Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[Polgara]

Feel free to provide whatever working academic definition of "fascism" you'd prefer us to use. I default to Eco's as well, myself, but if you're not offering an alternative and we are using an academic definition, your argument is just false on its face.

As dumb as this sounds, this is the first time I've heard Eco used for fascism that wasn't "muh Eco-fascism!" and it gave me something excellent to read. Thank you for that.

[Gestopft]

I'd argue that the anti-Zionists, of which some outspoken section are anti-Semites, are very much relying on the Zionist project being rotten from the beginning.

Depends on what you mean by "rotten." I ascribe to Zionism all of the flaws I ascribe to nationalism, and particularly ethnonationalism (or whatever similar word best describes it).

As an example, the post I replied to. The argument essentially goes that history proves that the Jews and then Israel were far and away the oppressors or imposers, and Arabs and later Palestinians were the victims and those imposed upon. Then terrorism is justified, and Israel itself needs to go and always should've (etc). If you're not so interested in that telling of history, then I don't really have a gripe with you seeking to neglect it. I will say that the history of war seeking the extermination of Jews in Israel will feed into discussions on land as security consideration eg the DMZ section of the Golan Heights.

As the population figures that were posted below your post demonstrate, the establishment of a Jewish state would not have been possible without the Nakba, so it's pretty impossible to see Israel as anything but the "imposer." You do have to concede that there is a world of difference between "Jews buying land and forming communities in the region" and "displacing 750,000 people to form a Jewish state." Not that this is a justification for terrorism today; again, I care more that it stops that whose fault it is. I'm not looking to remove millions of Israelis from the region that were born there post 1948 or anything.

[tehdang]

Depends on what you mean by "rotten." I ascribe to Zionism all of the flaws I ascribe to nationalism, and particularly ethnonationalism (or whatever similar word best describes it).

See the post I quoted, that you then quoted my reply. That's what I'm referring to as "relying on the Zionist project being rotten from the beginning.

As the population figures that were posted below your post demonstrate, the establishment of a Jewish state would not have been possible without the Nakba, so it's pretty impossible to see Israel as anything but the "imposer." You do have to concede that there is a world of difference between "Jews buying land and forming communities in the region" and "displacing 750,000 people to form a Jewish state." Not that this is a justification for terrorism today; again, I care more that it stops that whose fault it is. I'm not looking to remove millions of Israelis from the region that were born there post 1948 or anything.

The establishment of a Jewish state was possible, and with a very bare majority of Jews inside of it. Maybe you're forgetting that statistics on mandatory palestine are before the (proposed) split into two states.

The counterfactuals to history "what if Arab armies didn't invade to conquer" are hard to state conclusively in any case. Presuming Jewish Israelis couldn't form a government and live peacefully with a more substantial Arab population way back in 1948 is unsupported, and the war shortcuts the question on whether Arabs living in the state of Israel would accept a Jewish prime minister.

[Jessicka]

The establishment of a Jewish state was possible, and with a very bare majority of Jews inside of it.

Thanks to the western provision, and continuing provision, of money, guns and tanks.

[tehdang]

Thanks to the western provision, and continuing provision, of money, guns and tanks.

This context is the years leading up to 1948, and the US was very much a bit player compared to Czechoslovakia and France. The further context is the allegation that Israel could not found a state with a very slim majority of Jews living in it, which is quizzical in its own right.

[Endus]

See the post I quoted, that you then quoted my reply. That's what I'm referring to as "relying on the Zionist project being rotten from the beginning.

The establishment of a Jewish state was possible, and with a very bare majority of Jews inside of it. Maybe you're forgetting that statistics on mandatory palestine are before the (proposed) split into two states.

The counterfactuals to history "what if Arab armies didn't invade to conquer" are hard to state conclusively in any case. Presuming Jewish Israelis couldn't form a government and live peacefully with a more substantial Arab population way back in 1948 is unsupported, and the war shortcuts the question on whether Arabs living in the state of Israel would accept a Jewish prime minister.

Is there a reason you're just openly ignoring the ethnic cleansing early Israel conducted immediately after being formed, the Nakba? And the greater 1948 Palestine War, where the zionists were 100% the aggressors invading and taking territory?

