Attacks on Israel

[AuntCloud]

And why dyed-in-the-wool liberals, who would be up in arms if anyone misgendered anyone (not that it is ok!!!), are totally fine with the horrors that went down and with the ugly antisemitism, to the point where people in the US are reluctant to speak Hebrew where anyone can hear them. Does their bucket of compassion end when it comes to harming Jews? 

And sad to be the bearer of bad news, but Hamas would misgender and deadname without blinking an eye, and I've heard they're not big on recycling either. 

[noseybutt]

Ok, I'll bite.

@AuntCloud You communicate well the pain and fear that you are feeling and for that, I am deeply empathetic and sorry.
 

That said....I walk in very diverse worlds because of my job. From the far right conspiracies theories to super conservative law enforcement and judges to more left and (far left) attorneys and academics.  

I have yet to hear anything pro-Hamas in real life.

Not a peep.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I was on a zoom with a mixture of academics, some very left, and a Jewish attendee straight up said there was no way to talk about the state of Israel without it being antisemitic at that point in time and the conversation respectfully ended.

Pausing conversations for mourning is appropriate.

But these are pauses. At some point there has to be discussion, even very painful discussions. 

This war will end someday, because wars always do.

The question is, how it will end? What will be the peacemaking process? How do we deal with terror groups? Is the two-state solution a lost cause? What do the Israeli people want? What do the Palestinians want?

These are important questions and worthy of conversation.

Edited October 24, 2023 by noseybutt

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I don't know that people are defending Hamas. I think people are seeing the Palestinians desperation in a desperate situation. 

I think you can condemn Hamas and still have compassion for the deaths of children in Gaza and hospitals without medicine and power.

I understand Israel's reaction and I can't say I would react otherwise in a similar situation. But I do hope that Israel has a better plan than seems evident at this point. Because going berserker and killing everybody in a small area where people literally cannot leave. I drive around in a larger area than Gaza just to do shopping. Where can these people go to get out of the way?

I don't want to see Israel getting into the same dead end that the USA  did  when we went after our terrorists. (Which created even more enemies and a very long war with no real ending.) Can we, humanity, not learn from that?

[Antimony]

I have had a friend suggest that one (read: Americans) must consider how it would feel if Donald Trump were president during 9/11. Now, Bush was a wild enough ride. What a trip. (Terror risk level, conveniently color coded, with my weather report? The fuck was I supposed to do with that? Pack an extra umbrella? I think about that all the time, how it only begets fear and paranoia, how it was information with no way to act upon it, and how damaging that is as a mindset.) 

But this friend, who is a queer Jewish American with a professional work history in Israel (I do not actually know if his citizenship is dual, but I would err on the side that it is), has a good point because it's been clear that Netanyahu's government is willing to suppress any dissenting Israeli or Jewish voices. So much so that we've seen the chief of police threaten current residents of Israel and Israeli citizens with bussing to Gaza for any dissenting protests. We've also seen suppression of the Palestinian flag -- not the Hamas flag (they do have a flag, it's sucks as far a flag design goes, by the way) -- the flag of Palestine, in Israel. (It is worth being clear that the chief of police does conflate any support for Palestinians with support for Hamas, with is clearly a fallacy.) I am once again, struck by the power and toxicity that is the relationship between a right wing government and a terrorist organization. A terrorist is a perfect enemy to justify all your bad acts, even against your own citizen's and their rights to free expression.

It is also concerning how contagious this seems to be. I mentioned already that non-Jewish supporters of Israel ran a Jewish scientist off Twitter for the great crime of retweeting an Onion article that was mildly critical of some (not even all! not even the big ones!) aspects of the Israeli media response. I see Jewish content creators make posts talking about how they want to learn more about Palestinian history, and then delete them abruptly and replace them with apologies for mentioning it. I see people write about how they feel isolated by trying to be part of movements for empathy or interfaith cooperation. This is tragic, because more war gives no time for grief to be done. Not for anyone. It only pushes new, raw grief on top, like an overloaded compost pile, and in the end you don't have new soil ready for new life. You have a pile of mummified rot that has never been processed as it should be. A landfill of feelings that should have been subject to their natural cycles and now are stuck and frozen in time. It's fucked up. 

