#what do you do with an israel that should not exist on principle but does? it does and the people in it have been there for generations now

[otsukare-katsukare]

i have something very personal and ugly and probably incoherent that i need to get off my chest about israel. to preface im not a zionist, i am jewish and disgusted by israel on a daily basis, and this is me mostly speaking from that. i am sorry and if anyone who follows me doesn't want to read this from me/hates it i ask that you just scroll on by and forget it. and if you do read it and respond im happy to talk but just please take it in good faith. in reponse to this post

[fairuzfan]

AMAZING article about what it means to participate in anti-Zionism work both online and in person.

If your anti-zionism does not in any way acknowledge that it is a way of thought and practice led by and for Palestinians, then you need to reevaluate your "anti-zionism" label.

Some passages that felt especially relevant to tumblr:

If we accept, as those with even the most rudimentary understanding of history do, that zionism is an ongoing process of settler-colonialism, then the undoing of zionism requires anti-zionism, which should be understood as a process of decolonisation. Anti-zionism as a decolonial ideology then becomes rightly situated as an indigenous liberation movement. The resulting implication is two-fold. First, decolonial organising requires that we extract ourselves from the limitations of existing structures of power and knowledge and imagine a new, just world. Second, this understanding clarifies that the caretakers of anti-zionist thought are indigenous communities resisting colonial erasure, and it is from this analysis that the strategies, modes, and goals of decolonial praxis should flow. In simpler terms: Palestinians committed to decolonisation, not Western-based NGOs, are the primary authors of anti-zionist thought. We write this as a Palestinian and a Palestinian-American who live and work in Palestine, and have seen the impact of so-called ‘Western values’ and how the centring of the ‘human rights’ paradigm disrupts real decolonial efforts in Palestine and abroad. This is carried out in favour of maintaining the status quo and gaining proximity to power, using our slogans emptied of Palestinian historical analysis.

Anti-zionist organising is not a new notion, but until now the use of the term in organising circles has been mired with misunderstandings, vague definitions, or minimised outright. Some have incorrectly described anti-zionism as amounting to activities or thought limited to critiques of the present Israeli government – this is a dangerous misrepresentation. Understanding anti-zionism as decolonisation requires the articulation of a political movement with material, articulated goals: the restitution of ancestral territories and upholding the inviolable principle of indigenous repatriation and through the right of return, coupled with the deconstruction of zionist structures and the reconstitution of governing frameworks that are conceived, directed, and implemented by Palestinians.  Anti-zionism illuminates the necessity to return power to the indigenous community and the need for frameworks of justice and accountability for the settler communities that have waged a bloody, unrelenting hundred-year war on the people of Palestine. It means that anti-zionism is much more than a slogan. 

[...]

While our collective imaginations have not fully articulated what a liberated and decolonised Palestine looks like, the rough contours have been laid out repeatedly. Ask any Palestinian refugee displaced from Haifa, the lands of Sheikh Muwannis, or Deir Yassin – they will tell that a decolonised Palestine is, at a minimum, the right of Palestinians’ return to an autonomous political unit from the river to the sea. When self-proclaimed ‘anti-zionists’ use rhetoric like ‘Israel-Palestine’ – or worse, ‘Palestine-Israel’ – we wonder: where do you think ‘Israel’ exists? On which land does it lay, if not Palestine? This is nothing more than an attempt to legitimise a colonial state; the name you are looking for is Palestine – no hyphen required. At a minimum, anti-zionist formations should cut out language that forces upon Palestinians and non-Palestinian allies the violence of colonial theft. 

[...]

The common choice to centre the Oslo Accords, international humanitarian law, and the human rights paradigm over socio-historical Palestinian realities not only limits our analysis and political interventions; it restricts our imagination of what kind of future Palestinians deserve, sidelining questions of decolonization to convince us that it is the new, bad settlers in the West Bank who are the source of violence. Legitimate settlers, who reside within the bounds of Palestinian geographies stolen in 1948 like Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem, are different within this narrative. Like Breaking the Silence, they can be enlightened by learning the error of colonial violence carried out in service of the bad settlers. They can supposedly even be our solidarity partners – all without having to sacrifice a crumb of colonial privilege or denounce pre-1967 zionist violence in any of its cruel manifestations. As a result of this course of thought, solidarity organisations often showcase particular Israelis – those who renounce state violence in service of the bad settlers and their ongoing colonisation of the West Bank – in roles as professionals and peacemakers, positioning them on an equal intellectual, moral, or class footing with Palestinians. There is no recognition of the inherent imbalance of power between these Israelis and the Palestinians they purport to be in solidarity with – stripping away their settler status. The settler is taken out of the historical-political context which afforded them privileged status on stolen land, and is given the power to delineate the Palestinian experience. This is part of the historical occlusion of the zionist narrative, overlooking the context of settler-colonialism to read the settler as an individual, and omitting their class status as a settler. 

It is essential to note that Palestinians have never rejected Jewish indigeneity in Palestine. However, the liberation movement has differentiated between zionist settlers and Jewish natives. Palestinians have established a clear and rational framework for this distinction, like in the Thawabet, the National Charter of Palestine from 1968. Article 6 states, ‘The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.’ When individuals misread ‘decolonisation’ as ‘the mass killing or expulsion of Jews,’ it is often a reflection of their own entanglement in colonialism or a result of zionist propaganda. Perpetuating this rhetoric is a deliberate misinterpretation of Palestinian thought, which has maintained this position over a century of indigenous organising.  Even after 100 years of enduring ethnic cleansing, whole communities bombed and entire family lines erased, Palestinians have never, as a collective, called for the mass killing of Jews or Israelis. Anti-zionism cannot shy away from employing the historical-political definitions of ‘settler’ and ‘indigenous’ in their discourse to confront ahistorical readings of Palestinian decolonial thought and zionist propaganda. 

[...]

In the context of the United States, the most threatening zionist institutions are the entrenched political parties which function to maintain the status quo of the American empire, not Hillel groups on university campuses or even Christian zionist churches. While the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) engage in forms of violence that suppress Palestinian liberation and must not be minimised, it is crucial to recognise that the most consequential institutions in the context of settler-colonialism are not exclusively Jewish in their orientation or representation: the Republican and Democratic Party in the United States do arguably more to manufacture public consent for the slaughtering of Palestinians than the ADL and AIPAC combined. Even the Progressive Caucus and the majority of ‘The Squad’ are guilty of this.

Leila Shomali and Lara Kilani

[jewreallythinkthat]

One of the reasons I think there has been such a breakdown between the "progressive" left and the Jewish community is actually something that I've watched before fostered in left wing spaces for well over a decade and that is looking for offence.

When someone says something antisemitic, that does not mean they are an antisemite. I remember when the BLM marches took place, people rightly pointed out that there is a lot of unconscious bias against PoC and that being called out for eating something you didn't realise was problematic does not mean you are actually racist, just that you need to think a bit more when talking about a subject which in many cases, doesn't affect you as such. The same principle should apply to antisemitism.

If I say someone has said something antisemitic, their first reaction (on the left wing - because the right will proudly nod that yes, it was antisemitic) is often "you're calling me an antisemite and trying to silence me, Zionist". This is not true. What I am saying is that you are saying something that is discriminatory, invoked blood libel, accused Jews of ruling the world etc etc. I fully believe most people do not realise they are doing this. The point of dog whistles is that you are not supposed to recognise them, that's how they propagate. Anti-jewish racism is one of the oldest forms of hatred and it stretches back multiple millennia so it makes sense that it's literally inside the common vernacular. That doesn't mean everyone using it is an antisemite.

