• TWeaK
    link
    fedilink
    English
    84 months ago

    The Nazis weren’t just anti-Jewish, they were anti-anyone who isn’t Aryan. While the people here are basically only showing anti-Arab sentiments, if they held the same view to all other races then they would be analogous to Nazis.

    • @undergroundoverground
      link
      English
      -24 months ago

      I never said they were just anti Jewish.

      Why are people here so married to calling Israeli Jewish people nazis? Such a weird hill to choose to die on.

      • TWeaK
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Because it’s an extremely valid and apt comparison.

        The Nazis were not defined by being anti-Jewish, yet you make out that because Israel is not discriminating against Jews they cannot be Nazis. The Nazis are defined by ethno fascism preferring a single race. For the Nazis, it’s Aryans; for Israel, it’s Jews. They’re so incredibly similar that you can pretty much call them the same - they’re basically two sides of a single coin.

        Also, strictly speaking we’re not calling all Israelis Nazis, but the people running the country and committing genocide.

        • @undergroundoverground
          link
          English
          04 months ago

          They were defined by both their hatred of Jewish people and their ethno fascism. Their hatred of Jewish people is a fundamental part of everything they did and the justification for all of it. If they didn’t like something, they declared it to be a Jewish conspiracy and attacked it.

          Why are you so married to calling them a term that ensures everyone outside of certain cliques will automatically dismiss anything you have to say about the subject?

          • TWeaK
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            Why are you so vehemently defending an indefensibly evil group, all because I compared them to another indefensibly evil group?

            • @undergroundoverground
              link
              English
              0
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I don’t see it as defending them. At least, its result is only secondary. I see it as making sure that people who know what’s going on in gaza aren’t ignored when they talk about it. I’m sure you can figure out what happens to the majority of people who are kept deliberately in the dark about it (they switch off).

              To me, its the correct definition and going by it is good for its own sake.

              If I was a social media propagandist, obviously I’m not saying you are, I would foster a culture where people call Jewish Israelis nazis, to gain sympathy for the wrongs the IDF is doing in gaza. As such, I think not doing that is a good idea.

              I would ask in return, what is the benefit of not having your argument etc. in favour of palestinian liberation being squeaky clean? Regardless of whether you were ultimately right, can you really justify the use of that decisive word for them when you can do almost the exact same thing with another, equally as good word. If you feel its a bit better, is the improvement justified when the outcome is to raise awareness for Palestine?