Israel: Jewish, Democratic, and Territorial? A Legal Analysis of a Flawed Model.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ต.ค. 2023
- What is the "political theology" of the Israel-Palestine dispute? How do conflicting legal concepts and philosophical worldviews shape the terms of the debate? It is often said that Israel can be any two, but not all three, of Jewish, democratic, and territorial. If it wants to preserve its character as a Jewish and democratic state, it must not rule in the "occupied territories." In this video essay, we dive deeper into that model to see whether it is coherent. What does it clarify, and what does it distort or conceal?
The original essay that I am reading is available below, if you want the footnotes and bibliography. I repeat now what I say in the video: this was the experimental attempt of an MA student to apply a "Schmittean" and "Straussian" approach to the intuition that legal concepts are used polemically in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
www.academia.edu/92057028/Jew...
This presentation is not meant to offend anyone who believes A or B about the conflict. It is meant to show that there are interesting questions that arise at the level of theology and philosophy when we explore politics through law. That is an idea that is as old as Plato, if not older.
Thanks for watching.
For courses on politics and philosophy, visit: MillermanSchool.com
For a free email introduction to philosophy, visit: PhilosophyIntro.com
No one forced a ton of jews to migrate to Palestine 70 years ago. They chose to go there, crowd out the Arabs, thus causing a dispute over the land. Conflict ensued ever since. Everything that is recognized as Israel is occupied Palestine land. They never agreed to the land transfer. British refused to allow the Arabs proper state hood.
One could say the jews have right of conquest over that land. Then you cannot also portray them as innocent victims. And if the Arabs, Turks and Iranians wish to reconquer Palestine then they are perfectly in their right to do so. They are not immoral monsters doing a unique evil. They will simply be reciprocating the hostile violent take over the jews thrust onto the Palestinians 70 years ago.
its the last colonial war. either we allow modern colonialism or we dont. its that simple.
"British refused to allow the Arabs proper state hood." --Tracing all things back to the dastardly British is perhaps the most pathetic take on this subject.
@@otisrue165 i mean lets not forget rothchild and the belfour declaration, someones dastardly af
I think your final paragraph hit the nail on the head. Israel is literally a nation established because of white guilt. It should be an example against woke culture.
BUT, now they are there, you cannot just displace them (I know they are doing it to the Palestinians, which I hope we can all say is wrong). Whilst, if a war breaks out, to the Victor, the spoils.
GFY
"According to israeli law it is not an occupier"
Pointless argument. That is simply stating their interest. Did anyone question that Israel thinks it owns all that land? Of course Israel thinks it owns all that land. That was never a question.
This whole paper is totally not biased in favor of judaism 😂
Whose law should be used then? Jordanian law? British law? Egyptian law? Lebanese? Syrian? Saudi? UN? And why?
Brits should have given the Palestinians state hood. Brits being eternal jew cock suckers prevented that. Should have all been handled under Palestinian Arab law because they are the people who have lived there for the past 1,400 years. Unlike the Brits, unlike the jews.@@user-xp5id1kh4r
@@user-xp5id1kh4r best possible comment. You're correct. There's no way to figure out law which is most "correct".
You have turned me on to so many great books by great thinkers and I really am thankful for you posting this stuff so I can listen at work.
In
For me it’s just playing with words. Israel was created by UN resolution (stating creating two states). And UN consider occupied territories as occupied.
Another insightful and thought Provoking Video Dr.Millerman. I loved this video and would welcome more to come as well.
I recommend the 7 part series on the founding of Israel on the martyr made podcast. It is 20 plus hours. It really helps to understand that mess.
Could you tell me where i found this podcast?
Very useful categories of thought - thank you, Dr. Millerman.
Interesting analysis - performatively it’s a Jewish state (different laws apply to Jewish citizens and Palestinians). The very idea of ‘liberal democracy’ is performatively contradictory unless the population is really homogenous and thought control is strict. We can dispute the legality of ‘occupation’ but it runs the risk of collapsing into moral/legal nihilism? But might is right so that’s where the buck stops
How do you see the US succeeding as a liberal democracy or not? We aren't homogeneous.
