> 2. Israel for years had the means to completely exterminate Gaza many times over, but they never did.
- Russia had the means to nuke Ukraine, but they never did
- North Korea had the means to bomb and start the war with South Korea, but they are not doing
- Iran had the means to bombard Israel, but they are not doing
- USA had the means to nuke Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan, but didn't do (even though made a lot of destruction)
Can do, doesn't mean should do. Why did you bring this topic?
> 1. There are very few Jews living in Arab states or in Gaza. Often exactly zero.
They have migrated to the USA, also they lived fine until 1948, right? what happened in 1948? People are not migrating to the USA and claiming that it is their country, they are getting integrated into the country. Can't say same about Israel
> Iran had the means to bombard Israel, but they are not doing
I was not talking about bombardment. I was talking about means for genocide and extermination. Out of your examples, only USA and Russia have the means. Iran is not there yet.
> Can do, doesn't mean should do.
This is ridiculous, I never claimed Israel should exterminate Gaza. I claimed the opposite - Israel never did, thus it will not do that now either. Contrast that with official Hamas 1988 Charter [1] arguing for exterminations of all Jews.
> Why did you bring this topic?
I've brought the topic to demonstrate a way to judge various claims about the war.
> People ... are getting integrated into [USA]. Can't say same about Israel
This is incorrect. 2 million Arabs [2] are living in Israel proper: 20% of the whole population. They are perfectly integrated. For example, Knesset has 10 Arab members. Compare with Gaza before October 2023: 0.0% Jews. Iran: 0.009% Jews.
supporters of Israel's conduct love talking about anything except the thing that is happening right in front of our eyes: mass deprivation and slaughter of Gazan civilians. The reason that you want to talk about something else, like how many Jews live in Arab states, is because Israel's conduct is indefensible and we all know it, including you.
I hate wars, and I would love to see peaceful resolution. But we have a war already, most recently started by Hamas in October 7th. The sad reality is that civilian casualties are unavoidable in a war. Horrendous civilian casualties during American and British bombardment of Nazi Germany didn’t stop Allies during WW2. Israel conduct is nowhere near what Allies had done.
The point of Jew/Arab comparison is to contrast the consequences of two theoretical extremes: Israel victory and Gaza victory. Gaza victory would lead to extermination of Israeli Jews. Israel victory would lead to peace for Gaza’s Arabs.
I'm interested in knowing more about both sides. OP has given a bunch of links in the article (almost in every sentence). Could you point out which assertions of OP are biased?
The entire article seems quite biased. Using footnotes after every sentence doesn't necessarily indicate a well-researched piece. I won't delve into recent events due to the challenges posed by the fog of war effect. A clearer example of Paul's bias is his choice of quotes regarding past events.
In reference [19], discussing the April 1948 Deir Yassin massacre, Paul presents the following quote:
"Women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed, and then slaughtered by automatic firing and survivors have told of even more incredible bestialities. Those who were taken prisoners were treated with degrading brutality."
This quote originates from a UN report just 11 days after the event, posing two critical issues: firstly, insufficient time for a thorough investigation; secondly, an erroneous casualty count of 250, later revised through subsequent investigations to a total of 107, inclusive of non-civilian casualties.
Furthermore, there's a significant omission. The Deir Yassin events didn't occur in isolation; they were part of a broader context — a battle during the Arab-Jewish civil war, where Jewish militias aimed to break the blockade of Jerusalem enforced by Arab militias.
The Deir Yassin incident has undergone extensive scrutiny, exemplified in Eliezer Tauber's book.
I will reply mainly to your point (2) first, as I see it often repeated.
> Israel for years had the means to completely exterminate Gaza many times over, but they never did
In a theoretical sense that Israel had the means to, sure. But in practice, Israel couldn't really do that without disastrous consequences to itself, could it? Having protection and support from major powers, like the UK and USA, has been a lifeline for Israel ever since its creation. If US stopped using its veto power to protect Israel within the UN Security Council, it would have been under heavy sanctions for a very long time now, and its prosperity and perhaps even existence would be under serious question (see [1] and [2]). If US stopped providing military funding and arms support to Israel, it would seriously impede its ability to wage war. If those same powers were not helping its defenses (either directly or via deterrence) against the many enemies it has historically had in the region (it has basically no neighbouring country that it is in good relations with), it is doubtful that it would still have existed to this day. The governments of the countries protecting Israel would not be able to keep doing that if Israel made a move so radical such as large-scale extermination of Palestinians in a post-WW2 world that does not look fondly on genocide. So no, they do not have the means to completely exterminate citizens of Gaza in practice.
And even if Israel had both the means and the freedom to completely exterminate Gazans yet chose not to do it, does NOT committing something so obviously atrocious provide any justification for doing other kinds of atrocities that most people would categorize as less severe? I strongly argue that it does not. To use a silly analogy, someone who stole a significant chunk of your money from you does not deserve praise for not stealing all of it just because they theoretically had the means to. They have still done you injustice, inflicted harm, and deserve condemnation. No one should be free from criticism when they commit acts that deserve criticism.
About your point (1), the reactionary expulsion of jewish citizens of the neighbouring states in the post-Palestinian-ethnic-cleansing-of-48 world [3] is also a tragedy that also deserves condemnation. It is not the current burning issue, however, while Gazans are being bombed and starved to death as we speak, which is why there are so many people talking about Gaza right now and not about that. Nevertheless, I would not want to stop anyone from talking about it, as again, no one should be free from criticism when they commit acts that deserve criticism, and I welcome anyone with time and motivation to open topics about it. This current topic here, however, deserves full attention of its own without whataboutism.
