The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Antizionists" Show Their Genocidal Colors
(Two background notes. (1)Nick Riemer is a very prominent Australian "progressive" "antizionist" and his views expressed here are relatively moderate compared to those who are celebrated Hamas' "act of resistance" though less moderate than those engaging in "both sideism"; (2) Everyone knows that the slaughter, rape, kidnapping, and so on of hundreds of Israelis is precisely what Hamas would do to the entire Jewish population of Israel if it had the power to do so. So, with that said…)
There has been too much pointless debate over whether those who call for Israel's destruction are necessarily antisemitic. The important point is that such people know that the end of Israel most likely means genocide for 7.5 million Israeli Jews, and they are okay with that.
Whether they are motivated by Islamism, leftist bs "anticolonialism," hostility to the West with Israel as their first target, or pure hatred of Jews is immaterial, it's much worse than mere antisemitism. Most antisemites aren't full-on Nazis, and as much as they dislike Jews would object to mass murder (just like most people who have racist opinions of black people would object to mass murder). The so-called antizionists do not, and therefore are much worse.
It's a weird tic of American progressivism to worry more about people's expressed moral intentions than their actions, which explains why, for example, moderate liberals are more likely to ally with radical anti-liberal leftists than with moderate conservatives--they think the former but not the latter are "well-meaning.") I really don't care if someone doesn't like Jews. But someone who claims and may sincerely think that they have nothing against Jews, but is content to see my friends and relatives in Israel murdered in the name of some idiotic ideology, that's a real problem.
Here's a test, which in my experience almost all leftist "antizionists" fail. Most of them will claim that they have some solution in mind to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will protect the rights of what would become the Jewish minority in an imagined future "Palestine." So you ask them, "well, what if it turns out as a practical matter that your one-state solution, if implemented, will likely result in the murder/ expulsion/oppression of the 7.5 million Jews in Israel. Would you still support it?" This should be an easy question to answer, especially given that it's a pure hypothetical, the answer to which could not be binding. I've asked this many times to "antizionists," and I've never received an unequivocal "no." They are ok with genocide.
(A slightly different version of this post was cross-posted at Instapundit)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Gaza strip and the west bank became the situs of the palestinians because neither Egypt nor Jordan wanted the palestinians. Both countries have blocked the exits.
Speaking as an American Gentile who only half pays attention to 75 years of the same pictures coming out of the Middle East, my immediate thought is: Why did Hamas do this? Why now? It seems suicidal. I want to know more immediate facts before I form an opinion.
The two main causes are because:
1. There had been no light in terms of a possible agreement, or hope of the future. In addition, the most recent government in Israel has shown that things will likely just keep getting worse.
2. The more immediate issue was the upcoming normalization of Saudi/Israeli relations. This was a huge threat not just to Hamas, but to Iran. Which meant that Iran was more than happy to provide the logistics and assistance to help Hamas pull this off.
The inevitable (and, honestly, deserved) Israeli counter will inflame passions around the Arab world.
Thanks.
Like most Americans I have to remind myself that the Islamic world is big and complicated, with various countries and constituencies allied or opposed to each other.
1: This is telling me that Iran's not on the cusp of a working nuke, and that it's terrified of an Arab world allied with Israel (remember that they are Farsi-speaking Persans, not Arabic-speaking Arabs).
2: If Israel hits back as hard as I think it will, it likely will scare the bleep out of the Arab world, which respects power. If Israel does something like outright level Gaza, it might not inflame passions that much.
Israel's lifestyle is more attractive to most Iranians than the theocracy is.
I would suggest getting out of Massachusetts/Maine more, and traveling a little.
The opinions of people that live in the Middle East are not the same as those who call into the talk radio you listen to. This may shock you, but a Shi'a in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and a Sunni in Cario might not all have the same opinions and beliefs as does Sully from Dorchester.
Well, this is what the A-holes in Massachusetts are saying.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/09/thirty-one-harvard-organizations-blame-israel-for-hamas-attack/
I really don't much care what a Shi’a in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and a Sunni in Cario think, but I'll give them a choice: Behave yourselves OR DIE. And I'm serious about the "OR DIE" part.
Well, if you don't really care what they think, Dr. Ed, maybe you should refrain from making statements about what the Arab World will think?
And stick to just making up stories about New England, and wishing death upon people.
"Dr." Ed's, um, argument reminds me of a story a colleague once told me. He teaches a seminar on 20th c US foreign policy and one year had a student who had confidence to spare (time to do the weekly readings or consider them, *that* he was short on). On the week they were discussing the US and the Middle East, this young man explained that the solution was easy. Ridiculously easy, in fact. I don't recall the specifics but it amounted to each of the parties just doing what they were told … or else … and that would bring about peace. He couldn't understand why successive American administrations had been so dumb or cowardly when it was all so obvious—do what we say or else we'll kill you. I imagine that young man achieved as much of an advanced education as "Dr." Ed has.
Back in the 1950s, that's pretty much what Eisenhower did.
How do you think the Shah got into power in Iran -- yes. the American CIA. And how do you think the British maintained power before then? Yes, "Bomber" Harris...
This was in the backdrop of the cold war, which is why Nasser had to be tolerated in Egypt, and the nationalization of the American oil wells, but it did work.
These are not Western cultures, they have no history of democracy and all they understand is violence. Hence, do as we say or we'll kill you."
I have to admit, there is some irony in you, of all people, claiming that it is other people that only understand violence.
Because they really mean what they say about wanting to genocide the Jews, and they just got a bunch of funding from us via Iran? That would be my guess.
I hear rumors their munitions came from us, too, by way of Afghanistan.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/
...and captcrisis says: "Why did Hamas do this? ... I want to know more immediate facts before I form an opinion."
I bet if you saw Nazis killing Jewish children during the Holocaust, you'd say something similar.
They're just SS Einsatzgruppen with darker skin and worse body odor
Full official record: What the mufti said to Hitler
So, pretty much. The Middle East was about the only area that didn't get de-Nazified after WWII, and it shows.
Because they wanted to do it for a long time and Iran finally gave them the go ahead when Biden released the $6 Billion.
Why did they individually want to? Because someone encouraged them to want to. It’s nurtured.
What’s the overall strategy? Look at the last 50 years. Do they seem good at making strategic decisions to you? I don’t know the plan, but I’ll guess it’s another destructive mistake in a nearly uninterrupted string of destructive mistakes. You’ll have to try pretty hard if you want to understand decision making like that.
Hamas did this in the hopes that Israel kills lots of its low level fighters who will be holed up in schools, hospitals, and other sympathetic targets with a few dozen civilian hostages around them. Then they will parade the bodies of those people in front of willing left wing media who will then use that as an excuse to pump billions in "aid" right back into the coffers of Hamas higher ups.
Here’s a test, which in my experience almost all leftist “antizionists” fail. Most of them will claim that they have some solution in mind to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will protect the rights of what would become the Jewish minority in an imagined future “Palestine.” So you ask them, “well, what if it turns out as a practical matter that your one-state solution, if implemented, will likely result in the murder/expulsion/oppression of the 7.5 million Jews in Israel. Would you still support it?” This should be an easy question to answer, especially given that it’s a pure hypothetical, the answer to which could not be binding. I’ve asked this many times to “antizionists,” and I’ve never received an unequivocal “no.” They are ok with genocide.
-I, too, enjoy making up conversations with imaginary people!
There was a certain inevitability to what just happened. As I remarked to an actual person in reality, “If you don’t take care of that wound, it’s going to get infected and get worse.” He didn’t take care of it, and guess what? It did get infected, and it did get worse.