Because while it's trivially true that Israel was attacked immediately after it was formed, the actual context is that Israel was formed through violent attack and invasion, and the Arab nations' response after Israel declared itself was a counter-offensive. Israel didn't pop into magical existence on the 14th of May 1948, with no prior context to its existence and thus any response to its existence sprang out of nowhere. Zionists had no interest in "living with Arabs" and had made that brutally clear through direct violence. It was the Zionists who refused to live peacefully with the Arab population. That's just historical fact. And you're denying that history, here. Because admitting to the full context means it becomes increasingly difficult to present the Zionists as eternal victims who've never done anything wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

- - - Updated - - -

The further context is the allegation that Israel could not found a state with a very slim majority of Jews living in it, which is quizzical in its own right.

Again, what's actually relevant is that the Zionists didn't want to found a State with a Jewish minority, and engaged in intentional ethnic cleansing to ensure they held a significant majority, and all the land they felt was most advantageous.

Whether they could have done otherwise is irrelevant, because it's not what they actually chose to do. Which, to repeat; was ethnic cleansing and mass theft of property.

[Jessicka]

This context is the years leading up to 1948, and the US was very much a bit player compared to Czechoslovakia and France. The further context is the allegation that Israel could not found a state with a very slim majority of Jews living in it, which is quizzical in its own right.

Where did I mention the US specifically? The context is Britain and France were ceding colonial power all over the fucking place, and very much wanted to maintain a pliant ally in the region.

[tehdang]

Where did I mention the US specifically? The context is Britain and France were ceding colonial power all over the fucking place, and very much wanted to maintain a pliant ally in the region.

Sorry I must've had US on mind from somebody else's post.

The British were ceding colonial power all over the fucking place, but also all over the place on favored ethnicity in mandatory palestine. The Arab world in the era of pan-Arab nationalism was threatening Britain with their oil power, and the British were alternatively anti-Jewish immigration to placate the Arabs, and pro-Jew by helping quell Arab riots.

And I haven't heard of major British military supplies in the lead-up to 1948. Indeed it would have been wild if they were supplying Haganah with weapons together with a full-scale withdrawal from the mandate.

[minteK917]

Eco work on fascism is very accurate and detailed in italian context and is well defined. 1 problem arise which is not of Eco doing, quiet the opposite is work is very clear and straightforward. People see the list and use them as if its the 10 commandments. Which thats not what he is saying. Fascism is the combination of these things for Eco's work.

Misunderstanding his work is why we do get clownshow like abolish bed time and work is fascism, etc. Yes your mom forcing you to go to bed at 9pm is ticking one part of the definition, but your mom is not a fascist.

Anyway his work is 100% the good academic definition.

[Edge-]

https://prospect.org/world/2024-03-1...ints-revealed/

AIPAC is instructing members to make assertions of fact to congressional staff that are not supported by credible evidence other than statements by the Israel Defense Forces, according to experts who reviewed the documents. “They’re going to the Hill to repeat a foreign government’s talking points,” said Matt Duss at the Center for International Policy, a former policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The lobbying files promote the familiar though contested line that “Israel does not target civilians.” This has been questioned due to the sheer body count of Palestinian civilians, women and children, during the war, compared to members of Hamas, along with the stated intentions by several Israeli officials to “eliminate everything” in Gaza. The IDF has justified the high casualty numbers by saying that Hamas weaponizes civilians as human shields. Yet the IDF has authorized airstrikes on sites with dense civilian populations such as hospitals and refugee camps, most recently at the “Flour Massacre” at the end of February, when the IDF opened fire on civilians gathered around an aid truck delivery, killing over 100.

But even more controversial is that AIPAC is telling members of Congress that “Israel is not blocking the delivery of aid to Gaza,” and that “reports that people are starving in Gaza are false.” Neither claim is supported by findings of international authorities, nor by recent actions undertaken by the United States government. Just last week, the U.S. air-dropped aid packages into Gaza, circumventing Israeli border officials, and at the State of the Union address President Biden announced intentions to set up a port for deliveries. These actions were only necessary because Israel has made it difficult to get aid through checkpoints, such as during one recent incident where the Israeli navy fired at an aid convoy. The EU’s foreign-policy chief last week said that starvation in Gaza is being used as a weapon of war.

