Yes, am aware Hamas is controlled by rabid bigot hardliners. The question I ask is does the Israeli approach of ethnic cleansing and indiscriminate bombing simply ensure that those hardliners will remain the dominant force in Palestinian liberation groups. These groups are spread through several countries, it's not like the fabled surgical strikes Biden was suggesting are really going to crush Hamas et al in some thorough way that ends 75 years of strife.
IF it was possible to eliminate those hardliners, then by definition there will be no more hardliners. Of course that is much easier said than done since said hardliners tend to hide under hospitals and in refugee camps. Agreed. Nothing is. And it's more like 1500 years of strife.
Yup. You can kill people quickly, or you can kill them slowly by taking their lands and cultural heritage and shoving them into refugee camps. It's putting lipstick on a warthog.
Yep. We did it here in the US several times. We have managed to avoid the strife that the Middle East is seeing, but unfortunately we did that by killing so many natives that they were simply no longer a threat.
By the Book (U.N. Resignation Letter) "This is a text-book case of genocide. The European, ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project in Palestine has entered its final phase, toward the expedited destruction of the last remnants of indigenous Palestinian life in Palestine. What's more, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. Not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations “to ensure respect” for the Geneva Conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the assault, providing economic and intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for Israel's atrocities." ― Craig Mohkiber↱
Whatever the original intent of this topic, it seems to be about Israeli war-crimes now. Some might contend that "it is pretty obvious" that one of the key purposes of crafting and developing the New Antisemitism category over time was to protect Israeli policies from criticism. (As an example, the "Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" controversies.) However, it's not a wholly novel and isolated invention of Jewish intellectuals who are sympathetic to Israel. But is playing off the broader post-liberal politics[1] and "systemic oppression" ideology trend of obstructing free speech for those deemed by proponents to be promoting and engaging in social justice offences (along with instituting punishing consequences for the latter behaviors if/when possible). A key aspect of which is that a privileged population group (part of the intellectual heritage descended from forefathers like Antonio Gramsci) that is proposed to be victimizing other groups is especially not allowed to negatively criticize and pass judgement on the ethnic groups it is depicted as bullying. In the case of Israel, however, which is surrounded by an Arab world, the potential "bullying oppressors" for its Jewish citizens aren't as simply defined as the white European descendents that are the usual oppressors for many. (At least currently; in the earliest days of the evolving socioeconomic analysis, it was simply the non-ethnically defined bourgeoisie who were the monsters along with Western culture and capitalism in general.) In the short term and myopic focus, Israel periodically presents itself (to those who resent it, anyway) as the bully, with Gaza residents (or other Palestinians) being the victim. Which is highly relevant in an era where, again -- this simplistically medieval and binary oppressor/oppressed template is the favorite interpretative sex-toy for academics to mentally masturbate on when it comes to discerning "what is going on". Accordingly, the [supposed] covert goal of the New Antisemitism concept in deflecting criticism of Israel would instead be dependent upon a long-term view of Jews being the true potential victims. One might succinctly sum up what that rests upon in the context of this unsophisticated directness: There are 1.9 billion Muslims in the world compared to only 15 to 20 million Jews. Over six and a half million of the latter are concentrated in the tiny area of Israel. IOW, every Palestinian in the Gaza Strip could be wiped out (both the volunteer holy martyrs and those who don't want to be such) and it would make no significant dent in the world's Muslim population. The same can't be said for the opposite. Since in that long term scenario it is Israel that deems itself the victim, the latter is thereby reluctant to adopt a ho-hum "Why won’t the Jews just allow themselves to be killed?" view of terrorist attacks. Willing to risk the accusations of committing "war crimes" via depending, again, on the apparent Jewish (and pundit friends of Jews?) contribution to post-liberal politics to deflect such eventually (i.e., the concept of New Antisemitism). - - - footnote - - - [1] In contrast, traditional liberalism is often idealistically portrayed as allowing free speech for everyone (barring reckless endangerment). Unintentionally summed up in the Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote that was inspired by an anecdote of Voltaire's: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." _
Given the tit-for-tat that's been playing out since the Balfour letter (and earlier, as Billvon pointed out), I would agree that simple binaries don't work here. And if we start assessing relative moral compasses of the actors on the basis of body counts, or deaths as percentages of an ethnic or religious population, surely we have entered an amoral wasteland of discourse. I am also not enchanted with the kneejerks that emanate from academics (and many other pundits scattered through the media) where any questioning of Zionism or a hard-right party in Israel is equated with antisemitism. One principal point of spreading democracy in the world is spreading the idea that no government is above criticism. And that no innocent lives of noncombatants can be dismissed as expendable. As for free speech, I guess I would (perhaps with exceptions for shouting fire in a crowded theater, or exhortations to slaughter people) join with the adherents of Voltaire's rule of thumb. Free discourse should always occur with the expectation that you will hear things that may sting or upset. I sometimes wonder if many young people have forgotten (edit: never learned) how to handle contention and hearing upsetting things with some equanimity.
