The bare minimum expected of a leader of the American left, and a democratic socialist, should be a willingness to say “I endorse the conclusion of mainstream human rights organizations.” Why wouldn’t Sanders be willing to do that? He says that it doesn’t really matter “what you call it,” because it’s horrific. But clearly it does matter to Sanders, because he is making a choice not to use the same language as the human rights organizations. Why is he making that choice? He has not explained.
Sanders is right that the more important debate is about actions rather than language. But genocide is also the supreme crime against humanity, and it is so unanimously reviled that it makes a difference whether we use the term. For instance: there might be a debate over whether we should cut off weapons to a state that has “engaged in war crimes.” (How many? Are they aberrations or policy?) The Allied powers in World War II engaged in war crimes, and many Americans think war crimes can be justified in the service of a noble end. But there can be no debate over whether we should ever arm a state that has engaged in genocide. Genocide has no justification, no mitigation. If a state is committing it, all ties should be cut with that state.
Actually, we can see the difference in Bernie Sanders’ own policy response to Israel’s crimes. He told CNN that “your taxpayer dollars” should not go to support a “horror.” This is true. Sanders, to his credit, has repeatedly proposed a bill that would cut off a certain amount of weapons sales to Israel. Democratic opinion has so soured on Israel that Sanders’ bill attracted a record amount of Democratic support (27 senators, more than half the caucus.) But notably, Sanders’ bill only cuts off “offensive” weapons to Israel, leaving “defensive” weapons sales intact.
We might think that it’s perfectly fine to sell “defensive” weapons. Israel’s “Iron Dome” system, which U.S. taxpayers help pay for, protects the country against incoming missiles, and protection against incoming missiles is surely a good and noble thing. But notably, we have not bought Hamas its own “iron dome.” Or Iran. Or Russia. This is because we do not support the causes for which they fight. We understand in these cases that to help the “defense” is to help the “offense.” If Russia is protected from Ukrainian missiles, it will fight Ukraine more effectively. Likewise, if Israel is protected from Hamas rocket fire, but Gaza is not protected from Israeli missiles, the balance of arms is tilted toward Israel, and they can pulverize Gaza without Hamas being able to inflict similar damage in response.
That is not a reasonable characterisation of Israel, and in any case, is not the same as a genocide, so your reply isn't even relevant.
If you want to point to the creation of Israel as problematic, then by all means do so, but the available options boiled down to:
3 was already not working. 2 was attempted but nobody could agree on how to do it. In the end what we got was a bit of all three, but calling that "supremacist colonial" as if that is the original sin from which all other problems followed implies that there was some other option that could have been taken which would have worked out well. In which case, spell it out.
Otherwise, you are saying that the choice of one bad option among only bad options means that the result is unsupportable for ever more, which is ludicrous.
Not a reasonable characterisation? Why don’t you post about the Lehi, so everyone can judge by themselves? Allow me:
I have highlighted the ““problematic”” parts of the genocidal colonial project.
You are a pathetic coward ignorant who uses dead children to bend history with your disgusting lies.
Now reply my questions liar: who put a family in an oven after the end of WWII in 1948?
Zionist are the scum of the earth
I give them 3 solutions: either leave Palestine, make living together work or die.
Pasting large bits of a wikipedia article about how a terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation is not useful. It should be obvious to you from what I've written - if you're actually reading it - that I don't think the creation of the state of Israel was some kind of clean and just process.
What I commented about was that people are applying bad lenses to the situation in 2011. Bringing in atrocities from 60 years before is just showing that you are continuing to do that. If you are using 60-year-old history to decide everything, think about how that would affect how we dealt with all the axis powers from WW2.
For decades, living together was mostly working. But during this time, it's not like the only violations and provocations were on the Israeli side. So it sounds to me like you're saying that Israel, during this time, should have "made living together work" while under rocket attack, while being attacked in the Yom Kippur war, while being the subject of random terror attacks, and most recently after being subject to a massive attack that killed over a thousand and took dozens of hostages. We hear the refrain almost daily about Israel's "right to defend itself" so it's easy to forget what it's about.
If you think that the onus is solely on Israel to "make it work" under these conditions - and it looks like you do because you only criticise Israel - then you don't actually have three solutions. You have two: "leave or die". That is advocating the ethnic cleansing of Jews.
We should not ignore or forget the atrocities committed by Jews in the creation of Israel, nor the continued illegal building of settlements that inevitably provokes violence from Palestinians but if you only place criticism, blame and conditions on Israel and Jews then you are not fighting for a better world at all, just ethnic cleansing of a flavour that, apparently but horrifyingly, is acceptable to you. Whether that's because of antisemitism or some other reason that causes you to feel more keenly the plight of Palestinians doesn't matter: it's disgusting that anyone who moralises as much as you have can simultaneously hold such a position.
I don’t care about your opinions, you proved yourself as a liar and you are keep lying and distorting reality.
If someone is reading this, this above is called HASBARA (aka israeli propaganda) and mr. FishFace is practicing it perfectly. Please learn to spot it, they just want to waste your time.
More about Hasbara