Machine-generated summary courtesy of Kagi’s summarizer (filling in for TL;DRbot):
**Summary:**The “anti-Germans” are a left-wing political movement in Germany that strongly supports Israel and criticizes any expression of solidarity with Palestine as anti-Semitic. While they began as a fringe group opposing German nationalism, they have now achieved mainstream success in promoting pro-Israel stances. They focus heavily on depicting Muslims and pro-Palestine activists as Nazis. Over time, the movement has moved away from leftist politics and toward anti-Muslim rhetoric and support for right-wing positions. Many of its stances have now been adopted more broadly in German policy and discourse. Although the group itself may be less influential, its radical anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim views have permeated German political life. Some former members have even gone on to respectable careers after pushing such views. In this way, the “anti-Germans” have had a significant impact on shaping Germany’s approach to Israel and Palestine issues.
Dot points:
At a pro-Israel demonstration in Leipzig, Germany, flags of Israel and the antifa movement were flown together, showing the unusual alliance between pro-Israel and far-left groups in Germany.
The anti-Deutsch movement started as a radical left opposition to German nationalism but is now defined by its hardline support for Israel and criticism of any expression of solidarity with Palestine.
Support for Israel has become increasingly mainstream in German politics, while support for Palestine has been marginalized. The anti-Deutsch movement has found new relevance as a result.
The anti-Deutsch movement emerged in reaction to fears that German reunification could lead to a resurgence of German nationalism and Nazism. They blamed inherent flaws in German culture and identity for the Holocaust.
The movement’s focus has shifted from criticizing capitalism to attacking Muslims and those expressing solidarity with Palestine as antisemites.
The anti-Deutsch movement takes an extreme stance, believing that any means are justified to secure Israel’s existence as protection against antisemitism.
There have been attacks on pro-Palestine groups in Germany by those claiming to oppose antisemitism, showing the radicalization of some in the anti-Deutsch movement.
The anti-Deutsch movement’s extreme anti-Muslim positions have aligned with conservative parties’ rhetoric on issues like immigration.
While the anti-Deutsch movement’s influence as a leftist group has waned, its anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim politics have become mainstream in German discourse.
Some former members of the anti-Deutsch movement have gone on to respectable careers in media and politics, showing how their views have diffused into the establishment.
They are trying to transfer the Holocaust guilt onto the Palestinians.
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
The Catholics are going to be in a difficult place as gayness becomes more normal. It’s quickly becoming self-evident that homosexual relationships are not immoral at all. That’s probably going to accelerate over the next few decades.
So the church should probably do more than just this to accept gay people, but they can’t. Catholic rulings set by ecumenical councils or by the pope (in such a way as to invoke papal infallibility) can’t be changed. It’s like if the US constitution could only be amended if the amendments didn’t contradict or repeal any existing text.
So if the church says “no homo, and that’s final,” then they can’t go back and change it to “just a little homo, as a treat.” It’s hard to find an exact citation, but I’m pretty sure they’ve already said “no homo” enough to make it official, so there’s no going back from that. Unless they also retract infallibility.
I haven’t heard anything from a third party, and no doubt hamas is exagerating to some degree, but whatever the actual numbers are, I wouldn’t think the current estimate of ~20,000 is far off. Israel is intentionally bombing civilians, so the estimated number sounds fairly reasonable to me.
Easier to confirm, is the proportion of women & children. About half the population of Palestine is children, and about half are women. So ~75% being women or children also fits.
Hamas isn't exaggerating, because the Gaza Health Ministry isn't Hamas except by virtue of Hamas being the government of Gaza. The whole world trusts and uses the GHM's numbers, because they're accurate. Also the real number is more than 19000, because there are people still buried under rubble or otherwise missing.
Dude, I am this 🤏 close to being banned in another community for daring to say that the current event is a genocide of palestinians.
I’m not denying anything, let alone for the sake of convenience. I’m not apathetic. All I’m saying is, is that the current numbers are probably not completely accurate.
I also explicitly said that the current estimate is probably not far off.
First, you’re going to need some sort of evidence to back up this claim.
It’s in their interest to exaggerate, and they are under the control of a terrorist organization.
Second, Hamas isn’t who is publishing these numbers.
My understanding is that the only people tracking & publishing the numbers is the Palestinian health ministry, which is under the control of Hamas. Everyone else is just saying “Gaza’s health ministry said X” and such.
It’s in their interest to exaggerate, and they are under the control of a terrorist organization.
That’s not evidence, that’s another claim. Please provide evidence.
My understanding
You don’t understand the difference between evidence and a claim, so it’s no surprise that you don’t understand anything else that you said after those two words.
Putting greater significance on women and children sounds primitive; all lives should be counted equally. But yes, all men are potentially hamasian by virtue of having the same body parts as hamas, thereby resembling hamas enough to be unworthy of living.
God do I wish the UK was still part of the EU - cause then we'd be governed by at least some people with an actual backbone to speak of, rather than the corrupt Tories that racist dickheads keep voting in over and over
Eh those idiots would just keep pushing Brexit as a distraction, at least when the UK rejoins the EU, if they ever do, they’ll have gotten the Brexit out of their system.
