excellent points made except the ludicrous: 'Once you accept that religious texts are made up nonsense from ancient historical contexts that have no relevance to the present'.
Keep in mind that Israel is a secular state, so its reliance on the Old Testament is but an excuse.
Moreover, some religious Jews, the Satmar Hassidim prominently among them, want nothing to do with Israel. The Satmar, in fact, consider the State of Israel to be satanic in origin, not to mention an embarrassment to Jews everywhere. They will not so much as set foot in Israel, not while it remains occupied.
Yes, as someone with an interest in all Biblical texts I agree that the Satmar Hassidim are correct in concluding Israel a secular entity, in truth this is strictly how the early Zionists saw it, more socialist than religious. The obsession the US has with Israel is no small part due to the large (what used to be called the 'Moral Majority') Evangelical right and their considerable voting potential for any would-be President of the US. Evangelists harbour no particular love for Jews (they believe that Jews that don't accept Christ will burn in Hell forever. Hellfire: another appallingly blasphemous belief that is not found in scripture..anywhere..at all) They have the erroneous and non-scriptural belief that the establishment of the State of Israel is a precursor to the 'Rapture' and their salvation. I would encourage Caitlin, who I appreciate, and anyone particularly atheists who rightly hate false hypocritical religion (Just like Christ did, he was murdered by religious fanatics remember) to consider how relevant such Bible ideas such as debt jubilees (a mosaic law for ancient Israel to prevent super wealth and protect the poor) or Quarantining (A habit learned during the Black Death, long before knowledge of germs, by observing the Jews strict adherence to the Mosaic law thereby saving their communities from the ravages of the highly infectious disease) something we have all had to employ recently and most relevant for all of us today.
Riff, I would just like to say I certainly don't embrace slavery neither did the Hebrew scriptures. The Mosaic laws regulated such practices that could not be changed at that time (due to the culture of the day. Just compare our views and culture compared to medieval mores) and provided protection for those who worked to pay off debts. Slaves were set free every seven years and were compensated for their work (completely unlike the terrible slavery we associate with that of the 19th Century and we should not confuse them) however it is a system none of us would approve nor should. These were laws for a people living 3000 years ago. I do not approve of 19th Century conditions for working class factory workers but appreciate those Christian Socialists who sought to bring about Unions and labour Laws to protect those workers, regulate hours and introduce basic although inadequate health and safety practices like shorter working hours etc.
Like many Christians you're attempting to make the Bible less barbaric than it is, simply because you're presumably a decent human being whose sense of morality rightly clashes with the dictates of the Hebrew God you wish to believe in. So you pretend that it's better than it actually is. If I were forced somehow to become a Christian, I'd probably do the exact same thing.
For some reason you failed to mention that Jubilee only applied to Jewish slaves, and your characterization of slavery-lite didn't apply to non-Jewish slaves, who could be beaten and passed down to family members as possessions; a two-tiered system which sadly echoes the current racist apartheid system in Israel, whose justifications I proudly refuse to recognize or condone.
I could never understand why any supposed God should condone something as stupid as slavery in the first place. He's God. He could do whatever he wanted. He handed out Commandments right and left. Instead of wasting them on ego-stroking demands to be worshiped, why not one that went: "Hey, people! It's not cool to own other people! I can't believe I've got to actually tell you this, but knock it off!" There. Problem solved. Was that so hard? But that's what happens when you make up a God: He magically ends up endorsing every evil thing you were doing anyway.
You're of course free to believe this tribal nonsense was somehow "divinely inspired" and therefor moral, but then we would also have to believe that the genocide carried out by the Hebrews was likewise moral, something that I, basing my morality on the well-being of humankind instead of on scripture, refuse to do.
I am not attempting to make the Bible less barbaric. There is barbarity in the Bible, it is a record of historical events in barbaric times. There are difficult things in it that our 21st Century minds balk at. Just as it does at the behaviour of those living 100 years ago or those living now in tribal regions of Pakistan or Afghanistan or Africa, whether the treatment of women or devil children, witchcraft and abuse of animals, female circumcision etc. And they too may balk at our planet trashing greed that threatens to destroy their fragile way of life.
