Israel supported Hamas? Who 'wants peace'? “Hamas wants to destroy Israel, right? But as Mehdi Hasan shows in a new video on blowback, Israeli officials admit they helped start the group.”?
The way you receive accusations of antisemitism (however ridiculous) is probably pretty close to how the median Israeli receives the accusation of genocide (for what they see as commensurate if vigorous self-defence).
If the point is to improve the plight of Palestinians, there are only two solutions: a convincing military defeat of Israel to force them to behave, which nobody has appetite for given the nukes (and cost...); or patiently trying to convince the middle of Israeli society that they're overdoing the self-defence, and that it's in their own interest to change tactic.
Israelis are frightened, surrounded by enemies, and entangled in impossible historical debt. They lose one war, they are dead (either literally, or at least in the state of Israel disappearing). Outsiders say: "give being nice a chance". It's cheap: for the outsiders, if Israelis do that, the horrors shown in the feed will stop in the following months, and problem solved: no more disturbing clips on their screens! For Israelis, maybe being nice works out, or maybe the next generation of Sinwars use the occasion to plan some revenge or other. Unlike outsiders, if Israelis get it wrong, they die. So understandably, they're shy about it.
In your piece titled “Holocaust”, the paragraphs above the image are a critique of the actions taken by the current government of the State of Israel. That section of the article is a criticism of a small number of people and not, in principle, antisemitic.
In the two paragraphs below the image, the piece changes tack completely. It introduces definitions of the word “holocaust” and makes a refence to the Nazi holocaust against Jews. I know what came into my mind when I read those two paragraphs juxtaposed with the earlier material. But I do not know if my thoughts were shared by others. Still less do I know whether my thoughts matched your intentions. I invite you to consider this question: What did you expect that readers would think that you meant by those two paragraphs? (I pose that question in the same spirit as the opening paragraph of the comment by Yasser Schwarzenberg.)
Moving on to the next paragraph (the final paragraph in the “Holocaust” piece), you introduce a third definition of holocaust (“Mass slaughter of humans … simply for being the wrong sort of human”). You had just asserted, the right to use the word “holocaust” to describe events in Gaza on the grounds that those events involve mass death and fire, but now you invoke the word “holocaust” in the modern sense whereby it connotes a racial element to the killings. You may think the case has been made out, but you haven’t made that case in your article (see my next paragraph). Your article got there only by way of a bait and switch in the language, viz (paraphrasing): “It’s OK to call it a ‘holocaust’ because the original meaning of the word isn’t a racist one; but now that I’m using the word, let’s all remember that holocausts are generally racist.”
I think there is a distinction that must be drawn between (i) a State which causes the death of civilians of its own country and those of countries in which it has taken control, such as the mass extermination of Jews and other races by the Nazis and (ii) one State which is at war with another State, causing the death of some of its opponent’s civilians during the course of that war, such as the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and even the British bombing of Dresden (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51448486). No matter how much one might condemn my category (ii), especially once the war is over and a debate begins over whether victory could have been achieved without those additional deaths, there is at the very least an argument that it was the aggression that contributed to the war ending without even more deaths.
With the war in Gaza still going on, does anyone know what it will take to end it?
What comes in to your mind when you read a piece says more about your own priors than it does about the meaning of the piece. I invite you to read the piece more objectively and think about what it is saying.
"Mass slaugher of humans...simply for being the wrong sort of human" is not a third definition of "holocaust", it is a qualified version of the standard dictionary definition. If you would care to look up the other holocausts I cited, you will find that they were (and are) racist.
I would argue that holocausts are indeed generally racist, and the holocaust in Gaza is no exception. We should recall that the reasons why 2.3 million people are crammed into such a tiny strip of land are firstly Israel's expulsion of Palestinians from 1948 through the 1950s and again in 1967, and secondly the strict control Israel has exercised (with Egypt) over the movement of people in and out of the strip for at least the last 20 years. The expulsion of non-Jewish Palestinians to make way for Jews was entirely racist, and the repressive regime Israel maintains over Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank is also racist. In its opinion of July 2024, the ICJ said Israel's regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territories violates Article 3 of CERD, which states:
"States parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction."
I do not defend the crimes committed on Oct 7th, but to say the attacks were simply driven by irrational hatred of Jews is to ignore the previous 76 years of racist brutality, repression and ethnic cleansing. And to say the holocaust inflicted in response is not racist is to defy reality. Getting rid of Gazan Palestinians is the Israeli government's stated policy.
You imply that Israel is at war with another State, not massacring a people under occupation. I'm afraid this is a category error. Israel denies the existence of a State of Palestine. It is not possible for a State to be at war with a State whose existence it denies. Israel claims to be at war with Hamas, which is a non-state actor.
