“In June 2020, the University of Ottawa featured Ge in an article that celebrated him for turning "passion into action for health and social equity."
Maybe he was appointed for his action for health and social equality.
I have very strong opinions on this conflict since I live it, and yet you wouldn’t see me going on LinkedIn like the multitudes of foreigners and announce them for all to see. You’re not going to change the situation on the ground through social networks anyway. Possibly only incite more antisemitism and islamophobia
Yea, I don't see anyone mentioning the ethnic cleansing in Yemen, Myanmar and Haiti, but people are risking their professional lives to proclaim their "side" in this conflict/war.
Personally I think it's just a low key way to show their antisemitism/Islamophobia given how people with no connection to the region can have such strong in-your-face opinions about it. Being against civilians dying is one thing, but some people on Reddit I've had arguments with have flat out said that the people murdered and raped on October 7 deserved it as payback for the Israeli government intruding on Palestinian territory.
Thanks. The blind support for Palestine is crazy. Most of these people don’t even know much about Palestine till recently. Or are taking sides because of religion.
I got a barrage of retorts because I said neither a Palestinian child nor Israeli child deserves to die.
Imagine being so blinded to hate that they would wish death upon a child if this child was unfortunately on the wrong “team”.
Politics and war isn’t a sport. You want it to end so there’s peace. Yet Reddit is blind to this and so many are swept up and influenced by propaganda.
It's the cause du'jour. They'll fund something to be outraged about again in 6 months. Nothing will be done, and the atrocities will continue. It's just the way of things.
Exactly this. Theres a lot of people who jump from current thing to current thing. They went from BLM, To Ukraine and now Palestine. They got celebrated the first two times, why would this be any different?
I do think there are nuances as to why people do not feel as involved in most of those - they tend to be civil/domestic wars, and are not attached to a major ally of the US. Also, there is an inevitable whites oppressors vs POC victim mindset/bias at play here as well. Of course there is plenty of antisemitism in the current debate circling Israel, but it isn’t the only variable that explains some of the reactions (or lack thereof).
I’m Ashkenazi but I have secondhand rage for the erasure of the Mizrahis. People (in the US or Canada for example) see Jews looking like Seth Rogen or Woody Allen and it paints a picture for them that since American/Canadian Jews look like that, it must mean all the world’s Jews look like that. But instead of having the intellectual curiosity to find out more about us, they assume and speak over us.
Ashkenazi also have genetic roots in the middle east and it's a debated topic whether or not they're "white". There are some very cool research papers on it.
23andme has an interesting article about this.
> While people of Ashkenazi ancestry have deep roots in eastern and central Europe, their ancestral lines trace back farther to areas in the Middle East.
…
> Although Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry is under the umbrella of “European ancestry,” it’s clear from numerous studies that people of Ashkenazi ancestry are distinct from other European populations.
…
> While most people with Ashkenazi ancestry trace their DNA to Eastern and Central Europe, they are often more genetically like other Jewish populations — such as Sephardic Jews or Jewish groups with roots in Iran, Iraq, or Syria — than other Europeans.
[Source](https://blog.23andme.com/articles/ashkenazi-ancestry-and-health)
Also an Ashkenazi here. I feel the animosity for the ignorance towards the existence of the Mizrahim, but I also think that might just be more western ignorance to any demographics that tend to mainly exist outside of the West. Only about 5% of the US Jewish population is Mizrahi.
As we have seen over modern history and especially over the last few months, the willingness of the ignorant young population in the West to understand the topics they speak about is depressingly low. So, while still idiotic, I wouldn't go so far as to say that most of the ignorance of Mizrahim is intentional rather than just pure dumb ignorance.
Listen, we all know the Sephardim are the real cool kids table.
But in a serious note even in Israel itself there are race issues. I mean, just witness the sometimes tepid acceptance of Ethiopian Jewry.
There is absolutely antisemitism involved. But perhaps more importantly there is big money involved in being a “Palestinian refugee”.
4.5 BILLION SINCE 2014. 600 million in 2022 alone. And those are just the official funds given through various UN and registered charities. It’s known that the actual amount given to all Palestinian “refugees” is closer to 100 billion since 2014 and 2.6 billion in 2022. That’s a very wide gap in reported income but it’s hard to get verifiable numbers from Iran and all the other half-wit wingnuts throwing money.
I mean, no shit, there are almost 5 million Palestinian refugees. But the amount of aid doesn’t make it lucrative to be a Palestinian refugee, lmao. Palestinians in Lebanon overwhelmingly live in poverty, for instance.
I don’t believe the 100 billion number for a second, but the amount given to refugee organizations, foreign aid, and charity in general is definitively in the billions.
Believe it or don’t believe it. It dosnt impact the reality at all. The numbers are reasonable considering the numbers of people living off that aid and their ability to also fund weapons. Couple that with the reported wealth of a handful of Hamas and other “Palestinian leaders” and you have real money. Sure, getting hard numbers from nation states that support the terrorists is impossible. I consider the numbers reasonably believable.
[where the money goes.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians#:~:text=The%20international%20community%20has%20sent,%24600%20million%20in%202020%20alone.)
eh, i feel the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar has been mentioned a lot, it is just that it has been going on since before the War in Ukraine and people's attention spans are already moving on from that conflict.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has been going on for generations, this is just the most recent and biggest flare up in a while. But also while the situation in Myanmar has had reasonable media coverage, few people’s reaction to it has been anything other than “that’s terrible!” before moving on with their lives.
Yet the idea that one should not state his opinion because otherwise he will be cancelled and forced to resign doesn't sit right in a country that is constantly telling others to be the country of freedom of speech and everything
Being heard by whom? Who will hear and do something about it? If you want to truly help, the simplest thing to do from afar is donate to organizations that take real action in the conflict, whatever that means to you.
Maybe you don’t need to be heard about every wrong going on in some faraway part of the world? In fact, you probably aren’t about way more violent conflicts going on right now. It’s okay to not have or voice an opinion about issues you aren’t very knowledgeable about or have a vested interest in.
I agree! Thank you. It’s not okay to voice an opinion on something you know nothing about. That is narcissistic at best. The civilized or at least educated thing to do is to stay quiet and learn something by listening.
All the uninformed voices and the literal millions of others just turn up the noise volume. All the social media megahorn does is make it impossible to have a conversation with people who DO know wtf they are talking about.
That is a strategy! This is exactly how things like Brexit and Trump and Russian invasions happen. Or in this particular context, it’s how a huge multigenerational group of people in Gaza are allowed to not take personal responsibility for their actions.
You think that social media posts help?
Remember how all thos Kony posts and Nigerian kidnap posts and all the thoughts and prayers helped out so much?
There's absolutely something to be said about raising interest in a little known situation but for anything that people already know you're just inflaming tensions, especially something where objective facts come a distant second to horrendously inflammatory language from both sides
Apply this to anything remotely controversial and you’re just arriving at the “don’t talk politics/religion at work” which has been around forever.
No one gives a shit if you’re a Trumper or Obama fan… you’re wrapping burritos 10 hours a day. Do your job without telling me how you vote.
The after dinner parties conversation spills into day time water cooler combos and then into some half thought end of the week company email post, and then… the realization that the useful idiot “peace” slogans they parroted have a totally different meaning in real life, and don’t like the hammer of consequences falling on them.
Because they believe it will influence their government actions. And all in all, they are correct.
Now he has an article published by the CBC about how he felt bullied by his peers for his opinions, people will read it and opinions will be swayed. In democratic societies, that’s enough to affect support for a cause or another. Might not cause a 180 immediately, but over time it’s completely possible.
This is called virtue signalling. A definition is:
>the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
Studies show that:
>virtue signaling was consistently involved in the relationship between pathological narcissistic grandiosity and activism.
I think that this explains everything.
CBC joins the ongoing campaign to gaslight us into believing "from the river to the sea" means something other than what it plainly says.
And yes, I know Likud also used the slogan, nearly fifty years ago. I'll gladly condemn that too.
