Florida resident indicted by NY DA

[dd10snoop28]

The slogan of Zionism was "A land without a people for a people without a land". So the land is a pretty central goal, and the Palestinian people have always been regarded as an obstacle to securing it. Of course there are factions within Zionism with varying degrees of zeal. Some favor a peaceful coexistence with Palestinians, and some would like to stamp them out. I mentioned that the early leaders were mostly atheists (or 'secular'), but after generations of religious Jews making aaliyah, the culture is inundated with religious thought, much like the American South is full of cultural Christianity. There are Jews who would very much like to remove the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Jewish Temple on that site according to the description in the book of Ezekiel. The Muslim world insists that is their third holiest site though, so to tear it down would be to invite an all-out war. Other more secular Jews are just interested in preserving the culture, restoring Hebrew as a spoken language, maintaining a strong military, etc.

My comment about the goals of Zionism being coincidentally fulfilled refers to what I described above: the taking of land after each battle, the building of settlements after each Palestinian rocket. Netanyahu never lets a good attack go to waste. I don't think he can just take Gaza outright though. Its long history as a Philistine (Palestinian) city makes it rather central to Palestinian territorial claims. I suspect this is why Trump was toying with the idea of the U.S. running it to take the heat off of Israel. Haven't heard much on that lately though.

Thanks for clarification. I do desire to have a longer discussion at some point, but I think my condensed reply is that many of the ideals of "Zionism" that you described above are not in fact negative things, and I'd like to flush out with more detail "why" I say that.

The only things that one could interpret as being negative are:
1) expanding their land after being victorious in warfare and the gradual infringement of land that is historically beloningin to the Palestinians
2) not demonstrating a desire to co-exist with their neighbors (Palestine / Lebanon).
3) too religious-oriented to the point of offending Muslims living in Israel

Is that a fair summary?

[Phalanx]

While it is true that "Palestine" is derived from the ancient people group referred to as the Philistines, there is no affiliation between the two.

The Philistines as an ethnic group have not been in existence for thousands of years.

Hadrian renamed the region formally known as "Judea" to be "Palestine" seemingly out of spite towards the Jews, knowing that the Philistines had historically been enemies of theirs going back to 1000 B.C.

So the modern-day Palestianians (who are Arabs) have no affiliation with the ancient Philistines other that they currently occupy the same region as the philitsines (like many other groups in history).

Just an FYI as a matter of history.

Just some clarification here: I was not implying that Philistines and Palestinians were the same people, although there are some Palestinians who do make this claim. The name 'Arab' is next to meaningless when discussing ethnicity. It mostly refers to a nation who has been 'arabized' and now speaks Arabic. I knew a guy when I lived in Fresno who said he was Assyrian by ethnicity. So if that is possible, some Palestinians could certainly be of Philistine descent. My point above is that since everyone is reaching back several millenia to establish claims of land ownership, Israel taking Gaza would face strong opposition because it was never their land even in antiquity (I think the Hasmoneans did hold it for awhile). The Philistines were probably in Gaza before the Israelites crossed the Jordan into Jericho. They are mentioned even in Torah. The name 'Palestine' for that area far pre-dates Hadrian. The Greeks used it when the area was part of their empire and there is evidence that the designation goes back to the Assyrians.

The secular claim to Israel by modern day Jews is actually pretty flimsy. If we are talking about actual Jews rather than Samaritans, their ancestors were not native to the land of Canaan and only occupied the area from Be'er-Sheva to just north of Jerusalem from about 1400 B.C. to 70 A.D. with interruptions in between during periods of exile. When religious Jews celebrate Sukkot, they are supposed to say 'Our Father (Jacob) was a wandering Aramean (Syrian). Meanwhile, the Samaritans, who have at least some connection to modern-day Palestinians had a presence north of Jerusalem from roughly 1400 B.C. basically to the present day. So the Jews lived there less than 1500 years and then didn't live there for 1900 years. What other people group in history get to go back and retake land they lived on 2 millenia prior? It's a crazy argument to make from a secular perspective. Putin was mocked for going back to Prince Oleg in 882 A.D. to establish his right to invade Ukraine. Israel went back almost twice as far.

[StevensTechU]

The administration appears set on plunging the country into a recession by repeatedly causing self-inflicted wounds. To his credit, Trump said all campaign long this is what he would do, and to their credit, economists and financial analysts said this is exactly what would be the fallout. Now we'll wait and see what other nations do in return.

[dd10snoop28]

While it is true that "Palestine" is derived from the ancient people group referred to as the Philistines, there is no affiliation between the two.

The Philistines as an ethnic group have not been in existence for thousands of years.

Hadrian renamed the region formally known as "Judea" to be "Palestine" seemingly out of spite towards the Jews, knowing that the Philistines had historically been enemies of theirs going back to 1000 B.C.

So the modern-day Palestianians (who are Arabs) have no affiliation with the ancient Philistines other that they currently occupy the same region as the philitsines (like many other groups in history).