I think all of these things -- my friend's suggested nightmare parallel, the general suppression of any pro-Palestinian sentiment within Israel and even within the worldwide Jewish community, and the history of the Netanyahu government and family with this particular sub-sect of political Zionism* -- also speaks to some of the urge to fact check Israel. That, and how does one fact-check Hamas when they're operating in a zone with fewer journalists by the day? It's nearly impossible, sort of hearing from the Palestinian Authority. The news simply reports that "Hamas claims" and it's fundamentally hard to check any further. Hamas, for all their hype, also simply does not have the manpower or messaging power that any nation state has. I don't know about other people, but I look at statements that say "Hamas claims" and I go, "Oh, okay, well Hamas claims". For some of their claims, we may never know how much was a truth or a lie until the dust settles, and by then...we don't know what will be left. When the dust settles, who will check? Who will even know what to check? I do not know. 

For also what it's worth, I do not believe that a person's right to life, their house, water, food, or electricity is contingent upon their respect for my gender. It is also utterly and entirely irrelevant to the conflict.  I also believe and know that there are queer Palestinians. Hamas will not liberate them, but neither will an apartheid state or a lack of water.  Occupation or militarization will not save them. No variant of far-right beliefs or nationalism will save them. Such things, tend to not ever save anybody. The suggestion that one cannot hold queer rights and concern for Palestinians in one heart feels absurd to me. 

Finally, we can actually imagine a world without Hamas were Palestinians were still subject to apartheid rules and military occupation. Perhaps, we could call such a world...the West Bank, just for a quick short hand. We could imagine such a place with streets that are segregated by ethnicity and religion and a total absence of Hamas. 

It is undoubtedly true that we will see a rise in both antisemitic and anti-Muslim hate crimes throughout this. That's clear, and I don't know anybody who has any interest in refuting it. I do see glimmers of interfaith grief and interfaith charity and interfaith love, and I think, even though I'm a non-religious person working in a religious community, that is is currently one of the most precious things to cling to, because there isn't...much else to cling to, some days.

* Netanyahu is only Netanyahu's last name because it is the penname his father adopted from his father for article writing and later fully adopted. It truly speaks to the long history of this family with their particular subset of political Zionism, which was, at the time Nathan Mileikowsky and Benzion were writing under pennames, not even the majority consensus for what a Jewish state could or even should look like. 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

The idea of what's his name being prez at the time of 9/11 actually made me physically gag in real life.

I think as humans we do have a responsibility to look at different angles of any situation and not adhere to strict loyalty to one narrative no matter whose narrative it is. People through all time and places have done terrible things in the name or religion, politics, and power. Nobody has a monopoly on being "good."

It personally is very challenging to me to try to see things from MAGA eyes but I still think there is value in it despite knowing I will never agree with such a viewpoint.

Anyway, that's just my take....

did you guys see the Anderson Cooper thing today where he had seen a video that was not released of hamas taking prisoners and on the video was the poor guy whose arm got blown off-- still alive and getting into a truck. Cooper interviewed his parents and realized after the interview that he privately had seen the most recent video of their son that they had not seen. So he was able to show them this video of their son.

His mother gave some powerful statements and is either an amazingly well grounded woman or is an amazing actor or both. She seems to be holding it together very well.

I had to turn off the specific gaza footage today. I don't know why Gaza is mostly under 18 yr olds (I haven't encountered an explanation for that but have seen it quoted many times. I don't have it in me to google through gaza stuff right now to find out either) but the videos of the kids were too much for me. 

I saw a part of an interview with an Israeli (former ambassador?) official who stated that the reason the American passport holders are still in gaza is because of Hamas. The interviewer seemed doubtful (I believe Jake Tapper? Is he now IN Israel?)

[Antimony]

9 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

I had to turn off the specific gaza footage today. I don't know why Gaza is mostly under 18 yr olds (I haven't encountered an explanation for that but have seen it quoted many times

A young population is the natural consequence of the living conditions in Gaza. NPR did run an article that explained it. 

In short, nobody gets to live that long. Gaza has a struggling healthcare system, so people die early. Or, they die in conflicts. You have to have a permit to get healthcare in Israel and it is very difficult to get the permission to do so. The WHO is particularly mad about this, because they have shown that the Israeli permit system is killing people who die waiting for healthcare.

People tend to marry younger and have more children in Gaza. Some of that's cultural, but some of it is also a natural trend for those in poverty. This is true even in the United States, where poorer areas have higher fertility rates. 

