War in the Middle East, again

[Ares Land]

An organisation which started out by encouraging ‘killing the Jews’, and wishes ‘death for the sake of Allah’, is not terrorist? To say so is quite deeply disingenuous.

Do you want me to pull out unfortunate Talmud references? I really don't want to do it.

Dude. Not OK.

This is veering dangerously close to antisemitism; I say this knowing you don't want to go there.

[rotting bones]

This is veering dangerously close to antisemitism; I say this knowing you don't want to go there.

Why is Antisemitism worse than Islamophobia? I don't see where you showed a similar reaction to bradrn.

[bradrn]

An organisation which started out by encouraging ‘killing the Jews’, and wishes ‘death for the sake of Allah’, is not terrorist? To say so is quite deeply disingenuous.

Do you want me to pull out unfortunate Talmud references? I really don't want to do it.

I can’t quite believe I have to make this point clear, but which references they pick matter. They could have instead highlighted one of the innumerable hadiths about peace and love and so on and so forth… but they didn’t. Instead, they picked one of the most violently antisemitic comments in the whole of Islamic tradition. That may not say much about Islam, but it sure says a lot about Hamas.

(And the same applies to the Talmud, of course. There’s a lot of stuff there, and if you choose to highlight the few nasty comments, that says more about you than about the entirety of Jewish tradition.)

[Ares Land]

This is veering dangerously close to antisemitism; I say this knowing you don't want to go there.

Why is Antisemitism worse than Islamophobia? I don't see where you showed a similar reaction to bradrn.

bradrn was quoting this in context, and speaking about the Hamas charter.

---

Also, as a bit of public service: the unfortunate Talmud quotes you'll read here and there?
They probably don't even exist. I know it because I checked. Sometimes when you check the reference you'll find something else entirely; sometimes they even make up the names of non-existent treatises, sometimes they mix them up. They're all made up, and likely very old (some of them can be dated back to Tsarist Russia.)

[rotting bones]

I can’t quite believe I have to make this point clear, but which references they pick matter. They could have instead highlighted one of the innumerable hadiths about peace and love and so on and so forth… but they didn’t. Instead, they picked one of the most violently antisemitic comments in the whole of Islamic tradition. That may not say much about Islam, but it sure says a lot about Hamas.

(And the same applies to the Talmud, of course. There’s a lot of stuff there, and if you choose to highlight the few nasty comments, that says more about you than about the entirety of Jewish tradition.)

I do not support Hamas. They were an unjust organization from the beginning that tried to recruit followers by stoking resentment against the ethnicity their attackers. The only thing I meant to say is that they did not specialize in terrorism at the outset. Look, the Nazis had a birdwatcher's club. Even though this was an evil organization, the birdwatcher's club, as an organization, was not a paramilitary unit.

This is not an endorsement of the activities of Hamas. If you look at the rest of my post, it talks about breaking the base of their spine and letting them wither away. In fact, if you were to hire a private investigator who then went through my entire online posting history and personal notes, they wouldn't be able to find a single endorsement of Hamas.

I think this is relevant because it shows the possibility of eventually deradicalizing Gaza despite the evil education they have been subjected to so far.

[bradrn]

The only thing I meant to say is that they did not specialize in terrorism at the outset.

Did you not read the post where I quite clearly showed their endorsement of terrorism at the outset?

Look, the Nazis had a birdwatcher's club. Even though this was an evil organization, the birdwatcher's club, as an organization, was not a paramilitary unit.

And the point of this is… what, exactly? Does it excuse the Nazis in any way, shape or form? No. It does not. The only reason I can possibly imagine someone making a big deal of this point is if they’re a Nazi apologist. (‘See? The Nazis weren’t totally evil, they spent a lot of time running social events!’)

This is not an endorsement of the activities of Hamas.

And yet, you seem to spend quite a lot of time defending their organisation…

[rotting bones]

bradrn was quoting this in context, and speaking about the Hamas charter.

It was out of context. An organization that mentions judgment day legends of doubtful authenticity does not necessarily specialize in terrorism. This does not give legitimacy to the organization. All it does is give hope for eventual de-radicalization.

