Thank you for your moral consistency - I fear we are all becoming numb to insane violence. I abhorred Charlie Kirk, and the political machine for which he worked. He did not deserve to be killed. I also really wish I had not seen is execution on Wednesday. That said, it is scary how desensitized I have become to violence. I fear the last 2 years of a live-streamed genocide has made me far too indifferent the importance of all human life. Mr. Kirk said “Death penalties should be public, should be quick, it should be televised. I think at a certain age, its an initiation...What age should you start to see public executions?” I am middle-aged and I was far too young to witness his assassination. If we are not careful, not unlike the Israelis, we will become the people we hate.
Many of us had never heard of Charlie Kirk. He was exercising his right to free speech when he was killed, but I do not believe he should be honored with flags at half staff. I actually made it all the way through today's post, which may prove that I'm becoming desensitized. Too much violence, so I'm returning to the new tales of Stephen King's The Stand: The End Of The World As We Know It.
He was a racist and sexual bigot. He was a Zionist. “He was a good man”, if you forget those other things and his gun nuttery ideology spewing. “He was a good ‘Christian'“, yet “Many will come in my name”. “He had a family”, yet supported killing families all over the globe. There are not two sides to the man, nor are there two sides to genocide all over the globe, nor are there two sides to evil. “You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not man, you're a chicken Boo. Buck buck baacawk!”
At the age of 63, I have difficulties digesting the amount of violence and destruction. Some other comments mention becoming desensitized, which indeed is one way to keep one's sanity. Meanwhile, I often scare myself with thoughts of violent retribution. Since the z!n!st entity seems to only speak the language of violence, death and destruction, what other response would still make sense, be effective? But any violence in response to the z!n!st violence only leads to more violence. As you point out, the settlers wait for an excuse to be more violent, and that excuse needs to be violence from the Palestinian side.
So if a response would follow the z!n!st playbook, let's briefly consider the absurd notion of a 2-state solution, where the illegal settlements would need to be vacated: Imagine leaflets would be dropped on the West Bank illegal settlements, telling the settlers they have x amount of time to leave before they get bombed out of existence. That's the 'most moral' thing to do, right? Can we agree that the ONLY possible response would be, the immediate annihilation of what remains of Palestine in the West Bank? Followed by a hasbara spin, pointing towards non-z!n!st terrorism? Even if the UN would drop those leaflets, the Palestinians would have to pay the price. After all, how many times already, did the z!n!st entity declare that the UN is Hamas..?
So I am at a loss for a vision, as to what accountability could look like. As long as international law is being denied so consistently, what are the options? The demonizing of Hamas through that 'terrorist' label has been so successful, that the right for self defense, the right of this oppressed people to armed resistance, seems to be completely irrelevant. After all, if Hamas would be disbanded, what kind of organization would be acceptable to the z!n!sts, to implement that right? So where can we go from here..?
Les enfants des écoles des kibboutz... raciste et démentiel prônant la supériorité (The Times of Israel), ... grand rabbin d'Israël : « Hitler avait raison, il a juste choisi les mauvaises personnes. »
Thank you for your moral consistency - I fear we are all becoming numb to insane violence. I abhorred Charlie Kirk, and the political machine for which he worked. He did not deserve to be killed. I also really wish I had not seen is execution on Wednesday. That said, it is scary how desensitized I have become to violence. I fear the last 2 years of a live-streamed genocide has made me far too indifferent the importance of all human life. Mr. Kirk said “Death penalties should be public, should be quick, it should be televised. I think at a certain age, its an initiation...What age should you start to see public executions?” I am middle-aged and I was far too young to witness his assassination. If we are not careful, not unlike the Israelis, we will become the people we hate.
Many of us had never heard of Charlie Kirk. He was exercising his right to free speech when he was killed, but I do not believe he should be honored with flags at half staff. I actually made it all the way through today's post, which may prove that I'm becoming desensitized. Too much violence, so I'm returning to the new tales of Stephen King's The Stand: The End Of The World As We Know It.
From one heartbroken/incensed Jew to another, thank you for your reporting.
He was a racist and sexual bigot. He was a Zionist. “He was a good man”, if you forget those other things and his gun nuttery ideology spewing. “He was a good ‘Christian'“, yet “Many will come in my name”. “He had a family”, yet supported killing families all over the globe. There are not two sides to the man, nor are there two sides to genocide all over the globe, nor are there two sides to evil. “You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not man, you're a chicken Boo. Buck buck baacawk!”
Thanks once again, for a harrowing report.
At the age of 63, I have difficulties digesting the amount of violence and destruction. Some other comments mention becoming desensitized, which indeed is one way to keep one's sanity. Meanwhile, I often scare myself with thoughts of violent retribution. Since the z!n!st entity seems to only speak the language of violence, death and destruction, what other response would still make sense, be effective? But any violence in response to the z!n!st violence only leads to more violence. As you point out, the settlers wait for an excuse to be more violent, and that excuse needs to be violence from the Palestinian side.
So if a response would follow the z!n!st playbook, let's briefly consider the absurd notion of a 2-state solution, where the illegal settlements would need to be vacated: Imagine leaflets would be dropped on the West Bank illegal settlements, telling the settlers they have x amount of time to leave before they get bombed out of existence. That's the 'most moral' thing to do, right? Can we agree that the ONLY possible response would be, the immediate annihilation of what remains of Palestine in the West Bank? Followed by a hasbara spin, pointing towards non-z!n!st terrorism? Even if the UN would drop those leaflets, the Palestinians would have to pay the price. After all, how many times already, did the z!n!st entity declare that the UN is Hamas..?
So I am at a loss for a vision, as to what accountability could look like. As long as international law is being denied so consistently, what are the options? The demonizing of Hamas through that 'terrorist' label has been so successful, that the right for self defense, the right of this oppressed people to armed resistance, seems to be completely irrelevant. After all, if Hamas would be disbanded, what kind of organization would be acceptable to the z!n!sts, to implement that right? So where can we go from here..?
Israel itself is Amalek.
(Amalek is your distant cousins who want to murder you.)
Sorry but I do not condemn the killing of a neo-nazi and neither should anyone.
Yes I know, you told me on Twitter, dissed me, and then blocked me as soon as I asked you a follow up question.
Thank you for using Twitter so that we don’t have to! 🫡
(I still don’t understand why you use Substack instead of WordPress or Beehiiv or Ghost, though.)
Les enfants des écoles des kibboutz... raciste et démentiel prônant la supériorité (The Times of Israel), ... grand rabbin d'Israël : « Hitler avait raison, il a juste choisi les mauvaises personnes. »
Anglais - Français - Arabe - Hébreu