https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/12/07/one-in-five-young-americans-thinks-the-holocaust-is-a-myth

Cheers, I actually found the document pretty quickly here

That is wild my dude. Absolutely wild. Quite wild also, that its nearly double the number of Dems v Cons. It has never, across three continents, been my experience that it's a 'left wing' position to either take a-historical positions, or to be anti-Jewish (i don't say anti-Semitic as this could, conceivably, be a result of bad education or indoctrination rather than some ethnic axe grinding exercise - but, that's optimistic).

Though, I also note, its significantly more Black and Hispanic Americans. Could there be something going on there? Stats demand weird questions...

But I think the rubicon has been crossed when it comes to terrorist action. — Punshhh

Ummm.... just who has crossed the Rubicon? Or have both crossed the Rubicon? :shade:

South Africa would have gotten for it's case more examples for it's case, had it made it's case after the past Sunday Settler meeting with the banner “Settlement Brings Security in Victory”, which was accompanied by twelve Israeli ministers.

(Democracy Now! Jan 31st 2024) This event was significant because thousands of people took part in it in West Jerusalem. They gathered in a big hall. I could say half of the participants were youth or college students. And you had mostly religious right-wing settlers.

There at the entrance, you had a big map, a huge map, showing the different settlements they plan to establish in the Gaza Strip, some of them literally on top of Palestinian villages and towns that exist and, of course, unfortunately, were destroyed by the Israeli aggression in the recent months.

Inside the hall, we had speeches of, as you said, ministers, parliament members. Four out of five of the — representatives of four out of five of the parties that are in the coalition of Netanyahu’s government were there, 11 ministers and 15 parliament members, so a big support from the government, and also settlers’ leaders and activists.

For me, personally, the most shocking thing was not only the plan to establish the settlements, but the fact that people there were dancing and singing, being happy and joyful. And this is important to understand that in the Israeli public atmosphere, this is something you barely see since the attack of 7 of October. You don’t see public events where people are joyful, not because, you know, most of the Israeli public ignore the horrific reality in Gaza, but because of the war, because of the attack of 7th of October, because Israeli soldiers are being killed every day in the war. You don’t see many of those events. And it shocked even mainstream Israelis to see ministers and people who take those decisions regarding the war dancing, was very shocking for many people. And I think this is because while the vast or big parts of the Israeli public is still in shock, the settler movement see this war as an opportunity to expand their plans to settle in Gaza.

Oren Ziv continues:

One could think that after ministers and the prime minister himself were quoted in the South African appeal to the court — this were the evidence, actually, what the Israeli politician, the genocidal discourse they were promoting in the beginning of the war — one could think they will be a bit more careful. But the opposite. This was not — it’s important to mention this was not only a conference talking about settling in Gaza. It was very clear, and most of the speakers talked about what they call is the encouraging immigration or forcing people from Gaza. So it’s very clear that the settlement movement is on the account of the residents of Gaza.

Daniella Weiss, one of the settlers’ leader who was leading the conference, when we asked her, “What would happen to the Palestinians if your plans come true?” she said, “They would leave. They would have to leave. We don’t give them food. We don’t give them water.” She was talking about the siege. And she said, “They would leave. They would have to spread around the world.” Also, Minister Ben-Gvir, who was a bit more careful in his language, said, “We have to encourage immigration from Gaza.” So this was a consensus in the conference.

Interestingly, even the German media (which usually is quite pro-Israeli) picked on this:



I think that @Benkei starts to be correct: there is really an urge for ethnic cleansing here. It's not anymore an emotional outburst after the horrors of October 7th. Even if there are Israelis that are against this, they aren't in control. Those dreaming of ethnic cleansing are in control.

This has been my point for nearly a decade because of what Likud stands for and Herut before that. This is just accelerating due to the 7 October attack and now obvious but it's been the game plan for them for decades now. A slow genocide is still a genocide.

