Thing is, @chrisstiles, the same argument you are using in relation to Hamas is being used by right-wing Zionists and pro-Netanyahu Israelis to justify the bombing of Gaza.
'You lot bombed Dresden in WW2 and devastated many German cities so why complain when we bomb Gaza?'
That's how their argument runs.
Ideally, I'd like to see both Hsmas and the IDF disarmed but that's never going to happen. Sadly.
If Hamas has the 'right' to bear arms as an organisation classified as a terrorist organisation by many countries including the UK then Israel's armed forces have the right to bear arms too.
What neither have the right to do is to commit war crimes. Both sides have done so.
Thing is, @chrisstiles, the same argument you are using in relation to Hamas is being used by right-wing Zionists and pro-Netanyahu Israelis to justify the bombing of Gaza.
'You lot bombed Dresden in WW2 and devastated many German cities so why complain when we bomb Gaza?'
Right, but rhetorically you are spending far less time on this than you are on Hamas, aren't you?
No, I'm not. One could say that rhetorically you are doing the opposite of what you are accusing me of doing. It's OK for Hamas to shoot people, but not the IDF.
I'm saying that war crimes are war crimes whoever commits them.
This is true. But Hamas does not have the apparatus of a state, and very rich backers behind it. Except when Netanyahu funded it, of course.
A terrorist state is, to my mind, a different matter on many levels from a non-state terrorist organisation. I would describe Hamas as partially occupying the vacuum where a government should be in Gaza, rather being itself the government. Also, the resources available have to be taken into account. Hamas are horribly proficient at using their resources, but they are dwarfed by those of the terrorist Israeli state.
Bombing people waiting for food is a terrorist action. Bombing hospitals is a terrorist action. I could go on almost ad infinitum.
A terrorist state is, to my mind, a different matter on many levels from a non-state terrorist organisation. I would describe Hamas as partially occupying the vacuum where a government should be in Gaza, rather being itself the government.
There is/was a civil government structure within Gaza and Hamas have been appointing ministers from the non-military side of their organisation to administer it since the elections of 2006.
So we have terrorist states fighting each other. There is, of course, massive asymmetry between them on many fronts, and there is also the matter of Hamas being a Netanyahu creation.
So we have terrorist states fighting each other. There is, of course, massive asymmetry between them on many fronts, and there is also the matter of Hamas being a Netanyahu creation.
Not just Netanyahu - a long term, systematic undermining of secular Palestinian nationalism to weaken the PLO throughout the Israeli establishment.
The whole thing is a bloody mess. Many of the Israeli civilians murdered or captured by Hamas were pro-Palestinian.
This is somewhat of a myth, many of the refugees in Gaza originally lived on land directly adjacent to the Strip, and the kibbutz played their own role in establishing Israeli control over the land:
Do I believe the 'international community' should be putting pressure on Israel. Yes.
Does that justify the way Hamas behaves? No.
Right, but when you automatically leap to the second each time I rather question your priorities.
Can you name a period since 1967 under which the settlements haven't expanded? Do you know that right now the harvest in West Bank is one of the worst on record because of the actions of both the Israeli military and settlers, where is Hamas in the West Bank? This isn't resolvable to the actions of one bad PM at the top.
It's the other way round. You are the one who jumps to conclusions.
I am not saying that the issue is simply down to Netanyahu, or a dodgy Hamas leadership for that matter. It's far more deep seated than that.
But a change of leadership on both sides would go some way towards resolving the issue. It would not 'solve' it of course but nothing is going to change for the better if we have the likes of Netanyahu in power on one side and Hamas on the other.
But a change of leadership on both sides would go some way towards resolving the issue.
There's a different leadership in the West Bank, the outcome is the same. There have been multiple governments on the Israeli side since 1967, the settlements have expanded under all of them.
I think there are a few things that we need to keep in mind.
* Gaza has been purposely separated from the West Bank for a long time now, meaning that the Palestinians in the West Bank typically have few connections with those in Gaza.
* The Gazan Palestinians have become more extreme than those in the West Bank. This is related to extremely poor conditions in Gaza even before this war
* West Bank Palestinians typically see soldiers on the streets and at checkpoints. Gazans have been bombed from the air for many years before the current conflict
* Generally speaking the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah has had more connections with the outside world than Hamas has had from Gaza.
