Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

maxi

maxi

Well-known member
I watched this from the exec director of Electronic Intifada last night. One of the most powerful, affecting and comprehensive accounts of the situation I've seen so far


While I think the term Holocaust is inappropriate, I think "genocide" may be a fair description at this point. He notes in the video that around 600 children have been killed in Ukraine since Feb 2022 when the Russian war first started. Whereas nearly 3000 children have been killed in Gaza since October 7 (and of course Ukraine has a population many times larger than Gaza's). There are over 100 children being murdered every day.

Having said that, a few years ago I asked Chomsky if he thought "genocide" was an accurate description of what's happening in Gaza. It's something you hear a lot from pro-Palestinian supporters online but almost never from him or Finkelstein or other respected critics of Israel. So I was trying to figure out why. He said the term has been "so vulgarized and politicized that I find it almost unusable" and also that it's not appropriate or helpful in terms of its original meaning (of course while still acknowledging the horror of what's happening there).

Some also say it's not worth using because you just get bogged down in arguments over definitions, and you can simply describe what's happening in real terms without using politicised words with contested meanings. But on the other hand, it's obviously a word with a huge amount of power and will grab the attention of the wider public, so while it should be used with extreme caution, if it can be determined to be accurate then perhaps it should be used publicly.

It was similar with "Israeli apartheid" which at first people were reluctant to use but now has been legitimised by its use by human rights organisations including B'tselem. I'm wondering if that will happen again with the word "genocide" with the round of human rights reports to follow when this mayhem is finally over.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
maxi said:
I watched this from the exec director of Electronic Intifada last night. One of the most powerful, affecting and comprehensive accounts of the situation I've seen so far


While I think the term Holocaust is inappropriate, I think "genocide" may be a fair description at this point. He notes in the video that around 600 children have been killed in Ukraine since Feb 2022 when the Russian war first started. Whereas nearly 3000 children have been killed in Gaza since October 7 (and of course Ukraine has a population many times larger than Gaza's). There are over 100 children being murdered every day.

Having said that, a few years ago I asked Chomsky if he thought "genocide" was an accurate description of what's happening in Gaza. It's something you hear a lot from pro-Palestinian supporters online but almost never from him or Finkelstein or other respected critics of Israel. So I was trying to figure out why. He said the term has been "so vulgarized and politicized that I find it almost unusable" and also that it's not appropriate or helpful in terms of its original meaning (of course while still acknowledging the horror of what's happening there).

Some also say it's not worth using because you just get bogged down in arguments over definitions, and you can simply describe what's happening in real terms without using politicised words with contested meanings. But on the other hand, it's obviously a word with a huge amount of power and will grab the attention of the wider public, so while it should be used with extreme caution, if it can be determined to be accurate then perhaps it should be used publicly.

It was similar with "Israeli apartheid" which at first people were reluctant to use but now has been legitimised by its use by human rights organisations including B'tselem. I'm wondering if that will happen again with the word "genocide" with the round of human rights reports to follow when this mayhem is finally over.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem is that many people think 'genocide' is simply synonymous with mass murder, when what it actually means is an attempt to erase a people. The simplest way to do that is just to kill them, obviously, but it also covers attempts to erase the idea of a people, whether by dispossessing them from where they live or destroying their culture. (Edit: another method is to stop people from reproducing, i.e. through forced sterilizations or abortions, so that eugenics policies can be a form of genocide when applied to a national or ethnic group.) So while far more children have been killed in Gaza in a few weeks than in Ukraine in 18 months, there have also been a huge number of Ukrainians abducted into Russia, many of them children, where they are in the process of being 'de-Ukrainianized' through being forced to speak Russian, brainwashed into believing Ukraine is merely a wayward Russian province, and so on. Reliable numbers are hard to come by for obvious reasons, but I think it's at least in the tens of thousands, and possibly far more than that.

You can also look at, for example, the Uyghur being forcibly shaved and forbidden to practice Islam in western China, or Saddam draining the marshes in southern Iraq to destroy the traditional way of life of the Marsh Arabs (although he also just slaughtered many of them), or mixed-race children in Australia in the last century being placed with entirely white foster families, given English names, prevented from being able to learn their own tribal languages, forced to attend church, etc. These are all absolutely examples of genocide. Conversely, nearly 900,000 British soldiers and seamen died in WWI, but that wasn't a genocide, since the Axis powers weren't attempting to exterminate the British people or erase the idea of Britain, but simply to defeat the British empire militarily.

With regard to comparing Israel's mass violence against Palestinians to the Holocaust, I think it's a mistake, PR-wise, because a lot of progressive Jews who are otherwise sympathetic to the Palestinian cause naturally baulk at it - even though it does fit the strict definition of a genocide. Not every conflict or atrocity has to be made about another, earlier conflict or atrocity. They're all different.
 
maxi

maxi

Well-known member
I thought the term was only appropriate when mass murder is also taking place. I would imagine that's what Chomsky was referring to as 'the original meaning.'

but this is what I mean about the downside of using the term. the subject ends up being changed to debates around definitions instead of what's actually happening in gaza. and Israel supporters will of course exploit that to the max.

there's a whole wiki with dozens of different definitions I just found too.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
I'm coming back around to chomsky's position now. it's probably more accurate and politically effective to just describe what's happening - "an entire population is being starved and dehydrated" e.g

yeah my stance used to be against use of the term 'Israeli apartheid' for the reason you describe. agreed on use of 'holocaust'. while I'm not entirely comfortable saying this today as the atrocities are happening as we speak, the fact is that the scale is quite different as well. but the parallels made in the video I posted with conditions in the warsaw ghetto are well observed
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr. Tea said:
I think part of the problem is that many people think 'genocide' is simply synonymous with mass murder, when what it actually means is an attempt to erase a people. The simplest way to do that is just to kill them, obviously, but it also covers attempts to erase the idea of a people, whether by dispossessing them from where they live or destroying their culture. So while far more children have been killed in Gaza in a few weeks than in Ukraine in 18 months, there have also been a huge number of Ukrainians abducted into Russia, many of them children, where they are in the process of being 'de-Ukrainianized' through being forced to speak Russian, brainwashed into believing Ukraine is merely a wayward Russian province, and so on. Reliable numbers are hard to come by for obvious reasons, but I think it's at least in the tens of thousands, and possibly far more than that.