Just an FYI as a matter of history.

Just some clarification here: I was not implying that Philistines and Palestinians were the same people, although there are some Palestinians who do make this claim. The name 'Arab' is next to meaningless when discussing ethnicity. It mostly refers to a nation who has been 'arabized' and now speaks Arabic. I knew a guy when I lived in Fresno who said he was Assyrian by ethnicity. So if that is possible, some Palestinians could certainly be of Philistine descent. My point above is that since everyone is reaching back several millenia to establish claims of land ownership, Israel taking Gaza would face strong opposition because it was never their land even in antiquity (I think the Hasmoneans did hold it for awhile). The Philistines were probably in Gaza before the Israelites crossed the Jordan into Jericho. They are mentioned even in Torah. The name 'Palestine' for that area far pre-dates Hadrian. The Greeks used it when the area was part of their empire and there is evidence that the designation goes back to the Assyrians.

The secular claim to Israel by modern day Jews is actually pretty flimsy. If we are talking about actual Jews rather than Samaritans, their ancestors were not native to the land of Canaan and only occupied the area from Be'er-Sheva to just north of Jerusalem from about 1400 B.C. to 70 A.D. with interruptions in between during periods of exile. When religious Jews celebrate Sukkot, they are supposed to say 'Our Father (Jacob) was a wandering Aramean (Syrian). Meanwhile, the Samaritans, who have at least some connection to modern-day Palestinians had a presence north of Jerusalem from roughly 1400 B.C. basically to the present day. So the Jews lived there less than 1500 years and then didn't live there for 1900 years. What other people group in history get to go back and retake land they lived on 2 millenia prior? It's a crazy argument to make from a secular perspective. Putin was mocked for going back to Prince Oleg in 882 A.D. to establish his right to invade Ukraine. Israel went back almost twice as far.

I didn't say that Hadrian originate the term "Palestine". Reread my post. I said that he renamed the area of Judea to be "Palestine" in order to spite the jews with the name of their ancient adversary.

There is some historical basis for the Philistines "having a right" to the region known as Gaza today, but the modern-day Palestinainas have no relation to that ancient tribe.

[dd10snoop28]

Just some clarification here: I was not implying that Philistines and Palestinians were the same people, although there are some Palestinians who do make this claim. The name 'Arab' is next to meaningless when discussing ethnicity. It mostly refers to a nation who has been 'arabized' and now speaks Arabic. I knew a guy when I lived in Fresno who said he was Assyrian by ethnicity. So if that is possible, some Palestinians could certainly be of Philistine descent. My point above is that since everyone is reaching back several millenia to establish claims of land ownership, Israel taking Gaza would face strong opposition because it was never their land even in antiquity (I think the Hasmoneans did hold it for awhile). The Philistines were probably in Gaza before the Israelites crossed the Jordan into Jericho. They are mentioned even in Torah. The name 'Palestine' for that area far pre-dates Hadrian. The Greeks used it when the area was part of their empire and there is evidence that the designation goes back to the Assyrians.

Yes, but there is no connection between the Philistines (and subsequent naming of the region as "Palestine"). The term Philistines/Palestine was all but forgotten from history until Hadrian's resurrection hundreds of years later.

Additionally, I haven't heard any recent arguments from anyone on the Israeli side demonstrating a desire to claim Gaza as its own....in contrast, "from the River to the Sea" is the motto of the pro-palestinainas movement, which is demanding for the eradication of the Jewish state and having "Palestine" own all of Israel.

The secular claim to Israel by modern day Jews is actually pretty flimsy. If we are talking about actual Jews rather than Samaritans, their ancestors were not native to the land of Canaan and only occupied the area from Be'er-Sheva to just north of Jerusalem from about 1400 B.C. to 70 A.D. with interruptions in between during periods of exile.

What "claim" does any nation have to any land in the world? You say that their claim is flimsy but give no basis for why that is the case.

The Samaritans were initially 100% jewish but became so diluted through Assyrian/Babylonian rule that they took up a distinct culture/religion so as to disassociate themselves from Jews/Judaism. So if we are talking about ancestors, the Jews are in fact the ancestors of the Samaritans.

When religious Jews celebrate Sukkot, they are supposed to say 'Our Father (Jacob) was a wandering Aramean (Syrian). Meanwhile, the Samaritans, who have at least some connection to modern-day Palestinians had a presence north of Jerusalem from roughly 1400 B.C. basically to the present day. So the Jews lived there less than 1500 years and then didn't live there for 1900 years. What other people group in history get to go back and retake land they lived on 2 millenia prior? It's a crazy argument to make from a secular perspective. Putin was mocked for going back to Prince Oleg in 882 A.D. to establish his right to invade Ukraine. Israel went back almost twice as far.

From a secular perspective, there are no "rights" to any "lands". You rule and conquer by might.

The question is whether you as a person living in this world would rather have that land area be controlled by Muslims or Jews? The answer is easy.