This is not the most appropriate place to engage in a deep theological exchange. But my point about the blanket dismissal of the most historically well-attested manuscript/s of the ancient world and its historical veracity ( I am referring to the book as an historical record recognised and valued by scholars the world over, atheist scholars included) can only be a position borne of ignorance. Just ask any archaeologist working in the Middle East. Let alone its cultural influence on us today from Shakespeare to animal rights to the enlightening influence of Victorian philanthropy. We have benefitted and do benefit from this record even if you don’t believe it is from God. Dismissing it as rubbish is like looking at the bizarre Egyptian health practices (like the use of crocodile dung as a female contraceptive) and saying ‘look at those ancient Egyptians, what a bunch of idiots!’. But what about the Pyramids? ‘What, those stupid things in the desert? Rubbish!’ The Egyptologist would conclude, with some justification, that the statement is ludicrous.
God is not a middle-class Oxford don who appears and imposes a will on an ancient people who will not/cannot change due to their historical or cultural baggage (I doubt you will find many vegan restaurants in Kandahar). Well he can but with limited success, the Bible is a record of Israel having limited success and mostly failing abysmally to uphold the now archaic Mosaic Law, something we have thankfully long surpassed.
Example: The genocide of certain Canaanite tribes was never carried out even though God gave the instruction, he knew they would fail in this. In the same breath he told them they would not obey this instruction and would suffer the consequence; They were sacrificing their own children alive in fire to the Canaanite god Molech within a generation.
Hard to understand I know but not that long ago in parts of the British Empire the prevailing culture expected wives to perform Suti, a religious practice of burning themselves alive on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands. The imperialist British stamped out this practice (which I think we can agree was good thing) as they did with cannibalism in certain tribes of the Pacific...sometimes brutally (I do not agree with any such brutality, they were different times, I did not live then).
I agree with you about slavery in the Bible, I have difficulty with it and other of the 600 or so Mosaic laws. Thankfully no one today is under that ancient law, a law that is as irrelevant to us today as the law of Hammurabi or ancient Roman jurisprudence. However, there are principles in those laws that we can learn from (see Michael Hudson’s latest book which references many of the debt forgiving principles in the Bible as examples of what we should be doing today economically, why did he choose the Bible as his starting point? Because it is so relevant, I don’t believe Michael Hudson is a devout Christian).
Those laws greatly benefitted the health and moral well-being of an ancient people is recognised by modern science whether moral, dietary or health a safety etc. those laws taught things unique in ancient times which remain so today. Such as a law that commanded you love not just tolerate your neighbour, to love the immigrant as a brother, not to mistreat domestic animals to show compassion for them, leave the edges of your field unharvested for the poor and vulnerable, never take someone’s cloak as collateral for a debt, they will need to keep warm at night etc. At that time these would have been extraordinary laws. It is against the law in Britain for anyone to have their utilities cut off, we employ the same principles today. Putting a parapet on a high building’s roof and so on.
But I get your point about rationalising difficult passages. And I accept that criticism. I do try to rationalise the Bible passages that I still do not understand but only because of the overwhelming weight of passages that reveal a God deeply concerned with our welfare and our future, which does not fit the profile of an ancient tribal fire god.
But there is something more troubling I find with Catlin’s comment; it is the hubris that so often accompanies the reasoning of so-called enlightened people in the West when talking about changing the world for the better, being ‘progressive’ and so on. Claiming to champion a woefully oppressed people like the Palestinians, who by and large have a deep respect for what they call the Holy Books, Muslim, Christian and Jewish Arabs, while at the same time calling their belief system made up nonsense (probably one of the few things sustaining them through the grief of such horrific times) It smacks of the same superior Western Imperialist mentality that orders the next airstrike and got us to where we are now.
I do not believe in the Talmud/Mishnah, the Quran, Hadiths or the traditions of the Eastern or Coptic Churches or indeed Atheism, agnosticism etc. but to dismiss those that do as childish believers in made up nonsense because it doesn’t fit with my beliefs is , in my opinion, counter-productive.
We can agree that this isn't the place for a full-blown discussion of religion, so instead let's just focus on Caitlin's comments.
Jewish or Palestinian beliefs in deity are largely irrelevant to Israel's ongoing violation of basic human rights as recognized by most of the modern secular world. I hope we can agree that Israel's ongoing terrorism and racism are reprehensible (although I'm sure Boeing and Raytheon find millions of reasons to keep it going) and should not be supported by the American government in any fashion.
