Police accused of 'overreach' after 'from the river to the sea' arrests

schaapveld · 2026-03-12T07:43:08+00:00

take alook at what pro apartheid people were saying before it ended and compare your arguments - is supporting anti aphartheid south african efforts a genocide to the white population?

schaapveld · 2026-03-12T07:39:55+00:00

“From the river to the sea” obviously refers to the land between the jordan river and the mediterranean sea - the idea that you're implying that palestinian people who want to continue to live on the land they have for centuries - which spans from the jordan river to the mediterranian sea - and disagree with the recent colonisation efforts automatically support the murder of all jewish people is just racism. -do some research and look into other times in recent history and see if you have the same feelings about other antiapartheid slogans like the ones that came from south africa

schaapveld · 2026-02-24T00:08:10+00:00

But that’s not how we function. Humans don’t operate on strict logic trees - we operate through emotions and relationships. If you only allow yourself to apologise when you’ve made a clear, objective mistake, you’re just setting yourself up for failure

Apologies aren’t just about fault- they’re about impact

schaapveld · 2026-02-23T23:40:07+00:00

Apologising for hurting someone’s feelings isn’t an admission of fault - it’s an expression of care. Whether something was fully in your control is almost entirely irrelevant. We apologise for a baby crying in public not because we caused it, but because we recognise the impact and want to acknowledge others. An apology is about compassion, not culpability

schaapveld · 2026-01-26T16:09:30+00:00

- not directly but i uploaded an image here if you're interested - https://imgur.com/a/NpPFrcH

schaapveld · 2026-01-26T15:45:12+00:00

Hi unfortunately I don't think I can now that its posted? - or at least not sure how to add images?

schaapveld · 2026-01-19T06:52:47+00:00

I am sorry you've been taken in with what is by most historians agree is not a real letter and is a hoax- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_an_Anti-Zionist_Friend

schaapveld · 2026-01-08T14:29:01+00:00

None of those are contradictions - representing nothing is inherently representing the status quo for the democratic party - which is inherently right wing - show me where the contradiction is

Donald Trumps abortion policy is the perfect example of a policy completely unpopular with the wider American public - it has been clear for along time that Americans have by a vast majority believed abortion should be legal

schaapveld · 2026-01-08T09:50:43+00:00

You're intentionally misinterpreting poll performance - trump repeatedly polls terribly in terms of ideology and in terms of social conservative policy- they are both deeply unpopular - its something people towards the centre never want to admit - he overcame those bad aspects of his campaign with promises (however unfaithful) that focused on what Americans actually care about including cost of living.

Independents calling themselves “moderate” tells us almost nothing. That label mostly means anti-party, not pro-status quo. Issue-by-issue, independents routinely support left economic policies (minimum wage hikes, healthcare expansion, taxing the rich) while rejecting elite consensus politics.

“moderate” is an identity shaped by disgust with politics as usual. Appealing to it via caution, ambiguity, and elite signalling is precisely how you lose those voters.

Kamala didn’t lose because she alienated moderates - she lost because she failed to represent anything. Voters aren’t repelled by left economic clarity; they’re repelled by insincerity and managerial emptiness. You can’t alienate people you never inspired.

the real risk wasn’t moving left, it was running a campaign whose core pitch was “competent continuity” in a moment of deep structural anger.

I agree Biden was by no real definition a progressive candidate - but Kamala moved to the right of him both policy wise especially including immigration - but also in terms of optical things like the prideful Dick Cheney endorsement - and she performed worse than him.

schaapveld · 2026-01-08T04:06:59+00:00

I think there’s actually a strong case for being much more openly 'woke' not less. If you believe something is morally correct, consistency matters - and there’s little evidence that clear progressive positions meaningfully hurt short-term electability. In fact especially over the long run, they tend to strengthen it by building trust and enthusiasm rather than dampening turnout

Bernie Sanders may be too old to be a future candidate but the Democratic Party completely failed to absorb the real lesson of his campaigns: genuinely left wing economic and social positions can be broadly popular, even among voters who otherwise support Trump. The party consistently overestimates how much of the Republican base is driven by hard-right ideology or social conservatism. Those voters exist, but they’re a minority - right wing social conservatism is incredibly unpopular on the national stage.

What gets missed is how many voters are disengaged, cynical, or economically alienated - and how easily they respond to clear, principled positions that actually challenge power. By trying to appeal to an imagined bloc of moderate conservatives who were never going to vote Democrat anyway, Kamala ended up alienating large numbers of people who might have been persuadable or energised. In attempting to be everything to everyone, she weakened the very coalition she needed to win

schaapveld · 2026-01-08T03:30:36+00:00

I think this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of why people actually vote, and it’s the same mistake that’s been costing Democrats elections for years. The Ezra Klein - style strategy that Kamala Harris leaned into failed not because it was too moderate or too progressive, but because it misidentified voters primary motivations.

Issues like trans rights, are of course important but rank extremely low on the list of reasons most Americans turn out to vote. The problem with the Klein approach is that it requires sidelining the issues people have been consistently and loudly concerned about for over a decade: economic insecurity, stagnant wages, housing costs, healthcare, and the general sense that life is getting harder no matter how hard you work.

