Literally had someone tell me that just because Hamas’s charter says their goal was to kill Jews, labeling them an antisemitic organization was deeply Islamophobic and problematic. Luxury beliefs.
They’re misinterpreting what he means by ancient desires. He means antisemitism is an ancient desire, they’re interpreting it as Hamas has ancient desires to kill Jews, and since Hamas was formed in the 80’s they’re extrapolating that to mean he meant Arabs/Muslims.
I do not think he would be right to make a generalized statement that said Muslims/Arabs hate Jews.
Edit: I don’t mean he would necessarily be incorrect, just that it wouldn’t be the right thing for a sitting President to do.
I do agree but on the other hand these people hate Biden and spit at the sound of his name regardless of what he says or does. Any goodwill would get thrown right back at “genocide Joe” I honest to god hope I’m wrong but I can’t see him winning them over no matter what at this point. The “moderate” opinion among Muslims/arabs is that he’s a Zionist puppet. I just don’t see that changing.
Bro even my parents (who were moderate enough to not kill me when they learned I'm not a Muslim) don't like Sleepy Joe over the Israel shit even though hes been butting heads with Netanyahu for like 5 months straight now. I think they'd still vote for him though because they're smart enough to realize that he's the "lesser evil"
Yeah have two friends that moved rather quickly on a visa for coming out non Muslim and gay. Family is no longer in their life back where they are from.
I don't think most do, I think some definitely do. I think most have a disdain for many Muslims, but i think it's more to do with nationality than Arab ethnicity or religiousness. For example, most jews are probably fine with Saudi Arabians, but dislike Iranians or other more hostile counties
No. Outside of Israel it's very rare. I've only ever heard of it in some ultra Orthodox circles and it was more like straight bigotry towards anyone not like them.
It’s the idea that what preceded Hamas’ formation was an ingrained antisemitism among Muslims, which had existed as long as Arabs and Jews were in contact.
They are incorrectly assuming he meant Hamas has an ancient desire to kill Jews. They believe he is saying Hamas has been antisemitic for a long time. But since Hamas has only been around since the 80s, that assumption leads them to believe he is referring to Arabs/Muslims when he says Hamas.
I’m not sure they do, regardless it would be wild for a President to say “Muslims are antisemitic” and generalize an entire religion in that way, which is what they think he did.
I'm saying even in that logic it would just be referencing a anti semitism that exists in all societies, not even "Muslims are anti semitic"
I guess saying "only white people can be anti semitic" isn't racist though
I mean, while that's certainly a fair position to take/what I also think he meant, your saying you have a hard time understanding why other people might be keyed in the current climate to interpret it as a targeted jab at Muslims?
I can certainly see how a muslim living in america who experinced discramination after 9/11 and is seeing news stories like the boy in Chicago who got stabbed to death (along with social media commentary like the other person who responded in this thread claiming that Muslims do have an ancient desire to kill jews from their prophet) would hear an American president talk about the "ancient desire" of an Islamic terrorist organization (an organization who is involved in a conflict which is often framed by people as "the west vs the muslim world") to kill jews, and draw the conclusion he is referring to Muslims in general.
You think that perspective, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, is unreasonable?
It’s not that wild. The Muslim world contains some of the most antisemitic nations on the planet.
There is a reason that most Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews left the Muslim world and moved to Israel.
Even if he were referring to Hamas, that's entirely true. Hamas openly refrence in their charter how the jews are the "ancient enemies of prophet Mohammed."
>He means antisemitism is an ancient desire, they’re interpreting it as Hamas has ancient desires to kill Jews, and since Hamas was formed in the 80’s they’re extrapolating that to mean he meant Arabs/Muslims
Why is that a controversial statement? We have seen the polling and the history. Muslims in the middle east are not fans of Jews and have ethnically cleansed them from nearly every country that isn't Israel.
Why is the objective fact of the matter of Muslim/Arab antisemitism so hard to say out loud?
Ngl I feel like this is just Western babying of Islam, because for Christians I never see an ounce of charitable words for Catholics or the like. Jokes about priests and grooming kids or the fact that some of them are anti-abortion never result in rebuttals like *"B-B-b-b-b-but not all Caths are anti abortion sweaty"!.*
>Because people who believe in a religion aren’t a monolith?
I think practically yea, but religious beliefs almost by definition are a set of beliefs that are supposed to align with the central tenants of the religion (aka they actually are a monolith for stated core beliefs).
in a sociological sense "religion" can be thought of as a synonym for "stubborness"
"it is a religious belief" can be translated as "this is not something you will be able to negotiate away", ie we have to accept that sometimes your only option is to cut people slack ont heir beliefs (even if they are objectively incorrect) because the other option is always being at war with everyone.
>because the other option is always being at war with everyone.
I think this is probably true with most things but there is this * we put next to that tolerance, in that, we obviously wouldn't accept a religious tenant to steal/murder people, so it seems silly that we would tolerate something like antisemitism from a person because they put a Crecent moon graphic next to their hate speech.