Instead of immidiately jumping to the defensive, I wish people would take a moment to ask, in good faith, "why would a Jewish person find this antisemitic?" Take the opportunity to learn, to better themself. Do not assume every Jew is trying to silence you - assuming the worst every time of Jewish people is a type of antisemitism so please try and put yourself in their shoes and maybe even ask them to explain so you can do better in the future.

Just a general overview, here's a couple of ones to look out for (a non exhaustive list).

1. Replace the word "Zionist" in what has Ben said with "Jew". If it sounds like something leeched out of Nazi Germanh or the Soviet Union, it's probably going to be antisemitism.

2. Saying you don't think any country should exist but focusing exclusively on the destruction of Israel. The only thing that makes Israel unique is that it's a Jewish majority country. So why is that the only county you actively want to get rid of?

2.1 Holding Israel to a higher standard than any other country is antisemitic as laid out above in point 2.

3. Assuming the worst of Jews and Israel every time is antisemitism. It's no different to assuming Black people are always out to get you or all Muslims are terrorists. If it's racist to do this to one minority group, it is racist to do it to any.

4. Tokenizing extremists in a community (Ben Gvir and the West Bank settlers on the right wing in Israel, the Neturi Karta by the progressive left when discussing I/P) is racist. If you only listen to Jews who prove your point, you are actively excluding the majority of a community so you can beat them down, this is racist.

I don't like calling people antisemitic because most people are not actually that, what they are is uneducated on antisemetism because the majority of that education is not being done by Jews - let alone Jews who represent the majority of the community.

But if you refuse to talk to Jews in good faith when they try to explain why what you have said is antisemitic, you are running the risk of moving from "ignorant user of antisemetic language" to "antisemite" (also a note, ignorant not meaning stupid but rather that you do not know something).

[qqueenofhades]

maybe i'm misunderstanding the concept, but it lately it's felt like Online Leftists™️ have been using homonationalism as a cudgel against lgbt people wanting to go abroad and feel comfortable doing so instead of as idk a way to critique american exceptionalism or whatever

The thing about Online Leftists and American exceptionalism in any capacity is that literally all their ideas and concepts of it are a) gibberish and b) completely contradictory and hypocritical. This is because it is all based on a reactionary Vibes ideology that has to constantly change itself to oppose whatever the Democrats/the US/the West in general is doing and therefore has no actual logical guidelines or consistent internal principles. To wit:

America is the most powerful country in the world, and that influence is always and forever totally evil because (insert terrible shit America has done here, which is then generalized and applied to all time periods and places without context or nuance). Indeed, America is so powerful that no other country or government in the world has actual agency or makes real choices for which they are morally and legally responsible; they're just helpless and manipulated pawns reacting to American/Western imperialism (which is the only kind of imperialism that exists, somehow). As such, nothing they ever do is actually "bad" or worthy of condemnation, because they're just totally victimized by America and everything they do is justified as long as it is anti-America. Hence, Russia genociding the Ukrainians is actually fine and good, the Ukrainians must have deserved it somehow (witness how many of the people currently screaming about Gaza were yelling that Ukraine was totally fine to attack actually!) and America is evil for trying to intervene. Russian propaganda calls America bad, we think America is bad, and therefore Russian propaganda must be correct, we love Russian propaganda a whole lot and have no interest in examining that fact any further. Russia is actually good because it used to be the USSR! Did you know that?

However, Israel genociding Gaza is utterly unforgivable and terrible and anyone who tries to offer any kind of realistic critique or appraisal of what can or can't be done to stop it is a genocide apologist. America should in fact be intervening to the point of invading Israel and/or dismantling the Israeli state, because maximalist American military intervention is Good when we say it is (but the rest of the time it's the most awful evil thing in the world WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE GLOBAL SOUTH). America is still the most powerful country in the world and it should be intervening at all times, but actually it shouldn't do that at all because we're totally not the right-wing America First isolationists sent through the rabbit hole. If America does not choose to exercise its almighty godlike power to stop all the evil in the world (but remember, American military intervention of any kind is obviously bad and Ukraine should definitely still be genocided), it is just proving how evil it actually is. Remember, nobody else makes real choices. They're just reacting to America. America is all-powerful and also evil but still should use this evil power for good because it's good if we decide it is.

Voting is meaningless because the parties are the same, but it's powerful enough to produce a president god-king who could just decide to snap his fingers and end all bad things in the world but just doesn't do that (at least if he's a Democrat; we don't really care what a Republican president does). We think this is a good idea, but don't worry, America is still the source of all evil in the world. America should intervene everywhere and nowhere all at once. America should do nothing because everything it does is evil and past redemption and the only solution is The Revolution which destroys society. America is evil because it was founded on the violent oppression and exploitation of minorities, and therefore the solution is to let fascists be elected to punish those minorities even more because they get in the way of our purist thought experiments and their actual lived experiences don't matter when they contradict our Ideology. BUT ACTUALLY IT STILL SHOULD MILITARILY INTERVENE EVERYWHERE WE SAY SO BUT ACTUALLY IT SHOULDN'T EVER GLOBAL SOUTH. (We don't know what the Global South is or any of its issues, politics, problems, identities, languages, postcolonial developments or so forth, but we know that the Cold War happened and it was all America's fault. Have you heard this piece of Russian propaganda about how Joe Biden is the antichrist? SILENCE IS VIOLENCE SO YOU BETTER SHARE IT.)

Likewise, we support LGBTQ rights in theory but we don't think they're ever worth actually voting to protect (remember, voting is meaningless!) if that also contradicts our aim of The Revolution. We love virulently anti-gay groups like the Houthis if they theoretically support our Anti Genocide stance (don't look at Ukraine, that doesn't count) and also hate Jews. Israel is the only country in the world that has LGBTQ rights and also does stupid or awful military things, and therefore it alone is the problem because it's just pretending to be a democracy or have LGBTQ rights (in comparison to the rest of the Middle East) because it's just cynically covering for all its sins, but those sins are actually America, because Israel is just a white settler colonialist outpost of America, so America not stopping what Israel is doing (by being Israel) is bad. Remember, America is the source of all evil in the world and all other countries are its puppets, so it is also Israel, but it should stop being Israel, because it's the only country that ever makes any choices or has agency. We are very smart.

...basically, if your head hurt trying to read that or follow the logic, that's the point. It has to change constantly and contort itself around in order to both oppose those Weak Mainstream Liberals and act like it has the perfect moral high ground in doing so, regardless of what principles it has to change or what hypocrisies it has to embrace. As such, it has been stripped of any authentic critique or ability to say anything about anything, and I suggest we generally stop letting it pretend that it does. That is the only way to rescue western leftism and make it actually 2% of use at opposing fascism, because right now? Nah. Not in the least. It's actively and gleefully enabling fascism, and after so long hearing how us normie Democratic-voting losers were going to be the ones collaborating with fascists, it makes me just a little bit crazy. Good thing we can erase that too.

[boreal-sea]

Does being indigenous "expire"? Can an exiled, displaced people "lose" the right to return to their homeland? "Sorry, you've been in the Diaspora for too long, so even though it wasn't safe for you to return to your homeland that whole time, you don't have any right to go home now".