Is it really gaslighting if it’s reiterating a meaning that was around for decades? I remember my Jewish friends in high school telling me about that in the 90’s when we’d get into debates about the peace process. I don’t think the far left or hardened Palestinian supporters can reclaim it like they think they’re doing.
The fact that a lot of people chanting it don't *know* what it means -- apparently, quite a few of them don't even know which river and which sea -- doesn't *change* what it means.
I'll extend charity to people who say "irregardless" even though it grinds my gears, but my charity doesn't extend to semantically straightforward calls for the destruction of a nation.
We live in the Information Age, everyone is carrying around the sum of human knowledge in their pockets. As the pro-Palestinians themselves have said, ignorance is a choice.
Doesn't help that the intent of the phrase has changed to mean from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, but the long way around heading east from Jordan and pole to pole.
Yeah, I’m generally not cool with what Israel is doing and am rather sympathetic to the innocence being torn apart. But I also understand what that saying means and would never parrot it on Reddit, let alone an account associated with me.
One thing this conflict has taught me is that in war, nothing is binary. There are seeds of it in the Ukraine conflict, but nowhere near this level.
If you're not cool with what Israel is doing, what do you suggest they do instead? Very few victims of aggression want war, they are forced into it. I'm sure everyone in Israel would much rather Oct 7th never happen, and the escalation never occurs.
Do you suggest they do nothing? Or what?
Edit: the typical response. Just block and offer nothing in the way of suggestions, only criticism.
And since I can't post replies to the other guy either, oct 7th happened during a ceasefire, and the last one ended because Hamas are terrorists that have never once adhered to a ceasefire. So ceasefire is the suggestion again. Brilliant.
If a slogan constantly has to be explained because of an uncomfortable implication that its followers cannot adequately refute, it's a bad slogan, and it shouldn't be used.
I am inclined to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on a shocking number of things especially WRT the direct aftermath of Oct-7 *but* (and I feel like you can argue semantics here backwards and forwards) I am not inclined to cut them much slack in terms of what meat there may be on the bones of that specific accusation.
What is going on in the West bank (and Syria, etc) is horseshit, and the people in favor of the continued creation of new Israeli settlements seem inevitably to be the worst, most fash-adjacent (if not outright ethnofascist) elements of society. I haven't seen one good argument for why the Israeli government should be heavily subsidizing people to move, with children, into disputed territory or outright other countries other than as part of a de facto if not de jure policy of military backed annexation and nationalization of said territory...
People talking about settler colonialism are talking about the foundation of Israel, not the West Bank.
And the Syria comment is… wow. You’re against a country capturing land in a defensive war, or do you want Assad to have more vantage points from which to bomb his own people?
>What is going on in the West bank (and Syria, etc) is horseshit
When you say "what is going on in Syria," you're of course referring to the murderous Assad regime and his genocidal campaigns against his own people ... Right?
Surely you don't think Israel seizing the Golan Heights in a defensive war a generation ago, offering it back in exchange for peaceful recognition, getting rejected by Syria, and fortifying it against further genocidal destruction by Arab states, is the most pressing problem for Syria ... Right?
You of course condemn the Russian manipulations and military adventurism that helped enable Assad's worst impulses and butcher hundreds of thousands of his own people ... Right?
Dude, the people describing Israel as illegal "settler colonialism" are not (just) talking about Ma'ale Adumim and the like - they're talking about Tel Aviv and virtually every other Jewish community in Israel. It's Israel as a whole they regard as being illegal, not just the West Bank settlements.
What Israel has done and is currently doing in the West Bank and Gaza is accurately described as colonialism. Sorry but not all criticism of Israel is antisemitism.
Its not heavily subsidized as you put it, but it is subsidized to a certain extent.
The settlements exist for two reasons:
1. To practically be a meat shield for things like Oct 7th.
2. To set the stage for future negotiations.
Yea you could argue that 2 is unethical and illegal, but I'd argue after all the terror they used and all the wars they had started (and lost), Palestinians shouldn't even have any claim for a state anymore.
Regardless of that, point 1 is by itself a good justification for the settlements, now more than ever.
The ONLY difference between Gaza and the west bank is the settlements and how much militarily control Israel has over the territories.
If Israel weren't controlling the west bank, it would be exactly the same as the Gaza strip.
Wait you’re openly admitting that Israel is using the settlers as human shields? Isn’t that what Hamas is accused of doing? Isn’t that how the IDF justifies killing Palestinian civilians?
Is that to all Israel or just the specific settlements? It makes sense to me that they would call it settler colonialism when there are literal settlements taking over Palestinian land.
Edit: People downvote me if you want, it's an honest question. Israel has settlements, the people there are pretty much universally called settlers, who aim to take over Palestinian land. So what is the defining difference that you're disagreeing with calling it settler colonialism? I think there is a difference between people calling for the settlements to be abolished VS the people calling for all Israel to be abolished, and criticizing the "settler colonialism" does not mean the person is therefore "really" saying that all of Israel should be abolished. Downvote away but answer the question.
To answer your question, a good portion of discourse I saw on October 7 was excitement about the “decolonization” of Palestine that was happening. Those people treat Israel as a “colonial” exercise and deny the existence of Jews in the land that was previously the British mandate of Palestine and the Ottoman Empire before that. For those people, Israel is an imperial, colonial power as some sort of extension to the European empires.
In reality, Israel (the geographic area) was a historic land for Jewish refugees to live in peace among their Muslim neighbors. The constant pogroms and then the Holocaust dramatically increased the refugee flow into that land and when tensions began to rise, the UN stepped in to prevent war and proposed a partition plan for Arabs and Jews in the mandate of Palestine. The split would make Jerusalem a free territory to be shared by all, and gave much of what is south Israel, the west bank and Gaza to the Arabs and northern Israel to the Jews. The Arabs rejected this plan and launched what became the Israeli war for independence.
The Jewish natives fighting for their own state and the many refugees who joined them won that war and established a state with the lines that largely remain in place today.
In my mind, Israel fought for and won its independence and had every right to exist. To your point, the settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law and are a major obstacle to peace.
That said, Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, dismantling the settlements there and dislodging the (quite furious) Jewish settlers who had moved into the territory in Gaza.
So to say that October 7 was an act of violence directed against settlers makes clear that they mean settlers in the “from the river to the sea” way, not any reference to the settlements in the West Bank.
>In reality, Israel (the geographic area) was a historic land for Jewish refugees to live in peace among their Muslim neighbors. The constant pogroms and then the Holocaust dramatically increased the refugee flow into that land and when tensions began to rise, the UN stepped in to prevent war and proposed a partition plan for Arabs and Jews in the mandate of Palestine.
you're on the right track and settlement of israel was fueled by jewish refugees of the inquisition, pogroms in european and arab countries, the rise of fascism and antisemitism in early 1900s europe, the holocaust, then the violent ethnic cleansing of all jews from every arab country in the middle east. pretty much in that order.
however, this is a VAST oversimplification of relation's here the arabs and jews in the levant before the state of israel. it was NOT peaceful. the conflict started in the late 1800s when it became clear there was a substantial uptick in jewish settlements in the area. the conflict really kicked off around 1920 or so because of the sharp rise in jewish immigration from europe as fascism was on the rise and jews could see the writing on the wall.
the conflict escalated until the arabs fought an uprising against the british to force an end to jewish refugees. and they won strict caps on jewish immigration. the arabs were violently opposed to jewish refugees coming to the land. as was every other western country in the runup to ww2.
honestly if there was to be a one state solution it could have happened then. had the arab population been welcoming of jewish refugees i dont think we would be in the position we are today.
to add to that
from the fall of the ottoman empire until the inception of the jewish state we are talking about barely 10.000 jews migrating to judea each year... and the vast majority of them going to desolate areas with little fertility.
hell, the british even put holocaust survivors back in to konzentration camps to prevent them from entering judea.
and before that, under ottoman rule, jewish citizens were third class people, not even allowed to buy property in the area.
i remember learning about the holocaust in elementary school and people earnestly asking "why didnt jewish people just leave?"
the sad answer is they tried to. and of the few who could most of them were forced to end up in the levant. then they came immediately face to face with another fight for survival.
