War in the Middle East, again

[Ares Land]

I'll answer this here, in the hopes of steering back Middle East discussions to the Middle East thread...

I've seen Israeli politicians literally praising Hitler. (Seriously, I'd be surprised if Googling haaretz hitler doesn't turn it up.) I have seen them denigrate those of Palestinian descent as Amalekite vermin to be exterminated. I have seen Israeli rabbis judge that no mercy should be shown to the enemy, that Palestinians don't deserve a homeland, etc, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... ontroversy

Of course, there really are such a thing as Israeli neo-Nazis, but mind you that most of these were people of Jewish descent from the (former) Eastern Bloc who were neo-Nazis ─ yes, this is a real thing ─ who decided to immigrate to Israel just because the economy and living conditions were better there than in the former Eastern Bloc rather than because of any special love of their Jewish heritage.

rotting bones was thinking of Moshe Feiglin
Feiglin isn't an actual neo-Nazi. He's utterly despicable nonetheless. Good news, it seems his political career his dead. Bad news, Ben Gvir and Smotrich are probably worse.
People more knowledgeable than I am (bradrn?) may correct me but the military rabbinate is closely linked to Religious Zionism. Religious Zionists are of course not Nazis. Again, I may be out of my depth but I'd place them as an equivalent to the American Religious Right?

As far as I can see, the Israeli worldview is that Israel is a plucky little Jewish country surrounded by, literally, Nazi germany on all sides and that manages to somehow resist against all odds (with some help from above). With the added belief that Jewish persecution in the past centuries could have been avoided if Jews had fought as ruthlessly as possible (that may be more typical of the Israeli right or far right.)

I can understand people supporting Israel. I hate Hamas too.

One of the problems I have with the anti-Zionist side in general is that they seem unware that Hamas and Hezbollah are not plucky freedom fighters; they don't want a liberal and democratic state (or states); they're out to kick out as many Jews from the Middle East as possible and to set up a theocracy.

[bradrn]

People more knowledgeable than I am (bradrn?) may correct me but the military rabbinate is closely linked to Religious Zionism.

I’m not sure, sorry.

Religious Zionists are of course not Nazis. Again, I may be out of my depth but I'd place them as an equivalent to the American Religious Right?

‘Religious Zionist’ is a bit of an ambiguous term. For now it’s been co-opted by the party called Religious Zionism (currently represented in the Knesset by Smotrich) and its allies. I’d say they’re more extremist than the American Religious Right, which (as I understand it) generally stops short of actually endorsing terrorism.

Probably closer to the Religious Right are the Haredi (a.k.a. Ultra-Orthodox) parties, like Shas and United Torah Judaism. They tend to demand greater religious control over society and special exemptions for their followers, which I think is more in line with what the American groups want.

As far as I can see, the Israeli worldview is that Israel is a plucky little Jewish country surrounded by, literally, Nazi germany on all sides and that manages to somehow resist against all odds (with some help from above). With the added belief that Jewish persecution in the past centuries could have been avoided if Jews had fought as ruthlessly as possible (that may be more typical of the Israeli right or far right.)

Keeping in mind that there is no one single ‘Israeli worldview’, because Israeli viewpoints are wildly divergent with continuous infighting…

In broad strokes this summary is about right, but there’s more nuance to it. Regarding the neighbours, I’d say that ‘literally Nazi Germany’ is only the Israeli viewpoint on Iran, Syria, Hamas, and their various allies. Egypt and Jordan are more or less appreciated as being at peace with Israel. Even Lebanon (as a state) doesn’t seem to be particularly hated, although Hezbollah certainly is. The other Muslim states are largely ignored as posing no serious threat to Israel.

As for Jewish persecution, I don’t think anyone claims that it could have been avoided by fighting; the Jews were always too powerless. What could have prevented it is having a safe place to flee to, one which would always accept Jews whatever their circumstances. That’s what Israel is.

[Ares Land]

Thanks for the corrections and nuances.

[Travis B.]

One of the problems I have with the anti-Zionist side in general is that they seem unware that Hamas and Hezbollah are not plucky freedom fighters; they don't want a liberal and democratic state (or states); they're out to kick out as many Jews from the Middle East as possible and to set up a theocracy.

