Oh, man, I didn’t mean it that way! (I have now learned something new.)
1 Like
Linked USA Today article says the toy gun is sold separately. The red beret would indicate paratroopers, in which case even though the Uzi hasn’t been an IDF issue weapon in ages, the Uzi was first issued to that brigade, sometimes with a wooden stock. AFAIK the wooden stock ones were not too popular with the paratroopers as the stock tended to get in the way of using a submachine gun as intended. The Hebrew text says זהל (tzahal) which is the Hebrew name of the IDF. A quick check at wikipedia would confirm this. Overall its not bad as a kids costume.
As to why @beschizza terms this classy, I don’t know. I wasn’t aware he is a fellow hidden.
EDIT: Definitely a paratrooper beret if you compare to the zoomable image of the costume in the ebay link. Belt also matches the older style paratrooper uniform.
1 Like
I think the difference is that that is from a movie. The occupation is real life.
1 Like
Could double as a pizza rat costume.
2 Likes
Isn’t it reactionary to assume that a people are defined by “sides”? Saying that people and groups are primarily defined by their conflicts seems quite cynical. I agree that It’s easier to argue this being the case for military, more so than other areas of life. But to posit strict TeamA/TeamB divisions seems obviously simplistic.
No, not particularly. It is one of many possible obvious interpretations. Halloween costumes also traditionally depict monsters, so maybe that’s the case here.
I agree that it is in poor taste, but I don’t have enough facts to buy any specific narrative about it now.
Have you been to a Wal-Mart of late? it’s pretty light on the nationalistic irony there.
2 Likes
Its true. There are indeed Arabs occupying parts of Judea & Samaria.
Wow. Okay. I mean, they’ve been there for a while, but yeah, they’re the occupying force. I suppose if you say it enough, with enough guns, and squint real hard it might one day look slightly true.
1 Like
Mock all you want but its just a matter of perspective. I know the dominant perspective on BB is a form of sympathy for Arabs who wish to achieve a nation state in the place where one already exists but there is another perspective as well.
You can squint for yourself at maps and history books and see that territory west of the Jordan river is referred to by the names I used. Judea is rather key since thats where the name of my people is derived. Other occupying empires called us Judeans whether we lived in that area or in the Galelee area or in the Negev.
1 Like
I’m not mocking - I understand the justifications for the occupation of all land west of the Jordan. I just don’t think it holds much water since, people have been living there for generations who aren’t Israelis. That’s not nothing. I don’t know why you expect them not to be angry about being pushed off land they lived on for quite a while, as if 2000 years of history mean nothing. As if they aren’t human beings. I don’t think Israel can or should go away. But neither should Palestinians. Living in a modern nation-state means compromising. It’s time Israel did that, for the peace and security of everyone there.
2 Likes
Whose reasons don’t hold water? As written it looks like you mean the Arab occupation.
Obviously I’m playing word games with you about the term “occupation”. Using it in the common context implies that you agree with the Arab narrative regarding the land west of the Jordan but its also commonly used for “the Jordan to the sea” by these same Arabs when they write or speak in Arabic.
Don’t just take my word for it, go look it up, go check the Arabic language press or websites. The same term means both Jews wanting to live in their historical homeland and also it means Judenfrei. Lest you think I’m only referring to Hamas, I’m not. This same language is used in Arabic by Fatah as well.
I’m not trying to say you are wrong even though I obviously disagree with you. I would however like to point out that when you use certain words like this, you might be putting yourself in a different camp than you intend.
So, that justifies ethnic cleansing? Because of what authoritarian papers say?
3 Likes
Which side are you referring to when you say “ethnic cleansing”? Loaded language does no good here.
BTW please note that I didn’t advocate any such thing or use any words which would imply such. Please don’t put treif words in my mouth.
I’m referring to the policies of the Netanyahu government, which is supporting the encroachment of agreed up on Palestinian lands. Those ethnic cleansing policies. He’s aware what he’s doing when he refuses to stop the settlements. The current Israeli government has no interest in a two-state, or any solution and their using religiously tinged language to justify it and stop any and all criticism.
Then you were being sarcastic when you employed the language of those who use words for dead states like Judea in order to justify, “raising the bayonets at the Jordan and marching to the Mediterranean”? Which is a declarative statement in support of ethnic cleansing. Because those are the sorts of people who talk about Judea, the greater Israel folks, who refuse to see Palestinians as human beings, merely as impediments to get what they want. If you are not on their side, please say so forcefully. They are doing nothing good for the Israeli people or the Palestinians.
Did I once say anything to dehumanize anyone? I entirely respect that there are many Arab nation states and think its a shame the level of butchery going on at least two of them currently. Your replies are really confusing since you don’t actually address what I say but bring up talking points instead.
I don’t have inside information on the current govt of the State of Israel and I’m willing to bet that you don’t either so there is really no point in replying to your taking points on state policy. Note also that I have not once said anything about what the State of Israel should or shouldn’t do in regards to borders (1). If you need it spelled out, when I speak of Judea & Samaria I’m talking about part of the homeland of the Jews regardless of the nation state in place.
1 Without checking Wikipedia, can you name a few other disputed borders and the parties involved? Do you actually care about either side like you seem to care about Arabs here?
I go further with this - I think there should be parallel, overlapping countries everywhere. There is no Real One in control, nor should there be. Nation states are community, not geography.
There an Indonesian rip off film called Lady Terminator that is totally insane and a lot of fun if you like cheesy cinema.
2 Likes
It looks plenty like a hamantaschen
And vaginas aren’t triangular. Vag costumes are way more distrubing:
2 Likes
Okay. I’m the asshole. Got it. Also, dumb too.
I’m addressing your use language employed by those advocating for a PHYSICAL GREATER ISRAEL, that would lead to a major ethnic cleasning. If you don’t agree with them say so. If you do agree with them say so.
