> It was also committed more than 70 years ago, technically before Israel was even founded.
> Those were statements made the week after the horrible October 7th massacre. They were propaganda statements that should never have been made, but you call it repeated. And it isn't.
Hmm... I smell a double standard. Cite Israeli aggression too recently and it's justified sensationalism - cite it from the 50s and you're passing an invisible statute of limitations. Most people on this site are American, they're not going to lambaste you for supporting a political nuthouse lest they scorn themselves. But they will (and rightfully so) contest anyone that tries laundering history to create a halo-effect for their favorite nation. Zionism deserves it's due shake no matter what the conditions were at the time, especially considering how interests in the region predated WWII with the Balfour declaration.
The problem isn't people, but politics. Israel (as does America with their Abrahamic militants) has an extremism problem that has been given undue control over government and military proceedings. Their actions (as you've admit with the propaganda concession) has justified insane actions and statements that cannot be rationally supported. The events of October 7th were gruesome indeed, but most people will admit that Israel's reactions were too incensed to take seriously. The world's apprehension would be proven correct as Israel made hot-headed mistakes like bombing aid workers and approving poorly-targeted operations as bloody restitution.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The US depends on Israel to not just enforce peace in the Levant, but to export the Western esprit de corps across the world. If Israel continues to allow it's politics to be dictated entirely by identity and emotion, then logic will be rhetorically unnecessary to justify any military action.
> Hmm... I smell a double standard. Cite Israeli aggression too recently and it's justified sensationalism - cite it from the 50s and you're passing an invisible statute of limitations.
My problem with citing one statement out of a thousand is that it gives the wrong impression, especially if that is made in the heat of war rhetoric.
And I don't think there's any double standard with saying that we should consider war crimes committed 80 years ago as less relevant. That's how everyone thinks of things all the time in other contexts. Egypt was one of the countries that fought wars with Israel multiple times - now Egypt and Israel have peace. Moving on from past violence is pretty much how every conflict eventually ends.
> The events of October 7th were gruesome indeed, but most people will admit that Israel's reactions were too incensed to take seriously.
Most people think so. And they might be right. I certainly have a lot of questions and doubts about the way Israel has carried out the war.
But it's worth noting that many/most of the most vocal critics of Israel were incredibly critical before Israel had done almost anything. Israel was accused of genocide almost days after October 7th. And indeed, all over the world, people were protesting Israel while Hamas militants were still inside Israel slaughtering families, before Israel had done any response.
So I take criticism of Israel from some people seriously, but with a huge grain of salt.
> My problem with citing one statement out of a thousand is that it gives the wrong impression, especially if that is made in the heat of war rhetoric.
The Amalek quote is from October or November but
“This is a battle, not only of Israel against these barbarians, it is a battle of civilisation against barbarism,” Dec 24th
> Israeli President Isaac Herzog said a few weeks earlier, on December 5, that Israel’s attack on Gaza is “a war that is intended, really, truly, to save western civilisation… [from] an empire of evil”.
> My problem with citing one statement out of a thousand is that it gives the wrong impression, especially if that is made in the heat of war rhetoric.
Heat of war rhetoric is exactly the problem here, though. The War on Terror is 20-odd years old now and people are just as skeptical now as they were when aggression initiated. Without objective or logical goals to attain, Israel's defense forces can't cripple the Iranian infrastructure that threatens them, and they instead fight in Gaza as a perceived proxy. And instead of stabilizing their neighboring region, the IDF tactically neutered it to prevent any chance at sovereign control. Their goals are pretty much blatantly obvious, if you're looking at the big picture.
> And I don't think there's any double standard with saying that we should consider war crimes committed 80 years ago as less relevant.
I disagree wholeheartedly, and I suspect the ADL would object too. War crimes are consistently relevant, and stain their associated administration with the intent of bringing specific criminals to justice and preventing patterns of abuse. When the Axis lost in WWII, the Nazi regime fell but the criminals, their ideology and the hateful rhetoric they used persisted. Germany only absolved themselves by committing to complete and good-faith national reformation, which Israel hasn't undergone since the nation's inception.
> Israel was accused of genocide almost days after October 7th.
They were accused of genocide for a lot longer than that. From the very start, Israel ordered the poisoning of wells in Lebanon[0], tacitly endorsed mass-killings in the West Bank[1] and researched minimum sustainment for the remaining Gazan population[2]. It doesn't make you antisemitic to note these things any more than it makes you racist for acknowledging slavery. These are politically and ideologically motivated fascinations with the suppression of a native people that errs on uncanny.
It's not my pleasure to report it in the slightest, because it's a harrowing reflection of how far global powers will bend over to support dubious interests. But it's also our global responsibility to excise all forms of dangerous extremism, otherwise we're just hypocrites. The IDF's attitude (and likely much of Israel, considering the terms of conscription) reaches dangerous levels of nationalism that are synonymous with supremacist and genocidal intent. We don't have to ask ourselves if Israel supports this or not, because settlers in the Golan Heights are allowed to molest the natives without fear of reprisal.
Take your criticism from wherever it pleases you, but do not write off anti-Zionist protest as transient or outdated. Israel has done this to themselves by creating a soft power echo-chamber that only rewards their worst impulses. They've had every opportunity to acknowledge their mistakes and address them, but they refuse relentlessly. I do not respect the IDF, and their actions embarrass me simply by being a member of the first world. They need to change, or Israel will sign their fate as another internationally embarrassing hermit kingdom.
> Those were statements made the week after the horrible October 7th massacre. They were propaganda statements that should never have been made, but you call it repeated. And it isn't.
Hmm... I smell a double standard. Cite Israeli aggression too recently and it's justified sensationalism - cite it from the 50s and you're passing an invisible statute of limitations. Most people on this site are American, they're not going to lambaste you for supporting a political nuthouse lest they scorn themselves. But they will (and rightfully so) contest anyone that tries laundering history to create a halo-effect for their favorite nation. Zionism deserves it's due shake no matter what the conditions were at the time, especially considering how interests in the region predated WWII with the Balfour declaration.
The problem isn't people, but politics. Israel (as does America with their Abrahamic militants) has an extremism problem that has been given undue control over government and military proceedings. Their actions (as you've admit with the propaganda concession) has justified insane actions and statements that cannot be rationally supported. The events of October 7th were gruesome indeed, but most people will admit that Israel's reactions were too incensed to take seriously. The world's apprehension would be proven correct as Israel made hot-headed mistakes like bombing aid workers and approving poorly-targeted operations as bloody restitution.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The US depends on Israel to not just enforce peace in the Levant, but to export the Western esprit de corps across the world. If Israel continues to allow it's politics to be dictated entirely by identity and emotion, then logic will be rhetorically unnecessary to justify any military action.