#I HAVE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT BALFOUR FOR SO LONG

[jewishvitya]

I remembered this essay from years ago when I was unlearning what I knew of Israel and zionism and I couldn't find it again, and now I see it in a Shaun video, with the source.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky, "The Iron Wall." I downloaded it from the Jabotinsky Institute.

These are the titles he gave this essay:

I said that Zionist leaders explicitly talked about Zionism as a colonialist movement. This is an example of what I was talking about.

Some quotes:

There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.

My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.

He's saying openly: no land was colonized with the consent of its indigenous population. So we have to do it without that consent.

Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel."

He said that any zionist who depends on the Arab population accepting a Jewish state on their lands, might as well withdraw from zionism because that's impossible.

Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.

And then he says that this Iron Wall is the British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration - they're the power that stops Palestinians from resisting us.

He says that despite this, zionism is moral and just, so justice must be done, zionism must move forward. He just wants to be honest about what it takes. He wants to discourage talks of an agreement to avoid signaling to the British that they must try to reach one between us and Palestinians. Just stop them from fighting us, we'll colonize the place.

Zionism was openly colonialist until this language was no longer politically useful.

Editing because I was kinda shocked by the response this got, in several moments. When the slavery of US founders was brought up to dismiss this whole thing. When First Nations reservations were brought up on the same list as the United States as equivalent to Israel, because I said I oppose the existence of a country that prioritizes one ethnic group at the expense of others, and I support democracy that protects everyone equally.

But another thing that's still nagging at me is the idea that this whole essay can be dismissed based on semantic arguments, like sure this uses the word colonialism, but is it actually the colonialism that we talk about and oppose? And what if this word is only used to appeal to the British for support?

This isn't the the first time that prominent zionist thinkers talk about zionism as a colonialist movement. I saw it in old publications, things like magazines, I'd be posting them too if I found them again. I did my own deconstructing years ago, I don't remember where I found all my sources.

I do remember that they talked about the two concepts together - the idea that we're here to colonize, and that we're here to come home. So nowadays there's the arguement that people can't colonize their own homeland, but to them there was no contradiction. I saw it again looking at Herzl's diary last night.

I say I define colonialism through actions and tactics, through the harm that's done to the victims of colonization. Because if we knowingly repeated the actions of colonizers and used the help of an imperial force to conquer a land, having a historic connection to it shouldn't absolve us.

Jabotinsky didn't write to the British in this essay. He wrote to other zionists who wanted to aim for something more collaborative with Palestinian Arabs. And it's true that word choice can mean different things in the context of the time, but there's a reason I chose those quotes. What is he actually saying in this essay?

Consider colonization throughout history - the native population never agreed, so we must do the as colonizers did in the past.

Palestinians will never agree to a Jewish state - so we must do it by force. We should use an imperial force as an "iron wall" to prevent them from resisting. Stop talking about an agreement because then the British will try to reach one instead of holding them back and letting us do our thing.

He's comparing the zionist movement to other efforts of colonization, to talk about emulating them.

This isn't a game of semantics. I'm not just bringing this up just because he used the words.

What he's describing - conquest by force, preventing a Palestinian state, forcibly creating a Jewish majority - is what happened. And it's still what's happening.

This is the branch of zionism that went into practice and founded Israel.

[doberbutts]

I’m wondering if you have thoughts on James Baldwin’s “open letter to the born again”? I’m struggling a bit with what his point is in that piece; it feels kinda dismissive on Jewish zionists agency in creation of Israel? But I may be missing parts or not getting things

The text in question.

And the segment I think anon is struggling with:

I know what I am talking about: my grandfather never got the promised “forty acres, and a mule,” the Indians who survived that holocaust are either on reservations or dying in the streets, and not a single treaty between the United States and the Indian was ever honored. That is quite a record.

Jews and Palestinians know of broken promises. From the time of the Balfour Declaration (during World War I) Palestine was under five British mandates, and England promised the land back and forth to the Arabs or the Jews, depending on which horse seemed to be in the lead. The Zionists—as distinguished from the people known as Jews—using, as someone put it, the “available political machinery,’’ i.e., colonialism, e.g., the British Empire—promised the British that, if the territory were given to them, the British Empire would be safe forever.

But absolutely no one cared about the Jews, and it is worth observing that non-Jewish Zionists are very frequently anti-Semitic. The white Americans responsible for sending black slaves to Liberia (where they are still slaving for the Firestone Rubber Plantation) did not do this to set them free. They despised them, and they wanted to get rid of them. Lincoln’s intention was not to “free” the slaves but to “destabilize” the Confederate Government by giving their slaves reason to “defect.” The Emancipation Proclamation freed, precisely, those slaves who were not under the authority of the President of what could not yet be insured as a Union.

It has always astounded me that no one appears to be able to make the connection between Franco’s Spain, for example, and the Spanish Inquisition; the role of the Christian church or—to be brutally precise, the Catholic Church—in the history of Europe, and the fate of the Jews; and the role of the Jews in Christendom and the discovery of America. For the discovery of America coincided with the Inquisition, and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Does no one see the connection between The Merchant of Venice and The Pawnbroker? In both of these works, as though no time had passed, the Jew is portrayed as doing the Christian’s usurious dirty work. The first white man I ever saw was the Jewish manager who arrived to collect the rent, and he collected the rent because he did not own the building. I never, in fact, saw any of the people who owned any of the buildings in which we scrubbed and suffered for so long, until I was a grown man and famous. None of them were Jews.

And I was not stupid: the grocer and the druggist were Jews, for example, and they were very very nice to me, and to us. The cops were white. The city was white. The threat was white, and God was white, Not for even a single split second in my life did the despicable, utterly cowardly accusation that “the Jews killed Christ’’ reverberate. I knew a murderer when I saw one, and the people who were trying to kilI me were not Jews.

But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of “divide and rule” and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.

Finally: there is absolutely—repeat: absolutely—no hope of establishing peace in what Europe so arrogantly calls the Middle East (how in the world would Europe know? having so dismally failed to find a passage to India) without dealing with the Palestinians. The collapse of the Shah of Iran not only revealed the depth of the pious Carter’s concern for “human rights,” it also revealed who supplied oil to Israel, and to whom Israel supplied arms. It happened to be, to spell it out, white South Africa.

Well. The Jew, in America, is a white man. He has to be, since I am a black man, and, as he supposes, his only protection against the fate which drove him to America. But he is still doing the Christian’s dirty work, and black men know it.

My friend, Mr. Andrew Young, out of tremendous love and courage, and with a silent, irreproachable, indescribable nobility, has attempted to ward off a holocaust, and I proclaim him a hero, betrayed by cowards.

For context: Andrew Young, considered the right hand of MLK Jr, had a longstanding and occasionally fraught relationship with the Jewish community. He stepped down from Congress shortly after being forced to choose between voicing support for Palestine and continuing to work towards black-jewish interests by his constituents and fellow politicians, as he felt very strongly about supporting both. This was a fairly unpopular move. While I don't believe he ever called himself Jewish by the strictest sense, he was actively involved in Jewish communities and the known "white" ancestry within him is a Polish Jew in his great grandparents.

To be honest, I don't really see much a problem with this as I think it fairly closely matches up not only with my understanding of the history of this problem but also my own country's part in it as well as my personal feelings on it decades later. It pretty blatantly says that Zionism is utilizing a machination of white supremist colonism due to the extensive history of antisemitism and having had the ancestral land dangled in front of them like bait on a hook from the British Empire, which owned Palestine at the time. It also goes on to say that many Zionists aren't even Jewish and are antisemitic in nature, but are Christians happy to get rid of as many Jews as possible and how that tracks due to the Christian church's millennia-deep history of antisemitism.

I don't think it lets anyone off the hook. I think it pretty much flat out says this is a problem caused first and foremost by white Christians who hate Jews and Arabs alike and have a vested interest in getting the two populations to fight because it'll be easier to kill off just the one group instead of both of them, if one ends up eradicating the other. It even talks about the friction between the black community and the Jewish community, what caused it, what drives it, how that friction in itself is a tool of white supremacy to hurt us both.

[unsolicited-opinions]

Read this again today for the first time in a year and it's still one of the best pieces I've read on this topic.

It is long, but I urge you to read it.

(Pasted here unedited so nobody needs to visit Musk's platform, formerly known as Twitter.)

Isaac Saul

11:26 AM · Oct 10, 2023

People ask me all the time if I am "pro-Israel" because I am a Jew who has lived in Israel, and my answer is that being "pro-Israel" or being "pro-Palestine" or being a "Zionist" does not properly capture the nuance of thought most people do or should have about this issue. It certainly doesn't capture mine.

I have a lot to say. I’ve spent the last 72 hours writing, texting, and talking to Israelis, Jews, Muslims, and Palestinians. Much of my reaction is going to piss off people on "both sides," but I am exhausted and hurting and I do not think there is any way to discuss this situation without being radically honest about my views. So I'm going to try to say what I believe to be true the best I can.

Let me start with this: It could have been me.

That's a hard thought to shake when watching the videos out of Israel — the concert goers fleeing across an empty expanse, the hostages being paraded through the streets, the people shot in the head at bus stops or in their cars. I went to those parties in the desert, I rubbed shoulders with Israelis and Arabs and Jews and Muslims, I could have easily accepted an invitation to some concert near Sderot and gone without a care, only to be indiscriminately slaughtered. Or, perhaps worse, taken hostage and tortured.

I don’t believe Hamas is killing Israelis to liberate themselves, nor do I believe they are doing it to make peace. They're doing this because they represent the devil on the shoulder of every oppressed Palestinian who has lost someone in this conflict. They're doing it because they want vengeance. They are evening the score, and acting on the worst of our human impulses, to respond to blood with blood — an inclination that is easy to give in to after what their people have endured. It should not be hard to understand their logic — it is only hard to accept that humans are capable of being driven to this. Not defending Hamas is a very low bar to clear. Please clear it.

It’s not possible to recap the entire 5,000 year history of people fighting over this strip of land in one newsletter. There are plenty of easily accessible places you can learn about it if you want to (and, by the way, many of you should — far too many people speak on this issue with an obscene amount of ignorance, loads of arrogance, and a narrow historical lens focused on the last few decades). But I'll briefly highlight a few things that are important to me.

In my opinion, the Jewish people have a legitimate historical claim to the land of Israel. Jews had already been expelled and returned and expelled again a half dozen times before the rise of the Muslim and Arab rule of the Ottoman Empire. Of course it’s messy because we Jews and Arabs and Muslims are all cousins and descendents of the same Canaanites. But Arabs won the land centuries ago the same way Israel and Jews won it in the 20th century: Through conflict and war. The British defeated the Ottoman Empire and then came the Balfour Declaration, which amounted to the British granting the area to the Jewish people, a promise they’d later try to renege on — all before the wars that have defined the region since 1948.

That historical moment in the late 1940s was unique. After World War II, with many Arab and Muslim states already in existence, and after six million Jews were slaughtered, the global community felt it was important to grant the Jewish people a homeland. In a more logical or just world that homeland would have been in Europe as a kind of reparation for what the Nazis and others before them had done to the Jews, or perhaps in the Americas — like Alaska — or somewhere else. But the Jews wanted Israel, the British had taken to the Zionist movement, the British had conquered the Ottoman Empire which handed them control of the land, and America and Europe didn’t want the Jews. As a result, we got Israel.

