Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[tehdang]

The biggest proponents of morally-obligatory "lesser of two evils" voting will be voting for someone who has supported (what they consider to be) Israel's genocide in order to (in their view) save American democracy and protect other human rights.

It should prompt a little introspection on Israelis that are being led by Netanyahu, but don't support him (<33% support).

[Endus]

The biggest proponents of morally-obligatory "lesser of two evils" voting will be voting for someone who has supported (what they consider to be) Israel's genocide in order to (in their view) save American democracy and protect other human rights.

When the alternative is Trump, who actively sought to inflame such sentiments in Israel while President, yeah, we'll accept weaksauce condemnations and a slow drift towards ending support to that alternative.

It should prompt a little introspection on Israelis that are being led by Netanyahu, but don't support him (<33% support).

Newsflash; it isn't progressives who generally engage in antisemitism like equating the acts of the Israeli government with Jewishness or even the specific preferences of specific Israeli citizens.

[Gestopft]

The biggest proponents of morally-obligatory "lesser of two evils" voting will be voting for someone who has supported (what they consider to be) Israel's genocide in order to (in their view) save American democracy and protect other human rights.

It should prompt a little introspection on Israelis that are being led by Netanyahu, but don't support him (<33% support).

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Israelis don't support Netanyahu, but I rather doubt that 67% of Israelis oppose him on the basis that they think he's genocidal...

As for being led by someone they don't support, I don't know why you're trying to tie these together. We're all aware that this is something that can happen and are perfectly capable of separating the government from the governed...

[s_bushido]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Israelis don't support Netanyahu, but I rather doubt that 67% of Israelis oppose him on the basis that they think he's genocidal...

From what I've heard (I've never actually looked into it myself), the Israeli people can't stand Netanyahu, but they're all-in on the genocide...

[Gestopft]

As multiple outlets are commenting, Netanyahu is falling further into political jeopardy as the Israeli supreme court ruled that the government has to stop funding Yeshivas for the ultra-Orthodox young men that have been exempted from military service, and draft them. This has been a controversial issue and Netanyahu's coalition is being pulled from both sides on this court ruling with parties on either side of the divide seemingly ready to walk away.

[Specialka]

From what I've heard (I've never actually looked into it myself), the Israeli people can't stand Netanyahu, but they're all-in on the genocide...

And where did you get that ?

[Mayhem]

And where did you get that ?

From Gaidax, remember him?

[Specialka]

From Gaidax, remember him?

Yes, but clearly, you did not understand what he said and even what most Israelis want. They want their security restored, once Hamas is dealt with, the fighting will stop. So seems to me that Hamas should surrender leading to a faster resolution of the conflict.

[Mayhem]

Yes, but clearly, you did not understand what he said and even what most Israelis want. They want their security restored, once Hamas is dealt with, the fighting will stop. So seems to me that Hamas should surrender leading to a faster resolution of the conflict.

Right, because the fighting in West Bank stopped once Hamas was dealt with, wait a minute.

[tehdang]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Israelis don't support Netanyahu, but I rather doubt that 67% of Israelis oppose him on the basis that they think he's genocidal...

As for being led by someone they don't support, I don't know why you're trying to tie these together. We're all aware that this is something that can happen and are perfectly capable of separating the government from the governed...

In much the same way as this forum's conscientious Americans (I'm trying to lovingly portray you/people that think like you) dislike what their country is doing under Biden, but are still Americans, likewise Israelis dislike the public statements and policy under Netanyahu, but are still Israelis.

If you look at the protestors focusing on anti-Zionism and Israel shouldn't exist, it should be fingers pointed at themselves for America shouldn't exist.

If you think urban warfare equals genocide, or invading Rafah equals genocide, or seeking to move civilians away from military operations is genocide, then I'm really just talking past those points. There isn't really common ground to argue from.

[Muzjhath]

Yes, but clearly, you did not understand what he said and even what most Israelis want. They want their security restored, once Hamas is dealt with, the fighting will stop. So seems to me that Hamas should surrender leading to a faster resolution of the conflict.

Israel has been a genocidal project for the IDF since before it was the IDF.
They've just been good at hiding it with propaganda and it's only started to leak out of the cracks the last 30 years.

There are plenty of ex IDF members who've since gotten un-conditioned who've spoken up about it.

The fact that you don't want to see that is a you issue.

[Paranoid Android]

"The British government has received advice from its own lawyers...that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public" because "any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel."

UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording

Governments know and understand they are funding a genocide. The news of US sending weapons and British Tory admitting this just shows they won't stop and don't care about the Palestinian people.

[Gestopft]

In much the same way as this forum's conscientious Americans (I'm trying to lovingly portray you/people that think like you) dislike what their country is doing under Biden, but are still Americans, likewise Israelis dislike the public statements and policy under Netanyahu, but are still Israelis.

I still don't know what you're trying to express with this obvious statement of a well-known reality of politics, or how you're trying to relate it to all of this. As I said, I tend to separate the government from the governed, sooo? On the other hand, according to a recent poll, Hamas (as a political entity) has a similar popularity in Gaza as Netanyahu has in Israel, yet you and basically every defender of Israel's actions I've seen have informed me that, in fact, Gazans voted for Hamas as though that means they deserve this...so is this you projecting? I still don't know what begrudging support for Biden despite his failure in this regard has to do with Netanyahu being unpopular.

If you look at the protestors focusing on anti-Zionism and Israel shouldn't exist, it should be fingers pointed at themselves for America shouldn't exist.

Congratulations on realizing that we have a bit of a colonial past to reckon with, I guess?

Anyway, I think you'll find a broad overlap between the group focusing on anti-Zionism and those that already do point the finger at this country for its record of colonialism. However, as to the "shouldn't exist" argument, I will say a couple things, since people who aren't steeped in this discourse tend to approach it in the clumsy manner of one who has heard something scandalous as they walk by a conversation, misinterpret it since they don't understand the context in which it was said, and then get outraged anyway. First is that there is the obvious difference of over 150 years and all of the systemic global changes that occurred between the founding of the USA and that of Israel (which, should be noted, was established as the rest of the world was already decolonizing elsewhere, and still within living memory). Second (and probably because of the time difference and the relation of America's colonizing with so many other parts of the world at similar times), the definitions and rhetoric used tend to differ between the scenarios. When it pertains to the USA and the Global North in general, the systems are usually referred to, like capitalism, racism, etc. rather than the countries involved. In my experience, the discourse around Israel/zionism/colonialism, however, tends to refer to Israel systematically in and of itself- and in the circles Israel is defined as a Zionist/colonial project which inherently favors some peoples over others, or as noted radical... *checks notes* ...uhh...John Kerry...said: "if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or Democratic, it cannot be both" (I understand you will disagree, but understanding this requires understanding the definitions they use). The statement, then, that "Israel shouldn't exist" is in that manner more like saying "end capitalism" in that the focus is on the systems rather than on the individual actors.

If you think urban warfare equals genocide

Nobody has said this. We have pointed out how frequently indiscriminate the IDF has been, and how its methods (such as destroying graveyards, empty universities etc.) and the intent of many of its soldiers and ministers can be considered genocidal.

or seeking to move civilians away from military operations is genocide

Again, nobody has said this. We have pointed out that giving over a million people only 24 hours to evacuate and then also bombing the "safe routes" gives lie to their whole "we're the most moral military in the world" schtick.

or invading Rafah equals genocide

If they bomb the 1.4 million people that have complied and fled to Rafah (minus those that were there to begin with) and have no other place to go in the same manner that they treated north Gaza, then I'm rather curious how that could be anything but genocidal.

There isn't really common ground to argue from.

I agree, it is hard to find common ground when 2/3rds of your "it's genocide when's" aren't actually things people are saying.

[tehdang]

I still don't know what you're trying to express with this obvious statement of a well-known reality of politics, or how you're trying to relate it to all of this. As I said, I tend to separate the government from the governed, sooo? On the other hand, according to a recent poll, Hamas (as a political entity) has a similar popularity in Gaza as Netanyahu has in Israel, yet you and basically every defender of Israel's actions I've seen have informed me that, in fact, Gazans voted for Hamas as though that means they deserve this...so is this you projecting? I still don't know what begrudging support for Biden despite his failure in this regard has to do with Netanyahu being unpopular.

You must have skimmed over all the times in this thread that Netanyahu or minority members of his government were cited as absolute proof of genocidal intent.

Congratulations on realizing that we have a bit of a colonial past to reckon with, I guess?

