Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East
OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Scirocco · 29/01/2025 17:12

Humfree · 29/01/2025 14:45

I find it amazing the lengths people will go to, to argue with Jewish people that they shouldn't be offended. If you did the same thing with people of colour you would be accused of all sorts. It's really odd and I think a manifestation of the fact that even now people are suspicious of Jews. People find it straightforward to see POC as victims (often in a patronising and even racist way) but the old prejudice against Jews has always been based on their uncertain status, the suspicion that they have a sort of nebulous power and it means that people are never fully comfortable sympathising with them.

Edited

This is something Muslims also experience - being told not to be offended, that hate speech and prejudice isn't really happening, that people are being over-sensitive.

Liv999 · 29/01/2025 17:13

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Indeed, I don't see to many threads on this, if Elon Musk was Irish though he'd be fair game

DandyWasp · 29/01/2025 17:17

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Liv999 · 29/01/2025 17:26

OpheliaWasntMad · 29/01/2025 14:59

Really? In what way is it anti Irish to criticise your president? Is he beyond criticism?
Do you think it’s ok to criticise the presidents of other countries?

Of course, I've already said this upthread, he was entitled to say what he said and those who weren't happy were entitled to protest

Gaimbin · 29/01/2025 17:30

Scirocco · 29/01/2025 17:12

This is something Muslims also experience - being told not to be offended, that hate speech and prejudice isn't really happening, that people are being over-sensitive.

Is the repeated whataboutery really necessary? Please start your own thread about it rather than interjecting and derailing on this one, if it's what you want to discuss.

Scirocco · 29/01/2025 17:35

Gaimbin · 29/01/2025 17:30

Is the repeated whataboutery really necessary? Please start your own thread about it rather than interjecting and derailing on this one, if it's what you want to discuss.

It's an expression of solidarity, rather than whataboutery.

OpheliaWasntMad · 29/01/2025 17:53

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

I’m not a supporter of Musk in any way 🙄. I queried whether it was really a Nazi salute on another thread because I found it unbelievable that someone would do that. Exactly what point did you think you were making about me? You think think Nazi salutes are ok …

(I’ve since had a conversation with someone irl who has made me reflect. He said that it’s a dog whistle tactic. Done in such a way as to make it deniable. I’m horrified if that’s the case)

OP posts:
Scirocco · 29/01/2025 17:53

Not entirely sure where I've derailed, really. My posts were in response to extracts from speeches which had been posted by others in the thread (saying that both speech extracts did not feel ok to me), and then a recognition of a shared experience.

Scirocco · 29/01/2025 17:56

OpheliaWasntMad · 29/01/2025 17:53

I’m not a supporter of Musk in any way 🙄. I queried whether it was really a Nazi salute on another thread because I found it unbelievable that someone would do that. Exactly what point did you think you were making about me? You think think Nazi salutes are ok …

(I’ve since had a conversation with someone irl who has made me reflect. He said that it’s a dog whistle tactic. Done in such a way as to make it deniable. I’m horrified if that’s the case)

Edited

It absolutely was a Nazi/Roman salute. By an intelligent man in control of his faculties and his motor functions. He knew what he was doing and how he was doing it, and that he could do it without adverse consequences.

OpheliaWasntMad · 29/01/2025 17:59

Scirocco · 29/01/2025 17:53

Not entirely sure where I've derailed, really. My posts were in response to extracts from speeches which had been posted by others in the thread (saying that both speech extracts did not feel ok to me), and then a recognition of a shared experience.

I took it as an expression of solidarity. And Muslims are also told not to be offended so I think the shared experience was relevant.

OP posts:
OpheliaWasntMad · 29/01/2025 18:01

Scirocco · 29/01/2025 17:56

It absolutely was a Nazi/Roman salute. By an intelligent man in control of his faculties and his motor functions. He knew what he was doing and how he was doing it, and that he could do it without adverse consequences.

