That’s one way to miss the point.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
IDF spokesperson announces that three Israeli hostages had escaped their captivity, but were shot and killed by the IDF. I think that reveals an extraordinary amount regarding the extent of precautions taken by the IDF to protect civilians.
And another one, 5 hours he was left bleeding. Soon, there will be no one left to show their massacres.
Samson doesn't play.
Right. You have to wonder just how many Palestinian civilians have been shot if they can make that kind of mistake regarding escaped Israeli hostages. Thousands, surely.
The Holocaust was an attempted genocide. What is happening right now is an attempted genocide. On that ground at least, comparison is valid.
If we're talking about the worst crime in human history, I find it hard to look past the near extermination of an entire hemisphere.
There is an understandable desire right now to place the Holocaust within history, rather than as an exceptional event outside it, because there are those at present who point to an exceptional nature re: the Holocaust and use that as justification for Israel's actions today.
Gotta love the peeps who object more to the language some use to describe Israel's actions than.. well, Israel's actions. Says a lot about them.
You're right, all they can do is keep murdering Palestinians because doing literally anything else would be rewarding Hamas for 10/7.
There's nothing else to defend at this point.
Israel have their future international reputation to defend, even if they slaughter every single Palestinian they still have to be a member of the international community of nations afterwards.
Great plan. The PA has done very well to contain settler violence in the west bank, I'm sure the gazans will welcome them back with open arms and not as collaborators.
No, it's really not. It's a silly comparison. The Germans went door to door in every country they controlled trying to capture and kill every single Jew they could find. Their intent was not to leave any alive and they were wildly successful in this crime. Accusations of war crimes in Gaza, and Israel, are certainly valid. Possibly you could accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing though I have my doubts that is what they intend. But, it's ridiculous to claim they are trying to kill all the people of Gaza.
Hamas know the Israeli m.o well.
Its actually not a silly comparison. I don't bother with use of the word Holocaust or even personally the word genocide.
But there is a perception among some on here that genocide can a) only be used after the event and b) that every single member of that group has to be killed before we can use that term.
There are multiple examples, this century alone, where the word has been used to describe conflicts in Sri Lanka, Iraq, South Sudan, Darfur, China, Myanmar, Ethiopia etc etc.
I'm sorry but when we talk about almost an entire population displaced. When we talk about the majority of housing stock gone. When we talk about the destruction of schools, universities, places of worship. When we talk about the use of sea water to flood tunnels, likely to significantly impact one of the main sources of an already scarce water resource in the territory. When we're talking about percentages of a population killed in literally just 2 months and ministers in cabinet making statements about genocidal and cleansing statements. Then yep, I think its appropriate to be thinking about using that kind of terminology.
Its a bit like thinking that racism can only be marching down the street in white hooded robes and lynching black people.
Its also commonly used as a coping mechanism for anger among people on twitter who see a lot of death and destruction and can't do anything about it.
Out of interest, what is your solution/ idea?
You've had a lot of criticism in here for others, some sincere, some just sarcastic. You've mocked others' nihilism on the topic but what exactly is your solution/ idea?
That's great but I don't feel that it actually addresses anything that I've said there at all.
You made the case for why the term should be used (citing a list of examples). My point is that most people who use it, particularly those who use it as a reaction to something they've seen on twitter, are doing so out of an emotional reaction and not because they know what the term means. Its being used as a pejorative instead of rationally.
I'm saying that genocide doesnt have to mean the holocaust, which is what some people take it to mean.
The poster I quoted feels that genocide can only be used if an entire people is wiped out. That is not the definition of genocide and there are many conflicts where nothing like that high bar is reached where genocide has been used to describe what is happening.
Just because on here, just like in the western world in general, the Palestinians are not deserving of sympathy for many, does not remove that fact.
I don't care if some people on twitter use the term holocaust because they're emotional because I am not their spokesperson, nor am I talking with them at present.
This makes sense. Sorry if I misunderstood you before.
Thank you.
Like they care. They only care of having Israel for themselves. Then, in a few years they will be part of the community with open arms, actually they already are. Who would have thought 30 years ago that Saudi Arabia would normalize relationships with Israel, and it will happen in no time even despite what is happening now
I guess they thought they had an easy target
I also just want to highlight, on this topic of war crimes/ ethnic cleansing/ genocide, of just how insane some of the terminology used by prominent Israelis has been in the past 2 months, considering the importance of such rhetoric in eventually getting to the stage where cleansing or extermination of a population is deemed acceptable or indeed even inevitable. These are not fringe politicians. These are the president, the prime minister, the defence minister, speakers of knesset, major ambassadors etc etc.