@judithgervais2566 I guess it depends on how you measure success. It can only be measured by wether the aspirations of the project were achieved or not, i.e., individual liberty and political equality- those principles sounds great in theory but are a nightmare in practice once people have different values. American society is more fractured than ever along innumerable lines, and the current political landscape has no solution to offer. That's precisely what happens when we want a ' Rousseauvian' man in a 'Hobbesian' moral landscape. In a situation like this, inevitably, there needs to be someone who needs to call the shots about who's right and who's wrong in the culture wars that could be supreme court (un elected individuals) or some form of cancel culture to keep dissenting voices in check. In either of those forms, there is no 'liberty' or 'democracy' but an apprently appetizing permutation of tyranny.
In israel arabs have full rights, unfortunately. But for the so called palestinians, they dont get israeli rights they are not israeli citizens, they can go fq themselves
thank u .... A lot to work on. Wandering how much of all this - even just intuitively - Gantz and Abu Masen really take into account when they think about the future. Surely my messianic friends - that live up on the hills - love the openings that you have given. If you ever do a second part, focusing only on the philosophical side of this, could be fascinating. Even as a course.
Very interesting. The fact that they don’t have a hard to change Constitution complicates things for them.
I do think this kind of getting into the weeds is important. As long as one does not adopt a short sided legalistic approach to issues. The laws are important but they are also all flawed.
Thank you Michael 🙌
You should read "You Gentiles" by Maurice Samuel
Why, what does it say? In summary
It's an interesting look into how Jews view Gentiles from the point of view of Jew Maurice Samuel.@@emZee1994
Michael is not a gentile...
@@emZee1994 100 year old book written by a neurotic Jewish guy kvetching about rising antsemitism. There's a passage where he writes from a non-Jewish perspective calling Jews "destroyers" and he complains they can never escape that image, antisemytes take it out of context to claim that Jews are admitting that they're destroyers or something. It's on the Internet Archive, it's really not a particularly interesting read but if you wanna it's there.
It seems that one implication to concluding that Gaza and the West Bank are not occupied territory is that Israel's accepting this designation absolves them of particular responsibilities to the inhabitants of said territories distinct from those of an occupying power. In other words if the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel proper then so too are the inhabitants and then the question of treatment of Israelis citizens proper is raised.
Absolutely, but we do not really want to get into that road. this would really be the end of democracy or the end of the jewish state. Not easy puzzle.
Are you jewish? Just asking, because your last name is MillerMAN
Answer is yes, obviously
Postman, Cadman, Jackman, Sandman, Wyman, Seaman, Boatman, Hartman, Hillman, He-Man and Wooman, especially the latter two, are non-Jewish. There are 'German' non-Jewish variations of 'Zimmermann'. The brief 'Mann' and the longer Timmerman(n) are Dutch surnames
An interesting perspective into the legal history of the region - although at a very tragic and unacceptable circumstances right now.
My thinking, would the acceptance of mentioned Jordanian law for the territories not indirectly indicate that the Jordanian had the sovereignty of the territory? Also, the hole region was under one kind or other of European governance where borders were drawn not according to historical or ethnical borders but rather as pleased on a map with a steel ruler.
As a result of these inconsequential policies, the world has endured 70 years of regional horror.
While I think you make a very convincing and cogent argument, I think whether or not these are considered occupied territories or not makes very little difference to most people and how they feel. In fact, if I can speak from my own limited experience, then most old people simply consider that Palestinians already have a country which is separate from Israel, while most young people seem to concede that Gaza and the West Bank are a part of Israel, but want a one-state solution that provides equal rights for both all three denominations regardless of their ethnic background.
