There are so many untrue statements in this post, I don’t even know where to begin:
> Israel's neighbors kill and displace Muslims at a far greater rate than Israel would even dream
What are you talking about? Are you saying that Israel wants to kill Muslims?
Israel has so far killed over 34000 Palestinians in the ongoing genocide. This level of killing is nowhere to be found in the neighboring region. You’ll have to go all the way to Sudan to find a similar number, where there is a civil war, and (yes) a plausible genocide. Even before Oct 7. in 2023 alone Israel killed at least 278 Palestinians in the West Bank (including 70 children). You don’t see these kind of number in the neighboring countries.
> The pro-Palestinian movement has a literal, direct, documented connection to Nazis
Where? Can you provide me with a source. I don’t recall this in the news. And even if they did, this does not negate the Palestinian cause. If a particular member of a particular movement has documented connection to Nazis, and said movement does not kick that person out and denounce them, then that single movement should be denounced, and this would not affect other movements.
> and its behavior is entirely dedicated to the elimination of the only Jewish state in existence without compromise or negotiation
I’ll leave aside for a moment the fact that you take it as a given that a particular groups should have an ethno-state deticated to them, but who wants to eliminate Israel without compromise or negotiations? Most of everybody wants negotiations, even staunch proponents of a 1-state solution usually want guaranteed civil rights to Jews and Arabs alike (albeit, sometimes omitting recent settlers in occupied West Bank from this). Even Hamas is currently advocating for a 2 state solution with a right to return for displaced Palestinians. Who is this group that doesn’t want any compromise or negotiations. Honestly Israel is much more uncompromising than any pro-Palestinian actor.
That said, being against an ethno-state is not an unreasonable, nor a racist position to take. A lot of people wanted Rhodesia to stop existing, they were not racists, they simply didn’t think it was reasonable that a segregationist settler colonial state should exist on indigenous lands.
> "The Zionists" is a dog whistle
It is not. Zionism is an ideology distinct from Judasim. There are plenty of non-zionist Jews, and even more non-Jewish Zionists. Zionism is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition of Judaism. Most pro-Palistinian demonstrators do in fact call out non-Jewish zionists, such as Joe Biden, all the time.
> You’ll have to go all the way to Sudan to find a similar number,
Syria was a civil war with who knows how many dead, its over half a million easily. Iraq I'm not an expert on but parts of what's happened and still is happening there seems like a civil war to me, number of dead is huge.
How is the Israeli-Gaza war a civil war btw?
If you don't look at the artificial definition of civil wars, the region is even more violent with millions more dead in conflicts - Yemen / Saudi Arabia, Iran-Iraq etc.
I assumed my parent was talking about ongoing conflicts and current mortality rates. Of which you’ll have to go all the way to Sudan to find similar numbers.
I don't get if the conflict was finished a year ago it doesn't count anymore? We're comparing only to on-going conflicts? Right. Makes total sense. Well I assume the current Gaza war will be over soon - in that case we can all just forget about it (?).
I assume the current Gaza war will be over soon - in that case we can all just forget about it (?).
Not a chance. What's happening in Gaza now will be no more forgotten than all the other trenches filled with civilian bodies (adult and infant) thanks to the various atrocities of WW II.
Palestinians were being killed by Israelis in record numbers before Oct 7. Like I said above: Between Jan 1st 2023 and Oct 7th 2023, 278 Palestinians in the West Bank (including 70 children) were killed by either the Israeli army or Israeli settler terrorists. So even if the Gaza genocide ends today and Israel signs the peace treaty offered and accepted by Hamas, we are still looking at number of victims which are nowhere to be found in the region.
If we include wars from over 20 years ago, we should also include the numbers of atrocities committed by Israel against Palestinians in the same time period. Including the Great March of Return massacres in 2018-2019 where Israel murdered 223 Palestinians, most of whom were unarmed civilians.
Now the total number of Palestinian victims probably won’t come anywhere near the total number of victims of the Iraq war, but a major difference is that Palestine is a lot smaller nations, and has had to suffer repeated atrocities, continuously throughout whichever time period we decide to start counting.
But my point here is that Israel’s neighbors are not “kill and displace Muslims at a far greater rate than Israel”.
Even if you take "neighbor" literally as adjacent and so do not care to include Yemen or Sudan, then consider the death rate of Syria. 300 thousand civilians dead and counting. 3,000 Palestinians massacred in the Yarmouk Camp Siege. Ugly, that.
You will no doubt be relieved to know that Israel is not the #1 killer of Muslims by any measure, neither now nor in the past. Armed with this new information, you will no doubt become a prominent anti-Assad and -ISIL activist, organizing marches through the streets, calling for a ceasefire?
You will no doubt be relieved to know that Israel is not the #1 killer of Muslims by any measure, neither now nor in the past.
The IDF is unequivocally the agent behind of the largest number of non-combatant Muslim deaths in a single country since Oct 7 (and most likely including all of 2023). More than Darfur, Myanmar, Yemen and Syria presently. The same outfit which holds itself up as "the most moral army in the world".
Yes there are some metrics where you can find a bigger killer of Muslims then Israel. There are other metrics where Israel is larger. But even still, Israel is killing a lot of people. Being top 5 in killing Muslim is not something you can be proud of by saying, “look at the top 4 muslim killers here”.