Those dreaming of ethnic cleansing are in control. — ssu

I thought this was given - it's just also assumed that Netanyahu is representative of a religious right-wing, and not Israel in general.

Apparently, that doesn't apply to Palestinians, in any case though, so ... oh well.

Ummm.... just who has crossed the Rubicon? Or have both crossed the Rubicon? :shade:

I mean Israel has now crossed the Rubicon. In the future even if they are able to have good relations with their neighbours, they will always be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Because their action will spawn many anti-Israel terrorists.

This has been my point for nearly a decade because of what Likud stands for and Herut before that. This is just accelerating due to the 7 October attack and now obvious but it's been the game plan for them for decades now. — Benkei

It's telling how Israel has changed.

When you have a perpetual low-intensity war for decades that isn't fought somewhere away, this is the end result, I guess. The settler movement naturally is as old (and actually older) than the state of Israel, however the stances and rhetoric have hardened to such level that it's very worrisome. Or at least, it's totally acceptable now to say them in public. Israel is still a democracy in the way Apartheid Sou th Africa was a democracy for the whites, but the perpetual war has changed it.

Why Netanyahu and the right have been so successful comes basically also down to the US. Having lived for a long time in the US, Bibi is understands the US and knows how to speak to the American audience. In this way he is different from the earlier Israeli politicians.

Why the US has changed to being totally loyal and obedient to Israel without making any actual criticism is because of the Evangelist support of Israel in the US. The Jewish-American support wouldn't do this as there are only seven million or so Jewish Americans. Besides, many of the Jewish-Americans can be critical of the politics playing out in Israel, just like Israelis can be. But for the millions of Evangelists supporting Israel is an issue of faith, not about foreign policy in any traditional sense. Hence total devotion to everything that Bibi wants. The rest happens because of the US political system: if a lobby gets a powerful position in US politics, American politicians will bow to the lobby and take on their agenda fearing the votes they would lose in doing otherwise.

I mean Israel has now crossed the Rubicon. In the future even if they are able to have good relations with their neighbours, they will always be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Because their action will spawn many anti-Israel terrorists. — Punshhh

Yes. I would add that this is the result when both sides, actually, approach the issue really from a religious position with religious determination. For Hamas the Palestinians killed are martyrs, for the religious right in Israel this war is an opportunity, which you can celebrate by dancing.



Politics going back to the 1930's... at least in a way it rhymes.

Apparently, that doesn't apply to Palestinians, in any case though, so ... oh well. — AmadeusD

Ability to do something is important also. And naturally with the Palestinians, the PA has been quite well sidelined and the message hammered to the Palestinians that they are going to be pushed out (in Gaza now, but perhaps in the West Bank later too), so only way is to fight.

As I've said, the religious zealots are in control on both sides, even if not all from both sides are religious zealots.

the ethnic cleansing is being carried out and endorsed by Western forces who are bound by human rights protocols and live by, or so they proclaim the morality of free and fair societies — Punshhh

That’s a problem indeed. But this problem may also depend on some implicit assumptions that mislead our understanding of the problem itself. For example: what makes us think that there is a practical contradiction (i.e. what one claims to do or be committed to do does not correspond to what one is actually doing) between state X sponsoring and proclaiming commitment to human rights, free and fair society, and military/economically/diplomatically support another state Y which is widely perceived of pursuing ethnic cleansing and committing war crimes, even inside state X and state Y? There would be a practical contradiction , for example if we assume that “sponsoring and proclaiming commitment to human rights, free and fair society” broadly logically implies an unconditional commitment wrt any other population of any other state in all circumstances. Indeed, if one state acted in a way that does not correspond to “an unconditional commitment wrt any other population of any other state in all circumstances” then one can logically infer that it would practically contradict also the engagement expressed by “sponsoring and proclaiming commitment to human rights, free and fair society”.
However I find this assumption rather implausible for historical and geopolitical reasons, and even paradoxical if this claim is meant to imply that sovereign states should sacrifice their right to self-defence for humanitarian reasons.
Concerning historical reasons, the violent nature of nation-state formation practically in the entire world history should discourage optimism over pacific conflict resolutions over nation-state formations.
Concerning the geopolitical reasons, the international order (including the international agreements and institutions) is grounded on sovereign states’ consensus and power relations. The problem is that political imperative for sovereign nation-states is ideally to pursue their national interest even at the expense of other foreign people and sovereign states, even more so if they feel threatened by people perceived as hostile and which are not even recognized as part of a sovereign state. So I would find much more reasonable to take commitments for humanitarian reasons as very much conditional on national interests imperatives and power relations, which doesn’t exclude margins of cooperation if national interests converge enough. That said, I can also understand that it may be more convenient to present such commitments in the best light possible for “physiological” soft-power or propaganda needs. Yet this choice has reputational risks/costs attached to it, which sovereign states may seriously need to take into account (but struggle/fail to do it successfully, of course).

