Israel?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think Israel has taken the position there will be no more Palestinians allowed. They will be killed or assimilated. The position, I think, is there will never be a two-state solution.

I don't think that's the position of Israel. I think that's the position of the current government of Israel, and I want to make that distinction.

[wes4dbt]

I don't think that's the position of Israel. I think that's the position of the current government of Israel, and I want to make that distinction.

You've made this distinction before and I'm not sure what your trying to say. The government is forcing this on them? I don't know anything about Israel's governing system. Don't they have elections. Maybe you could explain. Just a little, I don't have room in my brain for a lot of new information. lol

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, to some extent the government is forcing this on them. Netanyahu is primarily concerned with remaining in power, because so long as he does, he can keep the prosecutions at bay. What is keeping him in power is a coalition of right and far right groups, including the ultra orthodox, who are becoming an increasingly large part of the population of Israel, since they have a birth rate well above the 2.1 children/woman rate needed to maintain a population. I believe that the birth rate for non-ultra orthodox and secular members of society is well below 2.1, so as one group fades, the other group is surging.

The ultra-orthodox group is exempt from military service...and education. They also get some pretty robust subsidies, because very few of them are capable of making a living on their own. They lack the education to do most work, and are devoted to studying scripture, which doesn't have much monetary return. This group has largely been untouched by this war. They don't serve, they haven't been called up, and they have no economy aside from handouts, which Netanyahu has proposed increasing at the same time that other parts of the civil spending have been cut back to support the war effort.

Another group that is part of his coalition is the group led by Itamar Ben-Gvir. If there is a person who would like to exterminate the Palestinians, it would be him. Netanyahu made him the Minister of National Security to keep him in the coalition.

So, basically, I feel that the largest obstacle to peace is the government of Israel, largely because Netanyahu had to form a coalition of some distasteful people just to become Prime Minister, and he has to remain Prime Minister to remain out of prison. They won't accept anything aside from the elimination of the Palestinians, and he can't save his neck without them. Therefore, no peace.

[wes4dbt]

Thanks, that was interesting.

[TysonLPrice]

I don't think that's the position of Israel. I think that's the position of the current government of Israel, and I want to make that distinction.

Just like the Israelis say about the Palestinians, the Israelis voted the government in...they OKed this.

Forget the last Palestinian election was around seventeen years ago. When was Netanyahu voted in? Now I don't subscribe to that line of thinking, but you hear many of the people defending what the Israelis are doing saying that very thing. The Palestinians brought this all on themselves.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Netanyahu was barely voted in. There are numerous parties, so it was a matter of who could build a coalition. He did, then he didn't, and then he did, again. The mix of parties was pretty well balanced, such that small parties held considerable influence, as they could make or break a government. As it stands, he can't afford to lose even one of his coalition partners, which is why Ben-Gvir comes in.

The Hamas attack certainly appears to have swung the needle. It's unlikely that Netanyahu would stand a chance in an election, these days, so he HAS to keep his coalition together, which means feeding his far right coalition members. That's a major factor in how this war is going. It's not just an election for him, because a loss will likely result in him going to prison. He doesn't just lose power, he loses freedom, so he has to keep the coalition together, and the coalition includes the most extreme, genocidal, elements of the right wing in Israeli politics. He can't afford to lose them, so there will never be a viable peace.

[FunkyDexter]

Just like the Israelis say about the Palestinians, the Israelis voted the government in...they OKed this.

I don't think it's valid no matter which side is saying it. You can't get to collective punishment without traveling through collective blame on the way. When we couch this in terms of "the Israelis" that quickly becomes a proxy for "all Israelis". Do you feel that should share responsibility for the attack on the capitol on Jan 6th? Do you feel the average Trump supporter feels they should share responsible for Biden's border policies?

I'm with Shaggy on this. I think that's a very important distinction to make. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to get bent out of shape when people use "Israel" or "Israelis" as a linguistic shortcut (it's the sort of thing we all do all the time) but given the unique history of Israel and Jewish people and given current events, it's a distinction we should probably take more care with than we do with other generalisations like "the Brits" or "Americans".

What I do think is valid to say is that a non trivial number of Israeli's are complicit or acquiescent in what's happening in Gaza. Sometimes, though I suspect not often, this is through active desire and hatred. More commonly, I suspect, it's through simple ignorance of the extent of what's happening and the human tendency to just bury one's head when faced with uncomfortable truths.

