In today's Sunday Telegraph Ephraim Mirvis, Chief Rabbi , says that claims of genocide in Gaza are' demonising Israel and designed to tear open the still-gaping wound of the Holocaust'.
Does he have a point?
Mirvis has form on this sort of rhetoric and no, he does not have a point. I expect he's already called everyone who disagrees with him anti-semitic, including those who are Jewish?
Mirvis also referenced the 1994 genocide in Rwanda when the numbers killed vastly exceeded those killed in Gaza so far. And some sources reckon that around half of those killed in Gaza have been Hamas fighters. And fighters can surrender. The victims killed in Rwanda had no option to surrender and thus avoid death.
So, although I am not here to defend the IDF, I think he does have a point.
Mirvis also referenced the 1994 genocide in Rwanda when the numbers killed vastly exceeded those killed in Gaza so far. And some sources reckon that around half of those killed in Gaza have been Hamas fighters. And fighters can surrender. The victims killed in Rwanda had no option to surrender and thus avoid death.
So, although I am not here to defend the IDF, I think he does have a point.
Over half the people killed in Gaza so far have been women and children. From the figures I can find, mostly children (not surprisingly given Gaza's demographics) For "around half" to have been Hamas fighters implies most of the adults killed - men and women - were Hamas fighters.
In other words, you'd have to buy into the narrative that virtually every adult in Gaza is a Hamas member for that to be true. And that the IDF is quite willing to kill your children if it means they get you.
Mirvis also referenced the 1994 genocide in Rwanda when the numbers killed vastly exceeded those killed in Gaza so far.
The question of numbers is somewhat orthogonal to that of the charge of genocide which is defined as:
"the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such"
While not completely faithful to his intentions, the ICJ drafting reflects Lemkins original aim to create a definition covering the Nazis policies towards both the Jews and the Poles.
I think, could be wrong, that nowadays “ethnic cleansing” - the large scale moving of a discrete ethnocultural population - is also held to a facet of genocide. It seems to me, it’s difficult to see how that isn’t happening in Gaza.
There's also the fact that Israel has repeatedly denigrated the idea of a distinct Palestinian identity, referring to Palestinians as "Arabs" only, and rejecting any suggestion of self-determination for the Palestinian people. That it wants rid of Palestinians as a distinct people is beyond question.
There's also the fact that Israel has repeatedly denigrated the idea of a distinct Palestinian identity, referring to Palestinians as "Arabs" only, and rejecting any suggestion of self-determination for the Palestinian people. That it wants rid of Palestinians as a distinct people is beyond question.
As is evidenced by the claims that pop up from time to time that because Palestine hasn't existed as a modern nation state Palestinians do not in fact exist.
Seen such claims even here on this very vessel, if memory serves and if anyone else remembers @Mudfrog
Here's a piece which is talking about the thinking that is likely behind the US actions. It's from a blog by an ancient military historian that has been linked to on this site before.
As a counterpoint, the latest episode of this podcast from the Foreign Policy magazine (which generally represents a fairly establishment view), explains the motivations of the different groups as they see it, including why the Europeans and Chinese have been reluctant to get involved:
An hour ago the ICJ at The Hague ruled on South Africa's appeal under the Genocide Convention for urgent intervention in the attacks on Gaza.
The court has decided that Israel must “take all measures within its its power” to prevent all acts within the scope of the genocide convention.
Israel must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the act in the genocide convention.
Israel must also take immediate measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
And also "take measures to prevent and punish the direct incitement of genocide", which is going to be an interesting one to watch given some of the statements coming out of Netanyahu's coalition partners.
An hour ago the ICJ at The Hague ruled on South Africa's appeal under the Genocide Convention for urgent intervention in the attacks on Gaza.
The court has decided that Israel must “take all measures within its its power” to prevent all acts within the scope of the genocide convention.
Israel must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the act in the genocide convention.
Israel must also take immediate measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
And also "take measures to prevent and punish the direct incitement of genocide", which is going to be an interesting one to watch given some of the statements coming out of Netanyahu's coalition partners.
Yes. Even if the IDF and Netanyahu's associates keep using dehumanising discourse about Palestinians in Gaza, the discomfort of US and UK allies of Israel is likely to increase because the former protective silence over Israeli settler rhetoric is no longer acceptable. They can't ridicule or dismiss claims around genocidal incitement.
I don't expect any immediate effect from the ruling, but it might at least make some of the perpetrators think twice about overseas visits.