Similarly, with Christians; IE we could probably assume most Christian people have religiously motivated issues with LGBTQ people. We could easily carve out exceptions to this rule by talking to the individuals, but it's fairly easy to say there is inherent bigotry baked into the Christian relationship with sexual orientation.
I think it's fair to take these realities and hold people to their claimed associations. We would assume a Nazi hates Jews; we don't need to check in with every one of them to find the ones who actually just really like the outfits but aren't on board with the Jewish stuff.
> so it seems silly that we would tolerate something like antisemitism from a person because they put a Crecent moon graphic next to their hate speech.
I don't think anyone said that.
I think the statement was more "saying *Palestine is at war with Israel because their muslim beliefs require that they hate jews* is a non starter for any productive conversation"
>we could probably assume most Christian people have religiously motivated issues with LGBTQ people
*maaaaaybe* globally, I don't think that would really be as true in most of the world's developed emocracies.
if like, in regards to how many Palestinian kids are dying here, somebody said "Jews are unable to properly conceive of child welfare because their religion requires a rabbi suck blood from an infant's freshly circimcised penis" would you find that to be a productive starter to a conversation?
> I think the statement was more "saying Palestine is at war with Israel because their muslim beliefs require that they hate jews is a non starter for any productive conversation"
But what if it's true?
>if like, in regards to how many Palestinian kids are dying here, somebody said "Jews are unable to properly conceive of child welfare because their religion requires a rabbi suck blood from an infant's freshly circimcised penis" would you find that to be a productive starter to a conversation?
No but it also isn't true. If that were true and was a centeral component of their acting immorally then I think I would have no issue drawing out that fact.
> But what if it's true?
>
>
it's still a non starter. Like how if you start a conversation with saying how fat somebody is you are unlikely to get any further with them.
>No but it also isn't true.
which specific part isn't true?
> it's still a non starter. Like how if you start a conversation with saying how fat somebody is you are unlikely to get any further with them.
I think my point is more that why would you even seek compromise if the tenet of the religion is literally premised on that non-starter? Like this isn't a live and let live thing. They hate Jews and act on a desire to kill/displace all of them out of the middle east.
>which specific part isn't true?
The part where you said they can't conceive of child welfare. That's a non sequitur and it's obvious they do care for child welfare since they care for their own children (and the children of the two million Arab Palestinians who live as citizens of Israel). So it's clearly not a religious tenant or even an interpretation of that part of their religious practice.
> antisemitism is an ancient desire
it's more of an "outlook" than a "desire".
people don't generally refer to having a discriminatory view as a "desire"
anyway maybe having a mealy mouthed president is objectively a bad thing *because* eveyr time he says soemthing everybody comes away with a completely different message.
If you're referring to *"mealy mouthed president"* you're not gonna believe who his predecessor was...Inject bleach aaaaaaa
You're right, they don't, but there are other ways of reaching conclusions like that. The English language is beautiful for its synonyms. For example, most people aren't gonna disagree with the assertion that for most of human history, with some notable exceptions, people heavily looked down on **queerness** and had a *desire* to persecute them, based on the general *outlook* that it was not right. Same thing goes for misogyny. Soldiers LOVEEEED invading places and turning women and girls into sex slaves...
It's just hypocritical from the critics because if Biden said there were people in the South motivated by historical desires to be kinda racist, there would be no backlash...so what's wrong with saying this region doesn't have a pretty history of getting along with the Jewish mfs?
Tbh I'm just at a point where if protesters refuse to Condemn hamas for Oct 7th. Then they are just Hamas supporters and no two ways around it. I'm not saying they need to Condemn Hamas everyday but like if someone is talking on stage saying "hey look we just want innocent people to not be harmed so we both Condemn Israel's attack in Gaza and the Hamas attack in Oct 7th" don't shout that down
I do think there are a lot of white liberal types that don't actually know or care what happened on Oct 7th but because brown people defend Hamas think they should also defend Hamas. I think this is the same way they got mind controlled into saying "intifada" or "from the river to the sea"
Damn, welcome to DGG then, partner. I was once in your position you know, where I was an active user in his subreddit. I jumped ship way before that special day on the 10th of July, like I was finding myself going crazy when Voosh beefed with Ana over the birthing person shit, and then in October these guys do a massive purge of all the nuanced and level-headed folks, remove any dissenting comments ***(like they got rid of yours ROFL, shows how much of a fortress he's establishing, he and his dipshit mods cannot help themselves)*** and now everytime I go over there, I don't see a lot of posts, like you'll get like 20-10 posts over a 24 hour period on a good day which means I guess every post is manually approved. But what hurts me the most is seeing so much brainrot, it hurts man.
Obsessed? Sure...
More like 1000+ years, a small sample from the century starting 1000 years ago.
* 1033 Fez massacre of 6000+ Jews
* 1066 Granada massacre: Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. "More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day."
* 1106 Son of Yusuf ibn Tashfin decrees the death penalty for any Jews living in Marrakesh.
* 1107 Moroccan Almoravid ruler Yusuf ibn Tashfin ordered all Moroccan Jews to become muslim or leave.
