Hamas attacking Israel

[Boudrias]

2 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

I'm 100% sure that vast majority of these actors had no idea of what the "red hand" originated from. I'm wondering how many of them feel ashamed now for being played for fools.

Oh, I am sure they think they know. I think Hollywood has an incredibly low threshold for being ashamed. Terrible to generalize but average IQ isn’t very high IMHO. 

[Bob Long]

5 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

I'm 100% sure that vast majority of these actors had no idea of what the "red hand" originated from. I'm wondering how many of them feel ashamed now for being played for fools.

 

I suspect none. There will be a new thing in a few months and this will be forgotten.

[bishopshodan]

33 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

I'm 100% sure that vast majority of these actors had no idea of what the "red hand" originated from. I'm wondering how many of them feel ashamed now for being played for fools.

I hope they do.

 

Just for clarification. Was there a logo of the horrific event that used red hands or is it just and image associated with that event? 

 

I guess what I am asking is ...did these dummies really just use a logo ( red hand & heart) that was, not too long ago, used to commemorate the violent attack on those two Israelis?

 

As a person pretty ignorant to this conflict, I would have assumed the red hands...meant the classic ' you've got blood on your hands' with has traditianlly meant you are in some way responsible for killing. I think it is biblical in origin. 

Edited March 12 by bishopshodan

[Canuck Surfer]

 

[RomanPer]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

I hope they do.

 

Just for clarification. Was there a logo of the horrific event that used red hands or is it just and image associated with that event? 

 

I guess what I am asking is ...did these dummies really just use a logo ( red hand & heart) that was, not too long ago, used to commemorate the violent attack on those two Israelis?

 

As a person prety ignorant to this conflict, I would have assumed the red hands...mean't the classic ' you've got blood on your hands' with has traditianlly meant you are in some way responsible for killing. I think it is biblical in origin. 

 

Read above through the history of how that symbol came around in relation to this situation. Until the Ramallah massacre in 2000 this was not associated with the Israel/Palestine conflict. After the criminal appeared in the window with his bloodied hands, the Palestinian side started using it as a sign of killing Jews. 24 years have passed, the origin has been forgotten, but the useful idiots these days use it without thinking.

[Taxi]

13 hours ago, Chicken. said:

The Qatari government is harbouring Hamas leaders.
Doesn't seem like a positive thing to do for the Palestinian people, since at one point everyone agreed Hamas has gotta go, but idk maybe i’m wrong

 

The leaders Qatar is harbouring have stole billions from the Palestinian people too. I don't know how anyone could give sanctuary to thieves, of that scale, and still think they are doing what's in the best interest of the Palestinians. The Qataris clearly view the Palestinians as sacrificial pawns.

[bishopshodan]

33 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

Read above through the history of how that symbol came around in relation to this situation. Until the Ramallah massacre in 2000 this was not associated with the Israel/Palestine conflict. After the criminal appeared in the window with his bloodied hands, the Palestinian side started using it as a sign of killing Jews. 24 years have passed, the origin has been forgotten, but the useful idiots these days use it without thinking.

Cheers Roman.

 

I remember the band Rage Against the Machine using the red hand as a logo back in the day ( dont know why they used it to be honest). It was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this topic being discussed. Did a quick google and saw that it has been used a bunch of different ways/causes based on the 'Cain and Abel' blood on one's hand.

However, understanding what you just explained puts it into perspective to why this in poor taste to say the least, if it was intended. You're probably right with the first thing you said, that these actors may not have understood or know about what happened in 2000.

[Super19]

10 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

You're probably right with the first thing you said, that these actors may not have understood or know about what happened in 2000.

"The fact that a Jewish director of a highly acclaimed film about the Holocaust, made in collaboration with the Auschwitz Museum, is being accused of *antisemitism* by right wingers simply because he decried the violence done to Palestinian civilians in his name says so much"

 

“Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst ... We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.” - Jonathan Glazer

 

[RomanPer]

2 minutes ago, Super19 said:

"The fact that a Jewish director of a highly acclaimed film about the Holocaust, made in collaboration with the Auschwitz Museum, is being accused of *antisemitism* by right wingers simply because he decried the violence done to Palestinian civilians in his name says so much"

 

“Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst ... We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.” - Jonathan Glazer

 

 

Non Jews don’t have monopoly on antisemitism…

[Super19]

1 minute ago, RomanPer said:

 

Non Jews don’t have monopoly on antisemitism…

You just reaffirmed his point with your response.

He refuted the hijacking of Jewishness and the Holocaust to justify Zionist occupation.

 

Now explain why you think he is antisemitic for it?

