Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[PTK]

The physical elimination of all Jews was not a central plank of Nazi policy from the beginning. If it was then it was never publicised. Antisemitism was a core feature of Nazism, sure, but it was only one feature. The first inmates of concentration camps were overwhelmingly communists, followed by socialists. The first people to be sterilised were the disabled. We all know the long list of groups who were discriminated against, persecuted, imprisoned, starved, enslaved, shot, gassed. Had the Nazis won I suspect that list would only have grown.
I'm in no way trying to minimise the atrocities of the Jewish Holocaust, but simply objecting to the way some would let Israel lay sole claim to victimhood at the hands of the Nazis. I suppose we could all agree never to compare anyone's behaviour or policies with those of Nazi Germany. But if we are not going to do that then we cannot single out Jewish people for sole exemption, otherwise that lets Israel, as the prime example, get away with policies which can be compared with Nazi Germany.

Why do we need to compare attrocities for people to know that that they are bad? Do not the facts of the attrocities speak for themselves?

 

[Pickman's model]

Why do we need to compare attrocities for people to know that that they are bad? Do not the facts of the attrocities speak for themselves?

A noisy neighbour can be bad. Genocide's probably worse than a noisy neighbour. That's why.

 

[agricola]

The physical elimination of all Jews was not a central plank of Nazi policy from the beginning. If it was then it was never publicised. Antisemitism was a core feature of Nazism, sure, but it was only one feature. The first inmates of concentration camps were overwhelmingly communists, followed by socialists. The first people to be sterilised were the disabled. We all know the long list of groups who were discriminated against, persecuted, imprisoned, starved, enslaved, shot, gassed. Had the Nazis won I suspect that list would only have grown.
I'm in no way trying to minimise the atrocities of the Jewish Holocaust, but simply objecting to the way some would let Israel lay sole claim to victimhood at the hands of the Nazis. I suppose we could all agree never to compare anyone's behaviour or policies with those of Nazi Germany. But if we are not going to do that then we cannot single out Jewish people for sole exemption, otherwise that lets Israel, as the prime example, get away with policies which can be compared with Nazi Germany.

TBF I think saying that does tend to look at the whole structure of the the Nazi system the wrong way - yes, they were responsible for the murders of millions of political opponents, prisoners of war, the disabled and mentally ill, civilians in the territories they'd seized and all the other people they deemed undesirables (probably in total more than the six million Jews who were murdered), but with a few exceptions they were not killed by a (for the time) technologically very advanced process of identification, selection, transportation and killing that had been set up explicitly for this purpose.

That fact does not give the modern state of Israel any pass for what it is doing now, of course.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Why do we need to compare attrocities for people to know that that they are bad? Do not the facts of the attrocities speak for themselves?

They should indeed. But it is the state of Israel which continually refers to the Holocaust to justify its own actions and makes the comparison between Hamas and the Nazis.

 

[Gramsci]

Israelis can't understand how they could be accused of genocide

***

www.haaretz.com

Read this article few weeks back.

Reminded of it with discussion here of the Holocaust.

She looks at the arguments about Holocaust,

The debate over the proprietary nature of the Jewish experience versus universalization of causes, motives, mobilization and implementation turned bitter in the '90s, in the fiery debates between Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and Christopher Browning. Most of the fire was from Goldhagen, whose bestseller "Hitler's Willing Executioners" argued that Germany was uniquely, endemically antisemitic and this was the primary explanation for the Holocaust. Browning's groundbreaking "Ordinary Men" had appeared several years earlier, showing how normal people descended to the level of genocidal killers given a war, a task, much alcohol and some peer pressure, within in a few short weeks.

She says she's with Browning on this. That genocidal acts can be done by anyone given the right circumstances. And that means Israelis are not exempt. She is speaking to an Israeli readership.

I have not read Browning. But I've read other accounts of the Holocaust. As In Brownings work a lot of Jews were not killed in gas chambers but by shooting outside villages were a pit had been dug.

This was face to face killing. The industrialisation of the killing was much later. Even though that is largely how the Holocaust is remembered.

