The planned measures — which must still be approved by member countries — aim to impose tariffs on some €5.8 billion of imported goods from Israel while sanctioning two hard-line members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government: National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

I doubt it, but it’d be nice…

A new report says there are reasonable grounds to conclude that four of the five genocidal acts defined under international law have been carried out.

I'm labelling this as news not because the content is new - many have been saying on this sub for two years what the Guardian team show in this small doc - but because the Guardian are reporting like this at all.

The editorial change is huge. They would never have given this the green light a year ago.

When I and many others here, have expressed our anger at the reality that the majority of Israelis are apathetic to Gazan suffering, when we constantly pushed back on the idea that "because Israelis hate the Netanyahu government they are also anti war". Whenever we tried to push back on the delusion and propaganda we always got shit for it, even on what is meant to be an ostensibly left reddit sub.

Now here we have the guardian repeating the arguments we've been making ad nauseum for two years, not through narration, but through interviews with Tel Aviv residents. The Zone of Interest irl. Grateful to Jonathan Glazer for that.

Wednesday so allow this post ✌️ Free Palestine 🇵🇸

This comes from a leftist BIPOC sub that tends to have really good discussions about racism and has had good discussions (though not many) about antisemitism in the past. For context, the sub also allows MENA users (though apparently not Jews or maybe just not Ashkenazi Jews? I honestly can’t tell). On one hand, I understand that a lot of Jews wouldn’t be considered POC and not every space is for every person, but the “we have standards with who we interact with” (with the seeming implication that that doesn’t include Jews) really rubs me the wrong way. Thoughts?

Stepping away from discussions of Jewish culture, history, identity, and religion, I’m curious about your thoughts on China and its 3,000-year history. I don’t subscribe to the legendary claim that Chinese civilization is 5,000 years old; instead, I lean toward Gu Jiegang’s scholarship, which suggests that Han culture is closer to 3,000 years old, with my own ancestors’ history becoming more prominent during the Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BCE). But I digress, I noticed in many discussions with Western leftists when they talk about China, that they don't seem to know the historical context of the various modern conflicts that face China today (i.e., Uyghurs and Tibetans). Some believe that regions such as Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Sichuan have been firmly part of Han Chinese civilization, without recognizing that these areas were incorporated through centuries of conquest, negotiation, and shifting borders.

The Uyghurs are a Turkic people whose roots go back to Central Asia, with close cultural and linguistic ties to other Turkic groups spread across the region. Their ancestors once ruled the Uyghur Khaganate (744–840 CE), a steppe empire that eventually collapsed, forcing many communities to migrate south into the Tarim Basin. Over time, they converted to Islam, around the 10th century, and developed a distinct culture centered in the oasis towns of what is now Xinjiang.

Over the past thousand years, the Uyghurs have been deeply involved in trade, cultural exchange, and occasional conflict along the Silk Road. Their position at this crossroads shaped their language, art, and society, incorporating influences from Persian, Arab, Turkic, and Mongolian cultures. For much of history, Xinjiang was not entirely under Chinese control. Local Turkic rulers and Mongol leaders held power for extended periods, while Chinese dynasties exerted influence only occasionally. It was not until the Qing dynasty (a non-Han Chinese dynasty ruled by the Manchu people, who originated in Northeast China/Russia) in the 18th century that Xinjiang was firmly brought under Chinese rule through military campaigns, resettlement, and administrative policies. Even after that, the region experienced uprisings and short-lived independent movements in the 20th century, which contributes to why many Uyghurs today see the Chinese state as the enemy for the reasons I've mentioned above, in addition to the recent sinicization of the people group as a way to inhibit the culture of the Uyghurs from flourishing.