[meep]

 

CNN Summary Blurb:

• Humanitarian agency in crisis: Vital fuel supplies are on the verge of running out, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) said. It runs the “largest humanitarian operation in Gaza,” the agency's director said, but it might all come to an end by Wednesday night. Without fuel supplies, the agency said it would no longer be able to operate desalination stations, hospital services or deliver food supplies — essentially severing its humanitarian services in Gaza.
• Attempts to get aid in and people out: The presence of Hamas at the Rafah border crossing has made the situation "extremely difficult," US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said. Sometimes Hamas militants are actively at the crossing with guns "preventing people from approaching the crossing." On Tuesday, eight out of the scheduled 20 trucks were able to cross into Gaza, the UNRWA said.
• The latest on hostages: Qatar, which is helping to mediate with Egypt, is hopeful for a breakthrough soon on negotiations to release hostages held by Hamas, the prime minister and foreign minister said. Four hostages – two American and two Israeli – have been freed so far. Talks to secure the release of a large number of hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza are ongoing, two sources familiar with the matter and one Western diplomat familiar with the discussions told CNN.
• Hostages from other countries: There are 135 hostages with foreign passports from 25 countries being held in the Gaza Strip, according to a new estimate released by the Israeli Government Press Office Wednesday. There are 54 people with a passport from Thailand, 25 Argentinan nationals, 12 from Germany and 12 from the United States, it said. Separately, 259 foreign nationals were murdered in the Hamas attack on October 7, Israel said.
• Calls for a pause or ceasefire: A UN Security Council resolution put forward by the US calls for "humanitarian pauses" — not a ceasefire — to allow desperately needed aid to reach Gaza. The European Union may also lean toward calling for a "short humanitarian pause" in Gaza after leaders meet on Thursday, a senior diplomat said. Several leaders have already voiced some version of this, including Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and the foreign ministers of Ireland and Slovenia. Separately, the United Kingdom government is discussing “humanitarian pauses” but rejects a “wholesale ceasefire,” a spokesperson for the prime minister said.
• Amping up of military equipment: The US has agreed to send two Iron Dome batteries from the US to Israel, a defense official and US official said. The batteries from US stocks are in addition to Iron Dome interceptors the US provided from stocks already in Israel. More generally, the Australian government also said it is deploying more personnel and aircraft to the Middle East region, the country's Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Richard Marles said.

BBC Summary Blurb:

• Benjamin Netanyahu reiterates that Israel is preparing for a ground invasion of Gaza, but he won't say when it will happen
• The Israeli prime minister says "this is only the beginning" in a televised address from Tel Aviv
• Elsewhere, US President Joe Biden says there is no going back to the status quo between Israelis and Palestinians “as it stood on 6 October"
• UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said earlier he was "shocked" at the reaction to a statement he made on Tuesday about the war between Israel and Hamas
• He said he clearly condemned the "acts of terror" inflicted on Israel in remarks where he also said the attacks did not happen "in a vacuum"
• In his original statement Guterres had also stated: "The grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas"
• Meanwhile in Gaza, hospitals are stopping all but emergency services as fuel runs out. Israel has blocked fuel from reaching Gaza and accuses Hamas of stockpiling it
• The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says almost 6,500 people have been killed since 7 October - Israel has been bombing the territory
• More than 1,400 were killed in the initial attacks on Israel by Hamas, and more than 200 people are still being held hostage in Gaza

[TuringMachine]

I don't believe support for hamas is widespread, but you cannot deny there aren't people supporting hamas and the attack, at least implicitly. Look at footage from the rallies in NYC, Seattle, Sydney, etc - people are holding signs that say things like "resistance is justified", "by any means necessary", or calling the perpetrators freedom fighters. You also have the Harvard letter claiming Israel was entirely responsible for the attack. I can't imagine people thinking saying hamas is entirely responsible for all the deaths from Israel's bombing of Gaza would be an ok thing to say.

20 hours ago, Antimony said:

The news simply reports that "Hamas claims" and it's fundamentally hard to check any further. Hamas, for all their hype, also simply does not have the manpower or messaging power that any nation state has. I don't know about other people, but I look at statements that say "Hamas claims" and I go, "Oh, okay, well Hamas claims".

I certainly hope you're right. The quick spread of 500 dead in Israeli hospital strike and its consequences. has me on edge though. I hope it is the exception.