At this point, we might suggest the political marketplace¹ is thoroughly infected with a certain measure of false equivalence. There are a number of ways it goes, but perhaps the most basic illustration is to "both-sides" equality: One side is offended at being refused equality, the other side is offended at being prohibited from refusing other people's equality. The latter invalidates itself, arguing that their group can only be equal if they are superior to others. The last twenty to thirty years, especially in the age of social media, have entrenched such false equivalence. It's almost a pitchbot joke: Both sides have concerns about what equality means. Sure, there is at least one generation of voting age, now, raised entirely within the fallacy, as such. I've been around long enough to remember people being upset about Miss Black America, and these days maybe that pageant is a little less necessary than once upon a time. But, sure, try a Miss White America pageant, if it really means that much to whomever. And along the way they tried complaining about Black History Month, and why don't we have White History Month, and the answer was that they already had eleven. In the '90s, there was a kerfufle somewhere in Europe about revisionism and Holocaust denial; at approximately the same time, we were arguing over Columbus Day. The false equivalence there is obvious: The revisionism denounced in Europe would refuse the historical record. The revisionism denounced in the U.S. would include and attend the historical record. And while textbook publishers would devise "Lone Star" editions revising history to suit traditionalist demand in Texas, we now have the same sort of issue playing out dramatically in Florida. In between, we went through it with science books in Kansas and Arizona. Over and over, that we are willing to invalidate what something is. Free speech is one thing. The Bible in a school is one thing. But the Bible isn't science. And if there is a generation that came up being taught to resent the persecution of Christians because creationism isn't science, or that their rights are somehow violated by the fact that other people have rights, &c., there is also a cohort of their generational peers who have been raised on the idea that both sides have concerns. So, sure, there is a generation that has forgotten or never learned, except I also think they are conditioned to invalidate. There is a punch line, and I think it's Colbert, that reality has a well-known liberal bias. Two things about that: One, it is presently true. Two, it will not always be true. In a way it's a numbers game, but those numbers are constantly changing. That part is a little more complicated, but the range of interests relying on such false equivalence is sufficient to keep the fallacy influential. ____________________ Notes: ¹ Which marketplace? American? International? Northern? In his resignation letter, Mokhiber↑ describes a "European, ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project", and while it is important and influential, a marketplace describing the U.S., Europe, and Israel is a peculiar and particular marketplace that is very specialized. I'm largely, but not exclusively, thinking of the American marketplace.
I think also modern genetic, anthropological and archaeological studies lend support to the notion of labeling those who depict Jews as European colonists to be antisemites too, given that their ancestry, language and cultural traditions are all largely indigenous to the Levant. Those whose expressed concern for Palestinian civilian casualties is actually genuine should be endeavouring at every opportunity to make sure that terrorists do not see the criminal usage of human shields as a viable or profitable tactic in this or any other conflict. Yep, I'm seeing some very vicious personal attacks and unfounded allegations of ulterior motives being leveled at certain people for expressing a contrary opinion, and that's why virtually no one has any interest in engaging with or listening to those leveling such criticisms.