The ICJ says that because of the degree of control Israel exercised over Gaza, the territory was under occupation prior to Oct 7th 2023. Israel is therefore massacring civilians of a country in which it has taken control. I must also remind you that even before Oct 7th Israel was killing hundreds of civilians in the West Bank. There is no serious dispute that this is a territory under occupation.
You imply that mass slaughter of civilians in a war against another State is excusable if it ends the war "without even more deaths". No it is not. Under current international law, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Dresden were war crimes and crimes against humanity. None was remotely justified by military aims. All meet the standard dictionary definition of the word "holocaust".
I accept that, in my penultimate paragraph, I should have used a phrase like "governing authority", rather than "State", as the generic term which could refer to both the Israeli Government and Hamas. But, subject to that, I stand by the point of that paragraph which was to distinguish between (amongst others) the Nazi Holocaust and the bombing of Dresden.
The rest of your comment puts words into my mouth that I did not state. For example, you assert that I "imply that mass slaughter of civilians in a war against another State is excusable ..." I actually wrote: "No matter how much one might condemn [it]".
At another point in your reply, you wrote "to say the attacks were simply driven by irrational hatred of Jews ..." But I didn't say that. I didn’t write anything at all about the attacks of Oct 7th.
You concluded the main article itself by asking your readers “to judge for yourselves. Please read my holocaust post, and tell me what you think.” I did exactly that and you respond by saying "What comes into your mind when you read a piece says more about your own priors than it does about the meaning of the piece." In fact, as you know, I reflected for more than 36 hours between the time when I read your article (and emailed you privately to say that the Comments facility wasn’t yet open) and the time when I wrote my carefully considered reply.
Saying "I know what came into my mind" without telling me what came into your mind was hardly commenting in good faith. I am not a mind reader. I have no idea what your thoughts were, nor what the thoughts of others were. You alleged something without saying what it was. That is exactly what the critic that is the subject of my other post did. He alleged antisemitism without saying it. You appear to have done the same.
You also accused me of a "bait and switch" because I qualified the dictionary definition of "holocaust" by reference to the generally racist nature of holocausts. I expect people who comment on my posts to refrain from such ad hominem remarks. By all means disagree with me, but don't cast aspersions on my motives.
Now to the substance of your comment.
1. You did in fact attempt to justify the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Dresden:
"...there is at the very least an argument that it was the aggression that contributed to the war ending without even more deaths."
This implies that concentrated mass slaughter of civilians is justifiable as a means of ending a war. No it is not. It cannot ever be justifiable. If it were, then the Holocaust would have been justifiable if the Nazis had won. The Nazis explicitly said they regarded themselves as at war with the Jews - a war which they claimed the Jews started - and the "final solution" was a means of ending the war. Your argument amounts to saying it is fine for the winners of a war to wipe out entire populations but not for the losers. That is hardly justifiable, is it?
2. It is disingenuous in the extreme to say "I didn't write anything about the attacks of Oct 7th". The attacks underlie your claim that Israel is fighting a war against another state, or as you have now decided to call it, a "governing authority". Furthermore, your argument is that this war is just, because if it were not, using mass slaughter of civilians to bring it to an end would be nothing more than mass murder. In effect you argue that just as the atrocities committed by the Allies were justified because they ended the Holocaust, so the atrocities committed by Israel are justified because they will end Palestinian aggression against Jews. Leaving aside the invidious nature of such a comparision, this implies that Palestinian aggression against Jews, like that of the Nazis, is driven solely by antisemitism, not by justifiable anger at 76 years of dispossession and brutal repression.
3. Fighting a war against a "governing authority" does not excuse mass slaughter of civilians, especially when that governing authority was not elected by a majority of those civilians and itself acts as a repressive dictatorship. Collective punishment is a war crime.
4. You completely ignored my observation that the ICJ found Gaza to be under occupation at the time of Oct 7th. I can only think this is because you want to believe that this really is a just war, and not merely mass slaughter of an inconvenient and belligerent occupied population.
I said I wouldn't trouble you again, but I feel that I must. I absolutely do NOT think that your piece was antisemitic. I was trying to explain why the words you used, and the way that you used them, might have led some people (mistakenly) to think that your comments were that way inclined. Clearly, I failed dismally. But the fact that you now believe I told you that I think the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were all justified when I actually expressed the view that it was a complex issue with arguments on both sides (ditto the war in Gaza) shows how easy it is for ideas to be misunderstood. I hope this will reassure you enough to bring this exchange to an end.
Israel supported Hamas? Who 'wants peace'? “Hamas wants to destroy Israel, right? But as Mehdi Hasan shows in a new video on blowback, Israeli officials admit they helped start the group.”?