Edit> As I read this back some of it might come across as an attack. Apologies if it does as it's not meant as one. I just felt it was worth clarifying why this, in particular, is a more important distinction than most.

[wes4dbt]

I don't think it's valid no matter which side is saying it. You can't get to collective punishment without traveling through collective blame on the way. When we couch this in terms of "the Israelis" that quickly becomes a proxy for "all Israelis". Do you feel that should share responsibility for the attack on the capitol on Jan 6th? Do you feel the average Trump supporter feels they should share responsible for Biden's border policies?

Using the term Israel or Israelis is a sensible generalization, I'd say it's acceptable in a conversation. It's reasonable to assume that we understand that not all Israelis are for or against such things as war. I don't feel it should be necessary to clarify that it's not all. As for responsibility, yes . In an elected government, the population has to take responsibility. Well, a legitimately elected government

So I have no problem with saying Israel is responsible for current horrific situation in Gaza and thousands of unnecessary deaths. But I also know not all Israelis agree with what's going on.

I should add, I have no problem with SH making a distinction. That lead to some interesting insight into Israeli politics.

[TysonLPrice]

Using the term Israel or Israelis is a sensible generalization, I'd say it's acceptable in a conversation. It's reasonable to assume that we understand that not all Israelis are for or against such things as war. I don't feel it should be necessary to clarify that it's not all. As for responsibility, yes . In an elected government, the population has to take responsibility. Well, a legitimately elected government

So I have no problem with saying Israel is responsible for current horrific situation in Gaza and thousands of unnecessary deaths. But I also know not all Israelis agree with what's going on.

I should add, I have no problem with SH making a distinction. That lead to some interesting insight into Israeli politics.

Ditto on that. It works against me also. I'm part of the evil west, an American imperialist, all the stuff. But I'm also a regular Joe that goes to work everyday. I never killed anyone but "Americans" do and "we" are part of worldwide killings.

Should I be lumped into all that? That is just the way it goes, but, keep we try and in mind "we are all brethren under the sun".

[FunkyDexter]

In an elected government, the population has to take responsibility.

Then you're not making an incidental generalisation for linguistic simplicity. You're making a deliberate generalisation that arbitrarily lumps a subset of people together.

Like I said, by that logic you are responsible for Jan 6th. You are responsible for Trump's policy of separating the children of refugees from their parents. You are responsible for the falsification of claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and, by proxy, for the thousands of deaths that resulted. You're responsible for the drone attacks Obama ordered during his tenure. It means you are responsible for every evil the US government has carried out since you came of voting age. For clarity, I don't think that any of those accusations can legitimately be applied to you and, for the same reasons, I don't think the entire Israeli electorate can be held responsible for the actions of a hard right government led my a man who faces prosecution as soon as loses power. I don't equate Israelis with Netanyahu any more than I equate Palestinians with Hamas.

I do agree that incidental linguistic generalisations are pretty much necessary for communication. Like I said, I'll talk about "Brits" and "Americans" when discussing foreign policy because it's a useful shortcut. But I also think that ones around Israel specifically are particularly problematic given the history of Jews in the previous century and current events. I don't necessarily ascribe any ill intent to people who make those sorts of passive generalisations (I'm sure I've done it myself in this thread) but, given the not insignificant number of people who want to make active connections from Israel's Foreign Policy to Israel to Israelis and, in turn, to "Jews" at the moment, I just think it's sensible to try and avoid those generalisations where possible.

For that reason I felt that Shaggy was right to explicitly make the distinction and, honestly, I find pretty weird that anyone felt the need to question it.

[wes4dbt]

I find pretty weird that anyone felt the need to question it.

I feel the exact opposite. For some reason you have to insist on the necessity of clarifying that not all Israelis support the current actions in Gaza. To the point of calling anyone that doesn't agree with the necessity, "weird".

Well, at least you don't "ascribe any ill intent" , that's something us weirdo's have going for us. lol

[wes4dbt]

I find pretty weird that anyone felt the need to question it.

I feel the exact opposite. For some reason you have to insist on the necessity of clarifying that not all Israelis support the current actions in Gaza. To the point of calling anyone that doesn't agree with the necessity, "weird".

Well, at least you don't "ascribe any ill intent" , that's something us weirdo's have going for us. lol

Then you're not making an incidental generalisation for linguistic simplicity. You're making a deliberate generalisation that arbitrarily lumps a subset of people together.

ALL generalizations lump subsets together. That's why they're called a generalization. You want to pass judgement on whether it was incidental or deliberate, go ahead.

