Israel - Hamas War XII

[Luzifer's right hand]

2 hours ago, JoannaL said:

another very disturbing  (and by German definition antisemitic) article by Grata Thunberg regarding the Gaza war.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/05/gaza-climate-justice-human-rights-greta-thunberg

content: october 7 only half a sentence and worse: Israel committing "genocide"

In Germany this is all over the news again. Friday for Future Germany which is historically a very strong section of FFF is fighing for weeks now to distant themselves from Greta, but this time it may be just too much. the whole climate movement it Germany is flailing because ot this totally unnecessary involvement in the Hamas attack and following war.

Personally I can say that at my daughthers school all FFF groups and activities stopped about 5 weeks ago. No one is doing anything for the climate any longer, which is stupid, because climate problems will not go away only because some activits are antisemites (though they would claim they aren't). But perhaps another movement, which is not FFF ,  is needed now.

 

 

Actually with the climate conference being in Dubai this year it is reasonable to assume that it is over anyway.

The denialists and their tech-optimist allies have won long ago anyway. It was probably over in the mid 90s to be honest.

We will test how much the biosphere can take that's it.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Luzifer's right hand

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

Criticize Israel yes, throw the Holocaust in the face of all Jews no.

Jews are not the only people who have gone through genocide. She did not say Holocaust. 

Genocide means something but it doesn't refer exclusively to what your people did to mine.

[JoannaL]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Jews are not the only people who have gone through genocide. She did not say Holocaust. 

Genocide means something but it doesn't refer exclusively to what your people did to mine.

She did not say Holocaust. She didn't have to.

[Kalbear]

Wait, this is the passage yall are objecting to - her referring to acrual experts about it?

Quote

Dozens of United Nations experts have described the situation as “a genocide in the making”, hundreds of international scholars have warned of an unfolding genocide and prominent Israeli genocide expert Raz Segal has called it “a textbook case of genocide”. But most of the world, particularly the so-called global north, is looking the other way.

Yes, how dare she reference...the UN and ISRAELI experts on genocide.

[Luzifer's right hand]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Jews are not the only people who have gone through genocide. She did not say Holocaust. 

Genocide means something but it doesn't refer exclusively to what your people did to mine.

Any comparison to the Holocaust can get you in hot waters with the law in Germany and Austria because it falls under Holocaust denial laws. The word does not need to be used. Just implying it is enough. Mentioning that the something is happening to a group is the same as what happened to Jews for example.

It is a slippery slope and pretty risky legally.

[JoannaL]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Wait, this is the passage yall are objecting to - her referring to acrual experts about it?

Yes, how dare she reference...the UN and ISRAELI experts on genocide.

No I meant that one.

"The horrific murders of Israeli civilians by Hamas cannot in any way legitimise Israel’s ongoing war crimes. Genocide is not self-defence, nor is it in any way a proportionate response."

Notice that there is the half sentence -the only half sentence in the whole article- referencing the Hamas atrocities.

In the next sentence is genocide.

 

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

 

[Craving Peaches]

So it automatically becomes antisemetic because it didn't talk about Hamas enough? I am really confused. There are multiple reasons why the Hamas atrocities would be covered less in that article that are not related to antisemetism, such as the passage of time (because this is sadly just how news works), the fact that governments are sending weapons to Israel, the fact that Israel is reported to have killed over ten times as many people as the initial Hamas attack did, the scale of the Israeli response, the fact that governments have more chance of influencing Israeli policy than they do Hamas policy, etc.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

So it automatically becomes antisemetic because it didn't talk about Hamas enough? I am really confused. There are multiple reasons why the Hamas atrocities would be covered less in that article that are not related to antisemetism, such as the passage of time (because this is sadly just how news works), the fact that governments are sending weapons to Israel, the fact that Israel is reported to have killed over ten times as many people as the initial Hamas attack did, the scale of the Israeli response, the fact that governments have more chance of influencing Israeli policy than they do Hamas policy, etc.

