WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

Who's "indigenous" to that property, and whose rights should we be affirming?

Presently, there are 7 million Arabs and 7 million Israelis on that land. “And no one is going anywhere” as an Israeli woman recently said.

You can get sidetracked with terminology if it suits your interpretive project, but the real facts of the matter are right there.

[Immanuel Can]

Will you deal head-on, can you deal head-on...

Well, let's start with "indigenaity," since that's the issue you raised. Let's see you "deal head on" with that. Who qualifies as "indigenous," and how does it inform any decision about rights?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here, you latch onto a term because it allows you to keep from dealing with 1) Iwannaplato’s truth-laden picture and 2) my admonition that you are going to have to deal inside yourself with the actual reality on the ground there.

Again: cede no ground, IC. If you do you’ll find yourself in the thick of it.

[Immanuel Can]

Here, you latch onto a term...

It's your term. You "latched onto" it. And it's you who hung your argument on it. I'm just asking you what you thought you were doing, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

So...answer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There are perhaps others here who desire to play with you within your ridiculously concocted games, but as I have said I am not interested.

What interests me is seeing and talking about the games.

[Immanuel Can]

There are perhaps others here who desire to play with you within your ridiculously concocted games...

You "concocted" the "indigenous" game. But it seems you can't play it.

[Gary Childress]

Who has right to it? The Hurons, who are all dead? The Iroquois, who killed them? The French and English who displaced them? And what happens to the new immigrants from places like China and India, who now claim to own some of the same properties? Who's "indigenous" to that property, and whose rights should we be affirming?

In my opinion, those of everyone who is alive and currently living on the territory should have their rights affirmed. And by extension, EVERYONE who is alive and living in the world should have their rights affirmed where they live. And "everyone" includes those who presently might be in a situation where they are being treated unfairly by others. And unfairness can happen to someone regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity.

Of course, it's easy to say that and much more difficult to make fine grained discernments concerning what is fair treatment and what isn't. And there is also the question of what rights do we all have.

But I can see why people are concerned about the situation in Gaza for the Palestinians. And I can see why some think that Israel is justified in its current actions. It's a difficult situation and there don't seem to be easy answers or easy villains to single out to the point where we can simply award one side or the other unlimited justification to do whatever they want in retaliation. It would be nice if the situation could be sorted out fairly by an international committee or something along those lines. And the focus should be on sorting things out so that a ceasefire can be created and maintained and then from there, work on ways to allow both sides to live in peace and live decent lives.

But maybe that's just my opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

Who has right to it? The Hurons, who are all dead? The Iroquois, who killed them? The French and English who displaced them? And what happens to the new immigrants from places like China and India, who now claim to own some of the same properties? Who's "indigenous" to that property, and whose rights should we be affirming?

In my opinion, those of everyone who is alive and currently living on the territory should have their rights affirmed.

In that case, you would mean the Chinese and Indian immigrants, and the remaining English and French, perhaps...but not those who have been expelled from that territory. There would be some dispute about that, for sure.

[Gary Childress]

Who has right to it? The Hurons, who are all dead? The Iroquois, who killed them? The French and English who displaced them? And what happens to the new immigrants from places like China and India, who now claim to own some of the same properties? Who's "indigenous" to that property, and whose rights should we be affirming?

In my opinion, those of everyone who is alive and currently living on the territory should have their rights affirmed.

In that case, you would mean the Chinese and Indian immigrants, and the remaining English and French, perhaps...but not those who have been expelled from that territory. There would be some dispute about that, for sure.

Probably.

[Alexis Jacobi]

All of this pseudo-conversation seems to me to be grounded in bullshit.

There is an expression that is used these days: "Saying the quiet part out loud". Generally they mean that someone, despite themselves, reveales a truth that was supposed to remain concealed. Ooops. Someone says the quiet part out loud ....