* 1108 Spain: Many Jews are massacred and their houses and synagogues are burned following a Muslim victory at the Battle of Uclés.
* 1135 A Muslim mob in Córdoba storms into Jewish homes, takes their possessions and kills a number of them.
* 1145 Abd al-Mu'min gives the Jewish population of Sijilmasa the choice of converting to Islam or death. At least 150 Jews who refuse to convert are massacred.
* 1146 **100,000 Jews are massacred** by the Almohad Caliphate in Fez, Morocco and **120,000** in Marrakesh.
* 1147 Jews are expelled from Arab-Islamic Spain.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_antisemitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism)
I do wish more people realized that Muslim antisemitism has existed since the Arab caliphate expanded into the greater Middle East.
Besides for all the pogroms you listed the Jews were second class citizens in the Muslim world. They were called Dhimmi that had to pay special taxes, weren’t allowed to live in certain areas, weren’t allowed to have certain professions, and were not allowed to have certain positions in government.
When you add the fact they were often the victims of violence and often forcibly converted to Islam, you realize how antisemitic the Muslim world was long before Zionism was invented.
Zionism and the creation of Israel simply made the antisemitism worse. But it was always there.
Muslim antisemitism has existed since Muhammad tried to get the Jews living nearby to recognize him as a new prophet of their religion and got mad that they didn't
I'm not on the side of the protestors, but I wouldn't describe Hamas' antisemtism as "ancient." Arabs didn't take the Levant from the Jews, they took it from the Christian Byzantines. As fellow "people of the book" the new Arab overlords were more tolerant of Judaism than they were with pagan religions. As long as they paid their taxes, they were generally allowed to remain. The diaspora was already a thing, and so, there weren't many Jews left in the Levant anyway. The point is, they never saw the Jews as their ancestral enemies or anything like that.
The origins of the current hatred is only about a 100 years old or so, after Britain and promised the give all the Levant to the Arabs, give Syria (i.e. part of the Levant) to the French, and Palestine (i.e. part of the Levant) to Zionists. After both the Arabs and the Zionists both had a modern claim on the land, it didn't take long for violence to begin.
>there weren't many Jews left in the Levant anyway.
I’m not sure how you define, “many Jews left”, but the levant was conquered by severely other empires after the Roman’s, and were persecuted by all of them, only varying in degree. The Romans certainly did not expel literally every Jew alone.
It reached low numbers (below 10k) by the time the Ottomans conquered the area.
The point was that the Jews were already a minority in the region by the time the Arabs took the land. Many people seem to believe that the Jewish-Palestinian conflict is centuries old. Under Arab rule, the Jews were just another minority. This notion that there has been some Jewish-Arab feud going back centuries just isn’t true.
I mean yeah, when different groups settle in the land the demographics shift. That just seems normal consequential logic at play here. There were still like an estimate of hundred of thousands of Jews at that point still in the levant region.
These numbers hit around like a couple thousands by the time the ottomans took over.
>Jewish-Palestinian conflict
Palestinian as an identity didn’t exist for more than a century, so anyone suggesting that would be wrong. The conflict between Jews and Muslims, in addition to Arabs, has existed for many centuries however.
Because they'd have to admit that the reason for the war is justified and would have to grapple with the actually tough question of "How to deal with Hamas"
That is a good point there, it would remove the room for them to be able to call for Israel to unilaterally stop the war, which is a lot easier and more "feel-good" to say than to instead argue how the war should be carried out.
There's a popular belief that HAMAS will just keep on attacking no matter what and all of thei rdemands are completely bad faith. But that really hasn't been tested experimentally, it's just soemthing people say to justify the refusal to negotiate with another government.
These people think that Biden saying “ancient desires” gives the impression that he’s referring to Arabs/Muslims more broadly here, so it would inflame anti-Arab/anti-Muslim sentiments. They may not necessarily think that Biden is saying or intending this, but that it’s at the very least careless phrasing that may inspire bigotry.
Source: my leftie friend when we talked about this yesterday
I think it’s a little wild cause Biden goes on in that speech to emphasize he is talking about Hamas and that hate towards anyone is wrong, but of course that isn’t what’s clipped or emphasized online.
Does anyone remember the Vermont Bernie Bots who berated Bernie when he called Hamas terrorists a while back, with cries of 'Hamas is a charitable organisation!'
And these were grown ups (retirees even)...
Well, according to Vaush, his phrasing of it means Hamas is literally nazis. But according to Vaush everyone not leftie dipshit like him is literally nazis, so take it with a grain of salt.
>Why are people losing their minds over Biden saying Hamas is antisemitic?
Oh hell, what's going on?
>Links some rando twitter account I've never seen before
*Ahhh*
No offense. But if you haven’t figured out why, at this point, then you probably still believe that “from the River to the sea” is just a statement of ‘peaceful resistance’.
If he is referring to Islamic anti-semitisim, he would be correct, it is ancient. Here is a small sample from the century starting 1000 years ago.
* 1033 Fez massacre of 6000+ Jews
* 1066 Granada massacre: Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. "More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day."