This isn't about us imposing Western Progressive values on the hapless natives; an updated version of the white man's burden. You seem to view Caitlin's comments in that context, but what I see is someone whose basic sense of humanity and justice are intact, reacting honestly to a horrible and unnecessary oppression. To me, this is about are far from hubris as you can get.
That's all well and good but you fail to make a distinction between Hamas and the Palestinians. The Palestinians aren't responding to Zionist aggression, Hamas are. Targeting civilians is forbidden in Islam. Supporting the Palestinians and supporting Hamas are two, entirely different things. Hamas have hijacked this issue to further their own agenda. They knew exactly what they were doing when they started firing rockets and they knew Palestinians would die and suffer as a result. Hamas are terrorists. They are an obstacle to peace, and if you don't think they're terrorists then look back at what happened in 2002, when the Arab League had secured a withdrawal by the Zionists from all territories, and secured East Jerusalem as their capital, what did Hamas go and do? Blow up a hotel. The deal was off. The same deal they now want.
The peace plan dominated the summit that year and it was unanimously endorsed by the Arab League.
Essentially, it offered Israel full normalisation with the entire Arab world in exchange for a withdrawal from all occupied territories, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Lebanon, as well as giving the Palestinians East Jerusalem as their capital and reaching a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees who, in the Arab-Israel war of 1948-49, had fled or been expelled from their homes in what became Israel.
The plan received international support and it briefly put Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the spot. Here, at last, seemed a chance to end once and for all the historic Arab-Israeli conflict.
But just before the plan was published, Hamas bombed an Israeli hotel in Netanya, killing 30 people and wounding more than 100. All talk of peace was off the table.
Four years ago I posted an impassioned blog about Israel and the Palestinians on an Irish site called The Wild Geese. Here is the piece I wrote. Please let me know if you think there has been any substantive political change in those four years. https://thewildgeese.irish/profiles/blogs/the-israeli-occupation-different-voices
When a person or people are wrongly oppressed, they can respond in one of two ways: they can rise above petty revenge in order to spare others from suffering a similar fate, uplifting all of us with their example. Think Nelson Mandela.
Or they can mimic their abusers, internalize their abuse, and inflict it on others. Think Israel.
Articles like yours dare give me hope that the passive acceptance of Zionism's festering narrative is about to be replaced with something much brighter.
I was with Caitlin 100% until her statement, "Zionism is a white supremacist ideology." No. Zionism arrogates to itself the protection of all Jews everywhere, but it does not benefit most Jews, even most Jews in Israel. It benefits mainly elite Ashkenazi Jews who form the leadership of Israel. It would be wrong to call it "Jewish supremacist," because it is not endorsed by nor does it benefit all Jews. Such a term would simply be scapegoating *ALL* Jews for the beliefs and actions of a few. As such, it would be anti-Semitic. Similarly, the use of race and other ideologies by a minority of Western and American elites to benefit themselves is not endorsed by nor does it benefit all white people, so use of "white supremacist" to describe the actions of such elites is simply scapegoating *ALL* white people for the beliefs and actions of a few. It would be anti-White racism, and particularly egregious since a majority of those elites don't even believe such an ideology and many of them, like Barack Obama and Kamala Harris, are in fact non-white. They serve elite interests, and they will use any convenient tool to advance elite goals. In the past racism was used to gain support. Today, it is more often a claim to anti-racism that's a more effective tool.
'...Ethiopian Jews living in Israel have long complained of discrimination, and similar protests in 2012 followed reports that some Israeli landlords were refusing to rent out their properties to Ethiopian Jews.
'Ethiopian Israeli Jews' income is considerably lower than the general population, and they are much more likely to face limited educational opportunities and to end up in prison, according to The Ethiopian National Project, a non-governmental organisation which assists Ethiopian Jews in Israel.'
Yes. I was definitely not suggesting that racism does not exist, especially in Israel, where Mizrahim (Arab Jews) have long been discriminated against. In fact, they were so resentful of their treatment by Ashkenazim in Israel that a group called Black Panthers was formed and in late 1972 they published in their magazine an account of the false flag operations carried out by Zionists in Baghdad to stampede Iraqi Jews into emigrating to Israel.
excellent points made except the ludicrous: 'Once you accept that religious texts are made up nonsense from ancient historical contexts that have no relevance to the present'.
I thought that was the best bit.
But then, I'm an atheist . . . .
Keep in mind that Israel is a secular state, so its reliance on the Old Testament is but an excuse.
