In a recent debate, someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris lectured me on the impossibility that Israel systematically breaches the laws of war.
People who suffer through severe abuse tend to go in one of 2 directions. Either they grow to hate bullies and and have more compassion for their victims, or they try and become the baddest, meanest person they can be, so that They never have to be the Victim again. Israel is just repeating the cycle, like countless families and groups before them.
The really gross part is that Germany is like a parent who realized that they were an a**hole and changed their own behavior. But now they're defending their POS son, bc, "He had a rough childhood."
Nationalism and Eugenics were widespread beliefs in the early 20th century. But, for some reason, White Nationalism started losing popularity during the late 1930s-early 40s, just as Jewish Nationalism started gaining traction. 🤔 Was that when Jews took over the media? Or was it just a coincidence?
They took over politics I think - I am referring to Zionists who call themselves Jewish but who have hijacked true Judaism. As Naturei Kartae has many times said and who have stood up against these Zionist maniacs
This is also an inaccurate propaganda narrative, they aren't abused children, this ideology existed and was funded by the west during and after ww2 to create a destabilizing force in the middle east, a strategic location, just part of western imperialist plans. Zios have always believed they are superior, they have always hated Muslims and they have always wanted Palestine. The rest was just propaganda that leaned into already established European (and American)racism. I would say think about it this way, would you say that the Nazis were just an abused population and therefore repeating the cycle?
See "The Centrist Paradox," MLK's famous quote about "White Moderates," and Martin Niemoller's experiences during WWII ("First they came for the Communists,...).
Also, why do so many people insist on pretending that explanations and excuses are the same thing?
Herzl was pragmatic. And he was willing to give up everything for a homeland, even his faith. In the process, he wrote "Mauschl," and yes, it was a betrayal of his own origins. The Zionism we experience today pursues other goals.
Where do you think adults get the idea that beating their kids is good for them? How do they learn justifications like, "This hurts me more than it hurts you?"
As for the Nazis, Fascists rely on the silent complicity of "centrists/moderates" who find it easier to excuse obvious injustices than to challenge the status quo, and on slowly squeezing their opponents out of positions of power.
I find your theory ridiculous, to say that Israel is just repeating the cycles is an outragious attempt at excusing the savagery. No other group have made a begging cup out of their ancestors suffering or used it as a stick to beat us all with. No other white supremacists group has so successfully crippled every safeguard set up to protect the common good. No other group has so successfully, through foul means murdered so many in such a small area in the view of the world and boasted of it. No other group has the assistance of their civilian population carrying out ungodly acts, such as interrupting the free flow of aid to hospitals or food to civilians or barbecuing food next to the people they are starving. The Israelis are a mentally disturbed satanic cult.
Once again, explanations are not excuses. Having abusive parents doesn't excuse beating your own kids. I really don't know why so many people can't understand this.
It's the old saying "Hurt people, Hurt people", although it's usually said for people who have been victims of SA but as we've all seen it's true for a Genocide as well
it is not true that the majority of sexually assaulted go on to abuse others. The other bit of "knowledge" is equally untrue. The normal human response is compassion when a human being relates to anothers plight. The Israelis are not victims,the Jews are not victims they are a privileged group using the suffering of their ancestors as a begging cup, then turning it into a stick to beat us with. You cannot turn evil into an anger response, what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians is satanic, the assination of babies, the targeting of unarmed civilians, the rapes, the organ theft from prisoners, the depravity is inspired by the devil. What the Israelis have done to politicians in the western world shows the degree to which they will go to satisfy their supremacist expectations. There can be no doubt that they have blackmailed people in positions of power, that they have used the weakness in people to entice them into depravity. No doubt they were willing victims, they have lured them into compromising positions all so that Israel would have unlimited access to the public purse in America, military secrets and access to information and research, In the UK they have the RAF on call and training and access to information, Germany is forever being whacked with the repentance stick and well and truly in their clutches as are so many European countries. I am assuming you are Irish with that fine name, why does Ireland have a holocaust museum? When we do not even have a famine museum in Dublin? When less than 1% of our population are Jewish. Why did we have a israreli embassy? And who did that Ambassador think she was to tell us off when she represented the thugs.