The Arab states had already rejected a partitioned Israel repeatedly before World War II and rejected it again after the Holocaust and the end of the war. They did not want to give up even a little bit of their land to a bunch of Jewish interlopers who were granted it all of a sudden by British interlopers who had arrived a hundred years prior. Who could blame them? It had been centuries since Jews lived there in large numbers, and now they wanted to return in waves as secularized Europeans. Many of us would probably react the same way. So, just as humans have done forever, they fought. The many existing Arab states turned against the burgeoning new Jewish state. One side won and one side lost. This is the brutal and broken and violent world we live in, but it is what created the global world order we have now.

Are Israelis and British people "colonizers" because of this 20th century history? Sure. But that view flattens thousands of years of history and conflict, and the context of World War I and World War II. I don’t view Israelis and Brits as colonizers any more than the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Romans or the Mongols or the Egyptians or the Ottomans who all battled over the same strip of land from as early as 800 years before Jesus’s time until now. The Jews who founded Israel just happened to have won the last big battle for it.

You can’t speak about this issue in a vacuum. You can't pretend that it wasn't just 60 years ago when Israel was surrounded on all sides by Arab states who wanted to wipe them off the face of the planet. Despite the balance of power shifting this century, that threat is still a reality. And you can't talk about that without remembering the only reason the Jews were in Israel in the first place was that they'd spent the previous centuries fleeing a bunch of Europeans who also wanted to wipe them off the face of the planet. And then Hitler showed up.

American partisans have a narrow view of this history, and an Americentric lens that is infuriating to witness. As Lee Fang perfectly put it, "Hamas would absolutely execute the ACAB lefties cheering on horrific violence against Israelis if they lived in Gaza & U.S. right-wingers blindly cheering on Israeli subjugation of Palestinians would rebel twice as violently if Americans were subjected to similar occupation."

And yet, many Americans only view modern Israel as the "powerful" one in this dynamic. Which is true — they obviously are. It isn't a fair fight and it hasn't been for decades because Israel's government is rich and resourceful, has the backing of the United States and most of Europe, and has an incredibly powerful military. At the same time, Israeli leadership has made technological and military advancements that have further tipped those scales — all while the Israeli government has helped create a resource-thin open air prison of two million Arabs in Gaza.

Conversely, Palestinians are devoid of any real unified leadership, and the Arab world is now divided on the issue of Palestine. Israel is unwilling to give the people in Gaza and the West Bank more than an inch of freedom to live. These are largely the refugees and descendents of the refugees of the 1948 and 1967 wars that Israel won. And you can't keep two million people in the condition that those in the Gaza strip live in and not expect events like this.

I'm sorry to say that while the blood on the ground is fresh. The Israelis who were killed in this attack largely have nothing to do with those conditions other than being born at a time when Israel and Jews have the upper hand in this conflict. Some of the victims weren’t even Israeli — they were just tourists. This is why we describe them as “innocent” and why Hamas has only reaffirmed that they are a brutal terror organization with this attack — an organization that I hope is quickly toppled, for the sake of both the Palestinian people and the Israelis. But as someone with a deep love for Israel, with friends in danger and people I know still missing, it breaks my heart to say it but I'm saying it again because it remains perhaps the most salient point of context in a tangled mess full of centuries of context:

You cannot keep two million people living in the conditions people in Gaza are living in and expect peace.

You can't. And you shouldn’t. Their environment is antithetical to the human condition. Violent rebellion is guaranteed. Guaranteed. As sure as the sun rising.

And the cycle of violence seems locked in to self-perpetuate, because both sides see a score to settle:

1) Israel has already responded with a vengeance, and they will continue to. Their desire for violence is not unlike Hamas’s — it’s just as much about blood for blood as any legitimate security measure. Israel will “have every right to respond with force." Toppling Hamas — a group, by the way, Israel erred in supporting — will now be the objective, and civilian death will be seen as necessary collateral damage. But Israel will also do a bunch of things they don't have a right to. They will flatten apartment buildings and kill civilians and children and many in the global community will probably cheer them on while they do it. They have already stopped the flow of water, electricity, and food to two million people, and killed dozens of civilians in their retaliatory bombings. We should never accept this, never lose sight that this horror is being inflicted on human beings. As the group B’Tselem said, “There is no justification for such crimes, whether they are committed as part of a struggle for freedom from oppression or cited as part of a war against terror.” I mourn for the innocents of Palestine just as I do for the innocents in Israel. As of late, many, many more have died on their side than Israel's. And many more Palestinians are likely to die in this spate of violence, too.

Unfortunately, most people in the West only pay attention to this story when Hamas or a Palestinian in Gaza or the West Bank commits an act of violence. Palestinian citizens die regularly at the hands of the Israeli military and their plight goes largely unnoticed until they respond with violence of their own. Israel had already killed an estimated 250 Palestinians, including 47 children, this year alone. And that is just in the West Bank.

2) Every single time Israel kills someone in the name of self-defense they create a handful of new radicalized extremists who will feel justified in wanting to take an Israeli life in retribution sometime in the future. Half of Gaza’s two million people are under the age of 19 — they know little besides Hamas rule (since 2006), Israeli occupation, blockades, and rockets falling from the sky. The suffering of these innocent children born into this reality is incomprehensible to me. They will suffer more now because of Hamas’s actions and Israel’s response, all through no fault of their own.

There is no way out of this pattern until one side exercises restraint or leaders on both sides find a new solution. Israelis will tell you that if Palestinians put their guns down then the war would end, but if Israel put their guns down they'd be wiped off the planet. I don't have a crystal ball and can’t tell you what is true. But what I am certain of is that every time Israel kills more innocents they engender more rage and hatred and recruit more Palestinians and Arabs to the cause against them. There is no disputing this.

So, why did this happen now?

I'm not sure how to answer that question except to say it was bound to happen eventually. It was a massive policy and intelligence failure and Netanyahu should pay the price politically — he is a failed leader. Iran probably helped organize the attack and the money freed up by the Biden administration's prisoner swap probably didn't help the situation, either. Israel's increasingly extremist government and settlers provoking Palestinians certainly didn't help. Nor has going to the Al-Aqsa mosque and desecrating it. Nor do blockades and bombings and indiscriminate subjugation of a whole people. Nor does refusing to talk to non-terrorist leaders in Palestine. Nor does illegally continuing to expand and steal what is left of Palestinian land, as many Jews and Israelis have been doing in the 21st century despite cries from the global community to stop. A violent response was predictable — in fact, plenty of people did predict it.

Israel is forever stuffing these people into tinier and tinier boxes with fewer and fewer resources. But if you want to blame Israeli leaders for continuing to expand and settle land that does not belong to them (as I do), then you should also spare some blame for Palestinian leaders for repeatedly not accepting a partitioned Israel during the 20th century that could have led to peace (as I do).

Please also remember this: Hamas is still an extremist group. The Palestinian people do not have a government or leaders who legitimately represent their interests, and it sure as hell isn't Hamas. Will some Palestinians cheer and clap at the dead, or spit on them as they are paraded through Gaza? Yes they will. And they have. Many will also mourn because they loathe Hamas and know this will only make things worse. This is no different than how some Americans cheer at the dead in every single war we've ever fought. It's no different than the Israelis who set up lawn chairs to watch their government bomb Palestine and cheer them on, too. This doesn't mean Palestinians or Israelis or Americans are evil — it means some of them are giving in to their violent impulses, and their zealous feelings of righteous vengeance.

Solutions, you ask? I can’t say I have any. If you came here for that, I’m sorry. The two-state solution looks dead to me. A three-state solution makes some sense but feels out of the view of all the people who matter and could make it happen. I wish a one-state solution felt realistic — a world of Israelis and Arabs and Muslims and Jews living side by side with equal rights, fully integrated and defused of their hate, is a version of Israel that I would adore. But it seems less and less realistic with every new act of violence.

Am I pro-Israel or pro-Palestine? I have no idea.

I'm pro-not-killing-civilians.

I'm pro-not-trapping-millions-of-people-in-open-air-prisons.

I'm pro-not-shooting-grandmas-in-the-back-of-the-head.

I'm pro-not-flattening-apartment-complexes.

I'm pro-not-raping-women-and-taking-hostages.

I'm pro-not-unjustly-imprisoning-people-without-due-process.

I'm pro-freedom and pro-peace and pro- all the things we never see in this conflict anymore.

Whatever this is, I want none of it.

Oct 10, 2023

[pinescent-and-gingerbread]

This is just a question, not counting oc's, who do you think would be the best girlfriend for Arthur? Do you think it could be Mary Linton, Mary-Beth, Sadie or Charlotte Balfour? You can also mention Charles ^^

In my opinion, I love the story Arthur had with Mary, but with Charlotte he was so sweet; I don't see him with Sadie (especially since she still has Jake very much in mind) and I think Mary-Beth looks better with Kieran (although I feel that she did have a crush on Arthur but he respected her because of the age difference, I mean he was 36 and she was 21.)

But what do you think about all this? Who do you think could have been the perfect pair for Arthur in canon? <3

Hi Crystal! Sorry I didn't answer your question sooner! Here is my very long rambling about this.

My reasoning is as follows; Arthur needs someone who can see the best in him as he usually can't see it in himself. Someone who could bring him up and find virtues in him he can't see. I think he would also need some physical affection and someone able to calm him down when his bitterness or angriness wins the better of him. Most of all, I think he expects loyalty from his s/o, and if not unconditional love, a serious relationship at least, maybe a deeper connection at best.

With all this in mind, my first choice would be Charles. I know Arthur isn't canonically bi but you said I could mention him so here we are. There is a reason why this ship is so popular in the fandom: Arthur and Charles definitely have a deep chemistry. The thing that struck me the most about them was the immaculate respect they have for each other, and their trust is beyond any level! Never once does Arthur suspects Charles to be the rat, never once does his opinion of him flattens; Arthur cares about him, is interested in his story, in his wellbeing... Charles definitely is one of the few who sees the good man Arthur can be, who sees beyond his tough facade and "dumb brute enforcer" role. Charles is also a quiet and very calm man; I think his natural demeanor could really match Arthur's more anxious way of thinking and heated actions.

Mary-Beth is a very sweet girl, I like her character but she doesn't strike me as the perfect match for our outlaw. We know she doesn't believe Arthur is a cold-hearted killer and he takes the time to talk with him at camp, so it's a plus, but it ends there imo.

Same goes for Sadie; her loyalty and the trust they share is very meaningful for Arthur. What bothers me is that we don't see Sadie before her loss. During the game, she's a changed woman; even in the epilogue. Losing her husband clearly has impacted her and I think she wasn't that cruel/impulsive before. To me she's really good in the role of Arthur's best friend/sister. She's a bit too much like him, more as a reflection of himself (both share losses from loved ones, both are very action-based and brave, both can be impulsive and brutal).