Point (2) provides a helpful framework for evaluating various assertions about the war. It doesn't exempt Israel from criticism. However, the original post extends far beyond mere criticism; it seems more aligned with a propaganda narrative, unfortunately.
Point (1) aims to highlight a counterpoint to a comparable yet opposing claim - the expulsion of Arabs in 1948. The claim from 1948 continues to fuel hostilities to this day.
throwaw12|2 years ago
> 1. There are very few Jews living in Arab states or in Gaza. Often exactly zero.
They have migrated to the USA, also they lived fine until 1948, right? what happened in 1948? People are not migrating to the USA and claiming that it is their country, they are getting integrated into the country. Can't say same about Israel
becausepc|2 years ago
I was not talking about bombardment. I was talking about means for genocide and extermination. Out of your examples, only USA and Russia have the means. Iran is not there yet.
> Can do, doesn't mean should do.
This is ridiculous, I never claimed Israel should exterminate Gaza. I claimed the opposite - Israel never did, thus it will not do that now either. Contrast that with official Hamas 1988 Charter [1] arguing for exterminations of all Jews.
> Why did you bring this topic?
I've brought the topic to demonstrate a way to judge various claims about the war.
> People ... are getting integrated into [USA]. Can't say same about Israel
This is incorrect. 2 million Arabs [2] are living in Israel proper: 20% of the whole population. They are perfectly integrated. For example, Knesset has 10 Arab members. Compare with Gaza before October 2023: 0.0% Jews. Iran: 0.009% Jews.
[1]: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
susanasj|2 years ago
becausepc|2 years ago
The point of Jew/Arab comparison is to contrast the consequences of two theoretical extremes: Israel victory and Gaza victory. Gaza victory would lead to extermination of Israeli Jews. Israel victory would lead to peace for Gaza’s Arabs.
aneeqdhk|2 years ago
becausepc|2 years ago
In reference [19], discussing the April 1948 Deir Yassin massacre, Paul presents the following quote:
"Women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed, and then slaughtered by automatic firing and survivors have told of even more incredible bestialities. Those who were taken prisoners were treated with degrading brutality."
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-211346/
This quote originates from a UN report just 11 days after the event, posing two critical issues: firstly, insufficient time for a thorough investigation; secondly, an erroneous casualty count of 250, later revised through subsequent investigations to a total of 107, inclusive of non-civilian casualties.
Furthermore, there's a significant omission. The Deir Yassin events didn't occur in isolation; they were part of a broader context — a battle during the Arab-Jewish civil war, where Jewish militias aimed to break the blockade of Jerusalem enforced by Arab militias.
The Deir Yassin incident has undergone extensive scrutiny, exemplified in Eliezer Tauber's book.
https://www.amazon.com/Massacre-That-Never-Was/dp/1592645437
C6JEsQeQa5fCjE|2 years ago
> Israel for years had the means to completely exterminate Gaza many times over, but they never did
In a theoretical sense that Israel had the means to, sure. But in practice, Israel couldn't really do that without disastrous consequences to itself, could it? Having protection and support from major powers, like the UK and USA, has been a lifeline for Israel ever since its creation. If US stopped using its veto power to protect Israel within the UN Security Council, it would have been under heavy sanctions for a very long time now, and its prosperity and perhaps even existence would be under serious question (see [1] and [2]). If US stopped providing military funding and arms support to Israel, it would seriously impede its ability to wage war. If those same powers were not helping its defenses (either directly or via deterrence) against the many enemies it has historically had in the region (it has basically no neighbouring country that it is in good relations with), it is doubtful that it would still have existed to this day. The governments of the countries protecting Israel would not be able to keep doing that if Israel made a move so radical such as large-scale extermination of Palestinians in a post-WW2 world that does not look fondly on genocide. So no, they do not have the means to completely exterminate citizens of Gaza in practice.
And even if Israel had both the means and the freedom to completely exterminate Gazans yet chose not to do it, does NOT committing something so obviously atrocious provide any justification for doing other kinds of atrocities that most people would categorize as less severe? I strongly argue that it does not. To use a silly analogy, someone who stole a significant chunk of your money from you does not deserve praise for not stealing all of it just because they theoretically had the means to. They have still done you injustice, inflicted harm, and deserve condemnation. No one should be free from criticism when they commit acts that deserve criticism.
About your point (1), the reactionary expulsion of jewish citizens of the neighbouring states in the post-Palestinian-ethnic-cleansing-of-48 world [3] is also a tragedy that also deserves condemnation. It is not the current burning issue, however, while Gazans are being bombed and starved to death as we speak, which is why there are so many people talking about Gaza right now and not about that. Nevertheless, I would not want to stop anyone from talking about it, as again, no one should be free from criticism when they commit acts that deserve criticism, and I welcome anyone with time and motivation to open topics about it. This current topic here, however, deserves full attention of its own without whataboutism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut...
[2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_...
becausepc|2 years ago
Point (1) aims to highlight a counterpoint to a comparable yet opposing claim - the expulsion of Arabs in 1948. The claim from 1948 continues to fuel hostilities to this day.