This is a weird argument because the author's rhetoric makes it sound like it's clear that it's genocide but we just don't want to call it that. Then he gives the criteria for genocide and the case presented straightforwardly doesn't satisfy them. Netanyahu's quoted statement is about driving the Palestinians out of the region, not destroying them as a people group. Yes, Israel is killing Palestinians but that's because they are at war with each other. It's a strange conflict because Hamas is in charge in Palestine and their mission is to destroy the nation of Israel, and so unsurprisingly they have never been satisfied with any attempts at peace. They are also willing to sustain brutal losses without relinquishing their mission. The conflict is one-sided, but given the unwillingness of Hamas to relent (and their recent escalations of unprovoked violence), it's unclear Israel has much of a choice here. Calling it "genocide" obscures the actual texture of the situation and is a mischaracterization of the conflict.
The civilian to combatant death ratio is lower than the iraq war. Does Shadi also think the US & Britain were genociding the iraqis? Seems like we would have to expand the genocide claim to basically any modern war? Or what makes this one special?
To your "modern war" point, the Battle of Stalingrad -- a classic "double siege" -- is said to have killed 20 to 25% of the city's civilian inhabitants (whom the Russian authorities largely refused to evacuate). That was 200,000 people. And that was in 4-5 months.
But there are differences, too. The Germans and Russians didn't just bombard each other at Stalingrad. The unit-to-unit, soldier-to-soldier battles were, as least as I've read, brutal and unremitting, with high casualties on both sides. While there certainly have been Israeli military casualties, I just don't know the degree to which the IDF and Hamas have been similarly engaged. It may be a function of how the war has been reported, but one has often been left to wonder just what the Israelis have been shooting at.
This is not to say that it's, eo ipso, a war crime to bombard (or starve) a besieged city. But sieges -- once warfare par excellence -- haven't been a prominent feature of war for a long time The only exceptions I can recall in my lifetime are Sarajevo and Grozny (both Muslim cities, btw, with the second still having not recovered its pre-1990 population).
A problem is that Gaza isn't precisely "besieged" in the classic sense -- the Israelis can move freely (though not safely) through most of it. And, besieged or not, if the Israeli War objective, as Shadi claims, is to expel Gaza's citizens by making it uninhabitable (a very different objective than "destroying Hamas"), then some kind of redline would seem to have been crossed.
You make a good case, but you haven't convinced me. Jews in Nazi Germany did not bring on their own persecution as a result of slaughtering Nazis. German Jews (as well as Gypsies and homosexuals) were guilty of no transgression, and could have done nothing to prevent their horrible fate.
Not so for the Gazans. They largely supported violence against Jews. Indeed, they were frequently the perpetrators. Israel, whether you support the state or not, has not had a moment's peace since the country was formed after WWII. The Six Day War od 1967 is a factor in much of what is happening today. That war is a direct result of aggression against Israel by Arab states.
Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt was assassinated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1981 in retaliation for Sadat's peace-keeping efforts with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has a century old sordid history of violence and persecution against all non-believers, including both Christians and Jews. The Muslim Brotherhood is active to this day, but for some reason, rarely is mentioned.
It was a tactic of terrorists to send suicide bombers into areas with Jewish population with no motive beyond slaughtering as many Jews as possible. These were not 'isolated incidents'. These were planned bombings by Muslim terrorist organizations.
Israel is currently destroying Gaza as a direct result of Oct 7, 2023 attack. But that was a final straw, not an initial incident. No rational person can believe that the various Muslim terrorist organizations can be negotiated into peace. They cannot. If there is to be peace, the Muslim terrorists must be destroyed. If that is genocide, so be it.
You are conveniently omitting the key fact of the conflict, the violent seizure of land and displacement of 750K or so Palestinians in 1948. And calling the continuous violence violence since, terrorism. Why should the state of Israel have had a moment’s peace since “the country was formed”? Have you never imagined what you would have done or would do, if your family was Palestinian?
When the sin is great, the sinner must either blame the victim, or acknowledge the sin. What is genocide is decided by the “winners”, right?
