A refreshing and rare post, where (if I read this correctly) a progressive liberal admits the derangement and hypocrisy often found in their obligatory doctrines.
Sanctuary city mayors and blue state governors come to mind, who were admonishing the rest of the country over the crime of an oppressive, bigoted border (by it's very existence), who now whine and lament as those coveted and oppressed masses, literally are arriving at their doors and decimating their local economies.
There are many salient points in your post, but the most relevant is the penchant for peace loving, kumbaya progressives/liberals to eagerly jump to support those groups/individuals who use violence not reason/compromise/negotiation, as a tool to get what they want (BLM, Antifa, hamas) - all the while demanding that the opposing side not fight back and submit to the violent 'negotiators". If they don't prostrate themselves before these murdering peace seekers quickly enough, they're labeled nazis, bigots, racists, murderers and phoebes. The cognitive dissonance these progressive liberals shoulder proudly would be comical, if it weren't so incredulously ignorant and hypocritical.
I can't help but think that these supporters of "negotiating" terrorists will personally have the chance to show the world how peace can be achieved, as they're given the chance to surrender all, in the name of a one state solution - in their cities, towns and neighborhoods. There are now hundreds, if not thousands of these freedom fighting martyrs in the country and will be coming to liberal utopias soon.
I'm sure you understand this well, but many do not. The conflicts in the middle east, as well as all others, are money makers - and fomented by those who profit by them. This really should be no surprise to the once "anti-war" libs, but it seems to escape them today.
If there were peace in the desert many would stand to lose money and power. Those who stand to lose those things (Western regimes, NGOs, MIIC, liberal/leftists radicals and activists and of course those in the region) will continually sabotage any effort, via their bottomless pools of useful idiots, who will happily march in Western streets, in support of the violent peace seekers.
Lastly to answer your byline question - "Why War? - I offer the following article, that while focusing on medieval islamic Spain, accurately explains the concept of the islamic term and implementation of "dhimmi". "Peace" through subjugation and extortion is not peace.
For those who take the time to read the article (and book it's born from) and understand the religious doctrinal stance of the muslim conquerors and still think "that was then, it has no relevance on the enlightened version of today's islam", ask yourself "are the extremist vest bombers and rapists of modern day Gaza any less oppressive, than the extortionists of medieval Spain?
This is a long excerpt, but useful in understand just how ignorant progressive liberals are, in many of their myopic virtue signaling stands, but especially this one. Jews and Christians were made dhimmi in those times and before, if they wanted to live in the area conquered. The other option was flee or be killed for not accepting subjugation. Why would Gaza be any different??
"Those Islamic injunctions, and the assumption of Islamic superiority from which they followed, are the crucial matters to understand when considering the condition of Christians in Islamic Spain."...
..."Under the Islamic institution of the dhimma (writ or contract of “protection”), the Christian dhimmis of al-Andalus must pay a special tax, the jizya, for a “protection” intended, as Maliki legal texts make clear, to remind them of their submission. Malik’s Muwatta declares, “Zakat is imposed on the Muslims to purify them and to be given back to their poor, whereas jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them.”10 Therefore the jizya ought to be paid in a humiliating manner:
The dhimmi, standing, would present the money to the Muslim collector who would be sitting higher up on a sort of throne; this Muslim bureaucrat would hold the dhimmi by the throat telling him “Oh dhimmi, enemy of Allah, pay the jizya that you owe us for the protection and tolerance we grant you”; the other Muslims present would imitate the collector, pushing around the dhimmi and whoever other dhimmis accompanied him. To this amusing spectacle should be admitted any Muslim who wanted to enjoy it.11"
Is that a photo of when Arafat refused Israel’s offer to totally turn Gaza over to the PLO? It looks like the time he would not accept “yes” for an answer.
The I/P conflict is what led me to reject the progressive ideology.
It shows that the oppressor-oppressed dynamic is BS
Even a cursory understanding of the conflict makes it clear that Palestinian rejection of Israel and any Jewish presence is the root problem.