Personally speaking, I side with Palestinians for a few reasons which are unrelated to this:
1. I do not think Israel has any future, thus any deaths brought about for its sake are ultimately pointless. This is the same reason I feel strongly that Ukrainians should've simply come to the table and immediately surrendered to the Russians: save for the wholesale destruction and dismantling of Russia itself, there's pretty much a zero chance Ukraine is ever going to be allowed to live in peace and prosperity as an enemy of the Russia and outside its sphere of influence. Likewise, Israel is surrounded by neighbors who do not think its existence is authentic, and who would be eager to see it disappear. Israel exists as an American-backed project, which we can already see is fast-losing support in America (less than a quarter of zoomers are pro-Israel, and going by anecdotes from educators it seems non-whites are increasingly antisemitic to the point of doubting the Holocaust). In this sense, continued support for Israel just means supporting more mass murders and potentially a complete destabilization of the American empire depending on how far Israel's enemies are willing to go.
2. I do not feel Israel has been a good steward. Just in its history thus far it's guilty of mass murders and complete dehumanization and mistreatment of people they are responsible for (and yes, if they insist of putting Gazans in an open air prison, for example, they make themselves morally responsible for their wellbeing). Israel denies its crimes repeatedly, whether that's murdering journalists or killing civilians. They will lie, and lie, and lie, and try to pin the blame on everyone till they finally admit wrongdoing months later - and then they do nothing to punish those behind it. In the decades that Israel has been around, we have not seen it becoming more free and more democratic. Quite the contrary, it's becoming quite the fascistic shithole that even Israelis aren't big fans of, especially those whose families built the country and have been there since its inception. And also contrary to what leftists believe, the average Israeli is not some bloodthirsty lunatic, but a completely normal person who wants to live a normal existence with a good quality of life. Israel's leaders also have no problem with importing Jews from anywhere to boost their numbers, even if the Jews they're bringing in don't really fit in with the locals and might overall make Israel a worse place for the Jews already there (like Russian criminal rings, who don't even bother to integrate or speak Hebrew). I would even go so far as to say that Israel's debased and depraved immoral behavior brings harm to Jews worldwide since it constantly leverages their supposed safety to justify its crimes against humanity. Does some Jew in Bucharest, or Milan, or New York, deserve to get hate or God forbid get killed by some lunatic because Bibi's political career depends on antagonizing the most fanatic Muslims? Am I truly supposed to think this is a state that's living up to its promise to protect Jews, both Israelis and otherwise? No, I'm afraid the conclusion I would come to is the opposite: Israel as it stands brings more dangers to Jews around the world and only increases the rates of antisemitism.
3. I do not think the history of Israel represents a natural will of the people so much as an imperial project. I don't think I have much go in-depth with this one. There is so much questionable influence going into the construction of Israel, from the Rothschilds to the Anglo elites and other forms of moneypower that I think it is, on some level, fucking cursed. I can't think of any nicer way to put it. Its existence feels completely inauthentic and forced. Were we presented with an alternative form of Israeli history, where Israel came about not due to the larping desires of wealthy Europeans, but because the ethnic Jews of Palestine rose up to the moment to create their own state by force in the flux of history, then it'd be one thing. But that's not what this is. Israel is as artificial as Russia or China carving up different parts of America and "restoring them" to so-called natives. When, in reality, without any outside influence, those natives wouldn't do anything, just like the Jews of Palestine were not only comfortable going on with their lives as they were, but many were even against the sudden arrival of Ashkenazim who decided to upturn their lives.
I hope you don't take these points personally, as I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and your invaluable work. I just thought I'd offer my own thoughts on the issue.
Seems a weee bit quiet
At this point, the troubled territory comprising Israel/Palestine should be a neutral, demilitarized, internationally-administered, museum. You can visit the 'holy land' and its 'sacred sites' but that's it.
I've held this pipe dream for many years. It includes getting the UN the heck out of New York City and moving it to Jerusalem. ⛅️😌🦄🍭☮️...😅
Dangerous precedent, honestly, considering people do live there. You could get certain interest groups proposing the same for London if the migrants get uppity.