That said, my heart goes out to all those who lost their lives, and to all those who will lose their lives in the coming days, weeks, months … and years. While explainable and predictable, what Hamas did was purely evil, and will just continue and deepen the cycle of violence for the foreseeable future.
The horrors of history are just repeated in the present.
If you think such people are "imaginary," email or text your favorite "antizionist" acquaintances and ask them the same question, and then get back to us.
Well, I do enjoy how you assume I have favorite anti-Zionist acquaintances!
But sure. Why don't you tell the rest of the class exactly which anti-Zionist you talked to who said, "Yes, I am totally okay with genociding the Jews. That's exactly what I want."
Names, please. Because you stated that this is your experience, repeatedly, so instead of trying to worm out of your specific, and COMPLETELY BELIEVABLE claim, why not tell us exactly who these people were!
I don't keep track of all my social media correspondence, though I can give you Peter Beinart as an example of someone who, in response to that question, refused to answer "no."
And it's strange that you think that this is imaginary, when perhaps the leading American "antizionist" intellectual, Edward Said, made it 100% clear that while he doesn't *want* the Jews of Israel to be oppressed in a future "Palestine," it's not a deal-breaker, either. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/29/the-one-state-solution-and-the-brutal-honesty-of-edward-said/
To be clear, and following what you just said, you have just stated that Peter Beinart is "ok with genocide" of the Jews.
Fascinating! I am sure that someone will let him know of your statement.
That's not what he said at all. He said that Beinart refused to answer "no" to the question of whether Beinart was okay with genocide or other ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews. That refusal to answer implies that the answer is "yes", by Beinart's choice, but also that Beinart is dishonest enough to attempt tactical ambiguity about it.
Peter Beinart has an easy way to clarify the record here.
To be clear-
1. I don’t believe that this is exactly how the conversation went.
2. I don’t believe that David Bernstein regularly asks this question, if at all.
3. I certainly don’t believe that Peter Beinart is “ok with genocide” of the Jews, and I am quite certain that if he thought that DB was ascribing that position to him, he would correctly and rightfully take umbrage to it. More than umbrage. A LOT MORE than umbrage.
Now, I know that this might surprise you, but people are capable of having nuanced positions. To the extent that David Bernstein want to imagine conversations, and then imagine conclusions, and then attribute positions to actual people (especially ones this abhorrent), perhaps he should check himself. I can appreciate that passions are understandably inflamed right now, but that doesn’t give anyone the latitude to accuse a Jewish person, without foundation, of being okay with genocide.
You're just as dishonest a piece of shit as Sarcastr0. Congratulations.
(I) I have you an example of the most prominent antizionist in the US for decades saying explicitly what I attributed to antizionists. As you tend to do when arguments don’t go your way, you simply ignore it.
(2) Beinart’s response was to assert that it’s racist to think that Palestinians couldn’t run a democracy with Jews having equal rights, then ignoring the obvious follow-up queries. What he did NOT say is, “I wouldn’t support a Palestinian majority state if I wasn’t confident the Jewish population would be protected,” which is what I asked.
It’s also the case that antizionists consistently allude to Algeria and South Africa as their anti colonial models. In neither case did leftists think that the party they considered colonialists had any rights, and of course many in Algeria fled, including, not irrelevantly, the native Jewish population
So again, to be clear-
(1) You didn't actually have the conversations that you claimed.
(2) You didn't actually have the followup questions that you say you did.
(3) These imagined conversations that you have had with "many people" were with one person, and have led to your conclusion that Peter Beinart believes that the genocide of the Jews is okay.
Keep diggin' Dave!
I am quite sure that the next post he has will be something like this:
I have asked many of my students when they stopped beating their significant others. When they refused to respond, or, worse, told me that this was an inappropriate question, I immediately realized that they actually told me that they believed in killing off all the Professors and that they hate free speech. LOGIC!
(At this point, believing in DB's anecdotes is ... well, I am sure that there are fools out there somewhere, right?)
So again, to be clear-
It’s funny how dishonest assholes like you love to start a post with that, and then proceed to lie about what the person you’re responding to actually said.
It strikes me that Bernstein accused Beinart of endorsing genocide against Jews. That's effin crazy.
It strikes me that Bernstein accused Beinart of endorsing genocide against Jews.
Well, no. What he said was:
"What he did NOT say is, “I wouldn’t support a Palestinian majority state if I wasn’t confident the Jewish population would be protected,” which is what I asked."
The difference between those two things isn't that difficult to discern.
In the OP, Bernstein said:
Thus, Bernstein is accusing Beinart (who did not answer "no") of being "ok with genocide."
Thus, Bernstein is accusing Beinart (who did not answer “no”) of being “ok with genocide.”
While his conclusion might be a bit over the top, "OK with" is not a synonym for "endorses".
Let me rephrase: It strikes me that Bernstein accused Beinart of being OK with genocide against Jews. That’s effin crazy.
Let me rephrase: It strikes me that Bernstein accused Beinart of being OK with genocide against Jews. That’s effin crazy.
Is it any crazier than not being able to bring yourself to say "No" to...
"well, what if it turns out as a practical matter that your one-state solution, if implemented, will likely result in the murder/ expulsion/oppression of the 7.5 million Jews in Israel. Would you still support it?"
...?
lol. You’ve been around here a long time, and if there is anything that’s consistent is that you will (a) never admit when you’re wrong; and (b) to avoid that admission engaging in a lot of hand waving accusing other people of bad faith. “At least he’s consistent,” I guess,
I’ve been here long enough to remember that-
1. When I asked you for your sources on a law review article, you provided a general citation. When I asked for a specific page cite, you were unable to do so, and just said it was the general gist from an article. When I read the article, there was no general gist, and, in fact, the general gist of the article was the opposite.
2. I also remember that when you got caught out on one of these issues, you attempted to dox me, but you used the wrong name. Which, given the history of this blog (Juan Not-Volokh) was … something.
3. Finally, I will reiterate that you have just been trying to derail the conversation. If, in fact, your claim is true (it isn’t), then I am sure you have receipts. While it might seem easy and convenient to say that a Jewish person that you do not agree with supports the genocide of the Jews, I am quite positive that this is the type of slur that you really think better than doing.
I think we’re good now! Why don’t you get back to attacking those law school students at your school?
I remember when you claimed that that prior to Trump, Richard Nixon was "the only U.S. president to have ever been impeached".
Don’t forget that law student you posted about repeatedly
As I have said before, there are many well-meaning people (mostly on the left) who are quite prepared to weep genuine tears over a Jewish genocide while being utterly unwilling to go along with anything that might prevent one.
I go back to a line uttered by a Polish woman in Shoah: "It's a pity what happened to the Jews...but they did kill Christ."
Not today with this.
“I have given an order — Gaza will be under complete siege. There will be no electricity, food or fuel. We are fighting barbaric [terrorists] and will respond accordingly.”
Yeah, that’s what war tends to be like. Very unfortunate, but Hamas is Gaza’s government, and a government doesn’t get to murder and brutalize several thousand people and then demand resources for its people from its victims. If you can think of a war in which one of the protaganists willingly supplied the other protaganist with resources, feel free to share.
Indeed, it's such a natural response that Hamas had to anticipate it. And they don't care. So you are expected Israel, attacked by Hamas, to care more about the welfare of Gazans than their government does.
David, my sympathies are mostly with Israel. That said, try to put yourself in the position of a young man growing up in Gaza with no opportunity, no jobs, no education, limited amounts of food and electricity, no ability to have a decent existence, a lifetime of poverty with little you can do about it. You'd probably riot too.