We can argue back and forth all day. The issues go way back before 1948. That's why I pointed out the Muslim Brotherhood which, for over a century, has dedicated itself to persecuting infidels. 'Infidels' can be defined here as anyone who isn't Muslim, anywhere in the world. That includes Christians, along with Jews.
Take a look at various places in Africa. Take a look at Pakistan. Jews are not the issue concerning the genocides in Africa or Pakistan. Muslims are. Jews are not everywhere that genocide is happening, but Muslims are. Israel has always been reactive: Leave them alone and they will leave you alone. Attack them, and they will attack back. Try to find an instance where that is not true. Some people conveniently forget that the only reason this action is taking place right now in Gaza is that Hamas slaughtered over 1200 people on Oct 7. The ONLY reason. Palestinians generally fear Hamas as much or more than Jews do.
Is Israel a legitimate country, founded in accordance with international law? Good question, and I don't know the answer. Neither, I suspect, do you. Nobody ever brings that up. Why not? Numerous countries were formed after WWII, along with Israel. Borders change, countries come and go. Countries aren't as rock solid and perpetual as a lot of people seem to think. So, does the nation of Israel have a legitimate right to exist? If you want to make an intelligent argument that it does not, I will listen. If you want to continue to support the slaughter of innocent people by psychopathic terrorists, I will not.
Based on the UN definition... 'any of the following acts '... how many 'genocides' do you believe have occurred since the definition was created? The UN legally recognizes 3. I suspect your reading of the definition would lead you to declare many, many more, if you were to apply it rigorously.
"Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group".... I suspect the conflict in Ireland caused serious mental harm. Saddam Hussein against the Kurds. The expulsion of millions of Germans from the Sudatenland who had lived there for 500 years. Indonesia... Sri Lanka... On and on ...
Under that UN definition almost every large scale episode of violence in recorded history is plausibly genocide.
I’m reminded of learning about the crime of conspiracy in criminal law class and how the definition is often so broad as to seemingly swallow everything.
Personally, I find the UN definition to be ridiculous.
Technically yes. But October 7 IMO, was essentially a prison riot, an explosion of rage at the decades long brutalization of the Palestinian people by especially, the IDF. The mostly young Israeli victims were apparently oblivious to the danger of partying next door to a maximum security prison, Gaza, and to their own identity, to the imprisoned, as their oppressors. To believe that this one act of rage was intended as the opening of a sustained attempt to eradicate the Jewish population of Israel/Palestine, strikes me as denial of the truly calculated genocide being waged against the Palestinians. Who have been the indigenous people of that region for centuries. In this sense the better historical analogy is the attempted extermination of the Native Americans by the European colonizers.
"Technically yes" - hopefully you can see that that is why this definition of genocide is so broad as to be meaningless. The constant invocation of the term to describe the conflict in Gaza seems disingenuous (at best) to observers who are otherwise sympathetic to the plight of the Gazans.
On the subject on indigineity, I call your attention to this from Freddie de Boer (who shares your disdain for the state of Israel):
"Let me also take a moment to say that the whole concept of indigeneity, constantly invoked by a certain species of pro-Palestine activist, is an utter waste of time. Neither side has any clear historical claim to being the first people there, as neither are descendants of the Canaanites described in the Torah. (The notion that Jewish people are indigenous to Palestine is denied by their own holy book - Abraham was from Iraq!) We will never, ever resolve the historical debates to anyone’s satisfaction. More to the point, though… rights do not stem from indigeneity. I understand that, to a large degree, academics essentially reverse-engineered the concept in order to give moral heft to the plight of the Native Americans, who were the victims of a largely-successful genocide. But the rights of the Native Americans did not depend on their indigenous nature, especially considering that like all people they came here from somewhere else. We shouldn’t have slaughtered them not because they had some sort of unique connection to the land that they were on but because they were human and in possession of rights. The same applies to Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs - they are there, they have the right to stay and to live in peace and prosperity. There is no lawyering our way out of this by pretending we know who was there first. The concepts of democratic rule, human rights, egalitarianism, and international law must be enough."
