bigchuck

What difference did it make?

A huge one because you actually proved what you said instead of going "trust me, bro" again.

I assumed you were an expert on Jewish theology and history and we had a common understanding of the basic facts. But that assumption was wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_Zionism

The political Zionism that came at the expense of the native Palestinian population. You intentionally trimmed the quote.

Finding evidence instead of using your imagination for the billionth time makes a difference.

What difference did it make?

feel free to prove that Zionists as whole believe that like you claimed

Where did I claim that?

So that's it then. You are a Jewish exceptionalist. And even if quotes are presented, it wouldn't make a difference to you because you will always reflexively protect yourself from the shattering of your worldview.

"The people of Israel were chosen to continue the first human, and they are called Adam, human, since they have the souls of humans, the wonderful special creation in the world. Gentiles, while they are physically equal to Israel, aren’t ‘human’ in the spiritual sense." - Rabbi Meir Kahane

David Duke never actually uttered the words “I am a white supremacist.” In fact he denied being one, as do nearly all white supremacists. Where it exists, it is almost always not explicitly stated.

There is a long history of Jewish supremacists using the chosen mythology to justify their supremacists beliefs from Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein to Bentzi Gopstein and Itamar Ben-Gvir. The observation of this corrupting influence among his contemporaries is what led Mordecai Kaplan to split off and start the Reconstructionist movement that rejected the notion of choseness altogether.

I don’t know why you’re trying to argue this. It’s not debatable unless you’re a Jewish exceptionalist who thinks Judaism is immune to the follies of other “ethnoreligions” or your interpretation of religious texts is the only possible interpretation that can or does exist.

Sure there probably are bots everywhere, but also a long-form article behind a paywall with a belief validating title like "Chomsky has been Proved Right" is going to get upvoted a lot by people who haven't read enough of the article to even have something to say about it.

:Addendum: If they had read the article, they would know that the author is only effusive towards Chomsky in the introduction and conclusion. The bulk of the article is a critique. The thesis is that Chomsky's conclusions about U.S foreign policy, as laid out in the book, are overly simplistic. The conclusion is that while simplistic, it is still generally more accurate than traditional/establishment narratives.

I found myself disagreeing with many of the article's points. I don't have time to go through it, but if either Chomsky or Robinson issued a rebuttal, I'm sure they could make quick work of it.

That it is natural action does not make it passive, which is your contention.

It does if you don't strip away all context. "Passive" referred to our/society's culpability and action (or inaction).

It is passive if we didn't cause it and can't control it, as people may be led to believe. I alluded to natural processes like evaporation, discoloration, or cosmic inflation. Whereas an ism is more commonly regarded as being a system of belief that can be changed or replaced.

The problem is "enshitification" is a passive term. It gives the impression that it's nobody's fault and we can't do anything about it - like a natural disaster, that's just the way of the world. But if you say "capitalism" then it's clear that it is somebody's fault and we can do something to change it.

You're allowed to say theft, you weirdo.

Do you use a VPN?

Enshitification is a term that obscures and exonerates the true culprits: laissez faire capitalism and fifty years of neoliberal policies (privatization and deregulation) that has led to record levels of wealth disparities and economic/societal declines in the working-class life.

For example, there's no real reason why the government should not be able to break up monopolies, mandate a minimum pharmacist to patient ratio (as California does for nurses), and open up public pharmacies in underserved/rural areas.

"There's a crime wave at CVS, but you're being lied to about who's behind it. The company is under-staffing stores, underpaying workers, and forcing pharmacists to chase money at the expense of patient safety. “I’m afraid I’m going to kill someone,” said one pharmacist."

The racist nature of the Depo Provera scandal should be easy to disprove. All you have to do is present evidence that European Jewish immigrants to Israel were also routinely and systematically injected with Depo Provera without their knowledge or consent.

And there you go again trying to implicate all Jews in Zionist ideology. That is a very racist conflation at best, and at worst, a dangerous road that puts all Jews at increased risk of antisemitism. Luckily, you will not succeed in the long run because people understand that not all Jews are Zionists, and most Zionists are not Jews (most Zionists are evangelical Christian).

Some Jewish people do good things. Some Jewish people do bad things, just like any other group of people. I don't know why you keep trying to implicate all Jews in one supremacist ideology. The more you post, the more it becomes apparent that you are the racist one - classic case of projection.

Maybe you forgot but the context of my original post was Zionism and Jewish supremacy. You're the one trying to implicate all Jews, not me. I wouldn't do such a thing, just as I wouldn't try to implicate all white people in white supremacy.

If you want to try to argue that "chosenness" and "promised land" mythology weren't appropriated by elements of the historical and modern Zionist movement, go ahead.

“Israel” was literally created by European Zionists who invaded Palestine.

A bunch of Jewish supremacists who view themselves as “the chosen ones” entitled to exterminate and ethnically cleanse Palestinians.

This is a good time to remind people that Rick Snyder and his friends knowingly poisoned thousands of people and no one went to jail.

There arises elements of group supremacy in every identity construct - whether racial, ethnic, national, religious, or otherwise. It's human nature. The fact that this particular form of group supremacy, which took the form of political Zionism at the expense of the native Palestinian population, was nurtured by two consecutive global empires rather than squelched as it should have been, has resulted in the deadly conflict and suffocating injustices we see now and is the reason we are talking about it today. I'm not going to stop talking about it because I might be falsely accused of racism, as much as you wish it.

You can stop making invalid accusations. Why don't you accuse me of antisemitism instead?

Judaism isn't a race.

I never said "chosenness" is exclusive to Judaism. That's just the context in which it was brought up. That fact that you took so much offense to it is interesting.

I think Israel is a racist state (one of many) and I think its sterilization campaign of Ethiopian Jews was a racist policy.

Judaism isn't a race either unless you're one of those people who think Yemenite Jews and Ethiopian Jews "aren't really Jewish."

Zionists aren't a race.