This is a big problem I have with a lot of anti-Zionists -- they often make pro-Hamas and/or pro-Hezbollah statements, when I am just as opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah as I am to Israel. They would do to the Israeli Jews what the Israeli gov't and the settlers are trying to do to the Palestinians if given the chance -- they just have far less capacity to actually attempt such -- and as you say they do not seek liberal democracy in any form.

[Travis B.]

Religious Zionists are of course not Nazis. Again, I may be out of my depth but I'd place them as an equivalent to the American Religious Right?

‘Religious Zionist’ is a bit of an ambiguous term. For now it’s been co-opted by the party called Religious Zionism (currently represented in the Knesset by Smotrich) and its allies. I’d say they’re more extremist than the American Religious Right, which (as I understand it) generally stops short of actually endorsing terrorism.

Probably closer to the Religious Right are the Haredi (a.k.a. Ultra-Orthodox) parties, like Shas and United Torah Judaism. They tend to demand greater religious control over society and special exemptions for their followers, which I think is more in line with what the American groups want.

There are occasional terrorists within the American religious right (e.g. abortion clinic attackers) but as a whole the American religious right is not terrorist and is, indeed, rather akin to the Ultra-Orthodox parties within Israel from what I gather.

[Torco]

Why is the whole condemn hamas even relevant? i fear it is to imply genocide to be justified if the target group contains terrorists, or if it falls under the concept of collateral damage.

[Ares Land]

Why is the whole condemn hamas even relevant? i fear it is to imply genocide to be justified if the target group contains terrorists, or if it falls under the concept of collateral damage.

Hamas brutally attacked civilians on October 7th, treating their victims in the worst possible way; their objective is to kill or kick out (but killing preferred) all Jews from the Middle East. They'd like to establish a theocracy. Did I mention using Palestinian civilians as human shields, or repressing all opposition?
What's not to condemn?

When I see a politician not condemning Hamas, this suggests one of these explanations: a) they have a very naive worldview of Hamas as plucky resistance fighters b) they have a very binary worldview that the atrocities of one side are to be forgotten because the other side is worse c) they're on the whole okay with the plan.

[bradrn]

October 10th

7th. (The rest I agree with.)

[Ares Land]

October 10th

7th. (The rest I agree with.)

Fixed. (Apparently my brain still can't handle the month-day order.)

[bradrn]

(Apparently my brain still can't handle the month-day order.)

Oh, neither can mine.

(Australia very sensibly uses day/month/year format. I’ve yet to comprehend why anyone would voluntarily use middle-endian order…)

[Travis B.]

Why is the whole condemn hamas even relevant? i fear it is to imply genocide to be justified if the target group contains terrorists, or if it falls under the concept of collateral damage.

Just because one side commits war crimes and crimes against humanity does not justify the other side's war crimes and crimes against humanity. Hamas is just as guilty as Israel is -- it just happens that they have had less capacity to kill as many people as Israel has had.

[Torco]

see? the ostensible pertinence of the issue is so taken for granted that if you ask for it, people answer with *the fact* that hamas is bad, rather than *why is it relevant that hamas is bad*. okay, hamas bad: so what, are we being proposed the rule that if some members of an ethnic group do terrorism then we exterminate the group? cause if not (and i trust the answer is "not"), and this is a genuine question: so what? how does it justify what israel is doing?

When I see a politician not condemning Hamas, this suggests one of these explanations: a) they have a very naive worldview of Hamas as plucky resistance fighters b) they have a very binary worldview that the atrocities of one side are to be forgotten because the other side is worse c) they're on the whole okay with the plan.

real talk here, even beyond the question of actual humans rights violations perpetrated (or ideological agreement, i'm preempting the "but hamas are homophobic islamic and antisemitic: yes they are, hamas is bad): like, in cartoon terms, if you see two people trying to kill each other, isn't it more appropriate to stop the one that's winning first? the correct response, of course, is yes i condemn hamas, but i condemn israel much more harshly: hamas is not at present bombing and starving two million people. no, it doesn't matter if you think they would.

Just because one side commits war crimes and crimes against humanity does not justify the other side's war crimes and crimes against humanity. Hamas is just as guilty as Israel is -- it just happens that they have had less capacity to kill as many people as Israel has had.

guilt requires perpetration, and on that tally israel has a lot more blood on its hands. still, grant that they are equal: how does that justify anything?

[Travis B.]

see? the ostensible pertinence of the issue is so taken for granted that if you ask for it, people answer with *the fact* that hamas is bad, rather than *why is it relevant that hamas is bad*. okay, hamas bad: so what, are we being proposed the rule that if some members of an ethnic group do terrorism then we exterminate the group? cause if not (and i trust the answer is "not"), and this is a genuine question: so what? how does it justify what israel is doing?

When I see a politician not condemning Hamas, this suggests one of these explanations: a) they have a very naive worldview of Hamas as plucky resistance fighters b) they have a very binary worldview that the atrocities of one side are to be forgotten because the other side is worse c) they're on the whole okay with the plan.

real talk here, even beyond the question of actual humans rights violations perpetrated (or ideological agreement, i'm preempting the "but hamas are homophobic islamic and antisemitic: yes they are, hamas is bad): like, in cartoon terms, if you see two people trying to kill each other, isn't it more appropriate to stop the one that's winning first? the correct response, of course, is yes i condemn hamas, but i condemn israel much more harshly: hamas is not at present bombing and starving two million people. no, it doesn't matter if you think they would.

Just because one side commits war crimes and crimes against humanity does not justify the other side's war crimes and crimes against humanity. Hamas is just as guilty as Israel is -- it just happens that they have had less capacity to kill as many people as Israel has had.

guilt requires perpetration, and on that tally israel has a lot more blood on its hands. still, grant that they are equal: how does that justify anything?

Since when have we stated that what Hamas did justifies what Israel doing? But at the same time, what we are saying is that what Israel is doing now does not retroactively justify what Hamas did. We are also saying that we cannot sympathize with Hamas because what Hamas actually stands for is an anathema to us; just because Israel's conduct is worse than theirs overall does not make them any better in and of themselves.

[Ares Land]

see? the ostensible pertinence of the issue is so taken for granted that if you ask for it, people answer with *the fact* that hamas is bad, rather than *why is it relevant that hamas is bad*. okay, hamas bad: so what, are we being proposed the rule that if some members of an ethnic group do terrorism then we exterminate the group? cause if not (and i trust the answer is "not"), and this is a genuine question: so what? how does it justify what israel is doing?

No. I think that Israel is committing war crimes; and there's nothing that justifies their current conduct.

But like I said, I wouldn't trust a politician or a journalist or an activist who doesn't condemn Hamas.

[Torco]

Ah, but would you trust a politician that does not condemn israel? also, if it doesn't justify israel's warcrimes and genocide, why is it that everytime anyone mentions it people -in defense of israel- reply "but do you condemn hamas".

[Ares Land]

Ah, but would you trust a politician that does not condemn israel?

What does 'condemn Israel' means? That'd be like "condemning Palestine".
But no, I don't trust politicians that don't condemn Israel's actions towards the Palestinians either.

also, if it doesn't justify israel's warcrimes and genocide, why is it that everytime anyone mentions it people -in defense of israel- reply "but do you condemn hamas".

Do people bring up that question often in the US? Or in Chile? Over here I can't say it comes up very often.
I mean people bring it up when politicians have acted weird or made weaselly statements after October 7th, for instance, yeah, and in that case it certainly feels justified to me.

EDIT: here the left is often accused of antisemitism -- this has nothing to do with Israel, and everything with playing up fears of terrorism/discrediting the left. And this could have been easily averted by LFI (one of our left-wing parties, if you don't follow French politics) having a clear stance on the issue, which they don't and, you know, condemning Hamas, (which they did after much hand-wringing.)

[Torco]

so condemnation of a relatively small terrorist is unambiguous, obvious, obligatory and non-problematic but condemnation of a state that is currently bombing and starving two million people, plus however many more in lebanon and the west bank, that's when the interrogation of the concept of condemnation begins? also, there is no state that is palestine, so condemning palestine would amount to condemning... what, a territory? (or, more sinisterly, an ethnic group) whereas israel is a concrete entity, a state in this case, that has concrete policies which include the PG, just like hamas is a concrete entity, a non-state org, that has concrete policies. what's confusing about condemning israel that is not confusing about condemning hamas? why do we condemn hamas itself, but only condemn "israel's actions"?

