"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof- Justice Justice You Shall Pursue (דְּבָרִים Devarim 16:20)
✡ Zionist ✡
She/Her
I really think this goes to show a lack of education in regards to Holocaust and what it was about and why it happened and how it could happened.
Non-Romani goyim really do not understand or rather I should say if it is more a refusal to understand because they are fully capable of understanding it.
The Holocaust was the natural conclusion of thousands of years of antisemitism, of Jewhate, of discrimination towards Jews, and dehumanization of Jews.
The same goes with the anti-Romani hate and racism, discrimination, and dehumanization of the Romani for centuries.
Hitler did not become who he was because he failed to get into art school. He already was that way and so was the society he existed in.
He could have died in WWI or died in jail and the Holocaust would have still happened in one version or another.
Because German society was primed for it, Europe was primed for it, and the world at large was primed for it.
People willing became Nazis, people happily turned in their Jewish neighbors, their Jewish spouses and children. The world knew what was happened and it didn't even make front page news.
I've stood in a gas chamber, I seen walls discolored and stained by Zyklon B, and I saw all the scratches left behind from people clawing at the walls and doors.
I'm not putting up with anymore where non-Romani goyim are happy to point out that something is Nazi talking point or rhetoric, but can't explain the why, the what is it that makes Nazi rhetoric and talking points. Because if they can't explain it then they don't actually understand the problem. And I'm letting that slide anymore.
"If you masturbate you're a filthy gooner" you sound like a fucking nazi and i'm not kidding, why are people so eager to turn into pearl-clutching reactionaries about normal sexual activity
norabee:
Addendum to this is that if you call normal goddamn women "goonbait" for the crime of Being Women In Public then I think you should get beaten with hammers
"Masturbating and sexual activity in general are not things you should be shaming people for" and "acting like women existing is basically porn is fucked up and dehumanising" can and should be simultaneously-held viewpoints
fromchaostocosmos:
Side note:
Do you know why this is Nazi concept?
Do you understand what is going on?
New rule I have if some is going to say something sounds like Nazi or Nazism and/or make a comparison to them they need to show that they actually understand what they are talking.
norabee:
I don't actually have to explain anything I say to a fucking Zionist, fuck you and your rules. Free Palestine, you genocidal piece of shit.
fromchaostocosmos:
And this just goes to prove why I decided to implement this rule in the first place.
So for those who don't know the entire foundation of Nazism was antisemitism.
Why the Nazis went after the things they did was because they believed that the Jews were behind it and that it was all one big giant conspiracy and ploy by the Jews to destroy the Higher Races.
And one of these antisemitic conspiracies theories was that pornography was created by Jews to corrupt the Higher Races and get them to have less children.
This conspiracy theory is still used by those on the far right and the far left. Though how it is worded and dressed up looks different for both extremes.
On the far right it dressed as Jews using pornography to destroy Whites, the traditional family unit, promote race mixing, etc.
On the far left it is pornography is a ploy of the Jews to destroy feminism, promote sex trafficking, destroy consent, etc.
This is important. Understanding this is important. This knowledge is important.
If you can't understand and if you don't understand what makes Nazis, Nazis and why Nazi ideology is what it is that is a massive problem.
It is not enough to know that something was a Nazi talking point, you have to [know] the why.
Just like with any of hate rhetoric. It is not enough to be able to spot that xyz and abc is the rhetoric of that hate movement. We have to understand why it [is] specifically.
For example it is not enough to know and spot that hate rhetoric of KKK we have to understand why it is specifically the hate rhetoric of the KKK.
Sadly it doesn't surprise that this part is where the failure is happening.
Because here we have someone calling me genocidal for being a Zionist. Which means they have no clue what that even means.
I have a very strong suspicion that OP [is] using the slur zio with zero awareness or care that it is a slur that David Duke of KKK infamy claims to have created and while he did not create it. The former grand wizard of the KKK most did help popularise this already existing White Supremacist slur for Jews.
Sometimes goyim just really put the oy in goyim and make me feel like I never ever ever want to have interact with overwhelming majority of them again.
