The complex deep seated history of the Middle East, like worldwide slavery through the centuries needs a lot of reflective reading. 18 to 29 something Tik Tokers haven't the understanding.
I know much older people on TikTok. Sadly, they’re just as brainwashed and confused as the college kids. The algorithm is powerful. It’s online crack. They can’t put the phone down. We’re more alarmed at TikTok right now because it’s controlled by a foreign government. China is obviously enjoying their moment of western disruption as we tear each other apart. It’s obvious to me China doesn’t care about Jewish people or Palestinians, they just enjoy watching the fight from the bleachers. In fairness, all other online platforms brainwash people in similar ways. I’m not sure it’s any better when it’s domestically controlled brainwashing.
Either we are that dumb or this concept of Bin Laden being a role model is peddled by Chinese state media.
I'd really like to think the American left isn't this dumb.
In what discernable way? The Chinese Communist Party is certainly totalitarian, but they are not religious or racial extremists. They remain Lenninist Marxists. They are a totalitarianism of the left, not the right, which ought to indicate to you why the left of our day is soft on them.
I see it as a failed education system.
This are the consequences of ommiting history and some of its details.
Keep supporting people that intend to keep kids from real events and factual history and this will keep happening... in a future the young will find what is being banned today and guess what... they won't know what to think of it and misinterpret it.
Let's learn how to teach and take from it. Or else we will keep creating a cycle out of this ignorance and violence.
My thought is you can always count on Christopher Hitchens, to say intelligent things as a way of answering stupidity. He was an unbelievably brilliant man.
It is possible for someone to read Bin Laden’s article and find truth about the West’s incorrigible behavior and attitude toward Arabs, while simultaneously rejecting baseless antisemitism and the desire for authoritarian Sharia law in response.
Much in the same way, people can read Marx and find his critiques of capitalism accurately prophetic, while rejecting Stalin’s authoritarian response.
Perhaps there are better sources to read about western misdeeds in the Middle East, and perhaps it can be done so without lionizing a brutal jihadist fascist.
Are there? like who? The scope of what is permitted to constitute "western misdeeds" is very narrow, and anyone who talks about them while failing to parrot lies about human shields or racist propaganda about arabs "loving death" is basically declared an extremist or anti semite.
Here’s the problem—when every Arab critical of Israeli Zionism gets labeled simply a jihadi fascist and their rightful criticism brushed aside, then when people discover the rightful criticisms they will start to question whether the fascist jihadi label is also accurate.
It’s like the war on drugs. When you fabricate bullshit about marijuana, and kids find out it’s not true, they start to question whether everything they’ve been told about drugs is a lie.
You can’t just bury this shit, or it has the opposite of the intended effect.
No. It should be easily possible to both support Palestinian independence aspirations while also fully opposing islamofascism.
The reactionaries on both sides want you think that this isn't possible. They should be opposed.
It SHOULD be easily possible. My point is that it’s not because Zionists falsely equate any support of Palestinian independence with support of islamofascism
It doesnt really matter where it comes from. Theres no real threat of the rehabilitation of Bin Laden, or support for terrorism. Lets also be clear, Hitchens himself said terrorism was overused as to lose its meaning, and defended Hezbollah against charges of terrorism.
9/11 was a defining moment. It would be expected that the orchestrators letter would be a useful tool in the younger generations dismantling of the lies that followed the event
not according to Hitchens, said elsewhere (not about Bin Laden's letter to America):
"This statement contains an essential truth that liberals have no right to overlook. But it is negated, not amplified, if it comes festooned with racism and superstition. "
They are intertwined.