Charlotte is an interesting one to think about. I love her missions and how Arthur is helping her without judging her life choices (you want to live on your own in the middle of nowhere knowing you would probably die from starvation to honor your dead husband? Okay, I'll show ya how to hunt). I think she could fit pretty well considering her loyalty, her determination, courage, and sweet personality; but we don't have a lot of material to work with, sadly.

Finally, I know Mary has a lot of haters around the fandom but I'm definitely not one of them. She, like Charles, is one of the only ones who saw the good in Arthur, and probably one of the first ones in his life, ever. From what we can see in the missions and understand from their relationship, I see her as a caring and devoted lover even though she had to end their relationship. Arthur is a criminal but she didn't see him as just that. Until the very end, she wanted to believe in his better self, and to me it's one of the most important things: Mary was there to bring out the good in Arthur and lead him to a better path. We sadly know he chose not to follow it, but Mary was still there after all this time, trying to make a better version of him, and save him from this circle of violence he's stuck in. Mary will remain imo, even though their story is tragic, one of the best choices for Arthur.

NB. These are my personal opinions! I'm not claiming that it's absolutely true, feel free to disagree and argue with me!

[genderfluid-jew]

I'm gonna be wild and put this on an account where it might be shocking to post, but it needs to be said.

There is a genocide going on in Palestine, it is inherently wrong, and anyone who disagrees is upholding islamophobia and colonization.

Yes I have posts on my account that go against that and are more zionist. Guess what? I found out I was fucking wrong and I'm ashamed of myself for ever siding with those people. They're all on the wrong side of this conflict morally and it's reprehensible. It's also against Judaism, and even though they might argue that it isn't, Judaism has never been a religion that celebrates murder and slaughter as a solution, even if all else fails, which it hasn't in this case.

If you disagree with me, look up the founding of Israel, how the British government didn't care about Jews and just wanted them to go away and to have a puppet state that was friendly to them in the middle east, so they used Jews to achieve that. How could a country founded that way ever be moral? How could it be truly safe for Jews?

Look up how the Balfour Declaration was supposed to give non-Jews in the middle east rights and keep the rights of Jews outside of Israel safe. That's been a complete failure, I read it for the first time and laughed out loud. I don't know how anyone can look at that founding document and say "yep that's what Israel is doing today!" It's never been worse for Jews and it's all Israel's fault for constantly promoting the idea that the modern state of Israel is inherently central to Judaism, and not an ethnostate that's trying to slaughter the minorities around them that they don't like.

Look up the massacres that have been going on in Palestine. Attacks on displaced persons camps? Imagine if that had been Jews in the DP camps shortly after WWII. How many Jews would no longer be in existence if that had happened? How can people call themselves Jews if they support that? Think of the most recent massacre after writing this (on 6/9/24) - who the fuck disguises themselves as aid workers to sneak into somewhere and slaughter them? I saw rightful outcry when Hamas was doing that, and no pro-Israelis I saw protested against the IDF checking ambulances to 'make sure the need was real', so why is that being supported now? It's fucking disgusting, and if you aren't wholeheartedly condemning this you should be ashamed.

If you want to know the actual facts of what's going on and not the version that's been astroturfed by Israel (yes they have done this consistently over the past decades, look it up, there are literally campaigns to talk about how 'good' Israel is for queer people and the environment, as long as it's only their colonialist view of 'nice queers' and 'the Israeli environment'), try some books! I've read a few that are really good - Walking to Jerusalem by Justin Butcher and Light in Gaza edited by Jehad Abusalim, Jennifer Bing, and Mike Merryman-Lotze. Those books make it clear how reprehensible the behavior of Israelis are (throwing rocks at people for fun, demolishing peoples' houses and laughing, not letting them eat, constantly arresting and harassing them), and how despite all of it there are still Palestinians who are willing to work with Jews and consider them friends as long as they put in a bare minimum amount of support.

Or, you know, you could ignore this post and call me, a Jew, antisemitic for pointing out how awful Israel is being and how it's all against the laws of Judaism.

I hope everyone who disagrees is ready to make massive amounts of teshuvah in the future.

[popentertainment-interviews]

Alan Cumming

As Host of The Traitors, the Multi-talented Star Brings a New Flamboyance to The Peacock Network's Hit Reality Game Show

by Brad Balfour

Not one to watch reality TV, I didn't really get what The Traitors (the US version) was all about. But since it was hosted by Alan Cumming, the gender fluid actor/artist, I was intrigued to hear him speak about the show. He's the host of the reality game show, which is based on De Verraders, the Dutch show created by Marc Pos and Jasper Hoogendoorn. 

Having completed two seasons, the offbeat American version features Cumming in flamboyant costumes making grand gestures and arch pronouncements as contestants in the game move into a majestic castle. As a result, Cumming has garnered an Emmy nom for Outstanding Host for A Reality or Reality Competition Program (The Traitors). This further enhances the show's impact – but hopefully positive results will be in when the 75th edition of The Emmys airs September 15th on ABC.

The contestants work as a team to complete a series of dramatic and challenging missions. All of this to earn money for the prize pot. Some contestants are loyal, some are traitors – all of them established characters from other reality series.

Cumming – born on January 27, 1965, in Aberfeldy, Scotland – has had a long and distinguished career. He's done everything from editing pop magazines, a cabaret show, dramatic TV series, various stage versions of Shakespeare's plays and many starring roles in award-winning films. And, according to IMDB.com, "he's able to flawlessly change his voice and appearance for each role."

Now as he tackles The Traitors reality show, as both host and a producer, Cumming creates a new icon to connect to the LGBTQ community. At a recent screening of an episode, he spoke about this series just in time for Pride Month and preceding the Emmy nominations.

Alan Cumming, what makes you such an incredibly fun host to watch is that, unlike a lot of other reality shows, you really get into character. You become part of the cast in so many ways. What were your thought processes in coming into the show and figuring out how to play the role that you do within Traitors?

When they first talked to me about it, this was unlike anything I've ever done before. I couldn't quite understand why they'd ask me, but it sort of sounded fun. My agent said, "Oh, there's some show in a castle and they want you to do it." I took the meeting and realized they wanted me to, in a way, subvert the form of hosting a show like this by playing that sort of character. Everyone does a version of themselves when they host something that's not very true. But in this [case], it was actually a version of me and it's a very down-to-east Scottish layout. [My dog] Lala wasn't allowed to come the first time because of her papers, or COVID or something. But I said, "Oh, I should take my dog and pet her like a James Bond villain." I thought of it, and I still think of it as a character that I play who happens to be hosting all these people in this castle, which happens to be being filmed for American TV. 

What makes the character so interesting is that for long-time fans of reality shows, you have a lot of personalities who are binary in nature and larger-than-life. That is why we watch them year after year, characters like C.T. and Adra, who have been on American television for decades. You somehow manage to out-character them in many ways. It's like navigating a lot of those personalities while playing that character.

In a way, it's because they have characters and they all come with their shtick. That's what's so interesting about doing it. The first series was comprised of half-real and half-reality people. Definitely, the people who are used to the camera and have an inbuilt persona already. They play themselves very well and understand the role they have to do. Then they're thrown into this thing where everything's destabilizing for them. I just guide them into situations that hopefully will destabilize them even more. That's what's fun about it. Everyone has a character in a way. 

I think we're used to C.T. or Phaedra or people we've known for years. We understand their characters. We're now associates getting to know my character in it. I'm the stern daddy of it all. It's interesting to play that role and also, to try to keep some distance from them – the cast – on set. I don't talk to them or do takes. I don't engage with them in a chummy way like you might in a normal [situation] when there's other cast members. I very much think it's important that I have authority. They're scared of me. Then, of course, now, after it's all done, I can be like a normal person with them. I think you find that really overwhelming. They all came to my bar as it was when they were here earlier in the year doing the press thing. It was so hilarious. It was like them seeing Father Christmas having a drink or something.

That's the sign of a good host – that they're scared of you. 

They should be scared of me because I've got to reprimand them sometimes. There's a lot of things, obviously, that are captured in the show that I've got in those situations where I've really got to intervene. My word is law. It's great fun. Clearly, I'm a terrifying figure, but I don't think I'm scary. Also, I don't take any shit. I know how to play a scary person. I'm fair but firm in real life. 

Part of what makes The Traitors so unique is that in so many other reality shows, both competition and lifestyle, there's no real setting other than the competition. You go to Survivor Island and do this thing. Or, if you look at Real Housewives, it is their real-life kind of, from time to time. Here, you have this beautiful gothic backdrop. A lot of the events, whether it's the funeral or going to a cemetery, feels very theatrical – and creepy. We're almost subverting the narrative of what this type of show format really is while also being [true] to the format. 

What I think is liberating is the theatricality of it. Everyone in television is very scared of theatricality. If you ever try to pitch a show to a TV executive, the word "theater" or "theatrical" is poison to them. It's very liberating that theatricality is in its very DNA. It's gothic and camp in the true sense of the term. American people sometimes don't have the same understanding of what camp means to British people. What we're doing on the trade is camp. There's an annoyingness to it, an archness of theatricality, and a winking at the audience all the time about what it is. 

There's me in those insane costumes in this castle saying, "Welcome to my castle." We're bringing all these nutty personalities out of their comfort zones and then making them do insane things and pitting them against each other. It's so amped up already in a sort of gothic [manner] of what it's trying to do. The core of it is just a game. All those shows – as I've discovered now in my crash course in reality competition television over the last couple of years – are basically the same. 

Survivor is the same as RuPaul's Drag Race is the same as the chef one. They're all people doing things and then slowly one person gets put out and then they have to hold. Then there's intrigue. Basically, it's just like schoolyard games of pushing one person out until it's just the next thing. In a way, what's good about this is that that's all it is. But it's got all these psychological layers that I think people underestimate. Also, you're in a castle and they're maddened, these contestants, because they're not allowed to pick up their phones. They're not allowed to talk to each other. All they think about from morning to night is the show and the game. And they go nuts. It's great. 

We mentioned something, this idea of camp in the British sense of the term. Not necessarily what we think of it as evidenced by the Met Gala themes.

The theme was a good idea. People just didn't understand it.

The Traitors has a British counterpart. There was a version of this before the U.S. version. What's your take on what had to change within the format for a different audience, or if there had to be any changes, because television has become so much more globalized? Audiences are more open and receptive to different types of formats of television and different types of humor. 

I don't really know how to answer that question. I saw some of the first season of the British one. It's not as camp and theatrical as ours. I think this is probably the first time in television history that an American version of the show is more camp and theatrical than the British one. I think that's me, in my opinion. But I feel like, in a funny way, we were able to have more leeway in that department. That's partly down to the costumes and Sam Spector, the stylist – he and I had an idea of the character I wanted to play. 

[The British host] Claudia Winkelman has such a lovely personality and a lovely way in which she deals with people. They have real people, as well. They don't have celebrities. It's all a bit toned down and quite British. Whereas we were able – partly because it was a new show and partly because of the costume thing and me being this character – we've amped it up. It's got this higher level of theatricality built into it. I think sometimes other countries try to do that. But I don't think they're quite as nuts as we are. I know that now there's something someone said, "Claudia does your thing when she throws a picture on the floor now." I was like, "Yes, you bitch, throw away my little picture." But it's kind of funny. Sometimes I see little clips of people from other countries' versions. It's like, "Oh, it seems like it's sort of a fever dream." You know vaguely what they're talking about, but the circumstances are all different. 