And given recent settler violence against the Palestinians -- Israel won't allow Palestinians weapons to defend themselves and won't defend the Palestinians either, so apparently they are supposed to just get slaughtered whenever the settlers show up with automatic weapons -- how exactly would you respond if you were Palestinian? The settlers have not been well behaved either.
It is possible to support Israel while at the same time recognizing that a certain amount of this Israel has brought on itself.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67046444
Literally all Hamas has had to do for 16 years to give a future to its people is to declare that it will no longer attack Israel and mean it. And at the very least, it could have used the billions in humanitarian aid it has received to improve the lives of Gazans rather than divert it either to military purposes or to offshore bank accounts. So I were a young Gazan, I would demand either or both of these things from my rulers, and if I weren't brave enough to do so, which most people aren't, I'd take any opportunity I could to leave, as several hundred thousand Gazans have.
Given that Hamas has always had the option to make peace, the notion that it's attacks are a product of desperation is nonsense. Moreover, for the last several years Israel has been through intermediaries trying to both improve Gazan's lives and keep tensions with Hamas to a minimum. Israel had increased permits for Gazans working in Israel from 1K to 17k, with a plan to soon increase that to 30K. It has allowed Qatar to flood Gaza with cash, including cash to pay the salaries of Hamas functionaries. Israel came to believe that Hamas was willing to explore tit for tat cooperation, leading to long-term quiet. It read the situation very wrong.
You can see just how deluded Israeli officials were from this interview in 2020 with the head of Israeli military intelligence's southern command: https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/07/24/hamas-is-deterred-by-continues-to-invest-heavily-in-armament/?
'Literally all Hamas has had to do'
Considering how long and it took and how careful the negotiations were to get the IRA to commit to peace in Northern Ireland, this is depressingly childish.
The women who were raped and kidnapped and killed, the children gunned down in front of their parents, the families who saw their loved ones’ murders blasted on their Facebook accounts brought it on themselves?
I don’t know if you’re an antisemite, but you’re certainly a soulless piece of shit.
Did I say that the women who were raped and kidnapped and killed brought it on themselves? You're usually much better than making stuff up like that.
Unfortunately, corporate bad behavior frequently leads to individual suffering. Most of the Japanese who died when we nuked Hiroshima had not personally done anything to deserve it either. For that matter, probably most of the people living in Gaza have not personally done anything to deserve what is currently being done to them. But they were/are a part of corporate entities who did. And unless and until you can figure out a way to insulate all innocent people from the consequences of corporate evildoing, that's just the way it is.
Who is this "Israel" that "brought [it] on itself"? Can you talk to the "Israel"? Is it in the room with you right now?
Trying to pretend that an abstract concept of nation, race, or creed is somehow separate from the actual individuals that make of that group is, at best, dishonest and misleading.
Then better not to suggest that he is.
Well, how often do you hear “they brought it on themselves” in response to atrocities against women & children who aren’t Jewish?
OK, so you can't read any better than Noscitur. Where did I say that the women and children brought it on themselves?
What I said is that corporate wrongdoing often produces individual suffering, which it does. And I applied the same principle to the Japanese and the residents of Gaza. You're not even trying to fairly represent what I said.
And I'm curious how many of the people who are outraged by my comment believe the same thing themselves about the Gazans -- that they brought their suffering on themselves.
I do: The Gazans voted for Hamas. Multiple times. They had agency. They made their choice.
Nothing less than the physical obliteration of Hamas is an acceptable outcome.
You haven't read the beginning of this thread, have you.
There you go then, Ed G: someone who has actually said of non-Jewish victims of violence: they brought it on themselves.
So, you would definitely refute any suggestion that the Palestinians have brought what follows onto themselves?
Krychek_2 13 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"David, my sympathies are mostly with Israel. That said, try to put yourself in the position of a young man growing up in Gaza with no opportunity, no jobs, no education, limited amounts of food and electricity, no ability to have a decent existence, a lifetime of poverty with little you can do about it. You’d probably riot too."
The riot should be directed against those that created and perpetuated the situation. However that would require an honest assessment of the underlying cause which is largely to blame on the leadership of Hama's, the PLO and the rest of the arab world.
keep in mind, both egypt and jordan blocked the palestine exit from the israeli held lands after the arab invasion of 1948.
I expect they actually have plans to flood credulous media outlets with Palestinian sob stories about how people are suffering thanks to Israel. Rather similar to the PR stuff they usually run when Israel hits one of their rocket launch sites with return fire.
Hamas is Gaza’s government
Yes, and voted for by Gazans the last time Gaza had elections - in 2006. I can't say I recall too many pro-Palestinian voices calling for further elections in Gaza and the West Bank when they came due.
The American Civil War provides an example. Taking the war as a whole, the policy was highly variable, but a major element of provision for Southern humanitarian needs runs through Grant's campaign policy.
The actual translation from Hebrew is 'human animals', not 'barbaric terrorists'. Both fit.
The people of Gaza have been warned. Leave now. I hope they do.
There is no coexistence with Hamas. They must be physically obliterated. They chose the ideology, swore allegiance to it; let them die for it.
What ought to happen after Hamas is obliterated?
What ought to happen after Hamas is obliterated?
Hopefully, those remaining realize that they backed the wrong strategy and finally decide that peaceful coexistence is the better way forward. I wouldn't hold my breath, but eliminating the power structure making that nigh impossible might be at least a step in that direction.
Amazing. 'Blessed are the peacemakers, we'll keep killing till there's peace.'
That strikes me as a straw man. The killing is limited to what is lawfully permissible in a war that defeats Hamas.
What my question is, and it remains unanswered from Commenter_XY and WuzYoung, is how do they see the political post-war landscape (who lives where under what authority, and you can add in access to water, having a standing military, etc.) In short, what do they think a just peace looks like.
That strikes me as a straw man.
All he has is a hammer, so everything looks like a nail.
What my question is, and it remains unanswered from Commenter_XY and WuzYoung
What followed the above does not “remain unanswered”, as it was not previously asked. What you asked was far more vague:
“What ought to happen after Hamas is obliterated?”
My answer, although a bit vague itself, was at least more specific than the question in that I suggested (somewhat hopefully) the potential for a general change of attitude among the Palestinian population that might make peace at least a possibility, which is clearly not a possibility with Hamas in power (or even substantially in existence).
Sorry that my question was vague. Now that I have clarified it, perhaps you like to take a stab at it?
Sorry that my question was vague. Now that I have clarified it, perhaps you like to take a stab at it?
There are too many variables and other unknowns for me to offer any sort of detailed prescription other than pursuing whatever would be made possible by a shift in Palestinian attitudes of the sort I described. Adopting an attitude more geared toward one's own success than towards the destruction of others opens up a lot of possibilities.
" Leave now. "
How exactly do you propose they do that? This is what happens when people try to leave Gaza:
According to OCHA figures, as of 22 March 2019, 195 Palestinians (including 41 children) have been killed and close to 29,000 people injured. The United Nations has expressed concerns about the excessive use of force deployed by the Israeli Security Forces (ISF) contrary to applicable standards under international law.
https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/great-march-return-scores-people-killed-and-injured-over-one-year
They made their choice at the ballot box. They had agency. Now live with it. Or in this case; die. Hamas is a Judeocidal terror group with the extinction of Jews as a goal, written into their charter.
There is no coexistence. One or the other. I choose Israel.