Edited October 25, 2023 by TuringMachine

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, TuringMachine said:

I don't believe support for hamas is widespread, but you cannot deny there aren't people supporting hamas and the attack, at least implicitly. Look at footage from the rallies in NYC, Seattle, Sydney, etc - people are holding signs that say things like "resistance is justified", "by any means necessary", or calling the perpetrators freedom fighters. You also have the Harvard letter claiming Israel was entirely responsible for the attack. I can't imagine people thinking saying hamas is entirely responsible for all the deaths from Israel's bombing of Gaza would be an ok thing to say.

I certainly hope you're right. The quick spread of 500 dead in Israeli hospital strike and its consequences. has me on edge though. I hope it is the exception.

Oh there are people who are 100% supporting Hamas, I am just not seeing it among the people I know and especially not in the US. 

Also, I would not interpret "resistance is justified" automatically to mean people are pro-Hamas. Rather they are pro-uprising and in favor of the Palestinians having their own state. Even very strident pro-Palestinian academics furious over the treatment of people in Gaza and the West Bank still would prefer Hamas not be in charge.

Maybe that is splitting hairs? IDK. I seriously am not sure where the boundaries are since this is very much a war but also doesn't meet the technical definition of war since the Palestinians are technically stateless.

 

[Antimony]

13 hours ago, TuringMachine said:

I don't believe support for hamas is widespread, but you cannot deny there aren't people supporting hamas and the attack, at least implicitly. Look at footage from the rallies in NYC, Seattle, Sydney, etc - people are holding signs that say things like "resistance is justified", "by any means necessary", or calling the perpetrators freedom fighters. You also have the Harvard letter claiming Israel was entirely responsible for the attack. I can't imagine people thinking saying hamas is entirely responsible for all the deaths from Israel's bombing of Gaza would be an ok thing to say.

I certainly hope you're right. The quick spread of 500 dead in Israeli hospital strike and its consequences. has me on edge though. I hope it is the exception.

Because there's been some discussion on statements like "from the river to the sea", I'm linking a thread here from a Jewish professor (of some sort, I think? Law? History?) on the phrase. This particular thread was shared by previously mentioned friend. I think this goes to some of the sentiment of "resistance is justified" as well. 

(In other Twitter news, we now have confirmation that the Jewish scientist has in fact been fired from his job for the grand crime of retweeting an Onion article that was just mildly critical of the Israeli state...so...that's....fucking awful. I mean, he'll be fine, it was his editorial job at a scientific journal, he's still a professor, but absolutely fucked up that this many people ran to his employer to harass him over this when he himself has been very clear that he is Jewish and has Israeli family.)

I also think that "college students write something controversial" is almost never news. It's wild because any student group can leverage the Harvard name for their legitimacy but they can also be like....five twenty year olds, you know? And now the funding office of Harvard is supposed to answer for that? Student groups are great fodder for social outrage, but if they're at a Big Name School, that get to seem more culturally relevant than they are. This isn't to say it's not worth discussing, but I think the way we run with "Harvard group pens letter that says..." for a dozen headlines is wild when reality is probably more like, "Group of nineteen year olds posted Google Doc" is a little wild. And yea, I'm sort of degrading Harvard students for the bit here, but I think this did get maybe more media hype than it was worth as far as letters written about something go. 

As for the hospital, I think it was a reported that way because well...it was consistent with prior state actions. Israel did airstrike four hospitals in Gaza in 2021 (UN Reporting this, not Hamas). For those who have been following, that was a reasonable conclusion from the facts in the fog because, well, they'd done it before. The level of death did not look like a weapon from a non-state actor, it looked like weaponry only a state would have. I think ultimately, the PR arm of Israel is going to leverage this mistake for a long, long time, though. 

[treehugger]

Coming at this as a Canadian who was born in Guatemala during the civil war there, I think my perspective is more biased in that if the US government puts their support and funding behind another country (any country), especially militarily, I am immediately suspicious of everything because their very long history of using destabilization and war globally to advance corporate interests.  That does not mean I trust terrorists at all, but that I have seen too much American propaganda to legitimize war in other countries for nefarious purposes, and I am always initially a little skeptical.   I am not anti-American or anti-Semetic, but I don't immediately trust global superpower countries to be totally honest when it comes to politics or war.  

