[Pants-of-dog]

Thankfully, nobody is doing that.

Then drop the whole anti-Semitism red herring.

You can criticize Israel and still not justify the October 7 massacre.

Even if one explicitly denies it, they will still be accused of it. And this is also irrelevant and a fallacy. And you should drop this too.

Do you have an argument about Israeli plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and settle Zionists there?

[wat0n]

Then drop the whole anti-Semitism red herring.

Not a red herring.

It does inform why the far left is justifying the October 7 massacre, and seeking impunity for Hamas.

Even if one explicitly denies it, they will still be accused of it. And this is also irrelevant and a fallacy. And you should drop this too.

Because when pressured, you do start to justify it.

If not, you would not be seeking to give Hamas a free pass. It needs to be defeated, and forced out of Gaza's government.

Do you have an argument about Israeli plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and settle Zionists there?

They are false, people like Smotrich and Ben Gvir are talking to their electoral base. Yes, Israel has irredentists too - but people like Gallant (Minister of Defense) are far more powerful than they are.

[Pants-of-dog]

They are false, people like Smotrich and Ben Gvir are talking to their electoral base. Yes, Israel has irredentists too - but people like Gallant (Minister of Defense) are far more powerful than they are.

And Gallant has not spoken out against settlement by Zionists.

He has declared two that the IDF will continue to have operational freedom in Gaza (which you described as a necessity for settlement to occur).

[wat0n]

And Gallant has not spoken out against settlement by Zionists.

He has declared two that the IDF will continue to have operational freedom in Gaza (which you described as a necessity for settlement to occur).

But not settlements, as I am sure you understand it is necessary to have a permanent military presence in Gaza to be able to even think about building them and also a civilian presence to actually do so. Gallant ruled this out, quite explicitly at that.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. Gallant rules out a civilian presence in the Gazan government.

He did not say that Israeli civilians were never going to enter Gaza again.

[wat0n]

How can Israeli civilians settle Gaza without a permanent military presence?

[Pants-of-dog]

I literally just talked about how Gallant is ensuring that military presence.

[wat0n]

You haven't explained how would it work, exactly. Ok, Israeli civilians go trying to build a settlement in Gaza and then they get shot because they don't have a permanent Israeli military presence to protect them (most likely outcome).

[Pants-of-dog]

Ok, Israeli civilians go trying to build a settlement in Gaza and then the Palestinians get shot because the IDF have a permanent Israeli military presence to protect them (most likely outcome).

We know the IDF will continue to have a military presence because Gallant said they would continue to have complete operational freedom.

[ingliz]

rootless cosmopolitans

Why would we think that?

After the Jewish Revolt in AD 70, 25% of the Jews were dead, 10% were enslaved, and the remainder, 65%, were banished from the cities and towns to eke out a living herding goats in the hills.

And, sensibly, not being goatherds, most of them left Judea as economic migrants hoping to do something better suited to their talents elsewhere.

[wat0n]

Ok, Israeli civilians go trying to build a settlement in Gaza and then the Palestinians get shot because the IDF have a permanent Israeli military presence to protect them (most likely outcome).

We know the IDF will continue to have a military presence because Gallant said they would continue to have complete operational freedom.

But he also said they wouldn't be there permanently. Being there permanently means building military bases and being deployed... Well, permanently.

@ingliz is this a defense of Stalinist antisemitism?

[ingliz]

@wat0n

Why ask that, do you think history is antisemitic now?

[KurtFF8]

"Mostly civilian population"? That describes any urban battle. I can't recall any 21st century urban battle where civilians did not constitute the majority of the population inside the city.

The war is a war against the civilians. High ranking officials of Israel have made this clear in their calls for a total destruction of Gaza. They have also long blockaded and controlled the Gaza strip (for example basic goods being imported are heavily controlled by the Israeli state).

So it's a war against the people of Gaza, not a war between two military forces.

There's footage of that. And no, it's not just footage released by Israel.

There is indeed tons of footage of Israel's warcrimes.

Oh yes, since Jews are particularly good at capitalism (in his view), make it go away and Jewishness will disappear.

His point in the essay, which you keep intentionally missing, is that the fundamental problem is economic, not ideological.

That's exactly what Marx did, though.

Nope!

Oh yes, and now calling presentism out is calling for slavery. But when communists call presentism out when used against Karl Marx we're supposed to believe they are not antisemitic. Sure.

Yet another strawman by you. You're comparing two fundamentally different things. There's no inconsistency with wanting Confederate statues removed and uplifting Marxism. As a matter of fact, you'll be hard pressed to find any Marxists who oppose the removal of Confederate statues.

Again you're either just very confused here or you're being dishonest.

His analysis like for example the stereotyping of Jews.

So you're just showing us all you haven't actually read the work in question here.

But it is antisemitic to justify the massacre of Jews, to regard Jews as rootless cosmopolitans or as agents of capitalism and self-interest. It is not too hard to understand, really.

Show me a single thing I've written here that is antisemitic. You won't be able to because it's a lie.

Again, you're doing the long debunked "Criticizing Israel = antisemitism." Like I said before: fortunately no one really takes this nonsense seriously anymore.

[Pants-of-dog]

But he also said they wouldn't be there permanently. Being there permanently means building military bases and being deployed... Well, permanently.

The need for permanent bases in Gaza seems like an arbitrary thing you just made up.

Having complete freedom for the IDF to operate in Gaza whenever and however it wants would satisfy any requirement for killing any Palestinians who object to the settlement.

