[wat0n]

Since you have been claiming 5hat the Israeli attack on Gaza is not genocide because of contextual factors, you not only agree with me but also provide an ongoing narrative that relies on there being "context" for genocide.

It is not genocide because Israeli actions are not aimed at destroying the Palestinian population.

According to the text you quoted before and my own research, his discussion of no civilian presence referred to government positions in Gaza.

If you interpret his words differently, please provide the exact quote that makes you think he is banning future settlements for the foreseeable future.

I take it as civilian presence in general. Also, how could civilian settlements be established without a civilian government? Those would not be civilian settlements to begin with. Even Israeli settlements have their own civilian local governments.

Yes, that is the “context” that western powers provided in order to not be seen as committing war crimes.

I would say it was quite an important context.

It does not logically follow that the numbers must be incorrect.

Yet it does mean one shouldn't take the figures at face value.

Far more than would have died had the IDF not bombed all the hospitals and most of the homes.

So you don't have a figure?

See how you are using context to argue that the IDF is not committing war crimes, genocide, and/or ethnic cleansing?

It's not simply "context", civilian infrastructure loses its special protections if it's used for military ends.

Under this standard, the West and the USSR should have allowed Hitler to win because fighting to topple the Nazi regime would in practice require killing scores of civilians.

This is odd, it's a very Gandhian and Christian argument, not a Marxist one.

Tell me, do you think the IDF would be completely justified in bombing the bunker where the Israeli hostages are, killing the hostages and the Hamas members inside?

Yes, I would not blame the IDF if that was the only way to take over the area.

I don't see any other alternative to the type of war that's being fought. Hamas never accepted to even discuss anything related to a final status agreement, so even in the optimistic scenario in which Israel would have signed one with the PLO we'd still see a war like this one since Hamas is not going to stop voluntarily and they made this clear on October 7.

You would have a point here if Stalin mostly fought an antisemitic crusade and that was the core of his ideology/rule. But it wasn't.

Again you're comparing two completely different things.

Oh come on, be honest. The removal of statues wasn't limited to Confederates. Statues of people like Washington or Jefferson were removed because both owned slaves.

This was done irrespective of whatever other aspects of the lives of the persons whose statues were removed.

[Deutschmania]

Why would we think that?

After the Jewish Revolt in AD 70, 25% of the Jews were dead, 10% were enslaved, and the remainder, 65%, were banished from the cities and towns to eke out a living herding goats in the hills.

And, sensibly, not being goatherds, most of them left Judea as economic migrants hoping to do something better suited to their talents elsewhere.

Furthermore , the ones who stayed , the Jewish peasants , later went on to become the present day Palestinians.
https://the-engagement.org/?page_id=7

.....………...................................................

@wat0n Neither my 6th cousin 8 times removed , Karl Marx , or I , as people of Jewish descent , hate ourselves . We simply wish for all people to be liberated , and educated. Opposing Jewish / English capitalism does not mean that we desire the destruction of the Jewish nation ( Kelal Yisrael) or the Jewish religion , any more than any other nationality or spirituality . And in the Soviet Union , the national rights of the Jews had always been recognized . And numerous Jews have been Communists as well. We Soviet Patriots of Jewish descent , are devoted to both our own specific people , as well as to the international proletariat .
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1934-2/birobidzhan/ , https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-in-radical-politics/
.........................,.............................................
@KurtFF8 There initially actually was a Marxist Zionism . Depending upon what exactly is meant by Zionism , a Communist can basically support Zionism , the self determination of the Jewish population within its own nation , so far as it doesn't infringe upon the equal rights of others in the land of Israel/ Palestine. And even though I would currently describe myself as being a post-Zionist , I do still recognize the historic validity of socialist Zionism .
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-713967 , https://tonygreenstein.com/2019/10/what-happened-when-as-part-of-an-experiment-arab-youth-joined-kibbutzim/

[KurtFF8]

Oh come on, be honest. The removal of statues wasn't limited to Confederates. Statues of people like Washington or Jefferson were removed because both owned slaves.