* There are populations in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the camps (mostly in Lebanon and Syria). These populations are loosely held together by the PLO but generally have few connections with each other.
* The PLO is an umbrella organisation which includes the factions including Hamas and Fatah and runs all (or maybe most of, I'm not sure) the diplomatic missions abroad.
How does this affect things in Gaza? It's hard to see what the status is of politics and politicians inside Gaza as many are likely dead.
However even those who are not dead face an impossible situation. The Palestinian Authority has no authority in Gaza.
Even if one wiped out Hamas, if the pressure cooker situation doesn't change then another extremist group will take over.
All good points, @Basketactortale and yes, @chrisstiles, Israel is expansionist and if some of the more fundamentalist Israeli politicians had their way they would expand even further and annexe territory currently belonging to other sovereign states.
Heck, I've even seen Christian Fundamentalists argue that they should and that Israel should expand to its ancient 'biblical' footprint irrespective of who actually owns those territories at the moment.
The whole thing is an unholy mess.
You never hear fundamentalist Christian supporters of Israel complain about the way Palestinian Christians are treated by right-wing Jewish extremists and fundamentalists. Graves and churches desecrated. Clergy spat on and abused.
Why not? Partly I suspect because they are unaware of these outrages and partly because they wouldn't be bothered about them if they were. After all, most Palestinian Christians are Orthodox or RC rather than evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants and so don't count.
So no, I'm not an apologist for Zionism or fundamentalism still less illegal Israeli expansion on the West Bank or anywhere else.
That said, there is certainly an egregious history of anti-semitism within Orthodoxy and other historic Churches. There are also Islamic fundamentalists who'd want to slaughter Jews wholesale.
There are nutters on both sides. There are peace-makers or potential peace-makers on all sides also but what chance have they got given the geopolitics?
What's your solution? For Israel to go back to its pre-1967 borders? A two-state solution? For Israel to dismantle itself and to go back to a pre-1948 state of affairs?
I wish I could think of an easy answer. Criticising Hamas isn't the same as giving Israel a free pass.
All good points, @Basketactortale and yes, @chrisstiles, Israel is expansionist and if some of the more fundamentalist Israeli politicians had their way they would expand even further and annexe territory currently belonging to other sovereign states.
Discursively this needs to be front and centre in any discussion in a way that it just isn't. The discourse in the media at the moment is that if there was a ceasefire there's some kind of 'normality' as returned.
There are also Islamic fundamentalists who'd want to slaughter Jews wholesale.
"But, El-Kurd asks, what if Palestinians hate their occupiers?—Israelis who themselves insist on committing their atrocities in the name of Judaism? Why is it that Palestinians are expected to constantly temper their grief and rage toward them, as they collect their loved ones’ limbs in bags? Does it change the quality of Israeli atrocities against them? Or in other words, must victims be “good” and possess all the “right” views to deserve human rights, to deserve life?
He writes, “Here is where I stand. […] it is not my fault that [the Israelis] are Jewish. I have zero interest in apologizing for centuries-old tropes created by Europeans, when millions of us confront real, tangible oppression, living behind cement walls, or under siege, or in exile, and living with woes too expansive to summarize. […] Most of all, I am tired of the false equivalence between semantic ‘violence’ [against the occupier] and systemic violence: only one party in this ‘conflict’ is actively engaged in the intentional and systematic eradication of an entire population. I know this […] will be taken out of context, disseminated, and disfigured, but I will never be the perfect victim.” "
A 2 state solution based on the pre-1967 borders of Israel is a realistic, if still unjust, outcome. Better would be a single, multi-ethnic, multi-faith state (you could even call it Israel in Hebrew and Palestine in Arabic) between the river and the sea, with equal citizenship and rights of return for both Jews and Palestinians.
I can't see Israel agreeing to go back to its pre-1967 borders.
I'm reluctant to comment on the link you provided as it's an 'own voice' one, @chrisstiles and those are the voices this thread requests.
I am saying though, that any side's violent actions are no more justifiable than the others, but equally I have no idea what the answer is.