To the original post, it is worth flagging that many states recognise more than 3 genocides, including the US, which recognised recent genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur (twice, once in the mid-2000s and again earlier this year), ISIS genocide of the Yazidis, and the genocides of the Uyghurs and Rohingya. Maybe I am forgetting others.
Arguably the recent Tigray war in Ethiopia would qualify as an attempted genocide of the eponymous Tigray people. Turkish operations against the Kurds might also qualify (the intent would seemingly be easy to prove, what with the Turkish insistence that the Kurds aren't a separate people at all, but instead "Mountain Turks", though the level of violence/force might not be enough). Arab (mostly Kuwaiti but also Saudi, Emirati, Qatari, etc.) policies regarding the "Bedoon" would also seem to qualify - they're officially stateless, face restrictions in employment and education, and are refused any sort of state documentation, as well as subjected to state repression from time to time.
Okay, I'll bite, but just so we're clear, the true enemy of the State of Israel is BiBi Netanyahu, NOT the Palestinian people.
Shadi, with all due respect, the only atrocity here is your unwillingness to steelman the other side.
"Because, now, there is no denying it: if you support Israel’s ongoing war, you are also a supporter of ethnic cleansing (if not genocide)."
Sounds a lot like many left leaning dismissals of people they object to.
-Because now, there's no denying it: if you don't support gay marriage, you're homophobic
-Because now, there's no denying it: if you don't support race-based admissions, you're a racist.
-Because now, there's no denying it: if you support banning pornography, you're a fascist theocrat.
The problem isn't your criticism per se, it's the license that you imply it gives you to dismiss the other as unworthy of your consideration and worse, unworthy of your engagement.
And I still haven't seen you publicly declare that the Armenian genocide was a real thing. So, feel free to address that while we're at it.
I do not support race-based admissions, and without question, I am not racist. Admissions, appointments, jobs, etc, should be based first on talent and work ethic. Can you do the job well?
I like pornography, but that does not mean I am not a fascist or a theocrat.
The Armenian genocide was a genocide. Here are but a few of man's "good works." I only went back to 1950 because the reply would be really long. But I have added a few references to literature detailing the genocide of Armenians in 1913. See after the URLs.
List of Genocides (since 1950)
1950's, Guatemala, 200,000 Mayans, Government army
1959-2006, Burundi, 400,000+ Hutus: Tutsi
1971, East Pakistan,1.5 million Bengalis, West Pakistani 1966-1970, Nigeria, 1 million Ibos,: Nigerian army, Cambodia
1975-79: 2 million Cambodians: Khmer Rouge-Poi Pot
1987-88, Iraq, Anfal Campaign Kurdistan
1992-1995, Bosnia-Herzeogvia, Serb ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims
1994-, Rwanda 800,000 Tutsis: Hutus-Kambanda
2001-present, Nigeria, Niger delta groups, Nigerian army
2003-present, Darfur (Sudan), 200,000-400,000: Janjaweed Arab Militias, Sudan Gov't
Kévorkian, Raymond H. The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History. London: I.B. Tauris, 2011.
Akçam, Taner. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006.
Balakian, Peter. The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.
Werfel, Franz. The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. Translated by Geoffrey Dunlop. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2004.
Balakian, Grigoris. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918. Translated by Peter Balakian with Aris Sevag. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.
Hovannisian, Richard G. The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2007.
I see you list only Armenian articles. One sided on the so-called Armenian genocide. Try reading some Ottoman historians like Heath Lowry. You may find a different view.
Fair enough. I'll try again: If you have to accuse EVERYONE of something before you can accuse ANYONE of something. You may never write ANYTHING. It's an impossible standard and not to Shadi's point. If you try to make it part of Shadi's point, that indeed "serves to reduce the perceived plausibility or seriousness of the original accusation or question by suggesting that the person advancing it is hypocritical or that the responder’s misbehavior is not unique or unprecedented."
While I may have misunderstood what you were saying, I think the above still applies.