This was done irrespective of whatever other aspects of the lives of the persons whose statues were removed.

Firstly: the movement to remove statues was largely around Confederate monuments which themselves were specifically anti-civil rights monuments.

Some activist circles tried to expand this to people like Washington and Jefferson. And it's true, they were slave owners and promoted and ruled over a slave owning society. Not sure what's confusing or wrong about wanting their statues gone.

I have yet to see anyone call for statues to be removed simple because of objectionable private views they held though.

And spare me the comparison to statues of people like Stalin or Lenin. Again: totally different kinds of historical figures. The calls for their respective removals come from fundamentally different political perspectives.

The calls to remove Confederate statues: from anti-racists and people who oppose the legacy of slavery
Calls to remove statues of Lenin: largely from nationalist reactionaries.

[KurtFF8]

@KurtFF8 There initially actually was a Marxist Zionism . Depending upon what exactly is meant by Zionism , a Communist can basically support Zionism , the self determination of the Jewish population within its own nation , so far as it doesn't infringe upon the equal rights of others in the land of Israel/ Palestine. And even though I would currently describe myself as being a post-Zionist , I do still recognize the historic validity of socialist Zionism .
[urlhttps://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-713967 [/url] , [url] https://tonygreenstein.com/2019/10/what ... utzim//url]

Another of Stalin's errors was to support the State of Israel.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is not genocide because Israeli actions are not aimed at destroying the Palestinian population.

You are assuming this, based solely on your comic book morality of
Good Guys and Bad Guys.

I take it as civilian presence in general. Also, how could civilian settlements be established without a civilian government? Those would not be civilian settlements to begin with. Even Israeli settlements have their own civilian local governments.

Since you refuse to provide a quote, this tangent of yours is dismissed as unsupported.

I would say it was quite an important context.

Your personal feels about the context are irrelevant.

The point is that using their lack of accountability to support a claim of IDF innocence is illogical.

Yet it does mean one shouldn't take the figures at face value.

That does not seem like a good enough reason, no.

So you don't have a figure?

So you agree that the IdF is responsible for mass graves of non-combatants.

Why does the exact number of dead non-combatants in the mass graves make a difference?

It's not simply "context", civilian infrastructure loses its special protections if it's used for military ends.

Under this standard, the West and the USSR should have allowed Hitler to win because fighting to topple the Nazi regime would in practice require killing scores of civilians.

This is odd, it's a very Gandhian and Christian argument, not a Marxist one.

Seeing as how your only reply is a whataboutism, I will assume that you see perfectly well how you think genocide has a context, as you accused me of doing.

Yes, I would not blame the IDF if that was the only way to take over the area.

I don't see any other alternative to the type of war that's being fought. Hamas never accepted to even discuss anything related to a final status agreement, so even in the optimistic scenario in which Israel would have signed one with the PLO we'd still see a war like this one since Hamas is not going to stop voluntarily and they made this clear on October 7.

Okay, so you have no problem with armed forces killing hostages.

So why are you upset that armed forces took and killed hostages? Is that not your whole justification for the megadeaths of Palestinians?

[wat0n]

You are assuming this, based solely on your comic book morality of
Good Guys and Bad Guys.

Not really. If Israel wanted to commit genocide against Gazans, it would have done so long ago.

Since you refuse to provide a quote, this tangent of yours is dismissed as unsupported.

I already quoted him. I don't see why would you interpret him differently.

Your personal feels about the context are irrelevant.

The point is that using their lack of accountability to support a claim of IDF innocence is illogical.

Oh, so you believe massacring Jews should be left in impunity? Does this standard apply to Blacks too?

That does not seem like a good enough reason, no.

Your personal feels are irrelevant. Hamas has a history of revising (lying) about its killed combatants.

So you agree that the IdF is responsible for mass graves of non-combatants.

Why does the exact number of dead non-combatants in the mass graves make a difference?

A lot, actually. Specially if you want to argue that Israel aims to destroy the Palestinian population.

Seeing as how your only reply is a whataboutism, I will assume that you see perfectly well how you think genocide has a context, as you accused me of doing.