If the very thought of that made you recoil, it should.

Jews are indigenous to the Levant. The roots of Judaism, an ethnoreligion, are in the Levant. Jews were systematically exiled from the Levant over the centuries in multiple waves. There are some Jews who never left, some who moved back, and others that were unable to return until recently. Many Jews still live in the Diaspora. Any denial of this is historical revisionism and antisemitic.

So, if you agree with the following:

Indigenous people have a right to return to their homeland that cannot expire

Indigenous people have a right to self-governance

Then guess what: you agree with the basic concept of Zionism.

You might not agree with how all of this was implemented with the modern state of Israel - and I don't either! But the basic concept of Zionism is not the evil boogeyman antisemites have made it out to be.

"But Israel is illegally occupying Palestine!" Yes and no. In some places? Yes. In other places, no. It's complicated.

There is undeniably property and land within the current borders of Israel that belonged to Palestinians before the state of Israel was established in 1948. 700,000 Palestinians were killed or displaced from Palestine during the initial establishment of the modern state of Israel. Any claims that Israel was solely created on "empty desert" is a flat out lie. That doesn't mean all the land in Israel is formerly Palestinian - some of the land was indeed "empty desert" - but there were people living in some of those places. These are facts. This is history.

Personally, any land or property that was lived on by a Palestinian prior to 1948 that is currently held by the government of Israel is being occupied. I don't really know how you could look at it any other way. Someone else lived there, you kicked them out, you're occupying their home. It doesn't matter that Jews are indigenous to the area - you can't steal someone's home and claim it's ok. You can't just go across the street, hold a gun to your neighbor's head, force them out of their home, move in, and claim it's ok because you're both from the same town.

And what's worse, is that Palestinian land continues to be seized. Palestinians continue to be displaced. This is still happening in the West Bank. Illegal (unsanctioned by the state of Israel) and violent Israeli settlers continue to steal land from Palestinians, forcing them to flee their villages, and are destroying homes and schools. There are literally no other words to use for this other than "illegal occupation". Even the state of Israel doesn't sanction these settlements - although it does sanction forming other settlements in the West Bank.

I absolutely believe in the Jewish right to move to Israel and to self-govern in Israel. I am for the modern state of Israel existing in some form. I am against how the modern state was established and I am against how the government of Israel has continued to abuse the Palestinian people and steal and illegally occupy their lands.

I can't change the past, I can't undo the Nakba. But the modern state of Israel could take steps to do reparations for the damage and pain caused by its formation. It could pull the illegal settlements out of the West Bank. It could cease endorsing future settlements in the West Bank. It could work with the Palestinian Authority to establish a strong Palestinian government. It could stop treating Palestinians as second class citizens. It could stop controlling every aspect of life in Gaza. It could be an ally to Palestine and make it strong.

"You have a right to do the thing in principle" and "how you are currently doing the thing is harmful to human life and dignity" are two things that can simultaneously exist. I have the right to drive a car. That doesn't give me the right to drive my car on the sidewalk and mow down pedestrians. Same thing here.

[innerlmnt]

I want to say that, as a Jew who has been following your blog, to urge you to be more cautious with what you reblog regarding Israel and Palestine, because some of those posts are unverified and filled with antisemitic and/or pro-Hamas messages. That said, I still advocate for a Free Palestine in peaceful coexistence with Israel, and hope for a ceasefire and the return of hostages. Thank you.

Thank you for expressing your concern, but as a Kosovo-Albanian whose country was persecuted and massacred for existing, I kindly ask you to be more far more critical of Israel.

It's true that antisemitism has risen as a result of everything happening in Gaza, and that's exactly what Israel wants. Part of its mission is to be considered a "Jewish nation", not just a land where Jewish people live. One way it does that is classifying any criticism of Israel as criticism of Jewish people, or worse, borderline antisemitism. It does that to maintain as much power over the narrative as it can.

That being said - there is no co-existence with Israel. It is an occupying power that massacred hundreds of thousands of Palestinians on their native land. That is like telling me that I should co-exist under a Serbian government that invaded my country and killed 13.5k people. That just doesn't happen. Israel is a country that was founded with the aim of erasing Palestinians, not to benefit Jewish people. It was founded with Zionist principles on land that doesn't belong to it.

As for the hostages, please refer to Benjamin Netanyahu who has rejected every single proposal for both a ceasefire and a hostage return - and whose army has even killed its own hostages, carelessly razing the grounds where they're being held. Israel doesn't give a shit about the hostages. Various protests from its own citizens and families of the hostages have occurred as a result of that.

And finally, as for pro-Hamas messages. I don't align with Hamas. Obviously. But I don't have to because asking for a country to stop killing an entire people isn't a fucking political statement. The Hamas attack on Israel didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because Palestine was occupied for at least 75 years. What do you think will happen when a country's citizens lose their families in a mass genocide? I think InternetHippo said it best:

Anyway, a ceasefire isn't enough. From the river to the fucking sea, Palestine should be free.

[beta-lactam-allergic]

Hey I just wanted to say thank you so much for your support of the Jewish community, it really means a lot to us (any time, but especially now).

I noticed that you said you're an Indigenous Australian, and I was wondering if there's any ways we can help support you and your community? (Indigenous Australians in general, or your specific nation) I'm not Australian, but I know y'all have definitely suffered discrimination and worse at the hands of the government and society (and still are).

I honestly wasn't expecting thanks. It seemed like the bare minimum, it should be the bare minimum. The fact that it isn't & is rare enough that you felt the need to thank me is more an indictment on the failures of most people in my opinion. I admit, it does feel nice to be thanked though.

If I had donated to multiple Israeli charities I would feel worthy of praise. But the only one I have donated to is Ogen's "Swords of Iron Emergency Economic Relief Fund". I donated about $100USD (they didn't give the option to donate in AUD).

If you still want to help my people than I would suggest donating to the Aboriginal Legal Service (for Aboriginal people needing legal support in NSW & ACT), North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, abbreviated as NAAJA (same as the Legal Service but for NT), ALSWA (literally just the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia), The Fred Hollows Foundation (it's owned by white people, but it does good work, & without it the blindness rate for us would be double what it is), or one of the many Aboriginal Medical Services. Each community has their own AMS with their own names (the AMS abbreviation comes from the very first such organisation, AMS Redfern, which is the one you will most likely find if you do a Google search, it serves the Aboriginal community in Sydney, which isn't where I'm from), with widely varying level of effectiveness depending on management. The one servicing people in my area is one of the less effective ones, though most of us rely on it for lack of alternatives.

Once again, most of us can't afford either legal representation or visits to the GP, so donating to an AMS or an aboriginal legal service will help most of the us. I actually have some money, so I don't use the local AMS, instead going to see a GP who mostly services the LGBTQ community.

Calling out antisemites when they are being antisemitic is just the right thing to do. From a moral perspective, letting people victim-blame Israel for the war Hamas started is wrong. Letting people peddle falsehoods & antisemitic libel without calling it out was the same as condoning it. I saw people celebrate the October 7th pogrom outside the Sydney Opera House, long before the Israelis were able to launch counter-attacks on Gaza. I saw people on this site act like Hamas were angels when those murderers bragged & posted the footage of their atrocities for the world to see. I couldn't stay silent as these terrorists were praised after murdering people, raping people, kidnapping people. I couldn't stay silent when people denied these crimes happened despite the overwhelming evidence, despite Hamas not only admitting to it, but proclaiming their desire to do it again & again until there were no more Jews to attack. To stay silent was at best condoning those who would deny what happened.

