Sanction Ben-Gvir
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
286 points (94.7% liked)
World News
32372 readers
529 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
If it weren't for the embedded racism in our society, we'd treat Israel-Palestine the same way the West has treated every other ethnic conflict. But, many Jews are white, so...
(I'm still unclear on what the instance rules around this are, by the way)
What caliber of sanction are we talking here
Morally reprehensible. I don’t care who you are or what happened to you, if you unapologetically and purposefully retaliate against the most innocent and vulnerable, then you are the bad guy.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Stand for those who can’t stand up for themselves. Speak out before there’s no one left to speak. Never forget. Pick whichever goddamn platitude you want, but mean it.
And America just gave them 14 billion to continue with this slaughter.
Imagine any other country said this.
Okay so if this is true then it's a clear incitement to war crimes.
Israel continuing to let these kinds of speech happen is a part of what makes this a genocide.
Genocidaires are sometimes brought to trial many years after they think they have gotten away with it.
I honestly think there is so much evidence now that if the US ever loosens its stranglehold on the world this will happen with the Israeli genocidaires.
War crimes as a designation only mean something if you catch the criminals, which generally means a complete collapse of their sovereign state. In the case of a nuclear weapon possessing nation, that's not gonna end well. Most western governments are still very much willing to do business with Israel because they represent a friendly foothold in the Middle East. Everyone, literally everyone, is well aware they are committing genocide.
The Nazis were able to be tried for war crimes because the world utterly destroyed Nazi Germany. Milosovic was able to be tried for war crimes because Yugoslavia was a failed state and he lost the war. Again, no nukes.
@dangblingus I agree with most of what you have said. Exceptions are things like Comrade Duch who was eventually prosecuted despite the history there.
But I'm pointing out that the world has an especially long memory when it comes to genocides. There are always survivors and their sympathisers who will prosecute if they get the chance. And in this case there is plenty of evidence.
Personally I don't think the current orthodoxy will hold for another 50 years - perhaps not even 30. US hegemony is slipping and becoming more reliant on hard power. As for Israel, it's an arms dealer and a tech exporter. But I've noticed companies in my part of the world have no trouble doing business with countries like UAE and Saudi Arabia.
the extreme right Jewish Power party
Not even trying to be subtle with the ethnonationalism
Israelis literally use leftist as a pejorative
Look at them fighting the good fight against sexism and ageism.
/s
How much more proof do you need to learn that Israel have become Nazis?
So they get the go-ahead to explicitly do what they've already been doing for months/years?
You’re not supposed to say the quiet part out loud.
It's "the death of a euphemism". It's served its purpose and now the Overton window has moved.
Why can’t this hold up in ICC/ICJ?
Probably solely because of the case being initiated by South Africa has made "the situation complicated".
So "complicated" in fact that South Africa has even confronted the panel over their hesitancy to hold Shitrael accountable, to which they haven't even recieved any sort of response apart from silence.
I wish all members of the SAJBD a very Qassam rocket
We’ll see how the Feb 26 report goes. I can’t imagine how Israel will possibly argue that they’ve improved humanitarian aid access and protection for civilians.
But they've not done any of that
Not much evidence to suggest that they're shooting anybody but women and children in Gaza.
Don't be ridiculous, they've shot a bunch of men - escaped hostages, their own troops, and, like, probably at least 1 Hamas through sheer probability.
can't argue with that
omg they call themselves Jewish Power. The agressive murderus people really can do whatever they want with no repercussions
Well, clearly they can: Apparently they're pretty good at it.
Doesn't make it morally OK though...
“Can”
Oh we know they can. We've been watching them succeed for months now.
But if you make a suggestion about him - just one guy! - that's beyond the line.
Ok ok let me try this hack...
Let's vote to change the law to kill just this one guy.
Dunno if that's an actionable threat. I do have access to a ballot.
Maybe suggest "deporting" him, to any country of his choosing, except the ones on Earth. Peacefully! It's fine if we specifically "peacefully." Bastards like him always talk about kindly, gently, legally putting people on a boat and shoving it into the dark and roiling sea.
“They will send women and children as undercover terrorists. If we continue like this, we will reach another October 7.”
He’s not exactly wrong — why won’t the West realize that terrorizing the terrorists doesn’t make them less radicalized? To justify one heinous act of violence with another is an investment in more of the same.
Obviously it’s a big messy situation that’s too complicated for simple blanket statements (and what do I know?), but it seems fair to say that history repeats itself unless we can reject this flawed zero-sum premise that my suffering can justify yours.