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/874592

If the Netanyahu regime walks like 'genocide / ethnic cleansing propagandized as self-defense' and talks like 'genocide / ethnic cleansing propaganized as self-defense' – while they mass murder tens of thousands (to date) and have mass displaced (via e.g. domicide) over two million Palestinian noncombatants – then, as a US court has recently found (separately from the ICJ's interim report), maybe... :chin:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/genocide-gaza-israel-california-court

@BitconnectCarlos @RogueAI @schopenhauer1 @tim wood et al

You're just biased and the guardian is a leftist rag.

Blame Hamas for militarizing schools, homes and hospitals and endangering their population. There was no need for destruction to be this widespread, but when an enemy does not wear a uniform and militarizes their entire population neutralizes comes at a cost. Hamas commits constant war crimes and indiscriminately murders, while Israel allows in aid and takes comprehensive steps to minimize casualties.

https://amnesty.org.nz/unlawful-israeli-strikes-kill-civilians

Just going to leave this here to stoke discussion.

I don't take either side's claims (akin to BitconnectCarlos' take there) seriously, but i'm seeing far less vivacious posting around Israel's war crimes.

Bibi's policy of supporting Hamas since 2004 has been expressly to sabotage any "Two State Solution" by keeping the Palestinian population divided between the secular PLA in the West Bank that accepts 'Israel's right to exist' and a religious extremist militia in Gaza that strives to destroy Israel. Netanyahu & co have spent decades creating their own excuses, or pretexts, for systematically massacring and eventually driving the Palestinian population out of Palestinian lands. Lebensraum / Manifest Destiny aka "Greater Israel" policy! What the Irgun & co started in 1947-49, Bibi's Zion-über-alles regime is bloodthirstily hellbent on finishing in 2023-2025.

↪180 Proof You're just biased and the guardian is a leftist rag. — Benkei

You're damn right, comrade! :mask:

Still making excuses for the inexcusable and victim blaming at the same time. Classy.

Still shrugging off the intentional murder, kidnapping and rape of innocents because they happened to be born Israeli as "resistance against Israel" while palestinian victims are the greatest tragedy known to humanity? Classy.

The PLA and Hamas are roughly of equal shittiness. The PLA has a martyrs fund that pays out funds to the families of those who kill Israelis. I don't hate the strategy of playing the two against each other. Both strive to destroy Israel.

Funny how you keep insisting on that interpretation. What does that say about you?

Edit: edited your comment after my reply. Also classy.

Addendum to.... — 180 Proof

1 Feb. 2024. Are all the hostages either returned or accounted for? Has Hamas surrendered them, or the Palestinians insisted their government return them? Have the people responsible for atrocities on 7 Oct. surrendered or been apprehended? The answers to these and like questions is just a string of nos. But you have tender feelings for the murderers and rapists of 7 Oct. and the people who support them. So tender in fact one is obliged to consider unsavory conclusions about you yourself. I'm thinking Hamas and the Palestinians can stop the war almost immediately - but it appears they do not want it to stop. And the Israelis cannot reasonably just stop it by themselves short of achieving at least some of their expressed goals, and certainly gaining the release and return of hostages.