Dr Millerman doesn't address what I would have thought was a fundamental question in halakhic law, namely whether a Jew who neither observes the Jewish law in its integrity nor even aspires to do so, has a right to live in the Land of Israel, the sanctified land. He also leaves his own fundamental question hanging in the air - can Israel (I have no problem with recognising that 'Israel' includes both the West Bank and, I would argue, Gaza) be both Jewish (presumably meaning observing halakha) and democratic. The problem is that Zionism failed to secure a majority in the area. So how under Halakha would an integral Israel deal with its Palestinian population which is almost equal in numbers and would be a majority of the refugees are taken into account? In 1948 the solution was to hive off a large number by giving them to Jordan and expel 7-800,000 of what was left. But of course giving the West Bank to Jordan was very offensive to religious Zionists for whom not just was that part of the sanctified land, it was the heart of the sanctified land. Ariel Sharon to the great distress of religious Zionists hived off 2 million in Gaza, with consequences we are now seeing. If it is accepted, as it has to be, now that the 'two state solution' has been rendered impossible (it always was but never mind) that Israel from the river to the sea, is one coherent polity then, does halakha require that the non-Jews (perhaps including the non-observant Jews?) should be reduced to a state of - um - "dhimmitude'? Or should they be simply expelled? Or killed? It is of course good to go to fundamental principles but at some point one has to take account of the practical consequences.
To your thoughtful comment on practical consequences, I'd also add that one has to consider what the consequences will be for Israel's allies. Even if we discount geopolitical realities and the potential actions of Israel's neighbors, there are countless Muslims in Europe and America now, Muslims who would - justifiably I'd say - be extremely aggrieved if they see other Muslims getting mistreated, displaced, or killed, only to hear their current host governments protect the regime doing this.
In other words, do Europeans and Americans really have an obligation to destabilize their societies and possibly incur deaths of thousands in terrorist attacks for the sake of Israel's, let's be honest, very much untenable future? Personally, I don't think it's at all worth it for us. The solution for a hot zone like the Holy Land should be one that works for all three major religions.
@@bigbeautifulape5283 wow ...I suggest better education towards what it is to be a "zionist" and how israeli have treated the muslim population compared to how for example the palestinians think about taking in a small jewish number of inhabitants in their territories.
Such are the conceptual contortions required to question the widely accepted conventions, that they would be torn to pieces by any half-competent international lawyer.
this brings to mind the question "why socrates is sitting here?"!!
The same somehow applies to Europeans immigration (post WWII) to the levant, as well as North-african and Middleeasterners immigration to the North.
how about acknowledging that it belongs to both? Both are occupiers, both belong there. How do you share a space? in a house owned by two people who dont like or relate to each other, you might divide the house in two EQUAL parts..but you confine yourself to a small space and both may need the kitchen (Jerusalem). The better way is to share the entire space while respecting each other's requirements. In that case you both have access to the kitchen, lounge garden, toilet and still respect each other's rooms as private space. What is so difficult about That?
Well if both had equal power then you presupposed idealism may work, but one is nuclear arm and the other armed with AK47 and some home made RPG's. Justice is a prerequisite for peace. If one is a sophist then justice is the advantage of the strongest.
Interesting but all this is "Pil-Poul" arguments... Are we talking about humans? Where is the argument from the point of view of the Palestinians? The only "acceptable" option is : One State with Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others; living under the same rules... One could call it "Palestine"... You may say I'm a dreamer, but...
I like Canaan
The Muslims have more kids
You're not the only one.
Well the most important question is: Is that state's existence justified? Wasn't Theodor harzl explicit about the project being a settler colonialism project on the lines of american one? No amount of sophistry can justify it, but just raw power. And that is how it goes.
Michael, the sound isn't working.
I'll have to check when I get home. No sound?
It Seems to be my mobile device. It Works fine on my PC.
@@millermanNo sound. Both left and right channels.
It works for me. It might be because youtube is still "processing" it?
The issue seems to have resolved itself on my end. @@millerman
Your paper is pure pilpul. You cannot ignore the underlying issues going back to the Mandate era and the jewish invasion migration, and the British tying the Arabs' hands behind their back, and handing the jew a gun.
well, he is jewish lol
@@ARM1NIUS oy vey!
@@ARM1NIUSYep. Now i see his whole work very critically. This is probably the whole reason why he is against universalism.and human rights. i am apphauled.