You can also look at, for example, the Uyghur being forcibly shaved and forbidden to practice Islam in western China, or Saddam draining the marshes in southern Iraq to destroy the traditional way of life of the Marsh Arabs (although he also just slaughtered many of them), or mixed-race children in Australia in the last century being placed with entirely white foster families, given English names, prevented from being able to learn their own tribal languages, forced to attend church, etc. These are all absolutely examples of genocide. Conversely, nearly 900,000 British soldiers and seamen died in WWI, but that wasn't a genocide, since the Axis powers weren't attempting to exterminate British people or erase the idea of Britain, but simply to defeat the British empire militarily.

With regard to comparing Israel's mass violence against Palestinians to the Holocaust, I think it's a mistake, PR-wise, because a lot of progressive Jews who are otherwise sympathetic to the Palestinian cause naturally baulk at it - even though it does fit the strict definition of a genocide. Not every conflict or atrocity has to be made about another, earlier conflict or atrocity. They're all different.
Click to expand...
Wimbledon FC --> MK Dons is the English equivalent.
 
maxi

maxi

Well-known member
I listened to an interview with Avi Shlaim today, the only shred of hope he offered is the fact that western populations are by now largely and increasingly aware and opposed to what Israel is doing, even though our governments are completely at odds with that.

how can it possibly be controversial to call for a ceasefire as starmer sunak and others are refusing to do? how can just saying 'I think the violence should stop' be contestable in any way? these are such sick fucking people, such cowards
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
maxi said:
I thought the term was only appropriate when mass murder is also taking place. I would imagine that's what Chomsky was referring to as 'the original meaning.'
Click to expand...
I think the original meaning does include methods other than mass killing, though, such as dispersing a population or suppressing a language, religion, or other important aspects of culture. I mean, it does say 'by extension' in definition 3 here, but that meaning of the word has certainly been around for a long time and is in no controversial.

1698417559232.png
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
maxi said:
how can it possibly be controversial to call for a ceasefire as starmer sunak and others are refusing to do? how can just saying 'I think the violence should stop' be contestable in any way? these are such sick fucking people, such cowards
Click to expand...
While this is certainly true on a moral level, it seems to me that Israel barely gives a rat's ass what even the American leadership says about them as long as the cash/weapons keep flowing, so it would be very naive to expect any concrete results from even an explicit condemnation from the UK PM or any public figure. (Not that you're saying it would, of course.)
 
maxi

maxi

Well-known member
I think Israel does care a lot about the diplomatic support it receives from the US alongside the military and financial support, which all go hand in hand. And I presume it would still do as it was told if under direct instruction. This is often how the Gaza massacres have ended in the past. When Obama finally said 'enough'.

US is the only country with that power yes. but the UK standing against it would still be a major shift and could lead to more countries in Europe doing the same, eventually putting more pressure on the US as well. Israel supporters were extremely fearful of a Corbyn government for a reason.

But all that aside, calling for a ceasefire isn't even explicit condemnation. it's such a low bar.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
maxi said:
I listened to an interview with Avi Shlaim today, the only shred of hope he offered is the fact that western populations are by now largely and increasingly aware and opposed to what Israel is doing, even though our governments are completely at odds with that.

how can it possibly be controversial to call for a ceasefire as starmer sunak and others are refusing to do? how can just saying 'I think the violence should stop' be contestable in any way? these are such sick fucking people, such cowards
Click to expand...
What are they scared of?
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Why does Germany vote for Turkey in Eurovision?

Why does US help Israel?

These are not discrete entities. There are almost twice as many people who qualify for Israeli citizenship in the States as there are Jews in Israel. To them Israel is their little baby.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
maxi said:
American Jews dont decide US foreign policy. And besides many find Israel an embarrassment
Click to expand...
Would that be the job of the Secretary of State...who is Jewish? He's gonna find it hard to push Israel-friendly policies with the Biden cabinet being one third Jewish as well.
 
maxi

maxi

Well-known member
Whether theyre jewish or not as individuals is irrelevant. Theyre pursuing longstanding US policy which has been to provide Israel support since 1967 when its importance as a strategic outpost in the middle east emerged. The previous non-Jewish secretaries of state werent any less supportive. Obama wasnt any less supportive, nor Trump.
 
Murphy

Murphy

cat malogen
maxi said:
Yes. As in calling for a ceasefire is the bare minimum any responsible leader could say about the situation

i dont understand what youre trying to suggest with the cartoon
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you in a roundabout way

the cartoon was added for flippancy in that whatever actions have already taken place - all the murder and bloodletting and chaos - what follows has already been decided upon and no western leader is going to step out of line with official Israeli govt policy, I mean why would they when they’re careerists following a £ legacy

they might wring their hands or clutch pearls but going beyond a specific party line is figuratively impossible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top