I mean… weapons can be built for self-defense. Obviously, genocide is what’s happening here, not self-defense. But it’s not like there couldn’t be some alternate universe where ✡ on a tank is not inherently bad.
I think we can trust everyone involved to know exactly what the question meant and what the reply means.
If he would think in your categories he could have answered something like “I would be happy if it wouldn’t be needed.” Or reply back with “In which context?” or something.
He immediately jumped to making it “its either tanks or holocaust for us.”
I guess I dislike this post because Zionists usually phrase Israeli’s actions in terms of self-defense. So to people who are already anti-zionist, this post is interpretable; but to pro-zionists, it is at best nonsensical or at worst hateful. Either way – it’s polarizing.
Just seems like the way we should be not using social media.
The swastika is also both a religious and cultural symbol. But after it got put on a nation’s flag, it was deemed a hate symbol. So it will also be for the star of David, and Jewish culture will be all the poorer for the appropriation of their traditions by the zionists.
In Europe, however, the most prominent example of a religious symbol on a flag is the swastika. And Israel argued that it should be allowed into Eurovision because it’s culturally European.
I think, in western media at least, that the tank is rarely used as an image of defence. A tank’s artillery is not personal or protective, it obliterates its targets from a distance.
Its treads allow it to travel in terrain that has been decimated by war. The image of a tank ominously rolling over rubble and bodies in a war zone is contractually obliged to be in every war movie.
The heavy armour on a tank is perhaps its only ‘defensive’ trait, but it only exists to let the men inside blow things up for as long as possible.
It’s an all terrain cannon, and a country owning a fleet of them requires their neighbours to also invest in a fleet of them, just in case. This then causes their neighbours to invest in more tanks just to be extra ‘safe’
I mean… weapons can be built for self-defense. Obviously, genocide is what’s happening here, not self-defense. But it’s not like there couldn’t be some alternate universe where ✡ on a tank is not inherently bad.
Kind of an odd post.
I think we can trust everyone involved to know exactly what the question meant and what the reply means.
If he would think in your categories he could have answered something like “I would be happy if it wouldn’t be needed.” Or reply back with “In which context?” or something.
He immediately jumped to making it “its either tanks or holocaust for us.”
I guess I dislike this post because Zionists usually phrase Israeli’s actions in terms of self-defense. So to people who are already anti-zionist, this post is interpretable; but to pro-zionists, it is at best nonsensical or at worst hateful. Either way – it’s polarizing.
Just seems like the way we should be not using social media.
Even then, I think religious symbols being national symbols and therefore on national flags and tanks is inherently bad.
The davids star is both a religious and cultural symbol - and sticking those on flags is pretty normal.
The swastika is also both a religious and cultural symbol. But after it got put on a nation’s flag, it was deemed a hate symbol. So it will also be for the star of David, and Jewish culture will be all the poorer for the appropriation of their traditions by the zionists.
fair enough, but I’ll point out that having a religious symbol on your national flag is basically par for the course in the middle east.
In Europe, however, the most prominent example of a religious symbol on a flag is the swastika. And Israel argued that it should be allowed into Eurovision because it’s culturally European.
I think, in western media at least, that the tank is rarely used as an image of defence. A tank’s artillery is not personal or protective, it obliterates its targets from a distance. Its treads allow it to travel in terrain that has been decimated by war. The image of a tank ominously rolling over rubble and bodies in a war zone is contractually obliged to be in every war movie.
The heavy armour on a tank is perhaps its only ‘defensive’ trait, but it only exists to let the men inside blow things up for as long as possible.
It’s an all terrain cannon, and a country owning a fleet of them requires their neighbours to also invest in a fleet of them, just in case. This then causes their neighbours to invest in more tanks just to be extra ‘safe’