|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Yeah, I get that, I do agree that having correct labels on things and using precise language is important, but I fear that the right wing and other anti-lefties, neo-liberals and reactionaries have latched on to this and started using these arguments as a shield and as a triggering tool and for me it feels like I'm playing their game if I engage with that.
Magic said it perfectly, what Israel is doing is awful and to me it's much more important to shed light on that then to call it one specific word. Obviously, we are still some dudes shooting shit on TL forum so calling any of this important is, well, pretty self important but yeah.
The anti-Semitism discussion is silly to me, I've been called Russophobe and anti-Semite at the same pace, which makes me think that I'm being consistent in pointing a finger at the unjust, warmongering states prosecuting illegal, brutal wars.
|
Another thing that is worth remembering, I feel, is that there is an entire viewpoint that is missing. Many, many people think that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing/genocide in Palestine, or maybe they're calling it something else that is less negatively connotated in their head, and that them doing it is either a good thing or the least bad option available. Because Palestinians deserve it, because God has said that Jewish people should have that land, because Arabs are subhumans who can't be trusted to keep peace, because islam is a dangerous religion and we have to protect Europe, because some other reason, I don't know because I never get to engage with this viewpoint because all they'll ever say is that Israel isn't doing the things that they're obviously doing. To come back to Wombat's parallel, it is similar to engaging with racism as an idea, but in reality you're only talking to BlackJack type people who insist that nobody and nothing is ever racist, and the viewpoint that racism is correct and good is missing from the conversation.
So let's say that we're trying to avoid semantics and we don't use certain words, but we're faced with someone who isn't presenting their actual position, which in my opinion happens quite often in this debate; the hurdle for the conversation isn't the words that we're using, it's the intention of the person we're talking to. And that is not something we have control over.
|
Northern Ireland25392 Posts
On August 08 2025 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Another thing that is worth remembering, I feel, is that there is an entire viewpoint that is missing. Many, many people think that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing/genocide in Palestine, or maybe they're calling it something else that is less negatively connotated in their head, and that them doing it is either a good thing or the least bad option available. Because Palestinians deserve it, because God has said that Jewish people should have that land, because Arabs are subhumans who can't be trusted to keep peace, because islam is a dangerous religion and we have to protect Europe, because some other reason, I don't know because I never get to engage with this viewpoint because all they'll ever say is that Israel isn't doing the things that they're obviously doing. To come back to Wombat's parallel, it is similar to engaging with racism as an idea, but in reality you're only talking to BlackJack type people who insist that nobody and nothing is ever racist, and the viewpoint that racism is correct and good is missing from the conversation.
I mean there can’t be zero overlap between people who think Muslims are going to take over Europe, and ‘Londonistan’ is a thing and what you’ve outlined there.
I do see some worrying signs in an anti-Semitism spike, and I think it’s both wrapped in Israel, but also your more ‘traditional’ forms of it at the same time.
But equally I think people sometimes neglect the gigantic spike in anti-Muslim sentiment that 9/11 brought into being, that’s never really been fully put back in its box. And has a lot more in common with anti-Semitism than it does straight racism IMO
|
On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway.
I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit.
|
On August 08 2025 02:22 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit.
I don't see it as assuming the worst of people. Everyone has different ideas about morality, that's how it works. It's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing, and sure I can get mad about it sometimes like everyone else but I try and control that.
Since I can't get people to change their moralities, I find it less useful to talk about that, so I try and stick to factual claims, that's how I've been operating.
I guess I see value in doing it like that because of my own experience, that's how I changed my politics. Breadtube didn't tell me that the rightwing was good and pure and we needed to befriend them, they told me that their ideas were obviously wrong, their influencers were morons and/or dishonest, and their goals for society awful. They made convincing arguments, I didn't enjoy being obviously wrong about politics, so I changed my positions. That won't work on everyone, but it's impossible for something to work on everyone, so...
|
United States42704 Posts
On August 07 2025 20:39 Magic Powers wrote:
the war needs to end even if Hamas stays in power
Hamas have ruled this out. It's not in Israel's power to achieve. That's a part of the problem that needs to be understood when imagining potential solutions.
|
On August 08 2025 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 02:22 Billyboy wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit. I don't see it as assuming the worst of people. Everyone has different ideas about morality, that's how it works. It's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing, and sure I can get mad about it sometimes like everyone else but I try and control that. Since I can't get people to change their moralities, I find it less useful to talk about that, so I try and stick to factual claims, that's how I've been operating. I guess I see value in doing it like that because of my own experience, that's how I changed my politics. Breadtube didn't tell me that the rightwing was good and pure and we needed to befriend them, they told me that their ideas were obviously wrong, their influencers were morons and/or dishonest, and their goals for society awful. They made convincing arguments, I didn't enjoy being obviously wrong about politics, so I changed my positions. That won't work on everyone, but it's impossible for something to work on everyone, so...
I think sticking to the facts is a great strategy, and has a higher chance of success than attacking. I just think that you will get honest debates (not 100% of the time) if you engage honestly. And I agree that focusing on whether it is genocide or not is kind of missing the point. There will be plenty of time for that when the conflict is over.
It is clear that the starving people pictures moved the needle, so there are appeals to emotion that work. Anger is just not that emotion because it is almost always just returned.
|
On August 08 2025 03:09 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 02:22 Billyboy wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit. I don't see it as assuming the worst of people. Everyone has different ideas about morality, that's how it works. It's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing, and sure I can get mad about it sometimes like everyone else but I try and control that. Since I can't get people to change their moralities, I find it less useful to talk about that, so I try and stick to factual claims, that's how I've been operating. I guess I see value in doing it like that because of my own experience, that's how I changed my politics. Breadtube didn't tell me that the rightwing was good and pure and we needed to befriend them, they told me that their ideas were obviously wrong, their influencers were morons and/or dishonest, and their goals for society awful. They made convincing arguments, I didn't enjoy being obviously wrong about politics, so I changed my positions. That won't work on everyone, but it's impossible for something to work on everyone, so... I think sticking to the facts is a great strategy, and has a higher chance of success than attacking. I just think that you will get honest debates (not 100% of the time) if you engage honestly. And I agree that focusing on whether it is genocide or not is kind of missing the point. There will be plenty of time for that when the conflict is over. It is clear that the starving people pictures moved the needle, so there are appeals to emotion that work. Anger is just not that emotion because it is almost always just returned.