"If you have to accuse EVERYONE of something before you can accuse ANYONE of something."
This is a bit of a straw man. The previous poster is pointing out the inconsistent application of a principle, that's not whataboutism. It's not about accusing everyone but about being morally and rationally consistent (if one cares about Socratic reasoning at all).
For example, imagine I'm a high school teacher and a couple of kids have been misbehaving and talking during class but I haven't called them out on it. Then I see that some other kid is misbehaving slightly (maybe he's on his phone during the lesson) and I call him out and judge him harshly for the disruption. While it's true that the other kid was misbehaving too, I'm failing to apply the judgment fairly and letting others get away with similar behavior with no judgment.
Yes, we could question my intentions and call me a hypocrite, which I certainly am in the example. And yes that doesn't take away from the wrongness of the one kid's behavior. But, it does illustrate that I am failing to consistently apply a moral principle. And that one kid can rightfully say, "Why are you picking on me when those kids in the back have been talking and been on their phones all semester?!"
If one wants to argue that Israel IS exceptionally bad in a way that other "misbehaving states" are not, then that's not necessarily inconsistent. However, Shadi and others who have tried have failed to do this. It will also be quite hard to do considering that states like Syria, China, the Sudan, etc., have generally engaged in objectively worse behavior than has Israel.
Respectfully, I can appreciate the desire for consistency. But I admit that I am also questioning the intentions, which pass the smell test of 'what about [x]' to me.
This thread discussing Israel 0% proves my point. And ultimately, I call it out because it's such common theme of disingenuousness in partisan debate.
Fair enough. I think you're right that sometimes people engage in whataboutism regarding this topic, but my point was to steel man the argument--and as I noted I do think it's steel-man-able.
Steel-man-able, btw, is a great name for a Black Sabbath song.
I don't use the g word because I am not an international law expert nor human rights expert but if I did, I would have the intellectual humility to also examine the credible evidence against the notion that Israel is engaged in that. Most of the time, if not all the time, Shadi has approached the conflict with reason and compassion for "both sides," that's why and how I learned from him to better approach this, also check out solutions not sides, based in the UK, they build common ground and eschew violence, antisemitism, Islamophobia from both sides.
As a paid subscriber, Shadi, I've made a good-faith effort to listen to you and understand your point of view. I've actively supported Palestinians and Palestinian rights for over 55 years.
I am, with sadness, cancelling my subscription.
I find the term "Pro-Palestinian" to be painfully inaccurate to describe anyone lacking an unequivocal commitment to defending Palestinians, Jews, Christians, Hindus, secularists, Israel, and everyone living on this earth against Hamas and their warped interpretation of Jihadism.
I am horrified by your lack of attention to the Arab world's (especially Egypt's) responsibility for the continued suffering. I've concluded that you are using "humanitarian" arguments and the accusation of "atrocity denial" to obscure the central question for the people of Gaza, Palestine, Israel, and the rest of the world: how are we going to stop Hamas and their allies?
I am glad that I don't have to depend on your support for my own survival. I've been waiting ever since Oct 7th, 2023, and I don't see it coming.
Do you feel you’ve lost something, with the way that this war has affected you? Open-mindedness is a beauty in itself, for all that it takes effort. Having reasons—even reasons you feel to be good ones—to leave it behind seems like it might be an occasion for regret as much as relief.
Yes, I feel like I've lost something. I think it's hurt some of my friendships. So, yes, there is regret. I wish it were otherwise. That said, as someone once said about an open mind, if you keep it too open, your brains fall out.
Do those friends at least acknowledge the devastation in Gaza even if, like me (for reasons previously explained in these comments), they don't use the g word?
I don't know what it is about Israel and Jews that makes otherwise intelligent and insightful people almost completely suspend their reasoning ability only to engage in unhinged, unfair moral condemnation. I'm not a Zionist or Jewish, sympathize greatly with the Palestinians, and believe that there are fair criticisms that can be leveled at the Israeli govt. I only started studying this topic and getting into the history a couple of years ago, but time and again I've seen people like Shadi (otherwise adept critical thinkers) sound like woke freshmen at Columbia.