I also don't trust Hamas.  I am not a fan of propaganda bullshit.  I am, perhaps, just deeply cynical of war, and politics all around

Edited October 26, 2023 by treehugger

[noseybutt]

23 minutes ago, treehugger said:

Coming at this as a Canadian who was born in Guatemala during the civil war there, I think my perspective is more biased in that if the US government puts their support and funding behind another country (any country), especially militarily, I am immediately suspicious of everything because their very long history of using destabilization and war globally to advance corporations.  That does not mean I trust terrorists at all, but that I have seen too much American propaganda to legitimize war in other countries for nefarious purposes, and I am always initially a little skeptical.   I am not anti-American or anti-Semetic, but I don't immediately trust global superpower countries to be totally honest when it comes to politics or war.  

I also think don't trust Hamas.  I am not a fan of propaganda bullshit.  I am, perhaps, just deeply cynical of war, and politics all around

Relatable.

Also, it is very bizarre that much of the US support of Israel is because of Evangelical end time beliefs—basically they support the nation state of Israel in order to bring on the end times with the hope that many Jews will convert to Christianity. 

I don’t understand why that doesn’t get called out for being antisemitic since it requires the physical death of many Jewish people and, ultimately, the death of the religion.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[TuringMachine]

4 hours ago, Antimony said:

Because there's been some discussion on statements like "from the river to the sea", I'm linking a thread here from a Jewish professor (of some sort, I think? Law? History?) on the phrase. This particular thread was shared by previously mentioned friend. I think this goes to some of the sentiment of "resistance is justified" as well. 

I don't have twitter so i can't see that thread, only the first tweet.

[noseybutt]

2 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

I don't have twitter so i can't see that thread, only the first tweet.

A curse on Twitter, X, and Elon Musk.

It's maddening. I can't see it either.

[Antimony]

20 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

A curse on Twitter, X, and Elon Musk.

It's maddening. I can't see it either.

Ugh, I forgot he did this to the damn site. Hold...on. 

Spoiler

\

 

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, noseybutt said:

Relatable.

Also, it is very bizarre that much of the US support of Israel is because of Evangelical end time beliefs—basically they support the nation state of Israel in order to bring on the end times with the hope that many Jews will convert to Christianity. 

I don’t understand why that doesn’t get called out for being antisemitic since it requires the physical death of many Jewish people and, ultimately, the death of the religion.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

This has always been one of the issues at hand. Some pre-1948 discussions considered the issue of well, if you make Israel exist as a nation state, what is to stop antisemites from just effectively deporting their Jewish citizens. Some very obvious antisemites also expressly supported the founding of a Jewish Nation state because they saw it as a way to accomplish the goals of ethnically cleansing their populations. 

Interestingly, on the original plans of Nazi's was move all of the European Jewish population to Madagascar ("Madagascar Plan"). Then, weirdly, Jewish Zionists later consider Madagascar as a site for a Jewish homeland. This is one of the big debatable issues about Zionism like...who benefits, really, and does this actually benefit and bolster antisemitic policies? 

I also find the Evangelist support for Israel and the way they tie it into End Times Doctrine to be so fundamentally antisemitic and also like, goddamn. It's your religion's apocalypse, you trigger it. Don't send somebody else to trigger your apocalypse. 

[noseybutt]

So the differing definitions of Zionism given by Dr. Mia Brett in the Tweet linked by @Antimony makes sense to me. Using the term to mean "self-determination" (and, presumably, self-determination specifically within Israel) is in line with what I think the ADL is saying. 

[TuringMachine]

1 hour ago, Antimony said:

Ugh, I forgot he did this to the damn site. Hold...on. 

  Reveal hidden contents

\

 

Thank you. I'll admit I am struggling to see what the non-nefarious meaning to "resistance is justified", but even giving the benefit of the doubt it seems like a questionable thing to have on a sign in NYC, the city with US's largest Jewish population. 

I'm not sure this means much, but I would agree with her assessment on what most Jews mean by zionism. At least that's been my experience. There's a lot of fear over the wellbeing of our people if Israel were not to exist, but that does not necessarily imply support for the founding or current government of Israel, and certainly not for the crimes against Palestine. I haven't seen it lately, but I remember the last time Palestine was at the forefront of social discourse seeing "Zionism is white supremacy" or similar quite a bit. This is one of the reasons I find that particular phrasing very icky (I have a few reasons). I think people try to say they are anti-zionist in attempt to assure people they're not anti-semitic, but I don't think the line is as clear as they want it to be. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm gonna tell a Palestinian to not feel attacked by seeing pro-zionist things. That's also very fair.

Anyway, thank you @Antimony for your very educational posts as always.