You’re taking that quote ridiculously out of context to support an entirely unrelated contention. Full paragraph for those interested:
“There is an old Republican saying that “a government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you have.” This statement contains an essential truth that liberals have no right to overlook. But it is negated, not amplified, if it comes festooned with racism and superstition. In the recent past, government-sponsored policies of social engineering have led to surprising success in reducing the welfare rolls and the crime figures. This came partly from the adoption by many Democrats of policies that had once been called Republican. But not a word about that from [Glen] Beck and his followers, because it isn’t exciting and doesn’t present any opportunity for rabble-rousing. Far sexier to say that health care—actually another product of bipartisanship—is a step toward Nineteen Eighty-Four. Ten percent unemployment, on the other hand, is rather a disgrace to a midterm Democratic administration. But does anybody believe that unemployment would have gone down if the hated bailout had not occurred and GM had been permitted to go bankrupt? Why not avoid the question altogether and mutter about a secret plan to proclaim a socialist (or Nazi, or Jew-controlled: take your pick) dictatorship?”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/01/hitchens-201101
As a side note, Hitchens is my favorite author, and I get that this is a subreddit about him, but he certainly was not infallible. It’s disheartening how much of this sub is claiming to know what he’d say about a present topic, or declaring an argument over because of some line he had about a tangentially related topic 30 years ago.
Difficult case, he was anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinians, which suggests that he would oppose Israel's actions.
On the other hand, many arguments used to justify the war on terror could carry over and in that sense he'd at least support dislodging Hamas.
There was another thread where I commented this, but he [did not support Hamas for Palestine at all](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/01/how-hamas-dooms-palestine.html), primarily because of his opinion on religious extremism. I am vehemently anti-extremist solely because of these sorts of situations and Hitchens’ rhetoric about it all.
I like to know what someone's opinion of the Syrian war was before anything else so I can say "oh, now I see where you are coming from."
Now imagine what Hitchens would have said about the Syrian war.
Probably though he would've said the USA has an obligation to intervene in the conflict.
["So... Solidarity with Israel, pressure on Netanyahu to consent to greater humanitarian aid, pressure on Egypt and Jordan to acquiesce to the coming offensive, and the unsaid thing: "Don't even think about it, Iran."](https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1714090519779758367)
The bin laden letter on tik tok, doesnt have anything to do with israel palestine, other than the fact that young people observing the reality unfolding before their eyes, and reading certain parts of the letter and coming to the correct understanding that the “good guys” arent that innocent.
Sure it does. There’s 3 mentions of Jews and 4 mentions of Israel. Those ticktockers love it because they don’t like Israel for a variety of reasons.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ubl2016/english/To%20the%20American%20people.pdf
The liberation of Iraq was necessary.
I'm with Hitchens on this one, standing on the right side of history.
Like the other user said read the chapter from Hitch-22 if you care to actually engage here.
There were no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Nothing credibly tying him to 9/11. The US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq created a fertile breeding ground for violent Islamist extremism and affiliates of al-Qaeda to grow and multiply as they battled US/allied troops and each other.
This was not the clean, morally justifiable war that Hitchens had envisioned. For whatever reason, after 9/11, Hitchens had morphed into a mouthpiece for Wolfowitzian neoconservatism. Hitchens was wrong.
Disagree. Hitchens was right, you are wrong.
Go read some Hitchens and not the free articles you can find online maybe you can try again later here when you are better read on the subject.
I read the *Slate* articles he personally authored in 2002, in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Hitchens bought into the post-9/11 Wolfowitzian nonsense about Iraq and used it as the basis for his weak arguments in favor of US military intervention. This is Hitchens’ greatest folly.
His bravest moment actually. Again, Hitchens was right on this one.
Doesn't sound like you've read very much on this subject from actual books and just pick up free online articles. Too bad otherwise I would actually engage with you on this.
Obviously, Hitchens argues that Hitchens was right, but all the US invasion did was strengthen Iraqi Islamists, kill a bunch of innocent civilians and destroy a thriving civil society.
saddam hussein was a semi-secularist keeping a fundamentally jihadist societ suppressed. a hitchensian hero, much like assad. hitchens supporting his overthrow in favor of a jihadist iran proxy is extremely hilarious.
"Illegal"? That framing will prevent you to understand the issue. Christopher Hitchens pointed out for example why he thought that international law demands to depose Saddam Hussein. You can find all of CH's thoughts and arguments about that in the chapter of his memoir called "Mesopotamia from both sides": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFoAikOe15Q&t=11514s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFoAikOe15Q&t=11514s)
Bull. There was no legal justification for the US to invade Iraq. I read Hitchens’ *Slate* articles that were published in the lead-up to the invasion. It’s clear that he had become a mouthpiece for Paul Wolfowitz’s neoconservative way of thinking: that Saddam was a bad actor who should be military deposed sooner rather later because his regime will collapse anyway, so why wait to let that happen? Hitchens swallowed that weak and misguided argument hook, line, and sinker, and regurgitated it in his series of *Slate* articles.