I agree. But my first instinct was to say “ surely not” but I’ve been persuaded that it was intentional

OP posts:
OpheliaWasntMad · 29/01/2025 18:20

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

I’m not quite sure what Musk has to do in this thread but for the record I don’t think he is a public figure to admire in any way. I find him sinister and if he is really employing Nazi dog whistles then God help America .

OP posts:
DandyWasp · 30/01/2025 10:05

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

OpheliaWasntMad · 30/01/2025 18:46

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

What’s interesting is your attempt to deflect from the topic and instead make really nasty, personal and unjustified comments .
This is a personal attack and doesn’t reflect well on you

OP posts:
stomachamelon · 30/01/2025 19:00

@OpheliaWasntMad you have been nothing but respectful and conciliatory. This is not a reflection on you.

OpheliaWasntMad · 30/01/2025 19:46

stomachamelon · 30/01/2025 19:00

@OpheliaWasntMad you have been nothing but respectful and conciliatory. This is not a reflection on you.

Thank you 🙏
. Most posters - whatever their differences of opinion- don’t normally stoop to personal attacks thankfully.

OP posts:
statsfun · 02/02/2025 08:53

Humfree · 29/01/2025 09:50

How do you know he is referring to Muslims as a whole? I haven't seen the full speech but from the quote it seems to me that he's talking about the perpetrators of Oct 7th.

He isn't referring to Muslims or Hamas. Listen to the speech yourself. I wasn't able to find a written transcript, but it's only 20 minutes
https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/videos/holocaust-legacy/wjc-president-ronald-s-lauder-address-at-the-80th-anniversary-of-the-liberation-of-auschwitz

The entire speech is about the rise of anti-semitism world wide. He says that explicitly again and again. He's Jewish, and his speech is entirely centred on Jews and their recent experiences, and his fear that another Holocaust against the Jews is imminently possible. That is an entirely appropriate subject for Holocaust Remembrance day.

Only someone completely obsessed with Muslims - to the complete exclusion of Jewish experience - would interpret that speech as being about Hamas or Muslims.

He talks about the rise in anti-semitusm world-wide: students being harrased, Jews being fired, Jewish children having to hide that they're Jewish, hate on social media, the hate marches in the world capitals. He obviously mentions the October 7th atrocities. He frames it as anti-semtism, where innocent children and young people at a festival were murdered simply for being born Jewish. As they were during the Holocaust.

The only thing you could say at a stretch is about Muslims is that people shouting 'Global Intifada' and 'Death to Israel' aren't only targeting Jews, but actually mean 'Death to Western civilisation'. But that's about Islamist terrorist-supporters, not Muslims generally.

He mentions them (just once) as part of a repeated theme: that we should all be worried about the rise in anti-semitism, not only Jews. He reminds of how many non-Jews also lost their lives in WW2. And surely attacking all Western countries is what 'global' Intifada means. We've had terrrorist atrocities here too. He's drawing the parallel, to say that non-Jews shouldn't ignore anti-semitism.

In his next sentence, he suggests that social media is to blame in the rise of these anti-semitic ideas in young people worldwide, and that's what we need to address. That we (non-Jews) all have a responsibility to educate our young people.

It was an incredibly hard-hitting speech. He says that the conditions of anti-semitism worldwide is similar to how they were in the '30s and that the Holocaust against the Jews could be repeated imminently. That's why the audience looked uncomfortable: because it's a hard, uncomfortable message. I wanted him to stop saying these things to the Auschwitz survivors: old people in their 90s. Stop making them afraid. But at the end he said that he had to do his very best to sound the warning.