When the conflict is over, yeah... Not for the first time, "the greatest crime of the left is being correct too early, when there's still time to act"...
Anger is returned but that doesn't really matter, you're not trying to have an effect on the person you're talking to you're trying to have an effect on the audience. You want to show that what they're saying makes no sense so that others can recognize it. If you're having a beer with a conservative obviously your strategy will be different.
|
On August 08 2025 00:49 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. The sands they do shift. One may notice I decidedly don’t interject on the auld ‘G word’ debates. I figured it’s just such an evocative word, and there’s ‘big G’ genocide and small ‘g genocide’, and its invocation tends to have people think of the ‘big g’ version that I figured it just brought up a reflexive defensiveness. The flipside of that was, I thought by not immediately triggering that defensive reflexive action by sticking the genocide issue on the table, one could get more sober engagement on the other factors. However, what I’ve oft-found is you’ll just get that same defensiveness and denial no matter how much you soften it. So why soften it? It’s a little like the idea that certain people gravitate to right wing populists because they’re just sick of being called racists and it’s an exasperated reaction to that. This may be true for some people, in reality I find all it accomplishes if one drops the accusation of racism is allow a lot of racists to go about their days without being called racist. Inb4 anti-Semitism, there are some Jewish people who would not defend some parallel non-Jewish state that was doing equivalent things, indeed they’d actively condemn it. I’ll add these are mostly observations I’ve made of interactions outside these forums and not within them.
The whole reason that the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1948 was due to the Holocaust. It is the crime of crimes. The Shoah was a uniquely awful event in history that happened to the Jewish people. So when people try to take this word and bastardize it to apply to a military campaign in which Israel is defending itself from some of the worst terrorists on the planet (and plainly not being genocidal), is it really that surprising when people get defensive about it?
Then when you point out that none of the arguments for genocide actually make any logical sense, that none of what Israel is doing meets the standard for this worst of all crimes, that a genocidal state wouldn't be sending in aid and doing vaccination campaigns for the enemy population - nobody cares. Best I can get it seems is people saying "well Omer Bartov says it is" as if that makes it true. And people seem to constantly forget that Hamas' WHOLE STRATEGY is to amplify the suffering of their own civilians. Everything it has done throughout this war has been to make that happen. Stealing aid is just one example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kz42j92jmo
Meanwhile, the coverage of conflicts that actually have the potential to be genocidal (Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Syria for the last however many years) receive comparatively little coverage compared to the 24/7 microscope that the news media has on Gaza. At the same time, antisemitism has exploded across Europe and the United States where we just this year had two Israeli embassy staffers gunned down in public and people attacked with Molotov cocktails at a hostage rally. Even countries like Ireland that have relatively small populations of Jews have shown that they have massive problems with antisemitism. So yea, people are defensive when you consider what the global context looks like.
I think a lot of this genocide debate is really just a rhetorical trick by bad actors (not saying that's any of you, to be clear). The only thing worse than someone who commits genocide is the person who denies genocide, so if you can smear Israel with that accusation (no matter how fact-free) then not only can you delegitimize Israel and Israelis but you can also delegitimize the 80-90% of diaspora Jews who support Israel's right to exist and defend itself as a state.
@RJGooner, do you have any actual confidence in the IDF investigating allegations against its members?
To answer this briefly, yes, I do, based on my understanding of how the IDF military advocate general works and the fact that Western military observers have confirmed that it operates in essentially the same way as other western militaries. Just because people aren't being punished right now doesn't mean it won't happen (it has, in fact, already happened in certain cases). These things take time to investigate, bring to trial, etc.
|
Austria4112 Posts
On August 08 2025 01:19 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Another thing that is worth remembering, I feel, is that there is an entire viewpoint that is missing. Many, many people think that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing/genocide in Palestine, or maybe they're calling it something else that is less negatively connotated in their head, and that them doing it is either a good thing or the least bad option available. Because Palestinians deserve it, because God has said that Jewish people should have that land, because Arabs are subhumans who can't be trusted to keep peace, because islam is a dangerous religion and we have to protect Europe, because some other reason, I don't know because I never get to engage with this viewpoint because all they'll ever say is that Israel isn't doing the things that they're obviously doing. To come back to Wombat's parallel, it is similar to engaging with racism as an idea, but in reality you're only talking to BlackJack type people who insist that nobody and nothing is ever racist, and the viewpoint that racism is correct and good is missing from the conversation. I mean there can’t be zero overlap between people who think Muslims are going to take over Europe, and ‘Londonistan’ is a thing and what you’ve outlined there. I do see some worrying signs in an anti-Semitism spike, and I think it’s both wrapped in Israel, but also your more ‘traditional’ forms of it at the same time. But equally I think people sometimes neglect the gigantic spike in anti-Muslim sentiment that 9/11 brought into being, that’s never really been fully put back in its box. And has a lot more in common with anti-Semitism than it does straight racism IMO
It's an interesting point highlighting parallels between anti-semitism and anti-Muslim... ism. To be anti-Arab for example is to be anti-semitic. Prior to this conflict I wasn't aware of this technicality. It may not mean much anyway, but maybe it does. It reveals an oddity, which is that anti-semitism is almost entirely associated with anti-Jewish hatred, and none of the other semitic groups, which also experience anti-semitism in their own right. Muslims are overwhelmingly Arabs. Being anti-Muslim though is for some reason not considered anti-semitic.