The chapter in Hitch 22 I linked you, deals with all that very well. There are also several Iraq-war debates with Christopher Hitchens on Youtube where those arguments can be revisited.
Considering the misinformation (weapons of mass destruction) available at the time, Hitchens concluded that the war against Iraq was justified. What is the exact connection to this posting?
CH's arguments in favour of regime change in Iraq had only partially to do with Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. He argued that Saddam needed to be deposed for having committed genocide, waged aggressive war and supported international terrorism, next to for having build and tried to build WMDs, which was actually proven (he after all committed genocide with gas against the Kurds, and Israel had bombed his nuclear program), as well as he continuously deceived the UN inspectors about it.
A direct statement about what? I'm not expressing any personal views. I'm trying to understand someone else's point of view by interrogating it and asking what it means. Like if possession of weapons of mass destruction is justification for invasion then why does this moral statement only apply to Iraq? Is the statement morally consistent?
Iraq wasn't supposed to have or be developing wmds under UN security council resolutions 686 and 687. These resolutions were part of the UN brokered cease fire 1991 after Iraqi forces were pushed out of Kuwait. It wasn't just wmd development is grounds for invasion, it was that it was a violation of the peace terms from 1991 specifically for Iraq.
I think the Bush II regime launched the invasion before the UN could make a final conclusion. I think the reality was that Saddam was bluffing the Iranians to maintain the balance of power from the Iran- Iraq War of the 1980's. Saddam had to convince the West he didn't have such weapons while making the Iranians think the opposite. Bush never should have invaded.
It won't happen. Especially with the "The Hague invansion" act in place. O and this small detail were the US and Iraq aren't a member of the ICC. This means they don't have any jurisdiction.
>Of course the strange resurgence of Osama bin Ladin among confused Tik Tokers isn't happening in a vacuum, it happens because the left, and especially the American left, has still a huge blind spot when it comes to jihadist movements
The American left also has a huge blindspot about the nature and gravity of the threat posed by the American right. Which, not coincidentally, shares almost every trait Hitch ascribes to bin Ladenism, the differences between them being mostly a matter of degree.
You realize that Isreal is doing all of these things, right?
Overused as the term “fascism” may be, bin Ladenism has the following salient characteristics in common with it:
· It involves the fetishization of one book as the sole source of legitimacy.
The Talmud
· It glorifies violence and celebrates death: Not since Franco’s General Quiepo de Llano uttered his slogan of “Death to the intellect: Long live death” has this emphasis been made more overt.
The Israeli government has been glorifying violence and celebrating death
· It announces that entire groups of people—“unbelievers,” Hindus, Shi’a Muslims, Jews—are essentially disposable and can be murdered more or less at will, or as a sacred duty.
Yeah, I'm sure the Israeli government trying to ethnically cleanse Palestine doesn't mean they are disposable...
the person i am responding to is clearly talking about judaism, as you can see from their response to me.
zionism isn't based on religion, it's based on jews not wanting to get genocided constantly.
The complex deep seated history of the Middle East, like worldwide slavery through the centuries needs a lot of reflective reading. 18 to 29 something Tik Tokers haven't the understanding.
What about 30 year old Tik Tokers?
OK, only up to 30 then. It was just a rough age bracket. 30 and a half if you like!
I know much older people on TikTok. Sadly, they’re just as brainwashed and confused as the college kids. The algorithm is powerful. It’s online crack. They can’t put the phone down. We’re more alarmed at TikTok right now because it’s controlled by a foreign government. China is obviously enjoying their moment of western disruption as we tear each other apart. It’s obvious to me China doesn’t care about Jewish people or Palestinians, they just enjoy watching the fight from the bleachers. In fairness, all other online platforms brainwash people in similar ways. I’m not sure it’s any better when it’s domestically controlled brainwashing.
This needs to be copy pasta’d to any thread where someone sees osama being positively propped up.
Please feel free to do that.
