It's the problem with 'picking sides' as there's no just side here, no good guys. Even picking civilians is easy from a computer on the other side of the world, but to those in the fight every Israeli citizen is at one point conscripted to the army, and Hamas fighters are suicidal citizens given a day course in firearms. Inside the conflict both sides see everyone as a legitimate target, and don't really care what outsiders think. Sometimes I think people are projecting their views on whatever side they support which shocks liberals a bit when that side acts counter to liberal views.
Right - the thing is that neither side is dominated by left/liberal voices.
Left-wingers in the US and various other countries might side with Palestine for various reasons (including rather vacuous ones such as imposing American racial dynamics* on the conflict), but neither Hamas nor Likud is left-wing.
I imagine that a resolution would be much easier if Palestinian and Israeli leaders were both left-liberals. But instead they both have right-wing nationalist views that I disagree with (at best).
*I don't think most Americans know that while a lot of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi, the majority are Mizrahi, Sephardic or Ethiopian, i.e. Middle Eastern or African origin. Also they'd probably be surprised at how "white"-looking Levantine Arabs can be. (Also, there is significant genetic closeness between Palestinians and Jews, especially Mizrahi Jews)
Ok, but are we just going to bounce back and forth based on who is currently racking up more kills, If it turns out Hamas tortured and killed all their hostages, do we bounce back to supporting Israel because Hamas is currently killing civilians only to then bounce back to supporting Palestine once Israel strikes back?
That's not really the right question though, because I have never supported Hamas, and prior to a few weeks ago I didn't care much about Palestinian people as a whole. I have defended Israel, though, because as a result of personal relationships I had empathy with the Jewish people who have suffered from antisemitic harassment all over the world for centuries and especially the horror of the holocaust. I was also painfully ignorant about the origins of the settler-colonial project that is Zionism. Now that I understand a lot more about the history I will not defend Israel again until they stop subjugating and indiscriminately killing the Palestinian people as they have been for decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
Are you now in support of other countries joining in the fight to remove Israel and return the land to Arab rule? Enough to take in and form a new Israel, or enough to be angry when they then start to slaughter civilians?
It's not really relevant whether I would support this, because there is literally no way it could ever happen. The idea of Israel as a tiny, frail nation clinging to its existence for dear life is just propaganda that has been repeated ad nauseum since 1948. Israel has had the military strength to beat all players in the region even without the US backing them since the earliest days of its existence, and it's stronger now than it ever was. It also has far and away the largest military in the world pledging unconditional support. They'll be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
ETA: I should say that years ago a friend's friend was shot dead by an Israeli sniper while carrying a child, also a friend's friend was killed in the festival attack. So far I've managed to not lose anyone personally, but suffice it to say I'm overall grumpy at the forced pick a side going on.
I totally get that and I'm sorry you've had that experience. I don't have any connection to the region except a couple long-term relationships with Jewish women in my distant past.
ETA: I should say that years ago a friend's friend was shot dead by an Israeli sniper while carrying a child, also a friend's friend was killed in the festival attack. So far I've managed to not lose anyone personally, but suffice it to say I'm overall grumpy at the forced pick a side going on.
Me too. Israel has done some terrible things in the past, and they're doing terrible things right now, but that doesn't make shooting up a bunch of kids at a festival right.
... but that doesn't make shooting up a bunch of kids at a festival right.
You have made it sound like you might not have a problem with Hamas shooting civilians provided they weren't young people and/or at a festival. I'm guessing that's not true though, and that you have a problem with the mass slaughter of civilians of any age whatever they might be up to, and whatever the provocation.
. . . we should be careful that fear and pain is not used to close off discussion and debate, including when that debate may make some uncomfortable. Discomfort does not feel good, but it is not a threat. A Palestinian flag is not inherently antisemitic. Palestinian writers, books about Palestinians, speech in support of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, calls for a cease-fire: None of these are threats to American Jews. And as the war continues, as Israel continues its aerial bombardment of Gaza, and as “ground incursions” expand, Americans will continue to discuss it, including on university campuses. That is not antisemitism. Again, there are actual threats to American Jews, but they should not be used as a pretense to silence speech on American foreign policy, or on Israeli politics, or to keep people from considering and indeed centering a war in which, according to one Palestinian NGO, a child in Gaza is killed every 15 minutes. (This statistic is not antisemitic, either. It also does not diminish the horror and tragedy of the murder and kidnapping of children by Hamas.)
... but that doesn't make shooting up a bunch of kids at a festival right.
You have made it sound like you might not have a problem with Hamas shooting civilians provided they weren't young people and/or at a festival. I'm guessing that's not true though, and that you have a problem with the mass slaughter of civilians of any age whatever they might be up to, and whatever the provocation.
Right, I don't like civilians getting slaughtered in general, no matter how old they are or what they're doing.
It is unfortunate that Zionists have been so successful in convincing a large majority of Jewish people in the US that unconditional support for Israel is essential to their safety and freedom to be Jewish, because I think the opposite is true. The more the genocidal proclivities of Israel are on full display in Gaza, the more its supporters look complicit.
It is true that some people hide a hatred of Judaism behind a critique of Zionism, but there are many people, including many Jewish people, like Jewish Voice for Peace, who engineered a huge protest in Grand Central Station early this week, who are able to differentiate.
