Anonymous wrote:I think Maher’s point in the segment is that Jews were there first—pointing to the Bible, the temple, etc. Presumably he makes the point to counter the argument that Muslims were there first. That’s the typical colonizer debate: going all the way back to the start, right? Seems like a fact rather than an opinion.

Re: nobody was interested in Gaza before - Seems like a quip grounded in fact when viewed through the lens of, “Why are so many Americans who never cared about this all of a sudden making this their priority issue?”

Another possible lens: why haven’t any neighboring countries or other Arab/muslim-majority countries stepping up and taking an interest in Gaza?

These are both valid points grounded in facts (in terms of historic inaction).

Anyway, it’s a mess and ftr I believe both sides have blood on their hands. I’ll never understand why anyone thinks this is as simple/binary as “Zionist oppression against a monolithic group of innocents” without acknowledging the role of religious extremism-fueled terrorism aimed at destroying Israel, America, and the West. I mean, that’s the crux of the issue at the moment—regardless of where anyone stands on the history.

Nonetheless, I’m open to persuasion…particularly if anyone can present a solution that is forward-thinking.

Anonymous wrote:I think Maher’s point in the segment is that Jews were there first—pointing to the Bible, the temple, etc. Presumably he makes the point to counter the argument that Muslims were there first. That’s the typical colonizer debate: going all the way back to the start, right? Seems like a fact rather than an opinion.

Re: nobody was interested in Gaza before - Seems like a quip grounded in fact when viewed through the lens of, “Why are so many Americans who never cared about this all of a sudden making this their priority issue?”

Another possible lens: why haven’t any neighboring countries or other Arab/muslim-majority countries stepping up and taking an interest in Gaza?

These are both valid points grounded in facts (in terms of historic inaction).

Anyway, it’s a mess and ftr I believe both sides have blood on their hands. I’ll never understand why anyone thinks this is as simple/binary as “Zionist oppression against a monolithic group of innocents” without acknowledging the role of religious extremism-fueled terrorism aimed at destroying Israel, America, and the West. I mean, that’s the crux of the issue at the moment—regardless of where anyone stands on the history.

Nonetheless, I’m open to persuasion…particularly if anyone can present a solution that is forward-thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maher is a fool and a hack. Hard pass.

That's a substantive response? No wonder discourse around politics so often seems like it is between kindergartners.

Maher talks like a kindergartner. He is not a serious source of information about almost anything, let alone the complexities of one of the most complex and controversial conflicts in recent history.

He's addressing Gen Z. Let's be honest, you need to dumb it down for that generation.

I just had my 16 yr old watch it, and told them that Maher glosses over a lot of atrocities committed by Israel, but that what he said about Hamas, ISIS, and the like is true. It's good to support the people, and especially women, in those countries but not the regimes.

BTW, my 16 yr old said that Gen Z does indeed get their news from tiktok. And she said that she has opinions but she doesn't voice them in school because she's afraid of being yelled at by both sides. She thinks both sides are wrong and feels for the people, but I guess extremists on both sides don't want to hear that.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Bill Maher is inaccurate in many instances in that video. He makes even basic mistakes. Here are a few:

1) He says that calling Jews "colonizers" is like calling Native Americans "colonizers". Consider your reaction if Native Americans from the South West began taking over Manhattan, creating a new country, and forcing its current residents into exile. Wouldn't you consider them "colonizers"? While it is true that some Jews remained permanently in what is now Israel, the Zionist movement was led by European Jews. At its conception, the Zionist movement was not in agreement about where a Jewish state should be located. Had a Jewish state been established in Uganda, an idea that was actually accepted by the World Jewish Congress in 1903, you would more readily recognize it to as colonization.

2) Maher claims that for 2,000 years nobody was interested in Palestine. This shows complete ignorance. What does Maher think the Crusades were about? Crusaders from Western Europe fought Persians and Kurds from today's Iran (among others) and Maher thinks this demonstrates a lack of interest. During the Ottoman Empire, there were thriving cities and towns in Palestine. Many radical supporters of Israel, including Maher apparently, would have you believe that Palestine was an empty land. That is a rewriting of history that misrepresents the deep ties that Palestinians have to their homeland.