If that was how the question was asked, you might have had a point. Alas, you decided to change the subject to try to make your point, which kind of failed. You can't answer the questions I asked, because to do so with any sense of decency would require you to address what Israel is actually doing. Which is what, Billvon? Lock people up in an open air prison for decades and generations, control everything about their lives, bomb them, arrest and detain their children, control their movements and who they can even marry, steal their organs when they die or get sick, commit all sorts of horrific crimes against them.. That is what they have had for generations. To suggest that Israel has "a plan" is ridiculous. Everyone knows that the plan is. They have hardly hidden it. They are now literally saying the quiet parts out loud now. And yet, the West chooses to say nothing or do nothing to stop them, because of the fear of being accused of anti-Semitism. How's that working out? I've read their charter. While they do not accept a two state solution, they have nothing in their charter "calling for the extermination of every single Jew on the planet". Is this any different to what Israeli leadership has been saying about Palestinians? Ariel Kallner, a member of the Israeli parliament for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, had the answer. He demanded a repeat of the mass expulsion of Arabs in 1948 known to Palestinians as the Nakba or Catastrophe. “Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948,” he said. ----------------------------------------------- For years, Israeli leaders have advocated ethnic cleansing, euphemistically called “transfer”, with a discourse that portrays Palestinians as a fake people with no history that matters. In 1989, Netanyahu lamented that Israel missed the opportunity presented by global attention on China’s repression of pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen square “to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the (occupied) territories”. Opinion polls show that significant numbers of Israelis view Arabs as “dirty”, “primitive”, and as not valuing human life. Generations of Israeli school children have been imbued with the idea that Arabs are interlopers and merely tolerated through the beneficence of Israel. A 2003 study of Israeli textbooks by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem showed Arabs are principally depicted “with a camel, in an Ali Baba dress”. “They describe Arabs as vile and deviant and criminal, people who don’t pay taxes, people who live off the state, people who don’t want to develop. The only representation is as refugees, primitive farmers and terrorists. You never see a Palestinian child or doctor or teacher or engineer or modern farmer,” the study said. In 2002 during the second intifada, the Tel Aviv newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth published a letter by Israeli children titled: “Dear soldiers, please kill a lot of Arabs”. The paper said dozens of such letters were sent by schoolchildren. Some of those same children are now enforcing the occupation in the West Bank where Israeli settlers have largely had a free hand to drive Palestinians off their land and out of their villages, and sometimes to beat and kill. And some will be headed into Gaza. [https://www.theguardian.com/comment...g-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal] And if that's not enough: After screening a 45-minute montage of footage taken by Hamas fighters' body cameras during the October 7 attack, Knesset member and former Public Diplomacy Minister Galit Distal Atbaryan posted on Facebook that Israeli officials must invest all their energy "in one thing: erasing all of Gaza from the face of the Earth." "That the brave monsters will fly to the southern fence and enter Egyptian territory," Atbaryan continued, an apparent reference to Israel's reported plan to permanently expel Palestinians who survive the assault to Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, imposing a "second Nakba" on the population. "Or let them die... Gaza needs to be wiped out." "Revengeful and vicious IDF is required here," she continued. "Anything less than that is immoral." -------------------------------------- Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called residents of Gaza, about half of whom are children, "human animals" as he ordered a "complete siege" on the enclave including a total blockade of food, fuel, and electricity. Former military officer Eliyahu Yossian said the IDF must enter Gaza "with the aim of revenge, zero morality, maximum corpses," and toldChannel 14 in Israel on Monday that "there is no population in Gaza, there are 2.5 million terrorists." Earlier this year, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said at an event in Paris, "There's no such thing as Palestinians because there's no such thing as a Palestinian people." He also said the West Bank town of Huwara should be "wiped out" by "the state of Israel," while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a map of what he called "The New Middle East"—without the illegally occupied West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem—at the United Nations General Assembly just weeks before the onslaught in Gaza began. [https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-gaza-genocide] As I said above, they are now saying the quiet part out loud. Or is genocidal desires only acceptable if one is Israeli?