Afaik it's all of Israel, which doesn't make sense since many had to flee Arab states in the region after WW2. I believe some may be thinking it's only for the settlers, but many bad faith actors will push that term to the extreme.
After thinking a bit more I think I see what you're saying.
So there's "settler colonialism" as in Israel having settler colonies in Palestinian territory, which is what I was referring to.
And there's "settler colonialism" as in people saying Israel is propped up as a "colonist state" by Western countries (namely the USA). Is this what you're referring to?
People who try to see both sides will draw a distinction between the pre and post '67 borders. When I use the word "settlers", I refer to anyone who lives in the West Bank (and not the Golan Heights, since that area was annexed and the locals were given Israeli citizenship, whether or not you agree, the situation is different than in the West Bank).
Plenty of redditors refer to ALL of Israelis as settlers and all communities built by Jews since Zionism started as settlements. What does "from the river to the sea" and "Free Palestine" mean, in that case, except de-colonize and rid the area between the river and sea of all Jews who moved there since the late 18 hundreds? Is that not ethnic cleansing?
>same thing when they call israel a "settler colonialism". that has 1 meaning and 1 intention behind that saying, that they want israel abolished.
That's stupid, you're saying that Israel is inherently a colonialist state and changing that would be the end of it. That's just not true. A two state solution requires the end of Israeli colonialism, but Israel would still exist.
They added [this article](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881), which tells me that the interpretation of the phrase is as contentious and complicated as the conflict itself.
Note that the original phrase was in Arabic. Popularized by the Palestinians. The Likud version was a rewording of their phrase, in direct response. An attempt to repurpose the slogan.
Also given that Israel already controlled the land between river and sea, it doesn't have quite the same meaning. The Palestinians at the time talked about pushing all Jews into the sea, starting at the river. Israel had already pushed some Palestinians out, while a large number remained. And they didn't shove them into the sea.
*He said that to him, the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" means equal rights and freedoms for Palestinians as well as Israelis in that territory.*
And to me "sieg heil" means "I wish you victory and healing". Been saying it for years, dont see where the issue is. /s
Tbh, Rome's reputation should be more mixed.
They sacked Carthage, Corinth, and Jerusalem. They slaughtered or enslaved everyone in what were the largest cities of the age aside from Alexandria and Antioch (they sacked the latter in a civil war). Even by contemporary standards, Rome practiced a ruthless style of total war.
Pax Romana is an incredible concept for a world to grasp. It had real value. Even now, the idea of peace from Britain to Israel seems incredible. But the Romans were not nice people who avoided war crimes. They often took pride in how ruthless their army behaved. Rome built its peace off blood and fear.
They also destroyed the historical artifacts of the Etruscan society, at least according to the tour guide in actual Rome. They were basically like a less tolerant, more architectural version of the mongols except they’re “muh glorious western civilization ancestors” so you’re not allowed to criticize them online
Much like American slave owners, the concentration camps were really just a ploy to provide work and skill development programs to their ~~victims~~ I mean beneficiaries. /s
Man, I know right? It's like all these people getting mad at my confederate flag on my truck. Like, I get it had a different meaning before but it just means dukes of hazard to me. Chill.
The best part:
"In June 2020, the University of Ottawa featured Ge in an article that celebrated him for turning "passion into action for health and social equity."
He got cancelled for being exactly the type of person who would go around cancelling people he doesn't agree with.
> He said that to him, the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" means equal rights and freedoms for Palestinians as well as Israelis in that territory.
Yeah, it only matters what it mean *to you*, not what it means to the majority of people, or to those who are hurt by this call which is justifiably viewed as genocidal.
Im Israeli. As long as people won't actually discriminate against palestinians or israelis, i believe they can write whatever they want on their -personal- profiles.
I underrstand he didnt call for anyones murder and wasnt racist. I was taught from a young age that if i hear opinions i dont like, i can just discuss or ignore
Words have consequences these days. As many ivy league students will find out when they’re unemployable post graduation.
Remember kids, the first amendment only means the state can’t jail/kill you for your words. It doesn’t mean you can’t be ostracized socially and professionally for them.
Without the first amendment, the province of Manitoba would not have joined Canada's confederation.
It's an important part of Canada's history which they have every right to be proud of.
The same is true regardless. The difference is basicly just that in Canada, bullying, hate speech, harassment doesn't fall under free speech. Thats it.
Btw, if you read the post, he wasnt pushed out.
He is literally ATTACKING the board for outing his social media posts
"On Friday, Ge published a resignation letter, accusing CMA leadership of "bullying, harassment, and intimidation" related to his posts.
"I have substantial concerns related to the actions of the CMA leadership that has created an unsafe environment for me on the board as the sole resident board director," Ge wrote in his letter.
"I believe what I have experienced is a failure of the CMA leadership to meaningfully reflect on the role that anti-Palestinian racism has played in its response to my social media posts.""
I did. My post didn’t just mention the Canadian doctor in question.
Also, most western democracies have some version of free speech rights. Typically such rights offer protection from state retribution, but not social or professional retribution.
Let’s not get dramatic here. It is virtually impossible to actually kick residents out and “tank their careers.” He will come back from this suspension, finish his residency, and then be horribly underpaid and overworked as family doctor.
>Words have consequences these days. As many ivy league students will find out when they’re unemployable post graduation.
Well they do go to an ivy league school so they can probably start their own company or go work for some Persian Gulf petroleum company without any hardship. For those who couldn't get into an ivy, yep bad choice.
>Among Ge's posts were slogans including "Ottawa standing with Gaza" and a photo of a sign stating "from the rivers to the sea Palestine will be free," which Freedhoff called a "genocidal" chant that implies the elimination of the State of Israel.
He accuses CMA of mental gymnastics then says this:
>He said that to him, the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" means equal rights and freedoms for Palestinians as well as Israelis in that territory.
This doctor is also a gymnast.
I don't really care about Isreal-Palestine. I'm only interested in proving to the world that I have the correct opinion, congratulating myself for it, and feeling better than all those awful people who disagree with me.
It is possible to support basic human rights for Palestinian citizens and condemn Hamas at the same time. It does not make you antisemitic. Questioning Israel's actions does not make you antisemitic. However, forcing someone to leave their profession for such opinions is wrong.
Edit: Since this has gotten such a strong response, I did in fact read the article. "Ottawa stands with Gaza" is not on its own antisemitic. He did not say Ottawa stands with Hamas or Ottawa hates Israel. Sure, "from the river to the sea" might be genocidal rhetoric but I'm betting that was not this guy's intent because he also made it clear he supported human rights for both Israel and Palestine. Lastly he is not wrong in describing the current arrangement as a system of apartheid. The point of my original comment was that questioning Israel's actions and supporting human rights for Palestinian citizens is not antisemitic. It is possible to condemn Hamas and question Israel at the same time without being antisemitic.
It's also possible to hold strong views while effectively communicating that those views will never impact patient care.
I suspect Dr. Ge struggled when challenged to do the later. Which created a liability.
The real story here is that he was dismissed from his residency program. That's a huge deal.
It’s anecdotal but I worked with him a few times (also a few times when his staff physician he was working with is a yamaka- and tzitzit-wearing husband of a rabbi), I did not witness any impact to patient care or dip in professionalism.
He didn’t just “question” Israel’s actions. That’s such a wild twist on this a-holes actions.
From the article if you’d cared to read it:
- Among Ge's posts were slogans including "Ottawa standing with Gaza" and a photo of a sign stating "from the rivers to the sea Palestine will be free,"
And we all know what “from the rivers to the sea Palestine will be free” means.
It is possible yes, but most such people also support Israel's right to defend themselves.
Half of Gen Z in America supports Hamas over Israel. That is about 15 million Americans.
Edit: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HHP_Oct23_KeyResults.pdf
It’s worth pointing out this survey was purely binary and did jot offer a “don’t support either / don’t know” option, which inflated the polarity of the responses. But yeah, we have a real gap with genZ who only see the world as bad oppressors vs good victims these days.