3) Maher suggests that Zionism was a reaction to the Holocaust and that Jews became interested in a Jewish homeland after World War II. In fact, Jews had started emigrating from Europe to Palestine as early as 1882, the time of the First Aliyah. The movement gained momentum prior to World War I. Again, Maher is ignorant of basic history.

4) Maher refers to the killing of 600 protesters in Iran. That, of course, is a terrible thing that I condemn. But it pales in comparison to the number of protesters that has Israel killed. I am not talking about about those killed by Israel in fighting, but the killing of unarmed protesters. By the way, that number includes several Americans just in the last few months.

5) Maher commits a popular and common fallacy of equating opposition to Israel's killing of civilians as support for Hamas or Hezbollah. Pro-Israel individuals routinely say that they oppose Netanyahu but support Israel. That is considered a very acceptable position. Yet, when others say that they support the Palestinian people but oppose Hamas, they are labeled as supporters of terrorism. Those who, like Maher, engage in this sort of demagoguery are not serious and should not be considered serious. The should be considered as the propagandists that they are.

Thanks for saving many of us the bother of listening to this crap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maher is a fool and a hack. Hard pass.

That's a substantive response? No wonder discourse around politics so often seems like it is between kindergartners.

Maher talks like a kindergartner. He is not a serious source of information about almost anything, let alone the complexities of one of the most complex and controversial conflicts in recent history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100% agree with Jeff’s #5. Therein lies the problem.

I’m the op and I tend to agree, but here’s the issue I’ve observed after proactively watching interviews with people on both sides and in between: lots of people simply won’t unequivocally denounce the actions of terrorists or even admit that certain groups are terror groups/religious extremists. Instead, they will counter with, “What do expect given the Zionist colonizers/oppression/atrocities?”

When people go on tv and refuse to denounce terror groups when pressed to clarify where they stand, it’s fair to assume they might actually support the groups, right?

Obviously that’s not everyone.

The reality is any sane person thinks the death toll and destruction in Gaza is horrific. Maher has routinely said so.

Anonymous wrote:100% agree with Jeff’s #5. Therein lies the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Bill Maher is inaccurate in many instances in that video. He makes even basic mistakes. Here are a few:

1) He says that calling Jews "colonizers" is like calling Native Americans "colonizers". Consider your reaction if Native Americans from the South West began taking over Manhattan, creating a new country, and forcing its current residents into exile. Wouldn't you consider them "colonizers"? While it is true that some Jews remained permanently in what is now Israel, the Zionist movement was led by European Jews. At its conception, the Zionist movement was not in agreement about where a Jewish state should be located. Had a Jewish state been established in Uganda, an idea that was actually accepted by the World Jewish Congress in 1903, you would more readily recognize it to as colonization.

2) Maher claims that for 2,000 years nobody was interested in Palestine. This shows complete ignorance. What does Maher think the Crusades were about? Crusaders from Western Europe fought Persians and Kurds from today's Iran (among others) and Maher thinks this demonstrates a lack of interest. During the Ottoman Empire, there were thriving cities and towns in Palestine. Many radical supporters of Israel, including Maher apparently, would have you believe that Palestine was an empty land. That is a rewriting of history that misrepresents the deep ties that Palestinians have to their homeland.

3) Maher suggests that Zionism was a reaction to the Holocaust and that Jews became interested in a Jewish homeland after World War II. In fact, Jews had started emigrating from Europe to Palestine as early as 1882, the time of the First Aliyah. The movement gained momentum prior to World War I. Again, Maher is ignorant of basic history.

4) Maher refers to the killing of 600 protesters in Iran. That, of course, is a terrible thing that I condemn. But it pales in comparison to the number of protesters that has Israel killed. I am not talking about about those killed by Israel in fighting, but the killing of unarmed protesters. By the way, that number includes several Americans just in the last few months.

