fault Russia is doing a very poor job of accepting their deliveries.
I'm a bit surprised Russia is even on the "Supports Palestine" list, given that they've been increasingly hostile towards Arab people and cozy towards Israel.
"I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years," Gretta Pecl of the University of Tasmania told The Guardian. "[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future."
But, reason to keep fighting:
Others found hope in the climate activism and awareness of younger generations, and in the finding that each extra tenth of a degree of warming avoided protects 140 million people from extreme temperatures.
The Global South? Those people aren't going to lay down and die. They're gonna climb North, as they should. And then we're gonna have to decide whether to shoot people approaching the borders or accept a huge population influx. Given our political reality, I think there's a good chance we try the first option at first.
Yup. Sadly the truth. And then probably cry about all these migrants bothering them "for no reason", and that it's hard to find a good reef to dive in on vacation.
Right wing parties are already massively strengthening Frontex. They're fully aware what will happen, but still not willing to kill our emissions.
"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make."
The word you’re looking for is nationalism. It’s the same word Netanyahu should be using to defend criticism of his nation, rather than antisemitism.
Antisemitism is a form of racism and/or religious persecution that has affected Jews around the world for over two millennia, the majority of whom are unaffiliated with the Zionist state of Israel. It would be cool if you stopped making fun of it. I’d ask Netanyahu too, but I don’t see him on Lemmy.
Antisemitism is a form of racism and/or religious persecution that has affected Jews around the world for over two millennia, the majority of whom are unaffiliated with the Zionist state of Israel. It would be cool if you stopped making fun of it.
I don't think they're making fun of antisemitism itself. People can refuse to indulge the spurious accusations of antisemitism Israel's right-wing throws out in knee-jerk fashion every time it is criticized, and still take antisemitism seriously as a real and dangerous phenomenon with a long history. I understood the comment above yours as making fun of the former, not the latter.
I get it. Had Netanyahu claimed antisemitism anywhere in the article, I would’ve upvoted and laughed, but he didn’t. It seems like it’s become the go-to joke for any post about Israel now, and it has a real-world impact on the majority of Jews who have no affiliation with Israel whatsoever.
You've got it backwards. The constant conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel by Israel and its stooges is what's bad for Jews. Making fun of how disingenuous they are is good for Jews who don't want to be associated with a genocidal apartheid regime.
You’re correct that Netanyahu is to blame for the initial misuse of the term, but there’s absolutely no reason to continue to dilute its meaning for fun. It’s completely fair to mock him when he uses it incorrectly. My comment was intended to be critical of mocking it without provocation, as the initial commenter had done.
When both America and Israel accuse anybody demonstrating against the killing of children by the IDF as being antisemites they're implying that killing children is a Jewish thing to do, because there is no doubt or denying that the IDF is killing children and they're not even denying it.
The real antisemitism is doing and supporting highly immoral deeds and then when criticised for those specific deeds claim that those criticizing it are against Jews, because that's saying that the people doing said highly immoral deeds represent all Jews and the highly immoral deeds themselves are the product of Jewish values.
Not even the worst antisemites since the time of the Nazis (with their "Jews eat babies" kind of propaganda) have associated mass murder of children, journalists and medical personnel with Jewishness and yet here we are with Zionists doing exactly that.
People making fun of that strategy from the Israeli and American administrations are doing more to undo the damage done by those politicians as they shamellessly bind some of the most evil actions imaginable with Jewishness by using that accusation in an attempt to silence criticism of those action, than any amount of "but, but, but think about the Jews!" propagandists: the best thing for Jews in general is exactly that people aren't thinking about Jews when they think about Zionists, Israel, their actions and their propaganda.
It’s racism and/or religious persecution, hence the specific term. Not all genealogical Jews practice Judaism, and not all who practice Judaism are genealogically Jewish.
'Racism' is a good enough umbrella term for 'being shitty to people because of some demographic category'. Whether the basis is ethnic, national, religious or anything else doesn't seem like an important distinction. Nobody considers 'race' to be a useful term any more, after all.
I think we should use specific terms for specific things. There is differences in the origins, interests and means of different bigotries. Antisemitism is very different from Racism against Black people, which is very different from Racism against Asian people, which is different again from Racism towards Middle Easterners or general Islamophobia.
For Jews it makes sense to distinguish Antisemitism, as it is specific in regards to the Religion+Ethnicity combination you just don't find with Christianity or Islam. E.g. there is many Christians and Muslims of all ethnicities while most religious Jews are also ethnically Jewish.
They get paid very well not to see that, or in the case of Germany get paid very well and used support for Israel as a smokescreen to deflect from the antisemitism they rightfully fear to be accused of. Israel is helping German Antisemites to push the blame on "immigrants" while Ethnically German Nazis get to attack Synagogues and have it downplayed. Zionists and Antisemites are allies.
People will be fleeing famine, uninhabitable areas, rising sea levels and wars. The areas that can support life will grow smaller, more valuable and crowded.
Will we be assholes if when this happens we be like. WE FUCKING TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN, but y’all more concerned with arguing over pronouns and protests (I support both).
I get your frustration. I feel it myself. Still, I fear, calling people assholes won't be helpful and prevent folks from admitting they did wrong. At the same time, it can always get worse (hotter) and I think it would be best to win as many people over as possible, to do the right thing.
hear hear! please stop fighting over the petty things and get to work on the things that matter. electing a president that will fight climate change is far more important than what happens in the middle east.
What worries me is that combined with anti immigrants sentiment. I fear beaches of dead as people are prevented from fleeing. I read a SciFi with that and it chilled me as I can see it happening.
commondreams.org
Top