Simone Zimmerman on twitter said this:
"Contrary to the lies & smears of Israel’s propagandists, Glazer is part of a significant, growing Jewish voice across the world that opposes the abuse of Jewish history to justify Israel’s campaign of dehumanization and genocide against the Palestinian people. We are not fringe."

 

 

[RomanPer]

7 minutes ago, Super19 said:

You just reaffirmed his point with your response.

He refuted the hijacking of Jewishness and the Holocaust to justify Zionist occupation.

 

Now explain why you think he is antisemitic for it?

Simone Zimmerman on twitter said this:
"Contrary to the lies & smears of Israel’s propagandists, Glazer is part of a significant, growing Jewish voice across the world that opposes the abuse of Jewish history to justify Israel’s campaign of dehumanization and genocide against the Palestinian people. We are not fringe."

 

 

 

“Significantly growing” is their wishful thinking multiplied by visions of grandeur with borderline delusions.

[Super19]

1 minute ago, RomanPer said:

 

“Significantly growing” is their wishful thinking multiplied by visions of grandeur with borderline delusions.

You still didn't explain how he was antisemtic. 

[Sharpshooter]

1 hour ago, Super19 said:

You still didn't explain how he was antisemtic. 

Stay on topic please. 
 

Food fights about a speech at the Oscars isn’t progressing the Thread discussion. 
 

 

 

[Super19]

2 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

Stay on topic please. 
 

Food fights about a speech at the Oscars isn’t progressing the Thread discussion. 
 

 

 

If you seriously think that speech had nothing to do about the topic of this thread then I urge you to read this tweet in its entirety:

 

 

• Film director Jonathan Glazer poked a hornet's nest with his acceptance speech this week as he won an Oscar for The Zone of Interest, a film about the family of Auschwitz’s Nazi commandant who live peacefully inside a walled garden, cut off from the horrors just the other side. Glazer says the film’s point is not simply to drive home a history lesson. It’s "not to say, ‘Look what they did then.’ Rather, ‘Look what we do now.’”
• 
  There could not be pithier summary of the difference between the universal moral impulse found in Jews like Glazer, and the particularist Zionist impulse found in the people who noisily claim to speak for the Jewish community – and are readily given a bullhorn to do so by western establishments. The first group says, "Never again.” The second group cries, "Never again, unless it serves Israel's interests."

 

Read the rest of Jonathan Cook's essay here:

 

You let the "Oscars red pin" discussion run its course without disruption. This should be treated no different, and it relates to the discourse ITT. This is not an off topic tangent, rather its insight to this very discussion we are having and a key step in the peace process needed between Israeli's and Palestinians. 

[StrayDog]

7 hours ago, Super19 said:

Simone Zimmerman on twitter said this:
"Contrary to the lies & smears of Israel’s propagandists, Glazer is part of a significant, growing Jewish voice across the world that opposes the abuse of Jewish history to justify Israel’s campaign of dehumanization and genocide against the Palestinian people. We are not fringe."

 

 

I don't know who Simone Zimmerman is, but here's a story about David Schaechter's (President of the Holocaust Survivor's Foundation, and a Holocaust survivor himself) response to Glazer's speech. From the story:

“Worse is that you chose to use the Holocaust to validate your personal opinion. You made a Holocaust movie and won an Oscar. And you are Jewish. Good for you,” he wrote. “But it is disgraceful for you to presume to speak for the six million Jews, including one and a half million children, who were murdered solely because of their Jewish identity.”

 

Auschwitz Survivor Blasts Jonathan Glazer’s ‘Morally Indefensible’ Oscars Speech (msn.com)

[Super19]

42 minutes ago, StrayDog said:

I don't know who Simone Zimmerman is, but here's a story about David Schaechter's (President of the Holocaust Survivor's Foundation, and a Holocaust survivor himself) response to Glazer's speech. From the story:

“Worse is that you chose to use the Holocaust to validate your personal opinion. You made a Holocaust movie and won an Oscar. And you are Jewish. Good for you,” he wrote. “But it is disgraceful for you to presume to speak for the six million Jews, including one and a half million children, who were murdered solely because of their Jewish identity.”

 

Auschwitz Survivor Blasts Jonathan Glazer’s ‘Morally Indefensible’ Oscars Speech (msn.com)

"And it is disgraceful for you to presume to speak for those of us who personally saw the world stand silent as our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins were murdered. We actually had nowhere to go — no possible place of refuge. No country would accept us even though world leaders knew full well..."

 

The irony of Schaecthers words points to exactly Glazers message.