“AIPAC wants Congress to disregard not just credible international institutions, but also their own eyes, and to simply take Israel’s word for what’s happening in Gaza in spite of the Israeli government’s ongoing pattern of disinformation,” said Omar Baddar, a policy analyst on Middle Eastern affairs.

If this is true, this is honestly deeply concerning, and truly repugnant and repulsive behavior by AIPAC. This is a fairly extremist position, and one that is absolutely not supported by reality - we have plenty of documentation about the starvation and suffering going on in Gaza, as well as the fact that the US has taken to airdroping aid into Gaza due to issues getting it through checkpoints.

[Jessicka]

Sorry I must've had US on mind from somebody else's post.

The British were ceding colonial power all over the fucking place, but also all over the place on favored ethnicity in mandatory palestine. The Arab world in the era of pan-Arab nationalism was threatening Britain with their oil power, and the British were alternatively anti-Jewish immigration to placate the Arabs, and pro-Jew by helping quell Arab riots.

And I haven't heard of major British military supplies in the lead-up to 1948. Indeed it would have been wild if they were supplying Haganah with weapons together with a full-scale withdrawal from the mandate.

Britain wanted a secular state, that's not really 'all-over-the-place', we gave up on the mandate because of Ben-Gurian's insurgency, otherwise we'd have preferred to try to extend it. Very nearly actually went to war with Israel over that, but for US and French support of Israel which saw that they could put up a fight and put us off. After losing Egypt and Suez we threw in our lot with western allies and backed them. Hence a part of the 'continued' support.

[tehdang]

Britain wanted a secular state, that's not really 'all-over-the-place',

Britain with Balfour and the Zionist British Jews suddenly restricting Jewish land purchases and Jewish immigration to mandatory palestine is absolutely all-over-the-place. Benny Morris writes about it, and it's the historical context to David L Robbins historical epics. It's the clash between British promises and the Jewish faction, and British needs for oil and Arab countries throwing their weight around.

we gave up on the mandate because of Ben-Gurian's insurgency, otherwise we'd have preferred to try to extend it.

Don't neglect the Arab riots. The whole plan on partition was the inability to live together in the same country.

Very nearly actually went to war with Israel over that, but for US and French support of Israel which saw that they could put up a fight and put us off. After losing Egypt and Suez we threw in our lot with western allies and backed them. Hence a part of the 'continued' support.

If we're fast-forwarding to continued support, then yes. At 1946-48, it was more individual Jews and France and Czechoslovakia, and not "The West" like major players included US and the UK. It was clandestine and irregular re the west.

- - - Updated - - -

https://prospect.org/world/2024-03-1...ints-revealed/



If this is true, this is honestly deeply concerning, and truly repugnant and repulsive behavior by AIPAC. This is a fairly extremist position, and one that is absolutely not supported by reality - we have plenty of documentation about the starvation and suffering going on in Gaza, as well as the fact that the US has taken to airdroping aid into Gaza due to issues getting it through checkpoints.

The left-wing bias of "this has been questioned" and the mistranslation/disinformation on "eliminate everything" (The Atlantic wrote an entire article on attacking Israel based on falsifying quotes, including that one). Israel has been sending tons of aid, blocking of it is a false narrative. Almost a hundred per day, despite stampedes and inspections. The "Flour Massacre" is hotly contested, with estimates of Israeli number killed as low under a dozen, and involving deaths due to a stampede for aid and panicked aid trucks running over the crowd.

Basically, this is a biased source drawing on mostly debunked information, thus discrediting the reporting. It would be a much better article focusing on real disputable contentions, such as starvation.

[Edge-]

The left-wing bias of "this has been questioned" and the mistranslation/disinformation on "eliminate everything" (The Atlantic wrote an entire article on attacking Israel based on falsifying quotes, including that one). Israel has been sending tons of aid, blocking of it is a false narrative. Almost a hundred per day, despite stampedes and inspections. The "Flour Massacre" is hotly contested, with estimates of Israeli number killed as low under a dozen, and involving deaths due to a stampede for aid and panicked aid trucks running over the crowd.