This issue is morally complicated, but here Shadi is stretching the definition of genocide so that, as others have pointed out, it could nearly apply to any war. Yet, he is mainly applying it to Israel. And here he is sharing an article that is so one-sided and lacking context that it borders on misinformation. When Fox News gives an unfair framing of, say, illegal immigration, the usual suspects rightly jump in to correct the record. But with Israel, unfair framings and morally-righteous, Disney-movie level black and white morality are the norm.
I have always resisted going here, but now I'm starting to think that some of this genuinely is about antisemitism.
If you want to engage in atrocity denial, that’s your choice. But like I said, that’s a red line for me. Everything about your response reeks of bad faith, including of course attributing the motive of antisemitism without evidence to people you disagree with. That’s a really basic one. You can do better.
I'm guessing by "atrocity denial" you mean I don't agree that it's a genocide? I already said in my post that the Israeli govt has some (fair) criticism coming to it, such as regarding settlement building, or particular bombing campaigns and tactics that could have been better planned and executed with fewer casualties. But you have not made a good argument that it's a genocide, so I disagree with your premise.
The red line for you is the supposed genocide? Did you draw that same line in Syria during the Civil War when double tap strikes were used by Assad against civilians? Where the death count was significantly higher and the civilian to combatant ratio was worse? Did you draw that line in China with the Uyghers? Maybe you did, and if so point me to your work on it.
To be clear, I didn't directly accuse you of antisemitism, I said I'm starting to think that it's part of the explanation for why people have such heavy, disproportionate condemnation of Israel. If there's a better explanation, I'd love to hear it. And please don't say, "because it's a genocide" because that's just begging the question.
Yea I did draw that red line on Syria as even a casual google search would indicate. That was like the defining issue for me in the 2010s. I don’t talk to Assad supporters.
You're right on that point: I do see on a Google search that you have criticized the Assad regime. I still don't see the same level of moral condemnation as you give to Israel, though. And as far as I can see you never called it a genocide. You have multiple tweets calling the Israel situation a genocide (as well as this article) but when talking about Syria you use the word massacre or simply describe events.
For the same reasons you gave in this article regarding why you think Israel is committing a genocide, Assad's govt CLEARLY committed a genocide. He explicitly targeted civilians with Double Tap Strikes, meaning that one bombing of a hospital or school is done purposely, then when rescue workers come another is done to make sure all are dead including the workers, hence the name double tap. Israel can be criticized for its tactics, but when its govt attacks schools or hospitals it's because HAMAS is holing up in them, using Palestinians as human shields (sometimes). The death count both by most years and in total is also way higher in the Syrian Civil War.
Is there something I'm missing as to why one is a genocide and the other isn't?
Also I have an article coming up on how otherwise good people can come to support evil things. You might find that one of particular interest. I’ll let you know when it comes out.
Luke, you’re right. When it comes to Israel and the Jews it is just not possible for most observers to be fair and balanced, or engage in calm, reasoned discourse. Myself included, even though I try.
Israel and the Jews push too many hot buttons for too many people – religious, historical, cultural, psychological, and political – for Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. Friends and foes of Israel, living in alternate realities, committed with passionate intensity to uncompromising positions, engage in take-no-prisoners ideological jousts that inevitably devolve into incoherent paroxysms of righteous anger and rage. And yes, most of the anger and rage against Israel, these days largely, though not exclusively, on the Left, is driven by antisemitism. Walter Russell Mead called this new incarnation of Jew-hatred the “Israel Outrage Industry.”
Mead once wrote, with more than a touch of irony: “A suspicious person might be led to believe that this is yet another sign that Jew-hatred, rather than compassion for Palestinian suffering, motivates a lot of the Israel Outrage Industry. Thankfully, not that many people are suspicious. We live in a thoughtful, beautiful world, where the motives of those who hate Israel are always clean and pure.”
