About being white, as far as I know I am not considered white both in the 19th century scientific racism sense and even in its modern extension of dividing the American population by the extension of that original theory.
But if I am considered white, do you think it undermines my arguments?
You could argue Israel evacuating the northern of Gaza strip is ethnic cleansing, but that would only be valid if they are not allowed later on to return.
The difference between Palestinians civilian deaths in Gaza is that these were not systematic, not concentrated in a single space (for example all houses in a location) and were done mostly for a military purpose (attacking a defacto non-uniformed military). Choosing to evacuate the population before attacking was done to minimize casualties, although they are still massive even when removing the Hamas members from the statistics and their inflated nature.
That's clearly a military operation with some war crimes thrown in, which is about expected. Then went in and out, there's no systematic intent in the mission to destroy israel for the simple reason that Hamas can't. Hamas is physically incapable of committing genocide despite what the preach.
VS Israel's systematic destruction of Gaza with enough dogwhistles from senior leadership that can credibly push Israeli campaign into genocide territory. Whether that matters under international law is another Q, but the difference when it comes to international opinion (well, global south), is Hamas can't genocide Israel because they don't have the capabilities vs IDF can actually genocide Palestine/Gaza and optic wise, is looking well on their way as mass starvation as systemic blockade settles in. Like if west can delude themselves into thinking Uyghurs are being genocided despite very few systemic killings and leaks from leadership that intent is counterterrorism/deradicalization, then case for Israel doing a genocide is much stronger considering the actual destruction, body count and mask off rhetoric from Israeli politicians.
Is that a universal thing that what politicians say is being taken in such a high regard? Especially the many Israeli ministers of nothing that have no actual ability to affect the situation. Judging by how the war is going on, I don't see any scenario where the Palestinian population disappears from Gaza, and I don't see any Israeli action that is advancing that.
However, you are right that due to the sheer cruelty of Oct 7 there is a major process of radicalization in Israeli society, and if Hamas dreams of recreating this attack 'again and again' materialize, I do think the Israeli side will begin to level its moral base to that of its enemy, which might end in actual genocide. Which is why I believe removing this organization is in the best interest of both people, even though it is causing much suffering currently, it is not impossible it can turn very much worse yet.
IMO they're trying to make situation so dire that other parties capituate to resettling Gaza. The intention is expulsion not nessicarily genocide, but that doesn't mean current actions and rhetoric, even if flippant, can't be used against Israel in international court / opinion. I'm not saying what Israel is doing IS genocide, but there's probably enough bits and pieces for interested parties to weave genocide narrative, especially the longer war drags out and more dire Gaza situation becomes.
> removing this organization is in the best interest of both people
I don't disagree, for short term. But without Israel expressing interest or some effort at making 2 state solution work, it's kicking can down the road. The fundmental problem, as seen with Hamas, and Houthis is technology proliferation of not garbage tier weapons is making Israel's lack of strategic depth less and less defendable by the day. General arab acrimony is not going to go away after this, and US+Israel can only maintain their military advantage for so long before rest of region catches up or surpasses due to sheer scale. Each generation is more capable than the last and ultimately there's 400 muslims in MENA vs 10m jews in Israel on sacred lands. And this war is just setting up for blowback down the road, especially as US FP will likely change as new gens are much more sympathetic to palestine.
As for Palestinians, they will not forget this. Hamas/resistance will come back in one way or another. The other reality, which makes this problem intractable is poor Gaza with 90% literacy rate and limited access to modern tech / resources was enough to overwhelm Israel on Oct 7th. Israel can barely live with a semi capable Gaza, and definitely can't live with a capable (free) one. Given how weapons are proliferating, Hamas rockets likely a few iterations from taking out existential Israeli strategic targets like desalination plants. There isn't isn't enough geographic buffer for both people to exist on the same land, not without one permenantly keeping other down. Hence IMO Israel will try to make Palestinians disappear from Gaza, one way or another.
I completely agree though that a lack of a two state solution will lead to catastrophe for either people or both eventually. However, I do not share your pessimism about US/Israel regional prospects. Remember that this is mainly due to self-inflicted restraints, which is how asymmetric warfare really works. As seen in September 11 in the US and October 7 in Israel this can change rapidly when faced with an external threat
But killing tens of thousands, marketing it as “mowing the lawn” and cutting off power, food, safety, hospitals, religious facilities… is a f-ing genocide.
Stop pretending israel is just “responding” to 10/7 attacks. No response, even if the real “responses” began in 1916/7 and later in the 40’s… no “response” ever deserves a genocide.
but care to explain what is the meaning of the dates? what do you refer to in 1916/1917 and 40s?