I'll answer, but I ask again: do you know what it is about the Palestinian cause that has you so exercised? Above, say, the Syrian or Sudanese or Yemen or Saudi or Iraqi or Lebanese causes, which are all far more deadly, even if you take Hamas' word for it. I mean, maybe you have an excellent reason...?
My answer is that there is a lack of perspective when it comes to Israel. It's better that everyone understands the scale of the death and destruction in the region. What the people of Israel risk should the state fall.
If we start at 1936 (when the conflict in Palestine began in earnest), bucket by country (consistent with the fact that Israel's myriad wars up until the current one have been lumped together in a single "conflict"); and divide by net population -- then Israel's per-capita ranking does seem to take place 5 or so out of the 17 countries involved, in terms of the Arab/Muslim killing business.
In terms of immediate neighbors - just behind (and much closer to) Lebanon and Syria, but much greater numerically than Jordan / Egypt / Saudi.
The conflict in Palestine started way earlier than that. At least since the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Might have really gotten going with the Hebron Massacre of 1929 but even that was preceded by Arab riots beginning even in 1920. Jews were already well sick of Arabs' shit by the time 1948 rolled around.
Funny you should mention. At least some of the new arrivals from Europe were apparently "already well sick of the Arabs' shit" from the minute they landed in their new homeland. As Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsburg) wrote in 1891, regarding the early Zionist settlers:
They were slaves in their land of exile, and they suddenly find themselves with unlimited freedom, the kind of wild freedom to be found only in a country like Turkey. This sudden change has engendered in them an impulse to despotism, as always happens when "a slave becomes a king," and behold they walk with the Arabs in hostility and cruelty, unjustly encroaching on them, shamefully beating them for no good reason, and even bragging about what they do, and there is no one to stand in the breach and call a halt to this dangerous and despicable impulse. To be sure our people are correct in saying that the Arab respects only those who demonstrate strength and courage, but this is relevant only when he feels that his rival is acting justly; it is not the case if there is reason to think his rival's actions are oppressive and unjust.
Of course by 1917 everyone knew what was up. As presaged by Herzl in his diary (1895):
We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.
Several things to note: That particular list starts in 1920, not because that's when Arabs began their nonsense but because it's a list of massacres in Mandatory Palestine and that started in 1918. The Muslim Arab massacre of Jews began literally at the beginning of Islam. But perhaps directly relevant, Arabs massacred Jews throughout the 1800s in spasms of violence in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, Aleppo, Cairo, Damascus and surrounds. The war against Jews in 1948 and all the accusations against Jews for "stealing land" was just a continuation of centuries of SOP.
Despite all of this violence, directed by Arabs towards Jews, thousands of Jewish deaths at the hands of Arabs in the preceding decades and centuries and millenia, you have to scroll down to 1939 before finding the first instance of Jewish retaliation.
As for "Zionists stole muh lands", here is a concise video that makes the case in under a minute that Jews stole no Arab land.
This isn't a question of 1937 versus 1939 (or whether these atrocities were in any meaningful sense "retaliatory"). But if you're going to somehow not mention -- whether by choice, or simple carelessness -- one of the most important chapters of the lead-up to the so-called "defensive war" of 1947-1949 then I don't see us heading towards a productive analysis of the larger historical context.
Wikipedia is pretty good, overall. But uneven also, in terms of edit quality. So when assembling data on such large scale tragedies (as the matter of targeted violence against civilians by both sides in this conflict), it's best to check against other sources.
Like moldy old books in the library. And listening to people whose families have lived through these events.
Against a guy's essay ...
The point is the unequivocally colonial intent of the Zionist project from its earliest beginnings. Not the guy or his essay.
You have decided this 2 years difference allows you to entirely dismiss the significance of this being the first retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks. I don't blame you. I wouldn't address it either if I were you. That it was in 1937 vs 1939 still entirely undermines your central thesis that Israelis are pure, unadulterated evil and Palestinians are their innocent victims. Why are you like this?
> The point is the unequivocally colonial intent of the Zionist project from its earliest beginnings.
The guy had an opinion, for which he was bitterly criticised by other Zionists. What is with you?
I mean, really, if you do not believe that the State of Israel should exist, then outline a realistic plan of what will happen to the Israelis after its end?
Lots of tit-for-tat here. My thesis is that it was not Zionism that caused today's conflict, but today's conflict is but a continuation of centuries of Arab violence against Jews.
In support, I offer the fact that the Irgun attack of 1937 cum 1939 was the first Jewish retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks.
You attempted to demonstrate that Zionism was the cause of today's conflict by excerpting a 1917 essay. I don't think this reasonably compares to the historical record which shows a long, long pattern of Arab violence and calumny against Jews going back centuries.
Your username implies that you value rationality. Great! Me too.
In general, after years of arguing about this with strangers on the internet, I have not ever once encountered an anti-Zionist who argues well and honestly by scrupulously steel-manning the pro-Israeli argument, employing the Principle of Charity, citing falsifiable evidence for assertions, acknowledging opponents' points rather than ghosting, avoiding logical fallacy, and so forth. After years of only ever hearing fallacious arguing of that sort, I strongly suspect that there is no foundation for the anti-Israel stance based in logic and rationality.