I agree. And while I don’t dispute or deny that there is a disturbing amount of antisemitism in the world and that it’s gotten much worse lately, the notion that criticising this Israeli government is antisemitism is ridiculous. Also, Greta is not the only one using genocide to describe what is going on in Gaza. I’m not equipped to judge either way. But several experts have said the same thing, many of them Jews. And many have also said there’s ethnic cleansing, which very much looks to be the case. I suppose at some point both accusations will be looked into by people whose expertise is in this field. And maybe even then there will be disagreements as to whether either one happened or not. 
As to the terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7 having been referenced only once, I’m not sure what the problem is? I mean, Hamas’ terrorist attack is an event that is fixed n the timeline, whereas the atrocities being committed by this Israeli government are ongoing and getting worse by the day. It makes sense that it is more present in the stream of daily news. 

[Luzifer's right hand]

 

12 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

So it automatically becomes antisemetic because it didn't talk about Hamas enough? I am really confused. There are multiple reasons why the Hamas atrocities would be covered less in that article that are not related to antisemetism, such as the passage of time (because this is sadly just how news works), the fact that governments are sending weapons to Israel, the fact that Israel is reported to have killed over ten times as many people as the initial Hamas attack did, the scale of the Israeli response, the fact that governments have more chance of influencing Israeli policy than they do Hamas policy, etc.

Only mentioning Israeli civilians is downplaying the Hamas attacks by default though. 

People in the west usually don't actually give a shit if people in other countries are harmed. They only care if the perpetrators are a group they dislike and they don't benefit from the violence. I have recently read up on the constant violence inflicted upon natives in South America and nobody cares because we benefit from the conversion of areas they live in as the destruction of the rain forest for grazing grounds and feedstock farming is a key element of global animal agriculture.

[Conflicting Thought]

53 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

No I meant that one.

"The horrific murders of Israeli civilians by Hamas cannot in any way legitimise Israel’s ongoing war crimes. Genocide is not self-defence, nor is it in any way a proportionate response."

Notice that there is the half sentence -the only half sentence in the whole article- referencing the Hamas atrocities.

In the next sentence is genocide.

 

 

bruh...this is fabrication, this is distraction, nothing more

[Kalbear]

59 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

No I meant that one.

"The horrific murders of Israeli civilians by Hamas cannot in any way legitimise Israel’s ongoing war crimes. Genocide is not self-defence, nor is it in any way a proportionate response."

Notice that there is the half sentence -the only half sentence in the whole article- referencing the Hamas atrocities.

In the next sentence is genocide.

After she referred to experts on what it was. The first paragraph does not act alone here, and taking the rest out of that context isn't doing you any favors. (it's also inaccurate; she condemns the acts of antisemitism and violence against Jews earlier as well)

The idea that you have to spend an equal amount of time condemning Hamas if you are to condemn Israel is old. The October 7th attack happened almost two months ago. The problem that is going on is happening right now, and it is something that she can do to try and influence people to put pressure on Israel to stop it. She can do nothing but mourn the dead for the horrific terrorist attack. She can do more to stop Israel killing more people right now. 

And honestly, if you're going to condemn someone for referring to experts cautioning about genocide then I don't know how you can ever have honest conversations. 

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Thousands of rockets plus over a thousand heavily armed men were able to carry out the attack. It was a terror attack, but it was also a military attack. If they had knives and slings, they couldn't have done anything like the damage that they did. You can see footage of their using RPGs against civilian vehicles. Yes, an intelligence failure is also part of it, but it's not like you can actually guarantee no intelligence failures in perpetuity -- if it can happen, it will happen.

Thousands of rockets were fired from Gaza while Israel occupied it as well. If you think that Israel is going to be able to disarm Gaza to the point where they have knives and slings only good luck with that - I think that's an exceptionally unrealistic idea. RPGs are not hard to smuggle either. 

Also, the amount of Israeli civilian deaths during the second Intifada was pretty comparable to the attack on October 7th - about 700 Israeli civilians killed. Not in one attack, but I'm not sure that makes it significantly better. 