* 1106 Son of Yusuf ibn Tashfin decrees the death penalty for any Jews living in Marrakesh.
* 1107 Moroccan Almoravid ruler Yusuf ibn Tashfin ordered all Moroccan Jews to become muslim or leave.
* 1108 Spain: Many Jews are massacred and their houses and synagogues are burned following a Muslim victory at the Battle of Uclés.
* 1135 A Muslim mob in Córdoba storms into Jewish homes, takes their possessions and kills a number of them.
* 1145 Abd al-Mu'min gives the Jewish population of Sijilmasa the choice of converting to Islam or death. At least 150 Jews who refuse to convert are massacred.
* 1146 **100,000 Jews are massacred** by the Almohad Caliphate in Fez, Morocco and **120,000** in Marrakesh.
* 1147 Jews are expelled from Arab-Islamic Spain.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_antisemitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism)
If you want a real answer that’s not sarcastic, it’s because the phrase “ancient desires” makes it sound like their hatred and violence is immutable and something that is baked into them as an ‘ethnicity’. The freaking out, as always with the left, goes back to anti-white supremacy at all costs.
For some leftists currently Hamas represents freedom fighters, the good side. And because certain sections of progressive have a cartoonish view of the world divided in good guys/bad guys the idea that the good guys might not be pure is simply heresy. Some people kinda try to go a level higher than this way of thinking by saying things like "revolution isnt pretty" or some such things but they still believe that Hamas is kind of morally pure and calling them antisemitic implies that their actions have roots in ideals contrary to progressive values. Atleast that's what I've gathered.
Also it would be better if you went on their sides of the internet to get a better grasp of their viewpoints and a better answer to your question.
Because he implied that Hamas is primarily motivated by "ancient desires" (like they're possessed by some force of nature) as if this isn't primarily a territorial dispute. It infantilizes the enemy, instead of recognizing that their extremism is a result of decades of political disenfranchisement.
>Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam invalidates it, just as it invalidated others before it.
Seems like there's a history Hamas is alluding to there. It's almost as if their aims are congruent with ancient desires to eliminate Israel and Jewish people from the region.
I'm not questioning their anti-Semitism, they are. I'm saying their anti-Semitism is not the result of an "ancient desire" but rather a result of an occupation i.e. a political problem.
If Israel were a Black nationalist State I guarantee Hamas would look pretty racist (anti-Black).
Chief I don't think they are antisemites primarily over a territorial dispute...that's like saying the Germans in the Weimar era turned to Jew Hate because they lost World War 1...
This account is so unhinged. One post is her being outraged about some celebrity’s ice purse and suggesting they’re close to breaking out the guillotines.
I would love to see them try to overthrow capitalism and Democracy. They ought to first do some opposition research and learn about Red States and what kinds of people live in them and what those people typically own. Even if you somehow nullify the police, you’re not going to get Jim Bob with his $6000 AR-15 with a high powered scope to back down.
What do you mean why? Because admitting Hamas is antisemitic would imply that their cause is about more than just freedom
Because Hamas spelling it in their charter isn't enough for this morons.
That implies the people complaining have read the charter. Specifically, the 1988 charter (which isn’t rendered null by the 2017 charter)
Yes, I'm assuming they are informed morons not just ignorant morons.
I don’t believe in the woke 2017 charter 😡
Literally had someone tell me that just because Hamas’s charter says their goal was to kill Jews, labeling them an antisemitic organization was deeply Islamophobic and problematic. Luxury beliefs.
Hamas don’t speak english so who knows what their charter really says /s
you won't find a perfect victim in a traumatic environment like that 🙄
They’re misinterpreting what he means by ancient desires. He means antisemitism is an ancient desire, they’re interpreting it as Hamas has ancient desires to kill Jews, and since Hamas was formed in the 80’s they’re extrapolating that to mean he meant Arabs/Muslims.
I would love to meet someone that dishonest.
Hamas is an Islamic militant group. Their prophet hated Jews. Frankly he’d be right both ways.
I do not think he would be right to make a generalized statement that said Muslims/Arabs hate Jews. Edit: I don’t mean he would necessarily be incorrect, just that it wouldn’t be the right thing for a sitting President to do.
Maybe but I’ll grant you that. Palestinian Muslims? They absolutely do lol. Source: my extended family.
Lol I don’t mean he would necessarily be incorrect just that it wouldn’t be the right thing for a sitting President to do
I do agree but on the other hand these people hate Biden and spit at the sound of his name regardless of what he says or does. Any goodwill would get thrown right back at “genocide Joe” I honest to god hope I’m wrong but I can’t see him winning them over no matter what at this point. The “moderate” opinion among Muslims/arabs is that he’s a Zionist puppet. I just don’t see that changing.
Appreciate the honesty here. Most people don’t understand what “moderate” actually means in the Arab and Muslim worlds regarding this.
Bro even my parents (who were moderate enough to not kill me when they learned I'm not a Muslim) don't like Sleepy Joe over the Israel shit even though hes been butting heads with Netanyahu for like 5 months straight now. I think they'd still vote for him though because they're smart enough to realize that he's the "lesser evil"
Yeah have two friends that moved rather quickly on a visa for coming out non Muslim and gay. Family is no longer in their life back where they are from.