Jew-hatred seems to be encoded in the cultural DNA of the Christian/Post-Christian West, and in Islam: the Jews rejected Christ and the Jews rejected Muhammad. With the decline of Christianity in the post-Enlightenment West, religious Judeophobia was transformed into race-based antisemitism which culminated in Nazism and the Holocaust. There is simply too much historical and emotional baggage for all involved.
Jeez, it just blows my mind. I understand what you're saying, it's just still hard to wrap my head around from people like Shadi whom I otherwise see as good faith interlocutors. I'm still not convinced it's ALL antisemitism. I think some of it for progressives anyway has to do with far left, settler-colonialist ideology (be it conscious or unconscious).
Perhaps it is not so much as being open-minded and true to who and what you are. I am so tired of niceties, pleasantries or what I prefer to call bullshit.
You should be biased (Shadi Hamid). Correct me if I am wrong. But you are of Egyptian heritage, and you are Muslim. For the sake of transparency, I am an American-born Jew with most of my family from Poland, a small segment from Ukraine, and a tiny segment of Sephardic heritage.
Gaza has been a mess with Hamas, backed by Iran, dedicated to wiping out Israel and all Jews, everywhere. Hamas has shielded itself in schools, hospitals, and other public places to avoid military attack and to gain favor when civilians, mostly Palestinians, are murdered by Israeli weaponry.
Netanyahu is responsible for the genocide of Palestinians. And I do not care what you call it because it is the catastrophic death of thousands of Palestinians who Israeli armies have murdered in a manner no different than Putin’s genocides in Chechnya, Kosovo, Georgia, and Ukraine. It is the wholesale slaughter of human lives that includes children, the elderly, adults, workers in medicine and journalism, but all civilians. Netanyahu is a war criminal.
All the Arab countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have GUILT here. None have granted access to Palestinians seeking refuge in other ME Arab states. Egypt has built a steel wall at the Southern border of Gaza & Egypt to keep Palestinians out. That sucks, as does the fact the the US & France helped Egypt build that steel wall. The wall is several kilometers long and extends deep underground. It was completed around 2010—such hypocrisy in many countries, including the US.
So yes, the Palestinian deaths are tragic, they are painful to my heart and soul. In medicine x 62 years, I care for all with love because it is someone’s husband, someone’s wife, someone’s mother or father, sister or brother or child. John Donne is weeping because
“Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind,” and because
“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.” Stern to Schindler
“Whoever saves a life is as though he had saved all mankind”. Quran, 5:32
“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)
I know many Jews, in Israel and all over the world, feel the same. And here’s my final take as an 82-year-old who has seen far better times.
1. The so-called Free World, the world of Democracies, sits on its fat ass while people after people fall prey to genocidal maniacs. Together, they could wipe such murderers off the face of the Earth, but they do not. Their attitude is "it's not my concern." Google “genocides in the last 100 years."
2. It is a travesty that Ukraine was abandoned by my Fascist President Trump- the useful idiot of Putin. Given a chance, Trump will destroy the world. And the GOP Congress plays along in their trance-like state, believing, like Trump, they will remain in office forever. Add to this the American mainstream media with one pundit or pontific after another, with all (excepting Jen Psaki and Lawrence O’Donnell) stating that Fascism is here, that Trump is an idiot, the worst POTUS in our history, and that DOGE is DOGE (Destroy Our Great Experiment).
3. I have only one further remark. I wish the masses of Palestinian citizens who are sick of Hamas had united as a group and destroyed Hamas. And along with that, in my idealistic world, I wish that Israel and other countries would realize all the inter-marriage and genetic closeness of all of these semitic peoples and stop the killing and bring happiness and prosperity to the ME.
“I don't discuss politics.” This is a typical response I get from others. Yet, how did we lose the full understanding of “politics?” How did we get so frightened that honesty and sincerity in confrontation have reached taboo levels? And how can we not see our bias in our “arguments” and op-eds versus the harsh reality of what comes closest to being true? Yes, Hamid, you’re not as open-minded as perhaps you used to be, and you are biased. That is my opinion.
