Is this anti-semitism?

Pretty obviously you could say 'Well, Russian diplomats, British diplomats, etc, also put suits on and talk about unfortunate but unavoidable civilian deaths, why the focus on Israeli diplomats?'

I think that an anti war perspective so radical that it doesn't distinguish between explicitly targeting civilians (whether by rockets in Sderot or broken windows in Paris) from civilian fatalities in the course of war is sympathetic but ultimately incompatible with my personal values. If you want to equate the two I think you'll probably get a lot of agreement here but not from me.

Israel has been explicitly targeting civilians

it's weird that you won't acknowledge this

Even if it hasn't, there's the finest of fine lines between targeting civilians and achieving what are arguably legitimate military objectives in a manner that you know will create a huge civilian death toll (imprecise bombing /shelling of populated areas) out of all proportion to the number of combatants getting hit.

It's not just a question for Israel, though.

We seem to be coming quite close to saying 'Some kids died in Gaza (in the course of war), and some anti-semites (intentionally) smashed a synagogue's windows in Paris: the latter is worse' which is something that I am willing to entertain but ultimately can't agree with

that's certainly what I've read here today and I'm shocked SHOCKRD

For what little it's worth, I have been arguing on Facebook with someone who posted a meme that said 'Fuck Israel and Yehudis'

I asked them if that meant 'Jews' as in Jews not living in Israel and they said yes, the argument went on for some time, I began to get unpleasant inbox messages from friends of theirs

Has chatting with your antisemitic friends given you any insight into the current topic of discussion (the relationship between antisemitism and the pro-Palestinian movement) or just into how best to rank the "worseness" of various bad things?

the argument went on for some time

not sure what there was to argue about really

xp I'm more trying to point out that whatever disagreement I may have with you on this thread is pretty much a non-issue considering the value you bring to the discussion, cf the many things I had not thought about until ILX poster Mordy said them

I'm probably rather taking some kind of connection or goodwill between us for granted throughout this thread

For the record, these facebook 'friends', or 'friend' - one person, the others were not people I knew - is someone encountered only a few times in real life, more of an acquaintance

idk I think I'd rest easier if mordy definitively stated which he thinks is worse broken glass in Paris or dead kids in Gaza, in fact all Jews should have to rank these two things just cos it'd rly help the discussion otherwise occurring ITT which tbf was a little tough to nail down in a quick y/n until now

I've not asked Mordy to make any such definitive statement because to do so would be a stupid verbal trap, whatever Mordy said I could then go 'Aha! So I win, yes?' which is not what I'm here to do; I resent darragh's implying that this is what I'm aiming for

I got no beef witya but at the same time I'll survive

fair enough

at least now I know what keeps darragh up at night

xp

that and the neighbours

who are Syrian BTW but that's aside

The neighbors' laundry iirc.

xp aha

dammit we truly live in a surveillance age huh

xp I'm more trying to point out that whatever disagreement I may have with you on this thread is pretty much a non-issue considering the value you bring to the discussion, cf the many things I had not thought about until ILX poster Mordy said them

Thank you - I think that's a generous post. I am sorry for snarking you - I just find the kind of moral calculus that you've been pushing (first asking whether IDF actions somehow explain or justify antisemitism in Europe and the Middle East, and now contrasting said antisemitism on a moral scale to civilians killed in war) to be questionable. And I did mean my question sincerely - you're currently having a discussion on facebook that speaks directly to what I bumped this thread with - the incredible difficulty separating jew hatred from anti-Israel sentiment. I really want to know what kind of insight you've had from that discussion that might be relevant here.

@Mordy: and thanks to you, too.

I just find the kind of moral calculus that you've been pushing (first asking whether IDF actions somehow explain or justify antisemitism in Europe and the Middle East, and now contrasting said antisemitism on a moral scale to civilians killed in war) to be questionable.

To be clear, I definitively do not support the following positions:

'Anti-semitism is okay, because it's all a reaction to IDF actions'
'You have to agree that anti-semitic violence which doe not include armed killing, is better than violence elsewhere which does include armed killing; further, non-killing anti-semitic violence just doesn't matter, it's trivial - you must spend all of your care points on these dead children, and must not waste any of them on this broken window'
'Anti-semitism among the pro-palestinian movement is a non-issue'

I have seen positions like this put about, which brings me to:

And I did mean my question sincerely - you're currently having a discussion on facebook that speaks directly to what I bumped this thread with - the incredible difficulty separating jew hatred from anti-Israel sentiment. I really want to know what kind of insight you've had from that discussion that might be relevant here.