Do I condone Hamas? Absolutely not. Would I condone attacking Israel if they bombed my home and murdered my family? I bet I would…
It’s easy to espouse aggressively simplistic moral principles from the privilege of safety. Much harder and more important to root those principles in a foundation of empathy.
It's easy from the privilege of safety to say that Israel has no choice but to keep Palestinians locked up in their open air prison, because you imagine that they might take revenge when they get out.
This is the exact argument that white people made to not free the enslaved people. The real solution is freedom for everyone, from the river to the sea.
Yes, and the assumptions that make up this artificial“it’s us against them”ultimatum tend to dissolve when placed under an empathetic lens.
The political justification for the genocide of Palestine, much like that of US slavery, requires that people are dehumanized. It’s not genocide because they’re an existential threat, slavery isn’t a grievous violation of human rights because non-whites simply aren’t human in the same capacity, etc. These assumptions don’t hold up long if you perceive the “other” as motivated by a similar humanity to your own — everyone else is just trying to put food on the table and keep their family safe too.
Of course, there are many bad-faith actors to be found. But my point is that, broadly speaking, we all need to chip away at toxic “us vs them” narratives from the bottom up
I don't think you're wrong per se, but I think you are applying your logic too equally. Yes, we all need to humanize each other more, but that ignores the uneven situation we find ourselves in. The colonizer or enslaver needs to stop the crime they are committing. Only then can the victims start their healing process and begin to humanize and forgive. This is a long process, but it needs to start with the crime being stopped. It's hard to humanize the person that is enslaving or committing genocide against you while it's still happening. It's also hard to humanize your victims when you're still committing crimes against them.
That’s true! And I don’t mean to sound like I’m making a “bad guys on both sides” sort of false equivalency here. Certainly the weight of the imperative should be directed toward those who sit atop power structures.
Honest question: how can one inspire empathy via rhetoric in an incredibly polarized and emotional situation? There seems to be a bit of a chicken/egg problem in that there must be empathy in order for the violence to stop, but the violence has to stop before the empathy can begin.
I think organizations like B'TSelem, Breaking the Silence, and Jewish Voice for Peace are really important for inspiring empathy to those convinced by Israeli/US propaganda. Assuming they are actually open to considering non-IDF sources.
I don't know for sure, but looking back at the struggle of black people in the USA, I think the most likely way out is being forceful. Every victory was a struggle, either via direct violence or (often violent) protests. I would love to be wrong and see that love indeed conquers all, but I don't know of any time that actually worked.
I’m not saying I have answers either, but my concern is that those grassroots struggles don’t work in the face of a huge imbalance of power. The Palestinians do not have the capability to forcefully counter the IDF, so if Israel is to be compelled forcefully rather than from inside-out, who provides that leverage? Is it the benevolent dictator problem, where the only way out is to have an absolute power in control which you trust will act altruistically?
The struggle of black folks in the US is an interesting example because, while the Civil Rights Movement made great strides, in the modern political sphere it would be absurd to conclude that the problem is solved. People didn’t stop being racist and hateful just because the law made it illegal to discriminate. People do stop being racist and hateful when they have a humanizing relationship with the black family down the street and empirically change their worldview.
It is naive to think that love will indeed conquer all and that force is never justified or appropriate. But so too is it naive to expect that being forceful alone can instigate the sort of healing necessary for lasting peace.
Perhaps the answer is to use force to get to the “peace treaty” phase, which becomes the foundation for gradual empathy. But I do see dangerous irony in the notion of “righteous” violence. Israel should be stopped, with force, but until minds are changed and hearts are swayed, the violence will resurface eventually.
I guess I’m really just arguing that violence should never be taken for granted.
Fanon talks about how colonialism dehumanizes both the colonized and the colonizer. The colonized become less-than-human, but the colonizers become greater-than-human. That's what the existential threat is, if Palestinians regain their humanity then Israelis have to become lowly humans again. It's not just an "us vs them" narrative, it's a structure of domination that makes Israelis superhuman.
The de-colonial struggle shows the settler that no, actually, they aren't superhuman. They bleed and die like the rest of us.
This is an excellent point, thank you. I think this is a crucial and overlooked component to fascist movements and their appeal to the disenfranchised, like the amorphous concept of “great”-ness that the MAGA crowd espouses.
I haven’t read Fanon, would you recommend a place to start?
Black Skin, White Masks is where he talks about colonial dehumanization. While he's talking in the context of Africa and France, it applies quite well to Israel and Palestine too.