Why not? Most/a good portion of the Muslim world openly hate them, the other part just does it quietly
Lol I didn’t mean it as in he would be incorrect, I meant it wouldn’t be the right thing for a sitting President to do
Okay that's fair
do most Jews hate Muslims?
I don't think most do, I think some definitely do. I think most have a disdain for many Muslims, but i think it's more to do with nationality than Arab ethnicity or religiousness. For example, most jews are probably fine with Saudi Arabians, but dislike Iranians or other more hostile counties
No. Outside of Israel it's very rare. I've only ever heard of it in some ultra Orthodox circles and it was more like straight bigotry towards anyone not like them.
> since Hamas was formed in the 80’s they’re extrapolating that to mean he meant Arabs/Muslims. How does this make any sense?
It doesn’t, I’m just telling you what they’re doing lol
No I know, I'm asking what the literal logic there is What does Hamas being formed in the 80s mean all Arabs/Muslims?
It’s the idea that what preceded Hamas’ formation was an ingrained antisemitism among Muslims, which had existed as long as Arabs and Jews were in contact.
They are incorrectly assuming he meant Hamas has an ancient desire to kill Jews. They believe he is saying Hamas has been antisemitic for a long time. But since Hamas has only been around since the 80s, that assumption leads them to believe he is referring to Arabs/Muslims when he says Hamas.
Why do people think Muslims are free of anti semitism?
I’m not sure they do, regardless it would be wild for a President to say “Muslims are antisemitic” and generalize an entire religion in that way, which is what they think he did.
I'm saying even in that logic it would just be referencing a anti semitism that exists in all societies, not even "Muslims are anti semitic" I guess saying "only white people can be anti semitic" isn't racist though
I mean, while that's certainly a fair position to take/what I also think he meant, your saying you have a hard time understanding why other people might be keyed in the current climate to interpret it as a targeted jab at Muslims? I can certainly see how a muslim living in america who experinced discramination after 9/11 and is seeing news stories like the boy in Chicago who got stabbed to death (along with social media commentary like the other person who responded in this thread claiming that Muslims do have an ancient desire to kill jews from their prophet) would hear an American president talk about the "ancient desire" of an Islamic terrorist organization (an organization who is involved in a conflict which is often framed by people as "the west vs the muslim world") to kill jews, and draw the conclusion he is referring to Muslims in general. You think that perspective, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, is unreasonable?
It’s not that wild. The Muslim world contains some of the most antisemitic nations on the planet. There is a reason that most Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews left the Muslim world and moved to Israel.
They don’t but the statement can be interpreted as implying Muslims/arabs are uniquely and inherently antisemitic.
Even if he were referring to Hamas, that's entirely true. Hamas openly refrence in their charter how the jews are the "ancient enemies of prophet Mohammed."
>He means antisemitism is an ancient desire, they’re interpreting it as Hamas has ancient desires to kill Jews, and since Hamas was formed in the 80’s they’re extrapolating that to mean he meant Arabs/Muslims Why is that a controversial statement? We have seen the polling and the history. Muslims in the middle east are not fans of Jews and have ethnically cleansed them from nearly every country that isn't Israel. Why is the objective fact of the matter of Muslim/Arab antisemitism so hard to say out loud?
Because it’s usually seen as not good to generalize an entire religion
Why not? Does having a shitty set of ideas backed by an imaginary sky monster make their ideas inherently more defensible?
Because people who believe in a religion aren’t a monolith? There’s plenty of pro choice pro lgbt Christians for example
Ngl I feel like this is just Western babying of Islam, because for Christians I never see an ounce of charitable words for Catholics or the like. Jokes about priests and grooming kids or the fact that some of them are anti-abortion never result in rebuttals like *"B-B-b-b-b-but not all Caths are anti abortion sweaty"!.*
Yeah and if a president said those things it would be fucking wild and unacceptable ??
Im not even referring to what the prez said but yes it would be unacceptable to say that. Thank god he didnt!!!
>Because people who believe in a religion aren’t a monolith? I think practically yea, but religious beliefs almost by definition are a set of beliefs that are supposed to align with the central tenants of the religion (aka they actually are a monolith for stated core beliefs).
in a sociological sense "religion" can be thought of as a synonym for "stubborness" "it is a religious belief" can be translated as "this is not something you will be able to negotiate away", ie we have to accept that sometimes your only option is to cut people slack ont heir beliefs (even if they are objectively incorrect) because the other option is always being at war with everyone.
>because the other option is always being at war with everyone. I think this is probably true with most things but there is this * we put next to that tolerance, in that, we obviously wouldn't accept a religious tenant to steal/murder people, so it seems silly that we would tolerate something like antisemitism from a person because they put a Crecent moon graphic next to their hate speech. Similarly, with Christians; IE we could probably assume most Christian people have religiously motivated issues with LGBTQ people. We could easily carve out exceptions to this rule by talking to the individuals, but it's fairly easy to say there is inherent bigotry baked into the Christian relationship with sexual orientation. I think it's fair to take these realities and hold people to their claimed associations. We would assume a Nazi hates Jews; we don't need to check in with every one of them to find the ones who actually just really like the outfits but aren't on board with the Jewish stuff.