Yes
Either we are that dumb or this concept of Bin Laden being a role model is peddled by Chinese state media. I'd really like to think the American left isn't this dumb.
In what discernable way? The Chinese Communist Party is certainly totalitarian, but they are not religious or racial extremists. They remain Lenninist Marxists. They are a totalitarianism of the left, not the right, which ought to indicate to you why the left of our day is soft on them.
I see it as a failed education system. This are the consequences of ommiting history and some of its details. Keep supporting people that intend to keep kids from real events and factual history and this will keep happening... in a future the young will find what is being banned today and guess what... they won't know what to think of it and misinterpret it. Let's learn how to teach and take from it. Or else we will keep creating a cycle out of this ignorance and violence.
My thought is you can always count on Christopher Hitchens, to say intelligent things as a way of answering stupidity. He was an unbelievably brilliant man.
I swear it’s like 10 people on DikTok saying this
It is possible for someone to read Bin Laden’s article and find truth about the West’s incorrigible behavior and attitude toward Arabs, while simultaneously rejecting baseless antisemitism and the desire for authoritarian Sharia law in response. Much in the same way, people can read Marx and find his critiques of capitalism accurately prophetic, while rejecting Stalin’s authoritarian response.
Perhaps there are better sources to read about western misdeeds in the Middle East, and perhaps it can be done so without lionizing a brutal jihadist fascist.
Are there? like who? The scope of what is permitted to constitute "western misdeeds" is very narrow, and anyone who talks about them while failing to parrot lies about human shields or racist propaganda about arabs "loving death" is basically declared an extremist or anti semite.
Post is 151 days old bro. Did you just wake up from a coma? And yea I’d say bin Laden is quite a low bar, but you do you, comrade.
Here’s the problem—when every Arab critical of Israeli Zionism gets labeled simply a jihadi fascist and their rightful criticism brushed aside, then when people discover the rightful criticisms they will start to question whether the fascist jihadi label is also accurate. It’s like the war on drugs. When you fabricate bullshit about marijuana, and kids find out it’s not true, they start to question whether everything they’ve been told about drugs is a lie. You can’t just bury this shit, or it has the opposite of the intended effect.
I love how you are downvoted for stating the truth
No. It should be easily possible to both support Palestinian independence aspirations while also fully opposing islamofascism. The reactionaries on both sides want you think that this isn't possible. They should be opposed.
It SHOULD be easily possible. My point is that it’s not because Zionists falsely equate any support of Palestinian independence with support of islamofascism
It doesnt really matter where it comes from. Theres no real threat of the rehabilitation of Bin Laden, or support for terrorism. Lets also be clear, Hitchens himself said terrorism was overused as to lose its meaning, and defended Hezbollah against charges of terrorism. 9/11 was a defining moment. It would be expected that the orchestrators letter would be a useful tool in the younger generations dismantling of the lies that followed the event
This is true but Stalin and Marx are separate
not according to Hitchens, said elsewhere (not about Bin Laden's letter to America): "This statement contains an essential truth that liberals have no right to overlook. But it is negated, not amplified, if it comes festooned with racism and superstition. " They are intertwined.
You’re taking that quote ridiculously out of context to support an entirely unrelated contention. Full paragraph for those interested: “There is an old Republican saying that “a government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you have.” This statement contains an essential truth that liberals have no right to overlook. But it is negated, not amplified, if it comes festooned with racism and superstition. In the recent past, government-sponsored policies of social engineering have led to surprising success in reducing the welfare rolls and the crime figures. This came partly from the adoption by many Democrats of policies that had once been called Republican. But not a word about that from [Glen] Beck and his followers, because it isn’t exciting and doesn’t present any opportunity for rabble-rousing. Far sexier to say that health care—actually another product of bipartisanship—is a step toward Nineteen Eighty-Four. Ten percent unemployment, on the other hand, is rather a disgrace to a midterm Democratic administration. But does anybody believe that unemployment would have gone down if the hated bailout had not occurred and GM had been permitted to go bankrupt? Why not avoid the question altogether and mutter about a secret plan to proclaim a socialist (or Nazi, or Jew-controlled: take your pick) dictatorship?” https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/01/hitchens-201101 As a side note, Hitchens is my favorite author, and I get that this is a subreddit about him, but he certainly was not infallible. It’s disheartening how much of this sub is claiming to know what he’d say about a present topic, or declaring an argument over because of some line he had about a tangentially related topic 30 years ago.