@@karlheven8328These comments shows the reason for existence of a jewish state ever. Jews are being labelled for universalism, antiuniversalism, fascism, antifascism, communism, anticommunism, elevation of jesus christ as a prominent figure in rome to the sole reason for his death, global free trade, community trade, reactionary, neo reactionary, colonialism, anti colonialism, chaos, order, merging into the society, not merging into society...etc etc
Clear but does need the Arab perspective, which could be philosophically and legally and territorially entirely different. You cannot discount this as it is the same land. So outsiders ..the UN etc, may choose to view it from one side or another. Your challenge is to do the same study from an Arab perspective..you may be surprised.
Just downloaded your paper. Thanks
Dear Michael, l am grateful for people like you that don't lose their integrity in the face of major psychological pressure of the society. Unfortunately, people like to feel like they are moving towards enlightenment but in reality it's just ego stroking. In this case, talking side of the Arabs and keeping the ears shut to all facts is a way to virtue signal. Keep true to the facts and reason!✌️
The real problem here is history and culture...I hate to disagree with Dugin and his buddy Heiddy but lets be clear: one's culture should have the same political and legal standing as their favorite color. Culture is what people use to exclude themselves from reality.
"Culture is what people use to exclude themselves from reality." Elaborate more please? That's an interesting thought
@@emZee1994 Yes culture is a story that groups of people tell themselves-about themselves. The object of the stories is to try to lay credit to some kind of historical claim to land or a god or some ritual. You have to appreciate that this "story" we tell ourselves is not based in reality-it takes the PLACE of reality. It gives groups of people justifications for their actions-even atrocities committed in the name of their culture.
Culture generally contains a fundamentalist worldview, yet one that is contradictory to reality. Its tells its people they are special and unique-when they are not. In many cases people will abandon empirical fact in favor of the words of their culture.
Culture replaces the pursuit of knowledge of reality with knowledge of your people. You can simply say: "Oh in my culture we don't do that." or "in my culture we do this"
When reality doesn't care what or why you do it. In these cases you are just making up a new reality to try to justify yourself lol.
@@MrJanes-cl5sj There is some truth in what you are saying, but I disagree. Culture is real and very important. And it can, and often is, based in reality. Xenophobia, close-mindedness, etc are just human flaws. They aren't intrinsic to culture
Culture, and particularly language, are integral to one's interaction with Reality.
In fact, a wholeness of culture - meaning let's say a inclusion of all aspects of society into common cultural vision such as mythos, practices, ritual, symbolism - is vital to one's interaction with Reality and quite literally gives sight to your interaction with things.
When I speak about reactions to things I don't just mean emotion but the telos you draw and exude from actions done by and against you.
The very fact that you have such a reactive and aberrant view of "culture" and it's existence is precisely because of your immersion in a, likely, sanitised, uniquely 'western' and socially isolated upbringing.
@@emZee1994 I'm not saying culture isn't real lol I am also not saying that it is not important. I am speaking to the nature of culture-what is done with culture is a wholly different thing.
That being said when it comes to things like legal technicalities its important to remember that although culture is "real" it has no duty to reflect reality accurately. Henceforth its important to completely ignore it when it comes to questions of things like human rights.
Do a reading of “Why We Remain Jews”
Good question, I thought religion was dead. There is no solid proof any of the prophets existed, including Moses and Mohamed. Why do humans have to belong to an identity. From an ex-Muslim.
In considering the contents of this video more, a simple Chinese way of clarifying the point comes to mind. Does it matter, in the end, if the pure-blood emperor comes from a line of ten thousand before him? Does it matter if his reign is sanctified by long-held laws? The answer is that none of this matters if the people are starving, if the fat bureaucrats are corrupt, and if women and eunuchs are ruling the court. If the Middle Kingdom is in shambles, that is a reflection of the emperor. Failure to govern is total and complete loss of legitimacy - period. The moment the people want the emperor removed and he can't stop them, then the emperor has lost the Mandate of Heaven.
I would say that if Israel didn't lose the Mandate of Heaven in its absolutely horrific treatment of the Palestinians, then it certainly did so by colluding to bring America into the Iraq war which was arguably the tipping point in the complete point-of-no-return destabilization of the empire. The fact not even Israelis themselves support their own government, let alone the people from the core of the empire, speaks for itself.
