dx1 @ dx1 @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

761

Joined

2 yr. ago

Actions talk and bullshit walks. They talk about "pressure" and "negotiations" but they're trying to ram through a $14 billion arms package.

I mean that, within the corridors of power - the U.S., Israeli, the U.K., etc. - there's systematic policy of unequal regard for Palestinian lives, below that of Israeli lives. That creates an environment where extremely disproportionate attacks on Palestinians, like we're witnessing now, are characterized as acceptable. This, of course, creates the conditions of systemic apartheid, the conditions for the hostilities in the first place.

And in regard to the point you bring up (to be sure, not what I was talking about) - whether or not either side of the conflict has equal or unequal regard for human life - I don't think it's simple to make that kind of calculation. The facts we have to contend with are the current situation are the result of a movement since the late 19th century seeking to move a population into Palestine, militarily seize control of the entire territory, and militarily occupy, oppress, blockade, and expel the local population for land acquisition. In the context of that, we have to contend with the reality of the civilian casualties:

which have never been equal. It does not prove equal disregard for human lives, but it's a very strong indicator towards it, that Israel disproportionately and recklessly slaughters Palestinians, on the order of 10 to 20 times as many, in retaliation to any Palestinian attack, or vice versa.

In regard to Hamas itself - we have the evidence of the rocket attacks themselves (unguided rockets, just going wherever in a general direction), which took a total of about 40 non-Palestinian lives between 2004 and 2014. And we also have the exact evidential record of October 7th - through which we have to filter out atrocity propaganda, deaths that were attributed to Hamas but should properly be attributed to the IDF, etc. (look into this yourself, it's a doozy), and that military vs. civilian casualties seem to have been underreported by Israel. Those attacks are in the context of trying to achieve a prisoner swap, bring attention to the situation of the Gaza strip, or most cynically, to empower Hamas itself for the profit of its leaders - while on the Israeli side, the explanations ranging from trying to disempower from Hamas, to trying to continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, either to nullify them, to gain control of territory, etc. - armed with all the military tools, all the knowledge, all the human rights theory, of Western nations, but choosing to use them to purposefully target civilian facilities, destroying the entire city, destroying the civilian infrastructure, starving the entire civilian population of food, water, electricity, fuel, medicine, the essential needs for the entire civilian population - coupled with open statements of genocidal intent - not coming from anger of perpetual oppression, like that of Palestinians, but coming from anger resulting from resistance to that oppression. I think that strongly suggests Israel's disregard for human life of the Palestinian population reaches extremes that are not reciprocated by the Palestinian population as a whole, or probably even by Hamas itself.

That's just me thinking through it in response to your comment. We see greater numbers of casualties. We see what seems to be a far greater percent of civilian casualties from Israel. We see explicit attempts to justify the targeting of hospitals - which they cannot even substantiate. We see open statements of dehumanization and incitement to genocide. I don't think the disregard for human lives is equal, I think Israel as a state has proven that it's only concerned with its own interests, completely disregarding all human lives that stand in the way of those interests, while as a result of that, the Palestinian population has perpetually been in a posture of defense. And my understanding of international law, that it places the defensive right with the Palestinian population on the basis of their 56 year long experience of occupation, not with the occupying power - I think mirrors precisely that.

Yes, and that touches on the core problem, unequal regard for human lives.

Hamas or Israel? Hamas actually announced support for a two state solution back in like 2006, and also in 2017:

The 2017 Hamas charter presented the Palestinian state being based on the 1967 borders. The text says "Hamas considers the establishment of a Palestinian state, sovereign and complete, on the basis of the June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital and the provision for all the refugees to return to their homeland." This is in contrast to Hamas' 1988 charter, which previously called for a Palestinian state on all of Mandatory Palestine. Nevertheless, even in the 2017 charter, Hamas did not recognize Israel.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

Israel, on the other hand, has never granted Palestinian statehood on terms they could possibly accept. Look at the Oslo Accords - all kinds of concessions for Palestine, this insane military framework going through the West Bank - but no statehood. Basically every time there's a "peace process" they pose these decreasingly compelling terms.

One state solution is making more and more sense to me these days. It sounds like a radical solution given the polarization and history, but there's a lot more opportunity for a workable solution that way that actually allows reparations.

