So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

[Ford]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/netanyahu-vows-to-start-annexing-west-bank-in-bid-to-rally-the-right/ar-BBVGAV1?li=BBnbfcL

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday that he would start to extend Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank if given a fourth consecutive term.

In the eyes of most of the world, it would also be a violation of international law that bars the annexation of land seized in war.

This is the end game. It's ethnic cleansing.

“The question you’re asking is an interesting one: Will we move on now to the next stage?” he said. “And the answer is, yes. We will move on to the next stage.”

I thought the Israelis would incrementally push the Palestinians off the occupied territories over decades, but it appears they've accelerated their plans.

 

[repoman]

Open Borders for Israel

Check out Moshe Feiglin,

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

https://www.timesofisrael.com/zehuts-feiglin-says-he-wants-to-build-third-temple-right-away/

It's almost like the demographics of a country can change a massive amount in about a century. Huh?

 

[Jayjay]

Bibi's lapdog Trump might not be around for much longer, so it's now or never.

 

[repoman]

Bibi's lapdog Trump might not be around for much longer, so it's now or never.

Can you imagine the money laundering and other fuckery that Trump may be doing for Bibi's associates? G-d damn!

Done with shell corporation structuring of course.

This is why I don't like the Russia hyperfocus.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bibi's lapdog Trump might not be around for much longer, so it's now or never.

What do you base this hopeful wish on?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Referring to it as the "Final Solution" is major anti-semitism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

... and rather poetic.

 

[Arctish]

Referring to it as the "Final Solution" is major anti-semitism.

It's an appropriate comparison. Netanyahu's government drives people into ghettos and internment areas so that the State isn't 'polluted' by their presence.

Anyway, I think you mean anti-Zionist, but only in the sense that it was criticism.

 

[Ford]

Referring to it as the "Final Solution" is major anti-semitism.

Criticizing the state of Israel is not anti-semitism. The leader of the state of Israel has proposed confiscating Palestinian land, pushing them off, and giving it to Israeli citizens. What would you call that?

 

[lpetrich]

Israel != Jews in general. Criticism of Israeli official nastiness != thinking that Jews are great villains.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Referring to it as the "Final Solution" is major anti-semitism.

Criticizing the Israeli government for what the International Community views as an illegal act of annexation isn't anti-semitism. Referring to is as the "Final Solution" is exaggerated, but neglecting the effect it has on the local populations is anti-humanitarian.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Referring to it as the "Final Solution" is major anti-semitism.

It's an appropriate comparison. Netanyahu's government drives people into ghettos and internment areas so that the State isn't 'polluted' by their presence.

They didn't drive people to any specific location. To the extent that there was driving it was simply away from the conflict areas. (And usually triggered by the civilians aiding the Arab combatants. When the line between combatant and civilian gets blurred you tend to get atrocities. Look at the history of wartime atrocities--if a western army commits an atrocity you can be nearly certain that the other side did something that blurred the lines. Either the civilians were aiding the combatants or the combatants were disguised as civilians.)

Anyway, I think you mean anti-Zionist, but only in the sense that it was criticism.

The "Final Solution" was about Jews, not about Zionists. The reference is therefore antisemitic.

- - - Updated - - -

Israel != Jews in general. Criticism of Israeli official nastiness != thinking that Jews are great villains.

True, but I was referring to the use of the specific term, not the general criticism of the act.

 

[Arctish]

They didn't drive people to any specific location. To the extent that there was driving it was simply away from the conflict areas. (And usually triggered by the civilians aiding the Arab combatants. When the line between combatant and civilian gets blurred you tend to get atrocities. Look at the history of wartime atrocities--if a western army commits an atrocity you can be nearly certain that the other side did something that blurred the lines. Either the civilians were aiding the combatants or the combatants were disguised as civilians.)

That's a whole lot of incoherent bullshit right there.

Do you want me to find your old posts on this topic so you can refresh your memory? I can, you know. I can find your previous posts on this topic.

Anyway, I think you mean anti-Zionist, but only in the sense that it was criticism.

The "Final Solution" was about Jews, not about Zionists. The reference is therefore antisemitic.

Hitler's Final Solution to the Jewish Question was a plan to permanently remove a particular ethnic/religious group from the areas the Nazis wanted to make part of the Third Reich. Netanyahu has a plan to permanently remove a particular religious/ethnic group from areas Zionists want to make part of Israel. Both plans target Semitic people.

In fact, the Semitic people Netanyahu is targeting are even more Semitic than the ones Hitler targeted. Hitler's victims had a considerable amount of European ancestry and 1500- 2000 years of European heritage. The people of Palestine have almost no other ancestry or heritage. If you're talking about anti-Semitism, you're talking about bigotry and bias against the indigenous people of Palestine, i.e. Netanyahu's victims.

 

[Derec]

Ford, this is antisemitic libel.

"Final solution" was about exterminating millions of people. You are comparing it to annexing some settlements. No different than annexation of the Golan or of East Jerusalem.

