As to be expected from an apartheid state going mask-off, under pressure of a government that is so beseiged by corruption and incapacity that it's electoral strategy has been to accelerate racial hatreds and hypernationalism as compensation.

Interesting to see the usual defense mechanisms crumbling beneath the weight of the murderous reality it has fostered in its settler colonies.

Jewish victims don't matter - got it. Israel has no right to defend itself.

"This is the most mainstream that criticism of Israeli apartheid oppression has ever been in my lifetime, and as more and more mainstream human rights groups begin acknowledging the reality of that oppression it’s only getting more so.... Seeing is believing, and a video is difficult to narrative manage. The dominant narrative is no longer solely in the hands of propaganda outlets like The New York Times which can spin everything that happens with a pro-Israel slant, it’s being spread all over the internet in a medium that is far more objective than print.

This is so effective because, unlike so many other ugly aspects of the US-centralized power alliance, Israeli apartheid is not some covert government operation being run by highly trained agents and manipulators. Those responsible for carrying out its day-to-day abuses are just ordinary civilians, police and soldiers who have not been trained on the sinister craft of perception management. Who aren’t acutely aware that it’s bad optics to tell a Palestinian family on camera that if you don’t steal their house then someone else will. Who don’t have bad PR at the forefront of their attention when they’re cheering as they shoot Palestinian protesters. Who just react to the racist nationalist propaganda they’ve been ingesting all their lives instead of considering how difficult it will be to narrative manage a video of them cheering and chanting “may their names be erased” at the sight of flames.

Awareness is spreading of Israeli apartheid brutality for the same reason awareness is spreading of US police brutality: the internet combined with smartphone cameras. Seeing is believing. Seeing brings change."

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/05/11/the-israel-narrative-is-crumbling-because-of-phone-cameras-and-the-internet/

Didn't say the word "Jewish" once, if you actually saw my post. There are Israeli's which aren't Jewish and the religion here is irrelevant to the crimes.

B'Tselem is excellent and is run by mostly Jews, I don't know why you raised that point. Unless you are purposefully mixing in the Israeli state as representing all Jews and then calling criticism of the state "anti-Jewish" hatred, which is getting very old by now.

It's more accurate to call it "aggression". If you think it's acceptable to kill people who's lands you are stealing, that's your problem.

I wonder which of the 9 children Isreal bombed to pulp the other day contributed to its self defense?

You never mentioned the Israeli/Jewish victims of the rocket attacks in your posts, why is that? Elderly Israeli Jews have been killed by Hamas rockets.

:up:

Excellent. It's been long overdue, over 50 years of occupation and murder and massacre and theft. Really ugly stuff. The Israeli left is very small now, it needs to pick up members again to shift internal politics inside the country.

Yes, many Israeli's are honest about what they do, even if it's quite ugly. But as your post shows, it's now almost impossible to defend these acts. You just can't compare the land of Gaza which is now a garbage heap with one of the most advanced militaries in the world.

It's tragic that so many people have to get killed in such a senseless, brutal manner. But it's changing eyes and minds...

Hamas launches rockets from civilian areas.

Which is tragic. But even worse are the number of elder Palestinians and children being killed. So again, I don't see the point of talking about Jews here.

It takes away from the main problem now:

An occupying force is killing civilians in lands it is stealing. That's the point.

Hamas launches rockets from civilian areas. — BitconnectCarlos

You're just a propagandist.

As opposed to what exactly? The extensive tracts of 'non-civilian' land available to - oh wait, there isn't any, because Isreal is an imperialist land grabber which has confined an entire population to a shoebox, which it continues to eat away at, illegally and immorally, all the while pleading victim. It's not working any more, and the utter depravity of the Isreali state is becoming clear to anyone with a working set of eyes and lungs.

But by all means, continue to defend the murder of children so that such land grabs may continue.

Which is tragic. But even worse are the number of elder Palestinians and children being killed. So again, I don't see the point of talking about Jews here. — Manuel

Why? They are one side in this conflict.