Such crimes don't happen overnight and they are rarely called out or noticed at the time. They happen, shrouded in secrecy, shrouded in denial or shrouded, if we're honest, in total and utter apathy or active glee in some cases. People then feel sad about it afterwards, we write history books and discuss how we're going to hopefully prevent the next atrocity next time.
One side rightly get called out for their awful statements. One side gets support, money and weapons. Feels good.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2400096
https://www.newarab.com/analysis/erase-gaza-how-genocidal-rhetoric-normalised-israel
https://www.commondreams.org/news/gaza-genocide
Such crimes don't happen overnight and they are rarely called out or noticed at the time. They happen, shrouded in secrecy, shrouded in denial or shrouded, if we're honest, in total and utter apathy or active glee in some cases. People then feel sad about it afterwards, we write history books and discuss how we're going to hopefully prevent the next atrocity next time.
One side rightly get called out for their awful statements. One side gets support, money and weapons. Feels good.
(For reference, the Amalek are a people who waged war on the Israelites, who are subsequently told to wage war on them and to destroy them utterly).
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2400096
https://www.newarab.com/analysis/erase-gaza-how-genocidal-rhetoric-normalised-israel
https://www.commondreams.org/news/gaza-genocide
Good post, there are many threads of international law experts explaining how a case of genocide intent is very easy to prove. You do not need to wait for the genocide to end to prove it if intent can be proved while it is undergoing.
Last edited:
How can anyone take them seriously if they show up like clowns on the world stages. A disgrace of an ambassador.
That is the quid of the matter. And not only that. Singers and personalities asking for the same
And many demostrations asking for the killing of all palestinians
Is every single part of Israel in its majority
I apologise for the sarcasm, it's always in resopnse to posters who do similarly, but you're right this is too serious a topic and the temptation of a quick resopnse is often too much. It's a weakness.
I've posted a few times - way back to just after the attack - that my biggest issue with October 7th is that it may have killed any solution that before then could have worked. Netanyahu was seeing weekly protests against his rule, the more liberal Israeli's were rallying a bit but that is now over, drowned out by the fervour for revenge created by the 7th. I cannot fathom how some say that October 7th was just a small blip in an ongoign conflict and not recognise it for what it was - an inflection point. Regardless, can't change that now.
I think my biggest issue with this thread is that it has become almost entirely one sided, and filled with posters that are so far to that one side that they feel obliged to shout down any views - even if they're more towards the middle. This attitude is pervasive, tempting and easy, but is not one that will actually get you anywhere. One of the responses to my post you quoted was basically: Israel f*ck off back to what the UN said in 1967, because that's what they should do. That is an easy position to take - it is clean and neat and simple to comprehend, but this is a war of two sides, and it entirely ignores the side with most of the power.
Hamas rendered itself as a non-entity in negotations moving forward on October 7th. Even the most liberal, most pro-Palestinian Israeli faction will not be able to work with them now. It's political suicide, and you need those people at the table.
In my mind there are three paths at this stage:
1. The worst path but perhaps the most likely: Israel continue to ignore the international community outrage and their own moral compass and make as much of Gaza as possible unlivable, trying to force a diaspora of the Gazans out of the area entirely. This is ridiculously short-sighted, cruel and will ensure there can not be peace in the region in our lifetimes. But, it's also the easiest path for Netanyahu and some of his crazy cabinet, and there is plenty of pain and anger left from October 7th that he won't have a full on revolt if he continues, at internally. Again, this would not have been a possiblity on October 6th.
2. The world (including the US) actively stop Israel. From all I've read and tried to learn, the world is currently asking/telling Israel to stop, and it's not listening. That is obviously a major problem. Of course the US could do more - it could and should entirely cut off military and financial support unless very specific, demonstrable requirements are met (such as getting out of Gaza). But, even then I don't see that stopping Netanyahu today, because he has what he needs to continue this for a few more months, and he might push that to a tomorrow problem, when he likely will be more focussed on not being in jail. To the 'actively' bit, it would be somewhat unprecedented for NATO or some UN force to militarily step in here, I obviously don't see that happening.
3. We get lucky, and there is a leader, somewhere, that is willing to step up and actually start negotiating from a position of good faith. Again, I've not heard who this person might be, but historically communities can rally around an inspirational figure or movement. Imagine if there was an anti-Hamas representative of the Palestinians, who was willing to not only represent their people on the world stage but also had the political awareness to distance themselves from October 7th, and be a true non-violent leader to rally around. If there was some kind of non-violent party that could come to negotiations, that would be something that maybe a small step towards progress could build on. But at the moment, there is no negotiation to be had. Hamas 'represent' the Gazan Palestinians, and why would Israel want to negotiate with them? Or believe them? And worse, do you think Hamas would let such figues live for very long?
At least at the moment, Israel's fear and anger is outweighing its shame. I'm not sure that anything other than the rebalancing of that will change what is happening. I know many Israelis, and posters' on here attempting to say that they're all for a genocide is not only idiotic but also simply wrong. You can quote as many far-right politicians as you'd like - you can do that in any cause. No one is coming on here quoting things that Islamic leaders have said about Israel's right to exist as somehow providing evidence of how evil all Palestinians are. Israeli's by and large just want to get on with their lives. If there as a solution involving a leader or group that could believably provide that, it would be what is needed.
Firstly, I agree that this situation isn't like the Holocaust. The most resonant image of the Holocaust is the concentration and death camps. Gaza is not yet like that. But there are other actions of Nazi Germany which are a closer comparison, and a Jewish writer got cancelled by German liberals for exactly that comparison*.
Second, I don't get at all the bit in bold. Of course it is their suffering, but a key part of empathy or even of "learning the lessons of history" is the ability to make comparisons and parallels, not atomise every event as singular. For a funny example, in 2009, after the release of Avatar, Palestinians and some indigenous protestors in Central America were seen wearing ridiculous Avatar costumes - there was a common narrative both identified with.
Third, for all the speech policing of the pro-Palestinians, including Jewish people, especially in regard to comparisons, we get gems like this from the mainstream of same country:
Finally, you should read the article he linked, or this one: https://newfascismsyllabus.com/opinions/the-catechism-debate/the-german-catechism/
Neither of them are going to make you a Nazi apologist or whatever harm these articles supposedly do.
*another one is Leningrad, depending on how long this lasts. Just saw on twitter about a child starving to death, which made me remember that comparison.
Last edited:
Very late reply!
For that last quote by Said, I don't think it is valid now. It's been 75 years, the founding generation is dead, and the current generations have been occupiers with overwhelming superiority for decades. That is a brutalising experience in the same way the US frontier was. With modern communication and universal conscription, that brutality goes beyond the frontier to the entire society. I started writing this before finding this thread, but it illustrates the point pretty neatly (as do those notorious vox pop videos). In this thread, there is one reference to Gazans being Nazis, so being charitable you could draw some link with historic trauma, but every other comment is generic occupier stuff including advocating atrocities associated with the Nazis (death marches), and it seems the writers aren't making the comparison. Also found a funnier example of the same sentiment.
I think this tweet sums it up (answering a similar accusation from the opposite end) -
And of course this has implications for any "solution" - the occupied are equally, if not more brutalised (as we can readily see from polls, whatever they are worth in a warzone, and videos of 10/7 within Gaza). And as Said said, being a victim of some atrocity doesn't make you inherently sympathetic to others in that position. And this can be seen in a million other examples like the treatment of forest dwellers by post-independence India.
For the main point, I agree, there are of course other lenses to view this from, but this argument started with somebody saying that colonialism cannot be applied here.
I still want to argue about British strategic motives - of course they famously rejected migration when it was needed most, but they encouraged it during every previous period, and encouraged divisions and mostly favoured one side, making Zionist migration an effective tool of British colonialism.
Also, another insightful and prescient quote from Jabotinsky. I do think his worldview logically leads to
and I think both have been vindicated by history.
I don't fully understand the thinking behind releasing hostages. All it seems to be doing is given Hamas and the Palestinians a few extra days of rest and supplies before the Israeli onslaught resumes. I would have thought they would be used as an effort to make a deal to stop Israel attacking. When they run out of hostages Israel likely will still be attacking Gaza. I guess maybe it buys them more time in the hopes that international pressure eventually gets Israel to stop the attack.
Fantastic article. One of the best I’ve read concerning the Palestinian conflict.
I think where we disagree is the likelihood of anything happening beforehand. I genuinely don't mean this in a rude way but you have approx 140 posts in this thread and every single one of them has come after October 7th. This isn't to call you out individually but to call out the general trend, which is that in reality, before October 7th, very few people actually cared anymore. The 'conflict' had been relegated in the minds of almost everyone. Netanyahu had been very successful, with both Israelis and the world in general, in securitising the situation and 'managing' it, without any solution at all. I think we're lying to ourselves if we pretend there was any great appetite for a solution beforehand. There was increasing normalisation elsewhere, which is great for Israel I guess but was coming with no ultimate benefit in any way for the Palestinians.
The problem then is reality. You've accused posters like me of nihilism before but for me, that is the reality. And the reality isn't because of religion, which some Western posters on here use as a security blanket to feel OK with what is happening to the Palestinians and what is likely to continue to happen. You've essentially said that a 2 state solution with the 67 borders as its base would be 'rewarding Hamas'. Which stands to reason that they should therefore be offered less, if anything at all. The issue is that one party has the overwhelming power here (and feels its the victim) and is backed by the party with the overwhelming global power. The weaker party will not accept what the stronger party is willing to accept and never will. So we are where we are. I personally don't think there is a solution anymore. The most likely outcomes for me are 1) continuation of occupation and apartheid 2) ethnic cleansing and 3) genocide, in that order. I'm talking in the long term. The Palestinians have definitely lost and the world can't really do anything about it.
Nobody can represent just the Gazan Palestinians in that way because the Palestinians don't see a split between themselves between the West Bank and Gaza. One could also argue that that figure already exists to some extent in the West Bank. He even co-operates with the Israelis on security, can't protect his people or land from repeated Israeli incursions, from checkpoints, from expulsions, from settlement building. And even he is deemed too extreme.
What I want to see now is for journalists to actually call out Israelis, who are often smarter than Palestinians in how they frame things to Western media, when they openly say like Hotovely, that there is no 2 state solution. Because if there is no 2 state solution, there are 4 options. 1 state solution. Continuation of perpetual occupation, apartheid, blockade. Ethnic cleansing. Genocide. Those are the 4 options left. So I want journalists to ask them, when they say this. Which of these 4 options are you calling for then?
On the bolded. The very problem is that I'm not quoting lots of far right politicians. I even explained that in the post. I wish that is what I was doing. I'm (mostly) quoting the Prime minister. The wife of the PM. The President. The Defence minister. Major generals in the army. Ambassadors to major countries. The speaker of the Knesset. Likud MKs (ie the largest party). etc etc.
These are politicians in power, with the actual ability and will to enact what they're saying. The person invoking Amalek is Netanyahu, not some fringe religious settler nutter in Hebron. The person calling them human animals is Gallant. etc etc.
I wasn't making that post with the intention to say all Israelis are evil and its interesting that, even with what I wrote in the post, that is what you've taken away from it? It likely says more about how you perceive this debate and conflict than it does about what I wrote.
I was writing it in the context of the steps to genocide and how rhetoric is an incredibly important stepping stone to the ability to do exactly that. That a term I was previously not personally willing to use, I see increasingly. I was doing so mostly in response to those posters who think genocide can only ever mean a total destruction of an entire race.
On that note however, I'm pretty sure that the Hutus as a whole in 1993 weren't all thinking about committing genocide. The white Europeans going to North and South America or Australia likewise. Pretty sure Turks as a whole weren't all supportive of killing Armenians in 1910. And yes, even the Germans in 1935 weren't all planning and supportive of the Holocaust. These things don't happen overnight or even a short period of time. They build up to it and rhetoric is a huge driver of what allows the killing of such large scale to be accepted.
Also posters on this thread have actually done exactly that (or probably even more stupidly used an election result from 17 years ago) and even used it to justify the destruction being wrought on Gaza.
I think most Israelis are willing to give up the bare minimum to 'manage' the situation. That may include a return to 67 borders and even East Jerusalem. For them, this would be huge compromises but for Palestinians and I think most neutral observers, this should be the bare minimum. What I've seen, both personally and borne out by surveys, is that they're generally not willing to compromise on Palestinian sovereignty when it comes to a defence force, borders, airport or port, foreign policy and would still reserve the right to enter when they liked. Who are the people willing to accept such a solution?
Apologies for the essay but there's a lot to unpack and say.
The thread is one-sided because the situation on the ground is one-sided right now. Throughout October and November, the thread was full of pro-Israel or Israel-friendly posts arguing that they were trying to minimize civilian casualties, had not committed any atrocities, and were behaving quite well all things considered. That position is untenable today so the argument is no longer made.
One Israeli poster here said that after October 7th, they just wanted security and didn't care what it took. Another one said that a round of ethnic cleansing was the best option for everyone. These are not far-right politicians.
Last edited:
Tweets aren't showing for me? I'm using Safari
Same. I'm using Chrome.