MolkosTeenageAngst · 02/02/2025 09:04

Israel only exists because of the holocaust, without the holocaust that land would still be Palestine and so I don’t think the current conflict is necessarilly irrelevant, it’s not unusual when remembering a harrowing event in history to also refer to current events or to look for the future and how to move forward following that event. It’s hard to consider what the future looks like for Jewish people in and out of Israel right now without considering the current conflict in Gaza. That said I can’t see his speech in full anywhere, only snippets taken out of context, so very hard to say for sure whether his words were reasonable or unreasonable within the wider speech. Ultimately though he is a politician with a political agenda, I would expect that if I invited a politician to speak at an event that their words would be political in nature. If there isn’t a place for politics within an event then it seems sensible not to invite any politicians to speak! There are plenty of other people without an agenda who could have been invited instead.

statsfun · 02/02/2025 09:51

MolkosTeenageAngst · 02/02/2025 09:04

Israel only exists because of the holocaust, without the holocaust that land would still be Palestine and so I don’t think the current conflict is necessarilly irrelevant, it’s not unusual when remembering a harrowing event in history to also refer to current events or to look for the future and how to move forward following that event. It’s hard to consider what the future looks like for Jewish people in and out of Israel right now without considering the current conflict in Gaza. That said I can’t see his speech in full anywhere, only snippets taken out of context, so very hard to say for sure whether his words were reasonable or unreasonable within the wider speech. Ultimately though he is a politician with a political agenda, I would expect that if I invited a politician to speak at an event that their words would be political in nature. If there isn’t a place for politics within an event then it seems sensible not to invite any politicians to speak! There are plenty of other people without an agenda who could have been invited instead.

Really? If there was a memorial for 9/11, would you expect an invited politician to minimise it as 'an attempted attack' and then spend 1/3 of his speech finger-wagging at the Americans about the 300,000 direct deaths in Iraq - and the several million indirect deaths, mostly civilians - and make the aim of the speech about rebuilding Iraq. Whilst Bin Ladin was still alive and trying to attack them again. Really?

9/11 was a terrible atrocity, where almost 3000 Americans were murdered in an attack on American soil.

The Holocaust was an unimaginable atrocity committed over 5 years, where 1/3 of Jews worldwide - 2/3 of those in Europe - were deliberately and industrially slaughtered. For being born Jewish. And anti-semitism is unarguably rising again worldwide now.

Do you really not think that on Holocaust memorial day - on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the grotesque Auschwitz death camp - the Irish president, who was invited to represent the Irish people, could have kept his speech about that?

LetThereBeLove · 02/02/2025 10:35

It was an incredibly hard-hitting speech. He says that the conditions of anti-semitism worldwide is similar to how they were in the '30s and that the Holocaust against the Jews could be repeated imminently. That's why the audience looked uncomfortable: because it's a hard, uncomfortable message. I wanted him to stop saying these things to the Auschwitz survivors: old people in their 90s. Stop making them afraid. But at the end he said that he had to do his very best to sound the warning.

I, for one, as the child of a Holocaust survivor, am glad he was as hard hitting as he was with his speech. My uncle was a political prisoner in Dachau in 1936, my mother escaped Germany in August 1939. My grandmother and many relatives dies in concentration camps.

The world needs to wake up that what happens with Jews doesn't end with us, as Pastor Neimoller wrote in his poem:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

MolkosTeenageAngst · 02/02/2025 10:40

I’ve read the full speech as linked by perhapsperhaps and I can’t see that 1/3 of it was about rebuilding Gaza or Israel or ‘finger wagging’ about the deaths in Gaza? The deaths in Gaza are only mentioned briefly alongside October 7th, only 3 out of around 40 paragraphs are about the conflict and as far as I can tell the focus on aid and rebuilding areas is about Gaza but also including the parts of Israel invaded on Oct 7th and the Israeli people displaced by the war. It is a hope that all civilians affected by the conflict receive the aid they need and the benefits of a ceasefire. As I said it is only a few paragraphs switching a wider speech so I don’t see why you think this is the main focus of the speech, the main focus of the speech seems to be on not hating those who are seen as ‘other’ and wanting peace worldwide. I can’t see how you’ve concluded the main point is that we must rebuild Gaza.