|
Austria4112 Posts
On August 08 2025 03:37 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 00:49 WombaT wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. The sands they do shift. One may notice I decidedly don’t interject on the auld ‘G word’ debates. I figured it’s just such an evocative word, and there’s ‘big G’ genocide and small ‘g genocide’, and its invocation tends to have people think of the ‘big g’ version that I figured it just brought up a reflexive defensiveness. The flipside of that was, I thought by not immediately triggering that defensive reflexive action by sticking the genocide issue on the table, one could get more sober engagement on the other factors. However, what I’ve oft-found is you’ll just get that same defensiveness and denial no matter how much you soften it. So why soften it? It’s a little like the idea that certain people gravitate to right wing populists because they’re just sick of being called racists and it’s an exasperated reaction to that. This may be true for some people, in reality I find all it accomplishes if one drops the accusation of racism is allow a lot of racists to go about their days without being called racist. Inb4 anti-Semitism, there are some Jewish people who would not defend some parallel non-Jewish state that was doing equivalent things, indeed they’d actively condemn it. I’ll add these are mostly observations I’ve made of interactions outside these forums and not within them. The whole reason that the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1948 was due to the Holocaust. It is the crime of crimes. The Shoah was a uniquely awful event in history that happened to the Jewish people. So when people try to take this word and bastardize it to apply to a military campaign in which Israel is defending itself from some of the worst terrorists on the planet (and plainly not being genocidal), is it really that surprising when people get defensive about it? Then when you point out that none of the arguments for genocide actually make any logical sense, that none of what Israel is doing meets the standard for this worst of all crimes, that a genocidal state wouldn't be sending in aid and doing vaccination campaigns for the enemy population - nobody cares. Best I can get it seems is people saying "well Omer Bartov says it is" as if that makes it true. And people seem to constantly forget that Hamas' WHOLE STRATEGY is to amplify the suffering of their own civilians. Everything it has done throughout this war has been to make that happen. Stealing aid is just one example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kz42j92jmoMeanwhile, the coverage of conflicts that actually have the potential to be genocidal (Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Syria for the last however many years) receive comparatively little coverage compared to the 24/7 microscope that the news media has on Gaza. At the same time, antisemitism has exploded across Europe and the United States where we just this year had two Israeli embassy staffers gunned down in public and people attacked with Molotov cocktails at a hostage rally. Even countries like Ireland that have relatively small populations of Jews have shown that they have massive problems with antisemitism. So yea, people are defensive when you consider what the global context looks like. I think a lot of this genocide debate is really just a rhetorical trick by bad actors (not saying that's any of you, to be clear). The only thing worse than someone who commits genocide is the person who denies genocide, so if you can smear Israel with that accusation (no matter how fact-free) then not only can you delegitimize Israel and Israelis but you can also delegitimize the 80-90% of diaspora Jews who support Israel's right to exist and defend itself as a state. Show nested quote +@RJGooner, do you have any actual confidence in the IDF investigating allegations against its members? To answer this briefly, yes, I do, based on my understanding of how the IDF military advocate general works and the fact that Western military observers have confirmed that it operates in essentially the same way as other western militaries. Just because people aren't being punished right now doesn't mean it won't happen (it has, in fact, already happened in certain cases). These things take time to investigate, bring to trial, etc.
Let me make a point regarding the idea that people who commit genocide wouldn't at the same time aid the people who they want to exterminate, thus proving that there is no genocide. I strongly disagree with the conclusion, because I think it doesn't follow. Neither logically nor empirically.
Firstly I assume that most people view themselves as good. A person such as Hitler is viewed by others as evil, but he viewed himself as good. When he tried to exterminate the Jewish people, he believed that was a good deed. This is exactly what made him so scary. People like him are capable of doing the greatest evil with the greatest cruelty and the greatest motivation, not because they want to do evil, but precisely because they want to do good.
So, the drive to do good is exactly what causes certain individuals to do the greatest evil. It's a paradox of good intent.
I'm fairly certain that both Hamas and Netanyahu view themselves as good, not as evil. And because they're convinced of their own goodness, they can perhaps commit greater evils. Because they can always point to whichever good thing they're doing.
One of the things Netanyahu can point at is the aid that is being delivered to Gazans. This allows him to be viewed as good, and it allows him to view himself as good. He can look into a mirror and see a good person, while at the same time he's doing everything in his power to destroy Gaza - everything other than literally building concentration camps to exterminate Palestinians.
The veil of goodness is extremely important as it's one of the key reasons why so many people refuse to believe that genocide or ethnic cleansing or anything of similar nature is happening inside Gaza (or in the West Bank).
I do not believe in comic book villains. I believe in the fallibility of humans. We fail not because we try to do evil, we fail because we try to do good.
A good person is the one who sees the evil in themselves and combats it. A good person is not someone who is through and through good. Angels don't exist. An evil person is also not someone who is through and through evil. Demons don't exist either.
Even the most evil people in all of history did things that were obviously good.
For example Hitler protected his Jewish doctor and gave him free passage to the US. Does that mean Hitler didn't do everything he could to exterminate the Jewish people? Because he saved one Jewish man and his family? No, of course it doesn't mean that.
Neither does the aid from Israel into Gaza mean that Netanyahu is a good person or that he wants Palestinians to thrive. No. He clearly hates their guts. We know this from the sum of his words and his actions. In his ideal world there would be no Palestinians and all the land would belong to Israel.
|
Northern Ireland25392 Posts
On August 08 2025 04:23 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 01:19 WombaT wrote:On August 08 2025 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Another thing that is worth remembering, I feel, is that there is an entire viewpoint that is missing. Many, many people think that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing/genocide in Palestine, or maybe they're calling it something else that is less negatively connotated in their head, and that them doing it is either a good thing or the least bad option available. Because Palestinians deserve it, because God has said that Jewish people should have that land, because Arabs are subhumans who can't be trusted to keep peace, because islam is a dangerous religion and we have to protect Europe, because some other reason, I don't know because I never get to engage with this viewpoint because all they'll ever say is that Israel isn't doing the things that they're obviously doing. To come back to Wombat's parallel, it is similar to engaging with racism as an idea, but in reality you're only talking to BlackJack type people who insist that nobody and nothing is ever racist, and the viewpoint that racism is correct and good is missing from the conversation. I mean there can’t be zero overlap between people who think Muslims are going to take over Europe, and ‘Londonistan’ is a thing and what you’ve outlined there. I do see some worrying signs in an anti-Semitism spike, and I think it’s both wrapped in Israel, but also your more ‘traditional’ forms of it at the same time. But equally I think people sometimes neglect the gigantic spike in anti-Muslim sentiment that 9/11 brought into being, that’s never really been fully put back in its box. And has a lot more in common with anti-Semitism than it does straight racism IMO It's an interesting point highlighting parallels between anti-semitism and anti-Muslim... ism. To be anti-Arab for example is to be anti-semitic. Prior to this conflict I wasn't aware of this technicality. It may not mean much anyway, but maybe it does. It reveals an oddity, which is that anti-semitism is almost entirely associated with anti-Jewish hatred, and none of the other semitic groups, which also experience anti-semitism in their own right. Muslims are overwhelmingly Arabs. Being anti-Muslim though is for some reason not considered anti-semitic.