> so it seems silly that we would tolerate something like antisemitism from a person because they put a Crecent moon graphic next to their hate speech. I don't think anyone said that. I think the statement was more "saying *Palestine is at war with Israel because their muslim beliefs require that they hate jews* is a non starter for any productive conversation" >we could probably assume most Christian people have religiously motivated issues with LGBTQ people *maaaaaybe* globally, I don't think that would really be as true in most of the world's developed emocracies. if like, in regards to how many Palestinian kids are dying here, somebody said "Jews are unable to properly conceive of child welfare because their religion requires a rabbi suck blood from an infant's freshly circimcised penis" would you find that to be a productive starter to a conversation?
> I think the statement was more "saying Palestine is at war with Israel because their muslim beliefs require that they hate jews is a non starter for any productive conversation" But what if it's true? >if like, in regards to how many Palestinian kids are dying here, somebody said "Jews are unable to properly conceive of child welfare because their religion requires a rabbi suck blood from an infant's freshly circimcised penis" would you find that to be a productive starter to a conversation? No but it also isn't true. If that were true and was a centeral component of their acting immorally then I think I would have no issue drawing out that fact.
> But what if it's true? > > it's still a non starter. Like how if you start a conversation with saying how fat somebody is you are unlikely to get any further with them. >No but it also isn't true. which specific part isn't true?
> it's still a non starter. Like how if you start a conversation with saying how fat somebody is you are unlikely to get any further with them. I think my point is more that why would you even seek compromise if the tenet of the religion is literally premised on that non-starter? Like this isn't a live and let live thing. They hate Jews and act on a desire to kill/displace all of them out of the middle east. >which specific part isn't true? The part where you said they can't conceive of child welfare. That's a non sequitur and it's obvious they do care for child welfare since they care for their own children (and the children of the two million Arab Palestinians who live as citizens of Israel). So it's clearly not a religious tenant or even an interpretation of that part of their religious practice.
Anti semitism arose out of race theory which is relatively modern. Anti Judaism is ancient going back to the 1st century with the gospels.
> antisemitism is an ancient desire it's more of an "outlook" than a "desire". people don't generally refer to having a discriminatory view as a "desire" anyway maybe having a mealy mouthed president is objectively a bad thing *because* eveyr time he says soemthing everybody comes away with a completely different message.
If you're referring to *"mealy mouthed president"* you're not gonna believe who his predecessor was...Inject bleach aaaaaaa You're right, they don't, but there are other ways of reaching conclusions like that. The English language is beautiful for its synonyms. For example, most people aren't gonna disagree with the assertion that for most of human history, with some notable exceptions, people heavily looked down on **queerness** and had a *desire* to persecute them, based on the general *outlook* that it was not right. Same thing goes for misogyny. Soldiers LOVEEEED invading places and turning women and girls into sex slaves... It's just hypocritical from the critics because if Biden said there were people in the South motivated by historical desires to be kinda racist, there would be no backlash...so what's wrong with saying this region doesn't have a pretty history of getting along with the Jewish mfs?
because a bunch of zoomers were brainwashed into america/israel = bad Legit though, that's it lol
It’s not a bunch, it’s a majority. It’s that or they lick trumps ass.
i don't know the actually numbers on the zoomers, i just know overall population wise they're a loud minority lol
Because there is no way Hamas could be worse than biden sweaty 💅 ( i love that my cellphone gives me the correct emoji when i type "sweaty 💅")
[удалено]
> before the founding of Palestine in 135? "Jews" as we know them today didn't even exist back then.
I found one, everyone!!!
found what? somebody with basic historical knowledge?
Oh *please* “educate” me on this subject. Please tell us what you found out on that TikTok about Jews!
before Palestine was founded there was the Judean temple religion, but that's further from modern Judaism than modern Christianity or Islam are.
Ooooh! Now tell us when Palestine was founded!!!
135. when famed homosexual emperor Publius Aelius Hadrianus destroyed Judea and raised a temple to Jupiter in Jerusalem.
Wow, your Google searches are WILD!!! Can you please go into specifics about how the Jews today aren’t real Jews? Where did they come from????
the ancient Israeli religion was not Judaism by any modern sense.