What little insight I was able to gain from the facebook interaction goes as follows:
* Many people possess anti-Israel sentiment without being part of any organised pro-Palestinian movement. Where this lot are also anti-Semitic, their distance from the organised pro-Palestianian movement should be taken into account. If it isn't - if we lump everyone who talks against Israel socially in with the people who collect money or volunteer in Palestinian farms - it's a lot easier to characterise the pro-Palestine movement as a thuggish reality behind a facade of (political, ethical) concern.
* There are at least two groups of people who have anti-Israel sentiment without being part of an actual pro-Palestinian movement. First, general leftists who are involved in some actual political activity, but for whom opposition to Israel is not a central activity so much as a default determined by their general left allegiance; second, 'lost', messy, young people from a middle-eastern background who have indirect experience of conflict with Israel through their parent's generation and through hearing of it from friends and relatives who live in the region. These two sorts of people were present on that thread.
* But - looking at non-professional pro-Palestinian, or pro-Israeli, postings on social media and IRL talking points - are we then to ignore everyone who only 'lightly' supports a cause? What is the threshold for the sort of person we should look at when trying to work out what is the nature of pro-Palestinianism or pro-Israelism.
* People when arguing on facebook are remarkably quick to profess the absolute sanctity of life whilst (sometimes within the same sentence) more or less dismissing some deaths as irrelevant. This goes for the people I was talking to in the comments under the anti-semitic meme, but I have also seen it in supporters of other belligerent factions (i.e. I have seen it on all sides of Pakistan vs India Online, Northern Ireland Online and Balkans Online).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2703409/Maccabi-Haifas-friendly-Lille-stopped-early-pro-Palestinian-protesters-storm-pitch-attack-players.html

I think that an anti war perspective so radical that it doesn't distinguish between explicitly targeting civilians (whether by rockets in Sderot or broken windows in Paris) from civilian fatalities in the course of war is sympathetic but ultimately incompatible with my personal values. If you want to equate the two I think you'll probably get a lot of agreement here but not from me.

is there clear evidence that israel isn't deliberately targeting civilians beyond "they say they aren't" or "they'd be crazy to target civilians"? in any case the line between "explicitly targeting civilians" and "shit happens, it's war" is pretty blurry; the obama admin also claims not to be targeting civilians despite the fact that u.s. drone strikes have killed hundreds of civilians.

Also that intentionally targeting civilians historically results in far more fatalities than we have seen. The "if they're intentionally trying to kill civilians they are doing a bad job of it" argument. A popular meme response is "they are killing so few to stay under the radar and escape condemnation" which seems silly to me for a bunch of reasons.

The ideas behind "they'd be crazy to target civilians" are convincing.

It's also possible that Israeli official policy is something less than "kill em all" but more than "let's gently track down all the rockets." There is military advantage to be gain in the demoralization of a population, as has always been true in war.

I also believe that there are individual soldiers, if not unit commanders, within the military who are capable of deliberately killing civilians or looking the other way as it happens.

I find it unlikely that there was an order from a top to deliberately, knowingly fire on a UN school in which people were sheltering, but what's the explanation? Bad intelligence? Rogue tankist?

Am I right that thus far there has been no explanation? It could be everything from an errant Israeli attack to a Hamas missile falling short of its target.

I find it ridiculous to think that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians, which seems like another turn of the propaganda wheel to try to equate Israel with Hamas, who *does* intentionally target civilians, and use human shields, and nestle itself in civilian populations, and store weapons in public spaces. I think this traditionally accounts for a large amount of civilian Palestinian deaths. But I do think this Israeli operation, like several before it, has been born of frustration, from sitting back for months watching missiles get shot down over their cities, knowing all along who is doing it and where they are. So my (totally armchair, of course) sense is that Israel does occasionally enter a "fuck it" stage and abandon its more cautious moral calculus for the sake of expediency. They understand they will be criticised and condemned no matter what they do, so they overcompensate to make its operations (in this case getting rid of missile caches and blowing up tunnels) as quick as possible, which of course leads to the hideous complication of civilian deaths. Not sure what the alternative is, as long a Hamas is harbored or hidden amidst regular people, though.