Going to the opposite of toned down, your outfits on the show are probably some of the best parts of it. They somehow get even more fabulous and glamorous every episode.  How involved are you with choosing the outfits versus someone else? 

Well, very involved. I talk to Sam all the time. especially in the first season, because I said I wanted to be this dandy Scottish laird. You know what a laird means? It's like lord in a Scottish accent, a Scottish dandy, an aristocratic gent. To me, that means a lot of tartan, a lot of cloaks might be featured, things like that. I went to him with that idea and those sorts of things. Then he ran with it. We go back and forward. Then the second season, we were able to amp it up a bit. He themed the missions with my clothes. There's one with birds. I just have a funny big peacock on my hat and stuff like that. For the next one, I'm about to go and do it again. It's amped up again, more about layering things. 

I have this great relationship with him. We text all the time. He sends some stuff to me, just ideas and things to improve. I think we're going more and more and bigger and bigger. I think surely, they're going to stop us soon. But one thing I really do like about it is that – in terms of if we think about what's happening in America and the way that trans people and non-binary people are facing lots of hatred and challenges – me, in this show as a middle-aged man, I'm being quite femme-y and wearing a lot of practically feminine female clothes. What's really interesting is to be able to do that in a mainstream way, and challenge people's perceptions of what male and female is, and maybe be a bit in the middle. 

Hopefully, when the audience sees someone in the street who is non-binary or non-gender conforming, they won't be as shocked or horrified. They'll see me in a fanny dress and a cloak the night before. That's a really positive, accidental thing that's come out of this theatricality of the costumes. One of the things that didn't make it is ... I saw it today in my dressing room in my house because I was doing a fitting for some little film I'm doing. I opened this cupboard in the last episode of the last season. It was all on this big ship, which was another story because we had a hideous storm, and it was like "Triangle of Sadness." It really was. I was vomiting into a metal bowl. I'll never forget it. Thank you. And bon appetit. But there was a funny little hat that had a little galleon on it with sails. It was hilarious. It was this Tracy-esque sort of thing. Absolutely bonkers. So impractical and nuts. It was on theme for the thing. But it was so windy that day that it kept falling off my head. Now I have it as a little memory. 

As hosts, you are effectively the audience of the show. We're seeing a lot of the things that you're seeing and your commentary throughout the challenges is both biting and reflective of how we're thinking. One of the themes that emerges in this episode you all saw as well leads up to this idea with these contestants, of gamers, those who have been on competitive reality shows and the non-gamers – what they refer to as the bravo, basically anyone that sits up and has fancy wine as part of their show. Is there a core advantage to one side or the other?

No, it was the funeral episode. The funeral. Yeah, hilarious. But I just love that because I liked it. As the series went on, they showed me more of me laughing. Obviously, it's Pedro falling in the water. I just loved seeing how he's always getting wet.

Who doesn't? 

Who doesn't? But the thing I think about that, I thought was really interesting about the second season – this truly has been a crash course for me – I'm really at the center of it and I can experience it. I feel that a lot of people said that "Oh, the gamers, they know how to do this, the survivors, the big brothers, the CT did." The challenge, yeah. The perception is they are devious, and they know how to do this game, whereas the outsiders are, oh, you know. That's not true. It was proven wrong in this season because – like, who was the one who worked it all out, blew it in his execution of it – was the cutie little bachelor, Rafaela Peet. So, you know, the other non-gamer. That to me was really exciting because I loved when our perception about the game was just smashed. Although I guess two gamers did win, but you know ... it didn't necessarily mean it was because of their game win. It's that somebody had to win. I think it's really interesting. It's a much more level playing field. Also, it's a game of chance. You're a traitor because I tap you on the shoulder.  

That's why I loved it when, a couple of weeks in, they're going mental. They're like, "I could never be a traitor." I go, "You would if I tapped you on the shoulder." That's why the show is so good. It really screws with people's minds, with the psychological, and the hurt and guilt that people get as well. The guilt [comes from] lying to your friends and everything. It's layer upon layer of awfulness. Having seen people in physical distress, it's always hilarious. 

In the first episode of this [season], as you're walking around, you're going to pick the traitors. You do it a few times, and there's conversation afterwards amongst the cast members about the sound of your jacket rustling as you lift an arm. Or your footsteps and the sound of breathing happening. How did you approach that moment of, "I need to make this as secretive as possible?"

It was absolutely the most terrifying part of the whole thing. I could fuck it up immensely in one fell swoop if they heard me or something. There were more of them this year. I do all sorts of things. The first year, we filmed a thing where I touched every single person. We've got the close-up of my hand going on the thing. We filmed that first. They've got an idea of what it feels like to be touched. Then we go round and round and round and round. In terms of the rustling, I would do this. Right in front of their ears. It's so fun.  

I really enjoy it; it's the scariest part because I have a thing in my ear all the time. I can hear in the control room. When we're inside the castle, they're all in the control room, which is like NASA. It really is insane. I could feel the tension because it was the first thing of the show. Obviously, it's very tense in the room. When you're blindfolded, your other senses get much more aware. So it's really, really scary. I'm trying to get in and just do it without touching anything. I was just talking with Sam, the stylist, this week about what I was going to wear for that bit. Of course, there were things on my lapels. I thought that would be terrible if you heard them. You have to be really conscious of stuff like that. It's because everyone's senses are so heightened. But it is exciting and terrifying. 

Out of all of your friends or celebrities that you know, who do you think would be great on a season of The Traitors? And what would you have more fun with or which role would you think would be better – a traitor or a faithful?

I would like to be a traitor. I think everybody would like to be a traitor. It's just getting to go to the turret late at night and think who you're going to kill. I just think it's such fun. They get extra snacks when they go to the turret sometimes. But I don't know. Some people really don't want to be like that. That's why we do this thing now when I interview them. It's just hilarious. Lala and I are sitting there, and they come in one at a time, and they're really terrified. Some people are adamant they don't want to be a traitor. 

Of course, that's actually quite a good idea to make them a traitor when they're doing that. That's what I love about the game, is all these weird, confounding things you can do. Some people very much do think, well, you're not going to. It's actually really interesting, the mix of people that we choose for the show is all based on a lot of factors. But in terms of people that I know, we were just talking about her actually. 

I think Martha Stewart would be so good at it. She's so bossy and sort of strategic and so accomplished and everything. She would make that raft. She would get that catapult going. And, also, I just think she would be at home in a castle. So there's people like that. But I love those people who come on the show. I don't know who they are. 

Copyright ©2024 PopEntertainment.com. All rights reserved. Posted: July 22, 2024.

Photo #1 by Brad Balfour © 2024. All rights reserved.

Photos #2 & 3 © 2024 Ralph Bavaro and Euon Cherry. Courtesy of Peacock. All rights reserved.

[arthur-kilgore]

Came here through a mutual, and I'm intrigued by the fic you're writing. Any particular reason you picked Charlotte Balfour as your deuteragonist? Wonderful writing, by the way. :-)

Thank you for your kind words, and for this ask!! (Also apologizing in advance for how long this is lol, the short answer is I am so autistic about these characters /lh)

The first reason I started writing echoed fragments was because after replaying the epilogue for the second time I couldn’t stop thinking about the way Charles’ grief has so strongly changed him and is still impacting him 8 years later; I’m a Charthur truther to my core, but even in a platonic interpretation Arthur’s death (and the destruction of the gang, it wasn’t just about Arthur) was something that he hadn’t healed from all that time later.

To be someone as principled, skilled, and talented as Charles and to end up in the depths of Saint Denis, throwing street fights for money and being somewhat entangled with the mob? The way he throws himself into protecting John and Uncle when he had no real obligation to do so? That’s a man still reeling from the loss of the first community he’s let himself form a connection with since losing his family at a young age, and who possibly still feels guilty about leaving and not being there when the bitter end came, even though leaving when he did was inarguably the right thing to do.

Despite the fact that Charles cut ties and had the cleanest getaway of any of them, he *chose* to come back and faced the aftermath alone, carried Arthur across state lines to bury him, alone, and then what?? He spent the next 8 years alone? Why did he not return to the Wapiti, or if he did, why did he leave if his other option was being on his own, throwing street fights in Saint Denis, where he would have still been a wanted man??

Whatever happened to Charles between 1899 and 1907, if the end result was Uncle - of all people - hearing rumors about Charles from states away, and Uncle *of all people* deciding that Charles was in enough trouble that they needed to intervene��� it couldn’t have been anything good. I wanted so badly for him to have a chance to properly grieve and actually heal, and to not be alone through that process, so I decided that if R* wasn’t going to do it then I would lol

At the same time, Charlotte is one of the characters that I absolutely love to talk about and roll around in my brain. The more I thought about Charlotte and her mission line, the more I started to realize just how much these two had in common, personality-wise and particularly in regard to their freshly acquired grief and how it left them utterly alone after their loss, since both live on the outskirts of society (albeit for very different reasons, but the end result is the same).

The difference for Charlotte is that when she was at her absolute lowest, someone stepped in and was able to pull her back onto her feet - it quite literally saved her, and she went on to live a very meaningful and fulfilling life thanks to the care and compassion that Arthur showed her.

Charles was a close friend of the man who saved her life (whom she can no longer do anything to help), PLUS that man is fresh off the type of grief she knows all too well and is still working through herself; I think that given the opportunity Charlotte would want to pay that compassion forward. In addition to being able to grieve their losses together and having someone to lean on who knows exactly what you’re going through, I also just think they would have gotten along very well if they had ever crossed paths, so I made sure they did :3

The writing itself is slow going, but I have a whole general outline for this AU that already extends past the RDR1 canon timeline - one of the core ideas I want to explore is how the ripple effects of Arthur’s actions at the end of his life (mostly following canon with some slight modifications) end up having lifelong impacts for those who survived, and Charlotte happens to be one of the early indicators of that ripple effect. By showing her how to hunt he taught her to survive, and by giving her his horse he facilitated a personal connection that Arthur himself could never have anticipated - but because of that, the impacts of Arthur’s choices continue to resonate throughout the years.

[frances-baby-houseman]

It's been two days but I'm still mad about Ted Lasso SO

First of all, the keeley storyline is ludicrous. I hate when shows do this to characters-- have a great secondary character, make them a primary character, then try to keep growing them by spinning them off on their own journey. Keeley needs to go back to the clubhouse! BUT ON THE OTHER HAND if she's not with Roy, she ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY should not be with her boss!! The whole POINT was that keeley, a person who was a little bit famous for being a little bit famous and who had dated 23yo footballers from the time she was 19 until she was 30, was growing up. She had a mature relationship with Roy, she was really good at PR and doing great work for Richmond-- and now all they can think for her to do this year is have an affair with her boss?? They made it VERY CLEAR that they consider Jack to be her boss. DO NOT DO THAT!!! That's a really bad idea! Jodi Balfour is great and they have delightful chemistry and it's FINE to have Keeley have a relationship with a woman just NOT HER BOSS. That is NOT GROWTH!! Jodi Balfour should work for West Ham! That would be fun!!