That alone was enough for me to pick a side, but that's just emotions. If emotions hadn't moved me, my logical side would have still intervened to back Israel & condemn antisemitism.

Defending Israel's right to exist is just basic logical consistency. Even without the moral component of the fact that Hamas committed atrocities on October 7th & are proud of it, I have other principles. Admittingly, some of these started pretty self-serving but applying these principles consistently rather than only when it benefits me leads to altruism, so here we are.

I was going to write the list of principles, but it's a very long list, so that's a separate document. In the meanwhile, I'll summarise two of the parts of the principles list affecting my POV here (though not the only parts, they're the easiest parts to point out).

In essence, I consider the Jewish people to have a better claim to being the native people of Israel/West Bank than the Palestinian Arabs do. I know that some Palestinian Arabs have Jewish ancestry, but I consider indigeneity to be as much about culture as blood, so if they fully adopted the invader's culture & identify as Arabs, they voided any claims to indigeneity they once had as far as I'm concerned. Yeah the first 9 points in the principles list were about native sovereignty. I still think a two-state solution is the best chance for a long-term peace, but that's pragmatism over the fact that the Arabs are there now & aren't going to leave, not an endorsement of their claims to indigeneity.

In addition, I'm a transwoman, not straight (bisexual, not sure where on Kinsey scale) & an atheist. Hamas would kill me if I was somewhere they could reach me for being myself regardless of anything else I did or didn't do. It's just logical to back the side that won't kill me for being a queer non-believer & which actually gives us rights. Actually LGBT rights also made up several more points in the principle lists.

Basically I was locked in to supporting Israel on basic morality & on ideological consistency. I don't see the point in thanking me, but it does feels nice that you did thank me so I guess thanks in return.

[thatweirdtranny]

Hii! Recently you haven’t posted one thing about Palestines situation and the genocide. I do agree that antizionism is rooted in antisemitism and the idea that Jewish people should be kicked out is inhumane. However it’s hard to donate to orgs that ‘promote’ dialogue between the states when one of the sides is being literally obliterated and killed off. It IS horrible to see that online and offline leftists are spouting antisemitic rhetoric, but quite literally islamophobic rhetoric is also insanely on the rise (tumblr creates this vacuum where it looks like it’s the opposite but irl many people think Muslims don’t deserve mercy in the slightest). I’m not really here to critique you and let’s be honest this anon won’t probably change anything (which is okay), but I just wanted to show the perspective gained when one reads your political posts. Anyways have a nice day and thanks for reading

Not that I have to explain myself to anyone, but there are good reasons I haven’t posted about the situation for Palestinians lately.

For one thing, most posts include some variation of “from the river to the sea” which, if anyone doesn’t know, calls for the ethnic cleansing of jewish Israelis. It’s hard to find posts that 1. provide accurate information not misinformation and 2. don’t include antisemitic dogwhistles/chants. Anything that says “Israhell” or “Isnotreal” I avoid like the plague. I reblog what I can find, but there’s also not much reporting really that isn’t through a biased source (AJ or JVP for instance).

My biggest problems with this conflict is that one side (Hamas) is deliberately hiding in densely populated areas to literally “martyr” as many people as possible, while the other side (Israel) has the power, as you so eloquently put, to obliterate the other. I am anti-war on principle and want a damn ceasefire deal that would bring the living hostages home AND allow for aid to be brought in for Gazans (distributed by a reliable third party that isn’t corrupt af) AND I want this ceasefire to last, not end the next time Hamas decides to poke the bear.

Which is why I support orgs like Standing Together, which does ACTUAL on the ground work to build a culture of peace. It’s hard what with the fact that so many of Israel’s ardent leftists and peace activists were murdered on Oct 7th, but Standing Together and other organizations like it are the most likely to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians. If you don’t support them in whatever way you can, even if it’s just to bring awareness to their existence, then it’s like giving up.

I understand your concerns anon, Islamophobia is every bit as insidious and disgusting as antisemitism. But just because I’m obviously passionate about calling out antisemitism (for good reason, I want to convert to Judaism soon) doesn’t mean I don’t also care about Islamophobia. I don’t post everything on this blog, and tend to post about I/P mostly on my sideblog.

[clownflower]

Transcript of above link: It’s wild when you realize that nobody can actually articulate a reason why Israel should be supported that is both logically coherent and morally defensible.

Westerners grow up being indoctrinated with the understanding that this tiny country in the middle east is super duper important and needs to be supported and defended at all cost, but if you examine the reasons given for why this is so as an adult, you find that none of them really hold water.

“Israel is the only place where Jews can be safe!” This is clearly false. A Jewish person in New York City is self-evidently much, much safer than a Jewish person in Tel Aviv. Forcefully creating a brand new apartheid ethnostate dropped on top of a pre-existing civilization naturally means that Israel can only ever exist in perpetual violence, which places everyone who lives there in danger.

“The Jews deserve a homeland!” Why? Why does any religion deserve to have a country of their own where members of that religion are in charge of everyone else and receive preferential treatment? There are more Mormons in the world than Jews, and they don’t have their own country. There are more Sikhs in the world than Jews, and they don’t have their own country. There’s no logically coherent reason why every religion should have its own nation state, and there’s no logically coherent reason why such a principle should apply to Jews but not to Scientologists.

“Israel is the only liberal democracy in the middle east.” This one’s just silly. A genocidal apartheid regime which actively disenfranchises and abuses the Palestinian population is the exact opposite of “liberal” and “democratic”. But even if that was not the case, there is no logically coherent and morally defensible reason why any given religion should have a representative of a particular political ideology in it, no matter how many people need to be murdered and oppressed to make it so.

“I support Israel’s existence but I oppose the mistreatment of Palestinians.” This one is quite popular with the liberals, but it’s nonsensical and self-contradictory. Israel has been abusive to Palestinians throughout the entirety of its existence from its very inception; only in the imaginary fairy tales of liberal Zionists has it ever existed without tyranny, theft and murder, and only in their imaginary fairy tales can a Jewish ethnostate be dropped on top of a civilization of non-Jews in a way that could ever be without nonstop tyranny, theft and murder. The only choices are a two-state solution which Israel is openly doing everything it can to prevent, and a one-state solution where everyone has equal rights which would per definition not be a Jewish state. Liberal Zionists pretend they live in a fairy fantasyland alternate timeline where this is not the reality. This is how liberals try to square the circle of supporting Israel when it’s morally indefensible; they simply invent an imaginary world in which it is moral, and pretend it’s a real possibility.

