In principle I agree, and being human could quibble over some minor points. I’m at the point of pessimism where I’d support any solution that brings equity (I’m despairing for justice) and both parties could live with. Am inclusive one-state respective of all citizens is a romantic desire but there’s no pathway to it. In some ways similar applies to an equitable two-state. A confederacy model could be a half-way house solution that may in the future move onto a more inclusive formation, but again, how do we get there? https://ipconfederation.org/
Good points Max. I am with you on this 100 percent. Having been to So Africa during apartheid I can say the similarities are striking. Not just in the de facto and de jure discrimination, but also in the mindset of many Israeli and certainly AmericanJews who view the Palestinians as sub humans, or as an inferior race. The settler colonial descriptor is accurate as it is for the US and several other world powers. But many on the Left have landed on the term as their quick and dirty way to characterize something much more complicated. It's the the same way lefty Tankies have landed on the phrase "surrogate war" to describe what is in fact a unilateral Russian invasion. In their little heads they believe if the say the phrase enough repeatedly they really dont have to engage in any real analysis. The same way the Left still refers to all Cubans who leave Cuba as "gusanos" or worms. Labeling them as such pre-empts and replaces any discussion of WHY these people -- many who had been Communists for years-- are bailing out. One last note, I do think the term "genocide" in terms of the Palestinians is way off base. They are suffering inhuman collective punishment, indiscriminate bombing and forced displacement. It is a horror. But it is not erasue of a race or an ethnicity as true genocide means. Throwing these terms around without much thought only weakens the real impact of what is going on. One not need worry about the endgame in Gaza cuz there isn;t gonna be one for some time to come and it is not going to include any sort of real Palestinian state. Indeed, I suspect the next three phases of the war are: an intifada on the west bank, escalation on the northern front, and the pushing of SOME Pals into the Egyptian Sinai.
I agree that "genocide" does not describe what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. Good ole' "war crimes" is enough for me. But it might describe their actions in the West Bank. Depriving a people of their land fits the legal definition, I believe. Merely killing a lot of them does not. Legal definitions map poorly onto moral ones.
I don't see the point of haggling over the legal definitions. Killing thousands of people because of their ethnicity is close enough for me. Great powers make international law to suit themselves. Looking for internal rationale or consistency is a mug's game.
In principle I agree, and being human could quibble over some minor points. I’m at the point of pessimism where I’d support any solution that brings equity (I’m despairing for justice) and both parties could live with. Am inclusive one-state respective of all citizens is a romantic desire but there’s no pathway to it. In some ways similar applies to an equitable two-state. A confederacy model could be a half-way house solution that may in the future move onto a more inclusive formation, but again, how do we get there? https://ipconfederation.org/
There will be NO settlement of any sort for yrs to come. Only jerry-rigged schemes to half-ass govern Gaza by, ultimately, Israel.
Good points Max. I am with you on this 100 percent. Having been to So Africa during apartheid I can say the similarities are striking. Not just in the de facto and de jure discrimination, but also in the mindset of many Israeli and certainly AmericanJews who view the Palestinians as sub humans, or as an inferior race. The settler colonial descriptor is accurate as it is for the US and several other world powers. But many on the Left have landed on the term as their quick and dirty way to characterize something much more complicated. It's the the same way lefty Tankies have landed on the phrase "surrogate war" to describe what is in fact a unilateral Russian invasion. In their little heads they believe if the say the phrase enough repeatedly they really dont have to engage in any real analysis. The same way the Left still refers to all Cubans who leave Cuba as "gusanos" or worms. Labeling them as such pre-empts and replaces any discussion of WHY these people -- many who had been Communists for years-- are bailing out. One last note, I do think the term "genocide" in terms of the Palestinians is way off base. They are suffering inhuman collective punishment, indiscriminate bombing and forced displacement. It is a horror. But it is not erasue of a race or an ethnicity as true genocide means. Throwing these terms around without much thought only weakens the real impact of what is going on. One not need worry about the endgame in Gaza cuz there isn;t gonna be one for some time to come and it is not going to include any sort of real Palestinian state. Indeed, I suspect the next three phases of the war are: an intifada on the west bank, escalation on the northern front, and the pushing of SOME Pals into the Egyptian Sinai.
I agree that "genocide" does not describe what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. Good ole' "war crimes" is enough for me. But it might describe their actions in the West Bank. Depriving a people of their land fits the legal definition, I believe. Merely killing a lot of them does not. Legal definitions map poorly onto moral ones.
I don't see the point of haggling over the legal definitions. Killing thousands of people because of their ethnicity is close enough for me. Great powers make international law to suit themselves. Looking for internal rationale or consistency is a mug's game.