Randal...You can choose the side of the medieval savages who murder, rape and pillage innocent civilians; toss gays off rooftops; mutilate the genitals of their females, and other assorted mayhem. I will not mourn their deaths.
What does "no coexistence" look like? Who lives where under what authority?
Wow, you're good! Just swap "males" for "females" and delete "rooftops" and you've got the Hamas manifesto!
Yes, Israel is just like Hamas, how clever of you.
Commenter is sounding like Hamas is the point.
What Sarcastr0 said. What I also said.
Hamas's existence is dedicated to the annihilation of Israel. The reverse is not true. If it were, Gaza would be a parking lot.
You're both morons.
You should be telling that to ToxicMasculinity over here.
Whatever I do/don't tell someone else isn't going to make you any less of a moron.
Hey Sarcastr0...Tell you what. Go don on a kippa, and move your fat ass to Kibbutz Be'Eri. It is roughly three miles from the Gaza border. Try your coexistence there. I bet you'd sing a different tune. Assuming you survive, of course. Kibbutz Be'Eri just lost 100 people, murdered by your precious Hamas pals you are so solicitous of.
I simply acknowledge what is true. There is no coexistence. None. It is one or the other. Hamas made their choice; moreover, they acted on it.
Very well: I choose Israel. You seem to have a problem with that choice. Well, that is really too bad. Guess you're upset because Jews just won't lay down and die meekly so you and your prog pals can say 'tut, tut', and drink whatever overpriced swill you progs like to drink these days.
"Or in this case; die."
"There is no coexistence."
Least genocidal Zionist. These are the people who call the Palestinians "fanatical" for having the temerity to fight back against their oppressors.
Hamas is the Palestinians' oppressors. I don't notice them fighting back much.
Funny, that's exactly what Hamas says! Right down to the "human animals" part.
David, before you say it, I'm not a "both-sideser," because I don't generalize MaleCommenter's statement to Israel as a whole. Only Hamas is as evil as MaleCommenter.
You sound like interviews of people during the Rwandan Genocide.
Really you just sound genocidal.
Israel is absolutely the wronged party. Hamas is and always has been an evil organization and should be eliminated.
But you and Netanyahu’s admin are talking collective guilt to the point of death well beyond Hamas. Way to hand away the moral high ground.
"Way to hand away the moral high ground."
I think the usual attempted shaming from you and your ilk is not going to work this time. Read something from an Israeli who is not a Haaretz reader. Commenter_XY 's view is a moderate one.
In order to defeat the Nazis, many people that were not Nazis were killed.
Hamas is worse. The only reason they haven't surpassed the Holocaust is lack of opportunity, rather than lack of will.
Would you argue that Sherman's March to the Sea or the destruction of several dozen Southern cities was just "handing away the moral high ground"?
What is wrong with that statement?
I don't recall the electricity the Brits provided the Nazis and the fuel we gave Imperial Japan.
Other than that putting it into practice would be a war crime?
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-23?activeTab=undefined
Free passage is not provision. Israel is not going to interfere with shipments thru the Egypt crossing.
What "international law" requires Israel to keep the electric flowing to its enemy?
https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2023/04/20/protection-energy-infrastructure-armed-conflict/
No infrastructure is being targeted, destroyed or damaged.
Try again.
Those who promote Israel (and Israel's right-wing nuttery and superstition-laced government in particular) as a left-right divider in American politics yet claim to be genuinely interested in justice and Israel's future are difficult to understand, for reasons that include practical and moral considerations. They also tend to ignore Israel's chronic misconduct, which is costing Israel support among Americans it seems foolish to squander.
From a broader perspective, I hope adults quit fighting over superstition.
I guess Arthur doesn't think people shouting "Allahu Akbar" are superstition-based.
Every superstition-based position is silly, suitable solely for gullible children of all ages.
I too have many relatives in Israel.
I think your comments are absolutely correct, except for this:
moderate liberals are more likely to ally with radical anti-liberal leftists than with moderate conservatives
Simply false. I consider my self a "moderate liberal." I don't like leftist radicals at all. I could "ally myself" with moderate conservatives on some issues, if there were more than a handful to be found.
bernard11, I hope everything works out with your extended family. Truly, may they be safe and sound. Hopefully they are not south of the area between Ashkelon and Beer'Sheva. It is Ground Zero.
" if there were more than a handful to be found."
I find myself wondering how you define "moderate conservative", then, and how much that definition differs from how you'd define moderate liberals.
The same thing can be said about you (and all of us).
I don't pretend to be a moderate. I'm a radical libertarian who joined the GOP because campaign 'reforms' had made third parties futile. My ideal President would be somebody like Rand Paul, and you know how HE did in the primaries last time around.
I actually think there are a lot of moderate liberals. They're not really in control of the party at this point, the radicals have them intimidated, (The only people who AREN'T intimidated at this point are radical left-wingers. Because they're the ones intimidating people!) but they're around.
But, seriously, I'd love to know how Bernard defines "moderate conservative", that he thinks there are so few.
I actually think there are a lot of moderate conservatives. They’re not really in control of the party at this point, the radicals have them intimidated, (The only people who AREN’T intimidated at this point are radical right-wingers. Because they’re the ones intimidating people!) but they’re around.
HEY!
That works the other way too!!!
you're not actually a radical libertarian at all, but are actually just a bog-standard conservative.
He might be a libertarian by the standards of this faux libertarian blog, which make just about everyone a libertarian.
Man who can't tell the difference between a conservative and a strawman proudly tells other people what their beliefs are.
It is anathema in the GOP today for "moderate" conservatives, however you want to define that term, to cooperate or compromise with any Democrats, moderate or otherwise. Hence, even if we let you define "moderate conservative" such that there are more than a handful, there aren't even a handful with whom moderate liberals can ally.
And I think that's where bernard is coming from, and certainly it is where I am coming from. How is someone a "moderate" conservative, but won't ally with moderate Democrats to do things that non-moderates on both sides don't want to do but the majority of Americans do want them to do?
Moderate Democrats have shown for years, with great examples from the 1990s, Bush's two terms, Obama's two terms, and Trump's one term, that they will compromise and work across the aisle. Republicans have become more and more reticent to compromise even to reach solutions they want, such that, at this point, they won't agree to any compromise with Democrats (or, I suppose, there are a few examples when they did, but then McCarthy reneged on the deal).
The problem isn't that moderate liberals are more willing or eager to ally with far leftists, it's that they can only ally with who is willing to ally with them. And moderate conservatives, to the extent they exist, simply haven't been willing to do so for at least 14 years.
I could “ally myself” with moderate conservatives on some issues, if there were more than a handful to be found.
Try getting out of your parents’ basement once in a while. Also, realize that you're not the spokesman for "moderate liberals".
…nice example of the reply of the non-moderate conservative, speaking as the self-appointed spokesman of the moderate liberal.
(Speaking as a natural moderate conservative by temperament, who finds I must ally with moderate liberals in hopes of any realistic achievement in sustaining and managing—that is, conserving—the conservative traditions of classical western liberalism.)
…nice example of the reply of the non-moderate conservative, speaking as the self-appointed spokesman of the moderate liberal.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
If you can't find "more than a handful" of moderate conservatives, that's on you for not looking. There are many around - including a great many here.
(Yes, there are also some rabid trolls - on both sides. You don't get to blame conservatives for not controlling their trolls while entirely failing to control the trolls on your own side.)
When Mitt Romney is his version of "literal Hitler" far-right conservative just up until he can use him to attack other conservatives is it any wonder he cannot find many?
Two words
"Never Again"
Frank "You weren't chosen for a reason"
I remember when we needed to keep the Iranian Revolutionaries' friends out of the White House, David Bernstein couldn't shut up about not liking Trump. That made sense later when David Bernstein was able to get his book published.
Here's a test, which in my experience almost all rightist zionists fail. As a compromise, why don't the ~7.5 million Isrealis and the ~7.5 million Palestinians simply trade places? Israelis get to live the exact sorts of lives today's Palestinians live. 2 million go live in the open-air prison on the Gaza Strip, with the blockade and all the deprivations of basic needs that entails. The remainder go to the occupied West Bank, where Palestinians can harass them at will with the backing of the security forces.
I've asked zionists many times whether they would accept this reasonable compromise arrangement, and I've never received an unequivocal "yes." [Source: trust me bro]. Therefore, I must conclude that zionists are ok with genocide, as long as its being done to the Palestinians.
The answer is no.
Because under your situation, Hamas would then go on to murder all of the Jews in Gaza and the West Bank. They've shown no restraint in their murder and rape of Jewish civilians.
You're fighting the hypothetical, not answering it. The question is whether Israelis would accept the exact sort of lives Palestinians now live. They would suffer the same amount of murders and rapes the Palestinians do today - no more and no less.
I guess that's like asking why the prison guards won't trade places with the prisoners. Why should they? It's not like THEY'RE robbers and murderers.
Granted, the prisoners live worse lives, and the prison guards handle the mechanics of it. But the prisoners aren't without responsibility for their own situation.
Hamas has just demonstrated, yet again, why Gaza isn't as nice a place as Israel.
Find me a Moose-lum country that is (OK, maybe France)
"I guess that’s like asking why the prison guards won’t trade places with the prisoners."
That's exactly right. Gazans are, for all intents and purposes, prisoners. And Israel is their guards.
The difference is that generally we expect people to be put in prison only for having committed some crime. But the Palestinians' only crime was existing and being in the way of the zionists. Sure, once they were imprisoned, some of them formed into prison gangs, and those gangs sometimes attack the guards. But that does nothing to justify what was, from its inception, entirely wrongful imprisonment.
"But the Palestinians’ only crime was existing and being in the way of the zionists."
More revisionism. Their crime was installing a government whose sworn purpose was destruction of its neighbor. And then supporting that government. As I said below, at the time of the Gaza withdrawal, Gaza was supposed to become the Singapore of the MIddle East. Had the Gazans chosen that route, they would have received huge support, and their lives would be far more pleasant that they are today. And 80% of Israelis would be begging to repeat the process in the West Bank.
Really, do you think that brown-skinned people lack agency?
Yes, you said some stupid bullshit about Singapore earlier, and you repeated it again. But what you did not do is explain how they were supposed to become like Singapore WHILE UNDER A BLOCKADE. A blockade that was in effect prior to Hamas being voted into power.
And you again show yourself to be a useful idiot. It was an arms blockade. Nothing stopped peaceful shipments. There was talk, for example, that hothouses left by Israel would be used to grow flowers for sale in Europe. Nothing done by Israel prevented development of that industry, to the contrary it was encouraged. But the Palestinians, true to form, destroyed those facilities.
And you again show yourself to be a useful idiot.
Hey there, buddy...you're playing awfully fast and loose with the word "useful".
That's the delusional, disaffected, bigoted, autistic, antisocial, backwater, conservative view.
Kirkland, what if this was reversed -- if Israelis went into Gaza and raped women and murdered children at random in an UNPROVOKED attack....
What would make you think Israelis — operating behind American skirts — would do such a thing?
Of course not; Judaism isn't a death cult. If the positions were reversed, Israelis would compromise, accepting less than maximalist terms to end the conflict — just as they did in the 1940s, and have continued to try to do since.
Why isn't this offer on the table, then? Israelis could have peace tomorrow if they gave the Palestinians their homeland back and went to live in Gaza.
"and have continued to try to do since."
This is utter bullshit, and frankly its embarrassing for you to even make such a claim. Tell me, what "less than maximalist terms" have Israel offered the Palestinians in the past 20 years? The fact is, no Israeli leader has sought peace in good faith since Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by far-right Zionists.
Aunt Teefah 36 mins ago
"Why isn’t this offer on the table, then? Israelis could have peace tomorrow if they gave the Palestinians their homeland back and went to live in Gaza."
Present day Israel isnt exactly the palestinian homeland. Pre 600 ad or so, it was the jewish homeland, then taken over by the muslim.
By the 1880s, with the zionist movement, jews began purchasing tracts of land, and due to the increased productivity to the region, palestinans from jordan began migrating into the area. Then the arabs attack in 1948 at which time, both jordan and egypt blocked their exit from the area. Palestinians were blocked from exiting the area because the rest of the arab world did not like the palestinians.
In summary, its disputed that the land of Israel is their "homeland".
Sure; when they chant "from the River to the Sea," they mean "Except Gaza."
Hardliners on both sides of this conflict want "river to the sea." I'm proposing a reasonable compromise.
I think you are forgetting that in the late 1990s, under the mediation of President Clinton, Israel offered the PLO(widely recognized as the leader of the Palestinians at the time) 95% of what the PLO said they wanted. The PLO said no.
...refused to make a counter-offer, walked out, and IIRC began an intifada.
Sought peace in good faith with whom?
Past 20 years, eh? Less than 20 years ago, Israel completely evacuated Gaza, turning it over completely to PA control.
Bingo. This is exactly why I say that Oslo is dead, disengagement is dead, and coexistence is not possible. = Less than 20 years ago, Israel completely evacuated Gaza, turning it over completely to PA control
Why isn’t this offer on the table, then? Israelis could have peace tomorrow if they gave the Palestinians their homeland back and went to live in Gaza.
Here is where we can all point at you and say, "see what a useful idiot looks like." If that ever happened, the Palestinians would simply take advantage of it to slaughter all the Jews, whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or anywhere else there. As they have said they plan on doing for the last 75 years.
The time for talk is over, it's time to exterminate Hamas.
Yeah, I have to agree with this.
For all of the issues recently, it's certainly true that the last, best hope for peace was the attempt by Ehud Barak.
And somehow Arafat managed to snatch a No from the jaws of Yes, and everyone has been living with the fallout from that ever since.
No, he is showing that your hypothetical is absurd and ahistoric. The Palestinians are in the position they are in because of 75 years of rejectionism and intransigence. And barbaric terrorism.
How is it a hypothetical? We’ve seen what Israel has done for their people over the last 50 years and what the other guys did for theirs.
Israel, in fact, did not "accept" conditions as they were. Instead, they worked hard and improved things. They made amazing progress.
Destructive people aren’t somehow owed the same outcomes as people who work every day and build things. Not in Israel (or Palestine if you like) nor anywhere else.
Well put.
(source)
Or, just for example, Hamas could just have not attacked Israel at every opportunity since it took power almost 20 years ago, and instead built Gaza into a thriving Mediterranean enclave living at peace with Israel, serving a model for a thriving Palestinian state in both Gaza and the West Bank. Of course, Hamas is utterly incapable of that because they are medieval religious fanatics who think they have a sworn duty to murder Jews on behalf of Islam, but that alternative was always open to them. OTOH, if Israel declared that it would no longer resort to arms to defend itself, the outcome would not exactly be a thriving Mediterraenan enclave, but millions of dead Jews.
Be careful there, Zionism looks like medieval religious fanaticism to the rest of us.
Given that modern Zionism has been a largely secular movement from its beginning, that's the second embarrasingly ignorant comment of the day.