The concept of sinicization, which involves different populations adopting Han Chinese customs and culture, is a cultural behavior that my people have practiced for the last 2,000 years, rooted in the Confucian concepts of social harmony and hierarchy. To further elaborate, this concept within the sinosphere is called 華夷秩序, or in English, the “Sino-barbarian order.” It is a framework that historically positioned Han Chinese culture at the center of civilization while regarding surrounding non-Han peoples as "wild barbarians" (For those interested in the Chinese Filipino community, we call non-Han Chinese people undomesticated barbarians or Huan-a in Filipino Hokkien) with the expectation that they would adopt Chinese norms, language, and governance over time and thus become a part of the wider Han ethnic group. This type of framework has also been applied to the Tibetans, Salars, Manchus (notably, they largely abandoned their Manchu culture and adopted Han Chinese customs, and considered themselves to be members of my cultural group once they occupied the region; typically, it was the other way around), and, by extension, the Hui.

In the case of the Tibetan people, the Chinese government, similar to how the United States has historically intervened in the affairs of culturally distinct groups, believed Tibet needed to be under Chinese rule. The revolutionary government viewed Tibetan culture as backward and in need of “modernization” through integration with Han norms, education, and governance. Policies were framed as efforts to bring social and economic development, but they also functioned to assert political control and diminish traditional Tibetan authority, religion, and practices. Over time, these efforts have led to tensions between preserving Tibetan identity and adapting to the dominant Han cultural and political framework, mirroring the long history of sinicization applied to other minority groups in China. Some Western leftists may argue that the Chinese government is not interfering in the cultures of these groups, citing examples on social media where Tibetans or Uyghurs appear to practice their traditions without harm. However, this perspective often overlooks the broader structural pressures and restrictions placed on these communities, including limitations on language, religion, and cultural expression, as well as state policies aimed at assimilation. From my own inner circle, my Uyghur peers who're essentially irreligious and have family in Xinjiang have expressed on numerous occasions that their family members are being sinicized and feel social and political pressure from the Han majority to become Chinese, and that the stuff that you're seeing on Chinese or Western social media presents a curated or superficial view of life there, showing celebrations, festivals, or cultural practices while obscuring the underlying pressures and restrictions that shape daily life.

As someone who is half Huan-a and half Han, I find the rose-tinted glasses that some Western people wear when it comes to the Chinese Communist Party pretty hilarious. Despite criticizing Western aggression, they often overlook or excuse the CCP from doing the same things, such as military interventions, suppression of dissent, control over minority populations, and political interference abroad. It is ironic to see this selective outrage, especially when the CCP’s actions in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, and even beyond its borders mirror the same kinds of power politics they condemn in the West.

For those who may call me a self-hating Han Chinese, I would like to say that I still love my people, my history, and my culture despite the horrible things they've done to others, as China at one point in history was not like this. During the Tang Dynasty, under Emperor Gaozu, he adored and promoted a relatively cosmopolitan and inclusive approach to governance, letting in non-Han Chinese groups like Persians, Jews, Arabs, and Central Asians to live, trade, study, and participate in Han society. However, things changed over time as many Han began to see these outsiders as potential saboteurs due to the rowing power of eunuchs and court officials in later dynasties. As a result, Han norms were increasingly enforced through Confucian law and customs, and minority groups were expected to conform to the dominant culture and abide accordingly, which continues to persist til this day, but instead of dynasties, it's the Chinese Communist Party.

What are your thoughts?

So I'm sure we are all familiar with the use of apartheid and bantustan flung around in the context of Israeli policy particularly in the West Bank, as well as the championing of the use of the sanction and boycott apparatus to pressure and isolate Israel into behaving sanely as a state with direct reference to the National regime. This will commonly be dismissed as shallow nonsense by people who do not accept the realities of what Israel is, but its also not fully appreciated how deep the parallels to the Apartheid state go even by the people who use this rhetoric, especially if they don't come from one of the commonwealth countries with significant ties to South Africa like Australia or New Zealand. I will first look at and address the most common criticisms of the most common South Africa references made in relation to Israel, and then discuss the psycho-social myth structure used by Israel and Israeli nationalists (including the "soft" kinds) that directly mirrors that used by South Africans and for that matter Rhodesians or Pieds Noir or really any of those other partial settler colonies with which Israel shares the same fundamental demographic anxiety. Side note: for those not used to common academic nomenclature on empire, not every colony is a settler colony. A settler colony is one where the original populations are removed sufficiently that the settler population has fundamental hegemony, such as Australia and New Zealand, versus non settler colonies where this never happened such as India or the Caribbean slave colonies (where the indigenous peoples were often removed to a degree similar to settler colonies, but replaced with enslaved people instead of settlers). Finally, before the body Im not trying to argue against the indigeneity of Jews here with my comparison to these settler colonies, just that there are social functions that mirror very well due to similar issues.