If we 'support' Israel we run the risk of supporting right-wing Zionists intent on gobbling up other people's territory, grubbing up centuries old olive groves and oppressing non-Jewish people, as well as secular or moderate Israelis who want to co-exist in a pluralist society.
If we 'support' the likes of Hamas we end up potentially supporting violent jihadists who certainly wouldn't tolerate a pluralist society, as well as more moderate groups who would be up for that.
How does anyone broker a deal - to use Trumpian terms - when there are those on both sides who'd annihilate the other given half a chance?
I am saying though, that any side's violent actions are no more justifiable than the others, but equally I have no idea what the answer is.
This is not true in asymmetric power relationships. Take it down to the level of two people. If one person holds someone in a building and violently abuses them for years, the violence the trapped person does in order to get free is far more justifiable than the violence done by the one who sets out to be an abuser.
I'm not meaning this to be a perfect analogy for Israel's treatment of Gaza; it's obviously far more complex. I do want to challenge this equating of the violence done by Israel and that done by Hamas. They just aren't the same thing.
If we 'support' Israel we run the risk of supporting right-wing Zionists intent on gobbling up other people's territory, grubbing up centuries old olive groves and oppressing non-Jewish people, as well as secular or moderate Israelis who want to co-exist in a pluralist society.
This is just default Western foreign policy. Outside times of intifada the West doesn't even exert minimal pressure on Israel. The JNF is a registered charity in the US and the UK, but sure, it's the fault of the people who are angry that their houses are being stolen (for the record the El-Kurds had people steal part of their house).
I am saying though, that any side's violent actions are no more justifiable than the others, but equally I have no idea what the answer is.
This is not true in asymmetric power relationships. Take it down to the level of two people. If one person holds someone in a building and violently abuses them for years, the violence the trapped person does in order to get free is far more justifiable than the violence done by the one who sets out to be an abuser.
I'm not meaning this to be a perfect analogy for Israel's treatment of Gaza; it's obviously far more complex. I do want to challenge this equating of the violence done by Israel and that done by Hamas. They just aren't the same thing.
Yes, the old analogy was the slave and the slave owner. The violence of the slave is different from the other. But of course, the Western powers tend to support Israel.
I can't see Israel agreeing to go back to its pre-1967 borders.
They'll agree PDQ if the US credibly threatens to withdraw its support if they don't. That's the ultimate issue here - so long as the US protects Israel from the consequences of its actions there can be no peace. Without the safety net of US-backed impunity Israel would have to start negotiating in good faith. A single state solution is likely to be more stable in the long run, but harder to establish. There might be room for a staged process; perhaps a quasi federal system that placed e.g. trade policy in the hands of a joint government and gradually worked up through a joint health system, social security system, border control, agriculture and so on as trust is built up.
Israel will never agree to a single state. There's too strong a "Jews are never safe unless they are in the majority" narrative.
Make of that what you will.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that more Jews have been killed defending a sectarian colonial ethnostate in the last 80 years than have been killed in anti-semitic attacks in (say) Britain and Ireland since the 17th century.
It's probably the case that a perfectly spherical Jewish state is, all other things being equal, safer than being a minority in a non-Jewish state, but not if that state is built on land theft and the former inhabitants or their descendants are alive and pissed off and, worse, you keep killing them.
Israel will never agree to a single state. There's too strong a "Jews are never safe unless they are in the majority" narrative.
Make of that what you will.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that more Jews have been killed defending a sectarian colonial ethnostate in the last 80 years than have been killed in anti-semitic attacks in (say) Britain and Ireland since the 17th century.
It's probably the case that a perfectly spherical Jewish state is, all other things being equal, safer than being a minority in a non-Jewish state, but not if that state is built on land theft and the former inhabitants or their descendants are alive and pissed off and, worse, you keep killing them.
I know that and you know that, but I tired of accusations of antisemitism for saying it.
I think using the '17th century onwards' for the UK and Ireland isn't entirely apposite. If @Arethosemyfeet had chosen Russia or Eastern Europe then the comparison would be more pertinent and yield different results.