Because Netanyahu's international standing has been damaged, is that what you mean? It would be interesting if the Israeli govt were now to find itself a social pariah and unwelcome on global platforms. Since Western governments backed the International Court of Justice in similar rulings against Myanmar, Russia, & Syria, it would be hard for most Western states not to back the ICJ ruling against Israel. It can't be the rule of law if there's an exception made for Israel.
They can still travel to the US, though. And the ruling won't change the minds of Israel's supporters: Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post (gift link) argues that Israel is not guilty of genocide as the element of intent is not present:
Killing civilians serves the interests of Hamas and undermines those of Israel. Israel has taken extraordinary steps to prevent civilian casualties and otherwise mitigate the suffering of innocents. To argue those have not been enough — or even that Israel’s conduct violated international humanitarian law — is not to conclude that the actions are genocidal. If Hamas magically disappeared tomorrow, if Israel found its safety somehow assured, it would have no interest, none, in causing any harm to the civilian population.
They can still travel to the US, though. And the ruling won't change the minds of Israel's supporters: Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post (gift link) argues that Israel is not guilty of genocide as the element of intent is not present:
Killing civilians serves the interests of Hamas and undermines those of Israel. Israel has taken extraordinary steps to prevent civilian casualties and otherwise mitigate the suffering of innocents. To argue those have not been enough — or even that Israel’s conduct violated international humanitarian law — is not to conclude that the actions are genocidal. If Hamas magically disappeared tomorrow, if Israel found its safety somehow assured, it would have no interest, none, in causing any harm to the civilian population.
The reality is that Israel will never accept that its safety is assured. No country is ever completely safe, and Israeli hatred of Palestinians is such that the suspicion will be there regardless of the extent of the actual threat. Plus there is the fact that Israeli occupation and land theft continue unabated and with widespread support, and if those don't count as "causing any harm to the civilian population" I don't know where to start.
I've been thinking off and on that Israel has unwittingly made itself into a trap for itself. And Israelis get the nice half of the trap, while Palestinians get the crummy half of it. But it's a trap all the same.
Maybe if enough generations go by they can forget that the country was built on a massive act of theft. But I think it'll be generations. And I'm not gonna be alive to see it if it ever happens.
And I'd agree that the kind of safety that Israelis wish to live in is impossible.
Definition of Genocide
The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
Israel is defending itself and attempting to eliminate a terrorist group which is attempting the complete destruction of Israel. Many civilians been killed but they have not been deliberately targeted
Is it not deliberately targeting people by denying them the basics of water, food, shelter and medical care, as well as by constantly bombing and shooting them - while closing off any escape route or way of surrendering?
Definition of Genocide
The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
This isn't actually accurate, I've already addressed this here and it's addressed more fully by Raz Segal in both his Jewish Currents article and his interview linked here.
I think Maddox is right to point to the dangers of continuing down the current path; and the concerns she expresses should worry anyone who believes or purports to believe in classical Liberal values.
Definition of Genocide
The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
Israel are trying to erase the Palestinians as a people, by pushing them into other states or killing them, but the goal is that there no longer be an identifiable group of Palestinians.
I suspect that Black pastors pressuring Biden to call for a ceasefire may have a more immediate material effect than the ICJ ruling (free link to NYTimes article). Over 1000 Black pastors, hundreds of thousands of Black congregants -- these are core Democratic voters who also work to get out the vote. If these folks stay home in November, Biden loses. “We see them as a part of us,” says one pastor about the Palestinians. “They are oppressed people. We are oppressed people."
I suspect that Black pastors pressuring Biden to call for a ceasefire may have a more immediate material effect than the ICJ ruling (free link to NYTimes article). Over 1000 Black pastors, hundreds of thousands of Black congregants -- these are core Democratic voters who also work to get out the vote. If these folks stay home in November, Biden loses. “We see them as a part of us,” says one pastor about the Palestinians. “They are oppressed people. We are oppressed people."
But the Jews have never been an oppressed people ?
I suspect that Black pastors pressuring Biden to call for a ceasefire may have a more immediate material effect than the ICJ ruling (free link to NYTimes article). Over 1000 Black pastors, hundreds of thousands of Black congregants -- these are core Democratic voters who also work to get out the vote. If these folks stay home in November, Biden loses. “We see them as a part of us,” says one pastor about the Palestinians. “They are oppressed people. We are oppressed people."
But the Jews have never been an oppressed people ?
Jews as a people yes. The Israelis as a people - not so much.
Normally it's considered anti-Semitic to conflate the two but I've noticed in practice that doesn't seem to be the case if one is defending Israel.
But the Jews have never been an oppressed people ?
