this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
547 points (95.7% liked)

Political Memes

5402 readers
3334 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

They lack the secret juices of those doing it believing they're "chosen people" and the whole muslim-bashing (quite literally).

It's not the same thing without the Racist and Fascist violence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Okay, that's pretty funny XD

[–] [email protected] 83 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I guess it's because they are very different situations. The student settlements aren't meant to be a permanent theft of land, aren't justified "because God promised me someone else's property", and the student protesters are the victims of violence instead of harboring murderers. Don't forget Israel was killing Palestinian youths at a rate of one per a week in the West Bank in 2023 BEFORE Oct. 7th and wounding more.

[–] [email protected] 74 points 6 months ago (2 children)

We need to stop calling them "zionists" and start calling them "violent land grabbing fascists with no qualms about genocide".

Replace "Zion" with "the third Reich" and you can't tell if a quote is from a modern day Israel supporter or a fucking nazi

[–] [email protected] 40 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The idea that Jews need their own state "to be safe" feels anti-Semitic to me. It's like admitting that antisemitism exists everywhere and instead of fighting it we just move the Jewish people somewhere else so it won't be a problem.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Because it was...

The Allies didn't fight WW2 to save the Jewish people.

Only half of the Holocaust victims were because they were Jewish, WW2 was about Germany invading everyone.

So after the war, the reason for creating Israel wasn't some kind of reparation, it was because even the Allies were incredibly bigoted and still didn't want Jewish populations in their countries. So England picked some occupied land they controlled in the Middle East, kicked out the inhabitants and "gave" it to a religion. Which has literally never resulted in peace in all of human history.

They 100% knew this would create more problems. But it ensured those problems would happen far away from Europe.

If you want to understand why Europe didn't like Jewish populations, it's because for centuries Christianity didn't allow charging another Christian interest.

Rich Christians stopped loaning money since they couldn't make money from it. And Jewish citizens filled that role. Even after Christianity got rid of that rule, Jewish lenders were already established.

The hatred people had with Jewish citizens, was really just hatred of capitalism. It's just the only time they interacted with Jewish people was taking out loans and other financial stuff.

It's just most people only know the incredibly simplified fairy tale version they learned in history class decades ago.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

Actually the creation of israel began much earlier that after WW2. England announced it's Support for a jewish state in 1917, with the Balfour Declaration (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration). I think it was to gain the support of their jewish population in the war.

Later in they were not so eager to create a jewish state anymore, because tensions in the region were already high. But they lost their colonial mandate for palestine in 1948 and the US began to support the idea of a jewish state a little before this.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The Zionist movement is older than world war 2. It has always been a product of European colonialism as well as racism.

I can't speak to the rights of subjects under the Ottoman empire, and indeed the residents in the area were shipped off to trenches in WW1, but Jews and Muslims and Christians all lived in the area before the Zion movement.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

but Jews and Muslims and Christians all lived in the area before the Zion movement.

Yes...

Before England made a religious ethnostate, people of all religions coexisted in the land that is now called Israel.

Separating people based on race/religion/sexuality/whatever just makes violence between the groups more likely.

It would be like an American Senator trying to prevent school busing in the 1960s...

Integration is how we solve bigotry, not "separate but equal".

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

If you want to understand why Europe didn’t like Jewish populations, it’s because for centuries Christianity didn’t allow charging another Christian interest.

The lords would borrow money from Jewish lenders to pay for wars since Christians couldn't loan with interest, and when the lenders wanted repayment the lords would declare a pogrom.

Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" goes into this in a bit of detail about 2/3 of the way through.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That's a book I recommend to people, "Debt: The First 5,000 Years”. 👍 https://bookwyrm.social/book/106743/s/debt-tenth-anniversary-edition

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The lords would borrow money from Jewish lenders to pay for wars since Christians wouldn’t loan without interest,

Literally the opposite....

The taking of interest was forbidden to clerics from AD 314. It was strictly forbidden for laymen in 1179. The beginning of the end as far as the total ban on interest was concerned came in the sixteenth century.

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-1030,00.html

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That's what I said, the Christians wouldn't loan because they couldn't charge interest.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Christians wouldn’t loan without interest,

You used a double negative dawg...

What you said was:

Christians would loan with interest

That might not be what you meant to type, but that's what was typed.

Or you could have said:

since Christians wouldn’t loan because they couldn't loan without interest,

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

While that statement could be interpreted either way, I thought the context made it pretty clear what they meant

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

My bad. Thanks for the correction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago

Wipe out your debt with this one weird trick!