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Suicide bombings happened in Baghdad and Kandahar and Kabul after interim governments were arranged, and yet interim governments were able to exercise substantive control over these cities. Suicide attacks are a disruptive terrorist element, but you can work past them. What you can't do is try to have a government control a city where substantial portions are not under its control because of armed militants. It doesn't work.

Didn't say you could. Again, you're arguing a point I didn't make. You said that it will be peaceful with Israel in control. Even if you take that as 'relatively peaceful I disagree. It is likely that the amount of Israeli casualties during that time will be close to the amount suffered in October 7th. Especially since civilians are where Israel is going to be more vulnerable. 

And, especially since it is likely that the efforts to attack Israel will not come from Gaza at that point - they'll come from the West Bank. 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, JoannaL said:

"There is a sadistic triumphalism in charging Jews with genocide, as though those making it feel they have their man at last. The sadism resides, specifically, in attacking Jews where their memories of pain are keenest. By making them now the torturer and not the tortured, their assailants wrest their anguish from them, not only stealing their past but trampling on it"

Or, hear me out, Jews are really normal human beings that should be reduced to neither a role of torturer nor a role of tortured, and any logic that pits one role against the other is a perverse way of excluding them from humanity as a whole.
This is the very logic at the heart of the Hamas-Likud opposition, which fuels anti-semitism. If you feel you have to "pick a side" to be in the right, you're already on the wrong track.
 

2 hours ago, JoannaL said:

"When, for the sheer irreligious hell of it, we begin withdrawing fellow-feeling from Jews, upturning the moral universe and declaring them guilty of what was done to them, this impiety shows itself first as thinking the unthinkable, then as saying the unsayable. It is impossible not to ask – how long before we do the undoable?"

What a load of crap. Both human history and the Old Testament are full of genocide. If you don't want to withdraw "fellow-feeling" from Jews, perhaps start by aknowledging that their humanity also means they can be terribly wrong, that Jews can be fascist or genocidal, instead of engaging in this holier-than-though moralizing victimizing bullshit.

[Kalbear]

I'm actually totally fine if Germans want to say that they can't accuse Israel of genocide. That's fine with me.

But their guilt in the Holocaust does not mean that Israel cannot be accused by other peoples. Especially when one of the accusers mentioned is Israeli. 

[JoannaL]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm actually totally fine if Germans want to say that they can't accuse Israel of genocide. That's fine with me.

But their guilt in the Holocaust does not mean that Israel cannot be accused by other peoples. Especially when one of the accusers mentioned is Israeli. 

ok, last try:

Lets say the black people in the US feel that they can no longer live with the descendants of their slavers. Lets say they found another state somewhere else and there are problems with other people who also live there. Lets say part of these troubles lead to a situation when perhaps it can be seen that some indentured labor is happening. would it then be correct of the white people (not only of the US but everywhere) to not just criticize this situation in this country but to call all these black people "slavers" to their face or would this be very traumatic and insulting? I think it would be insulting and hate speech and in this sense Greta Thunberg is antisemitic,- because she wants to insult where it hurts most.

this does not mean that it is not possible to critizise the potential indentured labor in my hypothetical country but with other words and taking into account the harms historically done.

 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

ok, last try:

Lets say the black people in the US feel that they can no longer live with the descendants of their slavers. Lets say they found another state somewhere else and there are problems with other people who also live there. Lets say part of these troubles lead to a situation when perhaps it can be seen that some indentured labor is happening. would it then be correct of the white people (not only of the US but everywhere) to not just criticize this situation in this country but to call all these black people "slavers" to their face or would this be very traumatic and insulting?

Wow, now that's a super tortured analogy, but for the record: if what that new group is doing is enslaving people then it's totally fine to call them slavers. 

Because they are enslaving people. 