Moreover, some religious Jews, the Satmar Hassidim prominently among them, want nothing to do with Israel. The Satmar, in fact, consider the State of Israel to be satanic in origin, not to mention an embarrassment to Jews everywhere. They will not so much as set foot in Israel, not while it remains occupied.
Yes, as someone with an interest in all Biblical texts I agree that the Satmar Hassidim are correct in concluding Israel a secular entity, in truth this is strictly how the early Zionists saw it, more socialist than religious. The obsession the US has with Israel is no small part due to the large (what used to be called the 'Moral Majority') Evangelical right and their considerable voting potential for any would-be President of the US. Evangelists harbour no particular love for Jews (they believe that Jews that don't accept Christ will burn in Hell forever. Hellfire: another appallingly blasphemous belief that is not found in scripture..anywhere..at all) They have the erroneous and non-scriptural belief that the establishment of the State of Israel is a precursor to the 'Rapture' and their salvation. I would encourage Caitlin, who I appreciate, and anyone particularly atheists who rightly hate false hypocritical religion (Just like Christ did, he was murdered by religious fanatics remember) to consider how relevant such Bible ideas such as debt jubilees (a mosaic law for ancient Israel to prevent super wealth and protect the poor) or Quarantining (A habit learned during the Black Death, long before knowledge of germs, by observing the Jews strict adherence to the Mosaic law thereby saving their communities from the ravages of the highly infectious disease) something we have all had to employ recently and most relevant for all of us today.
It's quite amazing what some people consider ludicrous while embracing slavery, virgin births, chosen people, and original sin.
Riff, I would just like to say I certainly don't embrace slavery neither did the Hebrew scriptures. The Mosaic laws regulated such practices that could not be changed at that time (due to the culture of the day. Just compare our views and culture compared to medieval mores) and provided protection for those who worked to pay off debts. Slaves were set free every seven years and were compensated for their work (completely unlike the terrible slavery we associate with that of the 19th Century and we should not confuse them) however it is a system none of us would approve nor should. These were laws for a people living 3000 years ago. I do not approve of 19th Century conditions for working class factory workers but appreciate those Christian Socialists who sought to bring about Unions and labour Laws to protect those workers, regulate hours and introduce basic although inadequate health and safety practices like shorter working hours etc.
Like many Christians you're attempting to make the Bible less barbaric than it is, simply because you're presumably a decent human being whose sense of morality rightly clashes with the dictates of the Hebrew God you wish to believe in. So you pretend that it's better than it actually is. If I were forced somehow to become a Christian, I'd probably do the exact same thing.
For some reason you failed to mention that Jubilee only applied to Jewish slaves, and your characterization of slavery-lite didn't apply to non-Jewish slaves, who could be beaten and passed down to family members as possessions; a two-tiered system which sadly echoes the current racist apartheid system in Israel, whose justifications I proudly refuse to recognize or condone.
I could never understand why any supposed God should condone something as stupid as slavery in the first place. He's God. He could do whatever he wanted. He handed out Commandments right and left. Instead of wasting them on ego-stroking demands to be worshiped, why not one that went: "Hey, people! It's not cool to own other people! I can't believe I've got to actually tell you this, but knock it off!" There. Problem solved. Was that so hard? But that's what happens when you make up a God: He magically ends up endorsing every evil thing you were doing anyway.
You're of course free to believe this tribal nonsense was somehow "divinely inspired" and therefor moral, but then we would also have to believe that the genocide carried out by the Hebrews was likewise moral, something that I, basing my morality on the well-being of humankind instead of on scripture, refuse to do.
I am not attempting to make the Bible less barbaric. There is barbarity in the Bible, it is a record of historical events in barbaric times. There are difficult things in it that our 21st Century minds balk at. Just as it does at the behaviour of those living 100 years ago or those living now in tribal regions of Pakistan or Afghanistan or Africa, whether the treatment of women or devil children, witchcraft and abuse of animals, female circumcision etc. And they too may balk at our planet trashing greed that threatens to destroy their fragile way of life.