Is there? Can you meet that challenge? Can you address the challenge directly and honestly, steel-manning and then refuting that thesis?
So, directly: if the first Jewish attack on Arabs was in 1937 while, to be charitable, the "first" Arab attack on Jews of the region were over 100 years earlier in 1834 in Safed and Hebron, with many thereafter, then how can it be Zionism that caused Arabs to attack Jews? Isn't it more credible to say that Arabs attack Jews irrespective of Zionism? Rather, that "Zionism" is the excuse for attacks that would happen anyway? Moreover, isn't it possible that Zionism gained status and authority, not as a bigoted "settler-colonialist project" as you term it, but rather as a necessary defensive corrective against ongoing violent attacks, both in the region and abroad? As the kids say these days, where the lie?
You were attributing to me views which I haven't expressed. So a correction was provided, which was hopefully helpful to you. In any case it seems we've traded enough notes about historical bloodletting the topic of Zionism as such.
If you like you can tell us how you think should look on the ground -- in, say, about 20 years from now -- in your most optimistic (but realistically obtainable) scenario. Specifically with regard to (1) the final and borders of the State of Israel, (2) the status of the West Bank settlements (for those which do not end up on the Israeli side of the final borders), and (3) whether you see a need for any "population transfer" (as per the Decisive Plan or other proposals) in order to create conditions for a just and lasting peace.
To answer you. The ideal situation would be a borderless friendliness between Israel and the Palestinian states of Gaza and the West Bank. No attacks. I know that Israel would be delighted to have peaceful, prosperous neighbors. I know that having political control of Israel through a majority rule is important to Jews, so I don't see a "right of return" for Muslims not already citizens of Israel, but in the ideal scenario, Palestinians with actual, legitimate claims in Israeli territory will have been financially compensated for, and made peace with, their loss. Gaza will have been rebuilt and be a tourist destination for those who like beaches and Mediterranean sun.
But, no, while I think my ideal future for the region is a pipe dream that will never come about, I don't think the answer is actual genocide like population transfer.
Earlier you made assertions that Zionism is a settler-colonialist project and at least strongly implied that it was the cause of the conflict today. In light of the fact that continuous Arab attacks against Jews of the region began decades before Zionism, has it changed your mind at all about the cause of the conflict? Changed your calculation at least to a degree regarding Arab culpability?
In light of the fact that continuous Arab attacks against Jews of the region began decades before Zionism, has it changed your mind at all about the cause of the conflict?
I was already aware of the chronology. I've pretty much always seen the conflict as having multiple sources of causality, both in its origins and in its reasons continuing to this day -- with plenty of blame to go around to various parties on all sides.
Changed your calculation at least to a degree regarding Arab culpability?
That said I just don't believe in the idea collective blame, as applies to any ethnic or religious group. And certainly not going back centuries and millennia.
I do see it as an intrinsically modern conflict, and in essence -- the outcome of global and regional power interests. Ignorance, fear, hatred and the conscious actions of individuals at local levels certainly have their roles also. But in the bigger picture -- it's the larger geopolitical interests, and the decisions of persons at these levels which have exploited these factors, and brought us to where we are today.
> I just don't believe in the idea collective blame
> -- with plenty of blame to go around to various parties on all sides.
These two statements are contradictory and non-sequiturs. Apparently Arabs are not to be assigned collective blame for their attacks, while Israeli Jews receive full, collective blame.
No one talked about blame anyway, but the cause and effect of the historical pattern of Arabs killing Jews in the region.
> I've pretty much always seen the conflict as having multiple sources of causality, both in its origins and in its reasons continuing to this day
This is an evasion when the question became tough. Now it's about "multiple sources of causality" when it's clear it was not Zionism or settler-colonialism that caused Arabs to attack Jews.
You say "there is plenty of blame to go around", and yet every post of yours exclusively focuses on Israeli and Zionist culpability and Palestinian victimhood, and you seem unable to seriously entertain any mitigating arguments our evidence on behalf of Israel.
I'll just restate it here: there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel.
In order to argue against Israel, particularly that Israel is somehow deeply immoral, one must distort, deny and divert. There is no argument against the state of Israel that does not rely on this. Anyone who employs principles of rationality to the conflict will be pro-Israel.
When pressed or challenged too hard, an anti-Israeli will simply end the conversation and ghost.
> there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel.
This seems like a leap of logic. I see there are only two possibilities for that to hold true.
a) There are no illegitimate states
b) Israel is unique and unquestionable
I don’t think (b) is worth discussing as such exceptionalism is at the base of all genocidal states, and are almost always illegitimate (I’ll make an exception for the Vatican)
And (a) is easily disproven with a simple look at history. There are plenty of illegitimate states throughout history. A recent example is Apartheid South Africa which got replaced by a democratic South Africa in 1994. A more blatant example is Rhodesia. Almost everybody questioned the legitimacy of Rhodesia, and any anti-Rhodesian argument was indeed rational. Rhodesia was funded as a racist, white-supremacist, ethno-state and as such had no right to exist. Most of the world agreed. Not even Israel recognized Rhodesia (despite militarily supporting the white ethno-fascist government).