Also it's just weird that they introduced the Colin is gay storyline and the Keeley explores her bisexual side storyline in two episodes when they have not previously acknowledged gay people. Just seems weird to me! (I know Keeley has alluded to being bi before but no one has acted on anything before these episodes. WEird!)

Ok and REBECCA. I am so mad about Rebecca. She is so smart and interesting and they have no idea what to do with her. There are interesting capable men out there who are NOT 20 year old men who work for her!!! FIND HER A MAN WHO DOESN'T WORK FOR HER! Also I guess MAYBE she wants a baby but they have never talked about that before and now they're like, well a woman in her late 40s probably wants a baby so how do we get that storyline in... I know, a PSYCHIC. That is so STUPID.

Also bring back Dr. Sharon. Ted falling apart is good but not when it exclusively consists of him doing it over video chat. Too much video chat for Ted!!

I am so mad at this show I don't even want to watch anymore. And the episodes are AN HOUR LONG!! Learn to EDIT.

[magxit]

@ike_saul on twitter posted thIs.

I know it's long. The caveat is this is from a Jewish persons perspective. 

People ask me all the time if I am "pro-Israel" because I am a Jew who has lived in Israel, and my answer is that being "pro-Israel" or being "pro-Palestine" or being a "Zionist" does not properly capture the nuance of thought most people do or should have about this issue. It certainly doesn't capture mine.

I have a lot to say. I’ve spent the last 72 hours writing, texting, and talking to Israelis, Jews, Muslims, and Palestinians. Much of my reaction is going to piss off people on "both sides," but I am exhausted and hurting and I do not think there is any way to discuss this situation without being radically honest about my views. So I'm going to try to say what I believe to be true the best I can.

Let me start with this: It could have been me.

That's a hard thought to shake when watching the videos out of Israel — the concert goers fleeing across an empty expanse, the hostages being paraded through the streets, the people shot in the head at bus stops or in their cars. I went to those parties in the desert, I rubbed shoulders with Israelis and Arabs and Jews and Muslims, I could have easily accepted an invitation to some concert near Sderot and gone without a care, only to be indiscriminately slaughtered. Or, perhaps worse, taken hostage and tortured.

I don’t believe Hamas is killing Israelis to liberate themselves, nor do I believe they are doing it to make peace. They're doing this because they represent the devil on the shoulder of every oppressed Palestinian who has lost someone in this conflict. They're doing it because they want vengeance. They are evening the score, and acting on the worst of our human impulses, to respond to blood with blood — an inclination that is easy to give in to after what their people have endured. It should not be hard to understand their logic — it is only hard to accept that humans are capable of being driven to this. Not defending Hamas is a very low bar to clear. Please clear it.

It’s not possible to recap the entire 5,000 year history of people fighting over this strip of land in one newsletter. There are plenty of easily accessible places you can learn about it if you want to (and, by the way, many of you should — far too many people speak on this issue with an obscene amount of ignorance, loads of arrogance, and a narrow historical lens focused on the last few decades). But I'll briefly highlight a few things that are important to me.

In my opinion, the Jewish people have a legitimate historical claim to the land of Israel. Jews had already been expelled and returned and expelled again a half dozen times before the rise of the Muslim and Arab rule of the Ottoman Empire. Of course it’s messy because we Jews and Arabs and Muslims are all cousins and descendents of the same Canaanites. But Arabs won the land centuries ago the same way Israel and Jews won it in the 20th century: Through conflict and war. The British defeated the Ottoman Empire and then came the Balfour Declaration, which amounted to the British granting the area to the Jewish people, a promise they’d later try to renege on — all before the wars that have defined the region since 1948.

That historical moment in the late 1940s was unique. After World War II, with many Arab and Muslim states already in existence, and after six million Jews were slaughtered, the global community felt it was important to grant the Jewish people a homeland. In a more logical or just world that homeland would have been in Europe as a kind of reparation for what the Nazis and others before them had done to the Jews, or perhaps in the Americas — like Alaska — or somewhere else. But the Jews wanted Israel, the British had taken to the Zionist movement, the British had conquered the Ottoman Empire which handed them control of the land, and America and Europe didn’t want the Jews. As a result, we got Israel.

The Arab states had already rejected a partitioned Israel repeatedly before World War II and rejected it again after the Holocaust and the end of the war. They did not want to give up even a little bit of their land to a bunch of Jewish interlopers who were granted it all of a sudden by British interlopers who had arrived a hundred years prior. Who could blame them? It had been centuries since Jews lived there in large numbers, and now they wanted to return in waves as secularized Europeans. Many of us would probably react the same way. So, just as humans have done forever, they fought. The many existing Arab states turned against the burgeoning new Jewish state. One side won and one side lost. This is the brutal and broken and violent world we live in, but it is what created the global world order we have now.

Are Israelis and British people "colonizers" because of this 20th century history? Sure. But that view flattens thousands of years of history and conflict, and the context of World War I and World War II. I don’t view Israelis and Brits as colonizers any more than the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Romans or the Mongols or the Egyptians or the Ottomans who all battled over the same strip of land from as early as 800 years before Jesus’s time until now. The Jews who founded Israel just happened to have won the last big battle for it.

You can’t speak about this issue in a vacuum. You can't pretend that it wasn't just 60 years ago when Israel was surrounded on all sides by Arab states who wanted to wipe them off the face of the planet. Despite the balance of power shifting this century, that threat is still a reality. And you can't talk about that without remembering the only reason the Jews were in Israel in the first place was that they'd spent the previous centuries fleeing a bunch of Europeans who also wanted to wipe them off the face of the planet. And then Hitler showed up.

American partisans have a narrow view of this history, and an Americentric lens that is infuriating to witness. As Lee Fang perfectly put it, "Hamas would absolutely execute the ACAB lefties cheering on horrific violence against Israelis if they lived in Gaza & U.S. right-wingers blindly cheering on Israeli subjugation of Palestinians would rebel twice as violently if Americans were subjected to similar occupation."

And yet, many Americans only view modern Israel as the "powerful" one in this dynamic. Which is true — they obviously are. It isn't a fair fight and it hasn't been for decades because Israel's government is rich and resourceful, has the backing of the United States and most of Europe, and has an incredibly powerful military. At the same time, Israeli leadership has made technological and military advancements that have further tipped those scales — all while the Israeli government has helped create a resource-thin open air prison of two million Arabs in Gaza.

Conversely, Palestinians are devoid of any real unified leadership, and the Arab world is now divided on the issue of Palestine. Israel is unwilling to give the people in Gaza and the West Bank more than an inch of freedom to live. These are largely the refugees and descendents of the refugees of the 1948 and 1967 wars that Israel won. And you can't keep two million people in the condition that those in the Gaza strip live in and not expect events like this.

I'm sorry to say that while the blood on the ground is fresh. The Israelis who were killed in this attack largely have nothing to do with those conditions other than being born at a time when Israel and Jews have the upper hand in this conflict. Some of the victims weren’t even Israeli — they were just tourists. This is why we describe them as “innocent” and why Hamas has only reaffirmed that they are a brutal terror organization with this attack — an organization that I hope is quickly toppled, for the sake of both the Palestinian people and the Israelis. But as someone with a deep love for Israel, with friends in danger and people I know still missing, it breaks my heart to say it but I'm saying it again because it remains perhaps the most salient point of context in a tangled mess full of centuries of context:

You cannot keep two million people living in the conditions people in Gaza are living in and expect peace.

You can't. And you shouldn’t. Their environment is antithetical to the human condition. Violent rebellion is guaranteed. Guaranteed. As sure as the sun rising.

And the cycle of violence seems locked in to self-perpetuate, because both sides see a score to settle:

1) Israel has already responded with a vengeance, and they will continue to. Their desire for violence is not unlike Hamas’s — it’s just as much about blood for blood as any legitimate security measure. Israel will “have every right to respond with force." Toppling Hamas — a group, by the way, Israel erred in supporting — will now be the objective, and civilian death will be seen as necessary collateral damage. But Israel will also do a bunch of things they don't have a right to. They will flatten apartment buildings and kill civilians and children and many in the global community will probably cheer them on while they do it. They have already stopped the flow of water, electricity, and food to two million people, and killed dozens of civilians in their retaliatory bombings. We should never accept this, never lose sight that this horror is being inflicted on human beings. As the group B’Tselem said, “There is no justification for such crimes, whether they are committed as part of a struggle for freedom from oppression or cited as part of a war against terror.” I mourn for the innocents of Palestine just as I do for the innocents in Israel. As of late, many, many more have died on their side than Israel's. And many more Palestinians are likely to die in this spate of violence, too.

Unfortunately, most people in the West only pay attention to this story when Hamas or a Palestinian in Gaza or the West Bank commits an act of violence. Palestinian citizens die regularly at the hands of the Israeli military and their plight goes largely unnoticed until they respond with violence of their own. Israel had already killed an estimated 250 Palestinians, including 47 children, this year alone. And that is just in the West Bank.

2) Every single time Israel kills someone in the name of self-defense they create a handful of new radicalized extremists who will feel justified in wanting to take an Israeli life in retribution sometime in the future. Half of Gaza’s two million people are under the age of 19 — they know little besides Hamas rule (since 2006), Israeli occupation, blockades, and rockets falling from the sky. The suffering of these innocent children born into this reality is incomprehensible to me. They will suffer more now because of Hamas’s actions and Israel’s response, all through no fault of their own.

There is no way out of this pattern until one side exercises restraint or leaders on both sides find a new solution. Israelis will tell you that if Palestinians put their guns down then the war would end, but if Israel put their guns down they'd be wiped off the planet. I don't have a crystal ball and can’t tell you what is true. But what I am certain of is that every time Israel kills more innocents they engender more rage and hatred and recruit more Palestinians and Arabs to the cause against them. There is no disputing this.

So, why did this happen now?

I'm not sure how to answer that question except to say it was bound to happen eventually. It was a massive policy and intelligence failure and Netanyahu should pay the price politically — he is a failed leader. Iran probably helped organize the attack and the money freed up by the Biden administration's prisoner swap probably didn't help the situation, either. Israel's increasingly extremist government and settlers provoking Palestinians certainly didn't help. Nor has going to the Al-Aqsa mosque and desecrating it. Nor do blockades and bombings and indiscriminate subjugation of a whole people. Nor does refusing to talk to non-terrorist leaders in Palestine. Nor does illegally continuing to expand and steal what is left of Palestinian land, as many Jews and Israelis have been doing in the 21st century despite cries from the global community to stop. A violent response was predictable — in fact, plenty of people did predict it.

Israel is forever stuffing these people into tinier and tinier boxes with fewer and fewer resources. But if you want to blame Israeli leaders for continuing to expand and settle land that does not belong to them (as I do), then you should also spare some blame for Palestinian leaders for repeatedly not accepting a partitioned Israel during the 20th century that could have led to peace (as I do).