5) Maher commits a popular and common fallacy of equating opposition to Israel's killing of civilians as support for Hamas or Hezbollah. Pro-Israel individuals routinely say that they oppose Netanyahu but support Israel. That is considered a very acceptable position. Yet, when others say that they support the Palestinian people but oppose Hamas, they are labeled as supporters of terrorism. Those who, like Maher, engage in this sort of demagoguery are not serious and should not be considered serious. The should be considered as the propagandists that they are.

Thanks for saving many of us the bother of listening to this crap.

Or perhaps step outside your bubble and listen to what someone says and form your own opinion?

FTR, I purposely listen to people on all sides…even when I am confident I won’t agree. It’s useful to know where others are coming from and what drives their views.

Anonymous wrote:Using numbers of dead people—whether innocent men, women, and children or soldiers/militants—is never a useful argument.

Why?

Because the death of one innocent person is just as tragic as a dozen or a hundred. There simply is no proportional sweet spot when it comes to conflict.

Fwiw, I think Maher used the example of 600 protesters for a specific purpose: to underscore the absurdity of killing the one woman as punishment for improperly covering her head. Death of one (which prompted protests leading to 600 more) in the name of religion was the point he was trying to make.

Remember: his bit was aimed at Chappell Roan and the TikTok generation, so he needed to keep it at a 6th grade level.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Bill Maher is inaccurate in many instances in that video. He makes even basic mistakes. Here are a few:

1) He says that calling Jews "colonizers" is like calling Native Americans "colonizers". Consider your reaction if Native Americans from the South West began taking over Manhattan, creating a new country, and forcing its current residents into exile. Wouldn't you consider them "colonizers"? While it is true that some Jews remained permanently in what is now Israel, the Zionist movement was led by European Jews. At its conception, the Zionist movement was not in agreement about where a Jewish state should be located. Had a Jewish state been established in Uganda, an idea that was actually accepted by the World Jewish Congress in 1903, you would more readily recognize it to as colonization.

2) Maher claims that for 2,000 years nobody was interested in Palestine. This shows complete ignorance. What does Maher think the Crusades were about? Crusaders from Western Europe fought Persians and Kurds from today's Iran (among others) and Maher thinks this demonstrates a lack of interest. During the Ottoman Empire, there were thriving cities and towns in Palestine. Many radical supporters of Israel, including Maher apparently, would have you believe that Palestine was an empty land. That is a rewriting of history that misrepresents the deep ties that Palestinians have to their homeland.

3) Maher suggests that Zionism was a reaction to the Holocaust and that Jews became interested in a Jewish homeland after World War II. In fact, Jews had started emigrating from Europe to Palestine as early as 1882, the time of the First Aliyah. The movement gained momentum prior to World War I. Again, Maher is ignorant of basic history.

4) Maher refers to the killing of 600 protesters in Iran. That, of course, is a terrible thing that I condemn. But it pales in comparison to the number of protesters that has Israel killed. I am not talking about about those killed by Israel in fighting, but the killing of unarmed protesters. By the way, that number includes several Americans just in the last few months.

5) Maher commits a popular and common fallacy of equating opposition to Israel's killing of civilians as support for Hamas or Hezbollah. Pro-Israel individuals routinely say that they oppose Netanyahu but support Israel. That is considered a very acceptable position. Yet, when others say that they support the Palestinian people but oppose Hamas, they are labeled as supporters of terrorism. Those who, like Maher, engage in this sort of demagoguery are not serious and should not be considered serious. The should be considered as the propagandists that they are.

Thanks for saving many of us the bother of listening to this crap.

Anonymous wrote:Using numbers of dead people—whether innocent men, women, and children or soldiers/militants—is never a useful argument.

Why?

Because the death of one innocent person is just as tragic as a dozen or a hundred. There simply is no proportional sweet spot when it comes to conflict.

Fwiw, I think Maher used the example of 600 protesters for a specific purpose: to underscore the absurdity of killing the one woman as punishment for improperly covering her head. Death of one (which prompted protests leading to 600 more) in the name of religion was the point he was trying to make.

Remember: his bit was aimed at Chappell Roan and the TikTok generation, so he needed to keep it at a 6th grade level.