Do people bring up that question often in the US? Or in Chile? Over here I can't say it comes up very often.

people bring it up all the time, here, in the us tv i've watched on the subject, and yes, in chile too, in the context of people denouncing israel for its human rights violations. this thread has a few such instances. i may be wrong here but am i the only one with the feeling that whenever anyone criticizes israel's actions someone sympathetic to it jumps up "do you condemn hamas". remember a few pages back when someone joked "do you condemn llamas"? this is a meme born out of the ubiquity of the "condemn hamas" talking point in the context of the palestinian genocide, in particular on TV.

in the icj, the israeli defense was, amongst other arguments, that hamas is bad, that they use human shields, and that oct 7 happened. the question has its own knowyourmeme page, where it reads

Do You Condemn Hamas? refers to a catchphrase and question that was asked by various news reporters, anchors and outlets amid the 2023 Israel-Hamas Conflict to proponents of Palestine who were vocally against the IDF's response to Hamas' October 2023 attack.

if you google "condemn hamas" you'll find endless examples of israel apologists responding to accusations that israel is commiting genocide, or to any criticism of israel's actions, really, with "do you condemn hamas" (notably piers morgan, whoever they are). if i ask gpt "when do people say do you condemn hamas" it says "Contextually, this question is often raised when individuals or organizations express support for Palestinian rights"... i know, i know, LLMs aren't good fact-finders, but they are good at summarizing the datasets they're trained on. I don't know, honestly, the notion that people seldom say do you condemn hamas as a response to criticism of israel is a bit outlandish to me.

[Lērisama]

notably piers morgan, whoever they are

I'm not wading into this argument, but Piers Morgan is a British tabloid journalist turned media personality, recently involved in amplifying every right-wing cause in existence, and saying as many deliberately controversial things as loudly as possible. According to Wikipedia, he was criticised by the Leveson inquiry into the phone hacking scandal for presiding over phone hacking when he was an editor of the Daily Mirror, as just one example of his character.

[Ares Land]

so condemnation of a relatively small terrorist is unambiguous, obvious, obligatory and non-problematic but condemnation of a state that is currently bombing and starving two million people, plus however many more in lebanon and the west bank, that's when the interrogation of the concept of condemnation begins? also, there is no state that is palestine, so condemning palestine would amount to condemning... what, a territory? (or, more sinisterly, an ethnic group) whereas israel is a concrete entity, a state in this case, that has concrete policies which include the PG, just like hamas is a concrete entity, a non-state org, that has concrete policies. what's confusing about condemning israel that is not confusing about condemning hamas? why do we condemn hamas itself, but only condemn "israel's actions"?

You might be reading a bit more into my words than are actually there. I feel there's a big difference between Israelis (if you prefer) and their government(s) (which happen to have been horrible for more than 20 years.) Just like there's a huge difference between Hamas and the Gazans.

I don't know, honestly, the notion that people seldom say do you condemn hamas as a response to criticism of israel is a bit outlandish to me.

I get my news from French media, so it's... not so surprising. Criticizing Israel's actions is unremarkable here; always has been, as far as I remember.

I'm not wading into this argument, but Piers Morgan is a British tabloid journalist turned media personality, recently involved in amplifying every right-wing cause in existence, and saying as many deliberately controversial things as loudly as possible. According to Wikipedia, he was criticised by the Leveson inquiry into the phone hacking scandal for presiding over phone hacking when he was an editor of the Daily Mirror, as just one example of his character.

I had to google Piers Morgan. I think I was a bit happier when I didn't know who that was

[Lērisama]

I'm not wading into this argument, but Piers Morgan is a British tabloid journalist turned media personality, recently involved in amplifying every right-wing cause in existence, and saying as many deliberately controversial things as loudly as possible. According to Wikipedia, he was criticised by the Leveson inquiry into the phone hacking scandal for presiding over phone hacking when he was an editor of the Daily Mirror, as just one example of his character.

I had to google Piers Morgan. I think I was a bit happier when I didn't know who that was

I did too. I try to forget him as much as it is possible