I’m sorry. This is psychotic. Excusing murder because women are doing the same thing women have been doing for thousands of years but somehow it’s so horrible that murder gets sympathy. Women will scream how strong they are and then justify murder because normal things are hard.
I was at an airport at six in the morning and several hundred strangers were standing at a gate applauding.
The flight was not delayed. Nobody had been rescued. An aircraft had landed carrying eighty-four veterans, most of them over eighty, several in wheelchairs, returning from a single day in Washington.
The trip costs them nothing. It is paid for by donations. The people who push the wheelchairs pay their own way to be there, which I confirmed twice because I assumed I had misunderstood.
I asked a woman holding a sign who she was there for.
She said, "My dad's flight was in 2016."
I asked whether her father was on this one.
She said, "He died in 2019. I just come."
She just comes. She has come to eleven of them.
Here is the part I was not prepared for, and I was told about it afterward by a man who had been on the plane.
On the flight home they perform mail call. Somebody reads names, exactly the way it was done to these men when they were nineteen, and each of them is handed a bundle of letters. The letters are from their families and from schoolchildren who have never met them. They are collected in advance and kept from the men until the aircraft is in the air.
I asked him what was in his.
He said, "My granddaughter."
I asked what she wrote.
He said, "I'm not going to be able to tell you that."
I said that a nation which returns to a man, sixty years afterward, the exact ceremony it used to hand him his letters when he was a boy in a foreign country, and does it in the air, where he cannot leave and does not have to explain his face to anyone, has understood something about dignity that I have not found written down anywhere.
He said, "It's a good trip."
They came through the gate one at a time. Several hundred people applauded each one individually, and did not get tired, and did not speed up.
One man raised his hand as he passed. He did not wave it. He held it up.
He is ninety-six. Somebody in the crowd said his name.
NEW: Chris Cuomo gets booed on stage after old clip EXPOSES his shameful remarks on ivermectin.
CHRIS CUOMO: “I don’t like what people did to Joe Rogan about Ivermectin. I don’t like it.”
DAVE SMITH: “You did it!”
CHRIS CUOMO: “Find the clips.”
(Clip Plays)
@biral_r@phildstewart@JenniferJJacobs Iran can get satellite data but it isn't near real-time and takes a while and many times it isn't the best at identifying certain things. Having video shared just a few moments after the event with close ups on the ground is gold from a BDA point of view.
The term "Palestine" until the 20th century referred to an administrative region without fixed or clear borders and with no national identity. The people who lived there before then were either regarded as Ottomans or as part of the Syrian region.
The term came from the final humiliation of the Jews by the Romans in AD 135, following the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The Romans put down the revolt and humiliated the Jews by renaming Judea, etc., "Syria Palaestina," which means "philistine Syria." Arabs and other Arabic speakers record this by naming the land of "Filastin" (ard Filastin) in their fatwas and some other writing.
While some Muslims used the term that we'd render as Palestine, and many Europeans did as a hangover from the Latin name for the region, especially given the general vacancy and irrelevance of the region to most world affairs, it was never anything more than a vague regional designation. There was no state, no province, no administrative district, even, referred to by any name that would render to "Palestine" today. There was, as noted, certainly no national or even sub-national identity, and any attempt to do so would have been shut down by seeing them as incorporated within the broader Syrian identity. The name carried roughly the same kind of specific significance as a term like the "Near East" would today.
Identifying people as "Palestinians" didn't really begin until the very end of the 19th century, and even then it was a reaction to Zionism and Jews starting to move into the region. The term was sort of mainstreamed as a political reality after the Ottoman Empire was broken up in defeat after World War I, and the region came under British control using the old Latin terminology as "British Mandate Palestine," meaning "the part of the Palestinian region under British control." That was roughly thirty years before Israel would declare independence as the sovereign nation-state of Israel as we know it today. At no point in this story is there a sovereign nation-state called Palestine or anything resembling it.
That said, the beginnings of an Arab "Palestinian" identity as oppositional to Zionism and British Mandatory control, developed from their previous 1890s beginnings to something more like a dedicated resistance identity when the Brits took over. Arabs didn't believe in British sovereignty or control over what they deemed Islamic land, either, and they were adamantly opposed to the Mandate's explicit Zionism, which was being acted upon to bring Jews into the region (even though the British were wishy-washy on this and then betrayed it during WWII, when it was arguably needed most).
The "Palestinian" identity at the time wasn't exactly national but quasi-national and born (and borne) only in resistance. It gained some crystallization as such in the mid and late 1930s after the failed Arab Revolt, significantly as a response (back-up plan) to the failure of Greater Syria to defend "Arab" interests in the region against British (and Jewish Zionist) control.
Still, it didn't acquire something approaching the identity status people might recognize today for about another decade. That had to wait until after the "Nakba" in 1948-49. This contested event occurred when five of the surrounding actual Arabian nations declared and LOST a war on the newly declared Israel. These were Egypt, Syria, (Trans)jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon.
Now, this war was the continuation of the same war being fought in the region before Israel's declaration of independence (May 15, 1948) following the late 1947 UN Partition of the region, which the proto-Israelis accepted and all the Arabs rejected. The Arabs started that war, too. Notice no state of Palestine was involved because there was no state of Palestine to be involved. Something like a "Palestinian identity" as a refusal of these developments took significant shape at the time, though.