This is not the most appropriate place to engage in a deep theological exchange. But my point about the blanket dismissal of the most historically well-attested manuscript/s of the ancient world and its historical veracity ( I am referring to the book as an historical record recognised and valued by scholars the world over, atheist scholars included) can only be a position borne of ignorance. Just ask any archaeologist working in the Middle East. Let alone its cultural influence on us today from Shakespeare to animal rights to the enlightening influence of Victorian philanthropy. We have benefitted and do benefit from this record even if you don’t believe it is from God. Dismissing it as rubbish is like looking at the bizarre Egyptian health practices (like the use of crocodile dung as a female contraceptive) and saying ‘look at those ancient Egyptians, what a bunch of idiots!’. But what about the Pyramids? ‘What, those stupid things in the desert? Rubbish!’ The Egyptologist would conclude, with some justification, that the statement is ludicrous.
God is not a middle-class Oxford don who appears and imposes a will on an ancient people who will not/cannot change due to their historical or cultural baggage (I doubt you will find many vegan restaurants in Kandahar). Well he can but with limited success, the Bible is a record of Israel having limited success and mostly failing abysmally to uphold the now archaic Mosaic Law, something we have thankfully long surpassed.
Example: The genocide of certain Canaanite tribes was never carried out even though God gave the instruction, he knew they would fail in this. In the same breath he told them they would not obey this instruction and would suffer the consequence; They were sacrificing their own children alive in fire to the Canaanite god Molech within a generation.
Hard to understand I know but not that long ago in parts of the British Empire the prevailing culture expected wives to perform Suti, a religious practice of burning themselves alive on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands. The imperialist British stamped out this practice (which I think we can agree was good thing) as they did with cannibalism in certain tribes of the Pacific...sometimes brutally (I do not agree with any such brutality, they were different times, I did not live then).
I agree with you about slavery in the Bible, I have difficulty with it and other of the 600 or so Mosaic laws. Thankfully no one today is under that ancient law, a law that is as irrelevant to us today as the law of Hammurabi or ancient Roman jurisprudence. However, there are principles in those laws that we can learn from (see Michael Hudson’s latest book which references many of the debt forgiving principles in the Bible as examples of what we should be doing today economically, why did he choose the Bible as his starting point? Because it is so relevant, I don’t believe Michael Hudson is a devout Christian).
Those laws greatly benefitted the health and moral well-being of an ancient people is recognised by modern science whether moral, dietary or health a safety etc. those laws taught things unique in ancient times which remain so today. Such as a law that commanded you love not just tolerate your neighbour, to love the immigrant as a brother, not to mistreat domestic animals to show compassion for them, leave the edges of your field unharvested for the poor and vulnerable, never take someone’s cloak as collateral for a debt, they will need to keep warm at night etc. At that time these would have been extraordinary laws. It is against the law in Britain for anyone to have their utilities cut off, we employ the same principles today. Putting a parapet on a high building’s roof and so on.
But I get your point about rationalising difficult passages. And I accept that criticism. I do try to rationalise the Bible passages that I still do not understand but only because of the overwhelming weight of passages that reveal a God deeply concerned with our welfare and our future, which does not fit the profile of an ancient tribal fire god.
But there is something more troubling I find with Catlin’s comment; it is the hubris that so often accompanies the reasoning of so-called enlightened people in the West when talking about changing the world for the better, being ‘progressive’ and so on. Claiming to champion a woefully oppressed people like the Palestinians, who by and large have a deep respect for what they call the Holy Books, Muslim, Christian and Jewish Arabs, while at the same time calling their belief system made up nonsense (probably one of the few things sustaining them through the grief of such horrific times) It smacks of the same superior Western Imperialist mentality that orders the next airstrike and got us to where we are now.
I do not believe in the Talmud/Mishnah, the Quran, Hadiths or the traditions of the Eastern or Coptic Churches or indeed Atheism, agnosticism etc. but to dismiss those that do as childish believers in made up nonsense because it doesn’t fit with my beliefs is , in my opinion, counter-productive.
We can agree that this isn't the place for a full-blown discussion of religion, so instead let's just focus on Caitlin's comments.
Jewish or Palestinian beliefs in deity are largely irrelevant to Israel's ongoing violation of basic human rights as recognized by most of the modern secular world. I hope we can agree that Israel's ongoing terrorism and racism are reprehensible (although I'm sure Boeing and Raytheon find millions of reasons to keep it going) and should not be supported by the American government in any fashion.
This isn't about us imposing Western Progressive values on the hapless natives; an updated version of the white man's burden. You seem to view Caitlin's comments in that context, but what I see is someone whose basic sense of humanity and justice are intact, reacting honestly to a horrible and unnecessary oppression. To me, this is about are far from hubris as you can get.