Quite frankly Borelli did nothing but engage in obfuscatory tactics designed to make him look good on camera rather than to engage in a substantive debate. Chief among his tactics was the use of red herrings. The exchange regarding the protocol for Israeli air strikes was an example. Neither Finklestein nor Rabbani made any claim about the protocol for Israeli air strikes. They made a claim about the results. The results weren’t disputed by Borelli or Morris. Four children were killed after exiting a fisherman’s shack. That shack was surrounded by journalists who witnessed the event. The issue of the IDF’s protocols was not at issue, but if they are indeed as stringent as Morris/Borelli claimed, then the undisputed fact of these children’s deaths provides even greater support for the contention that Israel deliberately targets Palestinian civilians than Finklestein may have realized.
Most of these replies are very intellectual and well thought out. Mine will not be those things. All I have to say is: what a bunch of assholes! How can anyone not see what they are doing?
I'd like to know why prof. Finkelstein gets so triggered by Destiny. It makes him look desperate as if he was challenging his world view? Also the tantrum of ad-hominen does not look good, when prof. Finkelstein always confronts people on this point.
Finklestein does not have that averse reaction to other interlocutors who make similar points. Destiny simply happened to draw an appropriately averse reaction because he attempted systemically and repeatedly to obfuscate, distract, and worst of all talk over his opponents. His evasiveness when Rabbani questioned his position that Jim Crow was not a form of apartheid was particularly telling. A person like that did not deserve to be there and frankly did not deserve respect.
Just look at Norm’s response to Morris versus Destiny. Did Morris not also challenge Norm’s views? Yet he didn’t elicit a similar response. Why is that?
What a great point, friend. That was the worst part of the debate, they always cut him off. I felt like the mediator, should have done a better job at regulating that. The only way they can refute Norman is by cutting him off. And because he speaks slowly, but powerfully might I add, they do it easily and purposefully. In an old debate between him and Alan Dershowitz, the same thing happened of cutting him. I was not surprised by Destiny doing that, but by Benny Morris. Because he has written many books on that topic. Their sly comments, that border on racist was disappointing. If only people debated to reach the truth, but instead the arrogant make it battle of eloquence. Disappointing really.
I am in favor of debate formats where parties are not allowed to interrupt the other at will. Sadly few people are capable of letting others finish their points. Many people cannot control their emotions and want to jump in whenever something irks them. Others simply know that constant interruption is a way to gain a non-merits-based advantage.
The reasons are many but the point is singular: the rules of any debate, even informal ones, cannot permit the other side to interject at will.
You make a good point, I agree that not everybody deserves respect. And your explanation is a valid one of why Prof. Finkelstein reacted like this. Could you expand a bit on the Jim Crow point? Was Jim Crow considered Apartheid?
Jim Crow and Apartheid only overlapped briefly and contemporaneously I do not think you’d find many references to Jim Crow being a form of apartheid. This is because the crime of apartheid wasn’t defined until much later on, after the apartheid regime in South Africa fell and long after Jim Crow was ruled unconstitutional in the U.S.
But in every politically and historically salient respect, they were the same thing. They were both regimes of domination of a weak racial/ethnic group by a strong one. They both utilized the power of the state to enforce a regime of physical racial segregation that existed for the (supposed) benefit of the stronger racial group over the weaker one. There were no illusions about who was supposed to benefit from Jim Crow and apartheid. The state-enforced segregation regimes in each case also had widespread popular support among the more powerful racial groups and drew universal condemnation from the weaker groups.