Also I don't think it means that NO white people can do this. Again, people in the US saying that Israel is committing genocide is not the same thing as Germans do it. The descendants of slaves in the US being insulted by, say, the French doesn't have the same effect, just like the descendants of slaves in Haiti being called things by the US wouldn't hit the same as the French doing it. 

But ultimately saying 'genocide' is a descriptive, defined term by international law. If you were to use terms that were more specific to the Holocaust I'd agree with you - if you're talking about using words like extermination camps or gas chambers or Arbeit Macht Frei? Okay, that would be bad. But describing something using words that for a lot of people accurately describes what is going on is not particularly problematic for me, nor does it constitute being antisemitic by itself.

5 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

I think it would be insulting and hate speech and in this sense Greta Thunberg is antisemitic,- because she wants to insult where it hurts most. 

You're ascribing motivations that I don't think you can really back up, and I also think that you're taking a very specific definition of what hate speech is here and making it very, very weirdly broad. 

5 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

this does not mean that it is not possible to critizise the potential indentured labor in my hypothetical country but with other words and taking into account the harms historically done.

So what word would you rather use that has the same meaning as genocide? Would 'mass slaughter of an ethnic population with the intent of removing them from an area' work? Because those mean the same thing, but I guess one is okay for you? 

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

ok, last try:

Lets say the black people in the US feel that they can no longer live with the descendants of their slavers. Lets say they found another state somewhere else and there are problems with other people who also live there. Lets say part of these troubles lead to a situation when perhaps it can be seen that some indentured labor is happening. would it then be correct of the white people (not only of the US but everywhere) to not just criticize this situation in this country but to call all these black people "slavers" to their face or would this be very traumatic and insulting? I think it would be insulting and hate speech and in this sense Greta Thunberg is antisemitic,- because she wants to insult where it hurts most.

this does not mean that it is not possible to critizise the potential indentured labor in my hypothetical country but with other words and taking into account the harms historically done.

 

I'm not sure this example works.  The way you present it makes it sound like people in general are criticising the people of Israel in general, and that's nor what's happening. The criticism is being  directed at the actions of the Israeli government, because it's Bibi & his thugs who are making the decisions that, according to many experts, are either genocidal or getting there rather quickly. 

 

[DanteGabriel]

55 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

ok, last try:

Lets say the black people in the US feel that they can no longer live with the descendants of their slavers. Lets say they found another state somewhere else and there are problems with other people who also live there. Lets say part of these troubles lead to a situation when perhaps it can be seen that some indentured labor is happening. would it then be correct of the white people (not only of the US but everywhere) to not just criticize this situation in this country but to call all these black people "slavers" to their face or would this be very traumatic and insulting? I think it would be insulting and hate speech and in this sense Greta Thunberg is antisemitic,- because she wants to insult where it hurts most.

this does not mean that it is not possible to critizise the potential indentured labor in my hypothetical country but with other words and taking into account the harms historically done.

 

What a useless and tortured attempt to defend your constant irresponsible use of anti-Semitism attacks. Just take the L and move on. Fuck's sake, you've got me agreeing with HoI.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, JoannaL said:

Lets say the black people in the US feel that they can no longer live with the descendants of their slavers. Lets say they found another state somewhere else and there are problems with other people who also live there.

Let's not. Historic counterfactuals are never included in authentic, profesisonal historic study and theory, or even in journalism of current events. 

Unless -- one is a raving card carrying member of the fascists, which, of course there are millions now here in the USA -- who are actually terrified, or so They say, that Black people will be doing to Them what They have been doing to Black people since the beginning of the country, when it was a colony.

If you were going there, why not do the Native American populations as well?  Who were put in prison-reservations, which, whenever it seemed worthwhile taking the bleak lands so generously given them instead of the rich and fertile growing lands, when, say, gold or oil, is discovered in those lands, the colonizers just moved in and stole that too.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Zorral

[Hmmm]

Well, if I recall correctly Greta Thunberg was reported to have been chanting "crush Zionism" in a demonstration outside the Israeli embassy about a week ago. Maybe it is just a coincidence that she wants that particular country gone though.