I think it’s splitting hairs when in common parlance anti-Semitism = anti-Jewish, but yeah fair point.
I think the parallels between that and anti-Muslim sentiment are pretty darn similar. Old tropes that Jewish loyalty is to their ethnic people and their faith, rather than nation and fellow citizens are remarkably similar to yer modern ‘Muslims don’t integrate and want to deep down establish a theocracy’ that one runs in into much more than I’d ideally like.
|
On August 08 2025 04:42 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 03:37 RJGooner wrote:On August 08 2025 00:49 WombaT wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. The sands they do shift. One may notice I decidedly don’t interject on the auld ‘G word’ debates. I figured it’s just such an evocative word, and there’s ‘big G’ genocide and small ‘g genocide’, and its invocation tends to have people think of the ‘big g’ version that I figured it just brought up a reflexive defensiveness. The flipside of that was, I thought by not immediately triggering that defensive reflexive action by sticking the genocide issue on the table, one could get more sober engagement on the other factors. However, what I’ve oft-found is you’ll just get that same defensiveness and denial no matter how much you soften it. So why soften it? It’s a little like the idea that certain people gravitate to right wing populists because they’re just sick of being called racists and it’s an exasperated reaction to that. This may be true for some people, in reality I find all it accomplishes if one drops the accusation of racism is allow a lot of racists to go about their days without being called racist. Inb4 anti-Semitism, there are some Jewish people who would not defend some parallel non-Jewish state that was doing equivalent things, indeed they’d actively condemn it. I’ll add these are mostly observations I’ve made of interactions outside these forums and not within them. The whole reason that the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1948 was due to the Holocaust. It is the crime of crimes. The Shoah was a uniquely awful event in history that happened to the Jewish people. So when people try to take this word and bastardize it to apply to a military campaign in which Israel is defending itself from some of the worst terrorists on the planet (and plainly not being genocidal), is it really that surprising when people get defensive about it? Then when you point out that none of the arguments for genocide actually make any logical sense, that none of what Israel is doing meets the standard for this worst of all crimes, that a genocidal state wouldn't be sending in aid and doing vaccination campaigns for the enemy population - nobody cares. Best I can get it seems is people saying "well Omer Bartov says it is" as if that makes it true. And people seem to constantly forget that Hamas' WHOLE STRATEGY is to amplify the suffering of their own civilians. Everything it has done throughout this war has been to make that happen. Stealing aid is just one example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kz42j92jmoMeanwhile, the coverage of conflicts that actually have the potential to be genocidal (Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Syria for the last however many years) receive comparatively little coverage compared to the 24/7 microscope that the news media has on Gaza. At the same time, antisemitism has exploded across Europe and the United States where we just this year had two Israeli embassy staffers gunned down in public and people attacked with Molotov cocktails at a hostage rally. Even countries like Ireland that have relatively small populations of Jews have shown that they have massive problems with antisemitism. So yea, people are defensive when you consider what the global context looks like. I think a lot of this genocide debate is really just a rhetorical trick by bad actors (not saying that's any of you, to be clear). The only thing worse than someone who commits genocide is the person who denies genocide, so if you can smear Israel with that accusation (no matter how fact-free) then not only can you delegitimize Israel and Israelis but you can also delegitimize the 80-90% of diaspora Jews who support Israel's right to exist and defend itself as a state. @RJGooner, do you have any actual confidence in the IDF investigating allegations against its members? To answer this briefly, yes, I do, based on my understanding of how the IDF military advocate general works and the fact that Western military observers have confirmed that it operates in essentially the same way as other western militaries. Just because people aren't being punished right now doesn't mean it won't happen (it has, in fact, already happened in certain cases). These things take time to investigate, bring to trial, etc. Let me make a point regarding the idea that people who commit genocide wouldn't at the same time aid the people who they want to exterminate, thus proving that there is no genocide. I strongly disagree with the conclusion, because I think it doesn't follow. Neither logically nor empirically. Firstly I assume that most people view themselves as good. A person such as Hitler is viewed by others as evil, but he viewed himself as good. When he tried to exterminate the Jewish people, he believed that was a good deed. This is exactly what made him so scary. People like him are capable of doing the greatest evil with the greatest cruelty and the greatest motivation, not because they want to do evil, but precisely because they want to do good. So, the drive to do good is exactly what causes certain individuals to do the greatest evil. It's a paradox of good intent. I'm fairly certain that both Hamas and Netanyahu view themselves as good, not as evil. And because they're convinced of their own goodness, they can perhaps commit greater evils. Because they can always point to whichever good thing they're doing. One of the things Netanyahu can point at is the aid that is being delivered to Gazans. This allows him to be viewed as good, and it allows him to view himself as good. He can look into a mirror and see a good person, while at the same time he's doing everything in his power to destroy Gaza - everything other than literally building concentration camps to exterminate Palestinians. The veil of goodness is extremely important as it's one of the key reasons why so many people refuse to believe that genocide or ethnic cleansing or anything of similar nature is happening inside Gaza (or in the West Bank). I do not believe in comic book villains. I believe in the fallibility of humans. We fail not because we try to do evil, we fail because we try to do good. A good person is the one who sees the evil in themselves and combats it. A good person is not someone who is through and through good. Angels don't exist. An evil person is also not someone who is through and through evil. Demons don't exist either. Even the most evil people in all of history did things that were obviously good. For example Hitler protected his Jewish doctor and gave him free passage to the US. Does that mean Hitler didn't do everything he could to exterminate the Jewish people? Because he saved one Jewish man and his family? No, of course it doesn't mean that. Neither does the aid from Israel into Gaza mean that Netanyahu is a good person or that he wants Palestinians to thrive. No. He clearly hates their guts. We know this from the sum of his words and his actions. In his ideal world there would be no Palestinians and all the land would belong to Israel.