No, it’s not that they don’t know how polls work. It’s that you don’t know how to talk about polling. When you say “half of think ” you are giving a declarative statement that means what you say. Especially when you don’t mention that your statement is according to polls. Words mean things and you condescending toward naysayers doesn’t change that.
All statistics that depend on people’s opinions come from polls and surveys. Is that not common implicit understanding ? Or do people have some strange idea of mind reading existing.
It’s one of the first lessons in statistics and how while right it’s misleading. Sure 50% MIGHT support Hamas, but most peoples opinions on topics like this is LITTERALLY just the news cycle, they don’t truly feel impassioned about the subject matter.
I have some faith in gen Z. Most zoomers know next to nothing about this conflict and are likely to become more moderate if they're educated by non partisan sources.
I hope so. Unfortunately it is now known that the way to sell fake news to the left is through TikTok. More groups are going to take advantage of that.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/30/1026338/gen-z-online-misinformation/
I'm also gen Z, and I just want to add that part of the perception difference is that we grew up in a post iron-dome world. For as long as we've been alive, Israel has been *dominant* against Palestine militarily. The conflict has been less a fight and more like clubbing a seal.
But this is a very recent state of affairs. Until a couple decades ago the Israeli military was constantly on the brink of collapse, beset on all sides by both conventional military enemies and terrorists/irregular militias. It's easy to skim Wikipedia and see all those W's under the IDF's belt and think they've always had space marines, but in reality a lot of Israel's military victories were hard-fought.
So I think that accounts for most of the generational gap. You and I have only known this conflict as Israel flinging missiles at an Arab population that can barely defend itself. But our parents and grandparents remember that the Arabs very nearly drove Israel into the sea, that they broke truces multiple times, walked away from peace deals because they thought they could just wipe Israel out militarily etc.
What's shocking to me is the vast amount of people that seem to have no clue that hundreds of thousands of Jews were oppressed and had their property and homes stolen and forced out of Muslim countries
You can argue that they are uninformed and don't understand what Hamas is about (which I think is true), but it is a fact that Gen Z expresses a large amount of support for Hamas.
Why would you lie when I can point you to page 42 of that link?
Also page 43 where 51% of Gen Z say that killing, raping and torturing civilians on October 7 can be justified.
Thanks for sharing this. I've seen it all over so it's good to have supporting data. Yeah genz is pretty indoctrinated by propaganda and I feel they barely understand what's happening right now. So many pro hamas comments and the wish to destroy Israel to help hamas is just delusional. I see the justification and support.of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, all over these days.
Why are you trying to mislead people about what he said. From the river to the sea is wishing for the total elimination of Israel. That's not just questioning Israel's actions, bud.
>The posts supported the Palestinian cause and criticized what Ge called "apartheid upon Palestinian people" and "settler colonialism."
Was he wrong? Plenty of people that condemn hamas would also agree with this.
Most Israelis are descended from people who lived in the region in the last century, and in the last two centuries as well - because Jews dealt with the Ottoman Empire too, calling their communities Yishuvs, and yes, poetically the Land of Israel. Having an immigration policy does not make them "settler colonialism," and that is so deeply offensive.
They are settling the West Bank. This isn't debatable in any sense. Widely acknowledged. I mean, Anthony Blinken has stated that Israeli settlers may be barred from entering the United States for their actions.
>Having an immigration policy does not make them "settler colonialism," and that is so deeply offensive.
Of course not. The settler colonialism part comes from the settlers who are building colonies and ethnically cleansing the West Bank.
People don't seem to understand that Hamas wove itself into Palestinians. All comparisons don't relate because Hamas literally wove itself into the civilian population. So you cannot easily take out Hamas, when they bury themselves are underneath a mound of Palestinian civilians. This doctor should have realized this before being so careless. His youth and ignorance was his downfall.
Showing support for violence and terrorism has consequences. Doctors and medical professionals showing public displays of antisemitism, showing their harmful and dangerous bias towards patients that could be Jewish is extremely problematic.
>Showing support for violence and terrorism has consequences.
What did Dr. Ge say, specifically, in support of violence and terrorism? The article is very clear that he is calling for equal rights, not terrorist attacks:
> He said that to him, the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" means equal rights and freedoms for Palestinians as well as Israelis in that territory.
>
> "To equate what I was doing to rising antisemitism around the world is really, really hurtful and also untrue," Ge said. "That narrative to support Palestinians in their call for equality ... to call that antisemitism, I think, does no one any good."
>What did Dr. Ge say, specifically, in support of violence and terrorism?
As a Canadian who followed this story, I can tell you that he directly retweeted several Hamas/PIJ/Pro-terror tweets, including ones blaming Israel for the hospital explosion that had, at that point in time, been independently confirmed by French, US, and Canadian intelligence as being a PIJ rocket and not an IDF bomb.
Retweeting terrorist propaganda is "specifically, in support of violence and terrorism."
People have forgotten the value of keeping one's mouth shut. Everyone thinks they're the main character. The actual influential characters never get revealed.
That's the opposite of democracy, if you have to keep your mouth shut in fear of being cancelled for having a different opinion, then it's no different from living in china or russia
As a famous lawyer once said, T.H.U.G stands for Truly Humble Under God
"What about that tattoo on your chest? Doesn't it say Die Bart, Die?" "No! That's German for The Bart, The."
"No-one who speaks *German* could be an evil man."
How did a resident get on the board of directors?
Medical boards / associations often have a special slot for residents (and some even for students).
“In June 2020, the University of Ottawa featured Ge in an article that celebrated him for turning "passion into action for health and social equity." Maybe he was appointed for his action for health and social equality.
Apparently, some people are more equal than others.
The only place I would post about this war is reddit. I’m not risking my job for a war that’s happening in the Middle East.
Dunno why people are professionally getting involved in foreign conflicts.
I have very strong opinions on this conflict since I live it, and yet you wouldn’t see me going on LinkedIn like the multitudes of foreigners and announce them for all to see. You’re not going to change the situation on the ground through social networks anyway. Possibly only incite more antisemitism and islamophobia
Yea, I don't see anyone mentioning the ethnic cleansing in Yemen, Myanmar and Haiti, but people are risking their professional lives to proclaim their "side" in this conflict/war. Personally I think it's just a low key way to show their antisemitism/Islamophobia given how people with no connection to the region can have such strong in-your-face opinions about it. Being against civilians dying is one thing, but some people on Reddit I've had arguments with have flat out said that the people murdered and raped on October 7 deserved it as payback for the Israeli government intruding on Palestinian territory.
Thanks. The blind support for Palestine is crazy. Most of these people don’t even know much about Palestine till recently. Or are taking sides because of religion. I got a barrage of retorts because I said neither a Palestinian child nor Israeli child deserves to die. Imagine being so blinded to hate that they would wish death upon a child if this child was unfortunately on the wrong “team”. Politics and war isn’t a sport. You want it to end so there’s peace. Yet Reddit is blind to this and so many are swept up and influenced by propaganda.
It's the cause du'jour. They'll fund something to be outraged about again in 6 months. Nothing will be done, and the atrocities will continue. It's just the way of things.
Exactly this. Theres a lot of people who jump from current thing to current thing. They went from BLM, To Ukraine and now Palestine. They got celebrated the first two times, why would this be any different?
I do think there are nuances as to why people do not feel as involved in most of those - they tend to be civil/domestic wars, and are not attached to a major ally of the US. Also, there is an inevitable whites oppressors vs POC victim mindset/bias at play here as well. Of course there is plenty of antisemitism in the current debate circling Israel, but it isn’t the only variable that explains some of the reactions (or lack thereof).
Anyone who thinks this is white oppressors vs POC victim is a fucking moron. Jews are not white, especially the majority of Jews in Israel.
I’m Ashkenazi but I have secondhand rage for the erasure of the Mizrahis. People (in the US or Canada for example) see Jews looking like Seth Rogen or Woody Allen and it paints a picture for them that since American/Canadian Jews look like that, it must mean all the world’s Jews look like that. But instead of having the intellectual curiosity to find out more about us, they assume and speak over us.
