I’m talking about much, much worse things than forced displacement.
Correct. I would not trust the opinion of someone who isn’t a Zionist (IE someone who does not believe in self determination for the Jewish people), any more than I would trust a rabid anti Palestinian who says that there’s no such thing as the Palestinian people and that Jordan is the only ethnically Palestinian state needed.
For what it’s worth, I strongly suspect that Babale and Alessan and folks like them have lots of serious criticisms of the IDF conduct of the war, but aren’t willing to share them with outsiders because they see it as not our business, like it’s a family issue. And I kind of understand that.
This sums up why IMO the IDF and Israeli leadership deserve much of the criticism they’re getting about the war:
Who is suffering in this war? Mostly Gazans. Mostly not Hamas leadership and funders/enablers. Mostly not settlers and other Israeli extremists. It’s not just more/less intense. It’s how it’s gone about. This war has gone about focusing mostly on the rank and file of Hamas rather than their leaders, funders, and other enablers. It’s entirely ignored any effort to restrain settlers and other Israeli extremists (which cannot be separated from this conflict - it is an intimate part of it, at much as the IDF defenders want to pretend it’s entirely separate). And it’s done nothing (that I can see, anyway) proactive to deal with extremists within the ranks of the IDF, only reacting as they mistreat Gazans.
I believe in self determination for the Jewish people, and I’m not a Zionist. Zionism means a little more than that.
It’s entirely a semantics disagreement (about Zionism). I am a Zionist - and by that I mean that there needs to be a place on Earth specifically designated as a safe place for Jews. That’s all it means to me.
Maybe you say you aren’t because of the baggage that’s been grafted onto the term “Zionism” by external forces, but these two statements cannot both be true. If you believe in self determination for the Jewish people (not even necessarily independence or autonomy - just self determination for the group as a people) then you are a Zionist.
Not really, and certainly not in the context of history. Which is why especially when it comes to historians on this topic I wouldn’t trust someone who plays games with the term “Zionism”.
Ok, it’s a fair statement that we are using different definitions, and I am probably interpreting Morris’ description differently than he means. I associate it with what is probably an older definition: “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.”
But it certainly has baggage now, and people who describe themselves as that know of that baggage, so it does make me question their objectivity. Maybe that’s unfair.
Newborn twins killed in an Israeli strike while the father went out to get their birth certificates…but they seem to have left out the part where he was also going to bring home a matching pair of mini-uzis as a surprise gift.
How many babies died in Hiroshima?
That is not, and never has been, the definition of Zionism. That is a relatively recent portrayal of Zionism by people who are opponents of Jewish self determination.
That is a deeply ignorant statement.
If you’re interested in educating yourself, I’ve recommended Sam Aronow’s videos many times before.
That’s not to say that there haven’t been any Zionists who were also revanchists or expansionists, but saying that this is the definition of Zionism is like saying that anyone who believes in Black liberation in the United States is a New Afrika separatist.
I got that from the Wikipedia article, cite 16. It might not match the definition you prefer to use, but it isn’t some fringe thing. But yes, it is a definition from non-zionists, so I understand why it could be problematic.
My takeaway is that the term is too fraught to be a useful descriptor, so I’ll withdraw my criticism of Morris.
I would appreciate more detail on his views on Israel’s actions.
And if you’re willing, I’d also like to hear your reaction to the report that the IDF uses human shields to clear buildings and tunnels. Do you believe this report? Do you think this is an acceptable practice?
The Wikipedia edit wars over articles related to Israel make the Ukraine war look sleepy.
YouTube is full of lectures, interviews, and panels with him. You’re pretty spoiled for choice.
There are a couple different things being conflated there.
One is the idea that the IDF would take a Palestinian and make him walk ahead of them to clear out a building or tunnel. That’s clearly illegal, should and is treated as such by the IDF, and I condemn it morally. I also find claims about the IDF doing this pretty far fetched, both because the IDF doesn’t tolerate that sort of thing and because does anyone really expect Hamas not to shoot an IDF soldier just because doing so might risk harm to a civilian?
The other case, and the one that is being referred to when you hear that the IDF banned “human shields” in 2005, is the idea of telling a Palestinian “go and tell Hamas…”. The logic is that if you send a soldier you are very likely to start a firefight instead of managing to communicate with Hamas. However, the Supreme Court of Israel said was something soldiers are forbidden from doing. Following orders is a very important part of being a soldier, so I think it is crucial that soldiers comply with that policy and cease this practice. I don’t have a particularly large problem with it on moral grounds, but any instances of it happening would represent a breakdown of order which is a major failure for an army.
It was reported by an Israeli newspaper. They have quotes from multiple IDF soldiers stating that this is a general policy of the IDF. What justification do you have for saying this is far fetched?
Perhaps it would be better if you linked me to one in which you feel he makes a convincing argument that it is not a genocide. I clicked on the first hit in YouTube, and 7 minutes in, I’m finding him completely unbelievable and untrustworthy. He is being interviewed by an Al Jazeera journalist, and it’s not going well for him.
I’ll keep watching the rest, but I want to give you the chance to share something you feel is fair.
Ok bud, I see that this isn’t a good faith discussion. Peace out.
Did you get blinded by the words “Al Jazeera” and not read my post? I explicitly said I wanted to give you the opportunity to give me a link that you thought was fair.
You said I should just go to Youtube. I did, and clicked on the first link. I suspected you would dismiss this, so I asked for another. Take the opportunity if you’d like.
And I think it’s funny that you went to an Al Jazeera link. I’m also curious what issue you have with what Benny Morris has said. It’s not the video I would have recommended because Mehdi Hasan is master of the gotcha question, but he hasn’t really said anything I disagreed with and did a good job of expressing his views.
Listening to a room full of idiots clapping as if Mehdi makes a good point when he totally fails to engage with the point Benny makes is pretty bad for my blood pressure though.
What I’ve seen so far is Morris focusing exclusively on how many are killed, not on intent or driving them from the land, as the definition of genocide, which is incorrect. Genocide doesn’t mean killing everyone, and it doesn’t need to be done in the most efficient way possible in order to qualify.
I’ve also not been impressed with him parroting IDF propaganda about “Hamas headquarters in hospitals.” Yes, if you believe everything the IDF says, the case for genocide is more difficult. I don’t believe the IDF, so that might be an irreconcilable difference between us.