Reblog To Give The Person You Reblogged It From Motivation To Work On Their Fics.

Above image is a pride flag with every color band represented by a NASA image. White is Earth clouds, pink is aurora, blue is the Sun in a specific wavelength, brown is Jupiter clouds, black is the Hubble deep field, red is the top of sprites, orange is a Mars crater, yellow is the surface of Io, green is a lake with algae, blue is Neptune, and purple is the Crab Nebula in a specific wavelength.

Every once in a while, the magnitude of the Hamas massacre hits me all over again.

I'm not sure most people get it even now.

In absolute numbers, it is one of the three deadliest terrorist attacks in human history (second or third worst, depends on which estimates you trust for the Camp Speicher massacre), but if we take it in relation to the size of the population in the attacked country (which we should, because terrorism by its very nation seeks to victimizes through psychological trauma the entire target population, and not just those who were physically affected during the attack), then what Hamas did IS the single deadliest terrorist attack in the entirety of human history.

But it's even more than that.

Never, in any other attack, have the terrorists taken over as much land as Hamas did on Oct 7. ENTIRE TOWNS were under complete control of the terrorists, some for SEVERAL DAYS (I specifically remember watching a report on one town, where combat with the terrorists was still taking place on Oct 11, meaning on day 5 of this terrorist invasion into Israel). ENTIRE TOWNS WERE OCCUPIED. BY TERRORISTS. There's not a single Hollywood action movie dealing with such a scenario, because NOTHING OF THIS SCALE HAS EVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Imagine waking up and hearing in real time that the northern half of the American states Washington, Idaho and Montana has been taken by terrorists, who are driving through the streets freely, as they murder, pillage, rape, torture, maim, burn and kidnap people, and almost no one's there to stop them.

And then imagine the world expecting the US government to just... let the terrorists retreat to the other side of an international border in the north, after having murdered over 40,400 American, most of which are civilians, almost 183,000 more injured, and while taking with them across the border over 8,450 American hostages, to God knows what awful fate, for how long, or if they will even ever come back alive. Entire communities and regions would be devastated, without knowing if they'd be able to rebuild. The total would be more than 230,000 Americans directly impacted (I've adapted the real numbers from Oct 7 to the size of the American population... Remember the horrendous 9/11 attack, which saw 2,977 victims killed and a few thousands more injured, and think of what would be the emotional punch of over 230,000 direct victims).

Imagine expecting the US to let that go, and allow those terrorists to continue existing and ruling the land on its northern border. Imagine expecting the US to do so while this terrorist organization openly declares that it will repeat this large scale massacre whenever possible, until the entire country is destroyed.

And please don't come at me with "Fine, Israel can react, but not like this." Unless you have the military expertise to explain exactly how Israel can protect its people from this attack ever being repeated, and to free all our hostages, without civilian casualties (despite Hamas intentionally using them as human shields, and even directly causing Gazan deaths), unless you can translate the vague "not like this" into something practical, some actual guidelines on how this urban war could have been fought differently, even though there's no historical precedent to support that this is possible, "not like this" is just wishful thinking at the expense of the safety and right to live of Israelis.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

When you crawl into someone's DMs and are like "i'm sorry I just don't understand enough!", receive emotional labor from the Jew to educate you, then continue to repeat your previous behavior and rhetoric MULTIPLE TIMES--you graduate from a type 3 to a type 2.

In my own experience as a Jewish Leftist, and corroborated by the similar experiences of other Jewish Leftists, there are, roughly speaking, five to six broad categories of Leftists in their attitudes towards Jews. This is a tangential categorization in terms of precise political affiliation; in other words, one's position in these categories is not dependent on what precise type of Leftist/Progressive an individual is.

Type 1: Open And Unapologetic Jew Haters

These Leftists hate Jews and don't try to hide it at all. According to them, Jews are the Problem, and they know what type of Solution they want enacted.

The archetypal example that I'll currently use is Cynthia McKinney, former US Congresswoman and US Green Party presidential candidate, who, well...

But this is also the class of Leftists who say that there is no room for Judaism in their ideal, imagined perfect world, that they picture everyone assimilating and giving up their ethnic and cultural identities to just be "human", and often single out Judaism as a particular problem in that regard.

Type 2: Closeted Knowing Jew Haters

These Leftists hate Jews, know that they hate Jews, but know that it's bad optics to openly praise Hitler or cozy up to the KKK to satisfy their hatred of Jews, so they try to find the barest veneer of plausible deniability to hide behind. "Anti-zionism" is a particular favorite on the Left, but the hatred has a way of slipping past the mask when they get questioned.