The point of Browning was that the killing of Jews in his book was not done by ardent Nazis but by a Police battalion. Made up of those not fit to fight at the front- "ordinary men"

For her the Browning thesis has an optimistic side. Whilst acts of genocide can occur these are due to specific conditions in a society. This can change. As Germany quickly changed after WW2.

Without the belief in possibility of change then the conflict in Israel/ Palestine can never end.

 

[teqniq]

Couple of politicians here who have more principles than Starmer or Sunak:

 

[agricola]

Israelis can't understand how they could be accused of genocide

***

www.haaretz.com

Read this article few weeks back.

Reminded of it with discussion here of the Holocaust.

She looks at the arguments about Holocaust,



She says she's with Browning on this. That genocidal acts can be done by anyone given the right circumstances. And that means Israelis are not exempt. She is speaking to an Israeli readership.

I have not read Browning. But I've read other accounts of the Holocaust. As In Brownings work a lot of Jews were not killed in gas chambers but by shooting outside villages were a pit had been dug.

This was face to face killing. The industrialisation of the killing was much later. Even though that is largely how the Holocaust is remembered.

The point of Browning was that the killing of Jews in his book was not done by ardent Nazis but by a Police battalion. Made up of those not fit to fight at the front- "ordinary men"

For her the Browning thesis has an optimistic side. Whilst acts of genocide can occur these are due to specific conditions in a society. This can change. As Germany quickly changed after WW2.

Without the belief in possibility of change then the conflict in Israel/ Palestine can never end.

Browning was right (certainly much more so than Goldhagen was), but of course the industrialized killings did come later and they were how the majority of people who entered into the system ended up being murdered. Obviously though its a nonsense to claim that only the second sort is actually genocide.

 

[Gramsci]

Browning was right (certainly much more so than Goldhagen was), but of course the industrialized killings did come later and they were how the majority of people who entered into the system ended up being murdered. Obviously though its a nonsense to claim that only the second sort is actually genocide.

According to the tables in United States Holocaust Museum website figures are:

2.7 million in the killing centres and 2 million by mass shooting.

Others killed through starvation etc in ghettos and more killed by German allies.

End total 6 million

So surprising large number killed in in non industrial way.

How Many People did the Nazis Murder?

Behind the number of victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution are people whose hopes and dreams were destroyed. Learn about the toll of Nazi policies.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

 

[two sheds]

UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules

University of Bristol academic who was sacked after being accused of antisemitic comments wins ‘landmark’ decision

www.theguardian.com

Sounds fair

 

[Gramsci]

UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules

University of Bristol academic who was sacked after being accused of antisemitic comments wins ‘landmark’ decision

www.theguardian.com

Sounds fair

This is important ruling.

An employment tribunal ruled that Prof David Miller was unfairly dismissed, and that his “anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 Equality Act 2010”.

Good to see the tribunal say this

 

[two sheds]

I do find 'anti-Zionist' a strange phrasing for a philosophical belief though.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I do find 'anti-Zionist' a strange phrasing for a philosophical belief though.

Would anti-racist or secular sound strange?

 

[two sheds]

Dunno, I can't see a problem with Israelis wanting a homeland - although it's a shame it's been at the expense of the Palestinians - it's just the Palestinians being killed/driven out from Gaza and West Bank I have a problem with. I'm not sure that's anti-Zionism.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Dunno, I can't see a problem with Israelis wanting a homeland - although it's a shame it's been at the expense of the Palestinians - it's just the Palestinians being killed/driven out from Gaza and West Bank I have a problem with. I'm not sure that's anti-Zionism.

It's more than just a fucking shame. It's a massive crime.

 

[mojo pixy]

It's more than just a fucking shame. It's a massive crime.

Here's the thing though. People get extremely worked up about this displacement and genocide, more than any other I can think of. Now I'd hope this is because it's happening now rather than say 300 years ago. But I've never heard anyone insist that everyone in North and South America not directly descended from native americans, should be made to leave with no compensation. Whereas I for one have heard an equivalent argument made about Israel.

So I sometimes find myself side-eying people I hear making a really big thing about their professed anti-zionism, and I listen very carefully for double standards re.eg. Australia, Colombia, Canada and other places that have been 'settled' in identical ways.

It was all criminal, and many reckonings are due IMO.

(e.t.a: or they aren't - but the same standard needs to apply across the board)

 

[Pickman's model]

Here's the thing though. People get extremely worked up about this displacement and genocide, more than any other I can think of. Now I'd hope this is because it's happening now rather than say 300 years ago. But I've never heard anyone insist that everyone in North and South America not directly descended from native americans, should be made to leave with no compensation. Whereas I for one have heard an equivalent argument made about Israel.

So I sometimes find myself side-eying people I hear making a really big thing about their professed anti-zionism, and I listen very carefully for double standards re.eg. Australia, Colombia, Canada and other places that have been 'settled' in identical ways.

It was all criminal, and many reckonings are due IMO.

To be fair the zionists haven't trafficked slaves to ersatz Israel. Unlike the United States and Colombia.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Dunno, I can't see a problem with Israelis wanting a homeland - although it's a shame it's been at the expense of the Palestinians - it's just the Palestinians being killed/driven out from Gaza and West Bank I have a problem with. I'm not sure that's anti-Zionism.

Hasidic Jews are anti-Zionist on principle (for bonkers reasons to do with god), even without Palestinians.

Whether you agree with them or not, it's a dangerous place if they or anyone else are not allowed to think that.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Here's the thing though. People get extremely worked up about this displacement and genocide, more than any other I can think of. Now I'd hope this is because it's happening now rather than say 300 years ago. But I've never heard anyone insist that everyone in North and South America not directly descended from native americans, should be made to leave with no compensation. Whereas I for one have heard an equivalent argument made about Israel.

So I sometimes find myself side-eying people I hear making a really big thing about their professed anti-zionism, and I listen very carefully for double standards re.eg. Australia, Colombia, Canada and other places that have been 'settled' in identical ways.

It was all criminal, and many reckonings are due IMO.

This is an ongoing massive crime, that's the main difference. Indigenous populations in many parts of the world still face huge challenges, discrimination, persecution and displacement, but not on the same scale. As has been discussed before, we (UK) have historical links and responsibilities too. Most here on urban, at least, would I suspect opt for an accommodation between the Israeli occupiers and the displaced Palestinians. A one-state, two-state or no-state solution. An end to apartheid Israel, but not the expulsion of all Jews from all of Palestine.
I would also side-eye anyone who was avowedly Zionist.

 

[Orang Utan]

This is important ruling.



Good to see the tribunal say this

He sounds like a pretty straightforward antisemite to me:

 

[belboid]

He sounds like a pretty straightforward antisemite to me:

He wasn't sacked for those comments though, he was explicitly sacked because of things he said about Israel. It was because he said things like what you've just quoted that got his compensation cut in half.

 

[spring-peeper]

I listen very carefully for double standards re.eg. Australia, Colombia, Canada and other places that have been 'settled' in identical ways.

I don't see it as a double standard, more of "you f*cked up these people, so what are you doing about it".

I can't say much for the other countries, but I know a bit about Canada.

The most recent attempt at genocide (sending children to boarding school) has now been recognized as a "really bad idea". September 24 has been set aside as National Day for Truth and Reconciliation - children wear orange tshirts (some saying "every child matters") and are taught about the horrors of the residence schools.

Attempted reconciliation resulting in legislation acknowledging the tribes as "first nations" and they have the right to pass their own laws and govern their lands. The territories in the north decide on their leaders based on traditional methods.

I realize that they do no longer have claim to most of their original territories, but they have some land and get to vote in Canada's elections. Some first nation's people are in the various levels of government. Our governor-general is from one of the first nations.

I'm not saying this is enough to make up for centuries of abuse, but it is a start.

If I felt confident that the Palestinians would have the same opportunities as our indigenous people, I'd feel more hopeful for the future of the Palestinians. However, I doubt that Israel would ever give them the same rights and freedoms.