Great, let the requests on Facebook for an alternative to fucking Sodastream resume. Sigh. I'm going to tell all my friends to divest of their Russian-made Big Muff pedals and novelty nesting dolls.

"I find it ridiculous to think that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians, which seems like another turn of the propaganda wheel to try to equate Israel with Hamas, who *does* intentionally target civilians, and use human shields"

Why is it ridiculous? I know the IDF PR line is that they try really, really hard to not kill civilians, but consistently findings by HRW, Amnesty, etc go counter to these claims. I mean if you honestly still believe in this after the UNRWA bombing you'll believe anything.

http://www.amnesty.org/ar/library/as...50152009en.pdf

from the above Amnesty report released after Cast Lead:

in the cases of (Israeli) precision missiles or tank shells which killed (Palestinian) civilians in their homes, no fighters were present in the houses that were struck and Amnesty International delegates found no indication that there had been any armed confrontations or other military activity in the immediate vicinity at the time of the attack.

B'Tselem on the current targeting of civilians:
http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20140713_palestinians_killed_in_illegal_attacks_on_houses

According to B'Tselem's initial findings, from the start of Operation Protective Edge there were ten incidents in which Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were killed when the Israeli military bombed homes. 52 people were killed in these incidents, of them 19 minors and 12 women. An additional incident, in which six members of the same family were killed was defined by the military as a targeted killing, and was therefore not included in this figure.

Official spokespeople state that it is enough for a person to be involved in military activity to render his home (and his neighbors' homes) legitimate military targets, without having to prove any connection between his activity and the house in which he and his family live. This interpretation is unfounded and illegal. It is not a coincidence that the number of uninvolved civilians killed or injured by these bombings is growing. The law is meant to protect civilians and, unsurprisingly, violating it has lethal consequences. Euphemisms such as "surgical strikes" or "operational infrastructure" cannot hide the facts: illegal attacks of homes, which constitute punitive home demolition from the air, come at a dreadful cost in human life.

on the other hand, the World's Most Moral Army has no problem using Gazans as human shields:

Amnesty report, page 48:

During Operation “Cast Lead” Israeli forces repeatedly took over Palestinian homes in the
Gaza Strip forcing families to stay in a ground-floor room while they used the rest of their
house as a military base and sniper position – effectively using the families, both adults and
children, as “human shields” and putting them at risk.72 While soldiers wore protective body
armour and helmets and shielded themselves behind sandbags as they fired from the houses,
the Palestinian inhabitants of the houses had no such protection.

From 2005: "The Israeli Defence Ministry will appeal against a supreme court ruling banning the use of Palestinian human shields in raids, officials said." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

Well, what's the difference between the Israeli 'fuck it' phase resulting in so far 800 deaths, and the Parisian 'fuck it' phase resulting in broken windows? Both things are completely wrong, you never ever ever are allowed to think 'fuck it' and abandon cautious moral calculus. It should ALWAYS be critisized strongly.

If you pay attention to the violent rhetoric coming from prominent politicians in Israel, to the statements made by generals, not to mention the reported upswell in reactionary, anti-Arab sentiment in sections of the general public (http://www.haaretz.com/.premium-1.606848?v=747F2BB12A33B56FAA93DBF1585507A2), is it really that hard to imagine why so many civilians are being killed during the incursion? Is it really that hard to imagine that it's a deliberate set of actions designed to gain political capital?

Well, what's the difference between the Israeli 'fuck it' phase resulting in so far 800 deaths, and the Parisian 'fuck it' phase resulting in broken windows?

Without wishing to excuse the abhorrent Parisian violence in any way shape or form, the windows can be replaced but the dead will stay dead. That's a difference.

You guys that buy IDF PR, did you believe Rumsfeld's press conferences too? Militaries lie to the press for expediency's sake/ass covering. Twas ever thus.

I don't think it's fair or equitable to compare hate crimes and actual killing. They are different things, and picking one as worse than the other does a disservice. There are far more people terrorized around the world due to prejudice, racism and hate than actually killed.