The Al-Aqsa Flood attack -- the name the attackers gave it -- is best understood when the group of facts that Iwannaplato listed, in combination with knowledge of the planning by ultra-nationalist religious Israeli zealots who -- seriously -- are planning to rebuild the temple and see Al-Aqsa and the Arab population of Israel as an obstacle to the realization of these plans.

These zealous Israelis have determined, against any contrary opinion or strategy, that Israel is theirs -- bequeather by God for all eternity. Look up any of the settler videos on YouTube. This intentionality is clear as day. It is impossible to separate Jewish history from Judea. It is similarly impossible to contruct an argument that after a thousand years+ exile that they have a right to take it back.

This is really quite simple in essence.

One must pay attention to the level of madness expressed by Christian zealots as here. If one desires however one can choose not to know anything about nor to understand what the prolonged low-intensity attacks on the sanctity of the Dome of the Rock by Israelis means to the Arab population. You could though, if you were so inclined, make an effort to examine what really goes on and, then, make an effort to understand how these sorts of actions provoke hatred and a murderous will.

On another level, it was well understood long ago that the realization of the Israeli state by Zionists would create endless problems not only for the Jewish Zionists, but certainly in the region. And this is what has resulted. The machinations by Israelis and by Jewish activists in the diaspora for Israel's interests is documented in detail. Their machinations are an assault directly on America's sovereignty. It is literally outrageous, but blatantly conducted, the power of the Israel lobby over the policy decisions of the US. And it is generally accepted that Israel and American Jews have a great deal of power when it comes to the last 40 year+ of US policy in the region.

This is not really *the quiet part spoken out loud*. It is well known by all parties. It is simply a fact.

So what I say -- and this is in a way the quiet part stated out loud -- Israel and Zionism have been completely destructive to all parties and to the region. Everything that has flowed out of the establishment of the state of Israel has resulted in bad outcomes. And as it now is becoming plain *the chickens have come home to roost*.

The nut-job Christian Evangelicals are actually willing to push things to a point of *final confrontation* and it is this type of insane blindness that, in my view, and when understood, operates in Immanuel Can right at the core. That is *the quiet part said out loud*. I wish Immanuel could rise to the occasion and admit to it.

How do you argue against that? You cannot. You can only hope that this view, this structure of view, can evolve beyond itself.

[Consul]

I read what Immanuel writes and I feel I run into a wall which is unsurmountable.
The term *woke* is simply too broad, too extraordinarily binary, such that it is useless in bringing clarity to the Israel issue.

If we agree that there really is such a distinctive political phenomenon as "the Woke Left", we must try to identify both its historical scope and its ideological content as precisely as possible.
The adjective "woke" wasn't used in its current political sense before the 2010s, but this doesn't mean that it is improper in principle to speak anachronistically of a pre-2010 Woke Left. However, what surely doesn't make any proper sense is to equate the Woke Left's birth with the birth of Marx (in 1818). For there is a distinction between the prehistory of something and (the beginning of) its history.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“Woke” is a vague term, too vague to be of much use. It is a fighting word.

[Immanuel Can]

“Woke” is a vague term, too vague to be of much use. It is a fighting word.

It's the chosen honourific of the movement. They're proud of it, as the OP suggests.

So the "fight" is being picked by the Woke, not by their doubters.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In any case however we must separate American progressive lefty •wokeness• from the discussion of Israel.

However, I am not myself closed to examining the recent activism by the hordes on the US campuses through a critical lens.

Nor am I opposed to examining the ever-present issue which revolves around and encircles the recent rise in perspectives that are anti-Jewish and anti-Israel (generalized as antisemitism).

These issues are all knotted together in such compactness that their separation is extraordinarily difficult.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“Woke” is a vague term, too vague to be of much use. It is a fighting word.

It's the chosen honourific of the movement. They're proud of it, as the OP suggests.

So the "fight" is being picked by the Woke, not by their doubters.

You cannot be relied on to offer any reasonable perspective in this conversation.

You are a walking talking contamination.

And you must become the subject of examination.