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/
https://x.com/Mauerback/status/1715685270761205918?s=20
“October 7 Was An Inside Job - documentary (2024) by John Hankey #RealHistoryChannel”?
https://rumble.com/v4nn39k-october-7-was-an-inside-job-documentary-2024-by-john-hankey-realhistorychan.html?ysclid=m5y9zyld9m961523746
The way you receive accusations of antisemitism (however ridiculous) is probably pretty close to how the median Israeli receives the accusation of genocide (for what they see as commensurate if vigorous self-defence).
If the point is to improve the plight of Palestinians, there are only two solutions: a convincing military defeat of Israel to force them to behave, which nobody has appetite for given the nukes (and cost...); or patiently trying to convince the middle of Israeli society that they're overdoing the self-defence, and that it's in their own interest to change tactic.
Israelis are frightened, surrounded by enemies, and entangled in impossible historical debt. They lose one war, they are dead (either literally, or at least in the state of Israel disappearing). Outsiders say: "give being nice a chance". It's cheap: for the outsiders, if Israelis do that, the horrors shown in the feed will stop in the following months, and problem solved: no more disturbing clips on their screens! For Israelis, maybe being nice works out, or maybe the next generation of Sinwars use the occasion to plan some revenge or other. Unlike outsiders, if Israelis get it wrong, they die. So understandably, they're shy about it.
In your piece titled “Holocaust”, the paragraphs above the image are a critique of the actions taken by the current government of the State of Israel. That section of the article is a criticism of a small number of people and not, in principle, antisemitic.
In the two paragraphs below the image, the piece changes tack completely. It introduces definitions of the word “holocaust” and makes a refence to the Nazi holocaust against Jews. I know what came into my mind when I read those two paragraphs juxtaposed with the earlier material. But I do not know if my thoughts were shared by others. Still less do I know whether my thoughts matched your intentions. I invite you to consider this question: What did you expect that readers would think that you meant by those two paragraphs? (I pose that question in the same spirit as the opening paragraph of the comment by Yasser Schwarzenberg.)
Moving on to the next paragraph (the final paragraph in the “Holocaust” piece), you introduce a third definition of holocaust (“Mass slaughter of humans … simply for being the wrong sort of human”). You had just asserted, the right to use the word “holocaust” to describe events in Gaza on the grounds that those events involve mass death and fire, but now you invoke the word “holocaust” in the modern sense whereby it connotes a racial element to the killings. You may think the case has been made out, but you haven’t made that case in your article (see my next paragraph). Your article got there only by way of a bait and switch in the language, viz (paraphrasing): “It’s OK to call it a ‘holocaust’ because the original meaning of the word isn’t a racist one; but now that I’m using the word, let’s all remember that holocausts are generally racist.”
I think there is a distinction that must be drawn between (i) a State which causes the death of civilians of its own country and those of countries in which it has taken control, such as the mass extermination of Jews and other races by the Nazis and (ii) one State which is at war with another State, causing the death of some of its opponent’s civilians during the course of that war, such as the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and even the British bombing of Dresden (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51448486). No matter how much one might condemn my category (ii), especially once the war is over and a debate begins over whether victory could have been achieved without those additional deaths, there is at the very least an argument that it was the aggression that contributed to the war ending without even more deaths.
With the war in Gaza still going on, does anyone know what it will take to end it?
What comes in to your mind when you read a piece says more about your own priors than it does about the meaning of the piece. I invite you to read the piece more objectively and think about what it is saying.
"Mass slaugher of humans...simply for being the wrong sort of human" is not a third definition of "holocaust", it is a qualified version of the standard dictionary definition. If you would care to look up the other holocausts I cited, you will find that they were (and are) racist.
I would argue that holocausts are indeed generally racist, and the holocaust in Gaza is no exception. We should recall that the reasons why 2.3 million people are crammed into such a tiny strip of land are firstly Israel's expulsion of Palestinians from 1948 through the 1950s and again in 1967, and secondly the strict control Israel has exercised (with Egypt) over the movement of people in and out of the strip for at least the last 20 years. The expulsion of non-Jewish Palestinians to make way for Jews was entirely racist, and the repressive regime Israel maintains over Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank is also racist. In its opinion of July 2024, the ICJ said Israel's regime in the Occupied Palestinian Territories violates Article 3 of CERD, which states:
"States parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction."
I do not defend the crimes committed on Oct 7th, but to say the attacks were simply driven by irrational hatred of Jews is to ignore the previous 76 years of racist brutality, repression and ethnic cleansing. And to say the holocaust inflicted in response is not racist is to defy reality. Getting rid of Gazan Palestinians is the Israeli government's stated policy.
You imply that Israel is at war with another State, not massacring a people under occupation. I'm afraid this is a category error. Israel denies the existence of a State of Palestine. It is not possible for a State to be at war with a State whose existence it denies. Israel claims to be at war with Hamas, which is a non-state actor.