I do hope it's a "when", cause it should be alarmingly clear to everyone who isn't a rich arsehole that being in the EU was to our collective benefit...
Having said that, if it took crippling our economy for people to learn that lesson, then we're fucked on everything else steadily coming our way (i.e. climate change)
It’s baffling to me that the UK was able to keep their currency and all kinds of other benefits that virtually no other member states had yet they still threw a tantrum and left. Imagine being able to partially dictate your city’s tax codes/laws without having to pay into the pot as much as anyone else while also able to ignore many rules you don’t like. One could almost describe their relationship with the EU as borderline extractory, yet they still weren’t satisfied. Now if they rejoin, they probably won’t get half of the benefits they had previously.
On the bright side, if our politicians are ever forced to concede and rejoin the EU, they won't have their grandfather privileges anymore, and will actually have to participate fairly like everyone else
It feels like it’s always the EU picking up the ball on these things. Aren’t there mechanisms in place to monitor these things in the US, or is it legislation (or lack of it) that prevents the government from going after such things?
In the US, you always have to consider the benefits and risks to an elected official. Republicans would get nothing out of putting their new golden boy under a magnifier, but I’m certain that if a democrat tried it, they’d get slandered to hell and back.
The EU probably has no such concern. I don’t know how the EC’s members are picked, but partisanship is probably not as huge a factor. Eventually some EC members were bound to grow a backbone.
I wish our America can just start shedding our old identity and start slowly, but surely, copying Europes identity. Maybe things can change for the better.
I’m not up on EU politics all that much, so I hope someone more informed comes along and posts a better answer, but…
My distant view + guess for as to why it’s different is that they have more than one party. Partisanship is at its worse when there are only 2 of you, as demonstrated by the US system - it’s all finger pointing and “us vs them” that just polarized everything.
In the EU there are (at least?) 7ish “major” political parties, and while some are bigger than others, many actual hold seats and power unlike the US Green and Libertarian “parties” that are essentially meaningless.
As such, any “partisanship” seems at least less extreme. It’s a lot harder to crucify one bad guy when your time and attention is split between 6 “bad guys”. And different parties back different things, so even if 3 were anti-abortion, you’d have to split your slander and hate to three different groups with different OTHER ideas. So it gets a bit lost in sauce.
And on the other side, if you take a strong stance on one issue (such as this one), there are likely multiple parties on your side for that issue since there are unlikely to be 7 opinions, and even if they are, the similar ones can “tag team” a little bit since they’re more in line with each other than the opposing sides are.
If you’ve ever played video games, games with more than 2 teams play very differently than ones that are just one or the other. Dynamics are much more complicated and constantly evolving than they are in a simple “team a vs team b”.
As such, my understanding is that all of these extreme takes are severely diluted since there are more shades of gray and more nuance to the conversation and not just a constant “red vs blue”.
Currently 10 parties in the parliament making up seven fractions. For a supernational parliament the influence of nationalities is generally small, but occasionally it bleeds through.
There’s actually more things that you can call parties operating on the European levels but many aren’t large/successful enough to be granted party status by the parliament. E.g. Pirates generally fraction with Greens/EFA, Volt is split between Greens/EFA and Renew, roughly left-liberal vs. right-liberal, they really don’t seem to be able to decide.
The members of the Commission are chosen by the head of each member state, but also have to be approved by the parliament. So it's kinda like a civil servant that gets vetted by elected representatives
While I have no doubt that the EU has corrupt politicians, It's no where as visibly bad as it is in the US. Most of the people who could bring this forward get something out of what he is doing or contributing to them, and they would rather turn a blind eye than risk losing whatever he is giving them.
For some it's helping out their base, for others its something more monetary.
There are mechanisms there, but they only work when the people watching them are invested in helping the citizens.
I’ve lost all hope for the US to do anything meaningful on topics such as disinformation. I mean, half of the people there vote for people who believe COVID is a hoax and the Jews are firing space lasers at people.
The system working as designed. These businesses stayed afloat just long enough for “the economy” to pick back up again. Now they can be bought out as still functional businesses for pennies on the dollar by much bigger businesses, and the trickle of wealth upwards continues.
… The Vatican said on Monday in a landmark ruling approved by Pope Francis that Roman Catholic priests can administer blessings to same-sex couples as long as they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies.
… A document from the Vatican’s doctrinal office said such blessings would not legitimise irregular situations but be a sign that God welcomes all…
…It should in no way be confused with the sacrament of heterosexual marriage…
This is gaywashing at best, but it still sounds like blatant homophobia.
I hate the Catholic Church as an organization but have always wanted to get married inside a traditional Mexican Catholic Church as they are some of the most beautiful works of art created and have years of history embedded into their very walls.
I’m sure many house evils unspoken, but many have served their community in spectacular ways. (I am particularly speaking of rural and coastal Mexico)
This makes it a little closer for those gay boys that still hold the church close to them, to be a little more part of it. It doesn’t really affect the gay boys that don’t participate. I think it’s cool that they’ve acknowledged gay marriage and that they’re wishing the best for the couples.
worldnews
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.