Destiny dodged Rabbani’s question but appeared to say that Jim Crow was not apartheid because one was enacted by a legislature and the other was not. (This is incorrect. Souther States in the U.S. passed laws requiring racial segregation of public accommodations. The Supreme Court didn’t create this regime, it only decided that it wasn’t unconstitutional. South Africa’s legislature enacted apartheid through the legislative process.) This formalistic distinction is frankly meaningless. I am not surprised that Destiny quickly tried to change the subject.
Thanks for taking the time in addressing this point. I agree with you. Both apartheid and Jim Crow laws enforced strict racial hierarchies, denied basic rights and freedoms to non-white individuals, and perpetuated systemic racism and inequality. As such, many historians, scholars, and so on draw parallels between the two systems, recognizing them as different manifestations of similar oppressive structures based on racial discrimination and segregation My next question is, is Israel an apartheid state?
I grew up in the American Deep South before, during, and after the Civil Rights Movement. Jim Crow laws were definitely apartheid.
We white people were forbidden to help Black people, speak to Black people, or even to brush against them. This was a societal expectation, enforced by stringent social disapproval.
Thank you for your enlightening conversation at Princeton! I am sorry you were cut-off at the end. Would love to hear your thoughts on Kushner! Thank you, Dr Finkelstein.
I can't unread this and I don't want to. I know why we need Hell now. There must be a place for this evil to exist eternally and so very much deserving of the hellfire.
This is so funny, he’s talking about Destiny but instead said someone seated next to Benny Morris. I doubt it is a spiteful omission, however it is amusing given the fact, that you, Norman, pronounced his name wrong several times throughout the debate accidentally. What a great piece, I cannot help but laugh. Professor I request that you post more frequently, or whoever is posting for you, since I know you don’t like these “machines” lol. Please do topics on organized religion, why does it produce terrorists, and sexual predators? Or is it because organized religions, have the most populous following them, so it seems like it is a rampant issue in their communities? Maybe I’m wrong, India follows Hinduism which is not necessarily a major major religion, yet they engage in terrorism as well? Sorry to add, Israel ascribes itself to Judaism for example, and it is no doubt terrorist in its rhetoric and nature.
I think you are misunderstanding, zionism existed prior to the WW2 holocaust, they were just considered a fringe extremist sect/ideology but they were around, the concept of jewish superiority upon which zionism was built has also been around for centuries, ergo, what i am saying is that Israel isn't committing act of genocide because jews were killed in the holocaust, nor because jews were kicked out of egypt etc.. this is all propaganda.
Zionism caught on because tons of western money was pumped into it to make it the dominant narrative.
Israelis arent genocidal because of the holocaust, they are this way because it was written and taught (brainwashing) that they are superior and Palestinians and other muslims are subhuman. My two.
Norm, you have never served in the military. This makes you delusional about the use of violence and force in the midst of national conflicts. You view conflict with a lawyer’s mental starting point, which allows you to navigate academic conflict, but it would get you killed in ACTUAL conflict. It is a parallel to your Marxist ideas about humanity - you can have an academic discussion about Marxism but you cannot be productive in real life using Marxist principles.
This is an unusual use of logic, i don't need to murder someone to know that murder is wrong, i don't need to be there during a genocide to know this is wrong. I don't need to be in armed conflict to steal a countries resources ( see US invasion of Iraq) to know it's wrong and unethical.
Message for Prof. Finkelstein: What do you get so triggered by Destiny? Is it because what Destiny says challenges your world view? You always despise ad-hominen, however, it was your only weapon to undermine Destiny’s points.
Israel will be remembered along with the Nazis for their barbarism. The irony is thick.
People who suffer through severe abuse tend to go in one of 2 directions. Either they grow to hate bullies and and have more compassion for their victims, or they try and become the baddest, meanest person they can be, so that They never have to be the Victim again. Israel is just repeating the cycle, like countless families and groups before them.
The really gross part is that Germany is like a parent who realized that they were an a**hole and changed their own behavior. But now they're defending their POS son, bc, "He had a rough childhood."