“Israel is essential for protecting our interests in the region.” This one is logically coherent from a certain point of view, but it’s certainly not morally defensible. There’s not even any logically coherent reason for any normal westerner to say that Israel protects “our” interests in the middle east. It is only logically coherent for the managers of the western empire to say that helping Israel wage the nonstop violent force necessary for its existence helps sow the chaos, tyranny, destabilization and division necessary to ensure their geostrategic domination of a resource-rich region and keep middle eastern nations from uniting into a superpower bloc who use their resources to advance their own interests around the world. Contrary to what some people believe, Israel isn’t responsible for the existence of western warmongering — western warmongering is responsible for the existence of Israel. If there wasn’t an Israel they’d just invent another excuse to maintain a military presence in the middle east and keep sowing violence and chaos. Biden himself has acknowledged this, saying “Were there not an Israel the United States would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.” So from that perspective it does make logical sense to say that the western empire would have a harder time advancing its unipolarist objectives on the world stage without a destabilizing agent whose existence is wholly dependent upon constant western backing. And if you really want to go whole hog in siding with the imperialists’ reasoning for supporting Israel, you can also argue that Israel provides the perfect narrative cover for maintaining a military presence in the middle east. For many years the final debate-ending argument against western military withdrawal from the middle east has been that it would ensure Israel’s destruction, because Israel’s neighbors would simply eliminate it without the deterrence of the US war machine there to protect it. And if you take it as a given that Israel must continue to exist in its present iteration, it really is a debate-ending argument. If you take it as a given that Israel must be permitted to exist as an apartheid ethnostate which was artificially forced into existence in the mid-20th century, then of course there is no way it can exist without nonstop violence, and of course there is no way it can come out on the winning side of all that violence without the backing of the US-centralized empire. What this means is that if you accept that Israel must continue to exist as it presently exists, you are necessarily accepting that the US and its western allies must retain a military stranglehold on the middle east. There is no way to maintain this artificially created astroturf state without nonstop violence, so you have to remain in a position to help inflict that violence at all times. Which is mighty convenient for the US-centralized power structure, to say the least.

But it is, of course, not morally defensible. It is not morally defensible to keep killing middle easterners year after year, decade after decade, in order to rule the world. It might be logically coherent, but it is also profoundly evil. All arguments for supporting Israel fail either logically, morally, or both. Which is why so much propaganda goes into manipulating us into supporting this murderous regime, and why voices who oppose it are getting increasingly suppressed by establishment power structures. It’s why the mass media have been demonstrably wildly biased toward the advancement of Israeli information interests in their reporting, and it’s why critics of Israeli atrocities like Richard Medhurst, Sarah Wilkinson and Mary Kostakidis have been outrageously persecuted in the UK and Australia. They have no argument, so they are increasingly resorting to the blunt instrument. When you peel away the layers, the arguments for keeping the Israel project going are all about domination and control, which is why more and more domination and control is being used to protect that project from scrutiny. Israel, ultimately, is nothing but a nonstop war. And, like all wars, its existence depends on hiding the truth from the public.

[warningsine]

Idk if you're Jewish or not but I appreciate you reblogging posts like the one you did earlier calling out double standards. I'm terrified to do so at this point. But it's like... people really want this to be black and white in a way that it isn't (and in a way they don't demand those other countries also be either, mind you). Both Israelis and Palestinians come from that land. There's no way to destroy one without slaughtering the people of the other. Both groups deserve the right to self determination and it's not fair that the British sold that land without Palestinian consent, but that doesn't mean that the Israeli claim to that land is illegitimate. The only way this conflict can ever be solved (which realistically won't happen any time soon given that BOTH Hamas and Israel's current government don't want it to) is to have both a Palestinian state AND Israel. Which is also a flavor of zionism, but people would rather believe that the extremist, racist flavor of it Netanyahu's using is the ONLY flavor of it. But you can't say that or else you're told you're the extremist, racist version, because that's all people think that it is. And it's exhausting. I've lost so many friends because they lack critical thinking skills that I thought were basic.

I agree with what you're saying, anon, but you telling me you're afraid to speak your mind on a site that claims to be oh-so-progressive only goes to show how rife antisemitism is.

When the October 7 attack happened, I naively thought left-leaning people would be, like, "Hey, Hamas is bad. Palestinians deserve better than that!" but nope.

I'd been expecting antisemitic sentiments from far right wingers, who also spread islamophobia. But to see leftists get radicalized and start buying into antisemitic conspiracy theories? Had not been expecting that. (But maybe I should have.)

When I saw someone raise the flag of Hamas--not the Palestinian one, the green one with Shahada on it--during a pro-Palestinian protest, when I heard "Globalize the Intifada!" and saw "Resistance [meaning the 10/7 atrocities] is justified!" signs, I was appalled.

Like, what are y'all doing here? I thought we were protesting because we wanted a ceasefire; because we wanted Netanyahu to stop killing Palestinian civilians, not to be antisemitic and support a terrorist organization. What's next? Giving it to Al Qaeda? The Taliban? People have already given it to the Houthis.

And to see queer people on here fandomize and stan Hamas... Do they not know what Hamas does to LGBT+ individuals? That they executed a leading commander because there were allegations that he was gay?

I know we like to say these are terminally online people, but it's not like they don't exist offline. Fortunately, you can at least unfollow/block those. You can turn off anon; if they want to send hateful messages, they should stick their usernames to them.

But what happens offline?

I had a fight with a leftist ~friend myself (well, he has never lived by any leftist principle, but hey, ideology sure is more important than helping the people around you /s) when he started getting radicalized and denying all the rapes that took place on October 7, because "the resistance!" Local leftist guy who calls Malala a "neolib" holds misogynistic views. What he has ever done to help women, you might ask? Nothing. He's busy whining about how they friendzone him.

And, all right, you can avoid this guy. (By the way, I'm so sorry that you lost people that you used to call friends; it cuts.)

But you can't afford to do this with everyone that holds bigoted beliefs. What do you do with those? How do you deradicalize them? When they double down on their beliefs that cause harm to the Jewish diaspora and refuse to get educated, ignorance becomes malice.

[anthonybialy]

Different Types of Indifferent Violence

Wondering what violence is may seem superfluous, especially when viewers can see all definitions in practice they’d like by choosing any random streaming service episode.  Everyone may be aware the term involves action that leads to something broken ranging from bones to furniture.  But noting just who and what is involved may offer a bit of context to everyone sick of bloodshed.  That’s almost everyone.

As always, liberalism is precisely inverted.  Flipping over life is not just limited to thinking government stimulates the economy: there’s a body count, as well.  The view that combat must be de-escalated disregards demons who keep taking it up.

The only way woke proselytizers could get more objectionable is by getting what they want.  Very tolerant adherents desire to give much of Israel to its lunatic attackers.  Meanwhile, they’re horrified by replying to said attacks on life itself.  If there’s a purer example of screwed-up thinking, they haven’t found it yet despite dedicated efforts.

Deranged leftists are furious at the measured response to getting in the way of Hamas rockets.  The terror squad didn’t kill more people only because they don’t possess the technology to fire missiles.  Anti-Semites think Israel must have denied it to them.

Targeting fiends who hide in hospitals might get messy.  It’s not that tricky to determine who’s responsible for those capable of reasoning and decency, which leaves out the left.  A nation attacked for the crime of minding its own business does everything they can to minimize casualties from those who try to maximize them.  Oh, and the latter slaughter innocents while the Middle East’s sole republic takes aim at perpetrators.  It can’t get clearer.

The most enlightened reiterate war is bad as they do all they can to keep it existing.  Armed battling is the poverty of international affairs.  Everyone feels bad about collateral damage while the levelheaded know it can never be eliminated.  Decreeing that it’s entirely possible to avoid innocent casualties is as oblivious as believing stores will stay open after shoplifting is legalized.  

Everything’s backward in the minds of those who led us there.  Classifying words as action epitomizes that charming totally incorrect manner of theirs.  Israel’s American enemies are particularly offended by noting obvious truths, as they run counter to their preciously-guarded narrative.  If Democrats truly oppose violence, they should keep cities from descending into live recreations of Batman movies before the titular character arrives.