Israel in its current form has not right to exist. Israel needs to either a) grant full sovereignty to Palestine, and either pay reparations or grant the right of return to the descendants of those displaced in the Nakba and following atrocities; or b) unite with Palestine under a single democratic government with equal rights of all citizens. It cannot exist as a Jewish ethno-national ethno-state, which subjugates Palestinians in a settler colonial fashion, and further antagonizes its neighbors who shelter Palestinian refugees with constant military incursions.
> As for the Nazi origins of the pro-Palestinian movement, it starts in the 1920s with al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, who hated Jews so much he met with Hitler to discuss solutions to his own "Jewish Problem". This is why "pro Palestine" is today not about peace and sovereignty for the Palestinian people. It is about the elimination of the state - and people - of Israel. Really listen to the protesters.
You went further in this comment than the previous one, claiming that the pro-Palestinian movement has Nazi origins (meaning it originate via Nazism). This is pretty false.
And for many people, "Pro Palestine" is about peace and sovereignity for the Palestinian people. For others it isn't. I don't think you should paint the whole movement with the same brush so easily.
We Westerners want peace, prosperity and sovereignty for Palestinians. For us, a 2 state solution seems so reasonable. But we're not the ones who matter. Among Palestinians and Arabs in general, advocates for a 2-state peaceful coexistence is such a miniscule minority that yes, you can effectively paint the entire pro-Palestinian movement as genocidal. This is hard for Westerners to swallow, but that is the reality.
1) The official position of most Arab countries is aiming for a 2 state solution, iirc. The Palestinian Authority - which is the effective government of the West Bank Palestinians, and the official representative of Palestinians - officially recognize the State of Israel and endorse a two state solution.
Yes, support among the populace right now is weak - both Israelis and Palestinians - but that's probably because of the breakdown of the peace talks and living for the last 15 years in a situation in which Israel itself isn't really pursuing any kind of peace.
2) You write: "you can effectively paint the entire pro-Palestinian movement as genocidal."
Even if they don't support a two-state solution, calling them genocidal is going way too far.
3) When you talk about the "entire pro-Palestinian movement", it sounds like you're including the Western pro-Palestinian movement as well.
They are definitely not genocidal, and very relevant in the current context.
4) Most importantly - the best way to get to peace isn't to ignore the peaceful voices on either side as fringe, it's to amplify them.
There are genuinely pro-peace people on all sides of these issues, and pretending they don't exist is exactly the kind of rhetorical message that leads to more hate and violence. "No one on the other side is reasonable" is both wrong, and very harmful.
> There are genuinely pro-peace people on all sides of these issues, and pretending they don't exist is exactly the kind of rhetorical message that leads to more hate and violence.
No one pretends they don't exist. I genuinely love them. They are considered traitors and get a lot of hate, but all the more power and support to them. But it's foolish to pretend they are not rare.
Not supporting a two-state solution is genocidal, because it would require putting people who have explicitly stated that they want to kill Jews, in power. By their statements and behavior, Hamas, with overwhelming Gazan support, want a 1-state solution with Muslims in charge.
I don't think we're disagreeing about any facts here, only framing.
I wrote:
>> > They are definitely not genocidal...
You responded:
> I'll just direct you to the Hamas Charter (pdf)
But I was specifically talking in that line about the Western pro-Palestinian movement, not Hamas. In other parts of my comment, I specifically called out the position of the PA as the official representative of the Palestinians.
You really don't need to remind me of the actions of Hamas. I agree with you about them. They are clearly genocidal and, more importantly, anti-peace. (I say more importantly because they can't actually commit genocide, but they can and have blocked peace from happening.)
> But I was specifically talking in that line about the Western pro-Palestinian movement, not Hamas.
Oh I see. I did misunderstand. But, honestly, I'm not so sure. Maybe you and I consume different news sources, but organizations and movements I once considered to be bastions of Western morality continue to distort the reality of the conflict so egregiously that I have a hard time understanding how it could be accidental. Continuing to report Hamas statistics without qualification and then using them to accuse Israel of "genocide" is unconscionable, for instance.
In 2021, the UN Human Rights Council published a resolution titled "Human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel," which accused Israel of widespread abuses without substantial mention of the barrage of rocket attacks from Hamas that provoked some of these responses. This selective reporting led readers to believe that Israel was the primary aggressor in the conflict.
In May 2021, during a conflict between Israel and Hamas, the BBC headlined, "Israel intensifies attacks in Gaza as conflict escalates," without equally highlighting the hundreds of rockets fired into civilian areas of Israel by Hamas. This portrayal skewed public perception, framing Israel as the initiator rather than acting in retaliation.
In April 2021, HRW released a report titled "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution." This report categorically labeled Israel as an apartheid state, a term deeply contentious and debated, suggesting an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians.
In February 2022, Amnesty International issued a report stating that Israel's policies towards Palestinians amount to apartheid. The report asserts, "Israel’s cruel policies of segregation, dispossession, and exclusion across all territories under its control clearly amount to apartheid." This statement casts Israel's actions and policies in strictly negative terms, intensifying global anti-Israel sentiment without a balanced discussion of the complex security and political challenges that inform these policies.