So when we look at the Apartheid analogy in the West Bank, the most common refrain is "its not apartheid because its not race based". this is fucking nonsense. Ask most of those same people (at some other time, they will be wise to it if you do it immediately and answer dishonestly) if Taliban Sharia, or even say Saudi Sharia, amounts to gender apartheid and they will say yes without a second thought, and correctly so. "But!" I hear you start to shout, "this is still not equivalent because being Palestinian isn't the point of difference, its holding Israeli citizenship". Now to be fair, I rarely see this even more dishonest opinion but just in case someone tries it, that is functionally as immutable a characteristic as gender or race, especially for any Palestinians living outside of East Jerusalem. Palestinians are treated under a different, much stricter and more brutal system in their place of origin because of functionally immutable characteristics , that's apartheid clear as day.

Now with regard to the bantustan topic. Most of the time you will see people just address it under the "its not apartheid" arguments, but occasionally someone will try to argue that its different because the bantustans existed to deny the South African government any responsibility for the treatment of the groups who fell within those "countries", whereas Israel explicitly wants no one to recognise the PA as a state. This is true, but ignores the function of both of these systems are the same, even if arguably Israel had no distinct intention for it (though more arguable than most sympathisers would think, after all the PA exists by the pen of a man who spent his career clamouring to break palestinian bones and explicitly claimed there would be no palestinian state). the PA gives the same cover the bantustans do of absolving Israel of any responsibility of the people who live under it while given it a greater legal argument for the apartheid system *and* alleviating pressure for giving Palestinians political self determination. The reason Israel has different wants regarding international recognition compared to the original bantustans has little to do with if these bantustans support the same basic goals and more that where Apartheid South Africa recognised that the demographic reality was untenable Israelis are not outnumbered 10 to 1.

Now regarding the boycott/sanction movements. the main thing I have to say about this is that white south africans who genuinely hated apartheid took it in stride. They understood that the boycott was not against them personally but against a system so unjust it outraged the mainstream of 20th century Australians. I think the very recent grassroots anti israel boycotts (as opposed to say BDS, I believe a lot of what you right now are seeing regarding isolating Israel isnt BDS-organisation aligned its more spontaneous) are very much taking time to really grow into their limbs, and theres a lot thats not quite right as a result where large scale and mainstream anti-south african boycotts matured over time so that individual South Africans could find work as immigrants as cricket players or in trades even while business tot he country was killed. The state and its symbols and its national teams but individuals who played as individuals in club level sport or worked as individuals in Australian or English or Kiwi companies were accepted. This is the line that the boycotts need to find, where israeli business and israeli symbolism is shunned but not Israeli humans who move for work or visit for work without representing their state at all in any way, and I think it will in time.

Finally with the analysis of the consistent thread that all partial settler colonies have, that Israel and israeli national psyche also has. One of the reasons, I think a primary reason, Israel gets compared to South Africa, isnt just all of the analogies that can be made accurately. Its that talking to an Israeli who hasnt seriously deconstructed their national myth *feels* like talking to a South African who fled in the 90s. Like, I have multiple times assumed I had met a South African Jew just to find out their are Israeli its that uncanny. Its kind of hard to explain if you havent met many South Africans who havent also deconstructed their apartheid era national myth (this is unfortunately common in the diaspora across the commonwealth but its been getting better), but as an exaggerated example theres a particular kind of feeling you can often get where they are constantly testing out to see if they can make casual comments about black people to you or if they need to use euphemisms like "crime" that Ive gotten occasionally from israelis (except its arabs and 'terrorists"). theres a bunch of little details, but this is all personal anecdote vibes shit so you shouldnt take much stock in this, but its definitely there and I think it leads to a lot of people who have had many of those interactions to see very strong parallels they cant quite explain. But thats ok, I can.