There were no Jews whatsoever, or hardly any, in England between their expulsion by Edward I in 1290 and when they were allowed back by Cromwell during the Commonwealth.
What with the Enlightenment and increasing toleration of RCs and non-conformists over time, we were hardly likely to see pogroms and anti-semitic violence to any great extent in the UK from early modern times.
That doesn't mean there wasn't bigotry and anti-semitism at all levels of society.
[Content warning - slurs cited]
When I was growing up in South Wales the term 'They Jewed you ...' was common to describe someone being charged an unfair or exorbitant price. 'They Jewed you out of your change.'
My Grandad said it all the time.
I knew a very left wing shop steward from the steel works who spoke of 'The Noses' and was as anti-semitic as they come. 'I'm not saying it was right, but you can see why Hitler persecuted the Jews ...'
A kindly Host or Admin may want to hide the above away in one of those click-to-view panels.
If we shift the focus eastwards, the situation becomes very different. Thousands of Jewish people killed in pogroms in Poland and Tsarist Russia.
Given that and the Holocaust one can surely understand why many Jews didn't - and don't - feel safe.
Had one of the early Arab-Israeli wars gone a different way and the fledgling state of Israel been overwhelmed then I hardly expect that the victors would have politely asked the Israelis to leave.
Yes, the Israelis massacred Palestinian villages in 1948. There were also atrocities against Jewish civilians. That doesn't justify the asymmetry of casualties since, nor illegal Israeli expansion into the West Bank nor the desire of some right-wing fundamentalist Jews to seize even more territory from Jordan, Lebanon and other neighbouring states.
I think it is possible to understand legitimate Jewish concern about anti-semitism, Islamo-fascism and so on without becoming an apologist for Netanyahu, for Western foreign policy in the region or Islamophobia.
However we cut it, we need an end to the cycle of violence. Grubbing up olive groves, bulldozing properties and seizing other people's land without let or hindrance doesn't help that process, it simply perpetuates it. A never ending spiral of violence.
I agree that the USA can make a difference. But will it? Only if it is in its own interests to do so.
It isn't in the interests of the US to continue to support Israel. It weakens any claim it might have to moral credibility and makes it harder to get allies in dealing with real dangers like Russia. No, the question is more one of when AIPAC loses control of the Democratic Party on this, and I think that will happen sooner than you might think (though US shipmates will know the lie of that land better than I do). A wise Israeli leader would make peace now from a position of strength, and be generous, otherwise they will find their successor negotiating from a much weaker position 10 or 20 years hence.
Comments
'You lot bombed Dresden in WW2 and devastated many German cities so why complain when we bomb Gaza?'
That's how their argument runs.
Ideally, I'd like to see both Hsmas and the IDF disarmed but that's never going to happen. Sadly.
If Hamas has the 'right' to bear arms as an organisation classified as a terrorist organisation by many countries including the UK then Israel's armed forces have the right to bear arms too.
What neither have the right to do is to commit war crimes. Both sides have done so.
Right, but rhetorically you are spending far less time on this than you are on Hamas, aren't you?
I'm saying that war crimes are war crimes whoever commits them.
A terrorist state is, to my mind, a different matter on many levels from a non-state terrorist organisation. I would describe Hamas as partially occupying the vacuum where a government should be in Gaza, rather being itself the government. Also, the resources available have to be taken into account. Hamas are horribly proficient at using their resources, but they are dwarfed by those of the terrorist Israeli state.
Bombing people waiting for food is a terrorist action. Bombing hospitals is a terrorist action. I could go on almost ad infinitum.
Right, in that case more Palestinians have been killed by the Israelis since the start of the ceasefire than have been killed by Hamas.
There is/was a civil government structure within Gaza and Hamas have been appointing ministers from the non-military side of their organisation to administer it since the elections of 2006.
Not just Netanyahu - a long term, systematic undermining of secular Palestinian nationalism to weaken the PLO throughout the Israeli establishment.
If Israel kills two civilians and Hamas kills 2,000 both actions are wrong.
If Israel kills 2,000 and Hamas only two then that's also wrong.
Do I believe the 'international community' should be putting pressure on Israel. Yes.
Does that justify the way Hamas behaves? No.