I just literally cannot fathom still talking about what Hamas did on October 7th in light of everything Israel has done in the weeks since then. Something truly horrible happened to the Israeli people on that day, and a whole lot of truly horrible things have happened and continue to happen to the Palestinian people since that day. Maybe if Israel turned the power back on in Gaza for a couple hours they could have arranged a music festival in the Jabalia refugee camp so the hundreds of civilians massacred there in the two bombings this week would generate some sympathy in the West.
I'd say, based on the general playbook from recent years, that they're going for a body count of about twenty thousand and squeeze in an ethnic cleansing of a fourth of the Gaza Strip before senile piece of shit Uncle Joe makes them stop. Then make the perimeter of the concentration camp double-layered with a buffer zone and maybe a fuckton of mines. Then wait for, oh, 4 years? for the next installation of this shitshow.
Here is the text of H.Res.845, "Censuring Representative Rashida Tlaib for promoting false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel."
I particularly like the first line where they claim that Israel, the state created in 1948, has "existed on its lands for millennia" yet inexplicably still required the US help to "return Israel to those lands in 1948 immediately following the Holocaust".
22 Democrats voted with the Republicans to pass that slander.
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
I watched the latest UN Security Council session last night because it was Friday and I know how to party. It started with testimony from representatives of the WHO and Red Crescent on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the dominant theme of almost everyone's statements that followed were that something must be done to stop the carnage and help the people in Gaza.
The one dissenting voice was of course that of Israel, whose statement was a completely unhinged rant against the WHO, Red Crescent, UN, Palestinians, and anyone else who dared to suggest that maybe incessant bombing wasn't the most effective or humanitarian way to resolve the conflict. I was also impressed by the number of times he used the words 'Nazi' and 'ISIS' in a statement that had nothing to do with Nazis or ISIS.
I was disappointed but not surprised that the US representative didn't suggest a ceasefire despite reiterating support for "humanitarian pauses", but I did appreciate his insistence that Gazans should not be permanently displaced and that Israel should retain no ownership or occupation of territory in the Gaza Strip after this "war". I don't know if it will have any effect on their behavior but such statements at least give cover to people who will condemn Israel when they take the likely step of trying to annex the north of Gaza.
I finished "The Hundred Years War on Palestine" yesterday and I highly recommend it for anyone who wants a primer on the history of the conflict.
I saw a thing about how the usual thing is that people say "this seems... sort of genocidal?" and the Israeli government and spox say "don't comment about it if you don't know the history", and people give up because that's a lot. But this time around, a lot of people have said "oh, i guess we should read about this", and then come back a week later and said "wow, this is a lot more genocidal than it looked".
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
In this video a woman who grew up "culturally Jewish" in the US answers "when did you start to ask yourself the question of 'what about Palestine'" and I think (hope) her response, which starts with "too frickin' late", reflects the views of a lot of people now.
This article gives a little context to who AIPAC is and how they keep US politicians in line. The fact that they rallied to defeat a Jewish, pro-Israel Democrat in the 2022 election for daring to support a two-state solution is genuinely disturbing.
Close watchers now expect AIPAC to spend at least $100 million in Democratic primaries, largely trained on eliminating incumbent Squad members from their seats.
I worry APIPAC is going to target liberals and slide everything further to the right, while at the same time missing the real threats, as meanwhile Apartheid Space Karen is one small step away from climbing to the top of a building he's stopped paying rent on to scream "The Jews will not replace US!" Before declaring his Mars colony a jew free zone.
(I'm calling it now so everyone knows who to give the internet points to when Trolly Memerson either names a starship The Baconator, or adds a bacon frying station to a starship to thumb his nose at Jewish and Muslim traditions, bonus points if it's only in 3d and never makes it to launch).
I appreciate the thrust of her thesis that the IDF could live up to its claimed values by assisting the doctors and nurses in the hospital they invaded, but there's too much "it's unfortunate but necessary for Israel to slaughter Palestinian people" in her writing for my taste. Especially when one of the last sentences in her article is this: "Because, in this awful war, we have to keep choosing the side of humanity.", where "choosing the side of humanity" is a link to another article, from which I took these excerpts:
Quote:
Let me be clear: The Hamas attack was barbaric, inhumane, a clear crime against humanity, an illustration of pure evil beyond what I had ever imagined possible.
[...]
But I don’t want to feel better about the death of thousands of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of their homes, about whole extended families being felled by F-16s — and you shouldn’t either. We should feel terrible about all of it. It’s devastating. War is hell.
[...]
So, too, when Israel’s supporters point out that Hamas commits the war crime of using human shields by operating in or near schools and hospitals, making it impossible to destroy the terrorist infrastructure without mass civilian casualties. This is true — but also should not make us feel any less terrible about the lives that are lost.
[...]
Choosing the side of humanity does not mean demanding a cease-fire, not while Hamas is still firing rockets, not while Israel is still burying some of the 1,400 souls slaughtered on Oct. 7, certainly not while more than 200 babies and teenagers and mothers and brothers and grandparents from so many countries are still hostages in Gaza.
Why is it that what Hamas did is unequivocally "barbaric, inhumane, a clear crime against humanity, and an illustration of pure evil" but the bombing death of 10 times as many Palestinians, 5000 of whom are children, only demands that we should "feel terrible about the lives that are lost" and believe that a ceasefire is NOT "taking the side of humanity"?
Re: Standing With Israel and Condemning Hamas
Linear Mode