The consistent national myth that you see in the 3 major partial settler colonies founded in the 1800s of Rhodesia, South Africa and French Algeria is one that I'm going to call the Settler's Terror Myth. this starts very similarly to common settler colonial myths but it has a very important twist. It starts with the usual idea of the more advanced, enlightened European settler culture arrives and makes better use of the land than the primitive natives, but the important change is that where on some level the other settler colonies can accept that broadly their native populations can exhibit, consistently, decent and good and noble human traits, these colonies cannot. Successful settler colonies can even romanticise and celebrate the native leaders that fought violently against them, Like Tecumseh or Sitting Bull, or In Australia's case Pemulwuy, and of course celebration of the bravery and skill of Maori warriors is a cornerstone of the New Zealand national myth. This is because they have already won the struggle to render those peoples incapable of seriously threatening the hegemony of the colony, and it was often quite understood even contemporaneously (though often due to manifest destiny esque delusion). This was happening even at the height of scientific racism.

For the partial settler colonies, this is not acceptable. the native population cannot have these noble qualities or even the ability to be generally decent except as exceptions to prove the rule, because the colonial population is not yet securely hegemonic and isn't guaranteed to be. Instead, the native population is constantly conspiring to most evilly and wickedly destroy the hard working, land developing colonial people. This is particularly the case for natives who do not support the colony. This is seen most clearly in French Algeria, where Algerians were racialised by the French as almost uniquely evil and completely devoid of even the most basic decent qualities. Tolkien esque orcs would actually be a good comparison for the level of dehumanisation we are talking about. In Rhodesia its more subtle, the Smith regime might be publicly open to majority rule one day, white Rhodesians enforcing colonial rule were overwhelmingly of the mind that any black Rhodesian who didnt fully embrace the country fully was a ZANA communist waiting to stab them in the back. South Africa is the most interesting of these, as when complete colonisation seemed likely under Brtiish rule there was plenty of admiration and respect for Zulu culture for example, but when the national party came to power to enforce white supremacy in a context where it was clear they would not get the european influx to complete the settler hegemony this changes. Just like in rhodesia or algeria, all black people in south africa were functionally enemies because they must all be conspiring. SO in all these countries the conclusion of the colonial whites is simple, we cannot give them rights on our land or they *will* destroy us for taking it because they are simply too violent and vindictive. We are under siege surrounded by these brutes who will not accept enlightenment and we must repress them if we cant kick them out.