I'm not going to carry out a long debate over why I feel a countries population is ultimately responsible of their governments action. Now that I think about it, that's a different subject, it really has nothing to do with why I feel it's proper to use the generalization of "Israel" when referring to who is causing the current tragedy in Gaza.

[wes4dbt]

It seems that Israel has set the bar pretty low for what justifies an air strike. https://apnews.com/article/israel-ga...ontent=rundown

But it's hard to be sure because they haven't been transparent about what their methods are to justify air strikes.

[FunkyDexter]

why I feel it's proper to use the generalization of "Israel" when referring to who is causing the current tragedy in Gaza.

I don't feel it's "proper". No generalisation is ever truly "proper" if you're seeking clarity. What I do think is that such generalisations are often (almost always in fact) "acceptable". As you said: "I'd say it's acceptable in a conversation". I agree with you that we use such generalisations all the time and don't get bent out of shape over it. We accept it for the linguistic shortcut it's usually intended to be.

However, I think that Israel, Israelis and Jews in general represent an exception in the context of the current events. The reason is that the chief accusation that's being levelled at the moment (quite rightly, in my opinion) is that the Knesset appears to be engaged in Genocide. The Jews suffered the worst genocide in living memory and the state of Israel was explicitly created as a home for the survivors of that genocide. Indeed, the word genocide was originally coined in 1944 to describe the holocaust - that's the very origin of the word. And this is setting aside the troubled history of persecutions up to and including the Spanish Inquisition. Jews, Israelis and the state of Israel have a very unique history.

So by using that generalisation in this particular case you risk communicating that holocaust survivors are guilty of or complicit in genocide, whether they individually are or not. Can you really not see why that is magnitudes more offensive than when we use this type of generalisation more commonly, even if that is not the intent when you use it.

As I said, I am not ascribing ill intent to people who use the generalisation in this case. I stated explicitly in post 218 that this was not intended as an attack and I felt that it not being an accusation was implicit in that. However, I do not feel that pointing out that such a generalisation is best avoided in this particular case is an unreasonable thing to have done. Particularly given that avoiding the generalisation is as simple saying "Netanyahu", "the Knesset", "the IDF" or "Israeli Foreign Policy". It's not like we lack terminology.

[wes4dbt]

As you said: "I'd say it's acceptable in a conversation"

And that's all we were having here. Until you turned a simple point made by SH into a chance for you to wrap yourself in the flag of righteousness and justify it by reliving the horrors of the holocaust. You seem to imply this forum is infected with ignorant racists. So we can't use normal terminology. Calling people that use a normal generalization weird and "magnitudes more offensive".

Particularly given that avoiding the generalisation is as simple saying "Netanyahu", "the Knesset", "the IDF" or "Israeli Foreign Policy"

Another generalization. None of these groups exists in a vaccuum. Whether the majority of the Israeli population is for or against the actions in Gaza, I don't know. But Israel is the country responsible.

[Shaggy Hiker]

history of persecutions up to and including the Spanish Inquisition.

I didn't expect that.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The longer this goes on, the more I'm starting to feel it is Israel. There's starting to be some protests, and I can understand the formerly protesting Israelis staying quiet for a time following the attacks of Oct 7th, but I feel that Netanyahu is doubling down on selling the country down the river, and the objections to that are not loud enough.

If I lived there, I'd be pissed that he's talking about cutting social services...except for an increase in the welfare for the ultra orthodox. He's going to squander the goodwill of the Israeli people to try to save his own neck. At some point, people are going to have to speak up more loudly, or he will accomplish what Hamas never could.

[wes4dbt]

I've seen the reports of Israeli protests against Netanyahu but it's hard to say what the dominate view of the Gaza situation is by the Israelis. You can't really tell that by what makes the news. But it does feel like the goodwill towards Israel is weakening. Severely.

[FunkyDexter]

You seem to imply this forum is infected with ignorant racists.

I have done no such thing, quite the opposite in fact. I have explicitly gone out of my way to say that I was not doing that. Multiple times. Way back in post 218, before any of the latest to and fro we've had, I wrote this: "As I read this back some of it might come across as an attack. Apologies if it does as it's not meant as one. I just felt it was worth clarifying why this, in particular, is a more important distinction than most." So no, I haven't implied that. You have inferred it.