Here are 3 examples all from reddit:
1: Some on the Pitt subreddit made a suggestion about what everyone would wear on Halloween if they had a shift that day.
I'm fully willing to accept that I could have been in the wrong and please feel free to let me know if you think so. I added a post explaining why as a Jew I was upset by this and to please respect that Jews don't do Halloween and that we have our culture, beliefs, and practices. I also explained how we not like Christianity and Islam. My post and response to it and mine to those below.
2: From a post in discussion about the finale the third season of a show called school spirits. In the post there was a thread about 4 characters were not white and then one specific character came up. Then a debate over if she was white or not because her actor is Jewish. link
I explained that no she is not white because it not Jews=white.
To which I got a response I think most Jews would be really offended and upset by and I'll of course include my response.
3: Some suggested that in the H3 subreddit that Ethan Klein, who is Jewish, should as a joke get an exorcism. link
~
I'm fully am aware that many may disagree with my points and/or how I handled things or anything. And that is fine.
I'm just really exhausted by goyim treat our feelings, out history, and our authority when it comes to our feeling, our history, our culture, and everything else like they are a joke and that it is something that is up for debate.
I'm so exhausted and drained by this sense of I guess the best way I can explain is that growing up in abusive home I had to things always in a very round about way and say things in a certain way so that my abusers never felt like I was saying they were wrong or like I trying to take away their authority or question it. And that is how it feels like all the time.
Like this never ending subservience, but we are not allowed to point that out. There is massive fucking elephant in the room or rather many elephants and have been forbidden from talking about them.
And we have stuck in this dynamic that at this point they no longer hear, smell, see, or feel the elephants so not only are we not allowed to talk about, but we have to clean up after the elephants and if we try to point them out that they exist we just sound crazy.
So we have to try and like deal with them in the most fucking round about ways that are so fucking draining.
And than there are some Jews who decided to give in and go no they can't see the elephants and do everything they can to not see them or they were never taught to see them and so they don't they are, but they might know something it off. But you know and see them so you feel like are you crazy because you are the only one.
And sure there are some goyim who try to see the elephants and they great pretty good at sensing it.
And there are other goyim who have elephants of their own just a different kind so you see each others elephants and that is something, but most of the time. It is just you and when there other Jews at least there is some solidarity.
But with online it not always the case and in real life that is not always the case. And often it just feels really lonely and exhausting and like G-d I never want to deal with the overwhelming majority of goyim again.
Am I making sense? Is any of this semi comprehensible.
Many Jews see Messianic Judaism as a deceptive form of Christian proselytizing.
Messianic are not members of Am Yisrael and it is not Judaism.
That is nice, but you are xtians. End of story.
But you aren't Jewish. I don't care if you "identify" with it, you aren't. You are race faking and more. It is disgusting. It is cultural theft. It is deceptive. It is antisemitic.
My dude, why the fuck were you studying Torah with him the first place? This is something I will never understand, Rabbis who study Torah, or should I say "study", with goyim. It is not for them. Like what the fuck.
And no I'm not talking about conversion classes because that is obliviously not the same because those are people who are studying in to join Am Yisrael.
I love how Jews are being painted as unreasonable by the messianics. Like there isn't a horrific history in Jews trying to preserve our culture and identity are painted as unreasonable and uncooperative.
Like there isn't a really long and horrific history of Indigenous Peoples being painted as mean, selfish, etc because we don't like when people steal from us, because we call it what it is theft, because we not cool with our identities, practices, and cultures being rifled through by outsiders for something to make them feel cool and special. Being we don't want to assimilate. Because we actively fight against and fight to keep our distinctive ways of life.
This is just so revolting and violating on so many levels.
A minister in the president's office called the film "historical anti-Polish manipulation."
A documentary about the murder of five Jews in a Polish town is being threatened with a ban in Poland — not because they were killed in the Holocaust, but because they weren’t.
The Jews at the heart of “Among Neighbors,” from California-based filmmaker Yoav Potash, died six months after the end of Nazi occupation. They were among a handful of survivors from Gniewoszów, a town where about 1,500 Jews made up half the population before World War II. When they returned home in 1945, they were killed by their Polish neighbors.