Again, not going to answer "do you still beat your wife?" questions. I note that you refused to answer a question I worded in a similar way - but I bet you didn't notice the hypocrisy of demanding that I do what you refuse to do. C'est la vie. I did not suggest it. I told you what they said their plan was. You are free, of course, to pretend they never said that - and indeed such alternative facts are popular nowadays. I prefer reality. Correct. Their current leaders are doing that. Yes. There is a difference between demanding genocide and demanding forced relocation. Both are bad. One is worse.
The Plan Television presenter and documentary director Myriam François↱ suggests, "They are literally telling you the plan," and if we should wish to be pedantic on behalf of the Israeli action in Gaza, we might point out that Ram Ben Barak is the former director general of the Ministries of Intelligence Services and Strategic Affairs, and also served as deputy director of Mossad; that is to say, he is, ostensibly, not currently a government official. François's comment reacts to a translation of Israeli television↱ circulating on social media↱. The twenty-three second clip translates Ram Ben Barak as saying, on Israeli television: It's better to be a refugee in Canada than in Gaza, so let us distribute "Gazans" all over the world. Let us distribute "Gazans" all over the world. They are two and a half million people; each country takes twenty-five thousand; 100 countries. That's humane and that needs to be done if they are refugees. It's better to be a refugee in Canada than in Gaza; if the world wants to solve the Palestinian problem, they have the ability to do so. Plans and rumors of plans; it's not quite call it what you want. François is not wrong when she declares, "This is ethnic cleansing." ____________________ Notes: @Lowkey0nline. "'There are 2.5 million Gazans...let us distribute them all over the world' Ram Ben Barak, former deputy director of Mossad." Twitter. 4 November 2023. Twitter.com. 4 November 2023. https://bit.ly/47imKBh @MyriamFrancoisC. "They are literally telling you the plan. This is ethnic cleansing." Twitter. 4 November 2023. Twitter.com. 4 November 2023. https://bit.ly/47h5k8m @ytrawi. "[@Ram_Ben_Barak], ex-director general of Israel's ministry of Intelligence services & Ministry of Strategic Affairs. also served as deputy director of Mossad: 'Let's distribute 2.5 M Gazans all over the world. 100 country each takes 25 thousand. That's humane & needs to be done'". Twitter. 4 November 2023. Twitter.com. 4 November 2023. https://bit.ly/49oFO2Q
Update: Phasing Out the Phases The latest revision: The prime minister indicated he believes Israel will have a role to play for an "indefinite period." Last month, Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant suggested the final phase of the was would be to sever "Israel's responsibility for life in the Gaza Strip" and establish a "new security reality for the citizens of Israel.” "Those who don't want to continue the way of Hamas," Netanyahu told Muir. "It certainly is not -- I think Israel will, for an indefinite period will have the overall security responsibility because we've seen what happens when we don't have it. When we don't have that security responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn't imagine." (Hutzler↱) Or, as Yoav Gallant said last month, "a new security reality for the citizens of Israel". ____________________ Notes: Fabian, Emanuel and ToI Staff. "Israel sets out 3 phases of war; will seek new 'security regime' once Hamas vanquished". The Times of Israel. 20 October 2023. TimesOfIsrael.com. 8 November 2023. https://bit.ly/3QSo4Wq Hutzler, Alexandra. "Israel sets out 3 phases of war; will seek new ‘security regime’ once Hamas vanquished". ABC News. 6 November 2023. ABCNews.Go.com. 8 November 2023. https://bit.ly/477Mil2