2 hours ago, noseybutt said:

I don’t understand why that doesn’t get called out for being antisemitic since it requires the physical death of many Jewish people and, ultimately, the death of the religion.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

This kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier. They may tell themselves they're allies to the Jews, but I certainly don't feel safe in pro-Israel circles.

Edited October 26, 2023 by TuringMachine

[Antimony]

57 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

So the differing definitions of Zionism given by Dr. Mia Brett in the Tweet linked by @Antimony makes sense to me. Using the term to mean "self-determination" (and, presumably, self-determination specifically within Israel) is in line with what I think the ADL is saying. 

Ugh, I hate to be this guy, but since you brought up the ADL article last time and I did like it, I did, I read more about the ADL and now I think I gotta take the ADL with more a grain of salt.

Not to say they haven't done good work, it's clear that they have, but they also seem to have been okay with making strange bedfellows.

In short, my digging found more details on what Wikipedia lists. The ADL used to make anti-Nelson Mandela propaganda before they changed course which is...interesting. They were also late to the game to recognize the Armenian genocide as a genocide, which many people were, but seems really strange to me from a group founded on what they're founded on. Like, it's not adding up? What was goin' on over there? They also seem to consistently get into scuffled with Jewish Voices for Peace, which like, I dunno. If I had a nickel for every time two non-profit organizations got into a kerfuffle, I'd be Scrooge McDuckin' it in nickels, but I don't love how that seems to have played out. 

Robert Evan's podcast episodes on Netanyahu do discuss how Zionism has been used as political weapon against non-Zionist Jewish activists and politicians, and this kerfuffle between the ADL and JVP feels like a continuation of that not-very-great situation. 

40 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

Thank you. I'll admit I am struggling to see what the non-nefarious meaning to "resistance is justified", but even giving the benefit of the doubt it seems like a questionable thing to have on a sign in NYC, the city with US's largest Jewish population. 

I'm not sure this means much, but I would agree with her assessment on what most Jews mean by zionism. At least that's been my experience. There's a lot of fear over the wellbeing of our people if Israel were not to exist, but that does not necessarily imply support for the founding or current government of Israel, and certainly not for the crimes against Palestine. I haven't seen it lately, but I remember the last time Palestine was at the forefront of social discourse seeing "Zionism is white supremacy" or similar quite a bit. This is one of the reasons I find that particular phrasing very icky (I have a few reasons). I think people try to say they are anti-zionist in attempt to assure people they're not anti-semitic, but I don't think the line is as clear as they want it to be. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm gonna tell a Palestinian to not feel attacked by seeing pro-zionist things. That's also very fair.

Anyway, thank you @Antimony for your very educational posts as always.

I think one of the big issues here is that everything is both a sword and a shield in the vocabulary because every word here -- even "resistance", but obviously "Zionism" -- can be interpreted in more than one way. 

"Resistance is justified" begs the question of what is defined as resistance. Who is saying it? What do they mean? None of these questions can be answered of a stranger with a sign on the street, who very probably quite actually, probably didn't think very much about that sign before they scribbled it out. It also begs for context. For people who just started paying attention this month, this feels very different than it feels to people who have been paying attention for much longer. (There were 2000 Palestinian casualties (70% civilian) in 2014, over 1000 in 2009, and the world felt quieter about it then, but then again, I was much younger then.)  They may mean a militarized resistance, but they do no probably not (just because, well, it would be quite an outlier for American politics) believe in a terroristic militarized resistance. But, on the other hand, Palestine doesn't have the rights of a state so any militarized action they do counts as terrorism, even if it falls within what would normally be the bounds of war. On the other other hand (how many hands now?), Israel has made even small forms of resistance punishable and there surely must be an urge to justify those acts of protest as well. This is a statement coming from people who are viewing this conflict as a long form of ethnic cleansing (and I do view the actions of the state of Israel against both Palestinian territories to be consistent with ethnic cleansing). 

Similarly, when Israel tweets that they are allowed to defend themselves, I'm like, "Whoa, how are we defining self-defense today, because your definition does not look like my definition??" Like, the Iron Dome is a buckwild piece of military technology but ultimately, I can't have a moral issue with it. But, I also cannot square so many of the actions of the Israeli government with the definition of self-defense. 

But perhaps this is all the problem with Twitter and signs anyway, because very little can be expressed well in such a sign or a Tweet. 

