War in the Middle East, again

[Torco]

I'm sorry for bringing the guy to mind lmao

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.

ah, i see. my experience of the ubiquity of condemning hamas as a talking point is mostly english and spanish sources. well done france.

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.

there is, but i think it's still the case that this curious assymetry is present: people easily condemn hamas as such, and rightly so, but only some of the actions of the israeli government... which is even more jarring considering the differences in the magnitude of the human rights violations commited by each actor.

[Travis B.]

Why can't one condemn both the Israeli gov't and Hamas?

[Travis B.]

(This I see as the real issue -- as you put it, it seems to you that one can only condemn one or the other, not both.)

[Torco]

sure one can, but even that is sort of... jugar al empate, we say here. what's that desmond tutu quote of an elephant stepping on a mouse if declare neutrality you're collaborating with the elephant? something like that. that's why i drew the example of two guys trying to kill each other and how the appropriate response is stopping the guy who's winning first, not the guy who's losing first cause if you stop him first that's the same as entering the fight on the side of the first guy.

[Travis B.]

sure one can, but even that is sort of... jugar al empate, we say here. what's that desmond tutu quote of an elephant stepping on a mouse if declare neutrality you're collaborating with the elephant? something like that. that's why i drew the example of two guys trying to kill each other and how the appropriate response is stopping the guy who's winning first, not the guy who's losing first cause if you stop him first that's the same as entering the fight on the side of the first guy.

Just because one guy is a priority to be stopped first in that the magnitude of what they are doing is worse does not mean that the other guy isn't also morally bad and should not also be condemned.

In this case it is not as if Hamas is just killing Israeli soldiers as they attack Gaza -- if that were they case then what they would be doing would be legitimate acts of war. Rather, they killed ~1200 innocent Israeli civilians and took ~200 of them hostage starting this latest cycle of violence; just because Israel has since killed far more Palestinians than that in this war does not make what Hamas did any more moral.

[Torco]

yeah, no, for sure. and don't get me wrong, it is in general moral to present armed resistance to armies and regimes such as israel, and of course just armed resistance forces are going to be called terrorists by their enemies. I'd be all for 'em if that was all. but even though some civilian casualties are to be expected of guerrilla activity, just like with the maquisards or the MIR, the IRA or the vietcong or whatever else, everyone can think of one armed resistance movement they like... but hamas went waaay beyond that into psycho "kill em all" territory. music festivals etcetera are not valid war targets, and if you're gonna kidnap someone kidnap officials of the enemy regime, not randos.

no wonder israel funds them, they make the perfect enemy PR wise *and* are, from a military perspective, dumb.

[Linguoboy]

do you seriously think that a Uighur or a Tibetan or a Taiwanese person really sees China as better than the US?

probably not, no. on the other hand, someone from burkina faso, or palestine, might. but like, yeah, china's no benevolent overlord.

I get what Torco is saying here: Undoubtedly, the USA is a better country to be a citizen of than China, but when it comes to how the USA treats citizens of other countries, there really isn't as much light as we'd like to believe. And it's not alone. An activist friend of mine likes to use the expression "walled world" to talk about how "the West" has erected barriers to migration from the Global South while we fight to preserve our own high standard of living regardless of the cost to people on the rest of the planet. We like to say we're holding high the beacon of representative democracy, but the truth is we've no issue at all installing murderous dictatorships provided it serves even our short-term security goals. China may be quite willing to turn a blind eye to human rights violations so long as they're allowed to extract resources and build and buy vital infrastructure, but their record on destabilising foreign countries is undoubtedly better than the USA's.

Genuine question: how effective would further sanctions be? After all, Hezbollah is already a listed terrorist group in most Western countries, so it should already be prohibited to fund. My understanding is that its funding comes mostly from Iran nowadays, which of course is itself sanctioned.

Not very, but:

1. As you say yourself, the money to fund Hezbollah's military activities doesn't come from Al-Qard al-Hasan, nor is it the way they pay their fighters who get their salaries in cash in dollars;
2. Even if fighters were getting paid through local branches, that wouldn't be sufficient to make them "military targets" under international humanitarian law;
3. Even if they could be classed as "military targets", it's hard as hell to make the argument that Israel is taking the mandated measures to reduce civilian casualties when it destroys them.

Just bombing whatever you feel like because it's inconvenient to you, that's how lunatics and terrorists operate. It's pretty much the opposite of what you'd expect from a force that bills itself as "the most moral army in the world" and we should be saying that, loudly and often. As with the pager operation, if we can't call this "state-sponsored terrorism", then I think those words have been drained of all meaning.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the worst possible way" here, given that how hasbara accounts of child beheadings and systematic rape have been fully debunked at this point. And while I of course condemn their attacks on civilians, they take on a different colour now that I've seen the Haaretz reporting on how the IDF invoked the Hannibal Directive on the day of the attacks. It's asking a bit much to maintain the high ground on "brutally attacking civilians" when it's come out that you murdered your own to prevent them being held hostage.