A classic example here is the Boston Mapping Project, who literally made up a list of every Jewish institution in Boston, Mass, on suspicion of them being "Zionist"--including elder homes, Jewish high schools, and Kindergartens, and including scary "links" on the map to various government agencies, no matter how tenuous or outright imaginary, thereby invoking old conspiracy tropes about "Secret Jewish Control of the Government". (And BDS, as the parent organization, also gave the lie that they're just antizionist, not antisemitic, when they disavowed the Mapping Project for bad optics, not the rank antisemitism and conspiratorial thinking they were promoting). Another example would be the organizers of the Chicago Dyke March, who explicitly expelled Jews from the March and crowed about "zio tears" (which is a slur originally used by the KKK, no less).

However on first encounter, Type 2 are indistinguishable from and camouflaged by...

Type 3: Undereducated And Unknowing Traffickers In Antisemitism

These Leftists don't hate Jews per se... they're just unaware of the deep antisemitic history of repeating claims that "Jews have too much power", or stating that the Holocaust was "White on White violence", or that "Jews are just White People from Europe", or any of a host of other antisemitic beliefs that are endemic on the Left. They're initially indistinguishable from Type 2, as they say the same things, and can only be told apart by their reactions; a Type 3 will go, "Oh, I didn't know and I'll try to learn!", while a Type 2 will typically double down, or let the mask slip in some other way.

The problem is that, from the perspective of Jews, Type 2 and Type 3 are indistinguishable from each other at first glance, and rather than try to engage and risk the emotional harm, a lot of Jews tend to write off all of them as Type 2, and there's a lot of debate on the ratios between the two.

Also worthy of mention, as a midpoint between Type 2 and Type 3 are:

Type 2.5: Openly Antisemitic "I'm Not An Antisemite, I Just Refuse To Learn, Listen, Or Let Jews Define Antisemitism"

As a midpoint between types, these Leftists openly traffic in antisemitic motifs, conspiracies, and attitudes, all the while insisting that they're not antisemitic. They're a midpoint between types 2 and 3 because they've had plenty of time and opportunity to learn about the bigoted attitudes they're espousing, but refuse to do so... but at the same time, they genuinely seem to think that they're not antisemitic. They just think that there's a vast Jewish conspiracy out to get them personally, or any of a number of other antisemitic beliefs, and refuse to accept or learn that what they're saying is antisemitic. They can believe that they themselves are not all they want, saying that Jews have too much money and power and run the world's politics is still trafficking in antisemitic conspiracy theories.

The archetypal example of this type, assuming we can take his word for it, is Roger Waters. Waters is openly and explicitly antisemitic, saying that there is a widespread conspiracy of Jews running the world's politics... but he has been insisting for over 40 years that he's just "antizionist, not antisemitic."

But these are just the outspoken ones. None of them would get anywhere without the tacit support of...

Type 4: The Silent Majority

These Leftists are, being blunt, hypocritical cowards. They don't want to get involved in issues on antisemitism. When a Leftist Jew is being harassed by one of Types 1 to 3, they don't speak up, they don't get involved, they just say nothing.

Maybe they agree with one of the above types. Maybe they just don't want to get involved. Maybe they're afraid of seeming sympathetic to Israel. Maybe they're afraid of getting the social backlash that the Jew is experiencing. But ultimately, their motivations don't matter, their actions do—and their actions give tacit social support to the antisemite in the Leftist group, not to the Jew being harassed and chased out.

And the reason they're hypocritical cowards?

Well, if your ideology claims that you want a better life for everyone and social progress and being against racism and bigotry... but yet they don't speak up when it's happening right in front of them...

Well.

That says a lot, doesn't it? Both on what their ideals actually mean to them... and how highly they value Jews. And we know that it is possible, because of...

Type 5: The Pro-Jewish Leftist

These Leftists are, in my experience, a minority outside of Leftist Jews, but they do exist among non-Jewish Leftists. They stand up to Types 1, 2, and 3 when they express antisemitic views, and try to shame and cajole Type 4 into standing up as well.

And, just to point out how normalized antisemitism is on the Left...

Some people in this category might object to being labeled as "Pro-Jewish", as if they're biased for Jews. But I have to ask... do you think that they would also object to being labeled "Pro-LGBTQ"?

This would have been an important film for the world to see, but instead antisemites made up their minds about it before they even watched it.

#relatable

Just your regular reminder that if you're not Jewish, you're already not a part of the conversation about what Zionism should or shouldn't look like.... Therefore you cannot be antizionist, that's just appropriated political language.