Anyway, I would hardly call violence in Paris "fuck it," because it is totally indirectly related to the Israeli conflict, as opposed to the actual battle on the ground. It's a voluntary, totally unjustified expression of racism, also born of frustration but totally lacking justification.

is it really that hard to imagine why so many civilians are being killed during the incursion?

This is something many have alluded to repeatedly: there have been many more civilians killed elsewhere in days or even hours of fighting than in weeks in this. It's a small miracle the death toll is as low as they are, compared to the numbers recorded by history, considering we are talking about bombs and missiles, which even when they are precise can never be totally precise, especially from a remove. So yes, it is hard to imagine that civilians are being killed en masse with intent, because the numbers don't bear that out. Does not make it right or good or whatever. I think it's just another sad paradox of contemporary war, the luxury of counting the dead by the body rather than by the pile.

World's Most Moral Army

Assumptions/presumptions/perceptions/contradictions like this don't help. Once again, per the thread, the treatment of regular Hamas missile bombardment for months as somehow mundane or not worth making a fuss over - because they're shot down. right? - is troubling. I never see people up in arms (so to speak) at this. But when Israel fights back? Different story. The implication is that Israel is only acting morally when it does nothing.

Personally, I think Israel is entirely justified. I also happen to think Israel is entirely wrong to do what it is doing. But just as the so-called Arab street can be radicalized, I imagine Israelis feel a certain similar pressure to move rightward. Assuming the majority of both sides are relatively moderate, I'd love to see a new peace movement stem from democratic elections, but I don't think that will happen, not least because of the divided nature of the Israeli government, but certainly because of the fractured nature of the Palestinian government (when it even has elections, for that matter).

You guys that buy IDF PR, did you believe Rumsfeld's press conferences too? Militaries lie to the press for expediency's sake/ass covering. Twas ever thus.

This is 100% accurate. But once you accuse people of lying, or believe they are lying, then you better believe that everyone is lying. Or would be foolish to believe one side over another, or even in the illusion of objective accounting.

You are quite otm re: Paris, but you have to allow that the arab immigrants feel a pressure to get radicalized as well. Which isn't due to Israel, as much as shitty living conditions, the rise of right-wing populists movements, etc. Does not make it right at all.

But the same has to be said about the radicalization of Israeli society. I don't know what else to call it. This time, the conflict escalated after the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, and the following kidnapping and burning alive of a Palestinian teenager. That retaliatory attack is completely insane and frightening. And I find it hard to supress the notion that the radicalization of the right-wing, orthodox side of Israeli politics, and that side's outsized influence in Israeli public life, doesn't have some bearing on the civilian death-toll in Gaza, which, come on, quite frankly is out of proportion to the goals Israel is trying to achieve. Because what is the point of this war? Israel isn't trying to crush Hamas - they know something worse will take it's place. Nor does anybody think the rocket-attacks will permanently end, right? It's just supposed to make the rockets stop for a year or two, which, quite frankly, does not seem to justify 800 deaths.

Once again, there's the double standard (though I totally get what you're saying). The "conflict escalated after the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers and the following kidnapping and burning alive of a Palestinian teenager," but "that retaliatory attack is completely insane and frightening." No, they're absolutely both completely insane and frightening! And stopping the rockets for two years indeed does not seem to justify 800 deaths - agreed. But the fact that there are rockets at all? Also totally unjustified. I think what we're seeing is the mishmash of conflicts, the radical vs. the radicalized. And I do believe those are two very different things. Until the radicals on both sides are stifled, the radicalized will proliferate. But as of yet Hamas is the only party with a radical charter, and the only radical group getting funding and arms from outside sources, explicitly for offensive purposes. Until the flow of arms and support to Hamas is stopped, this will go on forever. That seems like the only logical first step. Then Israel needs to stop the settlements, open borders and stop other antagonistic, counter-productive policies, official or no. And then both sides can get to the table, concede an international presence in Jerusalem and divvy up the rest.

And then they can start fighting again.

the whole thing is super hard for me to take. mixed in with all the airline crashes the scale of senseless suffering in the news is at psychically insupportable levels

Yes, both attacks were insane and frightening. But nobody is surprised by the fact that a terrorist organization murdered three teenagers, while the burning alive was a complete shock for me. That is not a double standard. And while I did wonder if I should make that explicit, I ended up thinking it was clear enough as it is.