And I am unaware of the neighbors telling Hamas to return the hostages and do whatever else it takes to stop the war. Have they?

In Henry V., Exeter presses Henry's claim to the French Crown to the King of France

"EXETER
Bloody constraint, for if you hide the crown
Even in your hearts, there will he rake for it."

And it seems to me the Israeli claim for the well-being and return of the hostages is even more valid, and they may very well "rake" for them.

Or in short, it seems both odd and suspicious that the Israelis having been outraged should be called upon to stop when the offence still stands.

And it seems to me the Israeli claim for the well-being and return of the hostages is even more valid, and they may very well "rake" for them.

They’ll be raking for them in the soil, for that is all that will be left of Gaza.

But I guess it's convenient to portray Israel as the little guy facing off a huge powerful menace. — ssu

It very well can be; it depends on the scale. Are we talking just the IDF vs Hamas? Then obviously no. But what if it's Israel versus the muslim world/those who strive to spread Islam? Then it does start to look a bit like that.

Israel's survival should not be taken as a given. Jews know very well that the unthinkable can happen and the world will very much let it happen. Israel as a state is still a baby.

Regarding anti-semitism, the scale of it is shocking if you look at the stats. Cultural factors have me worried as well. Jews are the canary in the coal mine.

Israel's survival should not be taken as a given. Jews know very well that the unthinkable can happen [...] — BitconnectCarlos

This is certainly true, and Israel is doing just about everything it can to boycot it's own long-term prospects of peace and prosperity through its constant belligerence.

The problem is that during the last half century Israel has felt it could get away with anything due to Uncle Sam's unconditional support.

Religious ultranationalists (represented by Likud, for example) have foolishly attempted to seize this as an opportunity to turn Israel into a strictly Jewish nation state by force, despite the obvious problem of millions of non-Jews living on the territory it calls its own.

Furthermore, it has concluded that in order for that strictly Jewish state to survive, it must become the dominant player in the region and therefore cannot allow any other powerful states to spring up in the region.


They have evidently failed on both accounts, yet still they continue to double down on stupid by not using the little time Israel has left to find some form of rapprochement in the region.

Worse still, in their boundless arrogance Israel and the United States undermine the international rule of law, which is the very thing that could provide some protection to Israel when the tables are turned.


It's like watching someone jump off a cliff in slow motion.

[...] and the world will very much let it happen. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure at the end of the day many a victim card will be played, but how long hasn't the world been spurring Israel on to find solutions, and how many times has Israel refused?

One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.

I don't like the clickbait title but Hajo Meyer was a respected Dutch Jewish physicist.

It very well can be; it depends on the scale. Are we talking just the IDF vs Hamas? Then obviously no. But what if it's Israel versus the muslim world/those who strive to spread Islam? Then it does start to look a bit like that. — BitconnectCarlos

So what's your argument for the reason of Indonesia and Malesia wanting to attack Israel? :snicker:

Israel's survival should not be taken as a given. — BitconnectCarlos

Survival of the Palestinians in Gaza shouldn't be taken as a given!

Israel is far more powerful than any of it's neighbors and it has nuclear weapons which they don't have. And then it has the obedient and totally loyal backing of the sole Superpower. Just what country wants to start a war with the US? (Which btw. has given weapons and assistance both to Egypt and Saudi-Arabia etc.) European countries don't want to irritate the US, for which Israel is close to heart, hence the silence about what is happening.

Ideas of the state of Israel being on being possibly wiped off are in truth quite delusional and basically a desperate way to give some reasoning just how the current Israel administration is handling the situation now. The last time Israel faced truly the possibility of being wiped off the map was during the 1948 war. Even the name of the Six Day War tells how this wasn't a war that could end up with Israel being wiped off the map, so crushing was the defeat for the Arabs.