And to understand just why the stance of the US is what it is, it's crucial to understand how domestically different this issue is compared to let's say the Turks bombing the Kurds, the Burmese going after the Rohingya or the conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan or Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

This is so effective because, unlike so many other ugly aspects of the US-centralized power alliance, Israeli apartheid is not some covert government operation being run by highly trained agents and manipulators. Those responsible for carrying out its day-to-day abuses are just ordinary civilians, police and soldiers who have not been trained on the sinister craft of perception management

I somehow doubt this will matter particularly. Other regimes in the region are even worse at covering up authoritarian action. Egypt killed more civilians in a night than all the fatalities produced by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the 2010s, opening up on protest camps with belt fed machine guns. Public response in the US was muted. When Iran periodically puts down protests with live ammunition and kidnapping, it generally puts a damper on liberals favoring engagement for a month tops.

The people who generally don't favor the US alliance with Israel will, of course, circulate the images, as well as ones from Syria and around the region, since apparently current wars aren't horrible enough, so partisans feel the need to recycle and rebrand other conflicts. Those that support Israel will defend their right to self defense.

If the US didn't sanction Egypt for the coup, and continued to send them billions, I highly doubt this will move the needle on a much more popular ally.

I do fear this action could spin out of control. The Palestinians can't hold elections because the PLO and Hamas have both lost support and exert dangerously little control. Israel can't stop having elections, but in none of them does peace play a major role, because lack of Arab support for the Palestinians has made apartheid seem more realistic as a solution.

The Arab states, having originally denied the Palestinians citizenship to keep the conflict with Israel alive for a later day, have now seen that the politics of a captive people metastisized, and appear to be washing their hands of the Palestinians wholesale, so they can't exactly act as brokers for peace either.

If you were forced to live under an apartheid system and brutalized for protesting against it, I imagine you might be tempted to take up arms against it. I condemn all attacks on civilians on both sides without reservation. The underlying cause of this conflict though is the unrelentingly and largely unrecognized violent oppression of the Palestinians. Try the trivial thought experiment of putting yourselves in their place and you might come up with a more objective viewpoint.

As opposed to what exactly? The extensive tracts of 'non-civilian' land available to - oh wait, there isn't any, because Isreal is an imperialist land grabber which has confined an entire population to a shoebox, which it continues to eat away at, illegally and immorally.

But by all means, continue to defend the murder of children so that such land grabs may continue. — StreetlightX

If you're going to charge me with defending the murder of children then I can charge you defending the murder of the elderly Israeli Jews killed by Hamas rockets a day or two ago. We can go back and forth here and accuse the other of being Hitler.

I've never been to Gaza but there must be places that are less inhabited. In the past, rockets have been launched from hospitals and weapons and troops transported in ambulances, so I don't know what to tell you. Obviously it's awful that Palestinian children have been killed, but this is not intentional. Do you agree that intention matters?

Other regimes in the region are even worse at covering up authoritarian action. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is true, but most of those other regimes are not held up as shining beacons of democracy with 'best pal' status with the US. We will have gone some way if we began to speak about Israel in the same terms as we do those other nations who you cite: as governed by dubious 'regimes', willing and ready to exercise violence upon both its own populations and those around it, as it indeed it does.

You don't get to use the "intention" excuse when civilian casualties are inevitable. Deliberately attacking civilian targets* is a war crime regardless of your stated intention (as if that should be trusted).

[Edit: *Which are "undefended and not military objectives"]

We could go back to The British Mandate of Palestine. We could then go to WWII and mention that a large portion of the Jewish elites did not care much about the Holocaust, as such an event provided an opportunity to demand a state.

We could also talk about how the original UN proposal would've divided the land of Israel something like 55%-45% in favor of the incoming European refugees. And it would've actually been less bad to the Palestinians to accept that UN resolution, because what they ended up getting was way worse for them.

Of course, I completely see why they would reject such an offer, it basically gave off land to settlers. But now they have almost nothing.

We could also talk about how Israel obtained the Gaza and the West Bank in the 67' war. All of this is legitimate and interesting and useful.

But for the narrow purposes of this "war" or massacre, I think talking about Jews and Arabs and religion complicates the scenario with not crucial info for the moment. What matters, I think, is that children and civilians are being killed indiscriminately. This shouldn't be accepted regardless of the history.

That's why I'm not talking much about the whole history of Israel. Which is very interesting.

Obviously it's awful that Palestinian children have been killed, but this is not intentional. Do you agree that intention matters? — BitconnectCarlos

No. You don't get to excuse one of the most sophisticated militaries on earth with opposie doopsy we made a whoopise.