It’s much more than this: Zionism was an ideology of wholesale evil long before WW2
Nationalism and Eugenics were widespread beliefs in the early 20th century. But, for some reason, White Nationalism started losing popularity during the late 1930s-early 40s, just as Jewish Nationalism started gaining traction. 🤔 Was that when Jews took over the media? Or was it just a coincidence?
They took over politics I think - I am referring to Zionists who call themselves Jewish but who have hijacked true Judaism. As Naturei Kartae has many times said and who have stood up against these Zionist maniacs
This is also an inaccurate propaganda narrative, they aren't abused children, this ideology existed and was funded by the west during and after ww2 to create a destabilizing force in the middle east, a strategic location, just part of western imperialist plans. Zios have always believed they are superior, they have always hated Muslims and they have always wanted Palestine. The rest was just propaganda that leaned into already established European (and American)racism. I would say think about it this way, would you say that the Nazis were just an abused population and therefore repeating the cycle?
See "The Centrist Paradox," MLK's famous quote about "White Moderates," and Martin Niemoller's experiences during WWII ("First they came for the Communists,...).
Also, why do so many people insist on pretending that explanations and excuses are the same thing?
The early Zionists, were also atheist and hated the religious Jewish people as well.
As Norman has once said, and I am paraphrasing because I can’t find the exact quote
“They don’t believe in God, but they believe He promised them the land of Palestine”
Herzl was pragmatic. And he was willing to give up everything for a homeland, even his faith. In the process, he wrote "Mauschl," and yes, it was a betrayal of his own origins. The Zionism we experience today pursues other goals.
Where do you think adults get the idea that beating their kids is good for them? How do they learn justifications like, "This hurts me more than it hurts you?"
As for the Nazis, Fascists rely on the silent complicity of "centrists/moderates" who find it easier to excuse obvious injustices than to challenge the status quo, and on slowly squeezing their opponents out of positions of power.
I find your theory ridiculous, to say that Israel is just repeating the cycles is an outragious attempt at excusing the savagery. No other group have made a begging cup out of their ancestors suffering or used it as a stick to beat us all with. No other white supremacists group has so successfully crippled every safeguard set up to protect the common good. No other group has so successfully, through foul means murdered so many in such a small area in the view of the world and boasted of it. No other group has the assistance of their civilian population carrying out ungodly acts, such as interrupting the free flow of aid to hospitals or food to civilians or barbecuing food next to the people they are starving. The Israelis are a mentally disturbed satanic cult.
Once again, explanations are not excuses. Having abusive parents doesn't excuse beating your own kids. I really don't know why so many people can't understand this.
It's the old saying "Hurt people, Hurt people", although it's usually said for people who have been victims of SA but as we've all seen it's true for a Genocide as well
it is not true that the majority of sexually assaulted go on to abuse others. The other bit of "knowledge" is equally untrue. The normal human response is compassion when a human being relates to anothers plight. The Israelis are not victims,the Jews are not victims they are a privileged group using the suffering of their ancestors as a begging cup, then turning it into a stick to beat us with. You cannot turn evil into an anger response, what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians is satanic, the assination of babies, the targeting of unarmed civilians, the rapes, the organ theft from prisoners, the depravity is inspired by the devil. What the Israelis have done to politicians in the western world shows the degree to which they will go to satisfy their supremacist expectations. There can be no doubt that they have blackmailed people in positions of power, that they have used the weakness in people to entice them into depravity. No doubt they were willing victims, they have lured them into compromising positions all so that Israel would have unlimited access to the public purse in America, military secrets and access to information and research, In the UK they have the RAF on call and training and access to information, Germany is forever being whacked with the repentance stick and well and truly in their clutches as are so many European countries. I am assuming you are Irish with that fine name, why does Ireland have a holocaust museum? When we do not even have a famine museum in Dublin? When less than 1% of our population are Jewish. Why did we have a israreli embassy? And who did that Ambassador think she was to tell us off when she represented the thugs.