Please also remember this: Hamas is still an extremist group. The Palestinian people do not have a government or leaders who legitimately represent their interests, and it sure as hell isn't Hamas. Will some Palestinians cheer and clap at the dead, or spit on them as they are paraded through Gaza? Yes they will. And they have. Many will also mourn because they loathe Hamas and know this will only make things worse. This is no different than how some Americans cheer at the dead in every single war we've ever fought. It's no different than the Israelis who set up lawn chairs to watch their government bomb Palestine and cheer them on, too. This doesn't mean Palestinians or Israelis or Americans are evil — it means some of them are giving in to their violent impulses, and their zealous feelings of righteous vengeance.

Solutions, you ask? I can’t say I have any. If you came here for that, I’m sorry. The two-state solution looks dead to me. A three-state solution makes some sense but feels out of the view of all the people who matter and could make it happen. I wish a one-state solution felt realistic — a world of Israelis and Arabs and Muslims and Jews living side by side with equal rights, fully integrated and defused of their hate, is a version of Israel that I would adore. But it seems less and less realistic with every new act of violence.

Am I pro-Israel or pro-Palestine? I have no idea.

I'm pro-not-killing-civilians.

I'm pro-not-trapping-millions-of-people-in-open-air-prisons.

I'm pro-not-shooting-grandmas-in-the-back-of-the-head.

I'm pro-not-flattening-apartment-complexes.

I'm pro-not-raping-women-and-taking-hostages.

I'm pro-not-unjustly-imprisoning-people-without-due-process.

I'm pro-freedom and pro-peace and pro- all the things we never see in this conflict anymore.

Whatever this is, I want none of it.

.

[garudabluffs]

“A Racist, Criminal Project”: Palestinian Historian on 1948 Nakba, Israel’s War on Gaza & U.S. Complicity

MAY 15, 2024 ABDEL RAZZAQ TAKRITI: Thank you, Amy.

"Well, first of all, I want to note that the numbers that are used by Palestinian historians now about the numbers of Palestinians that were expelled are at least 900,000. The Nakba witnessed the destruction of Palestinian society, the destruction of Palestinian urban life. The two most important cities, the cultural and economic capitals of Palestine, Haifa and Yaffa, were lost during the Nakba. A host of other cities were lost during the Nakba. Five hundred and thirty villages were completely depopulated during the Nakba. And out of a population of 1.4 million, you had the vast majority being displaced.

So this is a very significant event in Palestinian history. It’s a horrific event. And what’s very shocking about it is that it was an internationally sanctioned event in many ways. It was the byproduct of a policy that was created by the so-called international community during the mandate period, when they instituted the mandate system under the League of Nations. And they did something very unique in world history, which is to sanction the establishment of a settler-colonial presence in Palestine. So, it’s a very late settler colonialism, but it was a settler colonialism that led to the expulsion of the native population 30 years after the Balfour Declaration that instituted the settler-colonial program in 1917."

ABDEL RAZZAQ TAKRITI: "Yeah. So, this is a criminal trying to hide their crime. They’ve committed the crime. By the way, the current Israeli government, they’re the descendants of the people that created the Nakba. And I’m talking here individually. So, Netanyahu’s father was a member of the Irgun, Benzion Netanyahu. That was a terrorist organization that carried out the ethnic cleansing of Yaffa. It bombarded the city of Yaffa, besieged it mercilessly, put its inhabitants under ruthless danger. And, you know, somebody like Yoav Gallant, who is currently engaging in major ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza, his father named him after Operation Yoav, which led to the depopulation and the expulsion of the majority of southern Palestine and its cornering into Gaza. So, these people who are the children of those that committed this crime are trying to engage in Nakba denialism by banning the commemoration of the Nakba. They’re trying to hide the crime so as to be able to continue committing similar crimes in the present.

And this is a very important point. You know, I’ve been engaged in Nakba education for a long time, and I always say we have to apply four principal rules to Nakba education."

[highaver]

@miss-polly asked: ❛ what else do you want me to say? ❜

"Well, if you really felt like it, you could tell me how clever and handsome and talented I am and I definitely have a whole load of career options ahead of me."

He was smiling, but there was no denying the anxious edge to him. It was an odd thought, life after football. Especially given that Balfour had never really known anything else. As much as he'd been trying not to go on too long about it, anxiously wringing his hands in his lap as he spoke, well... talking to Elethea was complicated sometimes. But Polly? Too easy. So easy, he was starting to feel guilty.

"You can just tell me to shut up, though. Honestly. I'm - boring you to death, surely."

[feywildfancypants]

I was reading The Hundred Years War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi when I heard the news about Resolution 888 in the US house of representatives. Khalidi separates 100 years of history(1917-2017) by what he calls 6 Declarations of War. In each of these chapters he highlights things like the Balfour Declaration, UN General Assembly Resolution 181, and the Oslo Accords. It is so incredibly disheartening to think that the book could have just continued on. The 7th Declaration of War, following the 2023 Hamas attack and disproportionate Israeli retaliation, US House of Representatives votes almost unanimously on Resolution 888. Despite the protests of its citizens, the US affirms Israel's right to exist and declares that anyone who challenges that is antisemitic.

When are we going to stop fucking over other countries? First it was Britain, then it was (and is) the US. My government sticks its grubby little hands in other people's business and then wonders, how could it have gotten this bad?

Khalidi says this towards the end of the book:

“While the fundamentally colonial nature of the Palestine-Israel encounter must be acknowledged, there are now two peoples in Palestine, irrespective of how they came into being, and the conflict between them cannot be resolved as long as the national existence of each is denied by the other. Their mutual acceptance can only be based on complete equality of rights, including national rights, not withstanding the crucial historical differences between the two.”

The US has had a massive hand in creating an environment where both sides deny the humanity of the other. (And don't mishear me, I know this is not an even fight). And if the US truly had any desire for peace in the region it would start with the humanity of EVERY person. And it would be predicated on Equal rights for every one of those people. But as a colonial empire, the US government isn't really interested in peace is it? Instead they are stoking the vile embers of islamophobia and antisemitism and still trying to come out looking like the good guy.

But we won't look away from their sins and we won't forget. They aren't listening to us. They've tried ignoring our calls for a ceasefire. They don't want to hear us calling for the recognition of every person's humanity, at home and in the Middle East. So don't stop talking about it. Don't stop demanding better. Don't let them rest until they get the message. Hold your representatives accountable.

[lesfeldickbiblestudy]

  Through the Bible with Les Feldick LESSON 2 * PART 3 * BOOK 70 ADULTEROUS ISRAEL TO BE RESTORED – PART 3 Hosea 2:14 – 4:14 Once again, it’s good to have everybody back from the coffee break. We’re doing program number three this afternoon. We’re going to go right back and pick up what I didn’t finish in the last program.  For those of you on television, if you’re just tuning in, we’ve been talking about Israel being scattered into all the nations of the world. We started with our references in Deuteronomy, and now we’re back up into Ezekiel.  That’s where we’re going to pick up – right where we left off in Ezekiel 37, how the Nation of Israel is out there scattered into every nation under heaven, but the time would come when they would start coming back to their homeland. Now of course, it didn’t happen over night.  It really started in the late 1800’s, 1890-95, somewhere in that neck of the woods when Jewish leaders started talking about a homeland.  They and Great Britain, of course, who had the empire that circled the globe, were the major players.  So, a politician in England by the name of Balfour (Arthur James) and the Jews made the Balfour Declaration--that was that the Jews could have a homeland in the Middle East. First they had it drawn clear across the Jordan Valley and on into what is present-day Iraq and Jordan, but the Arab world put up such a howl that Great Britain backed off.  Instead they designated it from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.  So anyway, the Jews back then were being forced by persecution and every other which way, that was long before Hitler came on the scene.  So, a lot of the Jews started making their way back from North Africa, Morocco and in that area.  Then the rest of the Arab world started persecuting them unmercifully, so they finally left Syria.  I don’t think there’s a Jew left in Syria, certainly not in Iran. As a result of all that, they gradually made their way back to the homeland. In 1948 they declared themselves a Sovereign State.  Okay, so all that has come in fulfillment of this. Come back with me now at the opening to Hosea chapter 3 verse 4, so that we can be where we want to start every program in Hosea.  Back to chapter 3 verse 4 where we’re talking about the dispersion.  How that for a long time they’ll be out there in all the nations of the world, verse 4. Hosea 3:4-5a “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:” In other words, they had nothing of their religion, as much as I hate to use the word.  All right, then the key word in verse 5 is—“Afterward…”  All right, but we’re not going to look at the “afterward” yet, until we go back and finish some of those verses with regard to all those 1900 and some years that Israel was scattered into the nations of the world. All right, come back where you were with the dry bones in Ezekiel 37 verse 11.  Here’s where we have the interpretation of this vision. Ezekiel 37:11 “Then he (the LORD) said unto me, (the prophet) Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: (Now that tells you right up front that ten tribes are not lost.  All Twelve Tribes are still involved even at this point in time.) behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.”  In other words, that was when they were out amongst the Gentile world--verse 12. Ezekiel 37:12a “Therefore, prophesy and say unto them, (these scattered Jews) Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves,…” Now, the best way I can explain that in recent history was when the Soviet Union collapsed, and one of the first results of that collapse was permission for the Jews to immigrate out and down to Israel or wherever. It was a providential thing. As soon as the Jews had the opportunity, I think in the first two years of the 90’s--1990, 91, 92, something like two million Jews left Russia to go to the Nation of Israel.

  In fact, Iris and I ran into a family of them down on the Dead Sea.  The parents couldn’t talk English but the kids could.  So we could communicate with the family through the kids.  But it was typical of Russians who had left Russia because now the bars were lowered. All right, that’s exactly what I think of when it says here “I will open your graves.”  When the Gentile world would finally give permission for Jews to leave their nation and go wherever they wanted to go.  Of course, a lot of them ended up there in their homeland of Israel.  All right, reading on. Ezekiel 37:12b “…O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.”  Now, do you see how providential that is?  You know, I’ve shared it on the program before, and I’ll do it again.  The first time Iris and I were in Israel, we came out of the hotel restaurant that evening and a well-dressed businessman approached us. He said, “You’re from America, aren’t you?”  We said, “Yes.”  He said, “What do you think of our little country?”  I said, “It’s fabulous what God has done!”   He said, “God didn’t have a thing to do with it.  We did it!”    “Well,” I said, “I beg to differ.  But I’m not going to argue with someone in his homeland.” But see, that was their idea, that they did it.  No, they didn’t!  God did it!  Against all the odds.  My goodness, Great Britain did everything in their power to keep any Jews from coming to the land of Israel.  But they got there.  And then the Arab world consorted to drive them into the sea, but it never happened.  Even to this day, they talk about it.  It’s not going to happen, because God has sovereignly designated that they are going to come to their homeland. Okay, so now they’re back according to Ezekiel. Now, let’s just stop at one verse on our way to the Book of Acts, so that you’ll see what James was referring to.  Turn to the Book of Amos, that’s right after Hosea--Joel then Amos.  Amos the last chapter, chapter 9, this is an interesting verse. Yet, it was in such a veiled form that Israel’s prophets didn’t catch it.  Jesus, of course, never alluded to it.  But now as we can read and look back, we know that this is what the prophet was talking about.  Amos chapter 9 and again, we’re talking about the dispersed Nation of Israel in those first nine – ten verses.  But now look at verse 11. Amos 9:11 “In that day (When God will finally have His people back in their homeland.) will I  raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it (Now remember, we’re talking about King David’s day.) as in the days of old:”  Now, you remember what I said in one of the earlier programs this afternoon?  When did Israel reach the pinnacle?  During David’s and Solomon’s reign.  The glorious Kingdom of David.  What did the Queen of Sheba say?  “The half has never yet been told.”  Of what?  The glory of David’s kingdom.  All right, so this is the analogy.  It’s going to be restored with the glory that it was in David’s day, only far, far greater. Amos 9:12 “That they (the Nation of Israel) may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, (the Gentile world) which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.”  In other words, God is going to bring Israel back to the homeland at some point in time.  He’s going to return and set up this glorious kingdom promised to Israel. All right, now I made mention of Acts chapter 15. Here we have the record of the Jerusalem Council.  And I think, according to some of the ancient writers, this was in A.D. 51.  Now get your numbers – Christ was crucified in A.D. 29.  I feel that the Apostle Paul was converted in A.D. 37.  He began his ministry in A.D. 40. Now, he is being confronted by the Judaizers from the Jerusalem Jewish church and told that his converts had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses.  That was the whole purpose of the Jerusalem council.