Additionally, the religious and historical are so intrinsically tied to this conflict that it is impossible to view things from a "secular" perspective.

When duck07 implies that Israel should take the high-road after October 7th, that perspective ignores the history of the Jews and Arabs, which is directly tied to the religions.

[Phalanx]

You asked what Zionism is and what the goals are. The main leaders, including Netanyahu, are not religious. They tap into religion as a cultural underpinning and to sell it to American Evangelicals who are their chief supporters. They are happy to talk about 'our shared Judeo-Christian values' when they are raising support here, but if you try to expound on those values in Israel you should expect to be met with hostility and endless references to the Crusades or other instances of historical anti-Jewish activity. They don't want Christians living there. Even Christian Jews have many times been refused the right to make aaliyah.

https://israel365news.com/375206/netany ... of-israel/

I think if most Evangelicals knew this, they would not put so many Israel flags in their profiles. I don't personally have a preference between Palestinians and Jews other than from their behavior. Some Palestinians are crazy Jew-hating Muslims who would attach a bomb to their mothers if it meant taking a few Jews out with her. But most of them will never kill as many Jews as Netanyahu has killed Palestinians. It's hard to know who to root for at times.

Also, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the discussion, but Samaritans are not Jews. They are Israelites from the other 10 tribes- not Judah (Jews) or Benjamin. There are still little pockets of actual Samaritans living in the West Bank, but also, I think quite a few Palestinians in general are arabized Samaritans whose ancestors were there before the Zionists started arriving in the late 1800s. Some Palestinians might also be descended from Jews as well, but Jews have an amazing way of holding onto their cultural identities over the centuries.

[Duck07]

The administration appears set on plunging the country into a recession by repeatedly causing self-inflicted wounds. To his credit, Trump said all campaign long this is what he would do, and to their credit, economists and financial analysts said this is exactly what would be the fallout. Now we'll wait and see what other nations do in return.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[StevensTechU]

Duck07 - my favorite part is that they released the "formula" they used to set these rates, and to try to make it look more intelligent, they inserted Greek letters for what the items are, and put in two things that cancel each other out because they must've just thought they needed more symbols to make it look smarter and fool people who don't have a baseline understanding. The strategy seems to be that they just need to convince the least intelligent 30% of society that they know what they're doing, and hope the remaining 70% is too divided to mount much of an opposition.

[dd10snoop28]

None of that is substantive argument for/against the tariffs being applied...

[Duck07]

None of that is substantive argument for/against the tariffs being applied...

Anyone who has taken Econ 101 should understand how ignorant one would be to think that running a trade deficit with another country is implicitly bad/negative or that using that as a basis for establishing Tariff Rates is reasonable in any way.

Econ 102 would be able to tell you that as. Global Reserve Currency our National Debt means very little and actually requires us to run a trade deficit in order to induce Countries to set their currency to ours.

We are going to revitalize China as a result of this and continue to alienate Europe while making it even more difficult for USA Made products to be sold internationally, which will only help plunder US Manufacturing.

But hey, the ultra rich will do just fine so it must be good overall, right?

[Duck07]

If anyone can point out the flaws of Professor Sachs points I'd enjoy hearing it.

https://www.youtube.com/live/x0alGvV0Sj ... os572nVRet

[ElPatoLoco]

None of that is substantive argument for/against the tariffs being applied...

You obviously don’t understand


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ElPatoLoco]

Quote…None of that is substantive argument for/against the tariffs being applied...quote

You obviously don’t understand

[Phalanx]

Despite taking both Econ 101 and 102 in college, I still don't pretend to know how tariffs will work out, and the massive hit my stock portfolio is taking shows how dumb I am about that as well, but I have pretty much taken a wait and see approach rather than freaking out in the first few days. Bill Ackman does a good job explaining what my own position has been.

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1908329277033979993

[Duck07]

Despite taking both Econ 101 and 102 in college, I still don't pretend to know how tariffs will work out, and the massive hit my stock portfolio is taking shows how dumb I am about that as well, but I have pretty much taken a wait and see approach rather than freaking out in the first few days. Bill Ackman does a good job explaining what my own position has been.

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1908329277033979993

Ackman, as usual, is light on specifics and heavy on platitudes and a belief in his holy emperor.

I would focus on whatever crypto you think they're going to use to replace the Dollar, because they can't go back to a previous world order/era and that's how they're selling this to Joe Q. Public while knowing the long-term destruction has already been wrought.

There is already the issue that we sanction 1/3 of all countries and now we're betting that we're somehow going to be seen as a better trade partner than China; who actually has all of the manufacturing and has just made in response to this, a major agreement with Japan and South Korea to respond jointly.

Meanwhile we will boost a few classic American manufacturing jobs, like bomb making! We're desperately short of artillery and what better way to stimulate the economy than through a rise in war spending! (Rubio announced we're upping the Military Budget so that we can continue to bolster NATO on top of another 9B for Israel to bomb kids and additional spending!)

This is a good overview from a Mises Institute writer.

Embedded Tweet