Notice how this is coupled with every bit of propaganda, true or false, that the Israeli government can muster against UNRWA, and Israel's stream of condemnations of the UN HRC, UN Secretary General, all the resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly (representing nearly every nation on Earth) over Israel's entire existence as a state, condemning their numerous and ongoing violations of international law - and even resolutions passed by the UN Security Council, where the US, UK and France all hold (and abuse) the ability to unilaterally veto resolutions, alongside Russia and China.

Ben-Gvir, a settler in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, has faced charges of hate speech against Arabs and was known to have a portrait in his living room of Israeli-American terrorist Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslim worshipers and wounded 125 others in Hebron, in the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. He removed the portrait after he entered politics.[5] He was also previously convicted of supporting a terrorist group known as Kach, which espoused Kahanism, an extremist religious Zionist ideology.[6]

Under his leadership, the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power), a party which espouses Kahanism and anti-Arabism, won six seats in the 2022 Israeli legislative election, and is represented in what has been called the most right-wing and hardline government in Israel's history.[7][8][9][10] He has called for the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel who are not loyal to Israel.[10] Ben Gvir is "widely known for his openly racist, anti-Arab views and activities".[11] Israeli sociologist Eva Illouz has said Ben Gvir represents "Jewish fascism".[12]

[...] In the 1990s, he was active in protests against the Oslo Accords. In 1995, Ben-Gvir came to public attention for the first time, when he appeared on television brandishing a Cadillac hood ornament that had been stolen from Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's car, and declared: "We got to his car, and we'll get to him too." Several weeks later, Rabin was assassinated by right-wing extremist Yigal Amir.[14][24]

Here's a solid case for downvoting based on "doesn't contribute to discussion".

Most political ideologies have at least one good take. Libertarianism has the "don't allow companies to seize power with regulatory capture" and "whatever the state does is backed by enforced seizure of funds and whatever it enforces it does so with violence" takes, which are both pretty solid, regardless of what you think about economics or if any of the actions of states are positive on their own.

Not that I agree with this guy's rambling take on Hamas at all...

Honestly, I saw his most recent interview, he was supporting the continuation of hostilities (urging restraint and all that) until Hamas was removed. Then I watched the hour long Norman Finkelstein response to it, going over his premises in excruciating detail - https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2023/11/06/18860126.php I don't think your portrayal of his statements is accurate.

That's an odd response to what I wrote...what I said is that the two choices are becoming more and more evil, not that they are evil in the first place. Which is not how that phrase has typically been used (to justify selecting the lesser of the two evils).

Which, side note, may make sense in the context of, there are actually only two choices. But what we do is collectively lock ourselves into those two choices and then choose between them, when there are not only other parties and independent candidates we could support, but entirely separate political systems we could move to.

"Genocidal" vs. "extremely genocidal". Gotta love America.

Maybe the DNC should just run someone who isn't complicit in a genocide. Problem solved.

"Lesser of two evils" is sure slipping more and more towards "evil", isn't it.

You call this democracy? We can't even vote on bills.

I don't see how killing a ton of people/civilians with new weapons represents a significantly new moral question.

I don't think it's just a matter of age. Plenty of old people don't support genocide or fascism.

And Obama isn't a point in favor of that, because he also kept arming Israel, exercising PATRIOT Act powers, kept up all the U.S.'s wars as long as possible, and killing people by the thousands with drone strikes.

We have a problem with authoritarianism. Call it like it is. The 30-50 year old representatives support it, the 70 year old representatives support it.

Source? Last video I watched he was giving the "I don't see the point of a ceasefire" line.

Don't confuse "humanitarian pause" with "ceasefire", they're completely different - "humanitarian pause" means a few hours/days off, and then starting it right back up.

Missed the double negative there.

Honestly, the whole truth of the situation is that the subjugation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was a direct byproduct/prerequisite of the creation of the Israeli state. We will get nowhere if nobody addresses this fundamental aggravant at the heart of this conflict, that formed the basis for the militarized apartheid system that exists there today. These are just pithy quips about "nobody's perfect" coming from somebody with olympic swimming pools of blood on his hands.

The reality's that the only people with the real vision to create peace in this situation have long been sidelined from the political discussion. I'm really encouraged looking at stuff like https://www.odsi.co/en/ that actually understands the fundamental problems going on here. We'll get absolutely nowhere listening to the political establishment in the U.S. or Israel that spent most of the last century manufacturing this situation.

With citizens, ignorance can be an excuse. With politicians, it's their job to know, and if they're on the wrong side that pretty much means they're complicit.