  All right, now I’m not going to take the time to take you through all that. As you come to the end of that council, the leadership of the Jerusalem church recognized Paul’s Apostleship and that he would be going to the Gentiles, come in at verse 12. Acts 15:12 “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, (Who had been ministering up in Antioch, remember, as well as in Turkey and so forth.)  declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among (What people?) the Gentiles by them.”  Now this is unheard of.  God had done all kinds of miracles in Israel, but amongst the Gentiles?  Unheard of! All right, so they took this all in as the argument is now being kind of put to rest, because they are recognizing that Paul and Barnabas do now have a ministry with the Gentiles that Israel was never permitted to do.  All right, now verse 13. Acts 15:13 “And after they had held their peace, (The tumult was quieting down.) James answered, (We know from Galatians chapter 2 that James was the moderator of this Jerusalem council.) saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14. Simeon (Peter) hath declared how God at the first did visit the (What?) Gentiles, to take out of them…” Now keep your pronouns right.  Who are the “them” now?  The Gentile world.  Paul has been designated to go to the Gentiles. Acts 15:14b “…to take out of them a people for his name.”  Now, Acts can’t tell us what it is, because it really hasn’t been totally revealed.  But you get to Paul’s letters and what do we call it?  The Body of Christ.  The Body of Christ is that called-out group of Gentile believers under Paul’s Gospel of Grace that has believed for salvation that Jesus died for their sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. The Body of Christ is totally insulated from all the promises of Israel. Now, let’s see my timeline again.  Here we come past the rejection now.  All the promises concerning this glorious kingdom over which God the Son, Jesus the Christ, would rule and reign, but Israel rejected it.  Then they hit the prime of their rejection when they did what?  Stoned Stephen.  Stephen was still appealing to the Nation to repent of having killed that promised Messiah.  But they would not.  So they stoned Stephen.  All right who were we introduced to at the stoning of Stephen?  Saul of Tarsus All right, now we get back to our timeline. After Christ has ascended and Israel’s rejection, now God is going to do exactly what Amos is referring to.  That after a period of time, which would include our Church Age and the Tribulation, the King and the Kingdom would still come in and bring back the glories of David and Solomon. But here’s what we have to realize.  God’s time clock stopped.  He sent Paul out into the Gentile world to call out a people for His name, which like I said, we call the Body of Christ.  All right, come back with me a minute to Acts chapter 15 again, now verse 15. Acts 15:15 “And to this (James says) agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,” But you see, they didn’t have a clue what Amos was talking about.  They didn’t have a clue that after 1,900 years of being scattered into all the nations of the world, they would come back and reappear as a Nation and yet have the promised Kingdom become a reality.  They didn’t know that. In fact, how many times have I done this before, and I’m going to do it again.  Keep your hand in Acts 15.  Go to I Peter, because I think this is so interesting that now, after the fact, Peter can write just exactly what I’m saying.  They couldn’t put it together.  Oh, it was back there, but in such veiled language they didn’t understand.  And they weren’t supposed to.  All right, back in I Peter chapter 1, I usually like to start at verse 9.  Now remember, Peter, too, is addressing fellow Jews.  He says that up in verse 1. I Peter 1:1a “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia…” Well, Gentiles weren’t strangers in their own land, but Jews were.

   So, this is who Peter’s writing to. He’s writing to Jews of his own day and who were fellow believers that Jesus was the Christ.  All right, now verse 9. I Peter 1:9a “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.  10. Of which salvation the prophets (the Old Testament prophets) have inquired…”  They were just constantly questioning – what about this?  How is this going to happen?  What is it?  You can just about cook up as many questions as I can. I Peter 1:9b “…have inquired and searched diligently, (What were they searching?  The Scriptures!  The Old Testament Scriptures.  Trying to put it all together.  And they couldn’t. They weren’t supposed to.) who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:” Well, when would it come for the Jew?  When their Messiah would return, see? But the Old Testament Prophets didn’t speak of it as a second coming.  They just spoke of it in veiled language that He would come and suffer and die.  But on the other hand, there were prophecies that He would rule and reign.  I’ve covered this before on the program.  My, they questioned--how is this going to happen?  Are we going to have two Messiahs?  Will one suffer?  Are we going to have a second Messiah that will rule and reign?  They certainly couldn’t put together that the same One would be both!  All right, that’s what Peter is talking about.   All right, reading on in verse 11. I Peter 1:11 “Searching (the Scriptures) what, or what manner of time the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) of Christ who was in them (the writers of the Old Testament) did signify, when it (or He) testified beforehand (Now here they are, the two aspects of the Messiah.) the sufferings of Christ, (the Messiah) and the (What?) glory that should follow.”  Now, can you see their dilemma?  Here we’ve got to have a Messiah who suffers.  But we have to have a Messiah that’s going to rule and reign.  How is He going to do that unless we have two?  They could not put it together that it would be one and the same.  That’s why the normal rank and file Jew of today, is he looking for the Messiah the second time?  No.  The what?  The first!  They can’t reconcile the fact that the Messiah that suffered is the Messiah that’s going to rule and reign.  That has been a dilemma for the Jew down through the centuries.     All right, I think that’s sufficient there. Back to Acts then a minute.  Now James and Peter and John, after the fact of the suffering, have now seen Him ascend back to Glory.  Now they’re beginning to get the picture that this same Messiah who suffered would return and be the Messiah who would rule and reign.  But, now here’s my question.  Did they have any idea it would be 1,900 and some years?  No way!  So Peter and James and John and Jude and Revelation all speak in language as though it would be in their lifetime.  They had no idea it would be such a long extended period.  But yet, you see, Hosea is talking in the same language that the Nation would be out there for a long time.  Until the “bones were white with age.”  And then they’d come back.  All right, verse 15: Acts 15:15 “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,” Now they can put it together.  This is what Amos was talking about. After the calling out of a people for His name up in verse 14, after that long period of dispersion, they would be back in the land, but they would still have to wait for the out-calling of that Body of Christ, the Gentiles. Acts 15:16 “After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:” Now, get the “after.”  After what?  The calling out of the Gentile Body.  That’s why I maintain it has to be a pre-tribulation rapture, because God is not going to be dealing with the Gentile Body and the Nation of Israel.  No, He’s going to be dealing with the earthly people, the Nation of Israel, first in the horrors of the Tribulation and then in the glory of the Kingdom.

  But it won’t happen until the church is complete and is taken out of the way. All right, now I’ve got a few minutes left, yet?  Well, let’s go to verse 17.  Let’s not skip that.  Let’s stay here a minute.  After the calling out of the Body of Christ, “he would raise up again the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;”  That’s why we read it in Amos before we came to Acts.  “And I (God says) will set it up.”  Set what up?  The Kingdom of David.  Now verse 17. Acts 15:17 -18 “That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” Well, He certainly worked only with the Nation of Israel, but I had one writer say, “He must have been a racist!”  No, He’s not a racist!!  What a stupid comment.  But see, that’s the mentality of the world.  Just because He dealt with Jew only.  I guess they were commenting on that verse in Matthew 10:5-6 where the Lord told the Twelve, “Go not into the way of a Gentile or house of a Samaritan, but go only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” That is when he wrote and said, “He must be a racist.”  No!  I’m going to write back.  The letter is still on my desk.  I’m going to write back that Christ was on Covenant ground!  He could not condescend to Gentiles until the covenant promises were fulfilled.  But He’s going to set those covenant promises aside for 1,900 years and turn to the Gentiles without Israel. Is He being racist by now setting Israel aside?  No!  It’s in His Sovereign design.  All right, now let’s go to Romans chapter 11. We have the same concept in different language.  It’s the same thing.  That after God has called out the Body of Christ, He’s going to return and deal with His covenant people. Romans chapter 11 verse 25 and then there are people, famous people, highly esteemed people, who say that there’s nothing to do with Israel anymore. They say that the people who call themselves Jews aren’t Jews at all.  How ridiculous can people get?  But here’s another verse that shows that God is not through with Israel.  Romans 11 verse 25. In fact, the whole chapter 11 is dealing with God coming back and dealing with Israel. Romans 11:25a “I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, (Or secret or something that no one previous to Paul understood.  And what is it?) lest ye should be  wise in your own conceits; (In other words, puffed up with your own ignorant knowledge.  And here it is.) that blindness in part (Not forever, but for a period of time. And I suppose even Paul, after the Holy Spirit inspired him to write that, was thinking in terms of 10 or 15 years, instead of 1,900 and some.  But nevertheless, here we are, and it still holds.) that blindness in part (for a period of time) is happened to Israel,…” It is a spiritual blindness that the Jewish people, as a multitude, cannot understand.  So they’re spiritually blind.  Oh, we get a few.  I’ve got a fair amount of Jews in my audience, and they’re interesting.  I could sit here for another hour and tell you about some of them, but whatever.  Here we have it that the rank and file of Israel are spiritually blind to this Age of Grace. Romans 11:25b “…that blindness (Sovereignly) in part is happened to Israel, (Then what’s the next word?) until (At some point in time that blindness is going to end, and God is going to be able to deal once again with His covenant people. When will that be?) until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”  All right, now you compare that with what we just read in Acts 15.  When will the fullness of the Gentiles come about?  When the Body of Christ is complete.  When the last person, I feel, has been saved and has become a member of the Body of Christ, we are out of here!  And God picks up where he left off with Israel. Now, I can’t understand why that’s so hard for people to see.  I had one lady that saw it in just 15 minutes of a phone conversation.

  And she said, “Les, it’s all so logical!”  Yeah, that’s exactly what it is.  It’s so logical.  God has set Israel aside for 1,900 and some years.  He has fulfilled the prophecy of bringing them back, and He is filling up the Body of Christ.  And one of these days it’s going to be full.  The trumpet will sound.  We’re out of here, and God will start dealing with Israel. Oh, it’s going to be horrible for seven years.  But He's still dealing primarily with Israel. As a result of all of their chastisement and the wrath and vexation of God, here comes the Kingdom.  And for the Jews who have survived and are believers, they’ll go into that Kingdom. They’re going to enjoy all the promises of God that have been spoken for the last 4,000 years.  It’s just going to come rolling in on the Nation like a flood.  As the Old Testament puts it, “They’re going to blossom like a rose in the desert.” So, don’t ever give up on the Nation of Israel.