The Allies didn't commit genocide against the Germans. Interesting, this inversion is a typical neonazi talking point.

Okay, so you have no problem with armed forces killing hostages.

So why are you upset that armed forces took and killed hostages? Is that not your whole justification for the megadeaths of Palestinians?

The hostages wouldn't have been targeted. On the contrary, they'd have been killed in a rescue attempt.

This is a dishonest tangent, but I don't find it surprising from someone who justifies the October 7 massacre.

[wat0n]

Firstly: the movement to remove statues was largely around Confederate monuments which themselves were specifically anti-civil rights monuments.

Some activist circles tried to expand this to people like Washington and Jefferson. And it's true, they were slave owners and promoted and ruled over a slave owning society. Not sure what's confusing or wrong about wanting their statues gone.

I have yet to see anyone call for statues to be removed simple because of objectionable private views they held though.

You forgot to mention the part in which those statues of non-Confederate slaveowners were indeed vandalized and in some cases removed.

And spare me the comparison to statues of people like Stalin or Lenin. Again: totally different kinds of historical figures. The calls for their respective removals come from fundamentally different political perspectives.

The calls to remove Confederate statues: from anti-racists and people who oppose the legacy of slavery
Calls to remove statues of Lenin: largely from nationalist reactionaries.

Basically, they are different because Lenin and Stalin were communists so if they were racist it's okay. Yup, a cult.

@Deutschmania Marx's antisemitism was common in his time, and quite mild compared to that of the right. So I don't find it surprising many Jews sided with what they saw as the lesser evil...

...But please, let's not pretend it did not exist.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not really. If Israel wanted to commit genocide against Gazans, it would have done so long ago.

And it has been doing so, since so long ago.

I already quoted him. I don't see why would you interpret him differently.

Oh, so you believe massacring Jews should be left in impunity? Does this standard apply to Blacks too?

Your personal feels are irrelevant.

While they are irrelevant to the topic, they do not seem irrelevant to you. You love taking about what you think my personal feelings are.

Hamas has a history of revising (lying) about its killed combatants.

A lot, actually. Specially if you want to argue that Israel aims to destroy the Palestinian population.

So, because the mass graves are not more than a certain percent of the whole population, then the IDF can fill as many mass graves with dead non-combatants as they want.

The Allies didn't commit genocide against the Germans. Interesting, this inversion is a typical neonazi talking point.

The hostages wouldn't have been targeted. On the contrary, they'd have been killed in a rescue attempt.

This is a dishonest tangent, but I don't find it surprising from someone who justifies the October 7 massacre.

Then you misunderstood the original question.

Are you okay with the IDF deliberately targeting and killing the hostages in order to get at the hostage takers?

Yes or no?

[wat0n]

And it has been doing so, since so long ago.

Should I post the population stats again?

While they are irrelevant to the topic, they do not seem irrelevant to you. You love taking about what you think my personal feelings are.

Nice copout there. Will you ever have a consistent standard?

So, because the mass graves are not more than a certain percent of the whole population, then the IDF can fill as many mass graves with dead non-combatants as they want.

Numbers matter because genocide is the destruction of a population, with the special intent to do so.

And no, that doesn't mean the IDF could kill as many non-combatants as it wants.

Then you misunderstood the original question.

Are you okay with the IDF deliberately targeting and killing the hostages in order to get at the hostage takers?

Yes or no?

The IDF would not be "deliberately targeting and killing the hostages" in that case. The IDF would be deliberately targeting and killing the hostage takers, in an attempt to rescue the hostages and defeat Hamas.

And no, this isn't just a semantic difference.

[KurtFF8]

You forgot to mention the part in which those statues of non-Confederate slaveowners were indeed vandalized and in some cases removed.

That's not relevant to this conversation.

Basically, they are different because Lenin and Stalin were communists so if they were racist it's okay. Yup, a cult.

You're just being bad faith at this point. No one called for statues to be removed for personal objectionable opinions of the people they depict. The statues are removed because of what the people they are glorifying represented and the actual role they played in history that cannot be divorced from their promotion of racist structures. The same can simply not be said of Lenin or Stalin.

