1442
New Rule: Everything I don't like is antisemitic
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
1442 points (100.0% liked)
196
16563 readers
1625 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The ironic thing is, conflating any and all criticism of the state of Israel with anti-semitism could be argued as anti-semitic itself, because to suggest that jewish people in general and the Israeli state/military are one in the same such that criticism of the later is also hateful towards the former, is also to suggest that jewish people as a whole are responsible for the actions of Israel.
As cultural groups as a whole are inherently unable to be guilty of crimes (since even if a large number of people belonging to one commit some crime, such a group will also contain members that cannot be guilty of it, like young children), but states and similar entities, being organized and capable of decision-making, can be, then any attempt to link the moral culpability of a state and that of a cultural group is inherently to apply unfair accusations to that group, and thus hateful to it.
Should one be allowed to have a national state if that national state is an ethnostate, practices apartheid, and commits genocide? I'm seriously asking because that is a standard I would hold any country to. And I don't see how it means that "Jewish people can't have a homeland", just that it's unacceptable to build a homeland on the mass graves of the natives.
Ridiculous. How does that single out Israel? No other nation shoots through 30 members of a single family to kill a "terrorist". How are Israel held to a different standard?
Sounds to me like a genocidal excuse fantasy.
Thank you for asking this. I'm against ethnostates regardless of the ethnicity and am genuinely curious to hear OP's response
I agree with your argument in general, but hasn't the US shot drone missiles (accidentally, for certain values of that word) at plenty of civilians as part of its was on terror?
Eh, it isn't on the same level as erasing an entire bloodline on a genocidal crusade, but yes. Does that make it okay? Did the US not get shit for that and continue to get shit for that? During this whole war on Gaza, I've seen the history of America being used as a tell-tale example of how not to do this or any war ever in the future... And it doesn't make Israel look any more "stellar", especially not when it hides behind others' atrocities to dilute its own in the eyes of the world. No different than Putin who makes similar remarks on a regular basis.
Right. Biden explicitly said “Don’t make the same mistakes we made in 9/11. There’s no reason we had to be in a war in Afghanistan. There’s no reason we had to do so many things that we did.”
Like, Biden pushes HARD for that war. That's the voice of regret. I suspect Israel will have similar regrets.
Too much death.
Bidens words say one thing but his actions say kill all you like
Pretty much. I wasn't saying that so much to defend Biden as to agree with the fact that the US has done similar in the past.
I honestly think that Biden is conflicted;
On the one hand, I'm sure that it's sound geopolitical strategy to support Israel. For the same kind of reasons it's sound geopolitical strategy to support Ukraine.
On the other hand, Benny McGenocide over there is fucking it up for Biden and everyone else that supported Israel.
Biden reacted too slow, but he also had to balance competing interests. Definitely a no-win situation. He could not have easily stopped support for Israel, and I truly believe that he's not a fan of the genocide.
His track record for pushing the US into war following 9/11 does reveal his character too. Actions do speak louder than words. It would be interesting to know what exactly was going on in his head back then. I think the conversation with netanyahu is interesting in that it shows what sounds like regret.
You're right though. He's done what he's done. He'll only ever at best be the least worst option.
The whole situation makes me sick and sad. War crimes answered with war crimes.
Related: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-biden-administration-once-again-bypasses-congress-on-an-emergency-weapons-sale-to-israel
It’s a complex answer to why I’d personally hold a drone operator in 2001ish to a similar but higher standard than a guard at their post, versus the IAF today. The former are working with semi limited/limited information: this uniform = enemy but there’s a dark shape in an alley, there’s the front line of contact but why is that person digging by the roadside, drone rolled up from its 32hr autonomous flight plan and now there’s live intel feed - all limited information. In those scenarios genuine, honest mistakes are possible but always avoidable. That’s the “fog” part of the ‘fog of war’ - making life or death decisions quickly with limited knowledge.
All that doesn’t apply to the IAF right now… The fog is clear now; the ISR and SIGINT capabilities of Israel are very strong, drones and satellites are all over Gaza, the bombing targets are clearly identified along with the “collateral” civilian deaths it will cause:
That’s no longer an “ooops, well we tried hard to limit civilian deaths” if you’re callous about the human cost to achieve your political/military goals. But as long as they’re not your people I guess?
Not accidental, coincidental. They had lists of targets and next to each the level of acceptable collateral damage. Afghanistan showed very clearly where that kind of "ah fuck it" attitude leads: Somehow the German-occupied regions were much, much calmer than the US ones. Now you'll hear Americans say "yeah of course we took the hard tasks and left you the rest" but the thing is: Americans made it hard for themselves. Taliban actually once wrote an apology letter to the Bundeswehr, saying "sorry for attacking your convoy, some idiots of ours confused you for Americans".
Personally I'd put it this way: Every ethnicity is entitled to a place to rightfully call home, a place to feel secure and welcome in. Our Frisian minority here never tried for independence, it just didn't come up. It's their rightful home, living there since time immemorial just like the majority, even as a mere district in a state in a federal state in a continental union. Quite literally zero ethnic tensions over the millennia: Sibling tribes, one happens to be numerically dominant. This place to feel secure and welcome in thing though is pretty much incompatible with what Israel is doing right now as with all the shit Kahanites and their stooges and stirrup holders are up to that's never going to happen, they'll never feel safe while continuing to antagonise. Fascists and their fucking need for eternal wars. I can still vividly recall when I gave up on Israel (part of my family moved there after the war, solid Labour Zionists): I was sitting on the floor, playing with Lego, listening to the radio, news came on, reported that the fucker killed Rabin.
It's also the -- not really critique, more like a question, that I have towards Germany's stance on the whole thing: To support Jews having that homeland, sure, of course, but how far do we take this. Can we really call Israel a home for Jews if it's just some random fascists no Jew elsewhere actually wants to have anything to do with, and do we really have to let it come to that before getting out the chairs for an intervention circle. Kinda waiting for New York Jews to rename a quarter there to Israel to put an end to this fiasco.
There are over 20 ethnostates in the immediate region....are you saying none of them have a right to exist or just the Jewish one?
Each of those states is built on Arab imperialism, built on the graves of the natives as you say. Most of them have banned various cultures (including Jews) and commited genocide or are currently involved in one....