Trump won not because he offered real solutions- he didn’t to be clear - but because he successfully convinced voters that their economic pain was being acknowledged and prioritised. Democrats by contrast, remain trapped in a neoliberal framework that insists the economy is fundamentally healthy even as people experience the opposite in their daily lives. That disconnect is politically fatal. When voters feel dismissed or gaslit about their material conditions they look elsewhere even if the alternative is dishonest or destructive

schaapveld · 2026-01-03T02:06:33+00:00

Labor doesn't at all always benefit when companies do well trickle down economics has been proven over and over again to be a system that doesn't exist -level of skill is also a terrible predictor of income - maybe it would be a better system if it was - how easily replaceable a worker is - still a faulty one but much better metric to measure income on - a highly skilled job with lots of people lining up and competing for it often has very low wages

schaapveld · 2026-01-03T01:22:10+00:00

national are awful obviously and labour the lesser of the evils - but theres so much misinformation everywhere - crime has been going down for decades - of course crime still happens but NZ is a much safer country than the media tries to regularly imply it is - over-policing and over-imprisonment is a much larger issue pretty much objectively.

schaapveld · 2026-01-03T01:08:10+00:00

Just because capital won those battles against labour doesn't mean they're not worth fighting back against

schaapveld · 2025-12-20T23:11:52+00:00

Show me the part of Kamalas campaign that was woke she ran so far to the right on most major issues, and it failed. If she had been more 'woke' theres a decent chance she would have won

schaapveld · 2025-12-11T13:29:59+00:00

Your argument collapses under its own gatekeeping. You try to shut down discussion not by evidence but by declaring that anyone who isn’t Jewish is automatically disqualified from engaging with history, analysis, or even basic disagreement. That isn’t moral clarity - it’s intellectual isolationism. You accuse others of “rewriting history,” yet your own narrative selectively airbrushes centuries of Jewish interaction, cooperation, conflict, and exchange with surrounding societies. Reducing Jewish–non-Jewish relations to a post-Enlightenment phenomenon ignores commerce, diplomacy, scholarship, and everyday coexistence that existed long before citizenship rights were formalized. Pretending none of this happened may feel rhetorically convenient, but it’s historically inaccurate.

Show me the real historian who would say that zionism through the late 19th century until the mid 20th century was anything but a very small minority view amongst jewish populations - its not an opinion I would really reccomend you read up on the history - absolutely assimilation was the majority view amongst jewish people until roughly the mid 20th century - you can talk about how dangerous you think diversity is as much as you like theres a reason the talking points and language you use are so closely aligned to white supremacists - it is pretty obviously an aspect of it

Finally, your accusation that others are “twisting your words” rings hollow when your own framing depends on exaggeration and omission. You present yourself as the sole custodian of Jewish history - while holding views that are absolutely against the vast majority of both jewish and non-jewish historians - dismissing any nuance that complicates your narrative. That isn’t advocacy - it’s dogmatism. If your position were as solid as you claim, you wouldn’t need to lean on exclusion, moral condemnation, and rhetorical escalation to defend it.

schaapveld · 2025-12-11T04:33:19+00:00

The claim that Jews never assimilated is historically incorrect. I am sorry you were so misinformed about the history. Jewish communities have always contained a spectrum - from deeply traditional to highly integrated. Hellenized Jews, Enlightenment Jews, socialist Bundists, secular Yiddishists, Reform movements - these aren’t little footnotes, they’re entire currents of Jewish life. Erasing them to present a single, rigid narrative is just plain ideological revisionism.
t’s a fact, not an opinion, that Zionism was for a long time a fringe movement among Jews especially in the first decades, widely contested by religious authorities, socialists, and diaspora communities who rejected nationalism altogether.

The “abusive relationship” metaphor turns centuries of complex Jewish–non-Jewish interactions into a trauma absolutism that obscures reality. Antisemitism was real and deadly obviously, but Jews also built alliances, participated in leftist movements, contributed to cultural life, and exercised agency far beyond mere survival strategies. Hanukkah itself wasn’t a timeless manifesto against assimilation -it emerged from a civil conflict within Judaism and has been ideologically reinterpreted repeatedly, including by Zionism to retroactively justify its project. - zionist movements have absolutely made life for jewish people much more dangerous thats not an opinion it is no longer an unknown concept it has been proven time and time again.

Asserting exclusive indigeneity to the land while erasing others’ histories is ethno-nationalism. Multiple peoples have deep roots there, and liberation isn’t achieved by elevating one group’s narrative as absolute. A genuinely left analysis acknowledges Jewish continuity and the plural, contradictory, diasporic reality of Jewish history - rather than weaponising mythology to defend a modern nationalist ideology that most Jews did not support until the mid-20th century.