Perhaps you are unaware of the historic relationship in the US between Jews and Black people. Jews were prominent in the Civil Rights Movement, and older Black people have not forgotten. Black pastors have not come to this decision lightly.
Everyone who has a social identity has been oppressed at some point or another. No ethnic group has spent eternity on the top of the social pecking order everywhere. We've all got victimized ancestors, somewhere.
But the question of our time is the present, not the past. And to use past oppression to erase present oppression is to enable present oppression, all while doing nothing to assuage the suffering of the past.
Everyone who has a social identity has been oppressed at some point or another. No ethnic group has spent eternity on the top of the social pecking order everywhere. We've all got victimized ancestors, somewhere.
But the question of our time is the present, not the past. And to use past oppression to erase present oppression is to enable present oppression, all while doing nothing to assuage the suffering of the past.
As a broad-sweeping paradigm, I'd agree with you @Bullfrog, though I wouldn't generalise about historical oppressions. But I do feel we can learn from history (and micro-histories) so we don't keep repeating disastrous social experiments or assuming tyrannies or inhumane systems rooted in bigotry are inevitable. I've been reading a tribute to the maverick anarchic economist and social theorist David Graeber, who asked: "Since we cannot know that a radically better world is not possible, are we not betraying everyone by continuing to justify and reproduce the mess we have today?"
Everyone who has a social identity has been oppressed at some point or another. No ethnic group has spent eternity on the top of the social pecking order everywhere. We've all got victimized ancestors, somewhere.
But the question of our time is the present, not the past. And to use past oppression to erase present oppression is to enable present oppression, all while doing nothing to assuage the suffering of the past.
By my surname my ancestors were Norman French so I'm not totally sure about your premise.
Everyone who has a social identity has been oppressed at some point or another. No ethnic group has spent eternity on the top of the social pecking order everywhere. We've all got victimized ancestors, somewhere.
But the question of our time is the present, not the past. And to use past oppression to erase present oppression is to enable present oppression, all while doing nothing to assuage the suffering of the past.
As a broad-sweeping paradigm, I'd agree with you @Bullfrog, though I wouldn't generalise about historical oppressions. But I do feel we can learn from history (and micro-histories) so we don't keep repeating disastrous social experiments or assuming tyrannies or inhumane systems rooted in bigotry are inevitable.
And as a side note on this particular issue there's a weird dichotomy where on the one hand the events of 1948 are in the far distant past and can't be revisited, but the occupation is completely temporary and it's libel to suggest otherwise.
@chrisstiles yes, the cognitive split that comes with a conveniently amnesiac history that never did acknowledge the Nakba. It reminds me of those old approaches in depoliticised therapy where the therapist would try to push the 'That was then, this is now" rubric at clients with intergenerational trauma or coming from an ongoing situation of violence.
Sometimes the issue is 'over' in that a certain kind of tyranny or oppression has been sufficiently overcome, banished or annihilated. That has been the hope in South Africa and certain aspects of apartheid are not revisited because they don't exist any longer, the mechanisms that sustained them are gone. But other aspects of systemic racism and racialised privilege continue and so there is this fierce impetus of Never Again that informs the affinity and identification with Palestinians in Gaza.
Everyone who has a social identity has been oppressed at some point or another. No ethnic group has spent eternity on the top of the social pecking order everywhere. We've all got victimized ancestors, somewhere.
But the question of our time is the present, not the past. And to use past oppression to erase present oppression is to enable present oppression, all while doing nothing to assuage the suffering of the past.
As a broad-sweeping paradigm, I'd agree with you @Bullfrog, though I wouldn't generalise about historical oppressions. But I do feel we can learn from history (and micro-histories) so we don't keep repeating disastrous social experiments or assuming tyrannies or inhumane systems rooted in bigotry are inevitable. I've been reading a tribute to the maverick anarchic economist and social theorist David Graeber, who asked: "Since we cannot know that a radically better world is not possible, are we not betraying everyone by continuing to justify and reproduce the mess we have today?"
Fervently agreed.
I've also been reading the Witcher series by Sapkowski, and the guy likes to occasionally wax philosophic. This line felt pointed from Blood of Elves:
But I, little Ciri, do not recognize collective responsibility, I do not feel the need to expiate the events which took place half a century before my birth. And the skeletons which are meant to serve as an eternal reminder will ultimately rot away completely, disintegrate into dust and be forgotten, will disappear with the wind which constantly whips the mountainside...
"They do not want to lie like that," said Ciri suddenly. "They don't want to be a symbol, a bad conscience or a warning. But neither do they want their dust to be swept away by the wind."