On the other hand, perhaps allowing long form content is a mistake because the little Cartoon Kronk Devil comes into my ear when I get on here and lets me keep typing blah blah blah. 

[treehugger]

I think, also, a lot of people are just now seeing Palestinian protests, and maybe thinking it is because of recent events, and that may be in some parts of the world. I know here in Montreal, for as long as I have been here, years and years now, there have been marches for Palestine weekly.  But they only made the news this past month, which is a bit disingenuous because it makes it seem that a lot of people are rallying for a free Palestine only recently because of the horrors of Oct 7. Which makes it seem that all these people approve of what happened then, when, here at least, most of these protesters have met faithfully weekly for years. 

[noseybutt]

45 minutes ago, Antimony said:

Ugh, I hate to be this guy, but since you brought up the ADL article last time and I did like it, I did, I read more about the ADL and now I think I gotta take the ADL with more a grain of salt.

Not to say they haven't done good work, it's clear that they have, but they also seem to have been okay with making strange bedfellows.

In short, my digging found more details on what Wikipedia lists. The ADL used to make anti-Nelson Mandela propaganda before they changed course which is...interesting. They were also late to the game to recognize the Armenian genocide as a genocide, which many people were, but seems really strange to me from a group founded on what they're founded on. Like, it's not adding up? What was goin' on over there? They also seem to consistently get into scuffled with Jewish Voices for Peace, which like, I dunno. If I had a nickel for every time two non-profit organizations got into a kerfuffle, I'd be Scrooge McDuckin' it in nickels, but I don't love how that seems to have played out. 

Robert Evan's podcast episodes on Netanyahu do discuss how Zionism has been used as political weapon against non-Zionist Jewish activists and politicians, and this kerfuffle between the ADL and JVP feels like a continuation of that not-very-great situation. 

I think one of the big issues here is that everything is both a sword and a shield in the vocabulary because every word here -- even "resistance", but obviously "Zionism" -- can be interpreted in more than one way. 

"Resistance is justified" begs the question of what is defined as resistance. Who is saying it? What do they mean? None of these questions can be answered of a stranger with a sign on the street, who very probably quite actually, probably didn't think very much about that sign before they scribbled it out. It also begs for context. For people who just started paying attention this month, this feels very different than it feels to people who have been paying attention for much longer. (There were 2000 Palestinian casualties (70% civilian) in 2014, over 1000 in 2009, and the world felt quieter about it then, but then again, I was much younger then.)  They may mean a militarized resistance, but they do no probably not (just because, well, it would be quite an outlier for American politics) believe in a terroristic militarized resistance. But, on the other hand, Palestine doesn't have the rights of a state so any militarized action they do counts as terrorism, even if it falls within what would normally be the bounds of war. On the other other hand (how many hands now?), Israel has made even small forms of resistance punishable and there surely must be an urge to justify those acts of protest as well. This is a statement coming from people who are viewing this conflict as a long form of ethnic cleansing (and I do view the actions of the state of Israel against both Palestinian territories to be consistent with ethnic cleansing). 

Similarly, when Israel tweets that they are allowed to defend themselves, I'm like, "Whoa, how are we defining self-defense today, because your definition does not look like my definition??" Like, the Iron Dome is a buckwild piece of military technology but ultimately, I can't have a moral issue with it. But, I also cannot square so many of the actions of the Israeli government with the definition of self-defense. 

But perhaps this is all the problem with Twitter and signs anyway, because very little can be expressed well in such a sign or a Tweet. 

On the other hand, perhaps allowing long form content is a mistake because the little Cartoon Kronk Devil comes into my ear when I get on here and lets me keep typing blah blah blah. 

Yes to the concerns with ADL.  I was aware of their history on the Armenian genocide and, I agree, it's super weird given their stated purpose. I think they were also opposed to some of the US affirmative action legislation, back in the day.

Yet ADL often gets quoted as an authoritative voice and for that reason I am willing to try and hear them out. Is that right or wrong? IDK. Some one correct me on this if they know more, but JVP has been consider more "fringe."

Which of course begs the question--who gets to decide? It seems like Jewish communities should be allowed as many groups as they wish to speak and represent the range of opinions.

There's the flattening of the voices that occurs with many minority populations and opinions, and especially during conflict.