This is somewhat of a myth, many of the refugees in Gaza originally lived on land directly adjacent to the Strip, and the kibbutz played their own role in establishing Israeli control over the land:
https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/kibbutz-leader-confirms-movements-role-in-establishing-and-maintaining-israeli-apartheid/
https://palestinenexus.com/articles/the-origins-of-the-israeli-communities-attacked-on-oct-7th-2023
None of which justifies attacks on civilians, but does rather expose the cant behind the idea that one side hides behind civilian infrastructure.
Right, but when you automatically leap to the second each time I rather question your priorities.
Can you name a period since 1967 under which the settlements haven't expanded? Do you know that right now the harvest in West Bank is one of the worst on record because of the actions of both the Israeli military and settlers, where is Hamas in the West Bank? This isn't resolvable to the actions of one bad PM at the top.
I am not saying that the issue is simply down to Netanyahu, or a dodgy Hamas leadership for that matter. It's far more deep seated than that.
But a change of leadership on both sides would go some way towards resolving the issue. It would not 'solve' it of course but nothing is going to change for the better if we have the likes of Netanyahu in power on one side and Hamas on the other.
There's a different leadership in the West Bank, the outcome is the same. There have been multiple governments on the Israeli side since 1967, the settlements have expanded under all of them.
* Gaza has been purposely separated from the West Bank for a long time now, meaning that the Palestinians in the West Bank typically have few connections with those in Gaza.
* The Gazan Palestinians have become more extreme than those in the West Bank. This is related to extremely poor conditions in Gaza even before this war
* West Bank Palestinians typically see soldiers on the streets and at checkpoints. Gazans have been bombed from the air for many years before the current conflict
* Generally speaking the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah has had more connections with the outside world than Hamas has had from Gaza.
* There are populations in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the camps (mostly in Lebanon and Syria). These populations are loosely held together by the PLO but generally have few connections with each other.
* The PLO is an umbrella organisation which includes the factions including Hamas and Fatah and runs all (or maybe most of, I'm not sure) the diplomatic missions abroad.
How does this affect things in Gaza? It's hard to see what the status is of politics and politicians inside Gaza as many are likely dead.
However even those who are not dead face an impossible situation. The Palestinian Authority has no authority in Gaza.
Even if one wiped out Hamas, if the pressure cooker situation doesn't change then another extremist group will take over.
Heck, I've even seen Christian Fundamentalists argue that they should and that Israel should expand to its ancient 'biblical' footprint irrespective of who actually owns those territories at the moment.
The whole thing is an unholy mess.
You never hear fundamentalist Christian supporters of Israel complain about the way Palestinian Christians are treated by right-wing Jewish extremists and fundamentalists. Graves and churches desecrated. Clergy spat on and abused.
Why not? Partly I suspect because they are unaware of these outrages and partly because they wouldn't be bothered about them if they were. After all, most Palestinian Christians are Orthodox or RC rather than evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants and so don't count.
So no, I'm not an apologist for Zionism or fundamentalism still less illegal Israeli expansion on the West Bank or anywhere else.
That said, there is certainly an egregious history of anti-semitism within Orthodoxy and other historic Churches. There are also Islamic fundamentalists who'd want to slaughter Jews wholesale.
There are nutters on both sides. There are peace-makers or potential peace-makers on all sides also but what chance have they got given the geopolitics?
What's your solution? For Israel to go back to its pre-1967 borders? A two-state solution? For Israel to dismantle itself and to go back to a pre-1948 state of affairs?
I wish I could think of an easy answer. Criticising Hamas isn't the same as giving Israel a free pass.
Discursively this needs to be front and centre in any discussion in a way that it just isn't. The discourse in the media at the moment is that if there was a ceasefire there's some kind of 'normality' as returned.
https://www.theleftberlin.com/perfect-victims-mohammed-el-kurd/
I can't see Israel agreeing to go back to its pre-1967 borders.
I'm reluctant to comment on the link you provided as it's an 'own voice' one, @chrisstiles and those are the voices this thread requests.
I am saying though, that any side's violent actions are no more justifiable than the others, but equally I have no idea what the answer is.