Israel as a purely Zionist entity, as an artificial Anglo-sponsored project has lost all legitimacy in the eyes of almost everyone, including many if not most Jews.
lol welcome back.
You spent an hour just saying Israel can have this land they just crash landed on because Israel thinks it can have this land. It's hyper zoomed in and fixated and not at all like your other videos that have all sorts of interesting nuance to them. Makes one wonder why ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
So you think Jordan shouldnt exist right?
@@edwardburroughs1489 The sigil of Irgun contains Jordan, too, not merely Palestine.
An excellent demonstration that the Israeli administration is divided, jumbled and contradictory to itself-it is this way for a very specific reason. Israeli was founded by people that endured the greatest horrors in the modern era. The country was founded by people with the most acute PTSD in the history of mankind. That kind of emotional trauma doesn't go away over night-its passed from generation to generation. You can be sympathetic that once the Jews came to Israeli after the concentration camps-that they had to fight a war. You can be sympathetic that they would conduct themselves in a questionable fashion. But lets not mince words here: Israeli has decided it would: "rather be the hammer than the nail yes they would, if they only could-they surely would." (Simon and G) they know very well what they are doing-they mean to rid their state of Palestinians.
The problem with this version of the history is that the plans for Israel were drawn up long before the Holocaust. It's not like this terrible tragedy happened to Jews and then people decided to give them a state so it wouldn't happen again. No, no, Zionism predates that by more than half a century, and the idea of a return to Israel to build a home for the Jews goes back even further. Depending on how much credit you give to the scanty resources, there's reasons to believe there were attempts at doing this going as far back as the early 19th century by outright buying the territory from the heavily indebted sultan.
What the Zionists did was use this atrocious crime against humanity to their advantage. Rather than helping European Jews rebuild their lives in Europe, which was their actual home, they instead convinced them the best idea was to take a boat and head over to the Middle-East to avoid similar things in the future.
I mean, when you look at it, isn't it ridiculous? If we take the two biggest offenders, Germany and Romania, neither one had to give up anything despite their crimes against the Jewish people. If they genuinely cared to help out Jews, why not force these two countries (and others responsible for the Holocaust) to give up a part of their land so the Jews, too, could have an autonomous plot of land to call their own without getting kicked out of Europe? They could've gotten one country in Europe or maybe even two or three, one in the West, one in the East. But nope. The Western and Zionist agenda was to get as many Jews out of Europe as possible.
Even if you leave Zionist Jews out of it, the hubris of Westerners thinking they could just erase their crimes by getting rid of the Jews and giving them land that wasn't theirs to give in the first place is stupidly destructive. Like, yeah, fuck what those Arabs think, bro. We're Anglos, we can do whatever we want. Something they, unfortunately, still think today.
@@bigbeautifulape5283 I disagree with your assessment. For example: there is no way your average holocaust survivor would want to live in dedicated Jewish lands in Germany lol. Yes, Zionism had probably actually been a dream of the Jewish people since Israel was occupied by Babylon. (or a similar dream)
You state: " Rather than helping European Jews rebuild their lives in Europe, which was their actual home, they instead convinced them the best idea was to take a boat and head over to the Middle-East."
this would need some pretty specific references and context before I could credit it as plausible. "they" is not a sufficient description of an organization to infer your meaning.
So considering your two main premises require pretty specific evidence that was not brought forth; I cannot agree that your conclusion is sound.
@@MrJanes-cl5sj The average Holocaust survivor didn't have any home to return to and were psychologically destroyed. And even then, many DID choose to return to their countries of origin when it was possible. I hope you aren't suggesting that that every single Jew magically disappeared from Europe at the end of WW2? No, very many chose to stay despite what they went through, because these were their homes.
As for the people involved, you can start by looking into the United Nations Special Committee. It was the people involved with it who decided to give 100k permits to Jews in displacement camps so they could immediately be shipped to Palestine. It should be noted that diplomats in basically every single Arab country signaled this was a huge mistake and could foresee the huge trouble it would bring.