Did I mention using Palestinian civilians as human shields

Oh, you mean like Israel routinely does?

Honestly, if there's one term I'd like to see retired from this conflict, it's "human shields". AFAICT, Israel regularly uses it to mean "operating among civilian populations"--which is pretty much impossible not to do when you're fighting to defend one of the most densely-populated pieces of territory in the entire globe. Moreover, I'm willing to bet the Israelis would balk at the same accusation if, say, Hezbollah took aim at the Mossad HQ or the Ministry of Defence and accidentally hit some beach hotels in Glilot or Carmel Beach instead.

Every day it becomes harder and harder to find any atrocity committed by Hamas that the IDF hasn't operationalised.

[Linguoboy]

On the one hand, I did not expect to look at the headlines today and find that Bibi fired Gallant (again); on the other hand, doing it on the day of one of our most consequential elections when everyone's attention is elsewhere is exactly the kind of dick move I've come to expect from that slimeball. I'm not sure if he's going all-in on a Trump victory or just hedging his bets by seeing how much ethnic cleansing Katz can accomplish before Inauguration Day (when now doubt Harris will respond by tutting *very sternly* in his direction).

[Ares Land]

I get what Torco is saying here: Undoubtedly, the USA is a better country to be a citizen of than China, but when it comes to how the USA treats citizens of other countries, there really isn't as much light as we'd like to believe. And it's not alone. An activist friend of mine likes to use the expression "walled world" to talk about how "the West" has erected barriers to migration from the Global South while we fight to preserve our own high standard of living regardless of the cost to people on the rest of the planet. We like to say we're holding high the beacon of representative democracy, but the truth is we've no issue at all installing murderous dictatorships provided it serves even our short-term security goals. China may be quite willing to turn a blind eye to human rights violations so long as they're allowed to extract resources and build and buy vital infrastructure, but their record on destabilising foreign countries is undoubtedly better than the USA's.

I mean it's hard not to be mad at the USA today.
Still, this completely ignores the Uyghur and Tibetan genocides. China is a murderous dictatorship that will leave you alone if you're not in its sphere of influence; that's hardly admirable.

As for the 'walled world' part, I sure don't disagree with you but I'm really, really not convinced China is a beacon of light in that respect.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the worst possible way" here, given that how hasbara accounts of child beheadings and systematic rape have been fully debunked at this point.

Frankly, that's the part where you lose me.
There was brutal massacre at a music festival; people were raped. But, I mean, OK, it was somewhat less horrible than was reported. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make any difference.

Every day it becomes harder and harder to find any atrocity committed by Hamas that the IDF hasn't operationalised.

I will never be defending Netanyahu, or even the IDF. But Hamas atrocities are still atrocities and nothing's going to change that.

You know, there can be horrible people on both sides.

[bradrn]

On the one hand, I did not expect to look at the headlines today and find that Bibi fired Gallant (again); on the other hand, doing it on the day of one of our most consequential elections when everyone's attention is elsewhere is exactly the kind of dick move I've come to expect from that slimeball. I'm not sure if he's going all-in on a Trump victory or just hedging his bets by seeing how much ethnic cleansing Katz can accomplish before Inauguration Day (when now doubt Harris will respond by tutting *very sternly* in his direction).

For those of us who are liberal Zionists, this news is distressing. Soon there will be no-one left to push back against the extremism of Netanyahu and his cronies. And, with them in power, Israel as we know it would quite simply cease to exist (God forbid).

Let me be clear: to be a Zionist means that I want Israel to thrive, as a peaceful and democratic Jewish state. But conversely, if the government of Israel attempts to subvert those goals, then it would be incumbent on me to do everything in my power to oppose that government, so that Israel can once again become a safe haven for Jews and for all other peoples.

(That being said, ‘everything in my power’ is not very much.)

Genuine question: how effective would further sanctions be? After all, Hezbollah is already a listed terrorist group in most Western countries, so it should already be prohibited to fund. My understanding is that its funding comes mostly from Iran nowadays, which of course is itself sanctioned.

Not very, but:

1. As you say yourself, the money to fund Hezbollah's military activities doesn't come from Al-Qard al-Hasan, nor is it the way they pay their fighters who get their salaries in cash in dollars;
2. Even if fighters were getting paid through local branches, that wouldn't be sufficient to make them "military targets" under international humanitarian law;
3. Even if they could be classed as "military targets", it's hard as hell to make the argument that Israel is taking the mandated measures to reduce civilian casualties when it destroys them.

1. Fair.
2. The problem is, Hezbollah takes great care to avoid having any kind of traditional ’millitary target’. They deliberately intermingle military and civilian infrastructure such that this excuse is available no matter what.
3. I wish I could deny this, but I can’t. It’s been a long time since I could honestly call the IDF ‘the most moral army in the world’.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the worst possible way" here, given that how hasbara accounts of child beheadings and systematic rape have been fully debunked at this point.

The former was a claim by Biden (IIRC) which was quickly proven false, but as Ares Land mentioned, there is overwhelming evidence that systematic rape did happen.

[rotting bones]

The former was a claim by Biden (IIRC) which was quickly proven false, but as Ares Land mentioned, there is overwhelming evidence that systematic rape did happen.

IIRC there were no babies in ovens or whatever. (Or was it beheaded babies in ovens? That sounds like something the IDF would do, honestly. Muslim fundies don't usually have that kind of combinatorial imagination. Their faculties are deadened from excessive exposure to poetry recitations.)

PS. Honestly, I'm shocked religious Muslims would harm kids at all. Kids are considered "ma'soom" in popular Islam, theologically pure and innocent like the saints, prophets and angels. It's a whole thing against heredity. No doubt the fundies will have distinguished the religious sense from the ordinary sense. That's their go to move for opposing all good things.

[Ares Land]

The former was a claim by Biden (IIRC) which was quickly proven false, but as Ares Land mentioned, there is overwhelming evidence that systematic rape did happen.

IIRC there were no babies in ovens or whatever.

Oh, then they certainly deserve congratulations for their restraint!

Seriously, are you deliberately out to provoke people? Aren't people angry enough these days?

[Torco]

(...)China may be quite willing to turn a blind eye to human rights violations so long as they're allowed to extract resources and build and buy vital infrastructure, but their record on destabilising foreign countries is undoubtedly better than the USA's (...)Every day it becomes harder and harder to find any atrocity committed by Hamas that the IDF hasn't operationalised.

destabilizing and a lot of other things, but yeah, pretty much. all of this is accurate.

Still, this completely ignores the Uyghur and Tibetan genocides. China is a murderous dictatorship that will leave you alone if you're not in its sphere of influence; that's hardly admirable.

why? is it really so hard to imagine that two things may be true? concretely, that china is commiting genocide, and that the US inflicts more damage on the rest of the world than china? like, these two things are as contradictory as bears are mammals and bears are bigger than foxes.

but as ive said before, people so often listen to any statement about china (or any enemy of the US, really) that is not the ilocution "condemnation", like anything that's not negative is said about china, and they go "but china isn't an angel". who said anything about china being an angel? it's totally illogical unless one thinks of china and the us as enemies in a war one is part of but... for most of the world we don't have a horse in that race.

There was brutal massacre at a music festival; people were raped. But, I mean, OK, it was somewhat less horrible than was reported. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make any difference.

how can it not? facts about human rights violations commited or no must matter, surely! like, for all of israel's crimes, if it starts dropping radioactive waste on gaza from planes, it'd be worse and if it doesn't it's less worse. see what I mean by getting a 'facts don't matter' vibe out of rhetoric in defense of israel, denying the genocide etcetera?

the problem with "the two are bad" is that, while true, it doesn't stop the genocide. the numerical difference, the differences in human costs in reality, the fact that israel, the country that is israel as such, is in fact doing so much more harm to so many more people than seventeen hamases could dream of... that has to matter. how does it not matter?

for what it's worth, i think it is correct to mock the lies of genocidal regimes. it helps people remember the fact that their rulers lie to them. it's bad to have taboos on mocking the lies of the military and government. especially lies that foster genocidal agendas, right? that's why we have the term blood-libel? if one things the genocide is a genocide, then those lies were exactly that, surely: they fit the bill: lies that normalize genocide. sadly, the term itself seems to only be used for blood libel against jews but obviously you can do the same thing against other ethnicities. the hutus did it against the tutsis, and i hear it's an ongoing problem.

[bradrn]

it's bad to have taboos on mocking the lies of the military and government. especially lies that foster genocidal agendas, right? that's why we have the term blood-libel? if one things the genocide is a genocide, then those lies were exactly that, surely: they fit the bill: lies that normalize genocide. sadly, the term itself seems to only be used for blood libel against jews but obviously you can do the same thing against other ethnicities. the hutus did it against the tutsis, and i hear it's an ongoing problem.

Historical note: the term ‘blood libel’ has generally referred to the specific claim that Jews murder Christians to use their blood in religious rituals. People have used the term for other things, but I don’t because that simply invites confusion.

(I can’t be bothered replying to the rest, but thought I’d clarify this point.)

[Torco]

oh thaaat's where it comes from.

[bradrn]

oh thaaat's where it comes from.

Yes. And I encourage you to reflect on the fact that English contains a dedicated term for this, and what that suggests about the history of the Jews.

[Torco]

absolutely. they've been at extreme risk of ethnic violence for centuries. and now, ethnic violence is being done by fascist psychos in their name. these are two other things that are simultaneously true, i spose.