Regarding anti-semitism, the scale of it is shocking if you look at the stats. Cultural factors have me worried as well. Jews are the canary in the coal mine. — BitconnectCarlos

Personally I don't have anything against Jews or Israeli Jews. I've met few, they were very smart people and actually didn't like how politics were going in their country, but naturally were very patriotic. Yes, the truth is that those lunatics dancing around in meetings and purposing new settlements in Gaza with the "voluntary removal" of Palestinians won't create empathy for the Jewish cause.

Yes, it will also increase anti-semitism as there are those that are prone to hate all people of certain group for the actions of either governments or some people (like terrorists). Hatred of Russians is another perfect example of this. But many Russians here were shocked by what Putin had done when attacking Ukraine. Hence I'm not going to for example ban Russian restaurants... they don't have President Putin's photo or the orange-black colours or "Z" up on their walls.

And what "Canary in the coal mine" are you talking about?

I'm sure at the end of the day many a victim card will be played, but how long hasn't the world been spurring Israel on to find solutions, and how many times has Israel refused? — Tzeentch

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities.

Would your response be, "At least Israel did the right thing"? If so, do you think that is what the Israelis will be saying in that scenario, that "at least" they did the right thing? Their heads are purely for security of their state.

I think we can agree the rightwing (Likud, settler movement, etc.) is inappropriate politically for long term stability and good faith agreement for developing a Palestinian state. But the moderate stance for keeping the West Bank has always been security, and that is a tougher position to argue against because the Israelis would be gambling that Palestinians would indeed follow the rules and not try to take over the whole thing.. Which is very much what a majority of Palestinians would like. "Right of return" has always been the polite way to say it, but that could be done militarily or simply walk right in.

Now, I can of course devise various scenarios whereby both sides follow a multilateral set of procedures in various milestones, etc. And indeed, that would take an international coalition of watchdogs constantly on the ground. Israel would have to give up sovergnty and Palestinians would have to be allowed to be controlled also by foreign entities, something both sides may not agree with. Perhaps with Arab neighbors that would help.

Palestine as a cause is really a cause from 1964 on. After the Arab states and Iran (artificially created by England and France), had failed in the military campaigns by 1973 (and throughout the 80s in Lebanon and Syria), they essentially gave up caring much about Palestinians other than they were a good way to rally their own people against a common enemy. It could be argued that if these states had won early on, they would have simply annexed various parts of Palestine into "greater" Syria/Jordan/Egypt, etc. Anyways, my point is that these Arab states have long ago given that prospect up, and it is in their interest to have a stable Middle East now that they have basically given up the narrative that Israel is the great enemy. Only Iran and its allies are keeping that alive.

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities. — schopenhauer1

If a hypothetical future state of Palestine were to attack Israel, then Israel could rightfully claim self-defense and if it were unable to protect itself call upon the international community to intervene on its behalf.


And I agree roughly with your post.

Whatever solution eventually is agreed upon, it would have to take place gradually and under supervision, and in dialogue with the rest of the region. As we've discussed, the most logical solution to my mind would not be a two-state, but a one-state solution: equal rights for all.

If a hypothetical future state of Palestine were to attack Israel, then Israel could rightfully claim self-defense and if it were unable to protect itself call upon the international community to intervene on its behalf. — Tzeentch

Yes, I get that from your vantage point. Israel doesn't want to even be put in that position in the first place, and that is understandable from their viewpoint.

And I agree roughly with your post.

Whatever solution eventually is agreed upon, it would have to take place gradually and under supervision, and in dialogue with the rest of the region. — Tzeentch

:up:

As we've discussed, the most logical solution to my mind would not be a two-state, but a one-state solution: equal rights for all. — Tzeentch

My Star Trek, sci-fi United States of the World part of me would be cool with that. However, in reality people's identities are important to them, and the old school 19th century view of "a nation for a state" or rather "a state for a nation", is still very strong in some regions. I get that though. If your group's identity has historically been erased throughout history, you will go at great lengths to preserve a part of the world to keep that identity. The Dutch enjoy their region, the English and Scottish enjoy theirs. Jews want to have a roughly "Jewish" state, and Arabs want to have Arab states, I don't begrudge them.