The 40’s was the standard “zionists get israel for real this time” after England got its butt kicked by the very same folks it helped in the teens.
But that’s irrelevant to the point that nothing, ever, makes a genocide ok. Stop pretending it’s not just because the fascist and gaslighting zionists claim it’s “not a genocide we promise.”
England did a genocide on the Irish. Zionists are doing on in the Palestinians. There have been plenty of US backed ones over the years too.
Any nation state who says “they’re not doing a genocide” .. totally is.
Depending on what you mean by the word "nation", there were not in fact "already nations there". Sykes-Picot partitioned the Ottoman Empire in the Levant. What there was, historically, prior to Sykes-Picot, was the administration of provinces under the Ottoman Sultan.
I mean, look at what happened to France in Vietnam. They were “happily” appreciated while pretending they knew what was best for the people that lived there already.
Y’all will do anything to pretend it’s “ok” for white people to tell folks what to do with their land. Ottoman empire or not.
Bottom line is: Zion != Israel. Zionism is making the call in today’s era and that call is to genocide.
It is wrong.
If you're asking me for a long thread about why British, French, and Russian colonialism in MENA was good, sorry, I don't have that for you. But somehow, it only ever seems to be Israel we're talking about when we discuss this stuff. Israel is no less legitimate than its neighbors, some of which have in the last 5-10 years laid a much stronger claim to the word "genocide" as well.
I would suggest maybe you not lead with Sykes-Picot next time you try to formulate this argument.
That’s kind of important.
Still doesn’t justify Zionists doing a fucking genocide against people who have been overrun by the same zionists given “power” by … that nation doing the sykes-picot and balfour thing.
Stop pretending these are separate events.
You might be surprised how preoccupied they are with ‘preventing’ civilian death
THESE particular bombings were because the blockade and sanctions that they did in the region and they justify with the genocide happening in Palestine.
Of course, another way you know they're full of shit is that they were shooting rockets at cargo ships in the Red Sea years before the Gaza war.
I think a pretty mainstream and reasonable way to look at Ansar Allah is:
What they say: meaningless agitprop about Palestinian liberation.
What they intend: A Zaydi Shi'a imamate with racial and bloodline governance.
What they are: A chaos agent managed by Iran in order to keep Saudi Arabia, which operates a military with one of the world's worst ratios of capacity and funding to competence, perpetually on the wrong foot.
The Houthis are not the only one blocking Maritime trade, there are also activist groups in e.g. Oakland and Tacoma which have blocked freight traffic from respective ports with the aim of disrupting shipment to Israel and the stated goal of stopping the genocide.
What the Houthis and these activist groups in America do after they’ve succeeded in stopping the genocide, that is another question which we can tackle at the time. As of now there is an emergency situation in Gaza, and we must treat it as such. Stopping the genocide is at utmost importance.
Campism is a hell of a drug.
As for effectiveness, we do know that protests do work if they are disruptive enough. But we also know that rulings by the ICJ have a tendency to be ignored if a powerful enough nation disagrees with them. Both the cities of San Francisco, Oakland and Seattle are among the nations largest cities who are calling for ceasefire. Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal are among very few members of congress calling for ceasefire.
We will see in the days after Friday whether the actions at the ICJ were enough, and that actions against international shipping were indeed unnecessary. However, I’m gonna remain pessimistic about that.
There's a further irony to appealing jointly to the ICJ, an instrument of international law, and piracy, opposition to which is the literal original basis for all international law.
You seem to take issue with the methods the Houthis are employing, but I would like to point out that blockading international shipping is also a method which the Israelis use against Gaza. This blockade by Israel has manifested it self in direct assaults on cargo vessels and murders of their crew members (see e.g. Gaza Flotilla Raid[1]).
I think the targets of the Houthis is not the IDF directly, but rather the international community, particularly nations which are aiding and enabling Israel in the genocide, such as the USA. That the tactic here is to be disruptive enough that it won’t be worth it for these nations to support Israel in its crimes any longer. However, I’m not a member of the Houthies, so I can be wrong about that.
I recommend that you do some additional reading about the Houthis. Rasha Al Aqueedi and Nadwa Dawsari are good starting points. I think you're unlikely to find a credible reported account of Ansar Allah that is sympathetic to them.
I don’t dispute this. However by that logic, Israel has been at war with Gaza (and everyone that trades with Gaza, including Turkey) since 2008. And if we follow that logic further—which we shouldn’t—we can explain Oct. 7 as a particularly horrendous war-crime in a war full of war crimes committed by both sides, but again, we shouldn’t do that.