If you're a random Western goy calling for the end of Israel and GLOBALISED REVOLUTION AGAINST AN IMAGINED JEWISH RULING CLASS, you're not an antizionist, you're a Political-Antisemite and a product of the Red–Green–Brown Alliance reaching its 20 year maturity, the left isn't so much eating itself as it is riddled with a Nazi Parasitic-Trichinellosis.

Out of curiosity, what does the UN actually gain from keeping the terrorists in power? Obviously antisemitism but way do they materially gain?

Anon, don't be so quick to dismiss antisemitism. It's a really powerful motivator, for some people even more than money, because it is often to connected to a person's views of themselves, their society and the world. As such, antisemitism can be linked to issues of self-worth or hope for the future. And the place where someone's self-worth depends on demonizing Jews, or their future hopes depends on the notion that their society will be so much better, if only a Jewish collective (whether the Jewish religion, race or state) will be dismantled, they are emotionally invested in ways that can be far more crucial to them than money.

So I personally do think that antisemitism played a big role in how the UN has acted regarding Israel for decades.

For example, the UN sets up a special agency to help Koreans in Dec 1950 (UNKRA). By Jul 1958, less than 8 years later and 5 years after a ceasefire was achieved between the two Koreas, the agency was seen as having served its purpose, and was dismantled. Since then, if there are ever Korean refugees still in need of help, it goes through the general UNHCR (established 1951. It replaced the UN's temporary agency IRO, established Dec 1946, which itself took over from UNRRA, established Nov 1943), the UN refugee agency that takes care of ALL refugees in the world... except the Palestinian ones. Their agency (UNPRP) was established by UN resolution 212 in Nov 1948, and later became UNRWA in Dec 1949.

Now, take a second to consider how there was NEVER any UN agency dedicated specifically to help about 1.5 million Jewish Holocaust survivors at the end of WWII, which is May 1945 (with many of them still being murdered after the end of the war, in places like Poland in Jul 1946 or Libya in the Nov 1945 and Jun 1948 pogroms). No special agency for them, no intervention to protect people who had literally been through and somehow survived the worst genocide in human history, and were still being targeted and killed after it was done, even though the UN had a talent for establishing plenty of refugee agencies just fine during those years. But there was a special agency set up for the Arabs in the Land of Israel, even though they were the aggressors in the 1947-1949 Independence War, and it still operates to this day, unlike UNKRA, which was set up later than UNRWA. Why? What reason is there for treating Holocaust victims worse than the Arabs who declared a war of extermination against Jews in Israel? Or for treating Palestinians better than any other group of refugees in the world, even though other groups often need the help much more?

I can only see one thing in common when it comes to all of these illogical, counterintuitive decisions, and that is antisemitism. Dislike the Jews? Deprive them of getting their own agency, even while others get one. Hate the Jews? Dedicate special resources to the refugees who can be used as a political pawn against the Jewish state, while still counting them as refugees even after being resettled with citizenship elsewhere, unlike every other refugees group.

And never forget, the UN's voting "democracy" (where antisemitic abuse is not penalized in votes) IS inherently vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. There is only one Jewish state at the UN. There is a block of over 20 Arab countries, another of over 50 Muslim ones, and when they're told a lie such as the one invented by Amin al-Husseini in 1929, that the Jews are attacking the al-Aqsa mosque, then it's easy to recruit all of them against Israel without even much effort. Then add countries which have vested interests in keeping the Arab and Muslim countries on their side, or who have issues with the pro-west, pro-democracy countries (and Israel is not only one of them, it is closely allied with the US, which is the leader of that stance) and basically the one Jewish state has close to no chance.

But over the years, in addition to being invested in keeping the issue of the Palestinian refugees going as a tool against Israel, to present the Jewish state as uniquely oppressive, the UN has also become invested in the jobs that the conflict produces for its members. UNRWA alone employees over 30,000 people and is, by the UN's own admission, one of its biggest employers.

On top of that, the UN also has other workers who deal specifically with the conflict (and therefore are employed thanks to it), such as OCHA oPt. OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) is the "humanitarian arm" of the UN and oPt is its branch that takes care specifically of the Palestinians. WHY is there even a need for this, if the Palestinians already have (UNIQUELY!) an entire UN agency dedicate just to them? And then on top of that (yes! A redundancy on top of a redundancy!) they also have a Palestinian branch for the OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights).

Having so many employees dedicated to this specific conflict does make the UN financially invested in keeping it from being resolved. Also, it's probably easier to get donations for the UN when talking about this falsely over-hyped conflict (here's a recent example, a report shows there's no famine in Gaza, the UN has known this and kept it quiet), especially when the hype is fed by so many antisemites happy to spread libels about the Jewish state. Some of the antisemites are likely very rich and happy to donate to any organization targeting Israel (I can even name some very wealthy governments happy to continuously donate to the UN and UNRWA, when they're also known for their antisemism, like financially sponsoring known antisemitic professors at US universities).