Since premiering at the Warsaw Jewish Film Festival in November 2024, “Among Neighbors” has been screened in six countries and qualified for Academy Award consideration. But its release on TVP, the Polish public broadcaster, has prompted uproar from right-wing politicians and a national investigation.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency will host a U.S. stream of the film on Thursday, followed by a live conversation with Potash. Register here to attend.
The outlet that the Arab world brands as a propaganda arm of the Zionist entity has never touched a comma of my criticism
I studied mass communication in Qatar – a country routinely described as a heaven for journalists, though the description has always struck me as more aspirational than empirical. I completed my master’s thesis on Israeli media framing of Morocco across three distinct phases – before normalization, after normalization, and during the Gaza war – analyzing the coverage according to three distinct editorial ideologies: left, center, and right.
I arrived at the subject carrying every assumption my academic environment had furnished me with: that Israeli media operates under military censorship so pervasive it functions as state propaganda, that the press serves as an extension of the security establishment, that the entire information ecosystem is engineered to manufacture consent for occupation. I was trained to see Israel as the graveyard of journalism.
What I found, when I actually engaged with the material – and later, with the institutions themselves – was something my professors in Doha had never prepared me for: a media landscape so free, so plural, so aggressively self-critical that it makes every Arab media ecosystem I have encountered, including the Moroccan one I belong to, look curated by comparison.
Let me begin with my own experience, because personal testimony is harder to dismiss than theory. I have written for The Times of Israel and continue to contribute to it to this day. Not once – not a single time – was any article of mine rejected, altered, or suppressed. I wrote pieces critical of Israeli government policy. I wrote pieces questioning Zionist narratives. I wrote pieces that would have made any nationalist editor in any Arab country reach for the delete button before finishing the first paragraph. Every single one was published. Every single one. I want the reader to sit with that fact for a moment, because it is not a small thing.
Here is a news outlet, operating in a country that much of the world has declared a pariah state, that accepts opinions from a Moroccan journalist even when those opinions challenge the very ideological foundations upon which the state was built. Name me one Arab outlet that would do the same in reverse.
Would Al Jazeera – which presents itself as the gold standard of Arab journalism, the fearless voice of the voiceless – publish an op-ed praising Zionism? Would it run a piece arguing that Israel’s existence is legitimate and its security concerns are valid? The question answers itself, and the silence that follows is the sound of a double standard so enormous it has become invisible.
In fact, I have been contributing to the Times of Israel since 2023 – writing freely, publishing without interference, never once told what to say or what to soften. The outlet that the Arab world brands as a propaganda arm of the Zionist entity never touched a comma of my criticism. It was not Israel that silenced me. It was Qatar. The university itself – the very institution that taught me to champion press freedom, to interrogate power, to speak truth without flinching – instructed me to stop writing for an Israeli publication.
The irony is not subtle; it is obscene. The country that hosts Al Jazeera, that markets itself as the citadel of Arab journalism, that hands out press freedom awards and convenes media ethics conferences in five-star hotels, could not tolerate a graduate student publishing opinion pieces in a newspaper three thousand kilometers away.
And the excuse will come – it always does – that these are merely opinions, that opinions do not represent the outlet, that the disclaimer at the bottom of every op-ed absolves the platform of its contributor’s views. Fine. Then explain to me why, if opinions truly do not represent the outlet, Arab media treats them as if they carry the explosive force of state policy. Explain why editors in Cairo kill columns that question normalization. Explain why Algerian platforms scrub comments that deviate from the regime’s position on Western Sahara. Explain why Qatari institutions panic at the sight of a Moroccan byline in an Israeli newspaper.
If opinions are harmless – if they are, as every Arab editor insists, the sole responsibility of their authors – then why does the entire Arab media establishment behave as though a single dissenting paragraph could bring down the house? The answer is that Arab media does not fear opinions. It fears the precedent of allowing them – because once you permit one voice to think freely, you lose the ability to guarantee that every other voice will remain obedient. And obedience, not journalism, is the product that Arab media actually manufactures.