Getting upset over nothing can get worse in what’s almost a feat.  Social justice warriors don’t wage war against actual injustice.  Sensible modern thinkers act like misgendering is an assault as they shrug away the Hamas branch of Planned Parenthood committing very late-term procedures.  Changing from a man into a woman is as real Gaza Strip residents who support peaceful coexistence.

Purveyors of laxity should ponder what would happen in Gaza to a man who decides he’s not one.  In America, we just stop drinking your appalling beer.  Language is violence while violence isn’t in these advanced times.  You may have noticed the outlook is exactly screwed up.  Unhinged zealotry may not be a sign of acceptance.

Principles can be applied at any level, unfortunately.  Academic dolts who perceive Hamas as freedom fighters also by pure coincidence treat criminality as the inevitable reaction to poverty.  Never mind that collectivism’s enthusiasts cause the very brokenness they condemn.  Struggling Americans who can’t afford crazy extravagances like items have compassionate confiscators to thank.

An unwillingness to differentiate between types of violence serves as a lame attempt to conceal moral cravenness.  Practitioners are cagey about if they really think they’re above it all or root for the villain.  A robber who shoots a victim and the cop who shoots back are engaging in precisely different types of violence that backers of defunding cops refuse to discern.  In fact, the person enforcing laws is treated as a racist oppressor by those who want the state to have absolute authority.  

Violence is indifferent.  Indifferently denouncing violence shows a lack of sophistication from alleged experts.  Active force is much like guns, which can be used to either inflict evil or interdict against it.  Take, say, a parliamentary republic dropping brutality upon fiends who did so to them first.  Israel’s disparagers hate devices as much as they do the notion that there’s one Jewish nation on Earth.

We live in Tom Wolfe’s world.  it turns out his fiction was predictive.  His nonfictional subjects exhibit such a perfectly twisted take on logic that they couldn’t mock themselves even if they were capable of introspection.

Self-righteousness aimed at the country defending from marauders makes the sides clear for anyone confused.  Malicious clatter from campuses and maniacal rallies only sounds like a parody.  Alleged backers of underdogs rabidly cheer against Israel.  They pre-empt those who mock them.

Ghastly allies of terror drives couldn’t define themselves better.  They’re not even trying.  You’ve undoubtedly grown tired of attempting to determine whether the inability to distinguish between types of aggression constitutes blatant ignorance or ghastly devotion to diabolical causes.  Inadvertently revealing they side with villains is the closest they’ll get to honesty.

[bopinion]

2023 / 43

Aperçu of the Week:

"Whenever one shares the opinion of the majority, it is time to reflect."

(Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as Mark Twain)

Bad News of the Week:

Actually, one should be happy that the U.S. House of Representatives is able to act again after a weeks-long stalemate. But a single glance at the new Speaker of the House sends shivers down the spine of any Democratic-minded observer: for Mike Johnson (who?) can only be seen as a step backward. Quoting from the news magazine Der Spiegel:

"Johnson belongs to the religious right of his caucus. The lawyer and former radio host from Louisiana is among Trump's loyal supporters. He refused at the time to recognize Trump's defeat by Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Johnson is anti-abortion, opposes same-sex marriage and has rejected U.S. aid to Ukraine in the past." That little paragraph alone is enough to qualify Johnson as Bad News in every sense of the word. But then I took a look at his Wikipedia entry:

Johnson supported creationists. Wanted to eliminate support for refugees. Applied sodomy legislation to homosexuals. Voted against the minimum wage. Justified his legal work on "biblical values." Denied human impact on climate change. Wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Tried to block investigations into the storming of the Capitol. Wanted to make divorces much more difficult. Seeked to limit humanitarian aid to Palestinians. Held wind turbines to be harmful to health. Wanted to cut funding for Social Security. Said that "Trump has done nothing wrong." And, "The word of God is, of course, the ultimate source of all truth." I'll stop now, this frustrates me....

Good News of the Week:

The United Nations General Assembly has passed a resolution. Which, in the face of the Gaza war, calls for nothing more than thinking of the welfare of innocent civilians. So ceasefire, respect for international law, access for humanitarian organizations, and so on. You can support that in principle with a clear conscience. What 120 nations have done. Unlike Israel and the U.S., which voted against, as expected.

Germany abstained, as did another 44 nations. With good reasons. Because the resolution was not balanced. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock gives a comprehensible reason: "Because the resolution does not clearly name Hamas terror, does not demand the release of all hostages clearly enough and does not affirm Israel's right to self-defense, we decided with many of our European partners not to vote for the resolution in the end."

Nevertheless, the outcry against Germany's abstention is much greater than the criticism of the approval of, for example, France, Norway or Switzerland. "How can Germany abstain from a UN resolution that has as its sole objective to delegitimize Israel's right to self-defense?". "The Federal Republic must stand by Israel's side without any ifs or buts". "There must be no false consideration for others in supporting Israel". And so on.

Excuse me? This reminds me very much of the strange automatism that anyone who is pro-Palestine is an anti-Semite. Which is not only factually wrong (Palestinians are also historically Semites), but also morally wrong. Why should I not be allowed to criticize individual decisions of the Israeli government, such as the settlement policy on the West Bank? Because other Germans before the existence of both the Federal Republic and the State of Israel, and long before my birth, have incurred immense guilt against the Jewish people?

I am aware of this. This has shaped me. And makes me a pacifist and human rights activist. I support the awareness of what happened. You have to learn from history. I have done that. Take a position accordingly and educate my children accordingly. But I am not personally to blame, nor do I have no right to free speech or expression because of it. Like many others, I took a stand against South Africa's apartheid in the early 1990s. Therefore, to hold all stateless Kurds liable for the actions of the PKK is, to me, short-sighted. Just as little as all stateless Palestinians for the actions of Hamas. Or all Germans for those of the Nazis. So it is Good News for me that the German diplomats in New York City did not reflexively vote pro-Israel. Instead, after careful consideration, they voted pro-human.

Personal happy moment of the week:

My Mac always shows me news from its system in the upper right corner. For example upcoming appointments. Last Thursday the following message popped up: "Day after tomorrow: Free". Yes, exactly. Because after 34 days of daily work (we have a lot of stress in the office right now) I not only have the weekend off. But five days up to and including All Saints' Day. It will almost feel like a vacation. And no matter what the weather is like, just the fact that the alarm doesn't ring in the morning will make me happy.

I couldn't care less...

...that there will be a new edition of the "Bavarian coalition" in Bavaria consisting of the conservative parties CSU / Christian Social Union and FW / Free Voters (Freie Wähler). In the freshly signed coalition agreement there is - unfortunately, but as expected - nothing new. Instead, it merely contains a sweeping "Keep it up, everything is actually good the way it is". That is not enough. At least not enough to meet the challenges of the future, which is already within reach. Climate protection, digitization, infrastructure, energy transition, debureaucratization, integration, industrial modernization, education boost, etc. These terms can all be found in the paper. But only as empty phrases. Without any vision. Or any concrete forward-looking plan. In the process, we are running out of time. Not good.

As I write this...