Quite frankly Borelli did nothing but engage in obfuscatory tactics designed to make him look good on camera rather than to engage in a substantive debate. Chief among his tactics was the use of red herrings. The exchange regarding the protocol for Israeli air strikes was an example. Neither Finklestein nor Rabbani made any claim about the protocol for Israeli air strikes. They made a claim about the results. The results weren’t disputed by Borelli or Morris. Four children were killed after exiting a fisherman’s shack. That shack was surrounded by journalists who witnessed the event. The issue of the IDF’s protocols was not at issue, but if they are indeed as stringent as Morris/Borelli claimed, then the undisputed fact of these children’s deaths provides even greater support for the contention that Israel deliberately targets Palestinian civilians than Finklestein may have realized.
Most of these replies are very intellectual and well thought out. Mine will not be those things. All I have to say is: what a bunch of assholes! How can anyone not see what they are doing?
I'd like to know why prof. Finkelstein gets so triggered by Destiny. It makes him look desperate as if he was challenging his world view? Also the tantrum of ad-hominen does not look good, when prof. Finkelstein always confronts people on this point.
Finklestein does not have that averse reaction to other interlocutors who make similar points. Destiny simply happened to draw an appropriately averse reaction because he attempted systemically and repeatedly to obfuscate, distract, and worst of all talk over his opponents. His evasiveness when Rabbani questioned his position that Jim Crow was not a form of apartheid was particularly telling. A person like that did not deserve to be there and frankly did not deserve respect.
Just look at Norm’s response to Morris versus Destiny. Did Morris not also challenge Norm’s views? Yet he didn’t elicit a similar response. Why is that?
What a great point, friend. That was the worst part of the debate, they always cut him off. I felt like the mediator, should have done a better job at regulating that. The only way they can refute Norman is by cutting him off. And because he speaks slowly, but powerfully might I add, they do it easily and purposefully. In an old debate between him and Alan Dershowitz, the same thing happened of cutting him. I was not surprised by Destiny doing that, but by Benny Morris. Because he has written many books on that topic. Their sly comments, that border on racist was disappointing. If only people debated to reach the truth, but instead the arrogant make it battle of eloquence. Disappointing really.
I am in favor of debate formats where parties are not allowed to interrupt the other at will. Sadly few people are capable of letting others finish their points. Many people cannot control their emotions and want to jump in whenever something irks them. Others simply know that constant interruption is a way to gain a non-merits-based advantage.
The reasons are many but the point is singular: the rules of any debate, even informal ones, cannot permit the other side to interject at will.
You make a good point, I agree that not everybody deserves respect. And your explanation is a valid one of why Prof. Finkelstein reacted like this. Could you expand a bit on the Jim Crow point? Was Jim Crow considered Apartheid?
Jim Crow and Apartheid only overlapped briefly and contemporaneously I do not think you’d find many references to Jim Crow being a form of apartheid. This is because the crime of apartheid wasn’t defined until much later on, after the apartheid regime in South Africa fell and long after Jim Crow was ruled unconstitutional in the U.S.
But in every politically and historically salient respect, they were the same thing. They were both regimes of domination of a weak racial/ethnic group by a strong one. They both utilized the power of the state to enforce a regime of physical racial segregation that existed for the (supposed) benefit of the stronger racial group over the weaker one. There were no illusions about who was supposed to benefit from Jim Crow and apartheid. The state-enforced segregation regimes in each case also had widespread popular support among the more powerful racial groups and drew universal condemnation from the weaker groups.
Destiny dodged Rabbani’s question but appeared to say that Jim Crow was not apartheid because one was enacted by a legislature and the other was not. (This is incorrect. Souther States in the U.S. passed laws requiring racial segregation of public accommodations. The Supreme Court didn’t create this regime, it only decided that it wasn’t unconstitutional. South Africa’s legislature enacted apartheid through the legislative process.) This formalistic distinction is frankly meaningless. I am not surprised that Destiny quickly tried to change the subject.