 

Please note Glazers words here:

"that Zone of Interest was made to “confront us in the present — not to say, “Look what they did then,” rather, “Look what we do now.”"

 

Cooks analysis here: The first group says, "Never again.” The second group cries, "Never again, unless it serves Israel's interests"

 

 

 

[StrayDog]

2 hours ago, Super19 said:

"And it is disgraceful for you to presume to speak for those of us who personally saw the world stand silent as our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins were murdered. We actually had nowhere to go — no possible place of refuge. No country would accept us even though world leaders knew full well..."

 

The irony of Schaecthers words points to exactly Glazers message.

 

Please note Glazers words here:

"that Zone of Interest was made to “confront us in the present — not to say, “Look what they did then,” rather, “Look what we do now.”"

 

Cooks analysis here: The first group says, "Never again.” The second group cries, "Never again, unless it serves Israel's interests"

 

 

 

There are some differences here. The Jewish people had nowhere to go, and were being attacked through no fault of their own. The Gazans are suffering because of Hamas' actions on Oct 7. Or, to put it a little more bluntly and borrowing from Glazer, "Look what we do now".

What is happening right now is all on Hamas. What they can do to prevent more needless deaths in Gaza right now is to release the hostages and surrender.

[Taxi]

15 hours ago, Super19 said:

If you seriously think that speech had nothing to do about the topic of this thread then I urge you to read this tweet in its entirety:

 

 

• Film director Jonathan Glazer poked a hornet's nest with his acceptance speech this week as he won an Oscar for The Zone of Interest, a film about the family of Auschwitz’s Nazi commandant who live peacefully inside a walled garden, cut off from the horrors just the other side. Glazer says the film’s point is not simply to drive home a history lesson. It’s "not to say, ‘Look what they did then.’ Rather, ‘Look what we do now.’”
• 
  There could not be pithier summary of the difference between the universal moral impulse found in Jews like Glazer, and the particularist Zionist impulse found in the people who noisily claim to speak for the Jewish community – and are readily given a bullhorn to do so by western establishments. The first group says, "Never again.” The second group cries, "Never again, unless it serves Israel's interests."

 

Read the rest of Jonathan Cook's essay here:

 

You let the "Oscars red pin" discussion run its course without disruption. This should be treated no different, and it relates to the discourse ITT. This is not an off topic tangent, rather its insight to this very discussion we are having and a key step in the peace process needed between Israeli's and Palestinians. 

One thing you'll notice about Glazer is that while many do not agree with him - which they are entitled to do - nobody attacked him on stage with a knife and blinded him. 

[Super19]

19 hours ago, StrayDog said:

There are some differences here. The Jewish people had nowhere to go, and were being attacked through no fault of their own. The Gazans are suffering because of Hamas' actions on Oct 7. Or, to put it a little more bluntly and borrowing from Glazer, "Look what we do now".

What is happening right now is all on Hamas. What they can do to prevent more needless deaths in Gaza right now is to release the hostages and surrender.

So you think Gazans have safe places to go, and you think Gazans are being attacked because it's their fault? You forbid a people fighting to not live under occupation, apartheid and oppression! And you justify the regime who puts a people under occupation, apartheid and oppression! You even support a regime that is commiting genocide!! How terrible. No humanity. Zero.

 

And what Israel is doing is monstrous... Israel is saying if Hamas doesn't surrender, then Israel will continue to displace, starve, and kill innocent people. This is Israel's idea of self defense. Shameful.

[Canuck Surfer]

People have a right to an opinion.  Not to presume its righteous, or the only opinion. Jewish people have a right to be against the level of destruction in Gaza. Glazer, etc.. I have voiced my opinion against Settler violence, settlements. Called for restraint. Not that I am Jewish, I still have a right to an opinion; just to not claim victimization. 

 

What is missing @Super19 is Palestinians calling similarly for those responsible for Oct 7 to be reigned in. Ideally by Palestinians, not the UN or Israel.

 

That's also not something that should have ever happened. Be denied. Allowed to happen again.

 

Justification, entitlement serves no one.

[Super19]

12 hours ago, Taxi said:

One thing you'll notice about Glazer is that while many do not agree with him - which they are entitled to do - nobody attacked him on stage with a knife and blinded him. 

No , no one did that. But they are calling him an antisemite.

 

A Jew (Glazer, Finklestein, Mate the list goes on) who calls for peace and condemns crimes against humanity = antisemitic self hating Jew.

A Jew who supports whatever atrocities Israel is commiting in the name of self defense = a good Jew.

 

Make it make sense??? Why are Jews calling other Jews antisemetic, when these supposedly antisemetic Jews clearly have the humane position.

