← Back to context

Comment by JumpCrisscross

3 days ago

> your Zionist sensibilities

Consider how you may be hurting your cause.

Labelling everyone who disagrees with (or merely doesn’t understand what you’re saying) you a Zionist or genocide sympathiser is satisfying. It’s easy. But it also makes it virtually impossible to distinguish, from a glance, which side is more extreme, the pro-Palestinian side in the West or the Ben-Gvir gang. (I make the former distinction because, again from a distance, the people I know in e.g. Lebanon are much more balanced than what I hear in New York.)

Because if both sides are absolutists on from the river to the sea or whatever, there isn’t a discussion. There is no room to compromise. As Clausewitz said, there is necessity for politics by other means. Those other means are deadly.

And yes, I’m saying that the uncompromising rhetoric being pushed by people thousands of miles away from the conflict is driving up death tolls. Sykes and Picot didn’t kill these people. But they caused the circumstances that lead to their deaths. A lot of foreign activism around this issue is repeating the mistake of drawing boundaries—rhetorical and geographic—from afar, considering only the views of one side or, worse, their own assumptions about what one side should believe.

> Many Jews who escaped the Nazi concentration camp had a natural and immense hatred towards Germans in general and they also acted upon it by killing Germans who had previously been Nazis as retribution

And they were wrong. Understandable. But wrong.

If that had turned into a political movement it would have destroyed sympathy for their cause. (In the same way Israeli extremism is sapping support for Israel today.)

> like you going to Dachau and telling a jew in the camp that "Generational hatred for crimes committed by ancestors isn’t a requirement" during their ongoing genocide

If you can’t see the difference between an unarmed concentration camp and a foreign-armed militant group lobbing rockets, sure.

> they did do that during their ongoing oppression and genocide

Which tribes? Because the ones who hit settlers got wiped out more frequently than those who bid for time.

> like the Jewish refugees who nobody was willing to accept

Yes.

>Labelling everyone who disagrees with you a Zionist or genocide sympathiser is satisfying. It’s easy. But it also makes it virtually impossible to distinguish, from a glance, which side is more extreme, the pro-Palestinian side in the West or the Ben-Gvir gang. (I make the former distinction because, again from a distance, the people I know in e.g. Lebanon are much more balanced than what I hear in New York.)

That's not what's happening and you are consistently misrepresenting the facts and the situation. The initial suspicion of you being a zionist has been confirmed by your consistently bad faith rhetoric trying to justify, deny or downplay the genocide. In some of your other conversations with other people you tried to downplay the death count of children to which they provided the evidence that you're wrong and you ignored it.

"Gaza death toll 40% higher than official number, Lancet study finds" - [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/10/gaza-death-tol...]

> But it also makes it virtually impossible to distinguish, from a glance, which side is more extreme, the pro-Palestinian side in the West or the Ben-Gvir gang.

If you have difficulty deciding which side is more "extreme" after 15 months of continuous genocide, then don't be surprised when you are correctly identified as a zionist. The people defending themselves against a century of brutal colonization and genocide on the other hand have every right to be "extreme" and such smears don't have the silencing and demonization power they used to once have.

"UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide, including use of starvation as weapon of war" https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-c...

>Because if both sides are absolutists on from the river to the sea or whatever, there isn’t a discussion. There is no room to compromise. As Clausewitz said, there is necessity for politics by other means. Those other means are deadly.

"Both sides". If you think that after 15 months of genocide there will ever be permanent "compromise" then you're simply naive. If I were Palestinian I would never stop fighting the genocidal colonizers who subjected the Palestinian people to a century of suffering, vilification and genocide. And it seems that resistance won't either: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-has-another-sinw...

>> Many Jews who escaped the Nazi concentration camp had a natural and immense hatred towards Germans in general and they also acted upon it by killing Germans who had previously been Nazis as retribution

>And they were wrong. Understandable. But wrong.

They weren't wrong and you also admit that it's "understandable" so it's clear that most people sympathize with them in that regard and don't classify it as wrong. that's why there are dozens of hollywood movies and shows of jews taking revenge on Nazis which have become popular blockbusters.

>If that had turned into a political movement it would have destroyed sympathy for their cause. (In the same way Israeli extremism is sapping support for Israel today.)

But it did turn into a movement: Zionism. Zionists weaponized the holocaust to turn zionism from an unpopular movement [as can be seen in pre-zionist jewish culture: Oy, Ir Narishe Tsionistn - Oh, You Foolish Little Zionists (Yiddish Anti-Zionist Song) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQMRwk8WDd4] into a more appealing one. The problem is that the twisted ideology of Zionism made the Palestinians pay for the crimes of Nazi-Germany. Zionists even collaborated with Nazis and sabotaged jewish boycott efforts of Nazi-Germany so they can garner support for the colonization of Palestine. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement]

>If you can’t see the difference between an unarmed concentration camp and a foreign-armed militant group lobbing rockets, sure.

Again you completely strip the context to which that statement was attached to so you can make snide and asinine statements. I already corrected you regarding your false claim that jews supposedly never fought back against their oppressors but you clearly don't care to remember because it would ruin the validity of your vapid response. [e.g. Jewish Combat Organization: Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa, Jewish Military Union: Żydowski Związek Wojskowy]

>> they did do that during their ongoing oppression and genocide >Which tribes? Because the ones who hit settlers got wiped out more frequently than those who bid for time.

Apache Nations, Lakota/Dakota, Seminole Nation (which never officially surrendered!) but it doesn't matter which tribes specifically resisted colonization, what matters is that you made a false claim and I corrected you on that. "Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonized. That is what the Arabs of Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of Palestine into the Land of Israel." -Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall.