The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Those Who Support Israel Against Hamas Should also Back Ukraine Against Russia
The justifications for backing Israel's struggle also apply in spades to Ukraine's.

Hamas' shocking terrorist attack against Israel has galvanized bipartisan support for Israel's cause in the US. But many conservative Republicans who back Israel simultaneously oppose continued support for Ukraine in its struggle against the very similar assault by Russia. GOP Sen. Josh Hawley says "[a]ny funding for Ukraine should be redirected to Israel immediately." This pro-Israel/anti-Ukraine stance is incoherent. The moral and strategic rationales for backing Israel also apply to Ukraine, in some cases with even greater force. Both states are liberal democracies threatened by authoritarian mass murderers who seek to destroy them. And Russian atrocities are strikingly similar to those of Hamas, except on a much larger scale. There is no good moral justification for supporting Israel's cause that does not also apply to Ukraine's. The strategic rationale for backing Israel also applies to Ukraine, with at least equal force.
I fully recognize that pro-Israel/anti-Ukraine and support for both aren't the only possible combinations of views on these issues. Some Western leftists are pro-Ukraine and anti-Israel. And some people (e.g. right-wing anti-Semites, anti-American far leftists, consistently dovish/isolationist libertarians) oppose aid to both Ukraine and Israel. But, at least in the US, these latter two positions are relatively marginal. From President Biden on down, mainstream liberal Democratic supporters of Ukraine overwhelmingly back Israel against Hamas, as well, with rare exceptions such as members of the "Squad." Those who oppose aid to both Israel and Ukraine are, if anything, even more marginal. By contrast, pro-Israel/anti-Ukraine is the position of a large part of the political right.
Thus, in this post, I focus on critiquing the pro-Israel/anti-Ukraine position. It's the most politically significant alternative to supporting both.
Hamas's atrocities are now well-known to anyone who has followed this conflict, or just watches the news. They have slaughtered innocent civilians, including numerous women, children and even babies. Hamas terrorists have also taken numerous hostages, including kidnapping small children for that purpose. And it is likely they have engaged in widespread rape and sexual assault.
Russian forces in Ukraine have committed all the same types of atrocities - and on a much larger scale. Like Hamas, the Russian army has deliberately targeted and massacred civilians. They have gone so far as bombing maternity wards, and leveling entire cities. Like Hamas terrorists, Russian troops have engaged in mass rape and torture of civilians. And, like Hamas, the Russians have abducted civilians, including many children. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, because of his involvement in the child abductions. The number of Ukrainian children seized is likely in the tens of thousands or higher.
Russia is also similar to Hamas in seizing civilian hostages - including Americans - to exchange for its criminal operatives. For example, they detained US basketball player Brittany Griner, and eventually exchanged her for Viktor Bout, a Russian intelligence asset and arms supplier to terrorists. The latest such Russian hostage-taking is the detention of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich. Russia's hostage-taking operations have more of a veneer of legality than Hamas's, usually including trumped-up charges of one kind or another. But that should not mislead us about their true nature.
Just as Hamas seeks to destroy Israel entirely and impose a brutal despotism over the conquered land, so Putin seeks to establish Russian rule over all of Ukraine (which he denies has any right to exist as a separate nation), and impose the same sort of tyrannical regime that he established in Russia itself, and previously occupied Ukrainian territories. Neither's ambitions are confined to marginal territorial adjustments.
While Russia's atrocities are similar to those of Hamas, there is an enormous difference in scale. Hamas's recent onslaught has killed over 1000 Israeli civilians (a figure likely to rise as the victims are counted more fully). Innocent civilian victims of Putin's war number in the tens of thousands. The Russian military have also raped and tortured far more people, and kidnapped vastly more children than Hamas.
This difference is not because Hamas is more ethical than Putin. If they could kill as many Israeli civilians as Russia has Ukrainian ones, they would surely do it. But the difference in scale matters when it comes to assessing the moral urgency of the situation. Other things equal, larger-scale atrocities deserve higher priority. They certainly cannot be assigned a lower one.
Hamas' radical Islamist ideology is not only at odds with Israel, but with Western liberal democratic values more generally. They seek to establish a brutal medieval despotism, suppressing dissent, religious minorities, and LGBT people, among other victims. Putin's Russia is a similarly brutal tyranny. It too suppresses dissent, persecutes minorities, and oppresses gays and lesbians. And, like the radical Islamists, Putin has repeatedly made clear he is an enemy of Western liberal democracy, not just Ukraine. His anti-liberal crusade long predates the current Ukraine war. Like Hamas, the Putin regime is an enemy of the West generally, not just of its immediate opponent on the battlefield.
Russia is a far larger and more potent enemy than Hamas could ever be - even in combination with its Iranian sponsors. And it's worth noting that those Iranian sponsors back Russia, as well. All of that strengthens the purely strategic case for helping Ukraine against Russia, even aside from moral considerations. That case is at least as strong as the strategic rationale for backing Israel against Hamas.
The Israeli and Ukrainian governments are not perfect paragons of virtue. There are genuine wrongs in Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, including violations of civil liberties, and unjust seizures of private property (partly curbed by the Israeli Supreme Court). The present right-wing government's effort to neuter the judiciary (now suspended as a result of the war) threatens to create a dangerous tyranny of the majority, if it were to pass. Ukrainian government policy also has illiberal aspects, which I have condemned.
But, despite very real flaws, there is a vast moral chasm between Ukraine and Israel on the one hand, and their respective enemies on the other. The former are functioning, if highly imperfect, liberal democracies. The latter are horrific tyrannies. In each conflict, one side systematically targets civilians, rapes and tortures the innocent, kidnaps children, and takes hostages, while the other does not.
As always, there is a risk that even liberal states with a just cause will engage in unjust policies during wartime. America's own history has all too many examples, such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. We should not give either Israel or Ukraine a blank check in this regard. But there is an enormous difference between a state that has liberal values, yet sometimes fails to live up to them, and one that utterly rejects those values, as Russia and Hamas do.
Just as we should not overlook Israeli and Ukrainian shortcomings, we should also be careful to avoid undifferentiated demonization of Russians and Palestinians. In previous writings about the Russia-Ukraine War I have criticized imputations of collective guilt to Russians, and made the case for opening Western doors to Russians fleeing Putin's regime. Most of this reasoning is readily applicable to Palestinians, too. But recognizing that Putin's dictatorship and Hamas don't stand for all Russians and Palestinians is entirely compatible with recognizing that we should back efforts to defeat both of these evil regimes. If defeat leads to the collapse of one or both of them, so much the better! Recognizing the humanity of Russians and Gaza Palestinians entails recognition that they deserve to be free of the tyrants that currently rule them.
On all these moral dimensions, there is no good reason to back Israel, but not Ukraine. Both have flaws, but are vastly preferable to their adversaries.
A final possible reason to back Israel, but not Ukraine, is resource constraints. Perhaps we just don't have enough money to help both. But the US aid given to Ukraine since February 2022 (about $77 billion), is barely a rounding error in the federal budget (an annualized rate of less than 1% of the $6.27 trillion in federal expenditures in fiscal year 2022). And the resulting massive damage to the Russian military - one of our principal adversaries - could well actually save us more more money in the future. The Pentagon projects Ukraine will need a similarly modest amount over the next year (about $60 billion).
Israel, which faces a far weaker enemy than Ukraine, can likely make do with much smaller amounts of US aid. If necessary, aid to Ukraine and Israel can easily be offset with elsewhere. There is no shortage of wasteful and harmful federal expenditures! If we really want to deal with our looming fiscal crisis, we should focus on the gargantuan entitlement spending that is its principal cause.
If there nonetheless is a resource tradeoff, the ally facing a more powerful opponent - Ukraine - deserves priority. Israel can, if need be, defeat Hamas with little or no US aid, beyond diplomatic support and intelligence-sharing. Israel's forces are vastly superior to Hamas's in both quantity and quality. That will remain true even if the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah enters the war. Ukraine's position relative to Russia is far more difficult. From the standpoint of US geopolitical interests, Russia is a far more important enemy to curb than Hamas, precisely because of its greater power. At the very least, there is no good reason to assign it a lower priority.
I have not, in this piece, sought to outline anything like a comprehensive US strategy for these two conflicts. Each poses a variety of tactical and strategic issues that I cannot hope to cover here. But the points made do serve the more limited purpose of showing how there is no good rationale for the position of backing Israel against Hamas, but not Ukraine against Russia. The moral and strategic rationales for the former apply with equal or even greater force to the latter.
UPDATE: The original version of this post included an incorrect calculation of the percentage of the federal budget going to aid to Ukraine. I apologize for the mistake, which I have corrected.
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
Then you should support letting every Palestinian immigrate to the US.
Oh wait, you do!
my Bad
Frank
Yes, Somin favors letting foreigners invade the USA, but takes entirely different positions for Israel and Ukraine. None of his opinions make any sense, until you realize that he is a Russian Jew.
Prof. Bernstein and the other conservative law professors at this blog will provide a pass on that one because the commenter is a right-winger
Carry on, clingers. So far as the culture war’s winners permit, that is.
Hmmm... I'm also a Russian Jew. I do not favor letting foreigners invade the USA. It isn't genetic you know.
Bit rich from the guy who argues anybody who wants to can just walk into the USA. Would it make you feel better if Hamas members and the Russian army muttered something about asylum as they "immigrated" to Israel/Ukraine?
Amazing. I almost posted something the other day about how this attack by Hamas surely must have revealed to the xenophobic right how stupid their pretense that the U.S. is being "invaded" actually is. But you people are so ridiculous that you just go on pretending that you can't tell the difference.
Excuse me, what are Ukraine and Israel doing? They're keeping out foreign elements. If Israel and Ukraine had the immigration policy that liberals want for the United States, there would be no war. Hamas would simply immigrate into Israel and the Russian army would immigrate into the Ukraine. Very curious that the OP isn't advocating for this. The reason the Ukraine/Israel invasion doesn't like the American one is that America isn't defending itself-- everybody else gets a border, often at the taxpayer expense, and we do not.
Yeah, "very curious" that you supposedly can't see the difference between economic migrants (legal or not) and an invading army with the explicit purpose of murdering people and taking territory.
Under Somin's policy prescriptions for the US, it wouldn't be an invading army. Hamas would just walk in and say they're economic migrants. If they know how to say the word 'asylum,' then Israel would be stuck taking care of them for years as the courts gradually adjudicate their asylum claim. They would then vanish into Israel and commit attacks from within. Same deal with Ukraine if they had open borders, there'd be a lot of Russian "immigrants" who would then commit attacks.
Of course they don't do this, it would be suicidally stupid. Israel and Ukraine should defend themselves and both have done so admirably. I just want the same thing for my country.
Minus the murdering, pretending there's much of a long-view difference requires IMO a rather determined hairsplitting of the words "taking" and "territory."
Yeah, minus the murdering, there's really no difference between Tom Hanks and Ted Bundy.
Hold up: you're saying Tom Hanks kidnapped dozens of girls, locked them up, raped them, and then released them without killing them? I'm clearly WAY behind on the news.
You're just like Hitler.
Minus the Nazi stuff, antisemitism, genocide, speaking talent, megalomania, limited talent as a painter, and the Chaplin mustache.
Acoording to Qanon, anyway.
'They’re keeping out foreign elements'
Fucking hell.
How can you type something this ridiculous and hit “submit?”
I'm curious how anyone could be unaware that this exact thing is part of Russia's tactics in recapturing Eastern European territory.
1. Infiltrate Russians into the area as 'peaceful immigrants'.
2. Have them organize local separatist movements.
3. Russia moves to support the separatists by invading.
4. The infiltrated Russians resume their military role.
At this point, in Eastern Europe, as soon as significant numbers of Russian 'civilians' start showing up, you know you're on the invasion list.
This isn't a tactic unique to Russia, of course, and it's significant that we've had a major uptick in male, military age Chinese illegal immigrants being caught illegally crossing over from Mexico. If China really does try to take Taiwan, expect that a lot of them will turn out to have been sleepers. I personally expect that the first move in invading Taiwan will be bringing down our own electrical grid, so that we're a bit distracted while they're doing it.
Yes, but you're a paranoid loon. None of that happened. (Yes, I'm aware of "little green men," which is not even a tiny bit like what you describe. Russia sent soldiers without uniforms to invade Ukraine; it did not send sleeper agents as immigrants to work a 50 year plan to subvert the country from within.)
I’m curious how anyone could be unaware that this exact thing is part of Russia’s tactics in recapturing Eastern European territory.
1. Infiltrate Russians into the area as ‘peaceful immigrants’.
2. Have them organize local separatist movements.
3. Russia moves to support the separatists by invading.
4. The infiltrated Russians resume their military role.
Yeah, none of that happened, more like.
1) Russia "russified" some of those populations during the USSR through various nasty mechanisms.
2) They continued to propagandize those populations through Russian media and having intelligence target the loyalties of influential locals.
3) Then, when Putin decided to invade he sent literal out of uniform soliders across the border (or outside Russian military bases in Ukraine) as "little green men".
The actual little green men part wasn't an immigration scam, it was a literal invasion with a tiny bit of deniability. And it only worked because the Ukrainian army of the day was extremely unorganized.
it’s significant that we’ve had a major uptick in male, military age Chinese illegal immigrants being caught illegally crossing over from Mexico.
If true, it's significant because young men are leaving China and looking to immigrate elsewhere.
If China really does try to take Taiwan, expect that a lot of them will turn out to have been sleepers.
That would be absolutely insanely idiotic if true.
Really, what's the plan? Kill a few dozens, maybe even hundreds of Americans? They would have zero military impact.
But anyway, lets try to guess what the US would do if attacked internally by a group associated with another government... or we do know that, it happened on 9/11. The US not only invaded Afghanistan, it invaded Iraq to because Afghanistan wasn't enough of a war and it still needed to do more invading.
So your weirdass plan for China has them galvanizing international support behind the US and drawing them into a war with China...
All because you can't imagine another reason why young men would try to illegally immigrate to the US. Despite the fact that you're simultaneously convinced half the planet would immediately immigrate to the US if given the chance.
There’s a huge difference between people who want to join your society and people who want to kill you.
If you don’t get that, you’ve been living a very carefree life.
The point is that people who want to kill you aren't above pretending to want to join your society, in order to get within killing range.
Whole new emphasis of paranoid xenophobic scaremongering being ramped up here.
News flash: Not all invasions look exactly alike.
Imagine telling Ukrainians to buck up and stop whining about being invaded because it's not like what Hamas did.
If Russia wins will the Ukrainians be genocided? If the Palestinians were to take over Israel what would happen to the Jews there? The potential consequences are vastly different. Only one side faces total extermination. There may be valid reasons to support Ukraine but to claim that support for Israel should mean support for Ukraine is just simply wrong.
The Ukrainians aren't stealth Russians. Ukrainian culture and language predates their absorption into the Soviet Union and is distinct from their Russian neighbors. (Russian propaganda notwithstanding.)
It is definitely true that Ukrainians have their own language and culture, but it is also true that most of Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire long before the advent of the USSR.
And I think Kiev ruled the land where Moscow is now ... before there was a Moscow.
And then there are the Mongols and Lithuanians and ...
At some point, people need to get over the notion that having ruled some area in the past justifies ruling over it now.
(Sorry, London and Rome!)
I never said they were stealth Russians. The fact is that Russia controlled Ukraine for decades and Ukrainian language and culture survived and would probably continue to do so if Russia wins the war. However were Hamas to gain control of Israel they would actively seek to exterminate every Jew living there. Russia does not seek the extermination of the Ukrainians while Hamas is willing to sacrifice the lives of their own people if it brings about Jewish extermination. They are not comparable.
Argue for why we should help Ukraine but there is no equivalence with what Israel faces.
The OP isn't saying the situations are equivalent. It's saying that the same rationale for supporting Israel also exists for supporting Ukraine. No two situations are ever really equivalent.
If Russia wins will the Ukrainians be genocided?
By the legal definition, yes.
Russia's explicit intent is to erase Ukrainian culture and language, and in occupied territories they're already doing that.
If the Palestinians were to take over Israel what would happen to the Jews there?
Yes, it would be worse for Jews in Israel than Ukrainians in Ukraine if the respective attackers took over. Although Russians kill indiscriminately, and would certainly murder many, many Ukrainians who refuse to "Russify", there wouldn't be a general slaughter of ethic Ukrainians if Russia took over.
However, I doubt even Hamas imagines they can actually conquer Israel, while Russia has a very real chance of conquering Ukraine if the international support drops off.
Except the USSR(Russia) controlled Ukraine for decades and Ukrainian culture and language survived and that was during a time when simply not being communist could get you exiled to Siberia. I am not saying Ukraine would be better under Russian control but Putin doesn't seem to be trying to destroy Ukraine or Ukrainian culture. His goal seems to be to rebuild a Russian Federation with him in control whereas Hamas explicitly wants to destroy and exterminate Israel and it's citizens. Russia taking over Ukraine would be bad but Hamas winning would be a catastrophe of epic proportions so demanding support for Ukraine because one supports Israel is just wrong.
The USSR was not Russia. Russian politics is now ethnonationalist. That isn’t want the USSR was. It didn’t want to root out a places culture, they didn’t really care about that one way or the other at the beginning.. It was purely religious, economic and political goals. The USSR specifically refused to eliminate local languages, unlike the previous Russian Empire. The USSR similarly reversed many policies of the Russian Empire ment to restrict local culture allow them to grow further. In some cases they even promoted it, though obviously not for noble purposes. Look up Korenizatsiya.
It was later that they reversed course and it was particularly bloody. Nationalists wanted to preserve the culture were seen as challenging the government and were systematically rooted out exiled, killed, etc. It was now about Russifying the USSR and that is exactly what Putin wants to do, only he is even more dogmatic about it.
It isn’t a conicidence that he wants Ukraine to be Russia, not its own thing under Russian rule. He is closer to the Russian Empire in this regard
"Those Who Support Israel Against Hamas Should also Back Ukraine Against Russia"
No. Also, I would rather fund neither than give Ukraine another dollar. Ilya is a prime example of why immigrants should have a cool-off time before being allowed to participate in our political system.
For more than 45 years?
And by “participate”, you mean “express an opinion about”?
If the GOP's positions and actions are any indication, it's way more than 45 years... just have a look at the way they use gerrymandering and anti-voter laws to limit participation from Black Americans.
In Ilya's case, 45 years is not enough. His children and grandchildren should not be allowed to participate.
To paraphrase your Dear Leader, why don't you just go back to whatever shithole country you came from?
I am an American. Somin posts anti-American opinions every week.
You are an un-American culture war reject. And a Republican, conservative, and Volokh Conspiracy fan . . . until replacement.
I'm not an American, but your beliefs regarding political participation still seem shockingly un-American by any definition of "America" I've seen.
Hmmm... Does that go for all immigrants, or just Russian Jews? Not sure I'm onboard...
I see funding for the two as roughly equal propositions.
But I'm not a disaffected, superstition-addled right-wing nut.
Good God! What a stupid comment.
According to Wikipedia, Prof. Somin was five when he immigrated. Just how long of a "cool-off" period did you have in mind?
The justifications for backing Israel's struggle also apply in spades to Ukraine's.
Israel is surrounded by enemies sworn to its extermination, and who would murder every inhabitant if they could.
You really suck at this false equivalence stuff.
Yeah. Russia would only kidnap Ukrainian children and farm them out to Russians, require only Russian to be spoken, set up a State secret police to punish disloyalty, end any semblance of free elections, steal everything not nailed down, etc.
Compared to what Hamas promises to do, that "only" isn't sarcastic, sadly.
My own position is that we should support both, but there are significant differences.
Hamas actually does manage to be a lot more evil than Russia. Russia is attacking Ukraine for perceived advantages to Russia, if they could get those same advantages without a war, they would. While Hamas is actually willing to accept ending up worse off to harm Israel, the harm to Israel IS what they're after.
But the biggest difference, of course, is that Russia is a nuclear power, so the upper end risk of opposing them in Ukraine is a lot higher than the risk of opposing Hamas in Israel.
Hamas is supported by the Iranian government so "worse off" is unlikely. Worse off for their Gazan neighbors, sure, but they don't give a spit about them. Iran is a near-nuclear power with a great deal of regional influence, just like Russia.
Hamas is willing to bring a great deal of death and destruction upon their own people, likely as a means to encourage other Islamic nations to join the fight. Russia is far less willing to accept death and destruction upon their civilian population. So while Russia has nukes, they're less willing to pay the price for using them than Hamas or Iran would be for harm to Palestinians.
'Hamas actually does manage to be a lot more evil than Russia'
Do they? I think respective civilian body counts suggest otherwise.
I'm reminded of your comments on a potential future civil war and the way it would be fought. If that were to come about, God forbid, you would be emulating Hamas, not Russia.
What's more evil, one Hannibal Lector, or 5,000 regular criminals?
Man for man, Hamas IS worse than Russia, by far. If they had Russia's resources, Israel would already be a vacant wasteland.
Man for man is all very well if you only have a few hundred men willing to do what was done in the Hamas attack, versus thousands and thousands of willing to do some of it. Pretty sure the Wagner Group wouldn't have balked at any of it.
If Hamas had Russia’s resources, Israel’s government wouldn’t have been such assholes.
So act like Canada basically.
Do right-wingers genuinely want to invite a comparison of Israel's conduct and Ukraine's conduct?
Whereas you suck at even attempting an intelligent remark.
You haven't been paying any attention to what Russia has been doing to Ukrainians, though I suppose it's difficult for you to notice anything with your head firmly stuck up your large intestine.
Ilya's redundant posts almost make you yearn for something by Blackman.
If there's anything the right-wingers who operate and adore this blog can't stand, it's some genuinely libertarian content at a faux libertarian blog.
No, it is not Libertarian for Somin to be taking sides in wars on the other side of the world.
Prof. Somin isn't the only Volokh Conspirator taking sides . . . but he is the only one clingers and faux libertarians criticize.
NO
Somin & c.'s idea of "supporting Ukraine" means sacrificing every last young man in Ukraine, watching Ukranian cities get flattened, depleting American munitions and our treasury in a war Ukraine cannot possibly win. The only people they are actually supporting are Raytheon, McDonnell Douglass, General Dynamics, etc.
My idea of supporting Ukraine is bringing the slaughter and destruction to an end. It is shocking, and a symptom of zero leadership from the United States (and also Europe, but that's hardly surprising), that absolutely no one is at least attempting to get the parties to the negotiating table.
Israel will take care of its business with or without anyone else's "support". Ukraine is utterly incapable of doing so.
Why am I paying for Israel's right-wing belligerence if it doesn't need our help?
You sound like everyone two days after the war started more than a year and a half ago.
F.D. Wolf : " .... sacrificing every last young man in Ukraine ...."
You see this from both the America-hating Left and Right : People who don't give the slightest shit about Ukrainians and would gladly gift the entire country to Putin with a sneer.
Yet they put on such a theatrical display of crocodile tears over Ukrainian deaths! Whatya wanna bet they'd stick fingers in their ears rather than listen to a real Ukrainian's opinion?
I love the pro-Russia people who try to cloak their Putinism in faux concern about Ukraine. Ukraine wants to defend itself. "No, I won't help you because I think it would be better for you if you surrender" is an absurd response.
And the claim that Ukraine "cannot possibly win" is, of course, utterly unsupported.
Yes; that's everyone's idea. The issue is on whose terms it will be brought to an end: Ukraine's or Russia's.
Somin & c.’s idea of “supporting Ukraine” means sacrificing every last young man in Ukraine, watching Ukranian cities get flattened, depleting American munitions and our treasury in a war Ukraine cannot possibly win. The only people they are actually supporting are Raytheon, McDonnell Douglass, General Dynamics, etc.
My idea of supporting Ukraine is bringing the slaughter and destruction to an end. It is shocking, and a symptom of zero leadership from the United States (and also Europe, but that’s hardly surprising), that absolutely no one is at least attempting to get the parties to the negotiating table.
So your idea of supporting Ukraine is letting them be conquered by a belligerent who has already engaged in mass murder of Ukrainian civilians, and who seeks to extinguish their language and culture.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that not a lot of people ask you for support.
'My idea of supporting Ukraine is bringing the slaughter and destruction to an end.'
Now you just have to bring Putin into the mix.
I support them both. They have my moral support. I don't necessarily support the U.S. getting too involved however.
I don’t see any similarities.
The RF is trying to reinstate the status quo of both the Czarist Empire and also the Soviet Union. In the status quo, the state was multinational and ruled from Moscow. Putin seems to have forgotten that the Hetmanate joined the Czarist Empire voluntarily. Putin has waged an illegal aggressive war to incorporate Ukraine into the multinational Russian Federation.
In the case of stolen Palestine, from 1881 onward white racial supremacist European Zionists explicitly and vocally planned to commit genocide against Palestinians and to steal their country. In 1881 genocide was not a crime but was considered a sovereign right, e.g., the Expulsion of Spanish Jews. On Dec 11, 1946, the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens.
The white racial supremacist Zionist leadership realized that it had to hurry to commit genocide against Palestinians. The Zionist leadership put the long planned genocide into operation in Dec 1947. This genocide will not have ended until Palestinians return to their homes, property, villages, and country.
From the legal standpoint, the existence of the Zionist state negates the international anti-genocide legal regime and undermines international law.
Genocide is an international capital crime without a statute of limitations.
White racist states have hypocritically refused to enforce international law by abolishing the Zionist state.
Zionist colonial settlers went insane when they realized (a) that within stolen Palestine Palestinians are a slight majority of the total population and (b) that the Palestinian population is much younger than the Zionist colonial settler population.
Since the start of this Israeli government, the program of genocide has accelerated.
Zionist colonial settlers had decided to complete the genocide, which had started in Dec 1947. Hamas responded by making a stand now instead of waiting for a death of a thousand cuts as Zionist colonial settlers murder children, make living conditions unbearable, and steal el-Aksa along with other Palestinian holy sites.
The international community can either support international law or support the continued existence of the criminal genocidal Zionist state, which in violation of jus cogens has been perpetrating genocide before the eyes of the world. Both international law and the criminal genocidal Zionist state cannot coexist.
I see that your command of the English language (or perhaps Latin) is not any better outside the legal context. The status quo, by definition, is the current state of affairs.
There is a phrase "return to the status quo" which implies that the status quo can be temporarily slipped.
But I agree it's a phase most often used by disingenuous conservatives to imply the existence of some sort of mythical, foregone natural state.
The correct phrase is "return to the status quo ante".
Oh cool!
The relationship between Ukraine and Russia is historically complex. I think one can say that from the 1764 (or 1782) until August 1991, Russia and the Ukraine for most of the time were parts of a single state.
Status quo ante. I don't spend much time on these posts. It's not the first time for me to leave out a word.
THAT'S your response? A quibble about grammar?
The RF is trying to reinstate the status quo of both the Czarist Empire and also the Soviet Union. In the status quo, the state was multinational and ruled from Moscow. Putin seems to have forgotten that the Hetmanate joined the Czarist Empire voluntarily. Putin has waged an illegal aggressive war to incorporate Ukraine into the multinational Russian Federation.
That's a weird definition of status quo, particular since you've excluded a lot of before and after.
In the case of stolen Palestine, from 1881 onward white racial supremacist European Zionists explicitly and vocally planned to commit genocide against Palestinians and to steal their country.
It was more the typical plan of European colonization. Arguably it required some ethnic cleansing, which is abhorrent, but murder wasn't the plan.
On Dec 11, 1946, the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens.
The white racial supremacist Zionist leadership realized that it had to hurry to commit genocide against Palestinians. The Zionist leadership put the long planned genocide into operation in Dec 1947. This genocide will not have ended until Palestinians return to their homes, property, villages, and country.
Assuming your legal arguments aren't just made up, the partition plan of 1947 was a messed up idea (again, giving the Jewish people a homeland in an already occupied territory was a really bad idea) but the Israelis didn't start that war.
From the legal standpoint, the existence of the Zionist state negates the international anti-genocide legal regime and undermines international law.
Genocide is an international capital crime without a statute of limitations.
White racist states have hypocritically refused to enforce international law by abolishing the Zionist state.
So you seem to be arguing that ethnic cleansing is genocide, which means that your solution to this is what you'd describe as, a genocide.
Either way, the partition was a UN plan, however misguided, so it's hard to see a legal argument for "abolishing the Zionist state".
Hamas responded by making a stand now instead of waiting for a death of a thousand cuts as Zionist colonial settlers murder children, make living conditions unbearable, and steal el-Aksa along with other Palestinian holy sites.
Israel's tactic of taking over the West Bank is pretty unjustifiable.
But that doesn't make any response to that action justifiable. It certainly doesn't excuse a surprise attack resulting in the large scale slaughter of civilians.
Both international law and the criminal genocidal Zionist state cannot coexist.
You're saying "Zionist" a lot. I know that Zionism is a philosophy that's distinct from Judaism, so you can be against Zionism without being antisemitic... but using the word over and over again like that raises some red flags.
Because Zionist propaganda asserts that Judaism is Zionism and that Zionism is Judaism, it's important to establish that Zionism and Judaism are separate and that a Zionist cannot legitimately be considered a Jew.
Because Zionist propaganda asserts that Judaism is Zionism and that Zionism is Judaism
I think it's more they think it's the proper expression of Judaism, but I'm sure they understand that Judaism exists outside of Zionism.
it’s important to establish that Zionism and Judaism are separate
and that a Zionist cannot legitimately be considered a Jew.
Whaaa???? Ok, here's a rule of thumb I have for religions, if someone says "I'm X", then, they're X. In other words, it's not up to you, me, Zionists, or non-Zionists to decide if someone can "legitimately be considered a Jew". For the most part if they think they're a Jew, and they legitimately think they're a Jew and not just Jew-ish then that's good enough for me.
More to the point, when you keep saying Zionist it sounds like you're trying to emphasize the Jewish nature of Israel, and thus expose yourself to charges of antisemitism.
If you want to criticize the actions of the Israeli state then criticize the actions of the Israeli state, don't hyperfocus on the ideology that drives them.
That's why it's a misnomer to think of Judaism as a religion. What you're describing is that way the religion of Christianity works, and you're assuming that it's therefore true for anything else that has been labeled "religion." But it's not true for Jews. You are not a Jew just because you "think you are" one. (Not even if that's a good faith position and not a lie like Martillo's claim.)
That’s why it’s a misnomer to think of Judaism as a religion.
There's a much stronger ethnic component to Judaism than other religions, but when talking about the religious aspect I'm not sure I see a big difference.
What you’re describing is that way the religion of Christianity works, and you’re assuming that it’s therefore true for anything else that has been labeled “religion.”
And Islam, and Buddism, and Hindu, etc, etc.
Unless you think some of those religions have zero fragmentation and/or one of them is arguably "the one true faith".
But it’s not true for Jews. You are not a Jew just because you “think you are” one. (Not even if that’s a good faith position and not a lie like Martillo’s claim.)
I don't get your position.
You mean an ethnic Jew? Sure, but I was pretty clearly talking about the religious side, which includes multiple Jewish ethnicities and converts.
Or are there folks calling themselves (religious) Jews whom you think don't actually qualify as Jewish?
myself does not understand the crime of genocide.
Genocide is completely distinct from murder.
Genocide is a crime against a group. Murder is a crime against an individual.
Genocide does not require any murder although Zionist colonial settlers have murdered a tremendous number of Palestinians since the 1880s.
Americans often confuse genocide with mass murder and believe incorrectly that Holocaust-like systematic killing is required for genocide. If kings still ruled in Europe and if the King of France decreed that all Jews in France must convert to Christianity or leave, the King of France would have committed the crime of genocide of the French Jewish religious group
• even if no one died on account of the King’s decree and
• even if 70 years later the size of the population of French Jewish exiles was larger than the size of the French Jewish population at the time of the decree
because the King of France exterminated or physically destroyed the Jewish religious group within the territory of France.
Yes, we understand that you don't understand law or the English language. We covered that above. It's overdetermined. You don't need to prove it with yet another wrong post.
Even if you convince me that Israel stole land from Arabs, so what? Most of the land in the world has been stolen multiple times. Nations exist because they previously won wars. That is how the world works.
In effect, RogerS argues that because Americans enslaved Blacks in 1850, Zionist colonial settlers should be able to enslave Blacks today.
On Sept 25, 1926 the international community banned slavery and made this ban jus cogens.
On Dec 11, 1946 the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens.
The mere existence of the criminal genocidal Zionist state negates the international anti-genocide regime and undermines international law.
By supporting the continued existence of the Zionist state, the international community validates Nazi genocides against many national groups in Norway, France, Belgium, Poland, the USSR, Luxemburg. and the Netherlands.
Does the international community really want to make Nazi practice an international norm and overturn the international ban on genocide?
Even if you convince me that Israel stole land from Arabs, so what? Most of the land in the world has been stolen multiple times. Nations exist because they previously won wars. That is how the world works.
If your position is that Hamas and Arab countries in the middle east shouldn't be trying to "wipe Israel off the map" I don't think that a good position to start from.
I agree with Somin that in both cases, there is a compelling interest to support both Ukraine and Israel and also that neither individual Russians nor individual Palestinians should be blamed for actions over which they ultimately have no control.
I think the fact that we are still dealing with this issue; basically, the threat of war and state violence, is somewhat frustrating. As a humans, this behavior is not really worth our energy.
Overall, there must be mechanisms to impose sufficient costs on these acts of aggression. For example, on both the Russian government and the de facto government of Gaza must be sufficiently punished so as to regret their actions. If there is no regret, then the logic will be that such actions should be repeated in the future.
In Gaza, the problem is difficult, because Hamas doesn’t separate itself from the civilian population. This implies that more civilians are going to be killed. But that is just the way it is; when military targets mix themselves in with civilian targets, they are the ones that are ultimately causing the problem.
However, assuming that Israel does dismantle Hamas, it is going to need to think about how it can permanently alter the situation so that this sort of killing is less likely to happen in the future. I believe it will have to take an active role in government in Gaza rather than leaving it to Hamas or any entity with a similar ideology of resentment.
Ultimately, what Israel should do is take control of the military and police services in Gaza, taking these entities out of civilian control for a time. It should then setup a constitution for the territory and allow the people of Gaza to elect civilian leaders. Rather than going with a parliamentary model, it would make sense to have a model more like the United States, with a bicameral legislature and an executive that is elected independently of the legislature. And also establish an independent judiciary. Basically, something to cool passions and allow Palestinians in Gaza to engage in meaningful self-government. Any constitution setup should require regular elections rather than allowing them to be indefinitely postponed. Recall that Hamas came to power through elections, but none have been held since. As such, the de fact government in Gaza, such as it now exists, lacks democratic legitimacy.
I also believe that with a stable government and constitution in place establishing a real democracy, albeit with less ability to engage in aggression, Israel ought to strongly support civil society. Living in Gaza should not suck for Palestinians. Over time, that will hopefully cool the resentment that is almost certainly going to be fueled by Israeli operations in Gaza. Not only that, trying to ensure a decent life in this territory is the right thing, because Palestinian civilians living in Gaza are not to blame for the actions of people they can not control.
The United States imposed a pacifist constitution upon Japan after it surrendered. A similar model is likely appropriate for Gaza. With the caveat that Israel may need to control law enforcement in Gaza for a time.
The bigger picture is this. As humans, we now have enough experience in government to know what works and what doesn’t. Allowing a government to become disconnected from the people leads to much greater risk of aggression. We see that with Putin’s Russia and we see it with Hamas-controlled Gaza. Ultimately, for society to advance past raw aggression, democratic checks on the impulses of leaders who do not face the full costs of their choices is necessary. The problem of Russia is much more difficult, simply because the country is much larger and Putin’s de facto dictatorship is firmly entrenched. In comparison, the problem in Gaza is manageable, but it has to be managed. If Israel merely goes in, retaliates against Hamas, and then leaves the region to its own devices, we are likely to see a repeat in the future.
A successful end to WWII required de-Nazification of Germany. The successful end of the Gaza war will require de-Hamasification.
Given that Ernst von Weizsäcker, the father of the later president, was buried in full SS uniform in 1951 despite having been convicted at Nuremberg, I'm not so sure about how successful that de-Nazification was.
(Better examples are available, of Nazi's holding senior government office in West Germany in the 1950s and 1960s, but in Von Weizsäcker's case the contrast with his son makes the example particularly poignant.)
There were many Nazis whose political allegiance was ruled by expedience. I am far less sanguine that many Hamas members can just flip off the switch when they realize the tides have shifted against them.
From the standpoint of history, it’s worth mentioning that the German Reparations agreement more than anything else paid for the initial two decades of genocide of Palestinians. This genocide starts with the Nakba and continues to this day. Apartheid is a byproduct of this genocide.
Germany has aided this genocide without a 2nd thought because during the Nazi period Germans were educated to believe that European Jews were aliens in Europe and belonged in Palestine.
This Nazi lie is the fundamental principle of Zionism.
Thus Germany, while no longer a Nazi state, acted toward Zionists and Palestinians on the basis of Nazi indoctrination. Since 1933 during the Nazi and post-Nazi periods, Germany has almost continually been a participant or perpetrator in genocide.
Nazi ideas about Jews remain potent in white states.
David Welker : “Ultimately, what Israel should do is take control of the military and police services in Gaza, taking these entities out of civilian control for a time”
It’s great that you propose a rational and humane way out of this madness, but unfortunately you’re completely wrong. Twenty percent of Israel’s population is Palestinian and clearly second-class citizens who don’t get full protection from its laws. Add in the West Bank/Gaza and Jews are a 47% minority west of the Jordan River (per the Times of Israel).
Israel’s “strategy” to deal with this fact is the fig-leaf pretense it doesn’t control millions of people who have no nationhood or citizen rights, either through the faux-government of the Palestinian Authority or sealed prison house of Gaza. But neither have effective control of it peoples – the Palestinian Authority was designed to be a half-government during transition to a final peace deal and is way past its use-by date. Only the corrupt venality of its toothless rulers keeps the illusion afloat.
If either of the two entities collapses, Israel finds themselves ruling over millions more Palestinians that it’s unwilling to give even second-class rights to. What’s effectively apartheid rule now (to anyone with open eyes) becomes blatant open apartheid rule that can’t be ignored. That’s the last thing Israel wants.
And this gets to the heart of the matter. The status quo cannot survive, with or without endless cycles of violence. Sooner or later Israel will have to chose between accepting the Palestinians it controls as full citizens (ending a Jewish majority state) or two separate countries. It is in Israel’s interest to face that future, decide what’s best, and begin long-term distant preparation.
Likewise the Palestinians, whose people suffer horribly. But both sides are ruled with blind short-sighted folly, convinced their foe will magically disappear without difficult decisions or sacrifice from themselves. Obviously this murderous rampage by Hamas just makes things 100X more hopeless, but the basic facts don’t change.
grb...Oslo is dead. Disengagement is dead. Mowing the lawn is dead. They are all policy failures. What policy emerges, post-war...we do not know. It will absolutely be different. But:
A more humane alternative is incentivized, voluntary emigration. Nobody dies in a voluntary transaction. There are a large number of palestinians who do not wish to live under Israeli sovereignty, and do not want to kill anyone. They just want to live their life, much like we do here in America. They would be willing to relocate and live elsewhere in the region to enjoy a better life. Why shouldn't they have a better life elsewhere? Israel can provide generous relocation assistance to willing emigrants; it is not outside the realm of possibility.
Israel's GDP is roughly 325B. To me, spending 11B annually for a decade will change the demographics markedly. Comes to roughly 33% of current GDP. Steep price, but worth it. This would be the best money Israel ever spent.
The wingnuts at this right-wing blog don't like that idea.
At least, not sometimes.
When all other known alternatives have failed, maybe try something new. Incentivized voluntary emigration lessens the killing, and it is voluntary. This blog is occasionally libertarian, after all... 🙂
What would you think about Americans offering every Israeli the opportunity to become a citizen of the United States? Safer for the Israelis, much easier and less costly for Americans attempting to safeguard the Israelis . . . with plenty of other benefits for America consequent to the immigration.
Commenter_XY : "A more humane alternative is incentivized, voluntary emigration"
OK. You want an ending to this endless tragedy which is good. But please reread this from above : "But both sides are ruled with blind short-sighted folly, convinced their foe will magically disappear without difficult decisions or sacrifice from themselves."
And yet you come back with a fairy tale where all Palestinians vanish in a sorcerer's cloud - poof! - never to trouble anyone again. Should a supporter of Israel (which I assume you are) be satisfied with useless magical thinking like this? Does it do Israel any good to dream of pie-in-the-sky "solutions" to evade hard clear analysis?
Who said 'all palestinians'? Not me.
grb, you really should take an objective look at Israel's demographics. I am not being facetious. Israeli is ~70% Jewish population (roughly 7MM out of 10MM) today. I don't expect all, or most palestinians to relocate. But a substantial minority will, and that is enough. Really, 100K people annually adds up to 1MM over a decade. Demographic game over. That is actually a pretty conservative estimate on the number of palestinians who would choose a better life elsewhere.
grb, nobody dies in a voluntary transaction. Those palestinians who remain will become Israeli citizens under Israeli sovereignty. They will be very, very greatly outnumbered, and the demographic bomb (if there ever really was one) will have been defused.
The dead-enders who want to fight it out (like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, palestinain Islamic Jihad, etc) will die.
Oslo (and two state), Disengagement, and Conflict Management (mowing the lawn) have failed as policies. To solve this problem will require a different level of thinking than what created the failed policies. Post war, this option must be on the table.
It is completely non-violent (and libertarian, to boot - lol).
I disagree with much of your post, but Welker's idea is nonsensical for many reasons. It's pretty much like saying that the U.S. should have eliminated the Taliban simply by "tak[ing] control of the military and police services in" Afghanistan. As if that were an option. (And in Afghanistan, we did have local allies. Israel has none in Gaza.)
David Nieporent : "I disagree with much of your post"
Well, my post says there are only two possible solutions. If you disagree, presumably you see a third, fourth, or fifth.
Above _XY takes his shot, and it's the timeworn daydream that the problem magically vanishes - the Palestinians all traipsing off to Jordan which (helpfully) decides to rename itself Palestine being a popular variant of that. What's your take? I'm convinced the realistic options are very limited, but maybe I'm not seeing something.
Why are you citing Afghanistan, where the United States voluntarily withdrew due a combination of Trump's incompetence made worse by Biden's incompetence???
If Israel leaves Gaza to its own devices, it will just face a terrorist attack again. In the meantime, the people who live in Gaza deserve to control the civilian government (minus police force) there.
David Welker : "where the United States voluntarily withdrew due a combination of Trump’s incompetence made worse by Biden’s incompetence???"
Interesting formulation. Trump signed a deal with the Taliban that agreed to withdraw U.S. forces by 40% within three months and 90% within a year. He agreed to close five military bases within 135 days and end economic sanctions against the Taliban. He agreed to severe restrictions on U.S. air support for the Afghan government, both in number and the distance or range they could be launched from. He agreed to the release of Taliban prisoners. In exchange, the Taliban agreed to stop foreign terrorist organizations from operating in areas they control and to talk to the Afghan government. Whatever they discussed didn't translate to the field. In the months after the agreement, government casualties doubled from Taliban attacks, while their own losses were cut in half. These were measured by the corresponding numbers of a year earlier.
As for Biden? He inherited a U.S. presence just over 2000 troops, hostage to the pledge they too would soon be withdrawn. He decided to fulfill the Trump agreement rather than repudiate it and begin rebuilding U.S. forces in the country. I've heard some claim he should have waited until fighting season ended to make the final withdrawal, but given the Taliban didn't have to fight to seize the country, that seem a moot point.
Don't forget Israel! They lost interest in pursuing peace long ago. As one of DB's posts explained, they've been actively prolonging the conflict by trying to keep Hamas down but not out... or as someone put it, to keep the snake in a box.
I agree that Hamas is a snake, but the way to handle a snake is not to keep it alive in a box. It's both cruel and dangerous. Either just kill it as humanely as possible, or put it outside and learn to live in a snake-infested place.
In other words, unlike Ukraine, Israel has been a willing participant in prolonging the war for its own purposes, so it also deserves some "punishment."
That is not remotely what he said. Israel had no way to kill the snake, or at least no palatable way. So Israel's approach was to hope the snake, if mostly left alone in its box, would mostly stop trying to bite people outside the box.
Well, this is basically what I said. Israel finds endless war “palatable” for various reasons.
You youself the other day said that Israel would never compromise for peace. Well, the only way that works is to defeat the enemy entirely, which they’re also not doing.
If they're not willing or able to end the war by winning, then they need to end it by compromising. If they're also not willing to do that, then the war is at least partially on them.
Once again, not at all what the person you're responding to (in this case me) said. "Israel had no palatable way to end the war" does not mean "Israel finds war palatable."
I said exactly the opposite.
It takes two to compromise.
In other words, Israel made a conscious decision to put the snake in a box and leave it there. As long as we're holding aggressors accountable, they should be held accountable for that decision.
Well Randal, there were ~800 slaughtered Israelis on Simchat Torah last week; they paid with their lives for a bad policies vis a vis Hamas (and palestinians more generally). Policy failures have many Fathers. Israel is now at war correcting those policy errors and nothing less than the physical obliteration of Hamas within Gaza is an acceptable outcome. This is a very steep price for Israel to pay.
Post war, the Israeli electorate will hold their leadership to account.
Most of Israel’s policy errors will not be corrected by whatever Israel does with respect to Hamas.
I would ask two questions of Professor Somin:
1) Is Russia, publicly, dedicated to the eradication of Ukraine nationals in entirety?
2) Is Ukraine surrounded on most sides by nations who share (or at least until recently shared) that dedication?
If the answer is “no” to either, this is false equivalence on his part, which, alas, is hardly surprising these days.
The most obvious difference between the governments of Israel and Ukraine is that the government of Israel isn't filled with card-carrying NAZIS.
But I guess that's too fine a point for writers at the misnamed "Reason" website to grasp.
That, too. We don’t see Israeli leaders toting actual Nazi war criminals about to solicit admiration for them.
The Volokh Conspiracy is an independent blog which used to live at The Washington Post. Reason’s own failures are numerous and often egregious, certainly, but we cannot blame them for what is written here.
You do know that, aside from the fact that we allied with one, and fought the other, there wasn't much difference between Stalin and Hitler, right? They even started WWII on the same side!
So, there you are in Ukraine, guess who's rescuing you from Stalin? Yeah, Hitler. In other places, it was Stalin rescuing you from Hitler.
At this remove, I find it hard to get excited over the difference.
It's worth remembering that the Nazi invasion of the USSR was in 1941. Only 8-9 years earlier was the Holodomor, Stalin's engineered famine that killed 4-6 million Ukrainians.
So Ukrainians who initially embraced the Nazi's should be judged with that in mind. As for "Nazis" in Ukraine today, the Russian government and society is far more fascist by any measure. People who parrot that Kremlin line on "Nazis" are probably the type who enjoy the taste of Putin's shoe leather on their tongues.
You mean the Ukrainian government being led by a Jew who won a fair election with a huge majority?
The Ukrainian government fighting against a fascist Russia who was championing a literal neo-Nazi private military company until said company started a rebellion?
I don't think that the Nazi party even exists in the Ukraine, let alone issues cards.
Wow, something with which I actually agree.
It's pointless to fling the label Nazi in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. If I remember, the German Nazis imprisoned Bandera for longer than the Nazis collaborated with Bandera. Ukrainian nationalists and the Nazis had separate agendas but could occasionally could work together. One can analogize the Ukrainian nationalist relationship with Nazis to the Zionist relationship with Nazis from Jan 1933 through Kristallnacht.
The government of Israel is filled with right-wing assholes, religious kooks, old-timey bigots, and other right-wing assholes, which explains why Israel has become an affront to American values in many important respects.
Of course, right-wing assholes have rights, too. But not the right to have their stale, ugly conservative thinking flattered or respected by better people.
Zionist colonial settlers are invaders, interlopers, thieves, impostors, and genocide-perpetrators while Palestinians are the natives.
International anti-genocide law requires:
(1) the abolition of the Zionist state,
(2) return of the natives to their homes, property, villages, and country, and
(3) removal of the Zionist colonial settlers, who have been perpetrating genocide since Dec 1947.
That's not going to happen, anymore than the USA is going to be returned to native Americans or black Americans are going to be shipped back to Africa.
Right or wrong, some decisions cannot be reversed. To live in this world largely requires focus on moving forward without constantly looking in the rearview mirror trying to alter the past.
This is very much on the subject we were noting yesterday on a different article.
In the real world, there are no genuine do-overs. Which would essentially be what these delusionals propose would happen if America gave the land back to the indigenous nations, or if we tried to ship black Americans back to Africa, or remove Jews from Israeli land (NB – there were never references to “Palestinians” before Israel was on the land).
But, nature not allowing things that have happened to not have happened, the fallout is often much, much worse than the status quo for everyone but a few.
It is a Zionist propaganda lie to claim that there was no reference to Palestinians before the genocide, which Zionist colonial settlers have been perpetrating since Dec 1947. This assertion even if true is not a defense to the accusation of genocide.
Palestinians are identified as such by the Roman Empire after the Herodians crashed and burned. Early Arabic Empire and Crusader documents refer to Palestinians as do Mamluk and Ottoman documents. Palestinians are particularly insistent on their unique Palestinian identity from the 1850s when a modern hospitality industry was founded in Palestine until today. From the 1890s onward, there are a plethora of Palestinian political and social organizations that call themselves Palestinian.
The issues of American Indians and of Palestinians are different.
There are many more Palestinians than Zionist colonial settlers.
Within stolen Palestine, Palestinians are a slight majority but constitute a much younger population than that of the Zionist colonial settlers.
On Dec 1946, the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens.
International law and the Zionist state cannot coexist.
Only white racist states support the continued existence of the Zionist state. Everyone else loathes the Zionist state.
There are many more non-white states than white racist states. Unless the Zionist state is abolished, the international legal system is doomed to break down.
The international community has two options:
1. a single voluntary national democratic state in which all live on mutual respect and equality (the standing Palestinian proposal since January 1919) or
2. removal of the Zionist colonial settler population (easy because 70-80% of the Zionist colonial settlers either have citizenship in another country or are eligible for such citizenship).
Read my lips: Not gonna happen. I'm talking about practical reality, and you're talking about ideology.
No, I am talking about law. The Zionist state is incompatible with international law, the international anti-genocide legal regime, and jus cogens.
THAT'S ideology. As a matter of practical reality, countries only observe laws that they feel like observing.
Why not include the Nuremberg Racial Purity Laws while you are at it?
Israel has two options -- (a) kill all of Hamas and impose western values on those who remain in Gaza or (b) kill EVERYONE in Gaza.
Islam is incompatible with international law. After you dismantle the Islamic states, get back to me.
No flavor of childish superstition is better than another. Competent adults neither advance nor accept such a claim.
It's a big hit at this wingnut blog, though.
How are the “Zionists” the invaders when they have lived in the region far longer than Palestinians? In fact there wasn’t even a specific term for Palestinians until very recently.
Yes. The Russians arresting Britney Griner for bringing illegal drugs into Russia is exactly the same as Hamas kidnapping people to use as human shields. Sadly, this probably isn't the worst post I've seen from "Professor" Somin.
Yes, that analogy is particularly offensive. It seems to me that Russia has tried to avoid civilian casualties, just as Israel has. In both cases, you can point to incidents that make them look bad. But Russia is nothing like Hamas, and arresting a drug smuggler is nothing like beheading babies. The only specific gripe Somin makes against Russia is arresting and releasing Griner.
Roger S : "It seems to me that Russia has tried to avoid civilian casualties"
Uh huh. I see indiscriminate missile attacks on Ukrainian cities every day with no hint of a military target. Also, calling Griner a "drug smuggler" is a sure sign of clownishness. Plus, Putin has already moved on to a new hostage, WSJ Reporter Evan Gershkovich. Perhaps since he's white and not a "drug smuggler", we can spare some sympathy for him?
The Palestinian Arabs also complain about indiscriminate attacks. If Russia and Israel were really doing that, we would see a lot more damage.
I support selling supplies to Israel. I support selling supplies to Ukraine.
I do not support giving supplies to either.
I do not support sending troops to either.
I suspect Ilya is pro-Palestinian (open borders for all!)
Like every emotional argument, this article seeks to reduce the issue to a binary. It's nonsense. If you support it, what budget do you propose? What are you willing to TAKE that budget from?
Let them use GoFundMe to raise monies. We're broke.
But of course. There's a Democrat in the White House so it's time for Right-wingers to pretend about budgets again. That's a golden oldie that never gets old.....
I doubt US support for Ukraine would easily survive Ukraine relentlessly attacking civilian infrastructure and killing lots of civilians, whatever the provocation.
Ilya the Lesser strikes again. Huge differences between Ukraine and Israel.
Is Russia killing Americans in Ukraine? No
Has Russia taken Americans hostage in Ukraine? No
Did Hamas kill Americans in Israel? Yes
Did Hamas take Americans hostage in Gaza? Yes
Try harder.
Does Ukraine emulate Israel's deplorable human rights record?
Nobody has forgotten that you only care about what happens to either Americans or Jews.
Everyone else is free to be dehumanized and considered acceptable casualties in your quest for vengeance.
Jason, please remember that I am the guy who advocates a completely non-violent solution to the seemingly intractable problem of palestinians and Jews living in Israel: voluntary, incentivized emigration. The current policies have failed. Post war, it is time to try something different.
I am not going to apologize for caring much more for what happens to Americans than what happens to Hamas, a Judeocidal terror group.
It is either Israel, or Hamas; it cannot be both. I choose Israel. How about you?
Just a definitional question. Are the masses coming across the southern border "settlers" or "colonizers?"
You seem stupid. The reason they're here is that they prefer our country and government to their own. They're not trying to extend the borders of Venezuela into occupied US territory.
Isn't that true of virtually every immigrant settler everywhere?
It’s not true of Israeli settlers.
In general "settler" implies loyalty to their original sovereign, such that "immigrant settler" is an oxymoron. You "settle" a place by bringing and imposing your regime upon it.
They are illegal aliens. Period.
This pro-Israel/anti-Ukraine stance is not incoherent. Ukraine cannot win no matter how much money we give them. Continuing support for a failed war effort will only result in more dead Ukrainians and Russians and the eventual division or elimination of independent Ukraine. Israel is not even remotely at risk of elimination, they are a nuclear power with a massive defense industry.
Is that your expert military opinion, based on close study of battlefield conditions?
jjsaz : "This pro-Israel/anti-Ukraine stance is not incoherent"
Maybe, but you sure are. Some points:
1. I don't see why Ukraine can't win. Lesser forces have defeated greater many times in recent history, the USSR in Afghanistan being one example, though there are some more recent. Aside from a twisted form of wishful thinking, you base your assertion on what exactly?
2. "Result in only more dead Ukrainians"? So do they get an opinion on whether to fight and die for their country or are you usurping that decision for yourself?
3. Denying Ukraine support will definitely result in the division of Ukraine, so I'm not sure what point you're making. Denying Ukraine support raises odds of the "elimination of an independent Ukraine" from near-zero to a serious possibility, so your point is actually hypocritical or perverse.
Somin's piece here has really triggered the MAGAts.
Democrats needed someone to shill for their policies, so of course Ilya Sonic churned out a prolix post extolling the party line.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/09/politics/ukraine-aid-congress-reaction-israel/index.html
So Republican policy is not to support Israel? Or are calls for genocide the thoughts and prayers of international confict?
“Those Who Support Israel Against Hamas Should also Back Ukraine Against Russia”
I'm blown away that the libertarian publication of record is trying to score a two-for-one deal on funding foreign military conflicts, rather than avoiding them both. If the options are to support both wars or neither, the libertarian answer should be neither and it shouldn't even be difficult to figure this one out.