Politics comes from the Greek “polis,” which means city-state or community. It refers to the affairs, governance, and well-being of the entire community. As a global community, we should embrace politics as a pathway to higher expressions of human unity (humanity). WTF’s wrong with us? How did we get it so wrong? Even AI has a deeper and more accurate understanding of “politics.”
While often associated with government, elections, and political parties, politics has a more fundamental meaning. Politics can be seen as the process of human interaction, decision-making, and power dynamics that shape any community. Politics has various forms, from personal relationships to workplaces, social groups, and international relations. At its core, politics involves how individuals and groups interact, cooperate, and compete to achieve goals and shape lives. This includes how conflicts are resolved, resources are allocated, and collective decisions are made. Politics is about navigating the complexities of living together and organizing societies.
The opinions I have presented in my three comments to Hamid’s editorial are based on a lifetime spanning 82 years and interactions with people from around the globe. I see the many differing opinions; that is the nature of humankind (i.e., we see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear).
But perhaps this quote says it better:
“In the end, we will conserve only what we love,
We will love only what we understand,
And we will understand only what we are taught.”
I suppose many of you are like me, and we could all be classified as bibliomaniacs-- lovers of books and libraries, trying to take in as much as we can. I read your comments and replies. I can only present my perspective on what has evolved from what I have been taught. I see a reply in which I presented multiple references to the Armenian genocide that occurred from 1913 to 1918. Patricia Harmanci remarked:
"I see you list only Armenian articles. One-sided on the so-called Armenian genocide. Try reading some Ottoman historians like Heath Lowry. You may find a different view."
However, the primary focus of the comment I made was not on Armenia vs Turkish suffering or blame. But assuming it was, how many references written by how many scholars does one need to come as close as possible to the truth unless we were actually there?
Looking into what Patricia said made me wonder if we can, as sentient beings, ever agree on anything. I take Patricia’s remarks seriously. I think there is something more important that is of value here. It is that we, whom I will call “the civilized,” have in our nature the willingness to hear confrontation or argument and not run away from it. So many of the people I encounter respond or do not respond, and use “I do not talk politics.” Yet, politics involves every aspect of our lives. We cannot escape from this; it is reality. We ought to embrace such discussions and our differing opinions, but bring as much fact-based evidence as possible in any debate.
“The facts, ma'am, just the facts.” --Jack Webb in Dragnet
I bring this to support the conclusion that the interactions of 1913-1918 between Turks and Armenians were indeed an act of ethnic cleansing. And I speculate, Patricia, that you are of Turkish descent and are biased, as is Hamid, being of Egyptian descent. I am a Polish Jew, and yet I can say without hesitation that what Netanyahu has done and continues to do in Gaza is a genocide against the Palestinian people. I will accept the wrath of other Jews directed against me, but in my core, truth comes before all other issues.
I rest my "case" or argument on the statements below.
The vast majority of scholars, historians, and academic institutions recognize the events as the Armenian Genocide, where the Ottoman government systematically targeted and eliminated Armenians. And, while there’s debate on the scale of the killings and the degree of premeditation, the core narrative of Armenian suffering and the Ottoman government’s responsibility is widely accepted. Numerous eyewitness accounts, historical documents, and reports from international observers detail the systematic persecution, deportations, and mass killings of Armenians during this period. The deportations, often carried out under brutal conditions, are widely seen as a form of ethnic cleansing and a deliberate attempt to eliminate the Armenian population from the Ottoman Empire. Some Turkish perspectives argue that the events were a result of wartime chaos and inter-communal violence, not a systematic attempt to exterminate Armenians. However, these arguments are primarily viewed by the international academic community as attempts to downplay the scale and nature of the Armenian Genocide.
Ethnic cleansing has been official Israeli policy for 80 years. It took a genocide for much of the world to start waking up to this reality and caring about it
I think this is a really interesting piece and you certainly make a credible case. I was wondering what is it about mass atrocities which puts debating what constitutes one as beyond the pale? Is it because they're uniquely dangerous and bad things? Is it that having a discussion with someone who denies evidence pointing to a fact is a waste of time? Is it that you feel that discussing these things with people grants them airtime and space which they simply don't deserve?