Look, either the legal standard of genocide is important or it's not. You're certainly free to make up your own standard or try to create a new standard (like what Amnesty International has tried to do) but at least be clear about that.
Intent is central to what makes a genocide. You have to establish that intent, and you have to show as well that genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference based on the available facts. Sorry, but I'm not that interested in your psychoanalysis of Benjamin Netanyahu. I'm more interested in what's happened on the ground. Israel has facilitated 2M tons of aid over the course of the war. They have conducted a vaccination campaign (which they are not actually legally obligated to do, btw). They have issued evacuation orders and created humanitarian zones. They have been extraordinarily targeted in their operations. It's not a stretch to say that more IDF soldiers are dead than there could have been if such care hadn't been taken.
In order for your argument to work, you have to make the claim that all of these actions, which contradict any genocidal intent from Israel, are pure window dressing.
There is extraordinary devastation and suffering in Gaza. Any analysis of why that is the case that doesn't take into account the actions of Hamas is flawed. Hamas built 500KM of tunnels with entrances in every location you can imagine. It fights out of civilian buildings. It steals aid. It sets booby traps and IEDs everywhere (if you're wondering why so many buildings have been destroyed, this is a big reason). It doesn't wear uniforms to distinguish itself from the civilian population. Their strategy is literally to try to maximize the suffering of their own civilians. Combine this with the fact that no country will take in Palestinians as refugees and OF COURSE there is huge suffering in Gaza.
EDIT:
Just to put the point home a bit more. There was a vast quantity of evidence obtained after WWII was over that established the genocidal intent of the Nazis. Actual Nazi policy documents, orders, military reports, testimonies from German soldiers, the construction of concentration camps, and of course the testimonies of the victims themselves.
|
Same question as usual, since it's obviously not genocide and only an idiot who is stretching the definition of genocide in a way that is insulting to the Shoah would say it is, how come a plurality of genocide scholars and international law experts believe it is? And, provided that you're an honest person, why does "a plurality of genocide scholars" become "Omer Bartov" whenever you have to bring it up in an argument?
|
On August 08 2025 05:37 Nebuchad wrote:
Same question as usual, since it's obviously not genocide and only an idiot who is stretching the definition of genocide in a way that is insulting to the Shoah would say it is, how come a plurality of genocide scholars and international law experts believe it is? And, provided that you're an honest person, why does "a plurality of genocide scholars" become "Omer Bartov" whenever you have to bring it up in an argument?
I never said you or anyone was an idiot for the record. You just happen to be wrong on this.
You're right - I should have said Omer Bartov and other genocide scholars. But thank you for at least admitting that it isn't a consensus.
I haven't read thoroughly everyone's arguments but some clear issues with many of them is that they refuse to accept Israel's war aims as valid and seem to place almost no blame at all on Hamas for why the situation is as it is. That along with frequently misrepresenting statements of Israeli leaders as evidence of genocidal intent. Many of them want to re-define the standard a la Amnesty International.
Some of them (Martin Shaw, for example) have a long history of bias against Israel.
|
Austria4112 Posts
On August 08 2025 05:18 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 04:42 Magic Powers wrote:On August 08 2025 03:37 RJGooner wrote:On August 08 2025 00:49 WombaT wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. The sands they do shift. One may notice I decidedly don’t interject on the auld ‘G word’ debates. I figured it’s just such an evocative word, and there’s ‘big G’ genocide and small ‘g genocide’, and its invocation tends to have people think of the ‘big g’ version that I figured it just brought up a reflexive defensiveness. The flipside of that was, I thought by not immediately triggering that defensive reflexive action by sticking the genocide issue on the table, one could get more sober engagement on the other factors. However, what I’ve oft-found is you’ll just get that same defensiveness and denial no matter how much you soften it. So why soften it? It’s a little like the idea that certain people gravitate to right wing populists because they’re just sick of being called racists and it’s an exasperated reaction to that. This may be true for some people, in reality I find all it accomplishes if one drops the accusation of racism is allow a lot of racists to go about their days without being called racist. Inb4 anti-Semitism, there are some Jewish people who would not defend some parallel non-Jewish state that was doing equivalent things, indeed they’d actively condemn it. I’ll add these are mostly observations I’ve made of interactions outside these forums and not within them. The whole reason that the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1948 was due to the Holocaust. It is the crime of crimes. The Shoah was a uniquely awful event in history that happened to the Jewish people. So when people try to take this word and bastardize it to apply to a military campaign in which Israel is defending itself from some of the worst terrorists on the planet (and plainly not being genocidal), is it really that surprising when people get defensive about it? Then when you point out that none of the arguments for genocide actually make any logical sense, that none of what Israel is doing meets the standard for this worst of all crimes, that a genocidal state wouldn't be sending in aid and doing vaccination campaigns for the enemy population - nobody cares. Best I can get it seems is people saying "well Omer Bartov says it is" as if that makes it true. And people seem to constantly forget that Hamas' WHOLE STRATEGY is to amplify the suffering of their own civilians. Everything it has done throughout this war has been to make that happen. Stealing aid is just one example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kz42j92jmoMeanwhile, the coverage of conflicts that actually have the potential to be genocidal (Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Syria for the last however many years) receive comparatively little coverage compared to the 24/7 microscope that the news media has on Gaza. At the same time, antisemitism has exploded across Europe and the United States where we just this year had two Israeli embassy staffers gunned down in public and people attacked with Molotov cocktails at a hostage rally. Even countries like Ireland that have relatively small populations of Jews have shown that they have massive problems with antisemitism. So yea, people are defensive when you consider what the global context looks like. I think a lot of this genocide debate is really just a rhetorical trick by bad actors (not saying that's any of