...I am thinking about Nagorno-Karabakh. Probably I am the only one, since the Gaza and Ukraine wars more than dominate the news coverage. Yet what is happening in the Armenian-majority enclave in Azerbaijan is frightening. With 100,000 people fleeing since Baku's brutal takeover a month ago, more than two-thirds of the population is on the run. Which is something relatively poor and small Armenia can barely manage. There are also tragedies happening that the world public does not notice.

Post Scriptum

Against wokeness like gender language, leaving NATO, strictly limiting migration, railing against the political establishment, no more sanctions against Russia, stoking fears of social decline, creating peace by banning arms exports, and so on. These are all positions of Sahra Wagenknecht, who wants to found a new left-wing party. And could just as well be from the right-wing AfD (Alternative für Deutschland / Alternative for Germany). So I understand that some expect Wagenknecht to not only pull votes from The Left, but also from the AfD. Or they could realize common ground.

There has been a dark chapter in the history of German politics before, when extremists from both fringes of the spectrum joined forces. That was in the early 1930s. Back then, the political mortal enemies National Socialists and Communists, united in their hatred of the Weimar system, ensured the downfall of the democratic republic. And we all know how that turned out.

[lonestardust]

not at all criticising op or anyone reblogging this PLEASE keep talking about palestine! The temporary ceasefire has ended this morning and the genocide is still happening! I just want to take the chance to bring more awareness about this UN orchestrated event and why we should not celebrate the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

What is the premise of the UN's International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People? It is a reaffirmation of the UN's commitment to a two-state solution and the continued occupation of Palestinian land.

Pro-palestinians responding, celebrating and rallying on this day using the enemy's language word-for-word without context are inadvertently pushing a dangerous narrative. The very recognition of this international day of "solidarity" supports a narrative of normalization. These "observances" and "commemorations" cannot simply be depoliticized for the sake of basking in the compromising light of Western attention.

Pro palestinian organizations must uphold the highest level of accountability to the principles of liberation as a bare minimum of their existence. Anything stepping outside of those principles undermines their credibility and inadvertently contributes to the erasure of the Palestinian fight for liberation. Palestinians do not need an international day of solidarity, and certainly not one built on the premise of normalisation and served in a poisoned cup by the UN.

Palestinians have solidarity every day from the masses, the working class, and the oppressed who stand unequivocally with Palestine.

In the very language of this so-called day of solidarity, it does not say "Palestine" for a reason. It is carefully crafted to say "with the Palestinian People" watered-down language that masks the reality of the land occupation that the word "Palestine" threatens.

The UN has been complicit in the genocide and occupation of Palestinians since the beginning. Its policies and agencies are even designed to profit off the plight of palestinians through the disaster capitalism it perpetuates. They are even active enforcers of the siege on Ghaza, with a history of policies of reconstruction cooperating with "Israel". Not only does that legitimise the siege but also ensures the continued profiteering off the suffering of Palestinians.

Say no to this International Day of Normalization. We refuse the language of the enemy and their illegitimate events. We refuse this day of normalisation and everyone should call for accountability on any organisation that manufacture consent to oppression, ethnic cleansing and occupation through glorifying that event.

And for those who might be tempted to say "but we need a day for Palestinians" This is not your day, this is the day of your colonizier. Why would you celebrate palestinian solidarity on the day palestine was divided up in pieces 76 years ago?

Be aware of the colonizers' machinations. Remain principled and do not waver. Stay steadfast in the fight for liberation.

Today is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Keep talking about it. Keep it on the front page. Do not let a genocide continue in silence.

[freebiblestudyhub]

Does the Bible Support Astrology?

Astrology, the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies and their purported influence on human affairs, has been practiced for millennia. With its roots in ancient Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek civilizations, astrology has evolved into a widely followed belief system in many parts of the world. The question, "Does the Bible support astrology?" is one that has been debated among theologians, scholars, and laypeople for centuries. To answer this question, it is essential to examine both the biblical text and the historical context in which it was written, as well as the theological principles regarding God's sovereignty, human free will, and the nature of divine revelation.

In this article, we will explore the Bible’s stance on astrology by looking at relevant scriptures, analyzing the historical and cultural context, and offering theological reflections on the matter.

1. What Is Astrology?

Astrology is the belief that the positions and movements of celestial bodies (such as the planets and stars) influence events on Earth and shape human lives. Practitioners of astrology commonly cast horoscopes, which predict or analyze an individual's personality traits, life events, and future outcomes based on the time and place of their birth. Astrology is divided into various systems, such as Western, Vedic (Indian), and Chinese astrology, each with its own methods and interpretations.

Astrology has existed in various forms since ancient times. In the ancient world, astrology was often intertwined with religion and considered a science by many civilizations. In the Greco-Roman world, astrology was regarded as a way to understand the will of the gods, while in the Babylonian Empire, it was used to guide kings and rulers in making decisions.

2. The Bible’s Stance on Astrology

While the Bible does not explicitly mention "astrology" in the modern sense, there are several scriptures that address the worship of celestial bodies and the practice of divination. The Bible provides clear guidance on how believers should approach such practices and whether they align with God's will. To understand the Bible's position, we will examine key scriptures related to astrology, divination, and the worship of the heavens.

The Old Testament: Warnings Against Astrology and Divination

Deuteronomy 4:19 and Deuteronomy 17:2–5 In the Book of Deuteronomy, God commands the Israelites to avoid the worship of celestial bodies:

"And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven." (Deuteronomy 4:19, NIV)

These verses warn the Israelites against idolizing the heavens or using the stars for purposes of divination or worship. The reference to the "heavenly array" in Deuteronomy 4:19 refers to the sun, moon, and stars, which were commonly worshiped by surrounding nations in the ancient world.

In Deuteronomy 17:2-5, God also forbids the practice of idolatry and commands the Israelites to put to death any person found guilty of worshiping foreign gods, including celestial bodies.

Isaiah 47:13–15 The prophet Isaiah provides a strong condemnation of astrology and the Babylonians' reliance on it:

"All the counsel you have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up." (Isaiah 47:13-14, NIV)

In this passage, astrology is depicted as futile and ineffective. The astrologers are mocked for their inability to save the Babylonians from the coming judgment. The passage highlights the contrast between the impotence of astrology and the power of the God of Israel, who is the ultimate source of knowledge and control over the future.

Jeremiah 10:2 Another significant scripture warns against adopting the practices of surrounding nations:

"This is what the Lord says: 'Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the heavens, though the nations are terrified by them.'" (Jeremiah 10:2, NIV)

Here, God explicitly commands His people not to be influenced by the signs of the heavens or engage in practices like astrology, which were prevalent in other cultures. This verse emphasizes that astrology is associated with fear and superstition, something that Israel is to avoid.

2 Kings 21:3, 5 King Manasseh of Judah is condemned for practicing astrology and other forms of idolatry:

"He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them." (2 Kings 21:3, NIV)

This passage records the sinful actions of King Manasseh, who led Judah into idolatry, including the worship of the "starry hosts." The "starry hosts" are often understood to refer to the heavenly bodies—planets and stars—that were worshiped by the pagans of the time. Manasseh's actions are portrayed as a direct violation of God's commandments.

The New Testament: Further Discouragement of Divination

Acts 16:16–18 In the New Testament, astrology is indirectly addressed through the story of a slave girl in Philippi who is possessed by a spirit of divination:

"She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, 'These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.' She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, 'In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!' At that moment the spirit left her." (Acts 16:16-18, NIV)

While this passage does not mention astrology specifically, it illustrates the New Testament view on divination, which was often closely linked to astrology in the ancient world. The apostle Paul rebukes the spirit of divination, showing that such practices are not of God and are to be rejected.