You don't get to use the "intention" excuse when civilian casualties are inevitable. Attacking civilian targets is a war crime regardless of your stated intention (as if that should be trusted). — Baden

No, it's not. If that were true then every general or commander would be a war criminal because civilian casualties are inevitable in war. Bombing of German industrial targets? War crime. Bombing on Japan? War crime.

Come on, Baden.

If that were true then every general or commander would be a war criminal because civilian casualties are inevitable in war. Bombing of German industrial targets? War crime. Bombing on Japan? War crime. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes.

No, you come on.

Definition of a war crime:

"Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;"

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml

(Here is where the "intention" excuse comes in, but I don't buy it).

But also:

"Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;"

No mention of intention here.

Yes. — StreetlightX

Well, at least you're following your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

I'm curious though, lets say you're in charge of the US or UK during WWII.... are you just not bombing industrial targets? How about military bases? There's plenty of civilians working on military bases, trust me.

The Palestinians would settle into Israeli society if the Israelis would accept them.

Because this mingling conflicts with their vision, they've been systematically abusive toward Palestinians, apparently hoping they would leave.

There are Palestinians all over America. Ask one what it's like there.

I guess we know the history and no need to go there.

However why the US has quite a different approach to the conflict as in other cases was what I had in mind. This is very important in this case. We see that the whole peace process itself was started by Israel anticipating that once the Cold War was over, the US policy might change (as happened with South Africa). But that didn't happen, which is crucial here.

And of course the main issue is that this low key off and on -war has become totally sustainable for Israel: Israel can once in a while have these exchanges and a limited war with it's neighbors every once in a while without it making a huge burden for the society and economy. So the occupation can continue.

Yeah, that's with intention. The intentional targeting of civilians is wrong, as I've been saying.

I edited it to acknowledge that. So, there's a loophole in the definition. It doesn't change the ethical argument for me.

War is unethical through and through. War makes monsters of all who participate in it - whether or not they have a choice, no matter the end to which they fight for. That's among the worst parts of it.

In any case while this is a cute hypothetical let's get back to how Isreali apartheid is finally being shown for what it is.

However why the US has quite a different approach to the conflict as in other cases was what I had in mind. This is very important in this case. We see that the whole peace process itself was started by Israel anticipating that once the Cold War was over, the US policy might change (as happened with South Africa). But that didn't happen, which is crucial here. — ssu

Sure. As far as I know, what brought the US in such close alliance was the 67' war, in which Israel defeated Nasser and with him secular Arab Nationalism. The US suddenly had an ally it could depend on in the Middle East. They also had Iran as an ally back then. Now they have less military allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel essentially, which is quite crazy if you think about it. Also Egypt, but they're not doing good.

Yes, the end of the Cold War did not bring forth a positive solution which could have been reached when the USSR collapsed. Now, very few (if any) powerful states support the Palestinians. Turkey a few years ago was agitating. Now I don't know. Maybe Russia could do something, but I don't know how it benefits them, which we sadly have to consider.

China is another potential player, but I don't see them getting too involved.

So the US is the main player here and Europe does almost nothing...

I agree that war is awful, disgusting business and that it makes monsters out of those who engage in it, but I also believe that sometimes it is necessary. Japan killed thousands in a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor including many civilians... I don't know how else to respond to that if you're leading a country.

Yes, that's true. Aid for Egypt and weapons sales to Saudi Arabia is generally something that is done shame faced. An unfortunate reality people accept like hurricanes and earthquakes. At the end of the day, Egypt still gets the billions, and Saudi Arabia still gets all the hardware they want, which recently has been a shit ton, as they pass Russia in spending on a military of very dubious quality.

The whole idea of arms sales as pure aid is misleading though. Funds are often earmarked for specific purchases from American manufacturers, making aid function partly as a pass through of tax payer dollars to contractors, with the added benefit of the US military not having to pay to maintain the "donated" equipment.

You'd think the US would have long pivoted from giving so much aid to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Egypt to investing at least as much in Central America given how much more relevance the later has on US politics and security (CA cartels produce far more deaths in the US than Islamist terror attacks, even including 9/11), but we remain embedded.