A volatile marketplace of ideas
Israel is a country where Haaretz – a mainstream, widely read daily newspaper – routinely describes its own government’s policies in the occupied territories as apartheid, as ethnic cleansing, as moral catastrophe. Where +972 Magazine operates openly, publishing investigations that would land journalists in prison in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Algeria, in my own Morocco.
And here is the irony that should embarrass every Arab newsroom invoking press freedom: these are the very same Israeli platforms that furnish Arab media with the ammunition they later use to attack Israel. When Al Jazeera runs a segment on IDF violations, the sourcing is almost invariably Israeli – B’Tselem reports, Haaretz investigations, +972 exposés, Breaking the Silence testimonies. Arab media does not produce the critical journalism about Israel; it imports it – from Israel itself.
Israel is a country that does not fear outside critics because it manufactures its own critics in industrial quantities, funds their newsrooms, protects their legal right to publish, and tolerates their conclusions even when those conclusions accuse the state of war crimes. Israel investigates its own military, publishes its own failures, airs its own atrocities on its own evening news – and then watches as Arab networks repackage that self-criticism as evidence of Israeli villainy, without ever pausing to ask why no equivalent self-criticism exists in their own countries.
Where far-right outlets like Israel Hayom and Arutz Sheva push narratives so nationalist they would make the most hardline settler blush – and all of these exist simultaneously, in the same media market, funded, read, and debated without anyone being detained at three in the morning for what they wrote.
This is not a controlled information environment. This is a marketplace of ideas so volatile, so unmanageable, so ferociously competitive that it produces more self-criticism per square kilometer than any country in the Middle East and North Africa combined.
Consider i24News, which broadcasts in four languages – English, French, Arabic, and Hebrew – each with a distinct editorial personality. The Arabic edition operates with such sensitivity to Arab audiences that it frequently feels less like an Israeli channel than a Palestinian one broadcasting from inside Israel. Arab citizens of Israel operate their own media outlets – Makan, Panet, Arab48, Kul al-Arab – covering their communities in Arabic, criticizing Israeli policies, advocating for Palestinian rights, and doing so under the legal protection of the very state they critique.
Where else in the region does this exist? In Morocco, where the majority of the population is Amazigh, we struggled to secure a single television channel in Tamazight until 2010 – and even now, its editorial independence is a subject best discussed in whispers.
In Qatar, where Al Jazeera is headquartered, can any journalist publish a critical investigation into the Emir’s finances? Into the Al Thani family’s real estate empire across London and Paris? Into labor conditions that built the studios from which Al Jazeera broadcasts? Into Doha’s documented channels of support for the Muslim Brotherhood, for Hamas, for Islamist movements across the region that every neighboring Gulf state has designated as threats to national security? Into the billions spent on a World Cup built on the backs of migrant workers whose passports were confiscated under a kafala system that human rights organizations have called modern slavery? The answer is not merely no – the answer is that the question itself is dangerous to ask.
‘Graveyard of journalism?’
The accusation that Israel is the graveyard of journalists has become a reflex, repeated so often it has acquired the texture of established fact. And yes, journalists have died in conflict zones where the IDF operates – deaths that deserve investigation, accountability, and institutional reform. I do not dismiss them.
But the phrase “graveyard of journalism” implies the systematic destruction of press freedom as institutional practice, and that is a description that applies far more accurately to the countries making the accusation than to the country being accused. Journalists in Egypt rot in prison for years without trial. Saudi Arabia dismembered one inside a consulate. Syria buried its press corps under barrel bombs. Algeria prosecutes reporters under counterterrorism laws for covering protests.
And yet it is Israel – where Cabinet ministers are called criminals on the evening news, where a sitting prime minister’s corruption trial is broadcast live, where the Supreme Court is criticized and defended in the same newspaper on the same day – that the Arab world has decided is hostile to journalism.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history, has been called a fascist by Haaretz columnists, a dictator by protest movements covered sympathetically on prime-time television, and a criminal defendant in a corruption trial that Israeli media broadcasts live, dissects nightly, and editorializes about with a ferocity that would be unimaginable in any Arab capital.
President Isaac Herzog fares no better – routinely dismissed as ceremonially irrelevant by right-wing commentators and criticized as insufficiently vocal by the left, his every public statement parsed, challenged, and often ridiculed in real time across Israeli social media and broadcast networks.