Ashkenazi also have genetic roots in the middle east and it's a debated topic whether or not they're "white". There are some very cool research papers on it.
23andme has an interesting article about this. > While people of Ashkenazi ancestry have deep roots in eastern and central Europe, their ancestral lines trace back farther to areas in the Middle East. … > Although Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry is under the umbrella of “European ancestry,” it’s clear from numerous studies that people of Ashkenazi ancestry are distinct from other European populations. … > While most people with Ashkenazi ancestry trace their DNA to Eastern and Central Europe, they are often more genetically like other Jewish populations — such as Sephardic Jews or Jewish groups with roots in Iran, Iraq, or Syria — than other Europeans. [Source](https://blog.23andme.com/articles/ashkenazi-ancestry-and-health)
Also an Ashkenazi here. I feel the animosity for the ignorance towards the existence of the Mizrahim, but I also think that might just be more western ignorance to any demographics that tend to mainly exist outside of the West. Only about 5% of the US Jewish population is Mizrahi. As we have seen over modern history and especially over the last few months, the willingness of the ignorant young population in the West to understand the topics they speak about is depressingly low. So, while still idiotic, I wouldn't go so far as to say that most of the ignorance of Mizrahim is intentional rather than just pure dumb ignorance.
Listen, we all know the Sephardim are the real cool kids table. But in a serious note even in Israel itself there are race issues. I mean, just witness the sometimes tepid acceptance of Ethiopian Jewry.
The main argument I see is that if you look at the current government leadership there is a much whiter portrayal.
There is absolutely antisemitism involved. But perhaps more importantly there is big money involved in being a “Palestinian refugee”. 4.5 BILLION SINCE 2014. 600 million in 2022 alone. And those are just the official funds given through various UN and registered charities. It’s known that the actual amount given to all Palestinian “refugees” is closer to 100 billion since 2014 and 2.6 billion in 2022. That’s a very wide gap in reported income but it’s hard to get verifiable numbers from Iran and all the other half-wit wingnuts throwing money.
I mean, no shit, there are almost 5 million Palestinian refugees. But the amount of aid doesn’t make it lucrative to be a Palestinian refugee, lmao. Palestinians in Lebanon overwhelmingly live in poverty, for instance. I don’t believe the 100 billion number for a second, but the amount given to refugee organizations, foreign aid, and charity in general is definitively in the billions.
Believe it or don’t believe it. It dosnt impact the reality at all. The numbers are reasonable considering the numbers of people living off that aid and their ability to also fund weapons. Couple that with the reported wealth of a handful of Hamas and other “Palestinian leaders” and you have real money. Sure, getting hard numbers from nation states that support the terrorists is impossible. I consider the numbers reasonably believable. [where the money goes.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians#:~:text=The%20international%20community%20has%20sent,%24600%20million%20in%202020%20alone.)
Now do Israel.
This guy is seriously claiming being a refugee is lucrative, what a shit take.
[удалено]
eh, i feel the ethnic cleansing in Myanmar has been mentioned a lot, it is just that it has been going on since before the War in Ukraine and people's attention spans are already moving on from that conflict.
Surely the argument cannot be "Myanmar conflict has been going on a long time" when the alternative is Israel-Palestine.
it seems like a lot of people just started paying attention / became aware of this decades-old conflict in the last few months.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has been going on for generations, this is just the most recent and biggest flare up in a while. But also while the situation in Myanmar has had reasonable media coverage, few people’s reaction to it has been anything other than “that’s terrible!” before moving on with their lives.
Yet the idea that one should not state his opinion because otherwise he will be cancelled and forced to resign doesn't sit right in a country that is constantly telling others to be the country of freedom of speech and everything
As much as I hate these 'thoughts and prayers' type of keyboard warrior actions, what else can normal people do to get themselves heard?
Being heard by whom? Who will hear and do something about it? If you want to truly help, the simplest thing to do from afar is donate to organizations that take real action in the conflict, whatever that means to you.
Maybe you don’t need to be heard about every wrong going on in some faraway part of the world? In fact, you probably aren’t about way more violent conflicts going on right now. It’s okay to not have or voice an opinion about issues you aren’t very knowledgeable about or have a vested interest in.
I agree! Thank you. It’s not okay to voice an opinion on something you know nothing about. That is narcissistic at best. The civilized or at least educated thing to do is to stay quiet and learn something by listening. All the uninformed voices and the literal millions of others just turn up the noise volume. All the social media megahorn does is make it impossible to have a conversation with people who DO know wtf they are talking about. That is a strategy! This is exactly how things like Brexit and Trump and Russian invasions happen. Or in this particular context, it’s how a huge multigenerational group of people in Gaza are allowed to not take personal responsibility for their actions.
Not everyone needs to be heard? What is this insane need for attention...
The internet has made people think they're important
You think that social media posts help? Remember how all thos Kony posts and Nigerian kidnap posts and all the thoughts and prayers helped out so much? There's absolutely something to be said about raising interest in a little known situation but for anything that people already know you're just inflaming tensions, especially something where objective facts come a distant second to horrendously inflammatory language from both sides
Call your congressperson or senator. Let them know how you feel. Its infinitely more productive than social media.
[Is it necessary?](https://youtu.be/okq0hj1IMlo?si=FRlU_KzHI2898Ze7)
Maybe you shouldnt be heard if theres a conflict you know nothing about and has nothing to do with you?
Call and write to your congressman.
Apply this to anything remotely controversial and you’re just arriving at the “don’t talk politics/religion at work” which has been around forever. No one gives a shit if you’re a Trumper or Obama fan… you’re wrapping burritos 10 hours a day. Do your job without telling me how you vote.
Especially someone providing medical care.
Canadian schools are a pressure cooker for this shit.
The after dinner parties conversation spills into day time water cooler combos and then into some half thought end of the week company email post, and then… the realization that the useful idiot “peace” slogans they parroted have a totally different meaning in real life, and don’t like the hammer of consequences falling on them.
Because they believe it will influence their government actions. And all in all, they are correct. Now he has an article published by the CBC about how he felt bullied by his peers for his opinions, people will read it and opinions will be swayed. In democratic societies, that’s enough to affect support for a cause or another. Might not cause a 180 immediately, but over time it’s completely possible.
Public criticism of Israel's actions have already swayed governments in the recent votes Canada voted against Israel and the US abstained.
This is called virtue signalling. A definition is: >the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue. Studies show that: >virtue signaling was consistently involved in the relationship between pathological narcissistic grandiosity and activism. I think that this explains everything.
[удалено]
Which part is misinformation exactly?
That and ignorant leftists that just hate Jews
CBC joins the ongoing campaign to gaslight us into believing "from the river to the sea" means something other than what it plainly says. And yes, I know Likud also used the slogan, nearly fifty years ago. I'll gladly condemn that too.
The Likud used it the same way Palestinians do just for Jewish control instead of Palestinian, so yeas we should condemn it
Is it really gaslighting if it’s reiterating a meaning that was around for decades? I remember my Jewish friends in high school telling me about that in the 90’s when we’d get into debates about the peace process. I don’t think the far left or hardened Palestinian supporters can reclaim it like they think they’re doing.
The fact that a lot of people chanting it don't *know* what it means -- apparently, quite a few of them don't even know which river and which sea -- doesn't *change* what it means. I'll extend charity to people who say "irregardless" even though it grinds my gears, but my charity doesn't extend to semantically straightforward calls for the destruction of a nation.
We live in the Information Age, everyone is carrying around the sum of human knowledge in their pockets. As the pro-Palestinians themselves have said, ignorance is a choice.
unfortunately they also carry around the sum of human *disinformation*.
Doesn't help that the intent of the phrase has changed to mean from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, but the long way around heading east from Jordan and pole to pole.