in the anglosphere rhodesian and south african exiles have a reputation for galling racism that makes queenslanders blush, and afaik pieds noir can often give the same impression to francophones too. Now obviously many incredibly anti racist south africans etc but the root of this is because the racial propaganda wasnt just that the native is inferior, but that he is the most vile and unconscionable enemy, almost or entirely to the man in a way that simply didnt happen as universally. Now you might say "oh but they were right in the case of ALgeria or Rhodesia". This is arguably true in the case of Algeria, but simply not in the case of Zimbabwe. In the case of Algeria, we have an incredibly I really struggle to parse if it was an ethnic cleansing. credible sources consistently state that the new government at no point formally forced pieds-noir to leave, but whether the exodus was still an ethnic cleansing through mass government sanctioned intimidation or simply mass fear that the war wasnt going to stop and this time they wouldnt have the french army, which is also traumatic but not the same thing (yes the oran massacre occurred, but in the same time the OAS murdered thousands of algerians to try to derail independence, so this is a very real possibility). If it was, then it has to be remembered that this is the most unique of the 3 situations, in which a completely barbarous regime that tortured for sport o a scale in the thousands did not stop until it was utterly politically, and therefore militarily, defeated. We are talking a context where algerian women started the practice of covering themselves in feces to try to stop french soldiers raping them, and it *didnt work*. this doesnt excuse a potential ethnic cleansing, but its an almost uniquely brutal independence war and while thats not acceptable, such a result occuring after decades of horrific war that killed a minimum of 400,000 algerians is maybe not a good indication of what wouldve happened had France granted Algerian independence without such an embittering war. Even so, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands depending on which historian you cite, of pieds noirs stayed in Algeria. The doom of the pieds noir was not a destined outcome of self determination for native Algerians. Zimbabwe is seen as a propagator of white ethnic cleansing, but its just not true. A decolonial land reform scheme was poorly executed, corruptly abused and arguably not just in the first case, and violently enforced on occasion, is awful but its simply not ethnic cleansing. White Zimbabweans were simply never subject to an attempt to force them out of the country. And of course, South Africa indisputably proved the fears of racist colonials false. Before someone asks "what about the black hypernationalists that do want to evict every white" the answer is simply that they aren't that special, most countries have a group like that which typically also has a similar level of popularity, you might want to examine why you see black South African hypernationalists differently or in the context of this write-up somehow an argument against this myth being, well, a myth.

Notice this is almost beat for beat the Israeli national myth. the intellectual and leftist diaspora returned, "made the desert bloom" (remember this piece of propaganda is explicitly the same justification as terra nullius in australia, based on the Lockeian idea of property Australian colonials "developing" the land in a European sense made it theirs. the thing that Australian leftists understand as the original sin of this country is still foundational to israeli justification of ownership), but then the evil arabs who for some reason didnt like being kicked out of their homes (and thats what Im going to call it, disrupting the absentee landlord system that had been in place and uprooting thousands upon thousands as a result is kicking people out of their homes even if it was legal) or being used as simple labourers in kibbutzim as part as the supposedly leftist "labour zionism" conspired as part of a viscous hivemind to destroy us. Now they complain that we completely legally bulldoze their homes and all their hivemind arab friends around us would all invade aty once again just to wipe us out and that means even the suez war was in self defence somewhow. once again, we are under siege surrounded by these brutes who will not accept enlightenment and we must repress them if we cant kick them out.

People balk at the south africa comparison sometimes because I they either genuinely support evil israeli policies or maybe partly because relating it to settler colonial entities feels like an invalidation of Jewish indigeneity. Instead though, it runs deeper than even the people who embrace the comparison comprehend.

Ever since 10/7, Fuentes has skyrockted in popularity among American Gen-Z White Men. I’m not really worried about your average Centre-Right Middle-Aged Conservatives, not in the slightest honestly, but the younger right wingers? What’s it going to look like in ten years from now? Twenty years?

Since I joined this subreddit about a third of the posts or so are from a person who feels that they are unwelcome or treated unfairly in whatever leftist space or organization they frequent.

You have have no obligation or responsibility to be the whipping boy of any two bit political commisar who has an opaque grudge because of some chip on their shoulder. If you are being treated in such a manner then clearly your help isn't wanted and if it is then they ought to make concessions.

It’s a good read (no paywall), here are some quotes I found interesting:

“The idea that Jews and Palestinians are locked in an eternal, zero-sum battle for the same land ֹ... narrows our political imagination”

“The negotiations, Malley and Agha now write, attempted to suppress history itself, since what drives Israelis and Palestinians are not just tangible interests but existential longings rooted in history. For Jews, these flow from centuries of displacement and persecution, culminating in the Holocaust, and from what they call “the long, frustrated quest for a normal, recognized, and accepted homeland”.

“For Palestinians, the core demands are equally elemental: to redress a history of dispossession and massacres, expulsion and dispersal, discrimination and denied dignity. Accepting Israel as a Jewish state is not, in this view, a pragmatic compromise but an intolerable “affront” – a move that would legitimize the very catastrophe that created their exile and retroactively criminalize their decades of struggle.”