I thought it was not at all clear that Hamas had anything to do with the 3 Israeli teenagers? Or forgive me if you meant a smaller fragment of some terrorist organization.

The problem is, though, the attack on Gaza won't stop Hamas. It the long run, it can only help it. Who will rebuild all the infra-structure destroyed as collateral damage? Why, probably Hamas with help from the same outsize groups delivering the offensive weapons.

Hamas has to be seen as a part of a major regional power-struggle, along with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the different versions of the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. And the way the west interacts in that power-struggle is pretty dismal, from the hawkish neo-imperialists to the quite frankly racist multi-culturalists believing every episode in the Middle East to be the result of the only people in the world with agency: Us. There need to be a lot more focus on what the fuck is actually going on. But it also is very, very complex, and the idea that the flow of arms and support to Hamas can be stopped as a 'logical first step' is quite frankly wrong, imo. That flow will only stop as part of a large amount of previous steps. Israel and the rest of the west needs to work on those other steps, instead of killing arabs with missiles, in Gaza, Yemen or other places. Plus, there need to be a focus on 'de-radicalizing' the public in Israel (in quotes, because compared to the radical extremism found in the region, etc). That includes condemnation of the 'fuck it phase', firm and strong. But it also means the west has to realize stuff like BDS can only work to the extent it doesn't help any sort of 'under siege' mentality, etc.

nobody is surprised

And that's the contradiction I was trying to express. There is one side whose tactics and actions are horrible but expected. Hamas is horrible, no surprise. There is another whose every tactic and action is criticised, but because they are the only party that *can* stop, they are the only party people expect to stop. Which of course is no solution, and is perhaps why calls for Israel to stop are sometimes construed as calls to surrender. The party that can fight back with superior power is the party expected not to do that. But there is no limit to what we expect from Hamas.

Agree this is all pretty wrenching right now.

It seems to me, that you can complain about Israel being equated with Hamas or you can complain about a double-standard, but I'm not sure that you can complain about both.

This is 100% accurate. But once you accuse people of lying, or believe they are lying, then you better believe that everyone is lying.

Hamas and the IDF are obviously both completely unreliable. Amnesty International and the U.N. and other outside observers are a different story.

In my experience one needs to be skeptical of information coming out of the UN (and especially organizations like UNRWA) as well.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-btselem-counts-terrorists-as.html

The UN doesn't count he casualties in Gaza directly. They get the data from a consortium of "human rights" groups: the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Al Mezan, and B'Tselem, which they call the "Protection Cluster." Based on the data they receive from these groups they publish their statistics of whether the dead in Gaza are civilian or "members of armed groups."

I've already shown in great detail how PCHR (and, indirectly, Al Mezan) classified hundreds of members of Hamas and other terror groups as "civilian."

What about B'Tselem, an Israeli group? How do they determine who is a terrorist and who is a civilian?

Clare Malone from FiveThirtyEight Politics has an interview with a B'Tselem spokesperson, Sarit Michaeli, and this question comes up. The answer is revealing as to how the world is getting fooled by "human rights" groups with an agenda:

CM: Palestinians could stand to gain sympathy if they lied about how many civilians are killed. Do you think witnesses ever try to obfuscate the type of person who was killed?

SM: I think it’s not unheard of. I don’t think it’s as big of an issue as the Israeli government would present it to be. For Palestinians, being involved in legitimate — in their minds — resistance against Israelis isn’t a thing to be ashamed of. They’re proud of it, and the fighters are certainly proud of it. There are also stipends and payments to Palestinians who were killed while resisting the Israeli occupation. (Again, I’m using intra-Palestinian language.) So there are also some conflicting interests, and I think for many Palestinians they would gladly admit that their relative who was killed was involved as a fighter.

That's it: the way B'Tselem determines if a dead Gaza is a civilian is by asking their families and assuming that they are telling the truth.

While they admit that this might not be the most accurate method, and some people might lie, they are basing their assumption that they are being told the truth on the assumption that the families are proud of their dead relative's terrorist ties.

What B'Tselem completely ignores is that Hamas, though the Gaza Interior Ministry, has instructed Gazans to identify every dead person as an "innocent civilian."

Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian from Gaza or Palestine, before we talk about his status in jihad or his military rank. Don't forget to always add 'innocent civilian' or 'innocent citizen' in your description of those killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.