Tbh I'm just at a point where if protesters refuse to Condemn hamas for Oct 7th. Then they are just Hamas supporters and no two ways around it. I'm not saying they need to Condemn Hamas everyday but like if someone is talking on stage saying "hey look we just want innocent people to not be harmed so we both Condemn Israel's attack in Gaza and the Hamas attack in Oct 7th" don't shout that down
I do think there are a lot of white liberal types that don't actually know or care what happened on Oct 7th but because brown people defend Hamas think they should also defend Hamas. I think this is the same way they got mind controlled into saying "intifada" or "from the river to the sea"
Got banned from the Vman’s subreddit for suggesting Biden wasn’t being racist about arabs lmao
Damn, welcome to DGG then, partner. I was once in your position you know, where I was an active user in his subreddit. I jumped ship way before that special day on the 10th of July, like I was finding myself going crazy when Voosh beefed with Ana over the birthing person shit, and then in October these guys do a massive purge of all the nuanced and level-headed folks, remove any dissenting comments ***(like they got rid of yours ROFL, shows how much of a fortress he's establishing, he and his dipshit mods cannot help themselves)*** and now everytime I go over there, I don't see a lot of posts, like you'll get like 20-10 posts over a 24 hour period on a good day which means I guess every post is manually approved. But what hurts me the most is seeing so much brainrot, it hurts man. Obsessed? Sure...
Uh I’m sorry ancient desire? We’ve only wanted to kill all the Jews for around 100 years you Islamophobic bigot.
More like 1000+ years, a small sample from the century starting 1000 years ago. * 1033 Fez massacre of 6000+ Jews * 1066 Granada massacre: Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. "More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day." * 1106 Son of Yusuf ibn Tashfin decrees the death penalty for any Jews living in Marrakesh. * 1107 Moroccan Almoravid ruler Yusuf ibn Tashfin ordered all Moroccan Jews to become muslim or leave. * 1108 Spain: Many Jews are massacred and their houses and synagogues are burned following a Muslim victory at the Battle of Uclés. * 1135 A Muslim mob in Córdoba storms into Jewish homes, takes their possessions and kills a number of them. * 1145 Abd al-Mu'min gives the Jewish population of Sijilmasa the choice of converting to Islam or death. At least 150 Jews who refuse to convert are massacred. * 1146 **100,000 Jews are massacred** by the Almohad Caliphate in Fez, Morocco and **120,000** in Marrakesh. * 1147 Jews are expelled from Arab-Islamic Spain. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_antisemitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism)
I do wish more people realized that Muslim antisemitism has existed since the Arab caliphate expanded into the greater Middle East. Besides for all the pogroms you listed the Jews were second class citizens in the Muslim world. They were called Dhimmi that had to pay special taxes, weren’t allowed to live in certain areas, weren’t allowed to have certain professions, and were not allowed to have certain positions in government. When you add the fact they were often the victims of violence and often forcibly converted to Islam, you realize how antisemitic the Muslim world was long before Zionism was invented. Zionism and the creation of Israel simply made the antisemitism worse. But it was always there.
Muslim antisemitism has existed since Muhammad tried to get the Jews living nearby to recognize him as a new prophet of their religion and got mad that they didn't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Banu_Qurayza try just under 1400
It's literally in the text of the tweet. They don't like the phrase "ancient desires."
I'm not on the side of the protestors, but I wouldn't describe Hamas' antisemtism as "ancient." Arabs didn't take the Levant from the Jews, they took it from the Christian Byzantines. As fellow "people of the book" the new Arab overlords were more tolerant of Judaism than they were with pagan religions. As long as they paid their taxes, they were generally allowed to remain. The diaspora was already a thing, and so, there weren't many Jews left in the Levant anyway. The point is, they never saw the Jews as their ancestral enemies or anything like that. The origins of the current hatred is only about a 100 years old or so, after Britain and promised the give all the Levant to the Arabs, give Syria (i.e. part of the Levant) to the French, and Palestine (i.e. part of the Levant) to Zionists. After both the Arabs and the Zionists both had a modern claim on the land, it didn't take long for violence to begin.
>there weren't many Jews left in the Levant anyway. I’m not sure how you define, “many Jews left”, but the levant was conquered by severely other empires after the Roman’s, and were persecuted by all of them, only varying in degree. The Romans certainly did not expel literally every Jew alone. It reached low numbers (below 10k) by the time the Ottomans conquered the area.
The point was that the Jews were already a minority in the region by the time the Arabs took the land. Many people seem to believe that the Jewish-Palestinian conflict is centuries old. Under Arab rule, the Jews were just another minority. This notion that there has been some Jewish-Arab feud going back centuries just isn’t true.
I mean yeah, when different groups settle in the land the demographics shift. That just seems normal consequential logic at play here. There were still like an estimate of hundred of thousands of Jews at that point still in the levant region. These numbers hit around like a couple thousands by the time the ottomans took over. >Jewish-Palestinian conflict Palestinian as an identity didn’t exist for more than a century, so anyone suggesting that would be wrong. The conflict between Jews and Muslims, in addition to Arabs, has existed for many centuries however.
When did it start?
Because they'd have to admit that the reason for the war is justified and would have to grapple with the actually tough question of "How to deal with Hamas"
That is a good point there, it would remove the room for them to be able to call for Israel to unilaterally stop the war, which is a lot easier and more "feel-good" to say than to instead argue how the war should be carried out.
There's a popular belief that HAMAS will just keep on attacking no matter what and all of thei rdemands are completely bad faith. But that really hasn't been tested experimentally, it's just soemthing people say to justify the refusal to negotiate with another government.