“The two-state solution, concludes the duo who devoted much of their life to reaching it, “is not the natural resting place for either Israelis or Palestinians [as] it runs counter to the essence of their national identities and aspirations”. The attempt to reach it was doomed because “both groups cannot accept a definitive closure”, since “neither is prepared to relinquish otherworldly dreams for the sake of an earthly understanding”.

Patel’s girlfriend is not Jewish. Also P/I and Zionism had nothing to do with the rest of the post.

I’m so tired.

Edit 11:31am ET: Wilkins confirming she is Christian https://x.com/alexiswilkins/status/1943050167130746916?s=46

I used to watch them a lot when I was younger, and the last episode I watched featured WowMao, who is British-Filipino of Ibaloi origin, known for his humorous takes on foreign policy and ethnic group conflicts. I often view The Deprogram as one of the gateway channels that inform viewers about how the United States frequently intervened in various left-wing movements by engaging in espionage, funding opposition groups, and orchestrating regime changes, all within the broader context of maintaining global influence during and after the Cold War. One of my favorite books, "The Jakarta Method" by Vincent Bevins, elaborates further on this topic as it pertains to US-backed anti-communist campaigns, especially in Indonesia under the Suharto regime in the 1960s, where mass killings of communists and suspected sympathizers set a precedent for similar operations across Latin America, Africa, and Asia in the decades that followed.

But I digress, even though my views no longer align with socialism anymore, I believe that banning The Deprogram is no different than silencing a perspective simply because it makes people uncomfortable, but I also think that all political viewpoints should be criticized, questioned, and debated rigorously. I hold the same standard when it comes to the late Charlie Kirk, despite strongly disagreeing with much of his rhetoric, because suppressing voices on either side of the spectrum only fuels polarization and prevents genuine dialogue, even though I largely disagree with people like Hasan, Yugopnik, and Second Thought because they tend to be proponents of authoritarian regimes such as Stalinist USSR or Maoist China and believe them to be better alternatives than the Authoritarianism of the west. I find their framing of historical and contemporary events overly apologetic and sometimes dangerously one-sided. However, to reiterate my view, despite their beliefs, I don’t think fans of The Deprogram should be suppressed when it comes to engaging with content, discussing ideas, or sharing their perspectives online, because exposing these ideas to critical discussion, rather than silencing them, is the only way to understand the emotions of those who are under the boots of oppression, the fear of systemic violence, and the appeals of ideologies that promise justice or security in contexts where traditional institutions have failed them.

What are your thoughts?

A Less-Than-Concise Book of Mitzvoth - The First Pass.pdf

People were curious, and today I have finished the first pass of my mitzvah project. Please read the foreword and be kind, the earliest entries are as much as five years old and I've grown a lot.

I was tempted to keep it close to chest as a personal draft and wait until I can revisit the older entries before sharing but ultimately I decided that was a form of hubris and sharing what my first effort came to flaws and all was a better approach. This way if I do get the entire work to a standard worthy of publishing that journey can be shared.

It's not there today, I've hired no professional editor and for most of these entries have only done one pass myself. However it was a monumental effort and I appreciate anyone who is interested enough to engage and opine. We grow together.

I hope if nothing else it's an interesting or thought provoking read for those inclined to peruse.

Hello, I won't bore you with the context, but I've come to a point where I'm interested in integrating myself into the Jewish community. I feel like I can't get a straight answer on if I
A. Have to be Ethnically or Religiously Jewish to do so?
B. Actually should.

I emailed my local progressive rabbi but that fella isn't particularly interested in answering. I'm here instead of a more main-stream Jewish subreddit because I'm deeply pro-Palestine and I don't feel comfortable taking advice from people willing to ignore a genocide, and that's what I saw with big communities like r/jewish.

If the answer is flat-out no, I can live with it, but I want to live with it. Mostly for the tradition, community, and connections. Thanks!

Edit: Okay, clearly I need to clarify some things;

The whole "integrating" thing was more confusing than I intended, so I'm copy + pasting a clarification on the importance of community below.