The Arabs refer to this humiliating loss as a "catastrophe," THE catastrophe (Nakba), and rewrote history to create a "Palestinian" people who were displaced, harmed, and killed by the (defensive) military actions of the Israelis, which they see as an act of colonial aggression because they cannot admit or accept that they lost the wars, including WWI, which removed the land from Muslim control (which they believe is permanent). The "Palestinian people," whom none of these Arab states would absorb because they were more useful as a military-political weapon against Israel, came into existence as a tool to further their Islamic designs.
By the way, the UN Partition in 1947 (General Assembly Resolution 181) does not name the two states it partitioned "Israel" and "Palestine." It called them the "Jewish State" and the "Arab State." The Jews took for themselves the name "Israel" for that land, as they would. As for the "Arab State," it is not actually clear what would have been its fate. Jordan (Transjordan) viewed the Arab land by the Jordan River to naturally be part of its territory, not an independent state called "Palestine." The Syrians opposed this not particularly because they wanted the land but because they didn't want Jordanian expansion. As for Gaza, Egypt wanted administrative control but not to annex it. It is not clear what it's fate as "Arab State" would have been.
In all, in 1948-49, and following the "Nakba," these behaviors and conflicts reflected the broader pattern of inter-Arab rivalry more than anything else. The neighboring states were more focused on preventing a Jewish state and on blocking one another’s gains than on creating a viable independent Palestinian Arab state under the UN plan. The very idea of "Palestine" with a unique national identity and (fabricated) national history would have to wait.
Identity during this period (1949-1967) was still largely either "Arab" or as part of one of the Arab states, like Syrian, Jordan, or Egyptian, specifically, or just "Islamic." Movements like pan-Arabism and even pan-Syrianism were more relevant to the identity of the people today treated as "Palestinians" than was anything to do with Palestine, although the word was used. The biggest change in this period from the one before is that before this, the term "Palestinian" referred also to Jews in the region (under the Mandate), which more or less ended. Arab states also kicked out all the Jews (850,000 of them) during this time, and most of them were absorbed by Israel.
Even still, the idea of a "Palestinian nation," wasn't really invented in 1948. It didn't really gain solid identity in the global imagination as such until after the Six-Day War in 1967, which the Arabs (especially Egypt) lost badly to Israel. This second humiliation, referred to as the Naksa ("setback" or "relapse" or "defeat"), which displaced some 400,000 people* as Israel pushed threats out of its immediate vicinity by taking the lands from which they operated, changed the strategic needs of the resistance movement and fabricated a Palestinian national identity with a bogus history more or less out of thin air. That's the one defended to this day.
*These people were in large part there as a stand of active resistance against the existence of Israel as part of the aforementioned strategic refusal of any Arab states to absorb them, etc., so focusing on their displacement alone is complicated, to say the least.
The thing is, the idea to do this Palestinian national identity thing was largely due to Yasser Arafat, who was working with and getting aid and assistance from the Soviets (and arguably strategic advice in this regard, as the "Palestinian cause" strongly resembles elements of Soviet korenizatsiya programming, which has proved a useful wedge device all over the world). Moscow got involved after 1967 largely because it was only after the Six-Day War that Israel allied formally with the United States (and Western Alliance), which was the ultimate enemy of the Soviets.
Palestinian "national" identity has always therefore been a political contrivance designed to be used as a wedge and weapon against any sovereign control, especially by Jews, of any land in the broad region the Romans once declared "Syria Palaestina." A nontrivial part of this curious effort was an allied Soviet-Arab program to damage Israel and weaken American and Western interests in the Middle East (another regional designation term that isn't a nation, by the way).
That is, it's NOT REAL. It's a political contrivance meant to destabilize the region, kill and displace Jews, and fight Western interests. That's why it exists.
Since it's not real in the sense of being a genuine national identity stretching back into history in any regard, the culture that is assigned to it is also a fabrication. It is a blend of various Islamic and Arab cultural points with outright jihadist and Soviet-Communist radicalism and terrorism treated as though it's a culture. It's a culture of "resistance" and "liberation" in precisely the Communist uses of the terms. It's a "culture" in the same way "Woke" is a culture. In fact, it's basically the same thing, just Islamic and Third-Worldist Arab flavored instead of Western identity politics.
This is the verse that converted Jonathan Edwards.
“To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” 1 Timothy 1:17
As a young girl I remember always being told,
“You can be whatever you want to be!!”
From an astronaut to a doctor, a lawyer, a vet, you could do it all. But there was always this pesky little condition: your dreams had to be big. They had to sound impressive.
Nobody ever said they wanted to be a mom, or a housekeeper, or a trash truck driver, or a waitress, or a dad, or a gardener, or a secretary, or anything common, normal, and ordinary.
You could be anything you wanted, so long as it was something grand.
You couldn’t dream of a simple life, of marriage, a home, and a handful of kids, because that was a “waste” of potential. That was “settling.”
So now we have an entire generation of people who think marriage, children and normal lives are failures, when in reality these are the single most important things most of us will ever have, or ever do.
These are the pillars of society, and yet they are the one dream we are told we shouldn’t have.
John 1:1 - The Objections
There are a whole range of ingenious interpretations of the first verse of John's Gospel that have been
suggested down through the centuries by those who rejected, for one reason or another, the
over-all message of the Gospel of John.
This week in our sermon series on the Gospel of John, @HwsEleutheroi addresses a range of these objections so that we will be ready to "give an answer" when the opportunity arises.
Trump lost fair and square in 2020. Only women can get pregnant. The Trump assassination attempts were real. Mitch McConnell is alive. Michelle Obama is not a man. Barack Obama is a citizen. America is less racist than most countries. Police stop crime. Tariffs hurt the economy.