Anyway, I think you'll find a broad overlap between the group focusing on anti-Zionism and those that already do point the finger at this country for its record of colonialism. However, as to the "shouldn't exist" argument, I will say a couple things, since people who aren't steeped in this discourse tend to approach it in the clumsy manner of one who has heard something scandalous as they walk by a conversation, misinterpret it since they don't understand the context in which it was said, and then get outraged anyway. First is that there is the obvious difference of over 150 years and all of the systemic global changes that occurred between the founding of the USA and that of Israel (which, should be noted, was established as the rest of the world was already decolonizing elsewhere, and still within living memory). Second (and probably because of the time difference and the relation of America's colonizing with so many other parts of the world at similar times), the definitions and rhetoric used tend to differ between the scenarios. When it pertains to the USA and the Global North in general, the systems are usually referred to, like capitalism, racism, etc. rather than the countries involved. In my experience, the discourse around Israel/zionism/colonialism, however, tends to refer to Israel systematically in and of itself- and in the circles Israel is defined as a Zionist/colonial project which inherently favors some peoples over others, or as noted radical... *checks notes* ...uhh...John Kerry...said: "if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or Democratic, it cannot be both" (I understand you will disagree, but understanding this requires understanding the definitions they use). The statement, then, that "Israel shouldn't exist" is in that manner more like saying "end capitalism" in that the focus is on the systems rather than on the individual actors.

Really weaselly dodges here. If you're really intent on believing people who are anti-Zionism are really just clumsily expressing opposition to a "system" or favoritism towards a people, then I won't fight your faith in that. I would, indeed, call it just as foolish as saying "end capitalism," by which I mean, it's somebody that's better conversed with in a dorm room with high consumption of cannabis. In the backdrop of an Israel-Hamas conflict where Hamas does expect to end the Jewish state by force of arms, it just shows the kind of ignorance like not knowing the river or the sea in the chant. Fine, these people have never really reckoned with what it means to seek the end of a Jewish state, but are thus ill-served by their language and should abandon it if they wish to really address an enduring problem.

I'd have a little more amiability about the anti-Zionist/anti-Israel's-existence if it didn't overlap with literal terrorists massacring to achieve that same aim. Let's not accidentally give aid and comfort to the real genocidal maniacs in the conflict.

Nobody has said this. We have pointed out how frequently indiscriminate the IDF has been, and how its methods (such as destroying graveyards, empty universities etc.) and the intent of many of its soldiers and ministers can be considered genocidal.

You must've missed the photos of city before-after and accusations that the destruction as such was proof of genocidal intent. I saw the consequences of tunnel-assisted tactics. And the usual half-stories https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior...hout-approval/ and destruction of tunnels "gee look Western journalists at what was above-ground, omg."

Again, nobody has said this. We have pointed out that giving over a million people only 24 hours to evacuate and then also bombing the "safe routes" gives lie to their whole "we're the most moral military in the world" schtick.

Your skimming is quite fast indeed. Past pages of this thread have done just that.

If they bomb the 1.4 million people that have complied and fled to Rafah (minus those that were there to begin with) and have no other place to go in the same manner that they treated north Gaza, then I'm rather curious how that could be anything but genocidal.

I await the new evacuation plans to deal with Hamas in Rafah. The delay is almost certainly a mistake on Netanyahu's behalf, but I'm not privy to the ongoing hostage negotiations and military planning.

I agree, it is hard to find common ground when 2/3rds of your "it's genocide when's" aren't actually things people are saying.

Apparently they slipped your notice. You've routinely quoted my replies to others without directly responding to the others' claims. Maybe that has given rise to some unawareness of the more extreme posters on your side of the aisle. If I can find the time and justify the effort, I'll peruse the 50-100 pages to look up the posters and posts that have said that in the past. It might be warranted to take a trip down memory lane; I do expect the collapse of genocide narratives will be overlooked, and replaced by "Israel isn't rebuilding Gaza fast enough" and "Israel isn't doing enough to provide for the unhoused."

[Gestopft]

You must have skimmed over all the times in this thread that Netanyahu or minority members of his government were cited as absolute proof of genocidal intent.

How many times do I have to literally say "I separate the government from the governed" before you bother with reading comprehension?

Really weaselly dodges here.

I didn't dodge anything? I was pointing out why I think there is a difference in language between how people talk about America and about Israel. Frankly I was wordier than I needed to be.

I'd have a little more amiability about the anti-Zionist/anti-Israel's-existence if it didn't overlap with literal terrorists massacring to achieve that same aim. Let's not accidentally give aid and comfort to the real genocidal maniacs in the conflict.