I do think the antisemitism is what enabled the creation of the financial aspect to the UN's anti-Israel bias, and interest in preserving the conflict, but now I'll mention one more factor. It's also one that IMO was preceded by the antisemitism and financial interest, but now it adds its own fuel to the fire. Since 2007, when Hamas violently took over Gaza, in order to keep its programs running there, the UN has been collaborating with Hamas. Because that's what happens in an actual dictatorship, which has absolute power over its people, and doesn't allow for any civilian liberties. If you wanna run a UN agency in North Korea, you will HAVE to collaborate with Kim Jong Un's dictatorial regime. And if you want to run a UN agency in Gaza post Jun 2007, you will HAVE to collaborate with Hamas. So that's exactly what the UN has been doing in Gaza. In doing so, it has been collaborating with a genocidal, antisemitic, radical Islamist, terrorist organization. And as has allowed Israel to enter Gaza and gather evidence, we have more and more proof that the UN is complicit in Hamas' crimes. That is NOT something the UN wants the world to realize. So it's trying its best to stop Israel from fighting in Gaza, to prevent the gathering of further evidence, at the same time that the UN is doing its best to screw over Israel's credibility. If the UN can vilify the best witness against it, who will believe the evidence about its complicity anyway?

I hope that helps answer the question!

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

USA please listen to me: the price of “teaching them a lesson” is too high. take it from New Zealand, who voted our Labour government out in the last election because they weren’t doing exactly what we wanted and got facism instead.

Trans rights are being attacked, public transport has been defunded, tax cuts issued for the wealthy, they've mass-defunded public services, cut and attacked the disability funding model, cut benefits, diverted transport funding to roads, cut all recent public transport subsidies, cancelled massive important infrastructure projects like damns and ferries (we are three ISLANDS), fast tracked mining, oil, and other massive environmentally detrimental projects and gave the power the to approve these projects singularly to three ministers who have been wined and dined by lobbyists of the companies that have put the bids in to approve them while one of the main minister infers he will not prioritise the protection of endangered species like the archeys frog over mining projects that do massive environmental harm. They have attacked indigenous rights in an attempt to negate the Treaty of Waitangi by “redefining it”; as a backup, they are also trying to remove all mentions of the treaty from legislation starting with our Child Protection laws no longer requiring social workers to consider the importance of Maori children’s culture when placing those children; when the Waitangi Tribunal who oversees indigenous matters sought to enquire about this, the Minister for Children blocked their enquiry in a breach of comity that was condemned in a ruling — too late to do anything — by our Supreme Court. They have repealed labour protections around pay and 90 day trials, reversed our smoking ban, cancelled our EV subsidy, cancelled our water infrastructure scheme that would have given Maori iwi a say in water asset management, cancelled our biggest city’s fuel tax, made our treasury and inland revenue departments less accountable, dispensed of our Productivity Commission, begun work on charter schools and military boot camps in an obvious push towards privatisation, cancelled grants for first home buyers, reduced access to emergency housing, allowed no cause evictions, cancelled our Maori health system that would have given Maori control over their own public medical care and funding, cut funding of services like budgeting advice and food banks, cancelled the consumer advocacy council, cancelled our medicine regulations, repealed free prescriptions, deferred multiple hospital builds, failed to deliver on pre-election medical promises, reversed a gun ban created in response to the mosque shootings, brought back three strikes = life sentence policy, increased minimum wage by half the recommended amount, cancelled fair pay for disabled workers, reduced wheelchair services, reversed our oil and gas exploration ban, cancelled our climate emergency fund, cut science research funding including climate research, removed limits on killing sea lions, cut funding for the climate change commission, weakened our methane targets, cancelled Significant National Areas protections, have begun reversing our ban on live exports. Much of this was passed under urgency.

It’s been six months.

Another Jew on here commented that people were going onto Wikipedia and removing references to certain people's Jewishness, and I just saw for myself that this is true. As a Jew and a fan of old movies and history, I was looking up a list of Jewish actors on Wikipedia. I saw Tina Louise (you know, from Gilligan's Island) pop up. So I popped over to her actual page on Wikipedia. And there were zero references to her being Jewish. So I hopped on over to the Wayback Machine (bless you, Internet Archive) and put in the URL for her Wikipedia page. And wouldn't ya know it: before 10/7, there were at least 3 to 5 references to her Jewishness at any given time on her Wikipedia page. Wtf is happening.