Yeah, I’m generally not cool with what Israel is doing and am rather sympathetic to the innocence being torn apart. But I also understand what that saying means and would never parrot it on Reddit, let alone an account associated with me. One thing this conflict has taught me is that in war, nothing is binary. There are seeds of it in the Ukraine conflict, but nowhere near this level.
If you're not cool with what Israel is doing, what do you suggest they do instead? Very few victims of aggression want war, they are forced into it. I'm sure everyone in Israel would much rather Oct 7th never happen, and the escalation never occurs. Do you suggest they do nothing? Or what? Edit: the typical response. Just block and offer nothing in the way of suggestions, only criticism. And since I can't post replies to the other guy either, oct 7th happened during a ceasefire, and the last one ended because Hamas are terrorists that have never once adhered to a ceasefire. So ceasefire is the suggestion again. Brilliant.
If a slogan constantly has to be explained because of an uncomfortable implication that its followers cannot adequately refute, it's a bad slogan, and it shouldn't be used.
same thing when they call israel a "settler colonialism". that has 1 meaning and 1 intention behind that saying, that they want israel abolished.
I am inclined to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on a shocking number of things especially WRT the direct aftermath of Oct-7 *but* (and I feel like you can argue semantics here backwards and forwards) I am not inclined to cut them much slack in terms of what meat there may be on the bones of that specific accusation. What is going on in the West bank (and Syria, etc) is horseshit, and the people in favor of the continued creation of new Israeli settlements seem inevitably to be the worst, most fash-adjacent (if not outright ethnofascist) elements of society. I haven't seen one good argument for why the Israeli government should be heavily subsidizing people to move, with children, into disputed territory or outright other countries other than as part of a de facto if not de jure policy of military backed annexation and nationalization of said territory...
People who say that are referring to the entirety of Israel, not just the West Bank.
People talking about settler colonialism are talking about the foundation of Israel, not the West Bank. And the Syria comment is… wow. You’re against a country capturing land in a defensive war, or do you want Assad to have more vantage points from which to bomb his own people?
>What is going on in the West bank (and Syria, etc) is horseshit When you say "what is going on in Syria," you're of course referring to the murderous Assad regime and his genocidal campaigns against his own people ... Right? Surely you don't think Israel seizing the Golan Heights in a defensive war a generation ago, offering it back in exchange for peaceful recognition, getting rejected by Syria, and fortifying it against further genocidal destruction by Arab states, is the most pressing problem for Syria ... Right? You of course condemn the Russian manipulations and military adventurism that helped enable Assad's worst impulses and butcher hundreds of thousands of his own people ... Right?
Listen dude. They’re not interested in your facts; they only want to spread their rhetoric.
Why would they condemn any of that? They’re not Jews so it’s fine
Dude, the people describing Israel as illegal "settler colonialism" are not (just) talking about Ma'ale Adumim and the like - they're talking about Tel Aviv and virtually every other Jewish community in Israel. It's Israel as a whole they regard as being illegal, not just the West Bank settlements.
What Israel has done and is currently doing in the West Bank and Gaza is accurately described as colonialism. Sorry but not all criticism of Israel is antisemitism.
[удалено]
Settler colonialist refers to all of Israel and you'd be very hard pressed to find instances where it only applies to WB.
Its not heavily subsidized as you put it, but it is subsidized to a certain extent. The settlements exist for two reasons: 1. To practically be a meat shield for things like Oct 7th. 2. To set the stage for future negotiations. Yea you could argue that 2 is unethical and illegal, but I'd argue after all the terror they used and all the wars they had started (and lost), Palestinians shouldn't even have any claim for a state anymore. Regardless of that, point 1 is by itself a good justification for the settlements, now more than ever. The ONLY difference between Gaza and the west bank is the settlements and how much militarily control Israel has over the territories. If Israel weren't controlling the west bank, it would be exactly the same as the Gaza strip.
Wait you’re openly admitting that Israel is using the settlers as human shields? Isn’t that what Hamas is accused of doing? Isn’t that how the IDF justifies killing Palestinian civilians?
Is that to all Israel or just the specific settlements? It makes sense to me that they would call it settler colonialism when there are literal settlements taking over Palestinian land. Edit: People downvote me if you want, it's an honest question. Israel has settlements, the people there are pretty much universally called settlers, who aim to take over Palestinian land. So what is the defining difference that you're disagreeing with calling it settler colonialism? I think there is a difference between people calling for the settlements to be abolished VS the people calling for all Israel to be abolished, and criticizing the "settler colonialism" does not mean the person is therefore "really" saying that all of Israel should be abolished. Downvote away but answer the question.
To answer your question, a good portion of discourse I saw on October 7 was excitement about the “decolonization” of Palestine that was happening. Those people treat Israel as a “colonial” exercise and deny the existence of Jews in the land that was previously the British mandate of Palestine and the Ottoman Empire before that. For those people, Israel is an imperial, colonial power as some sort of extension to the European empires. In reality, Israel (the geographic area) was a historic land for Jewish refugees to live in peace among their Muslim neighbors. The constant pogroms and then the Holocaust dramatically increased the refugee flow into that land and when tensions began to rise, the UN stepped in to prevent war and proposed a partition plan for Arabs and Jews in the mandate of Palestine. The split would make Jerusalem a free territory to be shared by all, and gave much of what is south Israel, the west bank and Gaza to the Arabs and northern Israel to the Jews. The Arabs rejected this plan and launched what became the Israeli war for independence. The Jewish natives fighting for their own state and the many refugees who joined them won that war and established a state with the lines that largely remain in place today. In my mind, Israel fought for and won its independence and had every right to exist. To your point, the settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law and are a major obstacle to peace. That said, Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, dismantling the settlements there and dislodging the (quite furious) Jewish settlers who had moved into the territory in Gaza. So to say that October 7 was an act of violence directed against settlers makes clear that they mean settlers in the “from the river to the sea” way, not any reference to the settlements in the West Bank.
>In reality, Israel (the geographic area) was a historic land for Jewish refugees to live in peace among their Muslim neighbors. The constant pogroms and then the Holocaust dramatically increased the refugee flow into that land and when tensions began to rise, the UN stepped in to prevent war and proposed a partition plan for Arabs and Jews in the mandate of Palestine. you're on the right track and settlement of israel was fueled by jewish refugees of the inquisition, pogroms in european and arab countries, the rise of fascism and antisemitism in early 1900s europe, the holocaust, then the violent ethnic cleansing of all jews from every arab country in the middle east. pretty much in that order. however, this is a VAST oversimplification of relation's here the arabs and jews in the levant before the state of israel. it was NOT peaceful. the conflict started in the late 1800s when it became clear there was a substantial uptick in jewish settlements in the area. the conflict really kicked off around 1920 or so because of the sharp rise in jewish immigration from europe as fascism was on the rise and jews could see the writing on the wall. the conflict escalated until the arabs fought an uprising against the british to force an end to jewish refugees. and they won strict caps on jewish immigration. the arabs were violently opposed to jewish refugees coming to the land. as was every other western country in the runup to ww2. honestly if there was to be a one state solution it could have happened then. had the arab population been welcoming of jewish refugees i dont think we would be in the position we are today.
to add to that from the fall of the ottoman empire until the inception of the jewish state we are talking about barely 10.000 jews migrating to judea each year... and the vast majority of them going to desolate areas with little fertility. hell, the british even put holocaust survivors back in to konzentration camps to prevent them from entering judea. and before that, under ottoman rule, jewish citizens were third class people, not even allowed to buy property in the area.
i remember learning about the holocaust in elementary school and people earnestly asking "why didnt jewish people just leave?" the sad answer is they tried to. and of the few who could most of them were forced to end up in the levant. then they came immediately face to face with another fight for survival.
And 500,000 Arabs migrants came in after the Jews developed the land.
Afaik it's all of Israel, which doesn't make sense since many had to flee Arab states in the region after WW2. I believe some may be thinking it's only for the settlers, but many bad faith actors will push that term to the extreme.
They don’t care about the Jews who never left the Middle East. They just want them all dead.
no reason to downvote, you didn't say anything wrong. but when they call israel a settler colonialism. they mean all of it.