you, to be clear). The only thing worse than someone who commits genocide is the person who denies genocide, so if you can smear Israel with that accusation (no matter how fact-free) then not only can you delegitimize Israel and Israelis but you can also delegitimize the 80-90% of diaspora Jews who support Israel's right to exist and defend itself as a state. @RJGooner, do you have any actual confidence in the IDF investigating allegations against its members? To answer this briefly, yes, I do, based on my understanding of how the IDF military advocate general works and the fact that Western military observers have confirmed that it operates in essentially the same way as other western militaries. Just because people aren't being punished right now doesn't mean it won't happen (it has, in fact, already happened in certain cases). These things take time to investigate, bring to trial, etc. Let me make a point regarding the idea that people who commit genocide wouldn't at the same time aid the people who they want to exterminate, thus proving that there is no genocide. I strongly disagree with the conclusion, because I think it doesn't follow. Neither logically nor empirically. Firstly I assume that most people view themselves as good. A person such as Hitler is viewed by others as evil, but he viewed himself as good. When he tried to exterminate the Jewish people, he believed that was a good deed. This is exactly what made him so scary. People like him are capable of doing the greatest evil with the greatest cruelty and the greatest motivation, not because they want to do evil, but precisely because they want to do good. So, the drive to do good is exactly what causes certain individuals to do the greatest evil. It's a paradox of good intent. I'm fairly certain that both Hamas and Netanyahu view themselves as good, not as evil. And because they're convinced of their own goodness, they can perhaps commit greater evils. Because they can always point to whichever good thing they're doing. One of the things Netanyahu can point at is the aid that is being delivered to Gazans. This allows him to be viewed as good, and it allows him to view himself as good. He can look into a mirror and see a good person, while at the same time he's doing everything in his power to destroy Gaza - everything other than literally building concentration camps to exterminate Palestinians. The veil of goodness is extremely important as it's one of the key reasons why so many people refuse to believe that genocide or ethnic cleansing or anything of similar nature is happening inside Gaza (or in the West Bank). I do not believe in comic book villains. I believe in the fallibility of humans. We fail not because we try to do evil, we fail because we try to do good. A good person is the one who sees the evil in themselves and combats it. A good person is not someone who is through and through good. Angels don't exist. An evil person is also not someone who is through and through evil. Demons don't exist either. Even the most evil people in all of history did things that were obviously good. For example Hitler protected his Jewish doctor and gave him free passage to the US. Does that mean Hitler didn't do everything he could to exterminate the Jewish people? Because he saved one Jewish man and his family? No, of course it doesn't mean that. Neither does the aid from Israel into Gaza mean that Netanyahu is a good person or that he wants Palestinians to thrive. No. He clearly hates their guts. We know this from the sum of his words and his actions. In his ideal world there would be no Palestinians and all the land would belong to Israel. Look, either the legal standard of genocide is important or it's not. You're certainly free to make up your own standard or try to create a new standard (like what Amnesty International has tried to do) but at least be clear about that. Intent is central to what makes a genocide. You have to establish that intent, and you have to show as well that genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference based on the available facts. Sorry, but I'm not that interested in your psychoanalysis of Benjamin Netanyahu. I'm more interested in what's happened on the ground. Israel has facilitated 2M tons of aid over the course of the war. They have conducted a vaccination campaign (which they are not actually legally obligated to do, btw). They have issued evacuation orders and created humanitarian zones. They have been extraordinarily targeted in their operations. It's not a stretch to say that more IDF soldiers are dead than there could have been if such care hadn't been taken. In order for your argument to work, you have to make the claim that all of these actions, which contradict any genocidal intent from Israel, are pure window dressing. There is extraordinary devastation and suffering in Gaza. Any analysis of why that is the case that doesn't take into account the actions of Hamas is flawed. Hamas built 500KM of tunnels with entrances in every location you can imagine. It fights out of civilian buildings. It steals aid. It sets booby traps and IEDs everywhere (if you're wondering why so many buildings have been destroyed, this is a big reason). It doesn't wear uniforms to distinguish itself from the civilian population. Their strategy is literally to try to maximize the suffering of their own civilians. Combine this with the fact that no country will take in Palestinians as refugees and OF COURSE there is huge suffering in Gaza. EDIT: Just to put the point home a bit more. There was a vast quantity of evidence obtained after WWII was over that established the genocidal intent of the Nazis. Actual Nazi policy documents, orders, military reports, testimonies from German soldiers, the construction of concentration camps, and of course the testimonies of the victims themselves.
Israel was supposed to send many times more aid than they have. Have you seen the videos I posted? These individuals are severely malnourished and in an extremely desperate situation. They live from day to day and they're starving. That wouldn't be happening if aid was coming in sufficiently and as demanded by the international community. Gazans weren't starving like that before October 7 and they wouldn't have to be starving like that if Israel was sending the appropriate amount of aid that Palestinians need.
It has been proven over and over again that aid was withheld, sometimes actively blocked, and that the IDF didn't take the necessary steps to allow anywhere near enough aid to get through. The IDF is provably complicit in this, and so is Netanyahu. Biden himself demanded several times more aid to be sent, and he was deliberately ignored by Netanyahu for several weeks or perhaps months. There were no consequences for his refusal to act. This is all documented.
Furthermore, what is your ultimate goal when you reject the accusation of genocide? Are you A) arguing that the situation is only 10% as bad as a genocide? Are you arguing it's 90% as bad? 50%? How bad exactly is the situation compared to a genocide? What is your point?
My point is that we're at least 80% into a full-blown genocide, with literally the only thing missing being the proven intent by Netanyahu's administration.
Again, aid has been deliberately withheld. We know this. It's been proven. Only intent is unproven.