Oh please. That's like saying Judaism is a largely secular religion. Zionism has had the support of secular governments for various reasons, but we all know why it's capitalized.
Nice deflections though!
Because its root is a proper noun?
And "oh please" yourself. He wasn't talking about governments. He was talking about members of the Zionist movement. The modern version of which — the version that actually led to Medinat Yisrael — was a largely secular movement looking for a secular solution to a secular problem.
Is Judaism a religion? Was Palestine chosen because it's the "ancestral homeland" for members of that religion?
There's no "secular" reason that it's gotta be Palestine. The whole claim rests on religious identity and history. Hence "medieval religious fanaticism."
Not to mention the Jerusalem nonsense. If Zionism is so secular and Palestine so fanatical, just give them Jerusalem. No skin off Israel's ideology, am I right?
(wrong post)
What do you suppose would befall the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem were it ceded to the Palestinian Authority? Feel free to incorporate the events of the last few days into your prognosis.
As part of a peace deal? Well, they'd become Palestinian Jews, unless they decided to move into Israel proper.
You didn't answer his question: what do you suppose would befall them?
I don't think all the Jews will get murdered after a peace deal that they agree to if that's what you're getting at.
Any peace deal would involve some Jews finding themselves Palestinian Jews. If you think that's a deal-breaker then you don't want peace at all, Jerusalem or not.
No peace deal will involve some Jews finding themselves Palestinian Jews.
Judaism is an ethnicity and is also the religion of those of us with that ethnicity. That’s how one can be an atheist Jew with no contradiction.
Zionism at root is the proposition that the ethnic group that calls itself Jews should have the right to self-determination, and that to be exercised in its traditional and historical homeland.
This is why anti-Zionism is often enough fapp anti-Semitism, because it denies to Jews a right that anti-Zionists are only too willing to extend to minorities everywhere else from Kurds to Rohingya.
(wrong post)
These hypothetical hypocrites don't impress me. I certainly don't think the Kurds have any more inherent right to Kurdistan than the Jews do to Israel.
I'm also not impressed by opportunistically disclaiming the religious aspects of Judaism. Let me put it this way. Judaism is the only ethnic group that I could voluntarily convert to.
I don't deny that Zionism has secular aspects or that Judaism has ethnic aspects. Do you deny that they both have religious aspects?
Let me put it this way: you're still getting it wrong. Jews are not an "ethnic group" either. We're a people. You can "voluntarily convert" (bad terminology, and leaves out some important factors, such as the fact that you can't do it unilaterally) to being an American.
It doesn't matter to me whether you call it an ethnicity or a people. SRG2 calls it an ethnicity. That's the term I see used most often.
Still think you're lame for refusing to admit that it's a religion.
Still think you’re lame for refusing to admit that it’s a religion.
Because it is an ethnicity, and always has been...you moron.
Is Judaism a religion?
If you’re so fundamentally ignorant of the subject that you don’t know that it’s a little more complicated than your 3rd grader’s take on it then you really ought to just clam up. In fact that’s pretty good advice for you when it comes to most everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
And this should really blow what passes for your “mind”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism
Also…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_secularism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Muslims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Hindus
LOL! Did you actually read any of the Wiki links you posted? They quite clearly spell out that none of the groups identified by the terms being addressed are members of a religion.
Yeah that's the point McDuh.
Yeah that’s the point McDuh.
Do you have ANY functioning brain cells remaining?
I'm sorry that you can't comprehend what's even happening. Why don't you leave the big-boy conversations to me and DN.
Why don’t you leave the big-boy conversations to me
That's like asking why one doesn't leave the management of a nuclear reactor to a baboon.
Jews are a people, not a mere religious group. Palestine was chosen because it's the ancestral homeland for members of that people.
Eh. You can say the same thing about all religions to one extent or another. Pointing out that religion is about more than just the theology doesn’t make Judaism secular.
And yet the terrorists who went on a spree of raping, kidnapping, and murdering civilians didn’t seem to be terribly focused on their victims’ religious beliefs, and instead targeted them purely based on ethnic identity.
Hmmmm.
Pointing out that religion is about more than just the theology
That's not what anyone has been pointing out.
You really are as dumb as a stump.
Who is "us?"
Non-monotheists.
Randal - Tha comment is utter stupid even by your standards. It also shows your true colors as a pro-hamas anti-semite.
You're stupid even by my standards.
"… Zionism looks like medieval religious fanaticism…"
Here’s a graph of per capita GDP:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-gdp-per-capita
Either you’re wrong because you’re in dumb hater mode today or "medieval religious fanaticism" is a successful policy that leads to mass long term prosperity. Your choice.
you’re in dumb hater mode today
Today?
"built Gaza into a thriving Mediterranean enclave"
How are they supposed to have done that? They've been under a blockade for the entirety of their existence! They can barely get enough to eat and shelter themselves (and often can't even get that). Were they meant to have built a successful autarky on a 20-mile strip of desert?
You live in a fantasyland.
No, you do. There were given enormous resources, which, it was promised, they would use to build themselves into the Singapore of the Middle East. They decided instead to take the path of war. Surprise, surprise, the country that they want to direct their war against (not Egypt or Jordan) actually took measures to contain them.
nt Teefah 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“built Gaza into a thriving Mediterranean enclave”
How are they supposed to have done that? They’ve been under a blockade for the entirety of their existence!"
Aunt Teefah - are you really that stupid and gullible - Look at a map - one border with Israel, one boarder with Egypt and the rest border by the mediterian.
You're really calling other people stupid when you don't know that Egypt enforces a blockade on its border too, and that Israel enforces a naval blockade on the Mediterranean? Dumbass.
you don’t know that Egypt enforces a blockade on its border too, and that Israel enforces a naval blockade on the Mediterranean? Dumbass.
You do know that those "blockades" are not absolute, right? And both have been eased quite a bit over the past 13 years, including allowing so-called "dual-use" good through. The Rafah border crossing with Egypt has been open since 2011....dumbass.
Not only do they border the Mediterranean, but Gaza was a port going back to the bronze age.
And the 'blockade' only started in 2005. They'd had limited self-government since the 90s, and could easily have started developing local industry in that time. They didn't.
Aunt Teefah 6 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"You’re really calling other people stupid when you don’t know that Egypt enforces a blockade on its border too, and that Israel enforces a naval blockade on the Mediterranean?"
I am absolutely calling you stupid - Just like every other useful idiot that parrots discredited Hama's / plo/pa talking points.
20 miles of beach....
Did the Israelis force them to destroy greenhouses?
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9331863
"My medieval religious fanatics are better than your medieval religious fanatics."
Good luck with that one.
Do any of your actually imaginary interlocutors tell you that you're a fucking moron who doesn't know what genocide actually is?
If it were to happen the Jews would turn Gaza into a thriving region ( assuming of course that the Palestinians would only attack assuming the same provocations that Israel responded to). I base this on the fact that before Israel withdrew from Gaza that the Jewish populace had built up several industries there that conducted business worldwide. Of course within a year of Israel's withdrawal dozens of greenhouses were destroyed by Palestinians and the Palestinians almost immediately began rocket and terrorist attacks. If the Palestinians had focused on making Gaza a better place instead of wasting the literally billions in aid to buy weapons and paying the families of suicide bombers they would be much better off.
I must conclude that zionists are ok with genocide, as long as its being done to the Palestinians.
The "Palestinian" population has increased to over 500% of what it was in 1960. That's got to be the most ineffective genocide ever.
Obviously this action by Hamas is terrible and stupid, and should be condemned.
There are two problems with this argument. One is that Zionism, as implemented, has resulted in the murder, expulsion, and oppression of 10s of millions of Palestinians. So you don't have to be antisemitic to look at the ledger and say well, on balance, what's the best way to protect the most people? (I know you'll find a reason to blame the victims here, but that same tool is available to the antizionists.)
Second, I suspect many antizionists would give you an unequivocal "no" to the murder / oppression of the Israeli Jews, but their expulsion... I mean if the whole point of antizionism is to question their claim to Israel, relocating them is probably not as unthinkable to an antizionist as it may be to you. Expulsion isn't genocide.
Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what an antizionist is. Do you have to be either a Zionist or an antizionist, or is there a middle ground?
Anyone who thinks there are "tens of millions" of Palestinians shouldn't really be commenting on matters, unless they enjoy embarrassing themselves.
I’m aware of how many there are now, a number which Israel shouldn’t be proud of by the way. What I said was
Millions of Palestinians have already been murdered or expelled. Only the oppressed remain.
Growth of Palestine
Since 1960 to 2020, the population of Israel increased from 2.1M to 8.1M, accomplished mostly by immigration.
In that same period, the population of the Palestinians increased from 1.1M to 5.1M, a somewhat larger percentage, accomplished mostly by reproduction, because who'd move to Gaza?
Damn, that's one incompetent genocide the Israelis are carrying out.
I never said Israel was engaged in genocide. That’s a word only people named David like to throw around.
Go live in fucking Gaza if you love them so much
It is increasingly difficult to remember that this purports to be an "academic" blog.
"Therefore, I must conclude that zionists are ok with genocide, as long as its being done to the Palestinians." -- Aunt Teefah, October 9, 2023 at 11:24 a.m.
"I’m aware of how many there are now, a number which Israel shouldn’t be proud of by the way."
What, then, did you mean to imply by that?
Randal 5 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
I never said Israel was engaged in genocide. That’s a word only people named David like to throw around.
Randal - "There are two problems with this argument. One is that Zionism, as implemented, has resulted in the murder, expulsion, and oppression of 10s of millions of Palestinians. "
Randal your denial is pure BS -
What do you mean? It looks like you just confirmed my statement.
Lots of wars result in the murder, expulsion, and oppression of lots of people. They aren't all genocides.
I never said nor think that Israel is engaged in a genocide against the Palestinians.
Randal
You either dont know history or you are one of hama's useful idiots
You clearly stated that the zionist movement murdered palestinians
the zionist movement was the movement to create a jewish homeland - ie Israel - thus you definitely implied that the people of the state Israel murdered palestinians.
I didn't just imply it. Obviously the people of the state of Israel murdered Palestinians.
Do you know what genocide even means? It doesn't mean murder committed by the people of a state, if that's what you think.
Randal - you sure as H4ll did
Again you are demonstrating that you are a complete antisemitic parroting discredited talking points
You've lost me now. Are you drunk?
There have never been tens of millions of Palestinians, so I don't know what your emphasis of the word "now" is supposed to signify.
There are that many today, just not in Palestine.
Obviously if you count the Palestinians who've died in the last 100 years, it's... more.
Not clear why you think PCBS is a reliable source, but "14.3 million" is not "tens of millions."
Now you're just quibbling.
Now you’re just quibbling.
If by "quibbling" you mean "demonstrating what a complete and utter fucking moron Randal is", then....yeah.
Not only that, but there are more people alive today than have ever died. And Israel’s history only goes back a couple generations. So it’s highly unlikely there have ever been even 20 million Palestines across all time periods who experienced anything related to Israel.
(Much of the diaspora, of course, has also been born abroad, and never lived in Palestine).
This is a dumbass myth, of course.
Look, I'll be the first to admit that I'm extremely poorly informed about the Middle East. You guys have had every opportunity to convince me using reasonable arguments. You've all totally failed. I appear to be the most knowledgeable, having disproven with evidence pretty much every fact that any of you have put forth. What am I to conclude but that you all are driven more by prejudice and ideology than reason?
You guys have had every opportunity to convince me using reasonable arguments.
If clearly and easily proving that your claim was utter bullshit doesn't convince you then any effort to convince you of anything is a fool's errand and a complete waste of time.
Look, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m extremely poorly informed about the Middle East.
Why Randal, bless your heart. Just so you know, it is not just the Middle East.
You're just evil, don't talk to me.
Oh no Randal, I am just getting started. You're just a dirtbag, POS antisemite. I'll be reminding you of that - daily.
If you want to. I'm curious though what I've said that you think is antisemitic.
Anyone who thinks that millions of Palestinians have already been murdered or expelled shouldn’t really be commenting on matters, unless they enjoy embarrassing themselves.
See above for numbers.
Setting aside your credulous reliance upon the PA for your data, and setting aside conflating emigration and expulsion, the vast majority of the people counted as the Palestinian diaspora were not "expelled." They have never been anywhere near Palestine in the first place. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was not expelled from Ireland, even if his ancestors did come here to escape the potato famine.
“The Palestinian Diaspora” Le Monde Diplomatique
Middle East: Palestine www . persecution . org
Did you bother to read your own source? The generally accepted number for "1948 refugees" — as cited there — is about 700,000. Many left voluntarily rather than having been expelled, but even if you treat all of them as expelled, you get, you know: 700,000. Add a couple of hundred thousand more from 1967, and you do not get "millions."
There's them, which is ~million, then the rest of the diaspora, which is ~million I guess, then the murders and deaths. What do you want exactly? I'm not a census-taker. Would you accept million(s)? This just seems like more quibbling to me.
You don't set it aside when you perceive an opportunity for disingenuous partisan advantage.
"Millions of Palestinians have already been murdered or expelled."
not nearly enough obviously.
I think Bibi has a "Solution"
Frank
Randal 3 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
"I’m aware of how many there are now, a number which Israel shouldn’t be proud of by the way. What I said was
Zionism, as implemented, has resulted in the murder, expulsion, and oppression of 10s of millions of Palestinians.
Millions of Palestinians have already been murdered or expelled. Only the oppressed remain."
Randal - you have greatly exceeded level of stupidity that even the most rabid of anti-semites.
You have greatly exceeded your own stupidity.
If you adjust for its smaller population way more Israelis killed this weekend than Amuricans on "9-11"
No one cares about Australian progressives. Tell us about the NY Times. Is it pro-Israel or anti-Israel. I expect it to be pro-Israel. But its coverage of this war is sympathetic to the Palestinian Arabs.
"I expect it to be pro-Israel."
It never has been. The ownership family opposed zionism and the creation of Israel.
This incident offers a useful lesson on why, to paraphrase Jefferson, you don't grab a wolf by the ears. Throughout history, from Spartacus, to Haiti, to the Warsaw ghetto, oppressed people have risen up and exacted brutal revenge on their oppressors. There is nothing unique, or inherently Islamic, about the Palestinians' response. Israel is simply reaping the highly foreseeable consequences of what it has sown.
So condemn Hamas' brutality, if you must. But the ultimate blame rests, as always, with the oppressors.
Yes, those Jews forgot that their job is to be the world's victims, and just let their people be slaughtered. Can't let Jews defend themselves, can we.
Since we are engaging in hypotheticals, here is one. Suppose Israel lost the 6-day war. Would it now be "occupied territory." We all know the answer to that: there would have been Holocaust II, this time on the Mediterranean instead of in Eastern Europe.