Labeling Israel's policies as "apartheid" is both inappropriate and harmful because it inaccurately applies a term specifically defined under international law to the unique and complex Arab-Israeli conflict. Apartheid, as legally defined, refers to an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another. The situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories involves a national and territorial conflict, marked by security concerns and political disputes that differ fundamentally from the racial segregation and legal discrimination that characterized apartheid in South Africa.
Using the term "apartheid" to describe the Israeli-Palestinian context distorts understanding by simplifying a multifaceted conflict into a one-dimensional moral failing, which undermines the nuanced approach needed to resolve such disputes. It prevents meaningful dialogue, polarizes opinions, and can incite further tension by misrepresenting the nature of the conflict. This characterization shifts focus from seeking viable solutions to assigning blame, which is counterproductive for peace efforts and does a disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians who are impacted by these complex issues.
While I'm sure that many leftists think "Free Palestine" means freedom, self-rule, sovereignty, I know that the movement depends on that ambiguity to dog whistle to racists who, unfortunately, infect some of our human rights watch dogs. So, no, I'm not convinced that Western pro-Palestinians are not on some level intentionally genocidal. I cannot otherwise explain the level of hate and vitriol directed at Israel way out of proportion to any other conflict or situation on the planet.
Well, I can nitpick some of what you said but I largely agree. I think it's not crazy to call Israel's policies in the WB apartheid, effectively, or at least there's a real case to be made there, though I think you're right about the actual effects of using it as a political flattening, and applying it to all of Israel doesn't make sense.
> So, no, I'm not convinced that Western pro-Palestinians are not on some level intentionally genocidal. I cannot otherwise explain the level of hate and vitriol directed at Israel way out of proportion to any other conflict or situation on the planet.
Well I think the fact that many focus on Israel specifically is anti-semitic, at least at the top. I think 90% of people are followers, and are jumping on this cause just because it's popular, without necessarily understanding it in the context of the rest of what's happening around the world.
I wouldn't call any of that genocidal though, that's a pretty high bar.
I'd balk too except for the Western left's response to October 7th. Immediate celebration. One American professor at Cornell described himself as exhilerated! [1] "This is what resistance looks like" say others. Tearing down missing posters. Exhileration followed by mass protests. Against Israel. On October 8th! Even before Israel could collect its dead. Using the inevitably incorrect rumors that develop in the panic that follows any disaster ("I heard there were 40 beheaded babies!" "A woman was raped while her baby was burned alive in the oven!") to discredit any actual atrocity ("This is a disinformation campaign by Israel! 40 beheaded babies is absurd. Hamas targeted only soldiers."[2][3]) Women's rights organizations who have yet to condemn the rape of Israeli women as a tool of terror [4]. Denial that there was any rape. Denial that children were murdered. Claims that the hostages were volunteers. Claims that the attack was by Israel, akshually. Claims that Israel staged the whole thing in order to justify genocide. UNWRA materials for children glorifying martyrdom. Even here on YN the only political articles of any kind that make it through the filter are those critical of Israel. It goes on. And on. If you don't find that convincing I unfortunately can drop loads more genocide- and rape-apologia - as long as it's perpetrated against "Zionists" (wink).
You might begin to see why I honestly think anti-Zionism is at best genocidal-adjacent.
[3] https://youtu.be/VL5ACBwO9cg I find this asshole mortifying. Within hours of his hearing about the attack, you can see him in real time struggling to convert the atrocity into something anti-Israel.
You don't need to convince me that there's been a lot of awful reactions to October 7th.
I'm only pushing back that saying something like this:
> You might begin to see why I honestly think anti-Zionism is at best genocidal-adjacent.
Is painting too many people with too broad a brush. Yes, some protesters are genocidal. But it's a tiny minority of protesters, and all of these frankly disgusting anecdotes are a tiny percentage of the people engaged on this topic.
Except... Here is an open letter from the Jewish students at Columbia. Their experience there sounds pretty terrifying. Imagine yourself going through these experiences:
Do leftists who call for Israelis to "return to Europe" not know the A) centuries of stark, genocidal oppression against Jews in Europe nor B) that many Israeli Jews are in Israel because they have been expelled from Arab and Middle-East countries where their ancestors have lived for centuries? There is no "back home" to go to for these people.
One could argue these Western leftists earnestly care for Palestinians, but why? Why do they care about these particular Arabs and not the 1M+ other deaths of Muslims in current conflicts? What is the difference?
When I look back at the literally genocidal pograms by Levantine Arabs against Levantine Jews in an unbroken timeline of violence from 1850s, continuing through the 1920s and al-Husseini's agreements with Hitler in WW2, and the continuing violence right now, the repeated rejections of compromise and peace, the insistence on "all the land or death", is super clear to me that the "pro-Palestine" movement is and has always been genocidal. It is not and has never been about sovereignty or self-determination. Do Western leftists not know this? Do they not care? They certainly don't want to hear about it.
I don't know about "terrifying". "Uncomfortable", or, probably more accurately, "supremely irritating", sure. Zeynep Tufekci has been writing for a couple weeks --- I don't agree with everything she's saying, but I take anything she says seriously --- about how physically small and limited the protests have been.
If there were white power protests happening on campus at the University of Chicago, we'd all be up in arms; we are not when SJP, an organization that formally endorses the Al-Qassam Brigades, protests instead. There's for sure a blind spot. I see why people are pissed. It is not at all clear to me that anyone's safety was threatened at Columbia, though.