By the way, the standard doctrine in Islam, despite all the legends, is that there is no sign humans can discern that will let them know when judgment day will come. Despite this, there are lots of legends about the subject. In Bengali Sunnism, I heard: The last ally of the Muslims will be China. (Edit: China is symbolically associated with wisdom in the Islamic tradition.) The Anti-Christ* will start out as a friend to all men, but then he will demand to be worshipped as God. He will have a bizarre device with which he will decapitate anyone who refuses. Muslims will be persecuted until only a small number are left. Before the last battle where they will have been wiped out, the Muslims will finally realize who Imam Mahdi is. He will always have been a humble man who never stood out. In fact, he has always been kind of a socially awkward idiot. When they find him, he will have finished shaving half his beard that morning. When they offer to give him command of the army, he will refuse. They will ignore him and drag him to the battlefield. The Muslims will win the final battle with a commander who has a half-shaved beard and is furiously praying to God for deliverance out of sheer terror.

They're all made up, and likely very old (some of them can be dated back to Tsarist Russia.)

They are not all made up. I have linked to one before that Jews know about and accept. I have never mentioned it in the context of Israel.

*If you believe Christian numerologists, the references to Christ and Anti-Christ are switched in Islam.

[rotting bones]

The only thing I meant to say is that they did not specialize in terrorism at the outset.

Did you not read the post where I quite clearly showed their endorsement of terrorism at the outset?

Look, the Nazis had a birdwatcher's club. Even though this was an evil organization, the birdwatcher's club, as an organization, was not a paramilitary unit.

And the point of this is… what, exactly? Does it excuse the Nazis in any way, shape or form? No. It does not. The only reason I can possibly imagine someone making a big deal of this point is if they’re a Nazi apologist. (‘See? The Nazis weren’t totally evil, they spent a lot of time running social events!’)

Ok, maybe this phrasing will work:

My analogy with Hamas is that, even after Hamas is destroyed, a lot of Palestinians will endorse terrorism. This does not mean that they are terrorists. What this shows is the possibility of de-radicalization.

Compare:

Even after Nazi Germany is destroyed, a lot of Germans will endorse terrorism. This does not mean that they are terrorists. What this shows is the possibility of de-radicalization.

And yet, you seem to spend quite a lot of time defending their organisation…

You have defended the IDF in this thread way more than I have ever defended Hamas. At the start of this conflict (as you will see if you look up my posts in this thread), I said my best case scenario is Hamas being quickly wiped out, but I was afraid that Netanyahu was going to commit war crimes to show that he's defending Israel while dragging out the conflict indefinitely.

The more you look at my posting history, the more you'll find pro-Israel posts, I'm ashamed to say. I only seriously sided with Palestinians around 2019 when far left arguments convinced me.

Not that I ever expect a human to believe a truth, mind you. I've never seen it happen so far.

[Ares Land]

They are not all made up. I have linked to one before that Jews know about and accept. I have never mentioned it in the context of Israel.

Tell you what, I searched for it and couldn't find it. But anyway, I suggest you go read a bit on the Talmud, and how it's used by the crassest sort of antisemites, begin with 'The Talmud Unmasked'. You might learn a few things.
In other words, using antisemitic dog-whistles isn't the smartest of ideas.
*sigh*

Sometimes, you know, I despair of leftists. Not you in particular, many people on the left. Why do people always try to find excuses for Hamas? What's even the point of doing that? Calling the Hamas what they are, criminal pieces of shit, takes about five seconds. It's simple and easy. It does not mean condoning what Israel is currently doing in any way.
Finding excuses for them and then frantically backpedalling takes hours, is generally painful for everyone invovled and scares off pretty much every one.

Now we can all go back to how much we'd like to see Netanyahu tried for war crimes.

Secondly, re ‘turning Israel into a genocidal terror state’: Ben Gvir wants that, and Smotrich wants that. Netanyahu, as far as we can tell, does not (however bankrupt his sense of morality is in every other way). Indeed, it seems that he’s been taking enormous effort to minimise Ben Gvir’s influence, though of course it would have been more moral to not ally with these monsters in the first place.

I don't know about Netanyahu. He allied with Ben Gvir fully aware of what he was... At this point the possible explanation is that he either wants a genocidal terror state, or that he doesn't care if Israel turns genocidal as long as he's still PM.

[Torco]

so... probably not on will the protests destabilize the government. that sucks

And — even accepting the premises here, which I don’t — would this really stop Hamas from doing terrorist stuff? More likely they’d say, ‘wow, look at what our terrorism achieved, let’s terrorise even harder until we reach our goal of expelling or murdering every last Jew’

guess for zionism full ethnic cleansing really is the only solution, huh?

[bradrn]

Secondly, re ‘turning Israel into a genocidal terror state’: Ben Gvir wants that, and Smotrich wants that. Netanyahu, as far as we can tell, does not (however bankrupt his sense of morality is in every other way). Indeed, it seems that he’s been taking enormous effort to minimise Ben Gvir’s influence, though of course it would have been more moral to not ally with these monsters in the first place.

I don't know about Netanyahu. He allied with Ben Gvir fully aware of what he was... At this point the possible explanation is that he either wants a genocidal terror state, or that he doesn't care if Israel turns genocidal as long as he's still PM.

The latter.

And — even accepting the premises here, which I don’t — would this really stop Hamas from doing terrorist stuff? More likely they’d say, ‘wow, look at what our terrorism achieved, let’s terrorise even harder until we reach our goal of expelling or murdering every last Jew’

guess for zionism full ethnic cleansing really is the only solution, huh?

No, of course not. A war against Hamas is not automatically a genocide. Indeed, the current war is not a genocide, no matter how often you say otherwise.

[Torco]

I mean... it is though. I agree that a war is not automatically a genocide, of course, but a war *can* be a genocide if, for example, civilian infrastructure is targeted indiscriminately (which israel routinely does), if food aid is denied entry to the territories where people need it as a result of acts of war (which israel routinely does), if hospitals and other places where civilians wounded by acts of war are denied supplies or destroyed by a belligerant (which israel routinely does), if water is denied to those civilians as a result of acts of war (which israel routinely does), if people from the dispreferred group are forcibly evicted from their homes so that people from the preferred group can live there instead (which israel routinely does), if children from the dispreferred group are subject to decade-long incarceration for things like throwing stones (which israel routinely does), if 97% of the civilian population of some invaded area don't get enough food as a result of acts of war (which is the case now), if high officials in the government doing those acts explicitly say that the intention of those acts is to achieve a future state of affairs where no members of the dispreferred group remain in a given territory (which routinely happens), or when those same officials state such things as all civilians are valid military targets (which routinely happens), or when the big poobah refers to the dispreferred group as Amalek (you know, the guys god commants the israelites to exterminate fully, and gets angry cause Saul spares some, in the bible, which netanyahu did do)... at some point in there the conditions obtain, would say any impartial observer. "that point hasn't been reached" is... well... a position, but there's gotta be some point at which they do, no? is israel just a priori immune from the accusation ?

[bradrn]

a war *can* be a genocide if, for example, civilian infrastructure is targeted indiscriminately (which israel routinely does)

‘Civilian infrastructure’ is too vague to discuss sensibly, see below for specifics.

if food aid is denied entry to the territories where people need it as a result of acts of war (which israel routinely does) […] if water is denied to those civilians as a result of acts of war (which israel routinely does) […] if 97% of the civilian population of some invaded area don't get enough food as a result of acts of war (which is the case now)

Famine Review Committee: ‘[…] the response in the nutrition, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and health sectors was scaled up. In this context, the available evidence does not indicate that Famine is currently occurring.’

Not that the situation is good, of course, but given that we’re talking about a war zone here, it’s probably about as least-horrifically-bad as possible.

if hospitals and other places where civilians wounded by acts of war are denied supplies or destroyed by a belligerant (which israel routinely does)

And if those hospitals etc. are routinely repurposed by Hamas as headquarters, weapon stores and rocket launch sites?

if people from the dispreferred group are forcibly evicted from their homes so that people from the preferred group can live there instead (which israel routinely does), if children from the dispreferred group are subject to decade-long incarceration for things like throwing stones (which israel routinely does)

Now we’re no longer talking about Gaza, but about the West Bank, where the situation is very different. For one thing, that’s not where the war is.

In any case, I believe I’ve already mentioned my disagreements with Israeli policy in the West Bank. (And if I haven’t, I’ve mentioned it now.)

if high officials in the government doing those acts explicitly say that the intention of those acts is to achieve a future state of affairs where no members of the dispreferred group remain in a given territory (which routinely happens), or when those same officials state such things as all civilians are valid military targets (which routinely happens), or when the big poobah refers to the dispreferred group as Amalek (you know, the guys god commants the israelites to exterminate fully, and gets angry cause Saul spares some, in the bible, which netanyahu did do)..

Given my previous posts, it should be clear by now that Israeli politics is very divided, even within the governing coalition itself. And then there’s the fact that the IDF has a certain independence from the government. Lumping them all together as a single entity just doesn’t work.

Or, in other words, just because Ben Gvir says something idiotic, doesn’t make it army policy. You need to look at statements from IDF leadership, which have been noticeably more sane than those from the fringes of the government (or even from Netanyahu himself).

at some point in there the conditions obtain, would say any impartial observer. "that point hasn't been reached" is... well... a position, but there's gotta be some point at which they do, no? is israel just a priori immune from the accusation ?

No, of course Israel is not immune from the accusation. If Netanyahu’s cronies had more influence on the IDF than they already do, then I’d probably be making the accusation myself. But your arguments are either incorrect, or missing the critical context which justifies the IDF’s actions in terms of international law.

[Torco]

thankfully, yes, there is still some food both stored and being moved into gaza, despite the efforts of zionists protesters and the idf itself, so it could be that the situation doesn't yet fit a technical definition of famine (i'll read that report, i think, it looks interesting thanks). on the west bank think, my position is that the genocide did not, in fact, begin last october, so yeah, the west bank, the policy of settlement, it's all in there, but that it was mistakeable previously whereas it's not now.

And if those hospitals etc. are routinely repurposed by Hamas as headquarters, weapon stores and rocket launch sites?

that a genocidal act makes tactical, operational or strategic sense militarily, that is relevant to whether it is, in fact, a genocidal act ? the act is unequivocally a war crime, despite comparable warcrimes by hamas in fact having been commited. two warcrimes don't make a not-warcrime

Or, in other words, just because Ben Gvir says something idiotic, doesn’t make it army policy. You need to look at statements from IDF leadership, which have been noticeably more sane than those from the fringes of the government (or even from Netanyahu himself).

So? all that means is that the government doesn't have the full support of the military in order to carry out the genocidal project, but... that just makes it a -to such degree- incompetently executed one. they at somewhat support said project: for every measured statement from a general there are ten videos of idf soldiers expressing, without reservation, genocidal intent.

argument aside, if i'm understanding your take here it's something like "of course netanyahu and the hardline zionists *would* do a genocide if they could, it's just they're not being permitted to" ? that's, honestly, a possibility I hadn't considered. I at least agree with the first part, but i do think they're being permitted to, if not to the degree they probably would like.

[bradrn]

despite the efforts of zionists protesters

Correction: despite the effort of far-right protesters. Plenty of Zionists (such as myself) advocate for more aid. I don’t like being grouped with the idiots who behave otherwise.

on the west bank think, my position is that the genocide did not, in fact, begin last october, so yeah, the west bank, the policy of settlement, it's all in there, but that it was mistakeable previously whereas it's not now.

Hmm, OK. Of course I vehemently disagree with this position too, but thanks for clarifying your views.

And if those hospitals etc. are routinely repurposed by Hamas as headquarters, weapon stores and rocket launch sites?

that a genocidal act makes tactical, operational or strategic sense militarily, that is relevant to whether it is, in fact, a genocidal act ? the act is unequivocally a war crime, despite comparable warcrimes by hamas in fact having been commited. two warcrimes don't make a not-warcrime

‘Unequivocally a war crime’? I would beg to differ. If Hamas turns a hospital into a military base, the hospital becomes a valid military target. This is well-established in international law: if it weren’t, Hamas would simply move themselves into a hospital, and thereby become impossible to attack.

argument aside, if i'm understanding your take here it's something like "of course netanyahu and the hardline zionists *would* do a genocide if they could, it's just they're not being permitted to" ?

Not Netanyahu: mostly Ben Gvir and Smotrich. Possibly some of the ultra-Orthodox MKs, too. The important thing to remember is that none of these people was ever a member of the War Cabinet which made all the important decisions, so their influence really has been limited.

But… also, remember that this is just how democracy works. Every democracy has a few idiots who get elected, and every so often some of them make it into government. But if they’re not from a very large party, their influence can generally be contained, and it’s wrong to take their statements as representative of the government’s positions.