If in 60 years time there is a memorial for 9/11 and at the same time there is an ongoing conflict in which tens of thousand have been killed which is as a direct result of 9/11 of course I would think it understandable to mention it. Obviously the holocaust was an awful atrocity but the focus now should be on moving forward and ensuring that nothing like it happens again, to anybody of any race, religion or nationality, how can you possibly try and work towards that without acknowledging the current war and genocide happening as a direct result of the holocaust and resulting partitioning of Palestinian land into Israel? Israel and the current conflict only exist due to the holocaust so you can’t really separate them and I think the president would have faced backlash had he not mentioned the war that’s happening right now. It wasn’t the main focus of his speech, the focus was on peace for all people, but it would have been odd to ignore the situation entirely.

Comedycook · 02/02/2025 10:43

MolkosTeenageAngst · 02/02/2025 10:40

I’ve read the full speech as linked by perhapsperhaps and I can’t see that 1/3 of it was about rebuilding Gaza or Israel or ‘finger wagging’ about the deaths in Gaza? The deaths in Gaza are only mentioned briefly alongside October 7th, only 3 out of around 40 paragraphs are about the conflict and as far as I can tell the focus on aid and rebuilding areas is about Gaza but also including the parts of Israel invaded on Oct 7th and the Israeli people displaced by the war. It is a hope that all civilians affected by the conflict receive the aid they need and the benefits of a ceasefire. As I said it is only a few paragraphs switching a wider speech so I don’t see why you think this is the main focus of the speech, the main focus of the speech seems to be on not hating those who are seen as ‘other’ and wanting peace worldwide. I can’t see how you’ve concluded the main point is that we must rebuild Gaza.

If in 60 years time there is a memorial for 9/11 and at the same time there is an ongoing conflict in which tens of thousand have been killed which is as a direct result of 9/11 of course I would think it understandable to mention it. Obviously the holocaust was an awful atrocity but the focus now should be on moving forward and ensuring that nothing like it happens again, to anybody of any race, religion or nationality, how can you possibly try and work towards that without acknowledging the current war and genocide happening as a direct result of the holocaust and resulting partitioning of Palestinian land into Israel? Israel and the current conflict only exist due to the holocaust so you can’t really separate them and I think the president would have faced backlash had he not mentioned the war that’s happening right now. It wasn’t the main focus of his speech, the focus was on peace for all people, but it would have been odd to ignore the situation entirely.

The current conflict not genocide in Gaza is a direct result of 7/10.

MolkosTeenageAngst · 02/02/2025 10:53

7/10 was the ultimate trigger but there are decades of setting events to it, this is not the first conflict between Israel and Gaza. Maybe without 7/10 there would not be this war but there would not be peace in the nation, Palestine would still be occupied by Israel and there would still be conflict between the two sides, even if to a less devestating extent. Ultimately without the holocaust there would be no Israel and the current war/ genocide/ conflict or however you prefer to refer to it would not be happening, to me it just doesn’t make sense to try and separate the current conflict in Gaza from the holocaust, in Europe trying to make things right after the holocaust by giving a home to Jewish people they have taken homes from Palestinians and created this untenable situation.

Comedycook · 02/02/2025 11:21

MolkosTeenageAngst · 02/02/2025 10:53

7/10 was the ultimate trigger but there are decades of setting events to it, this is not the first conflict between Israel and Gaza. Maybe without 7/10 there would not be this war but there would not be peace in the nation, Palestine would still be occupied by Israel and there would still be conflict between the two sides, even if to a less devestating extent. Ultimately without the holocaust there would be no Israel and the current war/ genocide/ conflict or however you prefer to refer to it would not be happening, to me it just doesn’t make sense to try and separate the current conflict in Gaza from the holocaust, in Europe trying to make things right after the holocaust by giving a home to Jewish people they have taken homes from Palestinians and created this untenable situation.

Edited

The sheer disrespect to the victims and few remaining survivors by constantly linking the holocaust to Gaza is astonishing to me....

Swipe left for the next trending thread