The ICJ says that because of the degree of control Israel exercised over Gaza, the territory was under occupation prior to Oct 7th 2023. Israel is therefore massacring civilians of a country in which it has taken control. I must also remind you that even before Oct 7th Israel was killing hundreds of civilians in the West Bank. There is no serious dispute that this is a territory under occupation.
You imply that mass slaughter of civilians in a war against another State is excusable if it ends the war "without even more deaths". No it is not. Under current international law, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Dresden were war crimes and crimes against humanity. None was remotely justified by military aims. All meet the standard dictionary definition of the word "holocaust".
I accept that, in my penultimate paragraph, I should have used a phrase like "governing authority", rather than "State", as the generic term which could refer to both the Israeli Government and Hamas. But, subject to that, I stand by the point of that paragraph which was to distinguish between (amongst others) the Nazi Holocaust and the bombing of Dresden.
The rest of your comment puts words into my mouth that I did not state. For example, you assert that I "imply that mass slaughter of civilians in a war against another State is excusable ..." I actually wrote: "No matter how much one might condemn [it]".
At another point in your reply, you wrote "to say the attacks were simply driven by irrational hatred of Jews ..." But I didn't say that. I didn’t write anything at all about the attacks of Oct 7th.
You concluded the main article itself by asking your readers “to judge for yourselves. Please read my holocaust post, and tell me what you think.” I did exactly that and you respond by saying "What comes into your mind when you read a piece says more about your own priors than it does about the meaning of the piece." In fact, as you know, I reflected for more than 36 hours between the time when I read your article (and emailed you privately to say that the Comments facility wasn’t yet open) and the time when I wrote my carefully considered reply.
I’m sorry I replied. I won’t trouble you again.
Saying "I know what came into my mind" without telling me what came into your mind was hardly commenting in good faith. I am not a mind reader. I have no idea what your thoughts were, nor what the thoughts of others were. You alleged something without saying what it was. That is exactly what the critic that is the subject of my other post did. He alleged antisemitism without saying it. You appear to have done the same.
You also accused me of a "bait and switch" because I qualified the dictionary definition of "holocaust" by reference to the generally racist nature of holocausts. I expect people who comment on my posts to refrain from such ad hominem remarks. By all means disagree with me, but don't cast aspersions on my motives.
Now to the substance of your comment.
1. You did in fact attempt to justify the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of Dresden:
"...there is at the very least an argument that it was the aggression that contributed to the war ending without even more deaths."
This implies that concentrated mass slaughter of civilians is justifiable as a means of ending a war. No it is not. It cannot ever be justifiable. If it were, then the Holocaust would have been justifiable if the Nazis had won. The Nazis explicitly said they regarded themselves as at war with the Jews - a war which they claimed the Jews started - and the "final solution" was a means of ending the war. Your argument amounts to saying it is fine for the winners of a war to wipe out entire populations but not for the losers. That is hardly justifiable, is it?
2. It is disingenuous in the extreme to say "I didn't write anything about the attacks of Oct 7th". The attacks underlie your claim that Israel is fighting a war against another state, or as you have now decided to call it, a "governing authority". Furthermore, your argument is that this war is just, because if it were not, using mass slaughter of civilians to bring it to an end would be nothing more than mass murder. In effect you argue that just as the atrocities committed by the Allies were justified because they ended the Holocaust, so the atrocities committed by Israel are justified because they will end Palestinian aggression against Jews. Leaving aside the invidious nature of such a comparision, this implies that Palestinian aggression against Jews, like that of the Nazis, is driven solely by antisemitism, not by justifiable anger at 76 years of dispossession and brutal repression.
3. Fighting a war against a "governing authority" does not excuse mass slaughter of civilians, especially when that governing authority was not elected by a majority of those civilians and itself acts as a repressive dictatorship. Collective punishment is a war crime.
4. You completely ignored my observation that the ICJ found Gaza to be under occupation at the time of Oct 7th. I can only think this is because you want to believe that this really is a just war, and not merely mass slaughter of an inconvenient and belligerent occupied population.
I said I wouldn't trouble you again, but I feel that I must. I absolutely do NOT think that your piece was antisemitic. I was trying to explain why the words you used, and the way that you used them, might have led some people (mistakenly) to think that your comments were that way inclined. Clearly, I failed dismally. But the fact that you now believe I told you that I think the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were all justified when I actually expressed the view that it was a complex issue with arguments on both sides (ditto the war in Gaza) shows how easy it is for ideas to be misunderstood. I hope this will reassure you enough to bring this exchange to an end.
The victim has turned into the next perpetrator. It is visible for everybody except the israelis themselves.