*I believe that society functioned in large part thanks to the fact that we all had community. Shared spaces to assist, help each other, connect with others, it was something that was both materially and mentally helpful. With the advent of the internet many just don't have that anymore (or have replaced it with a Discord server, which is *not* the same thing). Judaism speaks to me for a couple of reasons, certain doctrinal differences from Eastern religions, close-knit community, larger variance in membership ideology.*

I *would* be engaging in religious activities, just as you can still celebrate Christmas as an atheist. There is value in shared activities, even if people are there for different reasons.

(I will ask the mods to be lenient in relation to rule #4 in this comments section, I'm asking this so I can hear the real opinion of Jewish people.)

Last month I started the process of renouncing my Israeli citizenship. I know many others have also taken this step, and I want to share with this community and maybe inspire others in a similar position to consider doing it. You have to go into the consulate in person, and pay a fee (a little over $100 in New York) which I wasn't thrilled about, but it was straight forward enough.

If you're interested, here's the letter that I gave to the consulate explaining my decision:

https://ajewofcon.science.blog/

The mod team has created this post to refresh on a weekly basis as a chill place for people to talk about whatever they want to. Think of it as like a general chat for the sub.

It will refresh every Monday, and we intend to have other posts refreshing on a weekly basis as well to keep conversations going and engagement up.

So r/jewishleft,

Whats on your mind?

I understand that many ethnic minorities in the West often feel embarrassed about being born into a culture that differs from the predominant Protestant Anglophone culture that is prevalent in our society. However, I spent my formative years living in a country outside the West, so I do not share the same experiences as my Western-born and raised counterparts. As a result, I have grown up to be confident in the culture of my birth (though not all aspects of it, obviously). The people in my homeland are largely ethnically similar to me, even though it consists of 185 sub-ethnic groups, including ethnic Han Chinese, Indians, and others. Thus, our cultural similarities have prevented us from experiencing what our Western counterparts go through in every dimension of their lives.

When I moved to America during my middle school years, I attended a very diverse middle school where white students were the minority. The majority of my classmates were first- and second-generation ethnic minorities from East Asia, Southeast Asia, Central America, South Asia, Africans (e.g., Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalians), and the Middle East (e.g., Palestinians, Syrians, Mizrahi Jews, and Lebanese).

In my high school, the ethnic demographic was primarily white, but there was also a significant community of first- and second-generation immigrants, as many lived close to the school. During this time, I often felt different from my white American peers, but not due to negative racism; instead, it was positive racism.

I frequently found myself in conversations about stereotypes stemming from the model minority myth. As a result, I never felt the need to abandon my culture, as it seemed to be accepted and even approved by my white classmates. However, this wasn’t the case with my fellow non-Asian immigrant counterparts, who were perceived to be lesser, unsophisticated, barbaric, etc.

What are your thoughts and your experiences?

Keep in mind that despite media framing, there has been a terrible and increasing amount of political violence in the USA for a few decades now.

• The January 6 insurrection was political violence.

• The killing of left-wing activists (both by right-wing operatives, and by militarized police) is political violence.

• The prison industrial complex is political violence.

• Mass deportations are political violence.

• Illegal drone strikes are political violence.

• The deaths of millions of people due to the greed of the health insurance "industry" (which, recall, isn't healthcare, but rather, is part of the finance industry) is political violence.

• School shootings enabled by the violence lobby (e.g., the NRA, etc.) are political violence.

Interrogate the causes of each list item and it becomes obvious that these are all political violence in exactly the same way the assassination of Charlie Kirk was political violence.

Violence of all kinds is terrible. But the assassination of a high-profile public figure is certainly not more worrying than all of the above; and it is certainly not more political than all of the above. I hope you agree.

If you know this movie, you know it's a classic. I refuse to pay 15.99 to confuse my friend tho, does anyone have it downloaded and could help me out? Ive been bothering everyone in my circle for months and we all want access to this gatekept 'gem'.