 

[mojo pixy]

If I felt confident that the Palestinians would have the same opportunities as our indigenous people, I'd feel more hopeful for the future of the Palestinians. However, I doubt that Israel would ever give them the same rights and freedoms.

In a way they already do, in that ~2million Palestinians, Druze, Bedouin etc live within Israel and are Israelis. There's a Wikipedia article here that outlines it quite neatly.

I'm not intending to argue over this, defend it or promote it. I'm just saying that more can be done for indigenous people in all 'settled' nations, and therefore singling Israel out for special opprobrium among them often looks dodgy. And sometimes actually is dodgy.

 

[Pickman's model]

In a way they already do, in that ~2million Palestinians, Druze, Bedouin etc live within Israel and are Israelis. There's a Wikipedia article here that outlines it quite neatly.

I'm not intending to argue over this, defend it or promote it. I'm just saying that more can be done for indigenous people in all 'settled' nations, and thrrefore singling Israel out for special opprobrium among them often looks dodgy. And sometimes actually is dodgy.

So what we should do now is relegate pur reactions to the zionist entity's outrages to concentrate more fully on the outrages of other national pasts. When I expect most of us feel as you do about such events as eg Cromwell's 'to hell or connaught' ethnic cleansing in Ireland, the destruction of the indigenous populations of the Caribbean by the British and Spanish, the other examples you give and so many more historic horrors of which we have only the scantiest knowledge.

 

[mojo pixy]

So what we should do now is relegate pur reactions to the zionist entity's outrages to concentrate more fully on the outrages of other national pasts.

Not at all, what's taking place in Gaza and the West Bank now is disgusting and appaling. The current Israeli regime is horrifically right wing and Israel (and the world, as it seems) is being dragged along by a small group of extremists bent on genocide. All this is urgent and I wish the whole world would do more to stop it, and fix it.

But on the general point of settlement of that land, I don't see a fundamental difference between this settler state and others.

 

[Mezzer]

We need more of this kickback against obvious western media bias.

CNN staff say network’s pro-Israel slant amounts to ‘journalistic malpractice’

Insiders say pressure from the top results in credulous reporting of Israeli claims and silencing of Palestinian perspectives

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gramsci]

The American Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi makes point that the Palestinians should make links with other peoples who have been subject to settler colonialism etc. Such as BLM and indigenous peoplesin other countries struggling for land and rights. As part of gaining international support.

Also this universalises the plight of Palestinians and takes it away from being accusations of being just picking on Israel.

 

[Pickman's model]

The American Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi makes point that the Palestinians should make links with other peoples who have been subject to settler colonialism etc. Such as BLM and indigenous peoplesin other countries struggling for land and rights. As part of gaining international support.

Also this universalises the plight of Palestinians and takes it away from being accusations of being just picking on Israel.

Surely I'm not the only person to recall the links made with eg the anc back in the day https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...w-they-evolved-and-where-do-they-stand-today/

 

[nino_savatte]

The American Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi makes point that the Palestinians should make links with other peoples who have been subject to settler colonialism etc. Such as BLM and indigenous peoplesin other countries struggling for land and rights. As part of gaining international support.

Also this universalises the plight of Palestinians and takes it away from being accusations of being just picking on Israel.

I've often compared the American Indians' experiences of ethnic cleansing and genocide to the Palestinians' experiences of the same things. Zionists have no answer for it.

 

[Gramsci]

In a way they already do, in that ~2million Palestinians, Druze, Bedouin etc live within Israel and are Israelis. There's a Wikipedia article here that outlines it quite neatly.

Except that Palestinians in Israel have always been second class citizens. Living under military rule until late 1960s. This under Labour Zionism.

The more recent " Basic law" reinforces this second class status.

It's also arguable that in reality Palestinians in West Bank should count being in Israeli state. Since 1967 the settlement building ( started under Labour Zionism and continued to this day)means that its temporary occupation in name only. West Bank is in effect part of Israeli state. Israeli law applies to settlement areas and those living in settlements can vote.