[ingliz]

@wat0n

I suppose you could say after they got uppity, it was always Israeli Roman policy to 'encourage Palestinians Jews to emigrate.'

But I thought you were OK with that.

Didn't you say if those encouraged Palestinians Jews had left Israel Judea voluntarily in 1948 70, they should lose the right of return?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Why ask that, do you think history is antisemitic now?

Denying the expulsion of Jews isn't "history".

@wat0n

I suppose you could say after they got uppity, it was always Israeli Roman policy to 'encourage Palestinians Jews to emigrate.'

But I thought you were OK with that.

Didn't you say if those Palestinians Jews had left Israel Judea voluntarily, they should lose the right of return?

They were forcibly expelled and enslaved, not simply encouraged to migrate.

I also don't think Jews were ever compensated for their plight.

The war is a war against the civilians. High ranking officials of Israel have made this clear in their calls for a total destruction of Gaza. They have also long blockaded and controlled the Gaza strip (for example basic goods being imported are heavily controlled by the Israeli state).

So it's a war against the people of Gaza, not a war between two military forces.

Which high ranking officials? Which members of the war cabinet - which is in charge of the war effort - have said something like that?

There is indeed tons of footage of Israel's warcrimes.

Actual footage of rockets being launched from civilian areas in Gaza:

His point in the essay, which you keep intentionally missing, is that the fundamental problem is economic, not ideological.

And it's a conclusion based on racist stereotyping, you forgot to mention that.

Nope!

His writings say otherwise.

Yet another strawman by you. You're comparing two fundamentally different things. There's no inconsistency with wanting Confederate statues removed and uplifting Marxism. As a matter of fact, you'll be hard pressed to find any Marxists who oppose the removal of Confederate statues.

Again you're either just very confused here or you're being dishonest.

That's exactly my point, Marxists are hypocritical in demanding the destruction of statues of Confederates or slave owners yet refuse to destroy the statues of an antisemite like Karl Marx.

He gets a pass, and that is itself antisemitic: You would not give him a pass if he had written racist things about Black people.

So you're just showing us all you haven't actually read the work in question here.

Have you?

Show me a single thing I've written here that is antisemitic. You won't be able to because it's a lie.

Again, you're doing the long debunked "Criticizing Israel = antisemitism." Like I said before: fortunately no one really takes this nonsense seriously anymore.

Do you agree with Karl Marx's stereotypes of Jews?

Should his statues across the West be removed over his racist stereotyping of Jews?

Do you think Hamas massacre on October 7 was justifiable and do you believe the perpetrators should at least be barred from governing Gaza?

The need for permanent bases in Gaza seems like an arbitrary thing you just made up.

Not at all. Settlers never returned after such bases were removed in 2005.

Likewise, you don't see settlers in the Sinai, where Israel also used to have military bases.

In fact, I can't think of any settlements that are not supported by a permanent military presence. Not just in Israel/Palestine, but in other conflicts too.

Having complete freedom for the IDF to operate in Gaza whenever and however it wants would satisfy any requirement for killing any Palestinians who object to the settlement.

Yet it would not satisfy the requirement of preventing such attacks to begin with.

[ingliz]

They were forcibly expelled and enslaved, not simply encouraged to migrate.

A small number were expelled.

Some 10% were enslaved.

Some fled.

The majority were economic migrants.

A minority stayed and herded goats.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not at all. Settlers never returned after such bases were removed in 2005.

Likewise, you don't see settlers in the Sinai, where Israel also used to have military bases.

In fact, I can't think of any settlements that are not supported by a permanent military presence. Not just in Israel/Palestine, but in other conflicts too.

No, you are not arguing for a simple military presence.

You are arguing for permanent bases.

Prove permanent bases are needed.

We already know Gallant has ensured a permanent military presence.

Yet it would not satisfy the requirement of preventing such attacks to begin with.

Which attacks? The ones by the IDF? That makes no sense.

Preventing attacks from Palestinians? The occasional attack by Palestinians would be useful, since it would provide yet another justification for more bombing and killing of civilians and taking their land.

[wat0n]

A small number were expelled.

Some 10% were enslaved.

Some fled.

The majority were economic migrants.

A minority stayed and herded goats.

In reality, the Jews revolted several times and many were gradually expelled or enslaved.

No, you are not arguing for a simple military presence.

You are arguing for permanent bases.

Prove permanent bases are needed.

We already know Gallant has ensured a permanent military presence.

No, we don't know that. You, again, are making things up.

Permanent bases are needed if the presence will be permanent. Soldiers need to be quartered somewhere, after all.

Which attacks? The ones by the IDF? That makes no sense.

Preventing attacks from Palestinians? The occasional attack by Palestinians would be useful, since it would provide yet another justification for more bombing and killing of civilians and taking their land.

Palestinians.

Why would Israeli civilians settle anywhere without guaranteed security?

[Pants-of-dog]

No, we don't know that. You, again, are making things up.

Permanent bases are needed if the presence will be permanent. Soldiers need to be quartered somewhere, after all.

The fact that the IDF us killing Palestinian civilians en masse right now without needing to be quartered in Gaza disproves the claim that quartering troops in Gaza is necessary for ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

Palestinians.

Why would Israeli civilians settle anywhere without guaranteed security?

And yet they do.

Did you not know that settlers were attacked on October 7th? It was a massacre, so please do not try to minimize it or dismiss it.