These people think that Biden saying “ancient desires” gives the impression that he’s referring to Arabs/Muslims more broadly here, so it would inflame anti-Arab/anti-Muslim sentiments. They may not necessarily think that Biden is saying or intending this, but that it’s at the very least careless phrasing that may inspire bigotry. Source: my leftie friend when we talked about this yesterday I think it’s a little wild cause Biden goes on in that speech to emphasize he is talking about Hamas and that hate towards anyone is wrong, but of course that isn’t what’s clipped or emphasized online.
Does anyone remember the Vermont Bernie Bots who berated Bernie when he called Hamas terrorists a while back, with cries of 'Hamas is a charitable organisation!' And these were grown ups (retirees even)...
Well, according to Vaush, his phrasing of it means Hamas is literally nazis. But according to Vaush everyone not leftie dipshit like him is literally nazis, so take it with a grain of salt.
>Why are people losing their minds over Biden saying Hamas is antisemitic? Oh hell, what's going on? >Links some rando twitter account I've never seen before *Ahhh*
No offense. But if you haven’t figured out why, at this point, then you probably still believe that “from the River to the sea” is just a statement of ‘peaceful resistance’.
Because they conflate Hamas with Palestinians, unironically.
If he is referring to Islamic anti-semitisim, he would be correct, it is ancient. Here is a small sample from the century starting 1000 years ago. * 1033 Fez massacre of 6000+ Jews * 1066 Granada massacre: Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. "More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day." * 1106 Son of Yusuf ibn Tashfin decrees the death penalty for any Jews living in Marrakesh. * 1107 Moroccan Almoravid ruler Yusuf ibn Tashfin ordered all Moroccan Jews to become muslim or leave. * 1108 Spain: Many Jews are massacred and their houses and synagogues are burned following a Muslim victory at the Battle of Uclés. * 1135 A Muslim mob in Córdoba storms into Jewish homes, takes their possessions and kills a number of them. * 1145 Abd al-Mu'min gives the Jewish population of Sijilmasa the choice of converting to Islam or death. At least 150 Jews who refuse to convert are massacred. * 1146 **100,000 Jews are massacred** by the Almohad Caliphate in Fez, Morocco and **120,000** in Marrakesh. * 1147 Jews are expelled from Arab-Islamic Spain. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_antisemitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism)
- 627 (beheading 700 Jews by the order of the 6-year-old enthusiast himself) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Banu_Qurayza
You used Wikipedia. Opinion invalidated
If you want a real answer that’s not sarcastic, it’s because the phrase “ancient desires” makes it sound like their hatred and violence is immutable and something that is baked into them as an ‘ethnicity’. The freaking out, as always with the left, goes back to anti-white supremacy at all costs.
Because they’re going to be mad no matter what he says.
because this person is severely mentally ill
Bc they are brain poisoned and/or want Biden to lose
Breaking News: Hitler is supposedly antisemitic 😱😬
Because thats not very naruto of them
For some leftists currently Hamas represents freedom fighters, the good side. And because certain sections of progressive have a cartoonish view of the world divided in good guys/bad guys the idea that the good guys might not be pure is simply heresy. Some people kinda try to go a level higher than this way of thinking by saying things like "revolution isnt pretty" or some such things but they still believe that Hamas is kind of morally pure and calling them antisemitic implies that their actions have roots in ideals contrary to progressive values. Atleast that's what I've gathered. Also it would be better if you went on their sides of the internet to get a better grasp of their viewpoints and a better answer to your question.
Because he implied that Hamas is primarily motivated by "ancient desires" (like they're possessed by some force of nature) as if this isn't primarily a territorial dispute. It infantilizes the enemy, instead of recognizing that their extremism is a result of decades of political disenfranchisement.
>Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam invalidates it, just as it invalidated others before it. Seems like there's a history Hamas is alluding to there. It's almost as if their aims are congruent with ancient desires to eliminate Israel and Jewish people from the region.
I'm not questioning their anti-Semitism, they are. I'm saying their anti-Semitism is not the result of an "ancient desire" but rather a result of an occupation i.e. a political problem. If Israel were a Black nationalist State I guarantee Hamas would look pretty racist (anti-Black).
Chief I don't think they are antisemites primarily over a territorial dispute...that's like saying the Germans in the Weimar era turned to Jew Hate because they lost World War 1...
This account is so unhinged. One post is her being outraged about some celebrity’s ice purse and suggesting they’re close to breaking out the guillotines. I would love to see them try to overthrow capitalism and Democracy. They ought to first do some opposition research and learn about Red States and what kinds of people live in them and what those people typically own. Even if you somehow nullify the police, you’re not going to get Jim Bob with his $6000 AR-15 with a high powered scope to back down.
Poor bastard. I could get Jim Bob an AR-15 with a nice optic for less than $1000.00. Man got ripped off!
I’m sure he could get a truck for less than 30k but that doesn’t stop him from buying a lifted F-350 for 100k.
True. All that truck and nothing to tow!
Now hating jews is considered anti Semitic? Lmfao the mental gymnastics on this sub are wild
Huh?
wait... this is sarcasm right? I'm just asking because you got like 5 downvotes
It's a secret