[dinitride-art]

Lighting and Stranger Things Season Four - Full Analysis (Pt.37)

Now where where we? Ah, yes. In the pit of despair. So, after the monologue, Vecna gets his shit rocked by everyone. My favourite thing in season four (besides the lighting and Will) is in this part of episode nine. And I have wanted to talk about it for like. Three months. 

S4:E9 - FIRE!!!! (#1)

So, Murrays got a flame thrower. In the latter half of the Vecna battle, it’s all fire. The fire has a few distinct characteristics that are emphasized when we see it. First, it’s intentional and directed. Like Murray with his flame thrower, he aims it and intentionally fires at a target. Second, the people fighting with fire are our characters that we’re rooting for. That’s their weapon of choice, not Vecna’s. And thirdly, and most importantly, the fire we are shown has two distinct colours. And yes, while this is just science because blue fire is hotter than yellow and orange- our attention is drawn to this aspect of fire in these shots. These two colours.

Blue and yellow.

Nancy, Steve and Robin are freed from the vines. A few notes about their costuming; Robin has a red hat and a vest, Nancy has a gun and pink nail polish, and Steve has visible patches and his watch is in shot. Will Byers in season one episode one, was wearing a red vest and notably had a shotgun. Eddie, when he dies, tries to get away on a bike. The bikes this season have had different tones of light, Eddie and Robin’s being the brightest when compared to Steve and Nancy. In the second half of the Vecna fight Robin, Nancy and Eddie have objects around them and on them, that point to Will in season one, episode one. 

“God, we need Will,” is a line that persists all throughout season four. Max draws the Creel house, they communicate with the lights in the Upside Down, Max confronts Vecna, they track Vecna with the lights. They’re doing exactly what Will has already done. They’re piggybacking off of Will’s experiences. 

Hopper picks up this sword after Murray sets everyone on fire. The way that this is shot, makes me think that this sword is more than just a symbol of protection and bravery. And all that sword stuff. We’re meant to look at it and make connections. Important objects have emphasis- like Will’s painting, and the fire, and the stained glass window behind El. We are meant to look at them. 

Within Stranger Things, there is one specific sword that comes to my mind. The sword outside of Castle Byers. Another connection to Will. 

The lights here are yellow and blue. Like the fire was. Yellow and Blue are Mike and Will’s colours, and Mike and Will were absent from the main supernatural arc this season. Even in a different country- Joyce, Hopper and Murray managed to get themselves involved in the Upside Down. El was learning about her past, everyone in Hawkins was dealing with Vecna- but Mike, Will, Jonathan and Argyle were visiting Suzie. And having heart to hearts. And finding El. They had nearly no connection to anything happening in Hawkins. But everything in this last half of the battle seems to be saying they should’ve been there. 

Steve throws the first molotov cocktail. But Robin is more interesting. She’s got her vest and red hat which I mentioned before, but now we can see that even the cloth in her molotov cocktail is red. Red like Coca Cola, and blood, and the accents on Will’s cloths in season one and three. Like the heart on Will’s painting. 

We get a close up slow-mo shot of this thing flying through the air. We’ve got red and blue accents, which if we’re in line with the Snow Ball- mean forced conformity. The fire, like Murray’s flame thrower, is blue and yellow. There’s a lot going on here. Especially the fact that the name of the alcohol is ‘Balfour’. 

The setting that they’re in is blue- this contrasts the fire really well. I also just wanted to mention the stuff they put into each frame? Like there’s different colours and overlays and circles of light, and it’s a whole lot of editing. I think it’s really cool. There’s just so much that’s been put into this scene.

Hopper cuts off the demogorgon's right arm. The left arm is the Vecna related one. So this could be furthering the idea that they’re losing this fight because they went about it the wrong way. Another thing is that Hopper (and Joyce’s) Jacket is red and blue. And the setting is somewhat red and blue tinted. That also points to themes of forced conformity, as was established by the Snow Ball in both season two, and in this season when we went back there with Max. 

They set Vecna on fire. And we’ve got more red and blue.

I’m counting twenty vines connected to Vecna, which is a bad number for him to be associated with. Twenty is A. the highest roll on a twenty sided die, and B. a critical hit. If you roll a twenty on an attack role then you double the numbers you roll on the damage dice (usually- some classes have other things when you roll a twenty). And if you roll a twenty elsewhere, like say a death save (when you are at zero hit points and dying. You have three death saves. You fail three, you die, you succeed on three, you live.) you stabilize and gain a hit point. So if Vecna’s rolling 20′s- it’s bad. Erica rolled a 20 and beat Vecna in Hellfire. Maybe Vecna’s doing the same shit- but reversed.

The Creel house dissapates when Vecna is set on fire. The outside intervention is what made him leave. El fighting him didn’t seem to have an effect on that. 

There’s something weird going on with all this. Because El looks confused as it all fades to black. When El finds people, she’s usually isolated to that person- not their surroundings. When she found Billy in season three, he was already taken by the Mind Flayer. Henry’s powers appear to be focused more on this plane than the outside world. Where as El is some what the opposite of that.

Vecna doesn’t throw Robin, Steve and Nancy across the room. Or break their arms. Most of what El does is absent in Vecna’s fighting, when he’s not in some ones head. 

Sure, he’s on fire and standing- something that may indicate fire is not exactly his weakness. At least in this state- or the fire is being thrown by the wrong people. But they’re not dead, and if El were in a position like this, the people in front of would not be like that for very long.

Robin picks up the red molotov cocktail. Her (pink/red) nail polish covers the ‘four’ and we’re left with ‘Bal’.

She’s literally throwing a fucking fireball at him.

And we’re meant to notice it.

Like, we’re REALLY meant to notice it. This one shot goes on for a hot second.

We’re also meant to notice that Robin is the one throwing it. Steve’s throw wasn’t anything this. It’s the angles and timing and we’re just meant to see Robin in a way we weren't meant to see Steve. She’s got the vest, the rolled up sleeves, the red, she’s gay- all of these things are saying Will in season one- because that’s what they’re all trying to do. 

But they’re not Will. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25.1 25.2 25.3 26 27 28 29 29.1 30 30.1 31 31.1 32 32.1 33 34 35 36 37 (To be edited)

[westrelics]

     “Ah- excuse me, miss? Are you Charlotte Balfour?”

     Dutch had felt...so lost, since that night on the mountain. Directionless. He no longer had any true, solid plan. He was tired of fighting. Tired of running. Tired of...being tired. He didn’t know what to do. For the first time he could remember, he didn’t have even the slightest idea where to go from here.

     At first he’d wandered aimlessly. Stayed out of towns, keeping to rural areas in weak disguises. But more and more, he found it difficult to care. Micah kept trying to follow him, to pester him about the damned money- Dutch didn’t even want it anymore. He was about ready to tell him to go get it himself, but he couldn’t bring himself to damn another of his boys to the Goddamned Pinkertons. He needed some foundation. He needed clarity. He needed Hosea. But Hosea wasn’t there, now. He was on his own.

     And Dutch's ideas were never as bright without Hosea to perfect them.

     As if on autopilot, he found himself approaching the little homestead north of Annesburg. He knew Arthur had visited the building a number of times. Perhaps it would be...beneficial. At least he was doing something, even if he still wasn’t sure it was...right. Or even smart. What if she recognized him? Wanted posters were still out showing his face everywhere from here, to Saint Denis, to Valentine - and even moreso back out west. The heat hadn’t died. Showing himself like this...wasn’t wise.

     But he hadn’t been known for being particularly wise of late.

     “I... I’m sorry, I don’t mean to bother, you, miss... I’m Archibald Smith. An old friend of mine came up this way not long ago, Arthur? I was hoping to, have a word, I suppose. If you have a moment?”

     He spoke slowly, with frequent pauses, as if he wasn’t really sure what he wanted to say. A con man who was out of practice. Part of him just wanted to talk about Arthur - to try and...piece it together in his mind. Figure out where he went wrong. But deep down, he knew. Arthur never went wrong. He did. And it was eating at him every waking moment.

@westpromised​ hit the starter call!

[positivewitch]

Hey my heart✨ I woke up curious today🙈 (but just answer if you want)

About Books:

Top 3 High Lords

Top 3 Ships

Top 3 Women

Top 3 Men

Top 3 Literary Universes

Top 3 Friendships

Top 3 Series

About You

Top 3 Foods

Top 3 Songs

Top 3 Obsessions

Top 3 Wishes

Anaaa 💕💕💕 first i am really sorry i messed this up 🙈 i couldn’t choose my top three and gave you thousands of answer 👀 i tried i really tried (this is shorter version there were more answer before lmao)

Top 3 High Lords:

Eris (is he count? High Lord ish👀 I already killed Beron in my mind so)

Helion

Tarquin

Top 3 Ships (3? Only 3? I can’t! Not enough bestie! I have so many ships!!)

(Oh kay here we go my top 3 ships except Tog)

Gwynriel , Nessian

Zoyalai

Poppycas

Top 3 Women (Again 3 is not enough)

(My top 3 women from each fandom )

Tog > Aelin, Lysandra, Manon,

Acotar > Gwyn, Nesta, Emerie

Grishaverse > Zoya, Genya, Inej

Fbaa> Poppy Balfour, Willa Colyns ❤️‍🔥, Tawny

Top 3 Men

(my top two fav is easy but i love the rest same )

Dorian Havilliard (of course )

Nikolai Lantsov

Casteel Da’neer, Kieran Contou, Eris Vanserra, Lucien Vanserra, Fenrys Moonbeam, Cassian, Azriel…

Top 3 Literary Universes

Throne of Glass

Harry Potter

Acotar

Top 3 friendships (3? what is 3? Of course i have more)

Valkyrieeesss

Aelin & Lysandra

Casteel & Kieran (also Poppy & Kieran) (oh also Poppy & Tawny)

Inej & Nina (also inej & jesper)( alao Kaz &Jesper) ( Basically all crows lol)

Zoya & Genya (& Alina)

Top 3 Series

Harry Potter

Throne of Glass

Grishaverse/Fbaa (i couldn’t choose)

About meeeee 🧝‍♀️

Top 3 foods:

Ice cream

Coffee/tea

Cake

i eat so healthy right? kidding of course i am not always eating these🙈 i try to eat healthy but these are my fav

Top 3 songs: ( they are changing every week i can’t answer that)

Top 3 obsession

Morally gray characters 😉😏( @ladyllbookstan Ana you and I 🤝)

Fantasy books with smut 👀 (especially when they have Mermaids, Wings, Faes, Witches… ) ✨

Going for a long walk while talking with someone (usually my twin sis)

Top 3 wishes

I wish i could go to the fantastic universes i read 🌌

Travelling the world 🧳

I wish i have more stable mental health (but you can't always feel amazing so that's ok too 😕)