I also don’t dispute the irony. It most definitely is there, I just find it unimportant. On a global issue, you will always find very different groups with vastly different goals, and it just so happens that one of their goals intersect. They don’t need to be united behind that goal (and they seldomly are) but what you will see is every group has most likely very different means towards that goal.
These actions may even be counterproductive. You may believe that this is the case for the Houthi actions, I don’t, and for that we’re just going to have to disagree.
Finally I would like to note, I’m not sympathetic to the Houthies as a group, merely their stated goal of a ceasefire. I’m also of the believe that we are going to have to be way more disruptive if we are to achieve ceasefire. I believe—and I may be proven wrong about this—that the ICJ case is not gonna be enough, as any enforcement may—and I believe it will—simply be blocked by the USA.
Expect to see much more disruptive actions from all groups if (when?) the international community fails to enforce the orders from the ICJ.
Further: your logic doesn't cohere. Were Israel to blockade international shipping lanes, countries would declare war against them, as Israel did when Egypt blockaded the Tiran Straits. The discussion wouldn't be "can Israel do this"; it would be "has Israel provoked a war with another seafaring country", the way Ansar Allah has.
What you can't do is supply an analysis like "since Israel blockaded Gaza, Ansar Allah can blockade the Red Sea". Well, they can do that, but then the UK and the US will be applauded by the Security Council when they aerosolize Ansar Allah with cruise missiles.
You have repeatedly defended the actions of Ansar Allah in this discussion, most importantly by accepting their explanations at face value despite a (recent!) historic context that gives the lie to all of them, pretty bluntly and objectively. I understand you'd rather just focus on making a case against Israel, and I get why, but the reason you're conversing with me on this thread and not a supporter of Israel is that I'm not prepared to let sail by the idea that the Houthis are a legitimate actor. They are precisely the opposite of that.
This is why I think the only thing that will work are disruptions, these disruptions may include boycotts, blocking of highways, shipping, etc. divestments, etc.
I keep in perspective the urgency of stopping the genocide. And the scale of the disruptions I find justified are proportional to that urgency.
EDIT: Just to prevent this from being read wrong. I still support South Africa’s case for the ICJ. Including because the off chance their rulings will be enforced, but also because I think it will persuade more actors to pursue more disruptions, e.g. for the EU to ignore the USA and issue sanctions against Israel, for broadcasters across Europe to kick Israel out of Eurovision, etc.
If you follow the subthread back to the point where I joined it, you'll see that's been my consistent point throughout.
You need to show that the intent of Israel is to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza, even partially. What I see is the attempt of Israel to prevent more October 7 attacks, which Hamas declared it is going to repeat. The actual goal here is to protect Israel's own citizens from genocide, which Hamas has shown willingness to commit and ability (albeit in a smaller scale currently).
I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place.
As this is war, it's also causing immense suffering in the Palestinian side. Which is why a war to remove Hamas from power was constantly deferred in the past, knowing they are highly entrenched in the civilian population. However, I don't think they left Israel any other way this time.
> I think it is perfectly valid for a country to protect its own citizen from being burned alive among many other atrocities that were committed, which is also one of the reasons the genocide convention was created in the first place.
Also wrong. The genocide convention was created to prevent genocide. There is nothing in the convention mentioning that you should not act if the victims are from other countries. On the contrary, the convention says that you must act to prevent and has an extraterritorial scope (as was established in a previous judgement in UN).
How exactly killing children, reporters, women and people holding white flags, attacking UN shelters, as well as destroying hospitals and universities prevent more October 7 attacks!? In fact, it will create more attacks because of the anger from an oppressed people. Which was the cause of October 7 attacks, by the way. Sorry, declaring war is not a free pass to commit war crimes. If the war crimes are frequent, and they are not opposed (or if they are encouraged), this is a serious evidence of genocide.
About the common western trope of “you should never fight terror because it will only bring more terror” that’s false. There is no way the palestinian population would be more radicalized, they are at the end of the spectrum. It wasn’t like there was any type of atrocity known to man on October 7 that was stopped short due to being too extreme.
Also, israel had shown that when fighting palestinians organizations in the second intifada 2001-2004, it succeeded in greatly reducing the amount of terror and achieve deradicalization
> Bombing Yemen will do nothing to stop attacks on commercial shipping
This is bully logic. It can escalate the conflict, yes, but destruction of artillery and missiles works