I have watched the film, and it is so chilling but not surprising. We've all watched and know exactly what has been happening for 3 years. I think the film needs to be seen by those that have either been sitting on the fence or still defending the actions Israel.
Netanyahu is a despicable chaos‑peddling menace, an evil bastard who feeds on conflict like a political parasite. a reckless despicable operator who poisons every arena he touches, spewing division, brutality, and shameless propaganda. he’s a walking disaster of corruption and cruelty, a creature thriving on turmoil. his influence should be stopped before more damage spreads.
I am not sure that the film N--- is challenging against the occupation because it asks moral questions of everyone. Rather I think if it causes the occupation to sweat about morals, it's because it might cause the onlooking world to once again compare the world's morality to Talmudic morality, which is wildly different and often almost inverted (I'm not talking about Sabbateanism, just regular old Babylonian Talmudism).
Here's a discussion of culpability for death, in situations in which a perpetrator brings a victim into contact with a deadly situation. https://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_77.html Note how in every instance in which some separation of time or state of being occurs between the perpetration and the death, the perpetrator is deemed not liable for the penalty for murder.
The rabbis use nonsensical ideas about reality to interpose a separation between the act and its predictable consequences.
Now think about the big system or machine of death that all these occupiers are participating in. There are lots of separate roles.
This occupier A listens in. Would the rabbis say the listener killed the Palestinians that he was listening to? No, it doesn't seem so.
This occupier B coded the AI. The AI makes 15% positive errors [*sic -- I am not saying the AI ever gets it right, per international law or per any moral rubric. I'm only saying, by their own criteria, the AI gets it wrong at least 15% of the time, or they are ok with a 15% error rate but if it's wrong 90% of the time maybe they assume it's only 15% wrong. We can't say, from what is said in the film*]. We don't hear about any negative errors. Would one of the rabbis in this linked article say that occupier B killed the Palestinians who were identified "in error"? No, for lots of possible reasons, including that the AI operates on its own and occupier B doesn't tell it to say this or that.
This occupier C says "choose this AI-offered target". Would the rabbis say he is at fault for the deaths that result? No because there is elapsed time between when he says choose this one, and the people in the building could have gotten up to use the loo and since they did not, that's their fate.... etc etc.
Basically there are excuses for every scenario, and the machine-system nature of the Jewish Zionist killing machine is going to have been deemed "most moral" by the people who engage with the linked nonsense as though it's true.
This isn't our morality, it's true.
We are going to have to come to terms with judging and punishing an entire group of people which has availed themselves of our space, participated in our politics (often to our detriment), in our media and our society (ditto) and has pretended to involve itself in negotiations driven by our morality framework, all while having the morality expressed in this: https://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_77.html . We cannot allow them to delay and distract us, by causing us to get wrapped up in getting them to have the morality we have. They don't have it, they don't want it, they don't understand it. They are using a morality rooted in a pre-ancient time in which the species didn't connect cause and effect across multiple nodes, and couldn't carry reasons forward in a predictable way.
I have watched the film, and it is so chilling but not surprising. We've all watched and know exactly what has been happening for 3 years. I think the film needs to be seen by those that have either been sitting on the fence or still defending the actions Israel.
Yes. We saw all these things being done. If anything it's confirmation of what we sometimes knew, sometimes only suspected must be the case.
The people who weren't watching throughout, very much need to see it.
Netanyahu is a despicable chaos‑peddling menace, an evil bastard who feeds on conflict like a political parasite. a reckless despicable operator who poisons every arena he touches, spewing division, brutality, and shameless propaganda. he’s a walking disaster of corruption and cruelty, a creature thriving on turmoil. his influence should be stopped before more damage spreads.
Most was known long before this movie. But this movie showing it all together and originating IN Israel gives the impact.
John Pilger and Abbey Martin exposed many things many years ago while warning for this greater Israel madness.
The clowns in the mirror are scary fuckers. 🤡👹🤡👹🤡👹🤡
I am not sure that the film N--- is challenging against the occupation because it asks moral questions of everyone. Rather I think if it causes the occupation to sweat about morals, it's because it might cause the onlooking world to once again compare the world's morality to Talmudic morality, which is wildly different and often almost inverted (I'm not talking about Sabbateanism, just regular old Babylonian Talmudism).
Here's a discussion of culpability for death, in situations in which a perpetrator brings a victim into contact with a deadly situation. https://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_77.html Note how in every instance in which some separation of time or state of being occurs between the perpetration and the death, the perpetrator is deemed not liable for the penalty for murder.
The rabbis use nonsensical ideas about reality to interpose a separation between the act and its predictable consequences.
Now think about the big system or machine of death that all these occupiers are participating in. There are lots of separate roles.
This occupier A listens in. Would the rabbis say the listener killed the Palestinians that he was listening to? No, it doesn't seem so.
This occupier B coded the AI. The AI makes 15% positive errors [*sic -- I am not saying the AI ever gets it right, per international law or per any moral rubric. I'm only saying, by their own criteria, the AI gets it wrong at least 15% of the time, or they are ok with a 15% error rate but if it's wrong 90% of the time maybe they assume it's only 15% wrong. We can't say, from what is said in the film*]. We don't hear about any negative errors. Would one of the rabbis in this linked article say that occupier B killed the Palestinians who were identified "in error"? No, for lots of possible reasons, including that the AI operates on its own and occupier B doesn't tell it to say this or that.
This occupier C says "choose this AI-offered target". Would the rabbis say he is at fault for the deaths that result? No because there is elapsed time between when he says choose this one, and the people in the building could have gotten up to use the loo and since they did not, that's their fate.... etc etc.
Basically there are excuses for every scenario, and the machine-system nature of the Jewish Zionist killing machine is going to have been deemed "most moral" by the people who engage with the linked nonsense as though it's true.
This isn't our morality, it's true.
We are going to have to come to terms with judging and punishing an entire group of people which has availed themselves of our space, participated in our politics (often to our detriment), in our media and our society (ditto) and has pretended to involve itself in negotiations driven by our morality framework, all while having the morality expressed in this: https://www.halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_77.html . We cannot allow them to delay and distract us, by causing us to get wrapped up in getting them to have the morality we have. They don't have it, they don't want it, they don't understand it. They are using a morality rooted in a pre-ancient time in which the species didn't connect cause and effect across multiple nodes, and couldn't carry reasons forward in a predictable way.