Basically, this is a biased source drawing on mostly debunked information, thus discrediting the reporting. It would be a much better article focusing on real disputable contentions, such as starvation.

The Atlantic article is about issues around translations, from January. Which is reasonable - we've seen some of that with the claims of an Israeli official using "From the river to the sea" or something which was largely agreed upon to be a poor translation that did not capture the context of the officials words.

I was careful to qualify that this isn't corroborated reporting - opening with "If this is true...", and also I'll note that this isn't about domestic commentary from Israeli government officials that need to be translated into English. This appears to be the English-language operations of AIPAC as a lobbying arm.

More - https://twitter.com/moetkacik/status...23059612573946

One of The Prospect's reporters has the talking points apparently -



Which, again, if verified is the literal opposite of what appears to be happening with Israel using starvation as a weapon against folks in Gaza, as we've seen with repeat issues in bringing in aid that's resulted in the US needing to airdrop aid which is not very effective, and now also build a temporary port.

So I think you're responding to thinks that weren't actually in the article, and I'm unsure if you read it.

As to your last bit, yes, The American Prospect is a very left leaning news outlet. But they're also an outlet that primarily reports factually, even with their leftwing bias - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-american-prospect/

Again, I don't think this is all 100% confirmed and I'm waiting for additional corroboration, but this seems to have some decent evidence behind it. And it would hardly be completely out of character for AIPAC.

[tehdang]

The Atlantic article is about issues around translations, from January. Which is reasonable - we've seen some of that with the claims of an Israeli official using "From the river to the sea" or something which was largely agreed upon to be a poor translation that did not capture the context of the officials words.

I was careful to qualify that this isn't corroborated reporting - opening with "If this is true...", and also I'll note that this isn't about domestic commentary from Israeli government officials that need to be translated into English. This appears to be the English-language operations of AIPAC as a lobbying arm.

No, actually. The Atlantic also corrected quotes that didn't exist as quoted like "eliminate everything" in Gaza. And that's one that The American Prospect is using: a quote that's been debunked for ages (even before the Atlantic brought it to a more liberal audience). I'm glad you brought up that it was dates from January, since reputable news rooms that purport to report factually should withdraw the quote and append an editor's note about the correction if they wish to build that reputation.

Props to The American Prospect if they eventually do that, but shame on them for using such an old and debunked quote. And please re-read the Atlantic article if you're unsure of how the quote was misquoted at the time of the Atlantic publication. TAP repeats the mistake.

(Also note that the Guardian itself (linked by TAP) stealth-edited the quote after publication: a reminder that publications who want to preserve their reputation ought to append an editor's note if a passage's meaning or facts have changed and been updated. https://archive.is/j30mI)

More - https://twitter.com/moetkacik/status...23059612573946

One of The Prospect's reporters has the talking points apparently -



Which, again, if verified is the literal opposite of what appears to be happening with Israel using starvation as a weapon against folks in Gaza, as we've seen with repeat issues in bringing in aid that's resulted in the US needing to airdrop aid which is not very effective, and now also build a temporary port.

[/url]

Again, I don't think this is all 100% confirmed and I'm waiting for additional corroboration, but this seems to have some decent evidence behind it. And it would hardly be completely out of character for AIPAC.

I really wish the actual talking points was published, not a bad photo of a typed page. Full sentences in context is necessary when the slant of the article calls into question the faithful interpretation of what was written (see previous in my post)

[Mayhem]

Is there a reason you're just openly ignoring the ethnic cleansing early Israel conducted immediately after being formed, the Nakba? And the greater 1948 Palestine War, where the zionists were 100% the aggressors invading and taking territory?