If we 'support' Israel we run the risk of supporting right-wing Zionists intent on gobbling up other people's territory, grubbing up centuries old olive groves and oppressing non-Jewish people, as well as secular or moderate Israelis who want to co-exist in a pluralist society.
If we 'support' the likes of Hamas we end up potentially supporting violent jihadists who certainly wouldn't tolerate a pluralist society, as well as more moderate groups who would be up for that.
How does anyone broker a deal - to use Trumpian terms - when there are those on both sides who'd annihilate the other given half a chance?
This is not true in asymmetric power relationships. Take it down to the level of two people. If one person holds someone in a building and violently abuses them for years, the violence the trapped person does in order to get free is far more justifiable than the violence done by the one who sets out to be an abuser.
I'm not meaning this to be a perfect analogy for Israel's treatment of Gaza; it's obviously far more complex. I do want to challenge this equating of the violence done by Israel and that done by Hamas. They just aren't the same thing.
This is just default Western foreign policy. Outside times of intifada the West doesn't even exert minimal pressure on Israel. The JNF is a registered charity in the US and the UK, but sure, it's the fault of the people who are angry that their houses are being stolen (for the record the El-Kurds had people steal part of their house).
Yes, the old analogy was the slave and the slave owner. The violence of the slave is different from the other. But of course, the Western powers tend to support Israel.
They'll agree PDQ if the US credibly threatens to withdraw its support if they don't. That's the ultimate issue here - so long as the US protects Israel from the consequences of its actions there can be no peace. Without the safety net of US-backed impunity Israel would have to start negotiating in good faith. A single state solution is likely to be more stable in the long run, but harder to establish. There might be room for a staged process; perhaps a quasi federal system that placed e.g. trade policy in the hands of a joint government and gradually worked up through a joint health system, social security system, border control, agriculture and so on as trust is built up.
Make of that what you will.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that more Jews have been killed defending a sectarian colonial ethnostate in the last 80 years than have been killed in anti-semitic attacks in (say) Britain and Ireland since the 17th century.
It's probably the case that a perfectly spherical Jewish state is, all other things being equal, safer than being a minority in a non-Jewish state, but not if that state is built on land theft and the former inhabitants or their descendants are alive and pissed off and, worse, you keep killing them.
I know that and you know that, but I tired of accusations of antisemitism for saying it.
There were no Jews whatsoever, or hardly any, in England between their expulsion by Edward I in 1290 and when they were allowed back by Cromwell during the Commonwealth.
What with the Enlightenment and increasing toleration of RCs and non-conformists over time, we were hardly likely to see pogroms and anti-semitic violence to any great extent in the UK from early modern times.
That doesn't mean there wasn't bigotry and anti-semitism at all levels of society.
[Content warning - slurs cited]
My Grandad said it all the time.
I knew a very left wing shop steward from the steel works who spoke of 'The Noses' and was as anti-semitic as they come. 'I'm not saying it was right, but you can see why Hitler persecuted the Jews ...'
A kindly Host or Admin may want to hide the above away in one of those click-to-view panels.
If we shift the focus eastwards, the situation becomes very different. Thousands of Jewish people killed in pogroms in Poland and Tsarist Russia.
Given that and the Holocaust one can surely understand why many Jews didn't - and don't - feel safe.
Had one of the early Arab-Israeli wars gone a different way and the fledgling state of Israel been overwhelmed then I hardly expect that the victors would have politely asked the Israelis to leave.
Yes, the Israelis massacred Palestinian villages in 1948. There were also atrocities against Jewish civilians. That doesn't justify the asymmetry of casualties since, nor illegal Israeli expansion into the West Bank nor the desire of some right-wing fundamentalist Jews to seize even more territory from Jordan, Lebanon and other neighbouring states.
I think it is possible to understand legitimate Jewish concern about anti-semitism, Islamo-fascism and so on without becoming an apologist for Netanyahu, for Western foreign policy in the region or Islamophobia.
However we cut it, we need an end to the cycle of violence. Grubbing up olive groves, bulldozing properties and seizing other people's land without let or hindrance doesn't help that process, it simply perpetuates it. A never ending spiral of violence.
I agree that the USA can make a difference. But will it? Only if it is in its own interests to do so.