Islamists terrorists want to kill Jews and force them out of the land, while Western anti-Zionists think there should be one secular state with equal rights for all, but hey, they both oppose a Zionist state, so let's just lump 'em together, eh? I think you and I both agree that both of these notions are incredibly unlikely to happen any time soon, but let's not pretend they're morally equivalent.

You must've missed the photos of city before-after and accusations that the destruction as such was proof of genocidal intent. I saw the consequences of tunnel-assisted tactics. And the usual half-stories https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior...hout-approval/ and destruction of tunnels "gee look Western journalists at what was above-ground, omg."

It's almost like the manner in which the war is carried out, not urban warfare itself is what people are calling genocidal. If you want to argue that it's basically impossible to carry out urban warfare in a manner as results in less wanton death/destruction etc. then go for it, but I refuse to believe you are thick enough to actually insist that people are saying "urban warfare is in and of itself genocide."

Let me put it this way: If Hamas had taken over parts of Tel Aviv and the civilians in the apartment blocks were Israeli citizens, do you think the IDF would've operated the same as they did in Gaza- or differently?

Your skimming is quite fast indeed. Past pages of this thread have done just that.

Ok, so I reread what I was responding to, and I realized there are two ways to read it. You said "seeking to move civilians away from military operations" as what people were calling genocide, which is an action that could entail everything from "humanitarian efforts to save lives" all the way to "displacement with an intent to permanently do so." Clearly you phrased the action in a way to sound like the IDF was engaging in the former, whereas those of us that are more skeptical of their motives would put it farther along the spectrum towards the latter.

I await the new evacuation plans to deal with Hamas in Rafah. The delay is almost certainly a mistake on Netanyahu's behalf, but I'm not privy to the ongoing hostage negotiations and military planning.

You do a whole lot of "waiting" and "expecting" when it's clear that things aren't looking good on your side and you can only hope that they don't screw it up even worse.

[Surfd]

I do expect the collapse of genocide narratives will be overlooked, and replaced by "Israel isn't rebuilding Gaza fast enough" and "Israel isn't doing enough to provide for the unhoused."

The genocide narratives aren't going to "collapse" because Israel is objectively, factually engaged in Genocide in Gaza. Full Stop.

I'd also question your sanity if you actually believe that Israel will ever "rebuild" Gaza with the intent of allowing Palestinian Arabs to return to it in any meaningful way. 99.999% chance that even if they were to magically "eradicate" Hamas tomorrow, they would still spend the next two or three years systematically disassembling the place "to make sure they really got all of them" while relocating any remaining Palestinians they find "for their own safety". They will reduce Gaza to a parkinglot before they would ever allow it to become "Palestinian" again.

[Draco-Onis]

Israel Created 'Kill Zones' in Gaza. Anyone Who Crosses Into Them Is Shot

The Israeli army says 9,000 terrorists have been killed since the Gaza war began. Defense officials and soldiers, however, tell Haaretz that these are often civilians whose only crime was to cross an invisible line drawn by the IDF

IDF makes up imaginary kill zones informs no civilians murders anyone in that area or civilians who walk in claims them all to be "Hamas terrorists" to pad their numbers.

[ati87]

Yes, but clearly, you did not understand what he said and even what most Israelis want. They want their security restored, once Hamas is dealt with, the fighting will stop. So seems to me that Hamas should surrender leading to a faster resolution of the conflict.

If the majority of Israelis wanted some sort of "security" you wouldn't have voted for more extreme right-wing governments every election. You will never have some sort of security when the only option you are given to Palestinians is a violent struggle.

[The Stormbringer]

Israel Created 'Kill Zones' in Gaza. Anyone Who Crosses Into Them Is Shot

IDF makes up imaginary kill zones informs no civilians murders anyone in that area or civilians who walk in claims them all to be "Hamas terrorists" to pad their numbers.

And this is why a lot of us roll our eyes in disgust at people claiming "no war crimes" or "not a real genocide".

Walk through a certain area you don't even know we've marked? BANG! One dead terrorist! WOO GO ISRAEL! /s

[Mekh]

Israel Created 'Kill Zones' in Gaza. Anyone Who Crosses Into Them Is Shot



IDF makes up imaginary kill zones informs no civilians murders anyone in that area or civilians who walk in claims them all to be "Hamas terrorists" to pad their numbers.

Only good thing about these awful news is, it usually keeps the assholes out of this thread for a few days, lest they'd have to have an opinion about this.