I think they would be, but Israel isn't on an island or separated from potential enemies by oceans or friendly countries.
Israel was set up, what, 3 years after world war 2 ? Europe was demonstrably not a sea of friendly countries - that state of affairs was built by active diplomacy, the development of European institutions like (ultimately) the EU and the end of the Cold War.
The French and the Germans are not safe from each other because their militaries are strong enough to prevent attack. They both tried that for hundreds of years: it did not work.
They are safe from each other because they've set up diplomatic relations to make it unthinkable, and because they both know both sides have more to lose than gain from war.
The kind of safety that successive Israeli governments seem to be trying to achieve is the former not the latter.
The French and the Germans are not safe from each other because their militaries are strong enough to prevent attack. They both tried that for hundreds of years: it did not work.
They are safe from each other because they've set up diplomatic relations to make it unthinkable, and because they both know both sides have more to lose than gain from war.
The kind of safety that successive Israeli governments seem to be trying to achieve is the former not the latter.
Narratives again - the Israeli narrative is that the Palestinians don't want the latter kind of safety so they only have the option of the first kind. They support this narrative from Palestinian rejection of a two state solution in 1947. What is missing from this analysis is that the demography was very different then, so that offer could effectively have been seen as "how do you feel about letting this minority group take over half of your land?". There was, also, of course the well supported view that Zionist ambitions were to expand beyond the initial 56% of Palestine which the Resolution assigned to a Jewish state.
"how do you feel about letting this minority group take over half of your land?".
".. on which 45% of you currently live", and even if the plan didn't initially envisage any displacement of population it had already started while the British were still stationed there (with a number of sources indicating varying levels of collusion between the British and Jewish forces).
Comments
Mirvis has form on this sort of rhetoric and no, he does not have a point. I expect he's already called everyone who disagrees with him anti-semitic, including those who are Jewish?
So, although I am not here to defend the IDF, I think he does have a point.
Over half the people killed in Gaza so far have been women and children. From the figures I can find, mostly children (not surprisingly given Gaza's demographics) For "around half" to have been Hamas fighters implies most of the adults killed - men and women - were Hamas fighters.
In other words, you'd have to buy into the narrative that virtually every adult in Gaza is a Hamas member for that to be true. And that the IDF is quite willing to kill your children if it means they get you.
The question of numbers is somewhat orthogonal to that of the charge of genocide which is defined as:
"the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such"
While not completely faithful to his intentions, the ICJ drafting reflects Lemkins original aim to create a definition covering the Nazis policies towards both the Jews and the Poles.
As is evidenced by the claims that pop up from time to time that because Palestine hasn't existed as a modern nation state Palestinians do not in fact exist.
Seen such claims even here on this very vessel, if memory serves and if anyone else remembers @Mudfrog
As a counterpoint, the latest episode of this podcast from the Foreign Policy magazine (which generally represents a fairly establishment view), explains the motivations of the different groups as they see it, including why the Europeans and Chinese have been reluctant to get involved:
https://foreignpolicy.com/podcasts/ones-and-tooze/
The court has decided that Israel must “take all measures within its its power” to prevent all acts within the scope of the genocide convention.
Israel must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the act in the genocide convention.
Israel must also take immediate measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
And also "take measures to prevent and punish the direct incitement of genocide", which is going to be an interesting one to watch given some of the statements coming out of Netanyahu's coalition partners.
Yes. Even if the IDF and Netanyahu's associates keep using dehumanising discourse about Palestinians in Gaza, the discomfort of US and UK allies of Israel is likely to increase because the former protective silence over Israeli settler rhetoric is no longer acceptable. They can't ridicule or dismiss claims around genocidal incitement.
Because Netanyahu's international standing has been damaged, is that what you mean? It would be interesting if the Israeli govt were now to find itself a social pariah and unwelcome on global platforms. Since Western governments backed the International Court of Justice in similar rulings against Myanmar, Russia, & Syria, it would be hard for most Western states not to back the ICJ ruling against Israel. It can't be the rule of law if there's an exception made for Israel.
There might be a bit of official "oo, that's a bit strong - tone it down old chap" about some of the more genocidal right-wing comments.
*"no one likes us, we don't care"
I was more thinking that if they carry on genociding they'll have to be selective about where they travel or risk arrest.
That too.