That comment is not ludicrous. Your addiction to religion - quite possibly.
Great piece that lays it all out. Thanks
That's all well and good but you fail to make a distinction between Hamas and the Palestinians. The Palestinians aren't responding to Zionist aggression, Hamas are. Targeting civilians is forbidden in Islam. Supporting the Palestinians and supporting Hamas are two, entirely different things. Hamas have hijacked this issue to further their own agenda. They knew exactly what they were doing when they started firing rockets and they knew Palestinians would die and suffer as a result. Hamas are terrorists. They are an obstacle to peace, and if you don't think they're terrorists then look back at what happened in 2002, when the Arab League had secured a withdrawal by the Zionists from all territories, and secured East Jerusalem as their capital, what did Hamas go and do? Blow up a hotel. The deal was off. The same deal they now want.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54437222
The peace plan dominated the summit that year and it was unanimously endorsed by the Arab League.
Essentially, it offered Israel full normalisation with the entire Arab world in exchange for a withdrawal from all occupied territories, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Lebanon, as well as giving the Palestinians East Jerusalem as their capital and reaching a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees who, in the Arab-Israel war of 1948-49, had fled or been expelled from their homes in what became Israel.
The plan received international support and it briefly put Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the spot. Here, at last, seemed a chance to end once and for all the historic Arab-Israeli conflict.
But just before the plan was published, Hamas bombed an Israeli hotel in Netanya, killing 30 people and wounding more than 100. All talk of peace was off the table.
Systemic transformation remains our great task and hope...
Four years ago I posted an impassioned blog about Israel and the Palestinians on an Irish site called The Wild Geese. Here is the piece I wrote. Please let me know if you think there has been any substantive political change in those four years. https://thewildgeese.irish/profiles/blogs/the-israeli-occupation-different-voices
When a person or people are wrongly oppressed, they can respond in one of two ways: they can rise above petty revenge in order to spare others from suffering a similar fate, uplifting all of us with their example. Think Nelson Mandela.
Or they can mimic their abusers, internalize their abuse, and inflict it on others. Think Israel.
Articles like yours dare give me hope that the passive acceptance of Zionism's festering narrative is about to be replaced with something much brighter.
16 - Israel is the only country where the far right defends the immigrants.
I was with Caitlin 100% until her statement, "Zionism is a white supremacist ideology." No. Zionism arrogates to itself the protection of all Jews everywhere, but it does not benefit most Jews, even most Jews in Israel. It benefits mainly elite Ashkenazi Jews who form the leadership of Israel. It would be wrong to call it "Jewish supremacist," because it is not endorsed by nor does it benefit all Jews. Such a term would simply be scapegoating *ALL* Jews for the beliefs and actions of a few. As such, it would be anti-Semitic. Similarly, the use of race and other ideologies by a minority of Western and American elites to benefit themselves is not endorsed by nor does it benefit all white people, so use of "white supremacist" to describe the actions of such elites is simply scapegoating *ALL* white people for the beliefs and actions of a few. It would be anti-White racism, and particularly egregious since a majority of those elites don't even believe such an ideology and many of them, like Barack Obama and Kamala Harris, are in fact non-white. They serve elite interests, and they will use any convenient tool to advance elite goals. In the past racism was used to gain support. Today, it is more often a claim to anti-racism that's a more effective tool.
'...Ethiopian Jews living in Israel have long complained of discrimination, and similar protests in 2012 followed reports that some Israeli landlords were refusing to rent out their properties to Ethiopian Jews.
'Ethiopian Israeli Jews' income is considerably lower than the general population, and they are much more likely to face limited educational opportunities and to end up in prison, according to The Ethiopian National Project, a non-governmental organisation which assists Ethiopian Jews in Israel.'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32577452
Yes. I was definitely not suggesting that racism does not exist, especially in Israel, where Mizrahim (Arab Jews) have long been discriminated against. In fact, they were so resentful of their treatment by Ashkenazim in Israel that a group called Black Panthers was formed and in late 1972 they published in their magazine an account of the false flag operations carried out by Zionists in Baghdad to stampede Iraqi Jews into emigrating to Israel.
Collective punishment is a war crime, but apparently it's only "self defense." Comparing "rockets" to jet bombing raids is a false equivalency.
Thank you for spreading the trust. This is horrifying.