What is your point?
|
On August 08 2025 06:15 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 05:37 Nebuchad wrote:
Same question as usual, since it's obviously not genocide and only an idiot who is stretching the definition of genocide in a way that is insulting to the Shoah would say it is, how come a plurality of genocide scholars and international law experts believe it is? And, provided that you're an honest person, why does "a plurality of genocide scholars" become "Omer Bartov" whenever you have to bring it up in an argument? I never said you or anyone was an idiot for the record. You just happen to be wrong on this. You're right - I should have said Omer Bartov and other genocide scholars. But thank you for at least admitting that it isn't a consensus. I haven't read thoroughly everyone's arguments but some clear issues with many of them is that they refuse to accept Israel's war aims as valid and seem to place almost no blame at all on Hamas for why the situation is as it is. That along with frequently misrepresenting statements of Israeli leaders as evidence of genocidal intent. Many of them want to re-define the standard a la Amnesty International. Some of them (Martin Shaw, for example) have a long history of bias against Israel.
When you make your own argument, you use rhetoric to display that it's obvious that Israel is right. If the facts as you presented them matched reality, only an idiot would say that Israel is committing genocide.
"But thank you for at least admitting that it isn't a consensus."
I used your framing, I wasn't agreeing with it. And again, the scholars don't seem to agree with it either, they're on the record saying that they don't know of any serious researcher who thinks this isn't genocide.
"Motivated by our deep scholarly and ethical engagement with political violence and mass atrocity, including the Nazi genocide of Jewish people, we helped found the Genocide and Holocaust Studies Crisis Network in April. More than 400 scholars of genocide and Holocaust studies from two dozen countries joined within weeks of its launch."
Here are some names I came up with through a quick search.
Taner Akçam
Jeffrey Bachman
Omer Bartov
Amos Goldberg
Marianne Hirsch
Shmuel Lederman
Robert McNeil
Anthony Dirk Moses
Melanie O'Brien
Michael Rothberg
Victoria Sanford
William Schabas
Raz Segal
Martin Shaw
Damien Short
Barry Trachtenberg
Ugur Umit Ungor
Iva Vukusic
You also indicated that there wasn't even the "potential" for a genocide in Gaza, so here are 880 scholars who thought there was potential in october 2023
“As scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies, and genocide studies, we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip,” reads the public statement signed by 880 scholars on 15 October.
I'm sure a lot of them had "anti-Israel bias" before October 7th as well, as what Israel was doing before October 7th was already atrocious and unconscionable. However you'll find that several of them started from the opposite position, asserting that it isn't genocide, and then changed their position as more facts came about, so it's going to be hard to assert that they are motivated by bias. One of them, William Schabas, is apparently notorious for being unwilling (or "cautious") to call things genocide, and he's on that side as well.
Simply put, this is not the kind of reaction that you would get from academia if it was preposterous to think that a genocide is happening, so you're going to need an extra step. That extra step, from where I'm standing, can only be two things: either that there is a global conspiracy of west-hating islamists that has infiltrated universities worldwide (it's called islamoleftism in France if you want a starting point), or that the portrayal that you're making doesn't match reality. Personally I'm going with option 2.
|
Northern Ireland25392 Posts
On August 08 2025 03:37 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 00:49 WombaT wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. The sands they do shift. One may notice I decidedly don’t interject on the auld ‘G word’ debates. I figured it’s just such an evocative word, and there’s ‘big G’ genocide and small ‘g genocide’, and its invocation tends to have people think of the ‘big g’ version that I figured it just brought up a reflexive defensiveness. The flipside of that was, I thought by not immediately triggering that defensive reflexive action by sticking the genocide issue on the table, one could get more sober engagement on the other factors. However, what I’ve oft-found is you’ll just get that same defensiveness and denial no matter how much you soften it. So why soften it? It’s a little like the idea that certain people gravitate to right wing populists because they’re just sick of being called racists and it’s an exasperated reaction to that. This may be true for some people, in reality I find all it accomplishes if one drops the accusation of racism is allow a lot of racists to go about their days without being called racist. Inb4 anti-Semitism, there are some Jewish people who would not defend some parallel non-Jewish state that was doing equivalent things, indeed they’d actively condemn it. I’ll add these are mostly observations I’ve made of interactions outside these forums and not within them. The whole reason that the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1948 was due to the Holocaust. It is the crime of crimes. The Shoah was a uniquely awful event in history that happened to the Jewish people. So when people try to take this word and bastardize it to apply to a military campaign in which Israel is defending itself from some of the worst terrorists on the planet (and plainly not being genocidal), is it really that surprising when people get defensive about it? Then when you point out that none of the arguments for genocide actually make any logical sense, that none of what Israel is doing meets the standard for this worst of all crimes, that a genocidal state wouldn't be sending in aid and doing vaccination campaigns for the enemy population - nobody cares. Best I can get it seems is people saying "well Omer Bartov says it is" as if that makes it true. And people seem to constantly forget that Hamas' WHOLE STRATEGY is to amplify the suffering of their own civilians. Everything it has done throughout this war has been to make that happen. Stealing aid is just one example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kz42j92jmoMeanwhile, the coverage of conflicts that actually have the potential to be genocidal (Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Syria for the last however many years) receive comparatively little coverage compared to the 24/7 microscope that the news media has on Gaza. At the same time, antisemitism has exploded across Europe and the United States where we just this year had two Israeli embassy staffers gunned down in public and people attacked with Molotov cocktails at a hostage rally. Even countries like Ireland that have relatively small populations of Jews have shown that they have massive problems with antisemitism. So yea, people are defensive when you consider what the global context looks like. I think a lot of this genocide debate is really just a rhetorical trick by bad actors (not saying that's any of you, to be clear). The only thing worse than someone who commits genocide is the person who denies genocide, so if you can smear Israel with that accusation (no matter how fact-free) then not only can you delegitimize Israel and Israelis but you can also delegitimize the 80-90% of diaspora Jews who support Israel's right to exist and defend itself as a state. Show nested quote +@RJGooner, do you have any actual confidence in the IDF investigating allegations against its members? To answer this briefly, yes, I do, based on my understanding of how the IDF military advocate general works and the fact that Western military observers have confirmed that it operates in essentially the same way as other western militaries. Just because people aren't being punished right now doesn't mean it won't happen (it has, in fact, already happened in certain cases). These things take time to investigate, bring to trial, etc.