Because while it's trivially true that Israel was attacked immediately after it was formed, the actual context is that Israel was formed through violent attack and invasion, and the Arab nations' response after Israel declared itself was a counter-offensive. Israel didn't pop into magical existence on the 14th of May 1948, with no prior context to its existence and thus any response to its existence sprang out of nowhere. Zionists had no interest in "living with Arabs" and had made that brutally clear through direct violence. It was the Zionists who refused to live peacefully with the Arab population. That's just historical fact. And you're denying that history, here. Because admitting to the full context means it becomes increasingly difficult to present the Zionists as eternal victims who've never done anything wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

- - - Updated - - -



Again, what's actually relevant is that the Zionists didn't want to found a State with a Jewish minority, and engaged in intentional ethnic cleansing to ensure they held a significant majority, and all the land they felt was most advantageous.

Whether they could have done otherwise is irrelevant, because it's not what they actually chose to do. Which, to repeat; was ethnic cleansing and mass theft of property.

It's a pity tehdang put you on ignore, I'd love to see him struggle with these posts.

- - - Updated - - -

Israel has been sending tons of aid, blocking of it is a false narrative. Almost a hundred per day, despite stampedes and inspections. The "Flour Massacre" is hotly contested, with estimates of Israeli number killed as low under a dozen, and involving deaths due to a stampede for aid and panicked aid trucks running over the crowd.

"We're sending so much aid that people kill each other to get some" is maybe not a convincing argument to people not blindly following Israel's narrative.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The word fascism is used to describe so many things nowadays that it has lost its meaning. Many people use fascism to describe authoritarianism for example while authoritarianism can be from left or right.

Fascism is most definitely still defined as right wing authoritarian belief system. Fascism is most commonly linked with the Nazis, but Mussolini also comes to mind. For a long time the US was very much anti fascist and embraced liberalism. Now we have a bunch of actual fascists (look at modern conservatives and the kind of thing they want to force on the populace, Project 2025, that's not freedom). But their followers mindlessly repeat screaming insults like "Fascist commie socialist" which is just screaming a bunch of very different political positions, but people unironically say these things.

But see here's the thing: A bunch of lunatics misusing fascism doesn't stop the word from having meaning. Just because the right has diluted the word down in YOUR circles doesn't mean that fascism doesn't exist as a concept of political positions. But this is exactly why debating conservatives is always exhausting.

Their lexicon of known language and universal facts is very different from reality. They work on a very different set of meanings precisely because conservative pundits have poisoned the modern usage of these words so that when someone outside of the fascist circles looks in and asks these people to think for themselves about what's going on, these people will just take their poisoned source of propaganda and refuse to learn or understand.


It's quite a shame that Israel had a chance to make a peaceful nation for Jews and yet they've decided genocide was the route to take because they enjoy killing children.

[tehdang]

"We're sending so much aid that people kill each other to get some" is maybe not a convincing argument to people not blindly following Israel's narrative.

Hamas is stealing the aid for themselves and also to sell it. I wish the reality of the situation allowed for high-level repartee, but its simply malnourished and robbed civilians trying to escape Hamas's oppression.

The good news is Hamas is in the process of being destroyed, and that removes the major barrier to aid reaching those that need it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Seems quite convenient that Hamas is always behind Israel being vile and genocidal. There could be nothing but children left and tehdang would still argue that Hamas has yet to be rooted out.

[Jastall]

Hamas is stealing the aid for themselves and also to sell it. I wish the reality of the situation allowed for high-level repartee, but its simply malnourished and robbed civilians trying to escape Hamas's oppression.

The good news is Hamas is in the process of being destroyed, and that removes the major barrier to aid reaching those that need it.

I'm sure a couple million more bombs will solve the problem this time around.

[Mayhem]

Hamas is stealing the aid for themselves and also to sell it.

Hamas is selling aid? To whom? The population they have full control over?

I wish the reality of the situation allowed for high-level repartee, but its simply malnourished and robbed civilians trying to escape Hamas's oppression.

Yeah, nothing else they can do, not like they control the border and could help evacuate the malnourished civilians trying to escape Hamas. Nope, better let them fight for food and "stampede" each other to death.

The good news is Hamas is in the process of being destroyed, and that removes the major barrier to aid reaching those that need it.

And in equally good news, after Israel marched into Rafah fewer civilians will need aid, ever again.