What I have been trying to say, and which you have clearly been reading straight past, is why I feel this distinction is more important than most. The reason depends somewhat on how the generalisation is used. When we use that generalisation we are using it in one of two ways:-

1. As a deliberate equation of Israeli people with the actions of their state. I think you did do this in post 219 when you wrote "As for responsibility, yes . In an elected government, the population has to take responsibility." I responded to that in post 221 and I don't feel anything I said was an invalid response to that position. You rowed that back somewhat in your last paragraph of post 223 so I don't know whether we still disagree on that or not. I'm happy to engage in a good faith debate with you on that if you wish but I don't feel that position is valid because the people of Israel simply do not equate to the set of people who are calling the shots behind the current events. Further, as one of the accusations being pointed at the Israeli government is collective punishment (which is a war crime) it seems hypocritical to engage in the same sort of collectivisation about the people of Israel (I averred to this in post 218) although only to the level of blame rather than punishment.

2. As a linguistic short cut. As I have said repeatedly, this is far from the worst thing in the world and I don't think anyone doing it is racist (well, they might be, it's certainly something that racists do but I don't get the impression that's what's happening here and I've gone out of my way to make clear that I'm not levelling that accusation). What I do think, though, is that when we're talking about such a sensitive subject as Jews engaging in genocide it's best to be aware and mindful of our language. Otherwise we risk causing offence when we simply don't need to. It's one of the rare cases where clarity should probably trump brevity. I am not saying you can't use Israel as a generalisation in this context but I am pointing out that doing so could cause offence for little benefit.

Finally, I have not called anyone weird. What I said was that challenging someone making a distinction between the people of Israel and the Government of Israel seemed weird to me because, to me, the distinction is obvious. Indeed, if you read back way upthread I'm pretty sure you'll find me making exactly this distinction on page 1.


Edit> I was wrong. I first made the distinction on page 2.

[FunkyDexter]

I've seen the reports of Israeli protests against Netanyahu

There's been lots of protesting and lots of reporting on it over here so this may be a "side of the pond" thing. There were protests this last weekend. Interestingly some of the loudest voices have been the families of the hostages.

[Shaggy Hiker]

We're starting to hear more of that. It creates an interesting situation.

The Israeli government will fall if one of the participating groups pulls out. Will considerable protest cause that to happen, or cause the reverse? I can't decide which I think is more likely. The governing coalition will have divisions, as all coalitions do. In the case of Israel, the governing coalition is a coalition of right-wing groups. They can pretty well see that they will currently lose any new election, which means that pulling out of the coalition, and thereby bringing about an early election, will cost them dearly. On the other hand, stress tends to make cracks more prominent.

[FunkyDexter]

Will considerable protest cause that to happen, or cause the reverse?

Sadly I suspect not. I think the groups that form the coalition will double down. Some of them actively want this and, for others, its politically expedient to just go along with it. My hope is that the electorate shifts (or already has shifted) radically from the last election and this coalition will be ousted at the next election. It'd be great if t happened sooner though.

[wes4dbt]

They can pretty well see that they will currently lose any new election, which means that pulling out of the coalition, and thereby bringing about an early election, will cost them dearly.

It always sounds strange to me how many elections Israel has. I'm so use the our system. Sort of remains me of your current House of Representatives. lol

[FunkyDexter]

Their theoretical cycle is pretty reasonable at four years (same as the UK) but they've had a crazy time recently. Mainly because Netanyahu keeps having to scramble to hold onto his position because he's not popular and as soon as he loses his position he's likely to face criminal corruption charges. So, yeah, 5 elections in 2 years I think.

Mind you, the UK's had 3 Prime Ministers in the last 2 years and we're probably going to have another one or possibly two before the end of this year. Difference is we're not even getting to elect ours lately.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Wasn't one of yours a head of lettuce?

[Shaggy Hiker]

No, wait, that was Boris Johnson.

[wes4dbt]

Their theoretical cycle is pretty reasonable at four years (same as the UK) but they've had a crazy time recently. Mainly because Netanyahu keeps having to scramble to hold onto his position because he's not popular and as soon as he loses his position he's likely to face criminal corruption charges. So, yeah, 5 elections in 2 years I think.

What triggers these other elections.

[FunkyDexter]

No, wait, that was Boris Johnson.

The lettuce was Liz Truss. But Boris certainly qualifies as some kind legume. I'm thinking turnip.

What triggers these other elections.