@Deutschmania Marx's antisemitism was common in his time, and quite mild compared to that of the right. So I don't find it surprising many Jews sided with what they saw as the lesser evil...

...But please, let's not pretend it did not exist.

From the very beginnings to now, there have been a lot of Jewish Marxists. The idea that Marxism is somehow fundamentally antisemitic is just laughable if one takes even an elementary glance at the theories of Karl Marx and subsequent Marxists and of course if one looks at actual Marxist movements positions on these questions.

[wat0n]

That's not relevant to this conversation.

It definitely is. It shows the statue removal was about more than just being Confederates or actually fighting a war for slavery.

You're just being bad faith at this point. No one called for statues to be removed for personal objectionable opinions of the people they depict. The statues are removed because of what the people they are glorifying represented and the actual role they played in history that cannot be divorced from their promotion of racist structures. The same can simply not be said of Lenin or Stalin.

Oh, it always depends on the subject. When it comes to antisemitism, that can't be said about Lenin but Stalin is a different matter altogether. Well, Stalin in all fairness is a different matter in other topics too.

From the very beginnings to now, there have been a lot of Jewish Marxists. The idea that Marxism is somehow fundamentally antisemitic is just laughable if one takes even an elementary glance at the theories of Karl Marx and subsequent Marxists and of course if one looks at actual Marxist movements positions on these questions.

But not when one looks how Marxist governments ruled in practice.

Also, Jews can believe in all sorts of stuff.

[KurtFF8]

It definitely is. It shows the statue removal was about more than just being Confederates or actually fighting a war for slavery.

Generally it's about opposing racism and racist institutions sure, but the removal of Confederate statues is indeed about the war they fought to preserve slavery and the subsequent racist attempts to honor that rebellious state. Not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Oh, it always depends on the subject. When it comes to antisemitism, that can't be said about Lenin but Stalin is a different matter altogether. Well, Stalin in all fairness is a different matter in other topics too.

Like I said, the Doctor's plot is not something Marxists defend. Even the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was quick to condemn it through Khrushchev. And while Stalin certainly had objectionable personal attitudes and made moves that aren't defensible, the idea that this means Marxism is inherently antisemitic is again, laughable.

But not when one looks how Marxist governments ruled in practice.

Especially when it comes to how Marxist governments ruled in practice. Again you're trying this absurd false claim that Marxism is antisemitic, and you're just wrong about it. Time to move on.

[wat0n]

Generally it's about opposing racism and racist institutions sure, but the removal of Confederate statues is indeed about the war they fought to preserve slavery and the subsequent racist attempts to honor that rebellious state. Not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Why isn't the same standard used for the USSR? I mean, Stalin was particularly bad but it's not like antisemitism and other forms of racism went away after he died.

Like I said, the Doctor's plot is not something Marxists defend. Even the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was quick to condemn it through Khrushchev. And while Stalin certainly had objectionable personal attitudes and made moves that aren't defensible, the idea that this means Marxism is inherently antisemitic is again, laughable.

That is something one can read from Marx himself. Posterior practice, which did not end with Stalin, just confirmed it.

Especially when it comes to how Marxist governments ruled in practice. Again you're trying this absurd false claim that Marxism is antisemitic, and you're just wrong about it. Time to move on.

Oh really? So how do you explain the Jewish quota in higher education in the Soviet Union? It was imposed in the 1960s.

[Pants-of-dog]

Should I post the population stats again?

Nice copout there. Will you ever have a consistent standard?

Numbers matter because genocide is the destruction of a population, with the special intent to do so.

So according to you, Europeans never killed Jews or tried to since there were always Jews in Europe and no single attack ever killed more than a slim percentage of their population.

You are now denying the Holocaust too.

And no, that doesn't mean the IDF could kill as many non-combatants as it wants.

You seem to think they can.

The IDF would not be "deliberately targeting and killing the hostages" in that case. The IDF would be deliberately targeting and killing the hostage takers, in an attempt to rescue the hostages and defeat Hamas.

