https://www.newsweek.com/holocaust-historian-israel-committing-genocide-raz-segal-1835346
"We're seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent," said Raz Segal, an Israeli historian.
Newsweek
!world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I mean, their current actions are tbh pretty justified.
Terrorising the civilian population makes them no better than Hamas, and that you seek to justify their brutality is quite telling.
They have 200 innocent kidnapped civilians. And I have yet to see the Israeli government officially target Palestinian people in their attacks, physical or verbal. All of their aggression is focused on Hamas.
Very few brutal oppressors officially target civilians. The notion that it's not official policy is the excuse of apologists for brutally oppressive regimes everywhere.
I legit don’t hear of any attacks Israel does without there being a Hamas HQ/Storehouse (and even when they’re a legit target, they alert people to evacuate beforehand…
Of course. Nobody is going to carry out an attack and go "of course we intended to murder innocent people, and knowingly committed war crimes", so that will always be the story. And given that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on the planet, you can randomly and indiscriminately attack and then retroactively find some excuse. That they keep ending up with dead civilians shows
Context. I agree about the Apartheid in some some parts (West Bank) but there’s so much nuance there that’s it’s hard to actually define as Apartheid - they’re not actual citizens and they have their own government (PA). Their government doesn’t do much, and they’re under Israeli power -
This is only hard to people who haven't bothered looking, and who are wildly unaware of the characteristics of apartheid.
This was exactly the point of the use of Bantustans in South Africa too: To try to write off responsibility by pretending that they had "independence", even though South African controlled essential aspects such as borders.
Ever heard of the "states" Transkei? KwaZulu? Ciskei? There were many more. They were "states" created in a way that allowed the South African regime to try to pretend that the suffering and oppression they forced on the population was not their fault, because they were nominally "independent". Many of the leaderships of these bantustans took on the role willingly - a means for personal power - some took up with some level of protest. E.g. Buthelezi, who led Inkatha and "ruled" KwaZulu refused to accept the pretend independence offered in part because the territory was inherently unviable.
What all of these "countries" had in common was that their bordered were unilaterally dictated by South Africa, and their level of territorial control was unilaterally dictated by South Africa, and so on, just like Israel has dictated the level of territorial control of the West Bank and Gaza and hollowed out whichever pieces they wanted. Many of the bantustans were used as excuses for "resettling" populations in supposed "homelands" and denying claims to other land the same way Palestinians have been systematically pushed into smaller and smaller areas and given some notional control over what is left.
but neither Israelis nor Palestinians consider Palestinians as Israelis - so naming it Apartheid is just not accurate. They’re just a different people.
KwaZulu was a "homeland" for the Zulu people. Ciskei and Transkei were "homelands" for the Xhosa people.
Ovamboland was a "homeland" for the Ovambo people in Namibia, so not even part of South Africa. Damaraland for the Damara people, also in Namibia. Hereroland for the Hereros, also in Namibia.
Like Israel, South Africa also occupied and controlled territories outside their own national boundaries where they, like Israel, unilaterally decided on borders for territories allowed to self govern.
So even if on were to accept your notion that the fact Palestinians and Israelis agree that they are not Israeli, there were still numerous Bantustans in the same situation: Populations that did not consider themselves part of either the same people or the same nation as South Africa, and which were still a core part of the bantustan system.
That you use this as an excuse for dismissing the accusation of Apartheid makes it clear you don't understand what Apartheid was. Because Apartheid was far more varied than "just" the headline racism and the most in-your-face segregation.
I suggest this article. It's old, but it's good particularly because one of the main people mentioned in the article, Arthur Goldreich, was a hero of the Apartheid struggle, a Jewish South African who helped hide Mandela. He was also a fighter in Palmach in the 1940's, fighting to make Israel a reality. After fleeing South African prison, he settled in Israel again in the 1960's. I'll quote a few paragraphs:
As it is, Goldreich sees Israel as closer to the white regime he fought against and modern South Africa as providing the model. Israeli governments, he says, ultimately proved more interested in territory than peace, and along the way Zionism mutated.
Goldreich speaks of the "bantustanism we see through a policy of occupation and separation", the "abhorrent" racism in Israeli society all the way up to cabinet ministers who advocate the forced removal of Arabs, and "the brutality and inhumanity of what is imposed on the people of the occupied territories of Palestine".