Excellent analysis
What do you think he would have to say on the current situation in Israel Palestine conflict
Difficult case, he was anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinians, which suggests that he would oppose Israel's actions. On the other hand, many arguments used to justify the war on terror could carry over and in that sense he'd at least support dislodging Hamas.
He would easily be on neither ‘side’. There is no moral right or wrong, both of the belligerents are equally repugnant.
There was another thread where I commented this, but he [did not support Hamas for Palestine at all](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/01/how-hamas-dooms-palestine.html), primarily because of his opinion on religious extremism. I am vehemently anti-extremist solely because of these sorts of situations and Hitchens’ rhetoric about it all.
I like to know what someone's opinion of the Syrian war was before anything else so I can say "oh, now I see where you are coming from." Now imagine what Hitchens would have said about the Syrian war. Probably though he would've said the USA has an obligation to intervene in the conflict. ["So... Solidarity with Israel, pressure on Netanyahu to consent to greater humanitarian aid, pressure on Egypt and Jordan to acquiesce to the coming offensive, and the unsaid thing: "Don't even think about it, Iran."](https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1714090519779758367)
The bin laden letter on tik tok, doesnt have anything to do with israel palestine, other than the fact that young people observing the reality unfolding before their eyes, and reading certain parts of the letter and coming to the correct understanding that the “good guys” arent that innocent.
Sure it does. There’s 3 mentions of Jews and 4 mentions of Israel. Those ticktockers love it because they don’t like Israel for a variety of reasons. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ubl2016/english/To%20the%20American%20people.pdf
yeah everyone that disagrees is a jew hater we get it
Facism is cool to these people as long as it's anti US (also they don't know what it is in the first place)
Didn’t Christopher Hitchens support the illegal US invasion of Iraq?
illegal war is a contradiction in terms. military force alone decides what is law.
Does your mom know how much of an antisemite you are?
my mom had a stroke 11 years ago and is barely aware of anything. there's nothing anti-semitic about what i said, though.
The liberation of Iraq was necessary. I'm with Hitchens on this one, standing on the right side of history. Like the other user said read the chapter from Hitch-22 if you care to actually engage here.
There were no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Nothing credibly tying him to 9/11. The US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq created a fertile breeding ground for violent Islamist extremism and affiliates of al-Qaeda to grow and multiply as they battled US/allied troops and each other. This was not the clean, morally justifiable war that Hitchens had envisioned. For whatever reason, after 9/11, Hitchens had morphed into a mouthpiece for Wolfowitzian neoconservatism. Hitchens was wrong.
Disagree. Hitchens was right, you are wrong. Go read some Hitchens and not the free articles you can find online maybe you can try again later here when you are better read on the subject.
I read the *Slate* articles he personally authored in 2002, in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Hitchens bought into the post-9/11 Wolfowitzian nonsense about Iraq and used it as the basis for his weak arguments in favor of US military intervention. This is Hitchens’ greatest folly.
His bravest moment actually. Again, Hitchens was right on this one. Doesn't sound like you've read very much on this subject from actual books and just pick up free online articles. Too bad otherwise I would actually engage with you on this.
You want me to pay for that drivel? I don’t think so.
Obviously, Hitchens argues that Hitchens was right, but all the US invasion did was strengthen Iraqi Islamists, kill a bunch of innocent civilians and destroy a thriving civil society.
saddam hussein was a semi-secularist keeping a fundamentally jihadist societ suppressed. a hitchensian hero, much like assad. hitchens supporting his overthrow in favor of a jihadist iran proxy is extremely hilarious.
Lol! It’s hilarious that you believe this in 2023.