So what did Israel do right after winning that war? Offer to give everything back in exchange for full recognition. To which the Arab world said: NO. Israel could have committed genocide then or expelled every last Arab. It didn't. Instead, it let the population live, but under occupation to ensure that the same attack did not happen again.
And then useful idiots like you call that "oppression."
Here is what you can condemn, "if you must."
https://twitter.com/rose_k01/status/1711032784133972321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1711032784133972321%7Ctwgr%5Eeaff8f4ac7ce21530cbbd03c30c3f1dd07da1219%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvinnews.com%2F2023%2F10%2F09%2Fhorrific-israeli-foreign-minister-footage-of-israeli-toddlers-in-cages-in-gaza-is-real%2F
Aunt Teefah is above that, because her leftist ideology tells her that these children are the "oppressors" and responsible for their fate.
The price Israel seems committed to paying for its right-wing belligerence is likely to be quite severe.
But that's their call (not mine, except when America stops subsidizing Israel's right-wing, superstition-infused misconduct). It's their funeral.
"So condemn Hamas’ brutality, if you must."
But the enlightened ones like you don't feel any such compulsion, do you?
I can't help but feel squeamish about some of their actions. I do not like civilians being harmed. If Hamas' leadership were to ask my opinion, I would tell them I think it is both morally wrong and a strategic mistake. But until that happens, I, as a US citizen, see no use in condemning desperate people for doing desperate things. Better to focus on why they were made to be desperate in the first place.
So desperate that it didn't occur to Hamasa to, say, stop attacking Israel and reach a (real) peace accord, which Israel would have welcomed at any time since Hamas took over Gaza, and would have led to prosperity and peace. I guess their desperation was so great that murdering Jews, in the process ensuring that Gazans would remain desperately poor and isolated. Nothing to do with their murderous ideology. They were just too desperate to think peace was an option.
It really is that simple. Hamas recognises Israel, continues to run Gaza, stops lobbing rockets into civilian areas, stops building tunnels into Israel (a major diversion of resources that pro-Palestinians prefer not to mention) and Gaza could develop into a comfortable city-state.
But no.
The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto did not "rise up and exact brutal revenge on their oppressors." They attempted to defend themselves against genocide, and lost.
Shhhhh. Don't let facts get in the way of her moral infantilism.
A good summary of foreign policy mistakes that occurred during the Obama administrationthat have enhanced the ME problems that have existed for the last 70 or so years.
Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He courted Turkey’s theocrat Recep Tayyip Erdogan as ‘a strong Turkey that would step in and take on the role of a strong power in the Middle East that would allow the U.S. to step back,’ a Turkey expert told Politico in 2016. He left Iraq in the hands of Iranian puppet masters. And most infamously of all, he ceded the Syrian battlefield to, of all people, Vladimir Putin. What’s unfolding in Israel today is part of the plan, the broken eggs of the policy omelette. By the logic of Obama’s foreign policy, a hard strike to Israel could catalyse the balance-of-power reset that the former president had envisioned and for which he laid the policy infrastructure. For Obama, condemnation of Hamas actions would make little sense: in his eyes, the group’s attack is no more than a playing-out of the power logic precisely because Hamas is an extension of Iran.”
Don't forget Bush I's contribution in forcing Israel into negotiations when the PLO was weak enough to be eradicated, Clinton promoting the Osldo accords while allowing Arafat to routinely violate them, and, most important in this particular context, Bush II ignoring advice and please from both the Palestinian Authority and Israel not to hold elections in Gaza that Hamas was likely to win.
concur.
Somewhat similar to the actions of roosevelt starting in 1941 when insured the soviet takeover of eastern europe.
As Drackman pointed out to me yesterday, blowing up people for typos is suspect. Fair enough. That said: would you want to learn conLaw as a 1L from someone posting this?
“ Don’t forget Bush I’s contribution in forcing Israel into negotiations when the PLO was weak enough to be eradicated, Clinton promoting the Osldo [sic] accords while allowing Arafat to routinely violate them [sic] and, most important in this particular context, Bush II ignoring advice and please [sic] from both the Palestinian Authority and Israel not to hold elections in Gaza that Hamas was likely to win.”
It’s run-on, frantic, and frankly not becoming. Even St. Antonin can do better from beyond the grave via AI. David: stop posting!
“I guess their desperation was so great that murdering Jews, in the process ensuring that Gazans would remain desperately poor and isolated. Nothing to do with their murderous ideology. They were just too desperate to think peace was an option.“
This is fine as shitposting but c’mon— you can’t teach conLaw with this attitude. You remind me of Jimmy Huffman, my own con law prof (briefly).
George Mason (with South Texas, and Liberty, and Regent, and a few others) says 'hold my beer.'
BTW, today a car with two Palestinian flags flapping in the wind drove down streets in a Jewish neighborhood -- mine -- in New Jersey, with the passengers cheering. The pretense that this is merely anti-Zionism is not credible.
Nothing surprises me about the People's Republic of NJ. Teaneck?
just noting that neither country wants them and both countries blocked their exit.
Also worth noting that there was large immigration of palestinians into present day israel as jewish population turned god forsaken land into a productive enterprises starting circa 1880's through the early 1930's and even continuing until the 1948 war.
When those two countries took over Gaza and the West Bank, respectively, for 19 years, no one much cared what they wanted.
The Jordanians are mostly Palestinians.
If you go back to a 1940s map of the middle east, what was British Palestine covers most if not all of what is today Jordan as well as what is today Israel.
As I understand it, the UN gave half the Palestinian Mandate to the Jews (Israel) and half to the Arabs (Jordan) -- so the Palestinians actually HAVE a country (Jordan).
Gaza Delenda Est.
Hamas has announced that it will start murdering the kidnapped victims on live TV -- that makes the TV a legitimate military target and if the antenna is on top of an occupied apartment building, sucks to be living in it.
The term is willful blindness. Hamas says what it wants to do. As did Hitler. Those who still support it are willfully blinding themselves to their intention.
Which in law, including criminal law, is the equivalent of knowledge. (I once wrote a whole article about it.)
Naive? More like willfully blind.
(source)
More willful blindness. Do these people think that power in the Middle East derives from a majority vote, like an election for town council in Smalltown USA?
Hamas may have only had a plurality, but it is the absolute power in Gaza today, and tolerates no dissension. Hamas will do whatever it can to take power, and keep, and then slaughter every Jew in the area.
Yeah, they'll be suffering. Suffering is kinda normal when you start a war.
The credulous part is where the media accounts avoid mention of the way Hamas uses innocent shields to maximize the number of photogenic victims resulting from return fire.
If the UN can just give people and land to other countries why don't they give Ukraine to Russia and end the war? If that works they can move on to reconstituting Kurdistan and solving the Mideast mess.
More than just half. Transjordanian Palestine was about 70% of BM Palestine.
Uh huh. And there was a large immigration of Arabs into French Algeria between 1830 and the 1950s, as the pieds-noirs (European settlers) made the land productive. Is that a reason for denying the Arab Algerians their state? Should Algeria have been partitioned between an Arab state and a poed-noir state, as Palestine was (under the 1947 General Assembly resolution) to be partitioned between an Arab state and a Jewish state?
there wasnt a state prior to the zionist movement.
Why not? Is it written in stone somewhere that high productivity people have to keep repeating the mistakes of: 1) Allowing low skill immigration; and 2) Letting those people and their low skilled descendants gain political power?
The women and children and innocent men who will suffer started the war?
That’s not an accurate quotation or timeframe, but I figured out that it’s because you are evil.
It won't be Hamas that imposes most of the cost of right-wing belligerence on Israel.