The comment you are replying to is ridiculous. Frankly by engaging I perpetuate ridiculousness and I should know better.
That said, to some reasonable approximation even the most militant pro Palestinian campus protests didn’t threaten any ones safety. In nearly every case the danger came from reactionary protests. Which is completely predictable if you are a campus safety officer!
We only have a problem if we agree with the contention that kids protesting genocide are some sort of chaos agent. They aren’t! They’re just college kids. Sleeping rough. Temporarily.
I don't know what "chaos agent" means, but the problem I'm referring to is us all commenting on this thread. I'm confident we agree more than we disagree about all of this stuff.
> I'm confident we agree more than we disagree about all of this stuff.
I do think we all want Palestinians to live peaceful and prosperous lives. Despite what many anti-Zionists believe, Israel would like that for Palestinians too.
The fundamental question is, does Israel get to exist as a state? If you believe yes, then congratulations, you are a Zionist!
If you believe no, and if you're not struggling intellectually with the practical consequences of the end of the Israeli state to the Israeli people, really walking through it with concern, then you court genocide. There isn't really much leeway, there.
> We only have a problem if we agree with the contention that kids protesting genocide are some sort of chaos agent.
Logically, they are, though. They are impervious to logical argument that it is not a genocide. Their only evidence, ultimately, is Hamas' "trust me, bro" and their own presumption that Israel is evil. If people throw the word "genocide" around without second thought out question and cannot accept any mitigating argument, they are not helping. So, yes, chaos agents and no, not just "college students sleeping rough".
> The comment you are replying to is ridiculous. Frankly by engaging I perpetuate ridiculousness and I should know better.
This is against the community guidelines. With over 13k karma points, you know better.
I hesitate to ask, but pretend for a moment that I am an earnest rationalist who respects logical arguments and lets truth lead to conclusions even if I am not happy with those conclusions.
Can you, striving to minimize emotionalism or logical fallacy, walk through in concise points what specifically is "ridiculous"?
I took zero offense from his comment; its spirit was clear. I agree with him: it is ridiculous that were are frolicking in this rotted carcass of a thread.
There have been numerous disturbing / idiotic / arguably antisemitic episodes originating from certain elements of the protestors' side, to be sure.
Unfortunately the letter presents certain regrettable factual distortions. For example:
We felt helpless when we watched students and faculty physically block Jewish students from entering parts of the campus we share, or even when they turned their faces away in silence.
The protest movement, especially at Columbia, has a highly visible Jewish contingent (especially within its leadership). If people were blocked from the protest encampments, it was plainly not because they were Jewish. And it is intellectually dishonest to claim that this is the reason they were excluded.
There have also been numerous disturbing / idiotic episodes on the part of the counter-protest movement, as I'm sure you know. Except unfortunately these have been notably more violent than most of what's been happening from the protestors' side. Just the other day for example:
Imagine being 55 years old and getting hit by a car that just so happens to have been driven by a cousin of one of one of Israel's most famous convicted terrorists (celebrated by none other than the country's current Finance Minister). Or being attacked with military-grade crowd control chemicals:
This isn't whataboutism. In order to understand this situation, it necessary the consider the whole playing field. And the simple fact that there's many profoundly disturbing episodes originating in both camps.
I'll just close with one more particularly revealing snippet from the letter:
If the last six months on campus have taught us anything, it is that a large and vocal population of the Columbia community does not understand the meaning of Zionism, and subsequently does not understand the essence of the Jewish People.
Again, no one buys the "Zionism = Judaism" equivalence. Outside the ideological bubble world that the signatories of the letter (and the driver of that car which nearly killed a 55 year-old woman for expressing her political beliefs the other day) choose to live in.
Why is it plain to you that people weren't blocked because they were Jewish? The contention of Jewish people who see antisemitism in these protests is that Jewish participation is allowed only for Jewish people who disavow substantial parts of their identity. This gets into the whole JVP thing; activists have held JVP up as a demonstration of Jewish support --- to the point where College Democrats of America claimed that JVP was more representative of Jewish Democrats than the CDA Jewish Caucus (a risible claim) --- and we just saw the JVP Peace Seder, where the labels on the plate were written front-to-back; JVP has also (very recently!) posted a Houthi endorsement on their Insta (it's since been deleted).
Don't get me started on counter-protesters. No matter who's protesting, the counter-protest will always be worse. At least some subset of protesters have an intrinsic motivation aligned with the cause. Virtually all the counter-protesters will be there to stir the pot.
I know I'm a wet blanket here but I'm going to keep mentioning that we're all necroposting on a long-dead threat, bloated with corpse-gases, that just 3-4 people are reading. HN is bigger and better than this.
Why is it plain to you that people weren't blocked because they were Jewish?
Because the encampments contained many Jewish organizers / participants (likely equal to or greater than their proportion across the student body as a whole).
The contention [is that] Jewish participation is allowed only for Jewish people who disavow substantial parts of their identity.
I see what you're driving at, but overall it seems to be a weak and ancillary argument. It basically gets into the whole "if you reject / insult Zionism (or even the military campaign in Gaza itself) then you're insulting my religious/ethnic identity" line, which I just don't buy (neither do many Jews in fact, and in fact they find it rather insulting that one should presume that all Jews should automatically feel that way).