Thanks for taking the time in addressing this point. I agree with you. Both apartheid and Jim Crow laws enforced strict racial hierarchies, denied basic rights and freedoms to non-white individuals, and perpetuated systemic racism and inequality. As such, many historians, scholars, and so on draw parallels between the two systems, recognizing them as different manifestations of similar oppressive structures based on racial discrimination and segregation My next question is, is Israel an apartheid state?
Are you a real person or AI?
I grew up in the American Deep South before, during, and after the Civil Rights Movement. Jim Crow laws were definitely apartheid.
We white people were forbidden to help Black people, speak to Black people, or even to brush against them. This was a societal expectation, enforced by stringent social disapproval.
👍
Professor rules: don't talk shit if you think you
know shit - maybe that better answers the triggered part of your statement
👎
Thank you for your enlightening conversation at Princeton! I am sorry you were cut-off at the end. Would love to hear your thoughts on Kushner! Thank you, Dr Finkelstein.
IDF subhuman scum
I can't unread this and I don't want to. I know why we need Hell now. There must be a place for this evil to exist eternally and so very much deserving of the hellfire.
ERETZ YISRAEL It is a GENOCIDE
Israel ,the best form of defense is attack except they dont have the legal right defend what they stole in the first place
This is so funny, he’s talking about Destiny but instead said someone seated next to Benny Morris. I doubt it is a spiteful omission, however it is amusing given the fact, that you, Norman, pronounced his name wrong several times throughout the debate accidentally. What a great piece, I cannot help but laugh. Professor I request that you post more frequently, or whoever is posting for you, since I know you don’t like these “machines” lol. Please do topics on organized religion, why does it produce terrorists, and sexual predators? Or is it because organized religions, have the most populous following them, so it seems like it is a rampant issue in their communities? Maybe I’m wrong, India follows Hinduism which is not necessarily a major major religion, yet they engage in terrorism as well? Sorry to add, Israel ascribes itself to Judaism for example, and it is no doubt terrorist in its rhetoric and nature.
Actually, most Israelis are secular; they don't believe in Judaism at all.
They just use the tactic that they are providing a safe haven for Jews to justify their settler colonial genocide of the native population.
Fascists will use any tool to control ppl, religion is used as a tool bc one can not logically argue with " because God said so"
I thought you'd left Substack, Norman. Did you start again?
I cried while I was reading that, yes for the Palestinians, for all they endure, the evil they witness, that has invaded their lives.
https://substack.com/@cassiannoor/note/c-125771020?r=5v0391&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Remember Vlad the Impaler who fought the Muslim invaders of Wallachia!
I think you are misunderstanding, zionism existed prior to the WW2 holocaust, they were just considered a fringe extremist sect/ideology but they were around, the concept of jewish superiority upon which zionism was built has also been around for centuries, ergo, what i am saying is that Israel isn't committing act of genocide because jews were killed in the holocaust, nor because jews were kicked out of egypt etc.. this is all propaganda.
Zionism caught on because tons of western money was pumped into it to make it the dominant narrative.
Israelis arent genocidal because of the holocaust, they are this way because it was written and taught (brainwashing) that they are superior and Palestinians and other muslims are subhuman. My two.
Norm, you have never served in the military. This makes you delusional about the use of violence and force in the midst of national conflicts. You view conflict with a lawyer’s mental starting point, which allows you to navigate academic conflict, but it would get you killed in ACTUAL conflict. It is a parallel to your Marxist ideas about humanity - you can have an academic discussion about Marxism but you cannot be productive in real life using Marxist principles.
This is an unusual use of logic, i don't need to murder someone to know that murder is wrong, i don't need to be there during a genocide to know this is wrong. I don't need to be in armed conflict to steal a countries resources ( see US invasion of Iraq) to know it's wrong and unethical.
Spoken like a true intellectual atheist. Bravo.
Message for Prof. Finkelstein: What do you get so triggered by Destiny? Is it because what Destiny says challenges your world view? You always despise ad-hominen, however, it was your only weapon to undermine Destiny’s points.
First