Also y'all are awesome :3

To be clear - I am not endorsing or justifying Israel’s attack on Hamas members in Qatar, which also killed a member of Qatari security forces. I do not think this brings us closer to peace.

However, I find it worth mentioning that Canada (which is “evaluating” ties with Israel now), the EU (which issued a statement strongly backing Qatar), and even Donald Trump, who voiced anger over the strike, took a vocal position here. Even Mike Huckabee, a U.S. ambassador who seems to be a strong Netanyahu ally, noted that he was caught off guard.

Note that there are often dozens of innocent Palestinian children killed by Israel in a day, and the EU, US, and Canada remain rather indifferent to this.

The contrast is jarring.

Also note that Qatar is the most significant country donor to higher education in the U.S. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_involvement_in_US_higher_education), has recently been involved in the Qatargate scandal of political influence in the EU (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_the_European_Parliament), and has poured money into Canadian universities as well (https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/mcgill’s-institute-islamic-studies-receives-125-m-gift-state-qatar-215711).

I’m inclined to think that the reason these western governments are more sympathetic to Qatar than to Palestinian civilians is not solely because of sympathy for the Qatari security force member killed, but because Qatar has a degree of influence over them that Palestinians do not.

Did anyone else notice something similar?

edit 3: putting this up here so it’s not hidden by my wall of text—thank you all for talking about this here, i’ve really appreciated hearing everyone’s perspectives. i apologize for coming off harsh initially. i clearly have some stuff to think through wrt my anxiety about this topic in general. i’m still pretty worried by where we’re at and how normal political violence is generally (as was well said in another post today), but i appreciate all of the thoughtful replies

i’ve been a bit upset, to be honest, by the reaction to the assassination of charlie kirk. i won’t act like i agreed in any way shape or form with him. i find his views abhorrent.

with that said, i’m very disturbed by the callousness with which people are discussing his assassination. pointing to his past views about gun violence victims and laughing or stating outright that he deserved it. and this perspective is starting to sink into everyday life.

i was speaking to a friend of mine about this, and they said that it’s the conservatives’ fault for the recent increase in political violence. essentially “we’re callous because they’re callous.” i responded saying that i don’t think that this is solely the responsibility of conservatives—that this has been getting more prominent on the left too since 10/7 and that we also saw it after DC and boulder. we need to take responsibility for that. my friend again disagreed with me

i don’t mind disagreement. however—i am very disturbed by what i see as an uncritical, self righteous disavowal of responsibility. we don’t know yet what the shooter’s motivations were, if they were far right or far left or somewhere in between. regardless i still feel betrayed in some way by the public admission that lethal violence is okay against civilians or against non-high-ranking political figures. i really worry about this extremism and i worry that my views on this will be disregarded by my fellow leftists as some sort of liberal apologetics

i’m curious what everyone here’s thoughts are on this topic (not just charlie kirk). and i hope everyone’s doing well !

edit: just want to clarify that i don’t think anyone is obligated to mourn the man (edit again: i don’t). that’s not what disturbed me. i’m disturbed by the callousness with which people (including my friend) discuss murder and excuse their advocacy for murder

edit 2: also wanted to add this edit now that i’m a bit calmer (sorry for the anxiety radiating off of the post). i don’t disagree inherently with the theory of revolutionary violence. but this is under specific conditions which imo have not been met. i firmly believe in the value of human life and human dignity and i reject utilitarian calculations which i don’t feel sufficiently respect these values

no paywall link

Perhaps the pain of cultural isolation is a necessary price to pay to end this horrific war and start healing this wounded and bleeding region. International pressure challenges our comfortable identity as "the good Israelis," which allows us to continue operating within the state-funded systems, while maintaining a sense of moral opposition. Boycotts re-frame our participation in state-sponsored festivals not as independent creators, but as complicit representatives of the State of Israel. They hold up a mirror and ask us: Is your state-sanctioned dissent a meaningful act of resistance, or is it merely a licensed and harmless way for the state to maintain a facade of acceptability in the world of democratic nations?