The West had a choice. It could help Jewish people affected by the war to rebuild, it could offer them homes, and try to make up for what was done to them. Instead, they largely left them to rot in displacement camps and then offered them a one-way trip to Palestine, with the promise that they could go there to be safe and rebuild their lives. And even then, many Jews left only in the hopes that they could use that as a stop station before they went to the Americas or somewhere else.
Now, maybe in your mind giving a psychologically disturbed and tortured individual who has lost pretty much everything only a one way ticket to fuck off is totally okay and the right attitude to have towards such people (obviously the British and Americans weren't too bothered considering how many guilty Nazis they helped get away). But the question remains: was this a humane way to treat these people? Not to offer them homes, not to offer them proper care, but to basically to get rid of them at the first opportunity?
Obviously, many may not have wanted to return, especially the ones who came from the East and who now may have been afraid of persecution under the Soviets as well. But what I'm trying to underline is that such an idea was never even on the table. Their options were 1) go to Palestine and fulfill your Zionist destiny, or 2) stay in war torn Europe and hope things will be alright. Their "saviors" were antisemites, too, just not actual Nazis.
@@bigbeautifulape5283well one thing one can learn from the west is justice is advantage of the strongest. The will to power is the will to sieze land and to draw lines on the map for other nations with complete disregard on who lives where.
By 20 minutes into this video I’ve decided not to continue with such a very long listen, so I don’t know where all you go with this, but this is just all mental masturbation in my opinion. The conflict is about one simple thing-should Israel exist or shouldn’t it? It’s not about legality. It’s about power. Israel cannot exist unless it has the power to hold land and determine the demographics in that land. Without those powers, Israel will cease to exist. There is no way to negotiate an Israeli state. It’s all might makes right, and always will be as long as Islamic fundamentalism exists in significant form in that part of the world, which it will for the foreseeable future. Zionism occupies the land of the Israeli state because occupation is it’s only means of existence, and successful Zionism was made possible by the previous British occupation of that part of the world. Zionism is only successful as long as it is able to make it successful through the exercise of physical power.
You are pro-russian and pro-Israel? Wow i am like the opposite buddy😂
@@karlheven8328 Where did Russia come up? I'm not pro-Israel. I'm just stating the facts.
@@callmeishmael3031 Well you are justifying Zio ism by means of condemning islamic f undamentalism.
You are pretty far off with that analysis aren't you?
@@karlheven8328 "If the disbelievers occupy a territory belonging to the Muslims, it is incumbent upon the Muslims to drive them out, and to restore the land back to themselves."- Jihaad ul-Kuffaari wal-Munaafigeen.
"Any land (Afghanistan, Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Spain) that had once been under the sway of Islamic law may not revert to control by any other law. In such a case, it becomes the "personal duty" of all Muslims in the land to fight a jihad to liberate it. If they do not succeed, it becomes incumbent on any Muslim in a certain perimeter from that land to join the jihad and so forth. Accordingly, given the number of Muslim lands under "infidel occupation" and the length of time of those occupations, it is argued that it has become a personal duty for all Muslims to join the jihad. This duty - if taken seriously - is no less a religious imperative than the other five pillars of Islam (the statement of belief or shahadah, prayer, fasting, charity, and haj). It becomes a de facto (and in the eyes of some a de jure) sixth pillar; a Muslim who does not perform it will inherit hell. "--The Religious Sources Of Islamic Terrorism By SHMUEL BAR
@@callmeishmael3031 This is where you injected religion which means we are arriving at a dead end . I could now bring up cases where jews also committed acts of terrorism, mostly but not exclusively before 1947/1948, but that would not be helpful.
What we have to understand is that no religion is per se peaceful or violent. It is always a mixture of political will to power and external influences that guide how religious power is used.
There are and always were religious justifications for violence but they were never the Primary motivation behind it, as I said they are often merely a grant or an allowance to do what is politically attractive.
So we have to talk about politics and the whole colonialism narrative and what human rights for native populations mean in the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict. This is clearly the core of the conflict.
To be colonial or not to be.
Hows your dawah course going