The preliminary judgement is not all that long, and worth reading to see the reasoning of the court:
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
The reality is that Israel will never accept that its safety is assured. No country is ever completely safe, and Israeli hatred of Palestinians is such that the suspicion will be there regardless of the extent of the actual threat. Plus there is the fact that Israeli occupation and land theft continue unabated and with widespread support, and if those don't count as "causing any harm to the civilian population" I don't know where to start.
If this is true, the situation is eternally hopeless.
Maybe if enough generations go by they can forget that the country was built on a massive act of theft. But I think it'll be generations. And I'm not gonna be alive to see it if it ever happens.
And I'd agree that the kind of safety that Israelis wish to live in is impossible.
The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
Israel is defending itself and attempting to eliminate a terrorist group which is attempting the complete destruction of Israel. Many civilians been killed but they have not been deliberately targeted
This isn't actually accurate, I've already addressed this here and it's addressed more fully by Raz Segal in both his Jewish Currents article and his interview linked here.
The evidence the South African case is using as statements of intent are covered in their 84 page submission to the ICJ (page 59 onwards here: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/01/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf )
Chatham House's reaction to the initial ICJ ruling is also worth reading (summarised by Patrick Wintour here: https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1750150089899676057 )
I think Maddox is right to point to the dangers of continuing down the current path; and the concerns she expresses should worry anyone who believes or purports to believe in classical Liberal values.
Israel are trying to erase the Palestinians as a people, by pushing them into other states or killing them, but the goal is that there no longer be an identifiable group of Palestinians.
But the Jews have never been an oppressed people ?
Jews as a people yes. The Israelis as a people - not so much.
Normally it's considered anti-Semitic to conflate the two but I've noticed in practice that doesn't seem to be the case if one is defending Israel.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Perhaps you are unaware of the historic relationship in the US between Jews and Black people. Jews were prominent in the Civil Rights Movement, and older Black people have not forgotten. Black pastors have not come to this decision lightly.
Ok. Will do.
But the question of our time is the present, not the past. And to use past oppression to erase present oppression is to enable present oppression, all while doing nothing to assuage the suffering of the past.
As a broad-sweeping paradigm, I'd agree with you @Bullfrog, though I wouldn't generalise about historical oppressions. But I do feel we can learn from history (and micro-histories) so we don't keep repeating disastrous social experiments or assuming tyrannies or inhumane systems rooted in bigotry are inevitable. I've been reading a tribute to the maverick anarchic economist and social theorist David Graeber, who asked: "Since we cannot know that a radically better world is not possible, are we not betraying everyone by continuing to justify and reproduce the mess we have today?"
By my surname my ancestors were Norman French so I'm not totally sure about your premise.
And as a side note on this particular issue there's a weird dichotomy where on the one hand the events of 1948 are in the far distant past and can't be revisited, but the occupation is completely temporary and it's libel to suggest otherwise.
Sometimes the issue is 'over' in that a certain kind of tyranny or oppression has been sufficiently overcome, banished or annihilated. That has been the hope in South Africa and certain aspects of apartheid are not revisited because they don't exist any longer, the mechanisms that sustained them are gone. But other aspects of systemic racism and racialised privilege continue and so there is this fierce impetus of Never Again that informs the affinity and identification with Palestinians in Gaza.
Fervently agreed.
I've also been reading the Witcher series by Sapkowski, and the guy likes to occasionally wax philosophic. This line felt pointed from Blood of Elves:
You don't think that Israelis would be satisfied with the sort of safety enjoyed by Americans, or Brits, or the French, or Germans?
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that they are not entitled to try and achieve it
Israel was set up, what, 3 years after world war 2 ? Europe was demonstrably not a sea of friendly countries - that state of affairs was built by active diplomacy, the development of European institutions like (ultimately) the EU and the end of the Cold War.
They are safe from each other because they've set up diplomatic relations to make it unthinkable, and because they both know both sides have more to lose than gain from war.
The kind of safety that successive Israeli governments seem to be trying to achieve is the former not the latter.
Narratives again - the Israeli narrative is that the Palestinians don't want the latter kind of safety so they only have the option of the first kind. They support this narrative from Palestinian rejection of a two state solution in 1947. What is missing from this analysis is that the demography was very different then, so that offer could effectively have been seen as "how do you feel about letting this minority group take over half of your land?". There was, also, of course the well supported view that Zionist ambitions were to expand beyond the initial 56% of Palestine which the Resolution assigned to a Jewish state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine - see references 14-19
Not if they cannot do so without genocide.
".. on which 45% of you currently live", and even if the plan didn't initially envisage any displacement of population it had already started while the British were still stationed there (with a number of sources indicating varying levels of collusion between the British and Jewish forces).