 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

4 hours ago, treehugger said:

I think, also, a lot of people are just now seeing Palestinian protests, and maybe thinking it is because of recent events, and that may be in some parts of the world. I know here in Montreal, for as long as I have been here, years and years now, there have been marches for Palestine weekly.  But they only made the news this past month, which is a bit disingenuous because it makes it seem that a lot of people are rallying for a free Palestine only recently because of the horrors of Oct 7. Which makes it seem that all these people approve of what happened then, when, here at least, most of these protesters have met faithfully weekly for years. 

I wanted to mention this but couldn't quite gather my thoughts yesterday. I think the Palestinian people are seeing more attention on the overall issue aside from the Hamas attack and I think there's a natural inclination that since there is more attention worldwide, use it. Which I think is fair.

 

Sidenote- is the US losing interest in this whole topic? PBS news (which I set running while I eat dinner to get a reasonably quick overview) has this war 15 minutes in and the 3rd or 4th story. The headlines went to the house speaker on several news sites a couple days ago. I don't know if it's good or bad or nothing but it's interesting to note. Hopefully it means the worldwide attention is cooling a little and one would hope that the sympathy hate crimes are less likely and escalation in other countries.

[Jinder Roles]

The ADL and the Israeli government have a long history of working together so it makes sense that ADL views actively supports the Israeli government. JVP is explicitly anti-Zionist and so naturally heavily critical of Israel. Especially with all the BDS movements on college campuses this past decade (which JVP supports and ADL condemns) their "scuffles" have intensified. 

Mandela was a leftist and highly critical of Israeli-policies towards Palestinians. He often related the black SA and Palestinian struggle together (this was very common for many civil rights leaders & leftist leaders at the time). Today, South Africa is one of Palestine's strongest allies and very critical of Israel with their foreign minister publicly pushing for Israel to be declared an apartheid state in 2022. 

SA and Israel had good relations in the late 40s, with South Africa being one of the nations to support Israel's statehood but by the 50s, Israel became highly critical of the SA apartheid system and gained favour with several newly independent African nations (partially to combat the influence of the Arab League in Africa). However, the wars and disputes in the late 60s and early 70s - especially the October War of 73 - soured those relations and several African nations cut diplomatic ties. This was also when the SA and Israel began strong diplomatic relations. Israel was the last "developed nation" (eww hate that term) to sanction South Africa for their apartheid regime which was mainly due to American pressure.

In that context it makes sense why the ADL was making anti-Mandela propaganda.  

I know much less about the Armenian genocide thing but Israel and Turkey do have diplomatic relations (though murky at times) so that might explain their stance.  Israel also supplied Azerbaijan with arms last month for their retaking of Artsakh (an Armenian-majority enclave) resulting in a mass expulsion of the Armenian residents there.  So it looks like Israel-Armenia relations are on the rocks. 

And yes, coverage is diminishing. I first noticed that about 3 days ago. 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Yeah the USA has had our 566th or so mass shooting this year (non americans this is approximately the correct number and not an exaggeration) ---but this one is different because there's an ongoing manhunt. So that's the new top story.

And apparently we're bombing Syria now. I don't even know what's going on there and my brain is full. I can't take any more horror in.

I hope some hostages are released, the non-gazans can leave, and they let humanitarian aid in.

I can't stop consuming the news because I want updates on those 3 things. I'm just a regular person who didn't used to be into politics that much (pre-trump) and I don't understand how we can keep being so awful to each other and I want to believe something good can come out of it all.

 

 

 

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Yeah the USA has had our 566th or so mass shooting this year (non americans this is approximately the correct number and not an exaggeration) ---but this one is different because there's an ongoing manhunt. So that's the new top story.

And apparently we're bombing Syria now. I don't even know what's going on there and my brain is full. I can't take any more horror in.

I hope some hostages are released, the non-gazans can leave, and they let humanitarian aid in.

I can't stop consuming the news because I want updates on those 3 things. I'm just a regular person who didn't used to be into politics that much (pre-trump) and I don't understand how we can keep being so awful to each other and I want to believe something good can come out of it all.

 

 

 

I just came here to say that the war does seem to be back in the news because airstrikes have increased and there have been telecom outages within Gaza (cell and internet). 

But yeah. It's rough when the war gets downgraded because of more violence elsewhere.

Also, I think @WatchingTheTireFireBurn that you and are on the same page with this: American democracy seems fragile at the moment and part of the horror of watching local and world news unfold is that it doesn't seem like our own government is particularly capable because it's so harshly divided down political lines.

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by noseybutt