Colossians 2:8 The apostle Paul warns the believers in Colossae not to be taken captive by philosophies and practices that are contrary to Christ, which could include astrology:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ." (Colossians 2:8, NIV)

The "elemental spiritual forces" mentioned here could refer to the forces believed to control the cosmos, such as the stars and planets. Paul cautions Christians against being influenced by teachings or practices, including astrology, that are based on human wisdom rather than divine revelation.

3. Theological Reflections on Astrology

The Bible consistently emphasizes the sovereignty of God over the natural world, including the stars and planets. The celestial bodies are created by God and are subject to His will, not to be used as tools for predicting or controlling human fate. The Bible teaches that God alone has control over the future, and it is He who directs the course of human history (Isaiah 46:9–10).

God’s Sovereignty The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things, including the natural world. Psalm 147:4 declares, "He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name." The stars are not to be worshiped or consulted for guidance; instead, they are part of God's creation and serve His purposes.

The Danger of Idolatry Astrology can lead to idolatry, as people may begin to place their trust in the stars and planets rather than in God. The Bible is clear that worship of anything other than God is forbidden (Exodus 20:3–5). Astrology, in its most dangerous form, can replace trust in God's providence and sovereignty with a reliance on the stars.

The Call to Trust in God Alone The Bible calls believers to seek God for guidance and wisdom, not the stars. Proverbs 3:5–6 encourages trust in God: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight." Similarly, James 1:5 promises that God will give wisdom to those who ask for it.

4. Conclusion: Does the Bible Support Astrology?

The Bible does not support astrology. Rather, it consistently condemns the worship of celestial bodies and divination practices that seek to predict or control the future through the stars. Scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments make it clear that astrology is a form of idolatry and that believers are called to trust in God alone for guidance and direction.

The Bible emphasizes God's sovereignty over the natural world, including the stars, and teaches that humans should rely on God's wisdom, not the stars, to navigate life. As such, astrology is incompatible with biblical faith, which calls believers to seek divine revelation and to place their trust in God's providence rather than in the movements of the celestial bodies.

For Christians, the challenge is to resist the temptation to turn to astrology or other forms of divination for guidance, and instead, to place their trust in the living God who knows the future and holds all things in His hands.

[riearchivistfornow]

Law and Sin

Teens Xcite 2015.09.19

Law and Sin

The Moral Laws: The moral laws of God does not change. They are the reflection of God's character. An example is the ten commandments.

Ceremonial Laws: They are given to the people of Israel, so that they can be distinguished from the other people. They are related to the temple of God and how they are to conduct various things. Many of them are given to them as a symbol of Jesus Christ who was to come in history. One example is the passover and it points them to the Lamb, Jesus Christ. We are christians are no longer under the ceremonial laws, as it does not save us from sin. Ceremonial laws are given at a specific time for a specific reason.

Civil Laws: They are based on the principles of God's moral laws, despite it being mostly made by humans. Example: if you your handphone gets stolen, the civil laws will help you to get your phone back and to punish the person who steals. The civil laws are there to protect you.

God's moral laws are unchanging. Ceremonial laws are historical. Civil laws, we need them.

Shall we obey God's law or Human law?

We need to obey earthly authority

Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

We do know that not all authorities are God fearing, some are not good and some are even evil. However, the bible states that the authorities are established by God.

In the day of Moses, the Pharoh was evil. Many of them who faced evil authorities, still gave them respect.

1 Peter 2:13-17 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

God wants us to honour established authorities. In Singapore, this means the elected government in Singapore.

It has to do with the attitude and the heart on how you do it.

Do not allow yourself to participate with people that mock and dishonour the established authority.

Obey man because God tells us to do so.

Then do I obey a corrupt government? Do I obey an authority that tells us to dishonour God?

Obey God.

Acts 5:27-29 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!

Christians are to obey human law, except where the human law violates God's law.

When human laws come in conflict with God's laws, obey God.

God hold's earthly authorities in high regard, and he tells us to obey them. However if they come in conflict with God's law, then obey the Lord.

Obey God.

Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Our attitude to the laws, reflect what is in our hearts. When we see ourselves cursing or mocking authorities, it really reveals what is in our hearts. Often it is because we do not have the Love of God in our hearts. When we have that, we will then be able to love the laws and to honour them. We will then show love, justice and peace, and we will always want to uphold these laws.

The real root reason why we are against authority is because we are against God. Hence we think that the laws are to make us miserable, but it's true reason is that it is to protect us.

Sin is transgression of the Law of God.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

While the laws are good and acurate, they have no way to set us free from the penalty of sin.

The only way out was that God the judge had came in the form of Jesus Christ, the judge came down and took the place as the sinful one.

Psalms 19:7-9 The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The decrees of the Lord are firm, and all of them are righteous.

[friendlycursedspaceotter]

guys guys guys I DISCOVERED A THING!!!!!

so I was in Israel taking photos (as you do) with my dad's DSLR (basically Fancy Digital Camera™️ for ye non-photography nerds or those without a current photography hyperfixation) and since phone cameras are generally forgiving, you don't have to worry about things like long exposure times and standing as still as a Weeping Angel in a town square during the middle of the day when you're taking a photo at night. So, when you don't, things blur and you have to finagle with editing software to fix it.

Yes, I know that second-to-last sentence was long and oddly specific, but bear with me for a ✨TRIPPY LIGHT BLUR PICTURE TUTORIAL! :D✨ It works marginally better if you sing that part to the tune of Doofenschmirtz Evil Incorporated!

The point here is to use the fact that you need more light to see at night to your advantage. Especially with Fancy Digital Cameras™️.

So, for ye Fancy Digital Camera™️ users:

go outside at night to place with lights

press shutter

move camera a noticeable amount (does not have to be straight)

done!

AND STICK AROUND BELOW THE BREAK FOR MORE, MY PHONE USERS!

So, if you're using a phone because a) you don't own a Fancy Digital Camera™️ or ii) you own a Fancy Digital Camera™️ but don't take it everywhere you go because those things are really fcking expensive y'all, do not fear! I, Reza, shall teach you things you never knew about your phone!

So, I personally have an iPhone, but from what I can tell, Android is the same principle, but different names. If you need someone who actually knows what they're talking about, I'll direct you to this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfC2Paezp8k (may have to copypasta the link)

But for iPhone:

open your camera app (I know there's a few non-default ones that'll do this, but I haven't played around with them enough)

tap the screen where you want the camera to focus

there should be a little slidey thing next to that focus square (it has a sun) and slide it up or down to increase or decrease the exposure time (no idea how it works or which way to go for what, again, I only know Fancy Digital Camera™️ well. Go talk to PhotoTok, they probably have this covered).

Android actually has a setting for this under "advanced settings" (aka COOL TIPS THEY REFUSE TO TELL YOU). It's literally called "shutter time". Slide it to about the longest setting you want. Take photos.

I have no idea if this works with film. I think it does, but I don't own a film camera.

Point-and-shoot people: I have no idea how to help you. Use other photography methods or do a ton of research.

I'm going to post some of the photos I took once I get back (because I don't have to deal with the .heic setting on iPhone which is the bane of my photographic existence). It'll be in a reblog or separate post, so until then, happy photo-taking!