I don't speak for JVP, so you'll have to take up issues about their dining plates / ephemeral Houthi endorsements with them.
Yeah, I don't know. If you're protesting the broad concept of Zionism, of the legitimacy of a Jewish homeland, then not allowing the participation of the majority of Jewish people who are (in that broad sense) Zionist makes sense. On the other hand, you can't be blocking their entrance to buildings, or singling them out for verbal harassment due solely to religious signifiers coupled with the fact that they're not echoing your chants, right? This doesn't seem all that complicated. Everybody is a little bit right, everybody is a little bit wrong, and a few people on both sides (SJP, Shai Davidai) are luridly wrong.
Blocking them from buildings doesn't seem to be happening.
As I've acknowledged there's been a fair amount of verbal harassment (and obnoxious signage), some of it arguably antisemitic. Deplorable thought it is, it gets into a different topic (from the issue of people being supposedly blocked from campus areas due to their perceived ethnic classification).
It's also not been a feature of the encampments as such that I'm aware of (but I could be wrong of course). More like a feature of spontaneous confrontations / street actions.
Addendum (edit): To the extent that some of these people protest Israel specifically (as no doubt many of them do) -- it's usually against Israel in its current (effectively Revisionist) Zionist configuration, aka "Israel as a rigidly defined ethnostate", built on as much territory as it can reasonably hold onto and with a supremacist attitude towards non-Jewish inhabitants. Not the "legitimacy of a Jewish homeland" in principle, which can mean a lot of things (such as the idea of a "Jewish homeland" that is genuinely democratic and not determined by the fact of a Jewish supermajority).
I've seen videos with people being blocked out of spaces, but like, those spaces presumably have like 9 other entrances that aren't being blocked, and people are challenging the protesters to make a point. Who knows? To the extent it isn't happening at all, it doesn't matter.
None of these are big issues for me, but there's a whole "the Good Jews" phenomenon that American Jewish people are keyed in on (which I hear about from friends, who all revile Netanyahu and oppose the Gaza invasion --- ironic that I'm disclaiming that!), and you said something that pricked my ears up about that. That's all. I'm not rebutting you.
> Deplorable though it is, it gets into a different topic
I am going to argue something different, and I would like you to seriously entertain the idea. The argument is: anti-Semitic harassment and anti-Zionism are part-and-parcel.
Consider: imagine for the sake of argument a universe that is exactly like ours, except in that universe, Israel is prosecuting the war in Gaza reasonably well, as perfectly as it is possible to prosecute any war. They actually do minimize civilian deaths, not commit any war crimes or genocide, ensure that aid gets where it needs to go. They simply want to get rid of Hamas. In that universe, the war is actually a measured and rational response to the Hamas provocations of that universe, October 7th actually happened, etc.
Please answer honestly: in that universe, how do you think the world responds? Does Hamas still claim genocide? Does the "Gazan Ministry of Health" still issue a daily death toll that is strangely absent of combatants? Does the BBC and al-Jazeera, et. al. still quote those statistics with neither qualification nor caveat? Does South Africa still take Israel to ICJ? Does the UN security council still issue resolutions against Israel without reference to Hamas or the hostages?
I believe that the answer to those questions would be identical to this universe. Would you agree? If not, what is the mechanism by which the world could tell the difference? What trustworthy organization would impartially inform us all that there is no genocide in a way that you yourself would believe it?
I believe most anti-Zionists would behave quite the same in that universe, because for them, Israel's existence is a problem, and the accusation of genocide is a tool in its dismantling.
I’d like to answer that question, and I think you’re not gonna like the answer.
I believe the response would be similar but not identical. There would be mass protests, just like there were in 2021, 2018, 2014, etc. I also participated in these protests. These protests would be smaller but still loud. Student movements would also call out their universities and demand boycott, just like in 2021, 2018, etc. But we probably wouldn’t see as many students participating, nor would it spread to as many school.
We would still see an ICJ case, however it wouldn’t be South Africa charging Israel of genocide. It would be the General Assembly charging Israel of apartheid. This case is also ongoing in our universe, and and was agreed to before Oct 7. Delegations would use that case to voice discontent with that universe’s version of the Gaza atrocities, no matter how scaled back it would be. But I think they would stop short of calling it a genocide (assuming Israel wouldn’t be committing one in that Universe). The security council would vote on a ceasefire and the US would veto it, just like in 2021, 2018, etc. The general assembly would also vote on and agree to to a ceasefire.
The BBC and Al Jazeera would quote statistics straight from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry, the BBC would say Hamas run, but Al Jazeera wouldn’t, just like in our universe. People would criticize BBC for that from both the left and the right (just like in our universe).
The truth about this universe is that Israel has been braking international humanitarian laws for a very long time, and the world is tired of it. In this alternative universe, the world would be equally tired of it, and would condemn Israel for it. Settler policies, apartheid, constant bombing campaigns in Gaza, constant raids on the West Bank, etc. all of that would be the reason the world would condemn Israel in your alternative universe. Israel’s settler colonial and apartheid policies would be a problem. And the accusations there of would be just.
> The truth about this universe is that Israel has been braking international humanitarian laws...