Thank you for the response.
War is a messy thing, made doubly so when it’s not really a conventional war, but effectively a wholesale military approach to a terrorist organisation completely embedded within a civilian population.
Perhaps the IDF is doing a decent job in a conflict they’re ill-suited to fight, and are performing about as effectively and morally as other militaries would in such a scenario. I neither wholly agree or disagree with this kind of framing, but I don’t think it’s completely without validity.
Mistaken identity, bad intelligence, other human errors will also happen, without there necessarily being ill-intent, it’s the nature of the beast.
What I am finding particularly disturbing are the sheer number of deaths at aid sites however. One is seeing a Bloody Sunday (the Northern Irish one, I know there’s about 50 internationally), or worse event on the regular. And that’s an epochal, defining event of the Troubles over here.
That I find, rather inexcusable. It strikes me as gross incompetence either in a procedural or implementation level at best, intentional war crimes at worst. It’s how many times it’s happened that disturbs me. An isolated event, some green recruits panicking, it’s still of course a tragedy, but it wouldn’t form a disturbing pattern.
To put it crudely, yeah fighting a war in Gaza, pretty hard. Not killing bunch of civilians at aid distribution sites, surely not that hard.
I think it’s one of the most despicable traits of nationalists of all stripes to overlook the war crimes of their boys and gals, and as I said prior us Brits, or the Yanks are no exception, we’re not exactly great at prosecuting our own, so it’s unfair to expect Israel to hit a standard most others don’t. I’ve long found it curious as someone not especially nationalistic, but with some pride in being British, wouldn’t one want people who disgrace the nation and our reputation to face censure?
Anyway I’m not accusing you of that, to clarify, you’ve expressed plenty of misgivings, just a general observation.
I can’t say I’ve a huge amount of faith in the IDF in the particular area of prosecuting people who’ve potentially committed war crimes at aid sites, mostly because said same IDF hasn’t stopped the deaths from regular occurence in the first place.
|
On August 08 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 03:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 02:22 Billyboy wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit. I don't see it as assuming the worst of people. Everyone has different ideas about morality, that's how it works. It's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing, and sure I can get mad about it sometimes like everyone else but I try and control that. Since I can't get people to change their moralities, I find it less useful to talk about that, so I try and stick to factual claims, that's how I've been operating. I guess I see value in doing it like that because of my own experience, that's how I changed my politics. Breadtube didn't tell me that the rightwing was good and pure and we needed to befriend them, they told me that their ideas were obviously wrong, their influencers were morons and/or dishonest, and their goals for society awful. They made convincing arguments, I didn't enjoy being obviously wrong about politics, so I changed my positions. That won't work on everyone, but it's impossible for something to work on everyone, so... I think sticking to the facts is a great strategy, and has a higher chance of success than attacking. I just think that you will get honest debates (not 100% of the time) if you engage honestly. And I agree that focusing on whether it is genocide or not is kind of missing the point. There will be plenty of time for that when the conflict is over. It is clear that the starving people pictures moved the needle, so there are appeals to emotion that work. Anger is just not that emotion because it is almost always just returned. When the conflict is over, yeah... Not for the first time, "the greatest crime of the left is being correct too early, when there's still time to act"... Anger is returned but that doesn't really matter, you're not trying to have an effect on the person you're talking to you're trying to have an effect on the audience. You want to show that what they're saying makes no sense so that others can recognize it. If you're having a beer with a conservative obviously your strategy will be different.
Labeling it genocide does absolutely nothing to stop it, it is a dumb pissing match. And you can certainly go to early and lose credibility. Like for example accusing Israel of genocide during the Oct 7th attack. Or judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with you and stopping fruitful discussions before they start.
|
On August 08 2025 09:17 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 03:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 02:22 Billyboy wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit. I don't see it as assuming the worst of people. Everyone has different ideas about morality, that's how it works. It's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing, and sure I can get mad about it sometimes like everyone else but I try and control that. Since I can't get people to change their moralities, I find it less useful to talk about that, so I try and stick to factual claims, that's how I've been operating. I guess I see value in doing it like that because of my own experience, that's how I changed my politics. Breadtube didn't tell me that the rightwing was good and pure and we needed to befriend them, they told me that their ideas were obviously wrong, their influencers were morons and/or dishonest, and their goals for society awful. They made convincing arguments, I didn't enjoy being obviously wrong about politics, so I changed my positions. That won't work on everyone, but it's impossible for something to work on everyone, so... I think sticking to the facts is a great strategy, and has a higher chance of success than attacking. I just think that you will get honest debates (not 100% of the time) if you engage honestly. And I agree that focusing on whether it is genocide or not is kind of missing the point. There will be plenty of time for that when the conflict is over. It is clear that the starving people pictures moved the needle, so there are appeals to emotion that work. Anger is just not that emotion because it is almost always just returned. When the conflict is over, yeah... Not for the first time, "the greatest crime of the left is being correct too early, when there's still time to act"... Anger is returned but that doesn't really matter, you're not trying to have an effect on the person you're talking to you're trying to have an effect on the audience. You want to show that what they're saying makes no sense so that others can recognize it. If you're having a beer with a conservative obviously your strategy will be different. Labeling it genocide does absolutely nothing to stop it, it is a dumb pissing match. And you can certainly go to early and lose credibility. Like for example accusing Israel of genocide during the Oct 7th attack. Or judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with you and stopping fruitful discussions before they start.
Well we've had ten years of discussions by now, I think it's pretty clear that they aren't going to be fruitful, we don't need to try again every time to see if this time is the one. You don't believe in doing that either as we see from how you engaged with Zambrah in the other thread or with GH for the entirety of your life.
As already explained in the last few posts, the goal of my posting on TL isn't to stop genocide, I am under no delusion that we are doing anything important here. I just see arguments that don't work and I correct them as well as I can. The last sentence is just silly, obviously I am not "judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with me", but it's a cool sentence I'm sure you felt proud as you wrote it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