These are not fringe voices operating from exile. These are mainstream journalists, on mainstream platforms, in mainstream Israel – treating their most powerful leaders not as untouchable sovereigns but as public servants accountable to public scrutiny. Now ask yourself: in which Arab country can a journalist call the head of state a criminal on the evening news, keep their job, and sleep in their own bed that night?
This is not analysis. It is projection. Arab media establishments that cannot tolerate a cartoon mocking their head of state have appointed themselves arbiters of press freedom in a country where the head of state is mocked, investigated, indicted, and satirized as a matter of daily routine. The hypocrisy is not subtle. It is architectural.
Let me be clear: Israeli media is not perfect. Military censorship exists on narrow security grounds. Editorial pressures operate, as they do everywhere. But the distance between Israel’s media reality and the Arab world’s media reality is not a gap – it is a chasm so wide that the two sides cannot see each other.
When Arab media reaches the minimum threshold of allowing a journalist to call the president a liar on national television without disappearing the next morning, then – and only then – will the accusation that Israel is a graveyard of journalism deserve to be taken seriously. Until that day, the charge is not criticism. It is confession dressed as accusation, and the Arab world would do well to look in the mirror before pointing at Tel Aviv.
For the uninitiated, you write [sic]—literally "this" or "so" in latin—to indicate that you haven't altered the wording or spelling. While it can be used to preserve a joke misspelling (aminals) or indicate that you know it looks weird (the Toronto Maple Leafs), it is also the most biting three letters that you can throw at a motherfucker who should know better.
The questions they don't like when you ask are
1) Where should Jews go then?
2) Why should Jews unqualifiedly trust people who turn on us the same way their Ntimes Great Grandpappy did when times get tough or they're angry that day to just... not do that after *gestures* how many thousand years?
3) Will the person who considers Israel a Special Sin and Jews Uniquely Evil ever want to put that hatred down and try to fix their own shit? Or is it enough to be a miserable hateful asshole and never admit they might have something to do with that?
They LARP about how they would TOTALLY be willing to allow Native Americans to kill them (something 99.9% of Natives have no interest in doing, but they sure do love old school racist ideas of Natives) because they know they're in no danger of that happening.
But they gotta project that white guilt. Actually do the hard work of decolonization, which is primarily about honoring treaties and who holds political power over the land? That's hard work. It's messy work. It's much easier for LARPy white leftists to scapegoat Jews and occasionally throw in a performative
Jewish American pride is NOT a footnote to this country's story. It's part of the engine that built it. Jewish immigrants came here with accents, trauma, ideas, and they helped shape everything from modern science to Hollywood to civil rights law to the soundtrack of American culture.
The polio vaccine, Nobel Prize-winning research, iconic films, legendary comedy, Olympic gold medals, Supreme Court decisions, tech companies that changed how the world communicates, none of this sits outside the American story. Jews didn't just participate in America, we helped define it.
So yes, when a Jewish athlete stands on a podium with a Team USA flag, Jews notice. Not because it makes them less American, but because it shows the fullness of what being American actually looks like. Irish Americans celebrate Irish success. Italian Americans celebrate Italian success. Every community holds pride in its people and its country at the same time, and nobody calls that divisive. Jewish American pride is not exclusionary. It's about honoring resilience, contribution, and a history that turned survival into achievement.
What's exhausting is watching identity suddenly become “irrelevant” only when Jews are proud of something. When Jewish scientists save lives, Jewish artists change culture, or Jewish athletes win gold, we're told to tone it down, to make ourselves smaller, to just say "American" and move on. But the moment a scandal trends, Jewish identity is amplified. That double standard tells Jews that visibility is only acceptable when it's negative, and honestly, we're not playing that game anymore.
Jewish American achievement is not a contradiction, it's proof of what this country promises at its best. Pride in where you come from and pride in the flag you stand under can exist at the same time. And if that makes some people uncomfortable, maybe the problem isn't Jews celebrating excellence, MAYBE it's that excellence forces people to confront how deeply Jewish identity is woven into the American story whether they like it or not.