What laws?
Usually when people answer that question, they just refer to a law ("look up the Geneva Conventions") and then disappear. If you could, please actually quote the relevant paragraphs and, even better, an actual court ruling.
In this purely hypothetical universe -- in which the Israeli government was acting in an at least arguably rational fashion in regard to securing a timely release of the hostages, and protecting the security of citizens otherwise; in which it wasn't concurrently stepping up its rampage in the West Bank because it thinks the world will be distracted by the much greater number of bodies piling up in Gaza; in which there was no Dahiya Doctrine --
What we have here is the "They're just going to criticize / hate Israel no matter what it does" defense which has been raised as a blanket response to pretty much any robust criticism of what Israel does, for several decades. Or to paraphrase only slightly how you put it: "Israel's existence is the problem, serious criticisms about what it does are tools for its dismantling."
So to answer your question - of course no, I don't buy it. And yes, fundamentally the current response would be very different. There wouldn't be an ICJ case; there wouldn't be calls for sanctions against units like Netzah Yehuda for doing what they're currently doing out here in the real, actual world; etc.
If not, what is the mechanism by which the world could tell the difference? What trustworthy organization would impartially inform us all that there is no genocide in a way that you yourself would believe it?
The same organizations that are the obvious answer to this question (independent journalists and human rights groups in and outside of Israel; UN bodies; forensic analysis teams, etc).
In short, yes - in this science fiction universe, it would be a very different response. You're not going to agree of course, and that's fine.
Your other bullet points seem to be ancillary: no one is acting on what Hamas is claiming about the ongoing genocide, for example. And the Gaza Health Ministry numbers are a huge red herring (even Israeli military intelligence considers them to be generally reliable and uses them in their briefings; US officials believe the real numbers may be even higher, etc).
> Your other bullet points seem to be ancillary: no one is acting on what Hamas is claiming about the ongoing genocide, for example. And Gaza Health Ministry numbers are a huge red herring (even Israeli military intelligence considers them to be generally reliable and uses them in their briefings; US officials believe the real numbers may be even higher, etc).
Far from being "ancillary" or a "red herring", the Gaza Health Ministry statistics are central to the accusations against Israel of genocide. Weird you would even say that.
And, no, neither Israel nor "Israeli intelligence" considers Gazan Health Ministry statistics accurate [1]. That's another weird thing to say. As for "US officials believe the real numbers may be even higher, etc" I only found a single quote from a single US official, from one Barbara Leaf, Assistant Secretary of State, implying this [2]. I also found a quote from the same Voice of America article that "President Joe Biden has openly questioned figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is run by Hamas, which the U.S. classifies as a terrorist group" so...
It's odd that you made so many hrm... exaggerations in such a short response. It's almost like you don't care about the accuracy of your statements? Surely that cannot be true.
> etc
Etc? What is the etc? You wouldn't have only two things to say and then write "etc" to imply there's more, would you? I refuse to believe it.
The key part of Leaf's acknowledgment (which came some weeks after what Biden said) is where she added that the US has sources from a "variety of folks who are on the ground". Meaning they had independent confirmation that had been vetted by internal analysts.
> Israel's neighbors kill and displace Muslims at a far greater rate than Israel would even dream
What are you talking about? Are you saying that Israel wants to kill Muslims?
Israel has so far killed over 34000 Palestinians in the ongoing genocide. This level of killing is nowhere to be found in the neighboring region. You’ll have to go all the way to Sudan to find a similar number, where there is a civil war, and (yes) a plausible genocide. Even before Oct 7. in 2023 alone Israel killed at least 278 Palestinians in the West Bank (including 70 children). You don’t see these kind of number in the neighboring countries.
> The pro-Palestinian movement has a literal, direct, documented connection to Nazis
Where? Can you provide me with a source. I don’t recall this in the news. And even if they did, this does not negate the Palestinian cause. If a particular member of a particular movement has documented connection to Nazis, and said movement does not kick that person out and denounce them, then that single movement should be denounced, and this would not affect other movements.
> and its behavior is entirely dedicated to the elimination of the only Jewish state in existence without compromise or negotiation
I’ll leave aside for a moment the fact that you take it as a given that a particular groups should have an ethno-state deticated to them, but who wants to eliminate Israel without compromise or negotiations? Most of everybody wants negotiations, even staunch proponents of a 1-state solution usually want guaranteed civil rights to Jews and Arabs alike (albeit, sometimes omitting recent settlers in occupied West Bank from this). Even Hamas is currently advocating for a 2 state solution with a right to return for displaced Palestinians. Who is this group that doesn’t want any compromise or negotiations. Honestly Israel is much more uncompromising than any pro-Palestinian actor.
That said, being against an ethno-state is not an unreasonable, nor a racist position to take. A lot of people wanted Rhodesia to stop existing, they were not racists, they simply didn’t think it was reasonable that a segregationist settler colonial state should exist on indigenous lands.
> "The Zionists" is a dog whistle
It is not. Zionism is an ideology distinct from Judasim. There are plenty of non-zionist Jews, and even more non-Jewish Zionists. Zionism is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition of Judaism. Most pro-Palistinian demonstrators do in fact call out non-Jewish zionists, such as Joe Biden, all the time.