Any no, this isn't just a semantic difference.

I am not asking you that question.

I am asking you this question: Are you okay with the IDF deliberately targeting and killing the hostages in order to get at the hostage takers?

Yes or no?

[wat0n]

So according to you, Europeans never killed Jews or tried to since there were always Jews in Europe and no single attack ever killed more than a slim percentage of their population.

You are now denying the Holocaust too.

Now this doesn't make sense.

Do you want to compare population figures in each case?

You seem to think they can.

No, what I do think is that while it's regrettable, killing civilians while hitting a legitimate military target is not a crime.

I am not asking you that question.

I am asking you this question: Are you okay with the IDF deliberately targeting and killing the hostages in order to get at the hostage takers?

Yes or no?

This is illogical.

If the IDF was aiming to kill the hostage takers, it would be targeting them, not the hostages. The hostages who were killed or harmed would be collateral damage. And it would be tragic, but not criminal in my opinion.

The persons responsible would be first and foremost the hostage takers, not those attempting to rescue the hostages or at least kill the hostage takers.

Of course, one would ideally prefer to end this through a negotiation. But I would not be for giving anything and everything the hostage takers want for the sake of rescuing the kidnapped victims. Doing so would undoubtedly encourage new kidnappings be they done by Hamas or someone else (e.g. Hezbollah).

[ingliz]

You love talking about what you think my personal feelings are.

It's the old 'You're hysterical, so we can ignore you' non-argument.

The feminine/emotional : masculine/logical thing.

The 'You're a big girl's blouse' bollocks.

[wat0n]

Well, @ingliz, @Pants-of-dog started to get into that feels talk.

Now, if we get into looking at the facts, they don't really support many of those claims.

I have other criticisms to make about Israel's conduct in this war, particularly that Israel could participate in relief operations (airdrops) directly and just circumvent the whole border operations crap that delays aid and (worse) makes it more likely it will be appropriated by Hamas. But I am fully aware that after the massacre, Hamas had to be toppled, that toppling Hamas is necessary to restart the peace process and that doing so would take a heavy human cost for Gazans regardless of how much Israel would try to minimize civilian casualties. And yes, the toppling of Hamas is completely justified.

Also, the IDF just announced some hours ago that it destroyed Hamas' military infrastructure in northern Gaza (Gaza City and its immediate environs) so I also think Israel should start preparing to allow the return of its residents and to let Gazans from other parts of the strip in (and I think it will, but won't happen overnight - even though it's not easy as far as the logistics and security goes, there's objectively an overall military advantage for Israel if it manages to do so).

[Rich]

It is not genocide because Israeli actions are not aimed at destroying the Palestinian population.

Indeed intent was an essential part of the original motivation for the term. The invention of the special category of genocide had 3 main aims, that appealed to differing groups.

1 To make Jews the supreme victims and to morally distinguish their future, killing terrorisation and ethnic cleansing of Arabs.

2 To morally distinguish it from working to death slavery as practiced by the Soviet Union in the Siberian slave labour camps and as practiced by the United States and protected as a right by it Constitution at its founding. In the Deep South it made economic sense to work the slaves to death and bring in replacements, rather than attempt to sustain the workforce through reproduction. This is why the Atlantic Slave trade was guaranteed by the Constitution until 1808. This was to allow time for the Near south to ramp up its production or it farming of slaves, to provide to the deep south as a production input.

3 To morally distinguish it from the extermination bombing practiced by both the British Commonwealth and the United States in World War 2.

[ingliz]

@wat0n

If you look at the facts, Hamas has done a lot less terror-wise than Israel.

If you look at the facts, Israel is the terrorist, not Hamas.

If you look at the facts ...

[KurtFF8]

@wat0n

If you look at the facts, Hamas has done a lot less terror-wise than Israel.

If you look at the facts, Israel is the terrorist, not Hamas.

If you look at the facts ...

You may be joking but this is correct. Also people tend to ignore the fact that Israel has tons of Palestinians held hostage without any sort of charge.

What we're really talking about when it comes to freeing hostages is a hostage exchange or a prisoner exchange.