After thinking a bit more I think I see what you're saying. So there's "settler colonialism" as in Israel having settler colonies in Palestinian territory, which is what I was referring to. And there's "settler colonialism" as in people saying Israel is propped up as a "colonist state" by Western countries (namely the USA). Is this what you're referring to?
They’ve been calling Israel settlers and claiming stolen land far before any West Bank settlements (pre 67)
People who try to see both sides will draw a distinction between the pre and post '67 borders. When I use the word "settlers", I refer to anyone who lives in the West Bank (and not the Golan Heights, since that area was annexed and the locals were given Israeli citizenship, whether or not you agree, the situation is different than in the West Bank). Plenty of redditors refer to ALL of Israelis as settlers and all communities built by Jews since Zionism started as settlements. What does "from the river to the sea" and "Free Palestine" mean, in that case, except de-colonize and rid the area between the river and sea of all Jews who moved there since the late 18 hundreds? Is that not ethnic cleansing?
>same thing when they call israel a "settler colonialism". that has 1 meaning and 1 intention behind that saying, that they want israel abolished. That's stupid, you're saying that Israel is inherently a colonialist state and changing that would be the end of it. That's just not true. A two state solution requires the end of Israeli colonialism, but Israel would still exist.
They added [this article](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881), which tells me that the interpretation of the phrase is as contentious and complicated as the conflict itself.
What exactly did Likud said? any source?
"Between the Sea and the Jordan(river) there will only be Israeli sovereignty. —Likud Party Platform, 1977" just search up Likud between the sea
Thanks for the response
Note that the original phrase was in Arabic. Popularized by the Palestinians. The Likud version was a rewording of their phrase, in direct response. An attempt to repurpose the slogan. Also given that Israel already controlled the land between river and sea, it doesn't have quite the same meaning. The Palestinians at the time talked about pushing all Jews into the sea, starting at the river. Israel had already pushed some Palestinians out, while a large number remained. And they didn't shove them into the sea.
*He said that to him, the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" means equal rights and freedoms for Palestinians as well as Israelis in that territory.* And to me "sieg heil" means "I wish you victory and healing". Been saying it for years, dont see where the issue is. /s
“Work will set you free” is actually an aspirational call to find a fulfilling career path. /s
When I meet people I'll raise my right extended hand. Don't know why people got beef with the Roman salute, Rome was dope!
From the heart to the sun! ✋
Tbh, Rome's reputation should be more mixed. They sacked Carthage, Corinth, and Jerusalem. They slaughtered or enslaved everyone in what were the largest cities of the age aside from Alexandria and Antioch (they sacked the latter in a civil war). Even by contemporary standards, Rome practiced a ruthless style of total war. Pax Romana is an incredible concept for a world to grasp. It had real value. Even now, the idea of peace from Britain to Israel seems incredible. But the Romans were not nice people who avoided war crimes. They often took pride in how ruthless their army behaved. Rome built its peace off blood and fear.
They also destroyed the historical artifacts of the Etruscan society, at least according to the tour guide in actual Rome. They were basically like a less tolerant, more architectural version of the mongols except they’re “muh glorious western civilization ancestors” so you’re not allowed to criticize them online
Avē Imperātor, moritūrī tē salūtant
Work fills up your pension pot, retirement with a pension is freedom, so work will set you free. That's what the slogan means, nothing else /s
Much like American slave owners, the concentration camps were really just a ploy to provide work and skill development programs to their ~~victims~~ I mean beneficiaries. /s
Man, I know right? It's like all these people getting mad at my confederate flag on my truck. Like, I get it had a different meaning before but it just means dukes of hazard to me. Chill.
The best part: "In June 2020, the University of Ottawa featured Ge in an article that celebrated him for turning "passion into action for health and social equity." He got cancelled for being exactly the type of person who would go around cancelling people he doesn't agree with.
Funny enough the left didn’t accept that excuse when people flying the confederate flag said “it’s about heritage not hate.”
> He said that to him, the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" means equal rights and freedoms for Palestinians as well as Israelis in that territory. Yeah, it only matters what it mean *to you*, not what it means to the majority of people, or to those who are hurt by this call which is justifiably viewed as genocidal.
>Yeah, it only matters what it mean *to you* Oh, the fucking irony.
Im Israeli. As long as people won't actually discriminate against palestinians or israelis, i believe they can write whatever they want on their -personal- profiles. I underrstand he didnt call for anyones murder and wasnt racist. I was taught from a young age that if i hear opinions i dont like, i can just discuss or ignore
Words have consequences these days. As many ivy league students will find out when they’re unemployable post graduation. Remember kids, the first amendment only means the state can’t jail/kill you for your words. It doesn’t mean you can’t be ostracized socially and professionally for them.
I enjoy reading books.
Without the first amendment, the province of Manitoba would not have joined Canada's confederation. It's an important part of Canada's history which they have every right to be proud of.
Canada has amendments?...
Yes but they're not their bill of rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Canada
Which isn't called a "Bill of Rights", but rather "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Til
The same is true regardless. The difference is basicly just that in Canada, bullying, hate speech, harassment doesn't fall under free speech. Thats it.
Btw, if you read the post, he wasnt pushed out. He is literally ATTACKING the board for outing his social media posts "On Friday, Ge published a resignation letter, accusing CMA leadership of "bullying, harassment, and intimidation" related to his posts. "I have substantial concerns related to the actions of the CMA leadership that has created an unsafe environment for me on the board as the sole resident board director," Ge wrote in his letter. "I believe what I have experienced is a failure of the CMA leadership to meaningfully reflect on the role that anti-Palestinian racism has played in its response to my social media posts.""
He is one crazy self-absorbed "I can't do anything wrong" cookie
You should really read articles since this occurred in Canada. So remember kids, read the article
I did. My post didn’t just mention the Canadian doctor in question. Also, most western democracies have some version of free speech rights. Typically such rights offer protection from state retribution, but not social or professional retribution.
[удалено]
Your are conflating hospitals with government. They are run by boards in Canada not the government.
Let’s not get dramatic here. It is virtually impossible to actually kick residents out and “tank their careers.” He will come back from this suspension, finish his residency, and then be horribly underpaid and overworked as family doctor.
>Words have consequences these days. As many ivy league students will find out when they’re unemployable post graduation. Well they do go to an ivy league school so they can probably start their own company or go work for some Persian Gulf petroleum company without any hardship. For those who couldn't get into an ivy, yep bad choice.
Or just work for a Muslim person.
>Among Ge's posts were slogans including "Ottawa standing with Gaza" and a photo of a sign stating "from the rivers to the sea Palestine will be free," which Freedhoff called a "genocidal" chant that implies the elimination of the State of Israel. He accuses CMA of mental gymnastics then says this: >He said that to him, the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" means equal rights and freedoms for Palestinians as well as Israelis in that territory. This doctor is also a gymnast.
I don't really care about Isreal-Palestine. I'm only interested in proving to the world that I have the correct opinion, congratulating myself for it, and feeling better than all those awful people who disagree with me.
It is possible to support basic human rights for Palestinian citizens and condemn Hamas at the same time. It does not make you antisemitic. Questioning Israel's actions does not make you antisemitic. However, forcing someone to leave their profession for such opinions is wrong. Edit: Since this has gotten such a strong response, I did in fact read the article. "Ottawa stands with Gaza" is not on its own antisemitic. He did not say Ottawa stands with Hamas or Ottawa hates Israel. Sure, "from the river to the sea" might be genocidal rhetoric but I'm betting that was not this guy's intent because he also made it clear he supported human rights for both Israel and Palestine. Lastly he is not wrong in describing the current arrangement as a system of apartheid. The point of my original comment was that questioning Israel's actions and supporting human rights for Palestinian citizens is not antisemitic. It is possible to condemn Hamas and question Israel at the same time without being antisemitic.
It's also possible to hold strong views while effectively communicating that those views will never impact patient care. I suspect Dr. Ge struggled when challenged to do the later. Which created a liability. The real story here is that he was dismissed from his residency program. That's a huge deal.