"Don't you find it horrendous that this people and this state, which only came into existence because of the defeat of fascism and nazism in Europe, and in the conflict six million Jews paid with their lives for no other reason than that they were Jews, is it not abhorrent that in this place there are people who can say these things and do these things?" he asks.
These are the words of someone who lived decades in South Africa under Apartheid, and then decades in Israel under Apartheid, and who fought against South Africa, and who fought for Israel. This was 2006. Things have gotten far worse since then.
Nobody denies what they’re doing - I just give them a break considering they’re fighting a war against an organization who benefits from civilian casualties (on both sides…).
This is actually worse. If you acknowledge what they're doing (despite your attempts to whitewash it above), then you're giving oppressors engaged in gross human rights abuses a break while not giving the oppressed civilian population who are also opposed to Hamas and of whom the vast majority are innocent a break.
They’re also not helped by “woke” distortion of reality which makes the Israeli people only support their right wing government more against the world who very verbosely stick their nose in a conflict thousands of kms away, taking the easy way out of supporting the underdog, no matter what that underdog is actually like.
"Your criticism forced us to align with far-right extremist mass murderers" is never a valid argument. Everyone should stick their noses in when a country keeps electing governments that commits crimes against humanity on a regular basis, just like people eventually did against South African apartheid. If "woke" now means "has basic human decency", then anyone who isn't woke is scum.
People used your argument to try to shield the South African apartheid regime against criticism too, and it was just as nasty apologism then as it is now.
taking the easy way out of supporting the underdog, no matter what that underdog is actually like.
Anyone who believes supporting Palestinians has been "the easy way" is either a child or have not paid attention to the political climate for support for Palestinians over a period of many decades. It's ahistorical and a nasty distortion.
Terrorising the civilian population makes them no better than Hamas
Do you know what terrorism even means when saying that? Israel isn't trying to incite fear (terror) in Palestinian lives, they do literally everything they can to fight in a region infested with (actual) terrorists (people wanting to incite terror in another group), which is really hard considering they hide among civilians.
Very few brutal oppressors officially target civilians
Well I certainly can't remember examples of such, and I legit don't feel like Israel's statements are racist towards a whole people. I don't know if it's apologistic or whatever, it's just a fact. I don't try to look for signs of stuff that aren't there. There are many arab/jewish settlements, and they live peacefully with one another. The only ones Israel is condemning are people who are after the country's demise. And I don't see that as oppression, it's legit.
you can randomly and indiscriminately attack and then retroactively find some excuse
Is that a fact they did or is it out of a tin foil hat? Palestinians ending up with dead civilians is a sad obvious fact of the nature of the land. Does anybody expect Israel to not respond to rockets launched on their civilian territories? And when Hamas hides their rocket launchers in cemeteries and residential buildings, yes, civilian infrastructure will be destroyed. But that's not on Israel, and asking them to stop their bombings of Hamas infrastructure because it's hidden between civilian one - is delusional, or is a support of Hamas activity.
About the apartheid part, again, I largely agree. West bank treatment is and should be condemned. But again, you have a bit of a different story here, where Israel is facing an aggressive leadership, which is capable and is actively supporting terrorist activity. Yes, it's an unfair treatment and should be condemned and shouldn't be excused. But at the same time Palestinian behavior should be condemned and not excused, as it is blatant terrorism, bombing busses and lynching civilians.
Everyone should stick their noses in when a country keeps electing governments that commit war crimes
How many people protest over Israel's actions vs Hamas's actions? How many people protest over north korea? Over
China? I agree right wing governments should be condemned but what Israel is getting is so much more than that. Heck, even Israel's neighbors are getting less shit for their much more blatant human rights abuses (much more blatant because it's against their own citizens + with no complex background like Israel).
And what I meant about supporting the Palestinian side being easier was about the public conversation and about the media coverage. Of course it's easier to take their side since the media is taking the side of the underdog - pretty much always. And in western civilized states, the media has influence on the people.
In general I don't think Israel is in the clear at all. They funded Hamas's rule, ignoring their extremist nature for years, only acting now when it's too late to do anything peacefully. They're very much a part of why there's no peace, but they're not as much a part of why civilians are killed. Murder comes to Israel, not from Israel. I just blame in part the rest of the "united" arab world, for always condemning Israel's actions yet, a) doing peace treaties with them, allowing them to keep their wrongdoings. And b) not actually doing anything to support their arab brothers in Palestine. Sending empty words of solidarity isn't helping poor civilians. Keeping all the blame on Israel for an unsolvable situation is just wrong and doesn't help anyone.