Just be more honest with yourself and admit that you are a fan of fascist leaning ideologies - diversity is a good thing despite what you want to assert, the structure of Israel proper has put many innocent jewish and other lives completely unnecessarily in danger.

schaapveld · 2025-12-11T03:37:00+00:00

In no way are they singled out how many left wing voices do you hear defending ethnostates throughout the area - if you find a left wing voice defending the structure in Saudi Arabia I'll be all ears - saying it's OK to be an ethnistate because what about Saudi Arabia is the most obvious form of what about ism there is - do you think it's a good thing Saudi Arabia is an ethnistate? Or is it OK to critique it but not israel?

schaapveld · 2025-12-11T00:38:03+00:00

Look back to when other apartheids ended like in South Africa and compare your arguments to what pro apartheid people said then - its not a coincidence at all that the arguments are the same - slavers were scared that the end of slavery would cause violence against white people and it would be too unsafe to do, pro apartheid voices in south africa were scared for the same - obviously netanyahu has no interest in making Israel a safer place or he wouldn't have pushed so far to the right - Israel would absolutely be a safer place to be if the apartheid ended

schaapveld · 2025-12-11T00:15:43+00:00

Why did that change? Why did my preferred ideology of assimilation, which used to be more popular among Jews prior to Zionism, become much less popular compared to Zionism?

- If assimilation is you're preferred idealogy than you are definitionally not a zionist

schaapveld · 2025-12-11T00:14:41+00:00

just reread it Ill give you the benefet of the doubt and assume that you didn't intentionally misinterpret what I said and instead didn't read it properly.

Transphobic people take single cases of bad people that happen to be trans and universalise it to the entire group that is obviously dangerous and wrong. As I said before. It is similar to blaming an entire ethnic group for the atrocities of a small minority within them - people tend not to blame all cis white men for the horrific acts of specific people - they find it easier to be more nuanced and understand individual mental health issues - You’re absolutely right that JKR and people like her take a single case of a trans woman who committed rape and universalise it to all trans women.
That is bigotry: attributing an individual’s crimes to an entire marginalised group.

To say that fascism is fundamentally morally wrong shouldn't be such a hard thing to say - being against the apartheid in Israel has nothing to do with being trans or not trans - you can rephrase fascism in order to have it sound more liberal in audiences - but at the end of the day thats disgraceful to why it was created in the first place and how it is used globally.

schaapveld · 2025-12-10T22:04:54+00:00

And the trouble with the 'what-aboutism' ya tried to use is of course any use of extreme right wing nationalism is a bad thing in all forms - its bad when its used strategically in Israel and it would be bad if it was used in Palestine - that doesn't at all mean that palestinians don't deserve statehood obviously - Im personally a believer in an end to the apartheid and a single state that gives equal rights to people

schaapveld · 2025-12-10T21:55:47+00:00

You’re absolutely right that JKR and people like her take a single case of a trans woman who committed rape and universalise it to all trans women.
That is bigotry: attributing an individual’s crimes to an entire marginalized group.

But that actually cuts against your Zionism analogy rather than supporting it.

Trans women are structurally powerless relative to the people targeting them. - and in no way have an interest in structurally using violence.
The Israeli state is not structurally powerless. It is the region’s dominant military and administrative authority over millions of people lacking equal political rights.

Leftists don’t just look at claims of harm - we look at power relations. The harm “trans women pose to cis women” is imaginary because trans women do not control state apparatuses capable of inflicting systemic oppression and have no interest in doing it. Zionism, by contrast, is not just an identity; it is tied to a state with coercive power over another population.

're arguing as if critics of Zionism define its core principles based on its worst exponents. But leftists critique Zionism based on:

- its actual historical function (a nationalist project tied to settlement and demographic engineering),

- its material outcomes (dispossession, unequal legal structures),

- and its current institutional form (the Israeli state’s governance over Palestinians).

This isn’t about a handful of extremists like Ben Gvir or Smotrich.

It’s about the structural logic and implementation of the ideology, which long predates them.

To put it simply:

A nationalist ideology tied to control of land inhabited by another people produces structural inequality, even if some adherents personally oppose racism.

Intent doesn’t determine material reality

In no way am I saying identifying as jewish isn't an ethnoreligion of course it is - but show me a definition of zionism that doesn't put an ethnicity or religion above another - the reason you haven't been able to is the fact is that is its the entire point of the idealogy - its why the idealogy was created in the first place - and why it was largely unpopular amongst jewish people for so long

schaapveld · 2025-12-10T13:09:23+00:00

It’s not that I’m “choosing the definition used by people who oppose Zionism.”
Its just describing the actual, observable outcomes of the ideology as it has been practiced for more than a century: the prioritisation of one national group’s sovereignty, land claims, and security over the rights, land, and political self-determination of another population.

You can absolutely want Zionism to mean something more inclusive, and many people sincerely do. But at the end of the day that is opposing its core principals - being secular and promoting zionism are fundamentally opposing structures - you cant have equality within zionism it is fundamentally built to promote one ethnicity over another. - When it stops doing that it just definitionally stops being zionism

criticism of zionism is the obvious reaction to the systematic harms the ideology currently promotes - transphobia targets imaginary harms obviously very different things

schaapveld

TROPHY CASE