It’s anecdotal but I worked with him a few times (also a few times when his staff physician he was working with is a yamaka- and tzitzit-wearing husband of a rabbi), I did not witness any impact to patient care or dip in professionalism.
He didn’t just “question” Israel’s actions. That’s such a wild twist on this a-holes actions. From the article if you’d cared to read it: - Among Ge's posts were slogans including "Ottawa standing with Gaza" and a photo of a sign stating "from the rivers to the sea Palestine will be free," And we all know what “from the rivers to the sea Palestine will be free” means.
Whose your favorite historical Palestinian leader from before 1964? Mine is
It is possible yes, but most such people also support Israel's right to defend themselves. Half of Gen Z in America supports Hamas over Israel. That is about 15 million Americans. Edit: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HHP_Oct23_KeyResults.pdf
It’s worth pointing out this survey was purely binary and did jot offer a “don’t support either / don’t know” option, which inflated the polarity of the responses. But yeah, we have a real gap with genZ who only see the world as bad oppressors vs good victims these days.
I very much doubt 15 million Gen Zers know or care that much in the US. 50% means of those polled.
All this means is that you don't understand how polls work.
No, it’s not that they don’t know how polls work. It’s that you don’t know how to talk about polling. When you say “half of think ” you are giving a declarative statement that means what you say. Especially when you don’t mention that your statement is according to polls. Words mean things and you condescending toward naysayers doesn’t change that.
All statistics that depend on people’s opinions come from polls and surveys. Is that not common implicit understanding ? Or do people have some strange idea of mind reading existing.
It’s one of the first lessons in statistics and how while right it’s misleading. Sure 50% MIGHT support Hamas, but most peoples opinions on topics like this is LITTERALLY just the news cycle, they don’t truly feel impassioned about the subject matter.
Or that he's factoring in polling bias
I have some faith in gen Z. Most zoomers know next to nothing about this conflict and are likely to become more moderate if they're educated by non partisan sources.
I hope so. Unfortunately it is now known that the way to sell fake news to the left is through TikTok. More groups are going to take advantage of that. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/30/1026338/gen-z-online-misinformation/
[удалено]
I'm also gen Z, and I just want to add that part of the perception difference is that we grew up in a post iron-dome world. For as long as we've been alive, Israel has been *dominant* against Palestine militarily. The conflict has been less a fight and more like clubbing a seal. But this is a very recent state of affairs. Until a couple decades ago the Israeli military was constantly on the brink of collapse, beset on all sides by both conventional military enemies and terrorists/irregular militias. It's easy to skim Wikipedia and see all those W's under the IDF's belt and think they've always had space marines, but in reality a lot of Israel's military victories were hard-fought. So I think that accounts for most of the generational gap. You and I have only known this conflict as Israel flinging missiles at an Arab population that can barely defend itself. But our parents and grandparents remember that the Arabs very nearly drove Israel into the sea, that they broke truces multiple times, walked away from peace deals because they thought they could just wipe Israel out militarily etc.
What's shocking to me is the vast amount of people that seem to have no clue that hundreds of thousands of Jews were oppressed and had their property and homes stolen and forced out of Muslim countries
[удалено]
What page is that information on (October 2023 Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll being referenced)?
Wow, they are so brainwashed. The differences between young adults and everybody else is staggering.
This is fundamentally wrong and simply spreading false information about what people are in support of.
You can argue that they are uninformed and don't understand what Hamas is about (which I think is true), but it is a fact that Gen Z expresses a large amount of support for Hamas.
That's not what the polls you provided say.
Why would you lie when I can point you to page 42 of that link? Also page 43 where 51% of Gen Z say that killing, raping and torturing civilians on October 7 can be justified.
Can you cite your source?
No problem. I'll include it here and there. https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HHP_Oct23_KeyResults.pdf
Thanks for sharing this. I've seen it all over so it's good to have supporting data. Yeah genz is pretty indoctrinated by propaganda and I feel they barely understand what's happening right now. So many pro hamas comments and the wish to destroy Israel to help hamas is just delusional. I see the justification and support.of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, all over these days.
[удалено]
Why are you trying to mislead people about what he said. From the river to the sea is wishing for the total elimination of Israel. That's not just questioning Israel's actions, bud.
I think Israel should not be supplying water or any other resources to a country that is not is own
>The posts supported the Palestinian cause and criticized what Ge called "apartheid upon Palestinian people" and "settler colonialism." Was he wrong? Plenty of people that condemn hamas would also agree with this.
Most Israelis are descended from people who lived in the region in the last century, and in the last two centuries as well - because Jews dealt with the Ottoman Empire too, calling their communities Yishuvs, and yes, poetically the Land of Israel. Having an immigration policy does not make them "settler colonialism," and that is so deeply offensive.
They are settling the West Bank. This isn't debatable in any sense. Widely acknowledged. I mean, Anthony Blinken has stated that Israeli settlers may be barred from entering the United States for their actions.
There are no settlers in Gaza. Why did they attack from Gaza?
There were settlers in Gaza but they withdrew those in the 2000s.
>Having an immigration policy does not make them "settler colonialism," and that is so deeply offensive. Of course not. The settler colonialism part comes from the settlers who are building colonies and ethnically cleansing the West Bank.
People don't seem to understand that Hamas wove itself into Palestinians. All comparisons don't relate because Hamas literally wove itself into the civilian population. So you cannot easily take out Hamas, when they bury themselves are underneath a mound of Palestinian civilians. This doctor should have realized this before being so careless. His youth and ignorance was his downfall.
To be fair, the IDF also have trouble telling the different between Palestinians or Hamas. Or UN workers and Hamas. Or Israeli hostages and Hamas. Or…
[удалено]
Never mix your profession with politics.
Oh well. Maybe he shouldn't have been doing dumbass things then.
Showing support for violence and terrorism has consequences. Doctors and medical professionals showing public displays of antisemitism, showing their harmful and dangerous bias towards patients that could be Jewish is extremely problematic.
How is this antisemitic?
"From the river to the sea" is a call for the destruction of Israel.
>Showing support for violence and terrorism has consequences. This applies to support Isreal too, right?
>Showing support for violence and terrorism has consequences. What did Dr. Ge say, specifically, in support of violence and terrorism? The article is very clear that he is calling for equal rights, not terrorist attacks: > He said that to him, the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" means equal rights and freedoms for Palestinians as well as Israelis in that territory. > > "To equate what I was doing to rising antisemitism around the world is really, really hurtful and also untrue," Ge said. "That narrative to support Palestinians in their call for equality ... to call that antisemitism, I think, does no one any good."
>What did Dr. Ge say, specifically, in support of violence and terrorism? As a Canadian who followed this story, I can tell you that he directly retweeted several Hamas/PIJ/Pro-terror tweets, including ones blaming Israel for the hospital explosion that had, at that point in time, been independently confirmed by French, US, and Canadian intelligence as being a PIJ rocket and not an IDF bomb. Retweeting terrorist propaganda is "specifically, in support of violence and terrorism."
Do you care if people wave a confederate flag if to them it means heritage, not hate?
[удалено]
\*pro-terrorism posts
There’s a doctor judging the Country Music Awards?
Oh no, if it isn't the consequences of his actions after literally chanting genocidal slogans! 😱
Legit thought CMA was country music awards. It’s Canada medical association isn’t it?
Funny how doctors care about human life
People have forgotten the value of keeping one's mouth shut. Everyone thinks they're the main character. The actual influential characters never get revealed.
>People have forgotten the value of keeping one's mouth shut. They've also forgotten how to live on this planet with people of differing opinions.
Agree. My rule is keep opinions to myself and support my charities quietly.
That's the opposite of democracy, if you have to keep your mouth shut in fear of being cancelled for having a different opinion, then it's no different from living in china or russia
Western free speech on full display :)
Canada has hate speech laws, and “free speech” in america only means the government can’t jail you…
Looks like the consequences of free speech. You can say what you want, but, if someone finds it unpleasant...