 

[Derec]

Criticizing the state of Israel is not anti-semitism.

It depends. Not every criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. But when you single the only Jewish state for criticism you do not level at any other state, what else can it be?

Have you been so hyperbolic when Russia annexed Crimea for example?

 

[Ford]

If you're talking about anti-Semitism, you're talking about bigotry and bias against the indigenous people of Palestine, i.e. Netanyahu's victims.

I'm fairly certain Loren is one of those people who argues (or at least leans toward the argument) that "Palestine" never really existed and therefore the Palestinians are simply Arabs who happen to spend some time living in land that was clearly granted to Israel by God. Bibi certainly makes the case that Israel - and by that he means any land the Israeli state was granted, occupies, or desires - belongs to the Jewish people and nobody else. In fact he said as much, writing recently on Instagram:

"Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people - and only it."

To Loren, this is not racist, not discriminatory, and certainly not an indication that Netanyahu wants to at very least treat non-Jewish people who live in Israel as second class citizens (or worse).

Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[laughing dog]

Criticizing the state of Israel is not anti-semitism.

It depends. Not every criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. But when you single the only Jewish state for criticism you do not level at any other state, what else can it be?

Have you been so hyperbolic when Russia annexed Crimea for example?

Perhaps it is my ignorance, but I was unaware of a 50 year + occupation and struggle for possession of Crimea by Russia. Would you please post a link so I can educate myself? And if there was no 50+ occupation by Russia of Crimea, can you see how your example is inappropriate?

 

[Derec]

I'm fairly certain Loren is one of those people who argues (or at least leans toward the argument) that "Palestine" never really existed and therefore the Palestinians are simply Arabs who happen to spend some time living in land that was clearly granted to Israel by God.

Except for the god part, all this is accurate.
"Palestine", at the time of Israel's creation was a purely geographical term, not a national one.

People who ignorantly point to things like Palestine-Australia football matches in 1938 as "proof" that Palestine existed do not understand what the word meant before it was co-opted by the PLO.

Palestinian Arabs had no identity apart from other Arabs. Palestinian national identity was only invented when it became a useful fiction in the Arab fight against Israel.

See, it's not just Loren or I. Palestinian leaders agree with us on this point.

By the way, did you know that for an Arab to qualify as "Palestinian refugee" (and thus now claims the bogus "right of return"), one has to be descendant from somebody who lived in what is now Israel for mere two (2) years before the creation of Israel?

Bibi certainly makes the case that Israel - and by that he means any land the Israeli state was granted, occupies, or desires - belongs to the Jewish people and nobody else. In fact he said as much, writing recently on Instagram:

While non-Jews can be Israeli citizens, Israel was conceived as the homeland for Jewish people, and it is natural that Israel wishes to maintain that identity.

 

[Derec]

Perhaps it is my ignorance, but I was unaware of a 50 year + occupation and struggle for possession of Crimea by Russia.

You are ignorant of the Soviet Union? The Russian Empire before then? The Crimean War? There has been much occupation and struggle for possession in the history of Crimea.

And if there was no 50+ occupation by Russia of Crimea, can you see how your example is inappropriate?

It's about singling out Israel. Each and every time. Of course, since no two situations are exactly the same, one can always pretend that one is singling out Israel for reasons that have nothing to do with it being the Jewish state, but after the 50th such excuse, they ring very hollow.

 

[Arctish]

I'm fairly certain Loren is one of those people who argues (or at least leans toward the argument) that "Palestine" never really existed and therefore the Palestinians are simply Arabs who happen to spend some time living in land that was clearly granted to Israel by God.

Except for the god part, all this is accurate.
"Palestine", at the time of Israel's creation was a purely geographical term, not a national one. Palestinian Arabs had no identity apart from other Arabs except for being from Palestine and not from, say, the Sahara or Yemen or Egypt or anywhere else that Arabs lived, and having their own cultural characteristics and history and dialects. Palestinian national identity of the type recognized and respected by European nations and their former colonies[was] only invented when it became a useful fiction in the Arab fight against Israel necessary for the tribes to band together to fight European colonization and demand recognition of their right to live in their own ancestral homeland.

FIFY

Bibi certainly makes the case that Israel - and by that he means any land the Israeli state was granted, occupies, or desires - belongs to the Jewish people and nobody else. In fact he said as much, writing recently on Instagram:

While non-Jews can be Israeli citizens, Israel was conceived as the homeland for Jewish people, and it is natural that Israel wishes to maintain that identity.

It is natural that the racist religious bigots who created a Jewish State in Palestine would refuse to acknowledge that Palestine is the homeland of all Semitic peoples, regardless of their religious affiliation.

Netanyahu is merely following the well worn path of State enforced racial and religious discrimination. One would think that Jews would remember where that path leads. And one would think they'd be horrified to find themselves on it, but I guess everyone thinks their own sh*t doesn't stink.