 

It's like a Muslim calling a Muslim who supports ISIS an Islamaphobe.

[Canuck Surfer]

8 minutes ago, Super19 said:

Gazans are being attacked because it's their fault?

 

As a whole, no not their fault.  Very poor posturing by Hamas though.  Picking a fist fight with Mike Tyson is bound to get you beat up.  

 

It was done willingly. Methodically. Planned over years. Perhaps delusionally.

 

Actually in wisps of grandeur, a thirst for something?

 

 

It served no one.  Certainly not Gazans. 

[Super19]

9 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

People have a right to an opinion.  Not to presume its righteous, or the only opinion. Jewish people have a right to be against the level of destruction in Gaza. Glazer, etc.. I have voiced my opinion against Settler violence, settlements. Called for restraint. Not that I am Jewish, I still have a right to an opinion; just to not claim victimization. 

 

What is missing @Super19 is Palestinians calling similarly for those responsible for Oct 7 to be reigned in. Ideally by Palestinians, not the UN or Israel.

 

That's also not something that should have ever happened. Be denied. Allowed to happen again.

 

Justification, entitlement serves no one.

The way to not have an Oct 7 happen ever again is for Israel to take responsibility in how they treat Palestinians and to correct it. The action Israel is taking right now is only making things worse for Palestinians and Israelis.

 

And someone can have an opinion that killing 30k+ people, 80% of which are women and children is justified. Sure they can. They can claim its self defense and justified. But they cannot tell me that it's a morally superior opinion. And what's the other side to the coin? A violently armed offensive militant attack by an occupied group against its occupying state. They claim armed resistance.

 

Both claims protected under international law? Neither action accepted by humanity. One action currently being tried for by at the Hague for violating international laws. The other being condemned wholly by Western governments.

[Super19]

8 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

 

As a whole, no not their fault.  Very poor posturing by Hamas though.  Picking a fist fight with Mike Tyson is bound to get you beat up.  

 

It was done willingly. Methodically. Planned over years. Perhaps delusionally.

 

Actually in wisps of grandeur, a thirst for something?

 

 

It served no one.  Certainly not Gazans. 

And perhaps to the delight of Nentanyahu, as he sees it as the ticket to his lifelong ambitions. 

 

Hamas actions brought this war upon Gazans. But Gazans recognize this Hamas attack was only born out of living under Israeli occupation:

 

"So it’s not about the 7th of October…

 

I received this different times question (Do you condemn the 7th of October attacks) when I showed with different western media channels, but they keep cutting my answer because they actually don’t like my answer. 

 

They believed it may be hard for me to answer or I will be afraid to answer! 

A lot of journalists kept advising me to run from this question, but I told myself I am Motaz. 

 

So I answered this question multiple times but they never kept it or shared it because they record my interview before and then take what is suitable for their agenda. 

 

If you want a besieged Palestinian to condemn it, you need to declare that you condemn what Israel been doing against Palestinians before the 7th of October, since 1948 and during the genocide, and after it. 

 

Palestinians are not terrorists, Israel killing Palestinians everyday like its duty for them. 

Israel is a terror state."

 

 

[Canuck Surfer]

4 minutes ago, Super19 said:

No , no one did that. But they are calling him an antisemite.

 

A Jew (Glazer, Finklestein, Mate the list goes on) who calls for peace and condemns crimes against humanity = antisemitic self hating Jew.

A Jew who supports whatever atrocities Israel is commiting in the name of self defense = a good Jew.

 

Make it make sense??? Why are Jews calling other Jews antisemetic, when these supposedly antisemetic Jews clearly have the humane position.

 

It's like a Muslim calling a Muslim who supports ISIS an Islamaphobe.

 

Phobe this.

 

Some of it happened Oct 7.  Its not because they are Muslim either to be clear! 

 

 

Its not a Muslim thing. Its large armed criminal groups empowering themselves.  In many Middle Eastern regions, over entire countries. Though these gangs do use religion to extort even more control.  The religion or sects of religions themselves are not the gangs.  It is harmful when a religious community is infiltrated, becomes a part of the problem.  Stepping outside the ME for a parallel, see the leader of the Orthodox Church in Russia? 

 

Gazans are subjected, imprisoned to such a group, Hamas. Parts of Israeli society try to take advantage of weakness it creates. Hawks on everything that scatters.  

 

I have also called on Israel, as the first world, and more powerful nation to take a lead position in stopping such crimes by its people.

 

But the Hamas, ISIS and other such 'Cartels' are the largest issue for Gazans & similarly oppressed populations. All just my opinion.