There's been a variety of reason but the theme is Netanyahu's hold on power being VERY tenuous coupled with a proportional representation system which means you need broad consensus to be able to govern (I'm a fan of PR but this is one of it's weaknesses - in highly polarised setup it can be a recipe for grid lock). So, for example, a couple of his governments collapsed when one of his partners walked away, I remember at least one election where nobody was able to form a coalition and there was one where his opponent could have formed a coalition but only just and Netanyahu was able to simply declare that election invalid.

[wes4dbt]

So if one of the coalition walks away there's has to be a new election. Is it an election by the people or just member of the congress/parliament? Sounds messy.

[Shaggy Hiker]

By the people, and yes, it IS messy. It's very messy.

I knew it was the lettuce that outlasted Liz Truss, but when I think of Boris and his hair....lettuce does kind of come to mind. If he's a turnip, then he'd be the root (vegetable) of some evil.

[FunkyDexter]

So if one of the coalition walks away there's has to be a new election

It's not so much that there has to be an election but rather, if the leading coalition loses it's majority, they can't pass anything so everything just shuts down. It's kind of like what you've got in congress right now but more so. At that point they typically just hold a new election and try and form new coalitions. I think (though I'm not sure) that the governing body has mechanisms to force a new election if a majority supports it which would mean Netanyahu can't just dig his heels in.

I like PR but this is one of it's weaknesses. It functions wholly on compromise so is susceptible to gridlock if the governing body is so polarised that compromise become impossible. It also tends to over power extreme and single issue parties because they get to play king maker.

I think of Boris and his hair....lettuce does kind of come to mind

I think I'm channelling his face when I suggested turnip. It's kind of round, pale and a little bit lumpy. I could call him a swede but he's actually an American (believe it or not).

[Shaggy Hiker]

He screwed up government, so it doesn't surprise me.

Our leading coalition in the house, has a majority, but also hates one another, and therefore they STILL can't pass anything.

[TysonLPrice]

He screwed up government, so it doesn't surprise me.

Our leading coalition in the house, has a majority, but also hates one another, and therefore they STILL can't pass anything.

To compound that, one side of the hate can't even get along in their own camp. Everyday it seems the speaker is facing being voted out. One person can start the process.

And let's pile on some more...the former president has outsized influence on Republicans currently in office directing many of their votes. Past presidents traditionally kept a low profile. Trump broke the mould. He recently torpedoed the immigration bill that leaned heavily conservative. He didn't want to give the democrats a win, the hell with the American people, it is a one man show.

The republican speaker of the house is meeting with Trump in Florida today to get his marching orders...the tail wagging the dog.

[Shaggy Hiker]

To compound that, one side of the hate can't even get along in their own camp.

That's actually what I meant, but after re-reading what I posted, one might think I meant that the two parties hate each other. I don't mean that. They are opponents, but the real fighting is happening within the majority party. That's often the case, it's just a bit more extreme, at the moment.

[FunkyDexter]

They are opponents, but the real fighting is happening within the majority party

I think that's actually pretty common, we save our true vitriol for our siblings. In the UK I tend to associate this with the left (though the right is showing it more at the moment). Labour supporters don't like Tories but say "New Labour" to a Corbyn supporter and they turn apoplectic.

I've got to say, MTG seems to be putting on quite a show lately.

[wes4dbt]

I've got to say, MTG seems to be putting on quite a show lately.

She always does. A few months ago her sound bite was, impeach Biden. With her the sky is always falling.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Perhaps she could just go with "Impeach ___________"

[Shaggy Hiker]

Frankly, as a person who enjoys the politics, I hope she does bring forwards that motion to vacate. It would provide for some delightful theatre. I have no idea which way things would go, though I'm leaning towards Johnson surviving the vote because he seems more pragmatic and reliable that McCarthy. The Democrats might support him in exchange for something like a vote on Ukraine funding (which a lot of Republicans would also support), and the Republicans might support him simply because they want to avoid another embarrassing period of flailing disunity.

[wes4dbt]

So far she doesn't seem to have much backing for vacating Johnson. With Johnson there has been some progress but there is still no Ukraine aid and he just went and met with Trump to get his marching orders. So I don't have much hope for anything meaningful being passed by congress.

[TysonLPrice]

So far she doesn't seem to have much backing for vacating Johnson. With Johnson there has been some progress but there is still no Ukraine aid and he just went and met with Trump to get his marching orders. So I don't have much hope for anything meaningful being passed by congress.

Johnson went down to Florida and kissed Trump's "ring". He is going to bring up some meaningless immigration bill and I think in return MTG will be told to heal. I'll bet two reptation points she suddenly shuts up