At the end of the day the Jews in Israel do not want to dissolve their status as a Jewish state. There are huge cultural, historical, and political differences in how these two people want to be governed and live their lives. On top of this, a Jewish state was meant to be one place where the Jews can feasibly defend themselves if ever there was a Holocaust type situation. Arguably this causes smaller variations of violence in the region, but clearly they are willing to take that damage to keep the greater part of it alive.

Don't forget too, Europe is replete with bloody wars that has set the borders in place and it's still ongoing with Ukraine. Israel is no different, but it gets a lot of air time because of various echoes of the Holocaust, the role that Israel as a territory plays in Western history, and the fact that there is a low level enmity between Islamist regimes, terrorist organizations, and para-militaries, and the Western world.

Yes, I get that from your vantage point. Israel doesn't want to even be put in that position in the first place, and that is understandable from their viewpoint. — schopenhauer1

The options are only going to get worse (and eventually run out) if they continue to let the situation deteriorate. In my opinion, it is no longer understandable.

Many Israelis are now realising that Likud and Netanyahu have led Israel down a dead end.

People have always had a great ability to come up with 'valid' excuses to cling to the status quo. They might do so until the bitter end. But here's to hoping they won't.

At the end of the day the Jews in Israel do not want to dissolve their status as a Jewish state. — schopenhauer1

It probably should have thought of this before it settled the most hotly contested piece of real estate on the planet.

Again, 'valid' reasons a-plenty to cling to the status quo. People can do that until reality starts dictating the terms of change.

Personally, I am not very sensitive to this argument. If people want to cling to an identity when it means supporting policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing then fuck those people. Adults need to step in and take the wheel, in the understanding that this simply cannot persist without inviting a reckoning of Biblical proportions.

The new Israeli identity will have to include Jews and Muslims. What alternatives are there?

Don't forget too, Europe is replete with bloody wars that has set the borders in place [...] — schopenhauer1

The problem is that, given the shifting geopolitical situation, Israel is not going to survive such a round of conflicts. It is a tiny nation amid a sea of historical enemies.

It would be really callous to take such a stance, in effect saying: "Just let history take its course once more."

Worse still, in their boundless arrogance Israel and the United States undermine the international rule of law, — Tzeentch

Boundless arrogance? Where is international law after 7 Oct.? A more honest and accurate appraisal is that Israel is the law, their authority derived from the simplest principle and ground there is, the right to self-defense.

You yourself appear to argue that current Israeli policy and practice will turn out to be counterproductive, to the point of arguing for different policy and practice - an argument of some cogency. But it fails where the offending party is intransigent.

It is an axiom of mine that any and every person should try to keep in mind what they can control and what they cannot control, what they can do and not do, what they can make happen and what they cannot make happen. A right assessment of these things can add much clarity to any situation.

I think it is clear the Israelis cannot control Hamas or the Palestinians or make them do anything. That leaves only that the Israelis can try to leave open more attractive options for them. But it seems clear to me that Hamas and the Palestinians simply are not interested, being instead explicitly committed to the elimination by any means of Israel and Jews, which policy they actively pursue. That in turn does not leave a lot of choices for the Israelis, which in turn leads us back around to the question of who is really in control. I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got. In doing they have fashioned themselves a plague, one that must mutate to a more human standard or be otherwise cured or eliminated.

In simplest and barest terms. the Palestinians either want what they have right now, or they want something different. If something different, then they need to change how they act and what they do.

But it seems clear to me that Hamas and the Palestinians simply are not interested, being instead explicitly committed to the elimination by any means of Israel and Jews, which policy they actively pursue. That in turn does not leave a lot of choices for the Israelis, which in turn leads us back around to the question of who is really in control. I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got. In doing they have fashioned themselves a plague, one that must mutate to a more human standard or be otherwise cured or eliminated. — tim wood

:100: