uncle bernard

It’s dishonest because Hamas offered all the hostages, including the bodies of those who died in captivity. Your statement implied that they’re only offering corpses as a f*ck you. we know that some of the hostages are dead because they died along with their captors in israeli strikes. israel acknowledged that reality.

Yes and that includes Israel!

not the goal of antizionism. not what existed before Israel either. Hamas is a modern development.

talk about spin. what happened in 1948 that might have impacted jewish migration in the region?

it’s plainly not true because it’s not what happened. hamas didn’t make up this deal. it was negotiated by the US and Qatar. your claim that hamas countered a ceasefire deal in exchange for the return of dead hostages was extremely dishonest. hamas has agreed to return the hostages in exchange for an end to the invasion of gaza. The US supports that. Israel said no. It wants to invade Rafah. Those are the facts.

because it was an extensive history of the establishment of the state of israel which provides the necessary context to the basic antizionist idea “hey you can’t just kick people out of their homes and establish an ethnostate”

What happened in 1948 that might have affected Jewish migration in the middle east? Did they, idk, establish a Jewish ethnostate right around the corner fulfilling a 2000 year old dream of returning to the holy land?

that’s what a protest is. they’re making their desires known, as is their right. the university gets to decide what to do with that information.

yes. nobody claimed it does. that’s what so confusing about your issue.

plainly not true. hamas accepted the ceasefire backed by the US. This included the release of all hostages in exchange for withdrawal from Gaza. Israel said no because they don’t want to stop the war.

so how does that impact the arguments of anti-zionism?

It's not a word game to point out how Jewish identity is conceived by Jewish people. You're the one playing word games to craft an idea of Jewish identity that nobody, especially Jews, uses. And you still haven't said how this has any impact on the arguments of the podcast. If you do, we can actually speak about the substance for once.

It's actually incredibly racist to deny Jewish identity. Hitler didn't care if they were religious or secular Jews. Religious and secular Jews were subject to the same oppression for thousands of years. I think it's strange to cry wolf on racism when what you're trying to do is exclude all Jews that don't subscribe to a particular idea of Jewishness that *you* believe in. I'm guessing it's probably because you haven't spent much time with Jews. And you've yet to explain how any of their "arguments" would fall apart on that basis. They're not even making arguments for the most part. It's a survey of the history of Israel beginning with the emergence of Zionism in 19th century Europe. Explaining the historical trajectory of that movement and the differences of opinion within the Jewish community isn't an argument. It's history. Antizionism isn't based on Jews being a race. If anything, it's a response to that assertion because Israel is founded as Jewish ethnostate. One of my best friends in college, who is Jewish, could move to Israel tomorrow and be a full citizen if he wanted because his parents are Jewish even though he's not a practicing Jew. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/03/16/a-closer-look-at-jewish-identity-in-israel-and-the-u-s/ "Both groups also were asked about what being Jewish means to them in a different way, with an open-ended question that allowed them to give any answer. The vast majority of Israeli Jews cited connections with Jewish history, culture and community." "Solid majorities in both countries say a person can be Jewish even if he or she works on the Sabbath, does not believe in God or is strongly critical of Israel."

for those who still are confused about the specific demands of the student protests

judaism is a cultural identity as much as a religious one. secular jews consider themselves just as “jewish” as religious jews. it is a little strange that this is your hang up with a podcast about the history of of a state whose entire existence is predicated on judaism being a race. that is the explicit claim *of israel.* the funny thing is that those podcasters would probably agree it’s not a race and that’s fundamental to their criticism of israel.

i’m not sure where you’re getting this. they don’t speak about jews as a monolith at all. the total opposite actually. genuinely confused how that was your takeaway

projection

that’s what stalin said too

I have to run to something, but could you explain what you mean here?

1) no, ceasefire would be the start of a longer peace process. you're too concerned with trying to poke holes in everything. use some common sense. why would you think i'd *only* want a temporary ceasefire? 2) no protestor in this country has any impact on hamas' behavior. I can't believe this is so hard to understand. One is a terror group, not recognized as a legit gov by international law, and the other is our ally who receives billions of our tax money every year. why haven't you been out protesting hamas all this time and before 10/7? because you correctly understand that we're not supporting hamas. there's nothing to protest! 3) Yes, I recognize the emotions from Israel's side. I don't fault them at all for having those emotions. They are scared and angry and have reason to be so. They mirror Palestinians in that way. Where we differ on this is you think that grants license to commit crimes and I don't. International Law (and law in general) is established to prevent cycles of violence. Yes, Israel has every right to be angry about 10/7. No, that doesn't mean they have the right to kill innocent civilians and ethnically cleanse Gaza. 4) You're arguing in a fantasy world. I'm trying to argue for what a real solution might actually look like. Sure, they don't deserve conditions. The world isn't fair, my friend. Concessions are made in the service of larger goals for greater benefit and a greater peace. Lastly, really annoying that you keep implying I defend Hamas' actions on 10/7. I've taken the time to respond to your novel length posts in detail. The least you can do is be honest and honorable in debate. You know I've done no such defending of Hamas. I know that's frustrating because it would be easier to argue with me if I had, but I haven't. I'm sorry for that.

next time will be the first time

Disappointingly disingenuous from someone who seemed to be arguing in good faith. 1) The call for ceasefire goes both ways. That protects Israeli civilians too and that's a consistent demand of these protests. 2) You want to have this argument outside of a real world context where we can hold victims to an ideal that is impossible to realize. Would it be awesome if Palestinians were in the streets protesting Hamas? Of course! It would make my case much easier to make. However, I understand why they aren't. They may not love Hamas, but Hamas is clearly *on their side* in this conflict that's been going on for 75 years. There are human emotions involved in this. Most of the people who live in Gaza were already refugees before this war and Hamas wasn't the force that kicked them out of the homes they lived in for generations. So yes, I'm not surprised that they aren't sufficiently anti-Hamas for your liking (you still haven't addressed the West Bank btw which is not Hamas). Your implication seems to be that because they are not sufficiently anti-Hamas, they are legitimate targets of the IDF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know why you would keep bringing this up otherwise. Well, I don't because that is *explicitly* a war crime. It's an extremely dangerous way of thinking that can be used to justify all sorts of horrors. It's the justification Hamas would give for 10/7. "Those civilians weren't sufficiently anti-Israel, so they're legit targets as occupiers." It's wrong, full stop. I seem to be one of the few on here who actually condemns terroristic ideology like this. Will you join me? (And yes, Hamas should surrender as part of a political process that establishes Palestinian sovereignty or integrates both states under one secular government. Ideally, war criminals from both sides would undergo trial and punishment, but the political reality would likely demand amnesty for both sides as part of the agreement. The rest of the world should be invested in maintaining the peace during this process.)

where did i say that? btw, believing civilians are legit targets because of their gov actions is explicitly a war crime.

i’m confused? i was agreeing with your post. a major reason why shipping the palestinians off to other countries (which is ethnic cleansing btw) is that hamas would inevitably begin operating from those refugee camps, making those countries targets for Israeli airstrikes (see Syria and Lebanon). nobody wants to deal with that scenario.