A refreshing and rare post, where (if I read this correctly) a progressive liberal admits the derangement and hypocrisy often found in their obligatory doctrines.
Sanctuary city mayors and blue state governors come to mind, who were admonishing the rest of the country over the crime of an oppressive, bigoted border (by it's very existence), who now whine and lament as those coveted and oppressed masses, literally are arriving at their doors and decimating their local economies.
There are many salient points in your post, but the most relevant is the penchant for peace loving, kumbaya progressives/liberals to eagerly jump to support those groups/individuals who use violence not reason/compromise/negotiation, as a tool to get what they want (BLM, Antifa, hamas) - all the while demanding that the opposing side not fight back and submit to the violent 'negotiators". If they don't prostrate themselves before these murdering peace seekers quickly enough, they're labeled nazis, bigots, racists, murderers and phoebes. The cognitive dissonance these progressive liberals shoulder proudly would be comical, if it weren't so incredulously ignorant and hypocritical.
I can't help but think that these supporters of "negotiating" terrorists will personally have the chance to show the world how peace can be achieved, as they're given the chance to surrender all, in the name of a one state solution - in their cities, towns and neighborhoods. There are now hundreds, if not thousands of these freedom fighting martyrs in the country and will be coming to liberal utopias soon.
I'm sure you understand this well, but many do not. The conflicts in the middle east, as well as all others, are money makers - and fomented by those who profit by them. This really should be no surprise to the once "anti-war" libs, but it seems to escape them today.
If there were peace in the desert many would stand to lose money and power. Those who stand to lose those things (Western regimes, NGOs, MIIC, liberal/leftists radicals and activists and of course those in the region) will continually sabotage any effort, via their bottomless pools of useful idiots, who will happily march in Western streets, in support of the violent peace seekers.
Lastly to answer your byline question - "Why War? - I offer the following article, that while focusing on medieval islamic Spain, accurately explains the concept of the islamic term and implementation of "dhimmi". "Peace" through subjugation and extortion is not peace.
https://wng.org/sift/life-as-a-dhimmi-in-medieval-islamic-spain-1617251525
For those who take the time to read the article (and book it's born from) and understand the religious doctrinal stance of the muslim conquerors and still think "that was then, it has no relevance on the enlightened version of today's islam", ask yourself "are the extremist vest bombers and rapists of modern day Gaza any less oppressive, than the extortionists of medieval Spain?
This is a long excerpt, but useful in understand just how ignorant progressive liberals are, in many of their myopic virtue signaling stands, but especially this one. Jews and Christians were made dhimmi in those times and before, if they wanted to live in the area conquered. The other option was flee or be killed for not accepting subjugation. Why would Gaza be any different??
"Those Islamic injunctions, and the assumption of Islamic superiority from which they followed, are the crucial matters to understand when considering the condition of Christians in Islamic Spain."...
..."Under the Islamic institution of the dhimma (writ or contract of “protection”), the Christian dhimmis of al-Andalus must pay a special tax, the jizya, for a “protection” intended, as Maliki legal texts make clear, to remind them of their submission. Malik’s Muwatta declares, “Zakat is imposed on the Muslims to purify them and to be given back to their poor, whereas jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them.”10 Therefore the jizya ought to be paid in a humiliating manner:
The dhimmi, standing, would present the money to the Muslim collector who would be sitting higher up on a sort of throne; this Muslim bureaucrat would hold the dhimmi by the throat telling him “Oh dhimmi, enemy of Allah, pay the jizya that you owe us for the protection and tolerance we grant you”; the other Muslims present would imitate the collector, pushing around the dhimmi and whoever other dhimmis accompanied him. To this amusing spectacle should be admitted any Muslim who wanted to enjoy it.11"
Bravo
Is that a photo of when Arafat refused Israel’s offer to totally turn Gaza over to the PLO? It looks like the time he would not accept “yes” for an answer.