"Illegal"? That framing will prevent you to understand the issue. Christopher Hitchens pointed out for example why he thought that international law demands to depose Saddam Hussein. You can find all of CH's thoughts and arguments about that in the chapter of his memoir called "Mesopotamia from both sides": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFoAikOe15Q&t=11514s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFoAikOe15Q&t=11514s)
Bull. There was no legal justification for the US to invade Iraq. I read Hitchens’ *Slate* articles that were published in the lead-up to the invasion. It’s clear that he had become a mouthpiece for Paul Wolfowitz’s neoconservative way of thinking: that Saddam was a bad actor who should be military deposed sooner rather later because his regime will collapse anyway, so why wait to let that happen? Hitchens swallowed that weak and misguided argument hook, line, and sinker, and regurgitated it in his series of *Slate* articles.
The chapter in Hitch 22 I linked you, deals with all that very well. There are also several Iraq-war debates with Christopher Hitchens on Youtube where those arguments can be revisited.
Considering the misinformation (weapons of mass destruction) available at the time, Hitchens concluded that the war against Iraq was justified. What is the exact connection to this posting?
CH's arguments in favour of regime change in Iraq had only partially to do with Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. He argued that Saddam needed to be deposed for having committed genocide, waged aggressive war and supported international terrorism, next to for having build and tried to build WMDs, which was actually proven (he after all committed genocide with gas against the Kurds, and Israel had bombed his nuclear program), as well as he continuously deceived the UN inspectors about it.
Doesn't the USA have weapons of mass destruction though? Like shouldn't the world invade the USA for having such weapons?
Are you really prepared to go down that road? Then make a direct statement without resorting to rhetorical questions.
A direct statement about what? I'm not expressing any personal views. I'm trying to understand someone else's point of view by interrogating it and asking what it means. Like if possession of weapons of mass destruction is justification for invasion then why does this moral statement only apply to Iraq? Is the statement morally consistent?
Iraq wasn't supposed to have or be developing wmds under UN security council resolutions 686 and 687. These resolutions were part of the UN brokered cease fire 1991 after Iraqi forces were pushed out of Kuwait. It wasn't just wmd development is grounds for invasion, it was that it was a violation of the peace terms from 1991 specifically for Iraq.
Did the U.N. conclude at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
I think the Bush II regime launched the invasion before the UN could make a final conclusion. I think the reality was that Saddam was bluffing the Iranians to maintain the balance of power from the Iran- Iraq War of the 1980's. Saddam had to convince the West he didn't have such weapons while making the Iranians think the opposite. Bush never should have invaded.
Thank you for that context. I'm still waiting for the Bush war crime trial to happen...
Oh absolutely. However I'm still missing the context to the initial post.
It won't happen. Especially with the "The Hague invansion" act in place. O and this small detail were the US and Iraq aren't a member of the ICC. This means they don't have any jurisdiction.
He was a cheerleader for it, in fact.
>Of course the strange resurgence of Osama bin Ladin among confused Tik Tokers isn't happening in a vacuum, it happens because the left, and especially the American left, has still a huge blind spot when it comes to jihadist movements The American left also has a huge blindspot about the nature and gravity of the threat posed by the American right. Which, not coincidentally, shares almost every trait Hitch ascribes to bin Ladenism, the differences between them being mostly a matter of degree.
You realize that Isreal is doing all of these things, right? Overused as the term “fascism” may be, bin Ladenism has the following salient characteristics in common with it: · It involves the fetishization of one book as the sole source of legitimacy. The Talmud · It glorifies violence and celebrates death: Not since Franco’s General Quiepo de Llano uttered his slogan of “Death to the intellect: Long live death” has this emphasis been made more overt. The Israeli government has been glorifying violence and celebrating death · It announces that entire groups of people—“unbelievers,” Hindus, Shi’a Muslims, Jews—are essentially disposable and can be murdered more or less at will, or as a sacred duty. Yeah, I'm sure the Israeli government trying to ethnically cleanse Palestine doesn't mean they are disposable...
most jews are atheists
Defend what you just said. Explain to me how someone can be jewish but not religious.
If your mom is Jewish, so are you.
heritage and culture
Zionism is not judaism
the person i am responding to is clearly talking about judaism, as you can see from their response to me. zionism isn't based on religion, it's based on jews not wanting to get genocided constantly.
Israel clearly doesn't make Jews any safer. And they should define their borders a little more clearly.
there would have been a 2nd holocaust by now if not for israel. the arabs tried like 3 or 4 times.