Given we don't have an infinite amount of time, and time is our most precious commodity, I can completely understand why you would take this decision. Are there any other topics which you would now say are off limits? What about those who support Trump's deportation agenda? So, I guess I'm wondering is this becoming a more generalised stance of topics which are not worth discussing or is it specifically the case of mass atrocity and if so why?
This is a weird argument because the author's rhetoric makes it sound like it's clear that it's genocide but we just don't want to call it that. Then he gives the criteria for genocide and the case presented straightforwardly doesn't satisfy them. Netanyahu's quoted statement is about driving the Palestinians out of the region, not destroying them as a people group. Yes, Israel is killing Palestinians but that's because they are at war with each other. It's a strange conflict because Hamas is in charge in Palestine and their mission is to destroy the nation of Israel, and so unsurprisingly they have never been satisfied with any attempts at peace. They are also willing to sustain brutal losses without relinquishing their mission. The conflict is one-sided, but given the unwillingness of Hamas to relent (and their recent escalations of unprovoked violence), it's unclear Israel has much of a choice here. Calling it "genocide" obscures the actual texture of the situation and is a mischaracterization of the conflict.
The civilian to combatant death ratio is lower than the iraq war. Does Shadi also think the US & Britain were genociding the iraqis? Seems like we would have to expand the genocide claim to basically any modern war? Or what makes this one special?
To your "modern war" point, the Battle of Stalingrad -- a classic "double siege" -- is said to have killed 20 to 25% of the city's civilian inhabitants (whom the Russian authorities largely refused to evacuate). That was 200,000 people. And that was in 4-5 months.
But there are differences, too. The Germans and Russians didn't just bombard each other at Stalingrad. The unit-to-unit, soldier-to-soldier battles were, as least as I've read, brutal and unremitting, with high casualties on both sides. While there certainly have been Israeli military casualties, I just don't know the degree to which the IDF and Hamas have been similarly engaged. It may be a function of how the war has been reported, but one has often been left to wonder just what the Israelis have been shooting at.
This is not to say that it's, eo ipso, a war crime to bombard (or starve) a besieged city. But sieges -- once warfare par excellence -- haven't been a prominent feature of war for a long time The only exceptions I can recall in my lifetime are Sarajevo and Grozny (both Muslim cities, btw, with the second still having not recovered its pre-1990 population).
A problem is that Gaza isn't precisely "besieged" in the classic sense -- the Israelis can move freely (though not safely) through most of it. And, besieged or not, if the Israeli War objective, as Shadi claims, is to expel Gaza's citizens by making it uninhabitable (a very different objective than "destroying Hamas"), then some kind of redline would seem to have been crossed.
You make a good case, but you haven't convinced me. Jews in Nazi Germany did not bring on their own persecution as a result of slaughtering Nazis. German Jews (as well as Gypsies and homosexuals) were guilty of no transgression, and could have done nothing to prevent their horrible fate.
Not so for the Gazans. They largely supported violence against Jews. Indeed, they were frequently the perpetrators. Israel, whether you support the state or not, has not had a moment's peace since the country was formed after WWII. The Six Day War od 1967 is a factor in much of what is happening today. That war is a direct result of aggression against Israel by Arab states.
Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt was assassinated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1981 in retaliation for Sadat's peace-keeping efforts with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has a century old sordid history of violence and persecution against all non-believers, including both Christians and Jews. The Muslim Brotherhood is active to this day, but for some reason, rarely is mentioned.
It was a tactic of terrorists to send suicide bombers into areas with Jewish population with no motive beyond slaughtering as many Jews as possible. These were not 'isolated incidents'. These were planned bombings by Muslim terrorist organizations.
Israel is currently destroying Gaza as a direct result of Oct 7, 2023 attack. But that was a final straw, not an initial incident. No rational person can believe that the various Muslim terrorist organizations can be negotiated into peace. They cannot. If there is to be peace, the Muslim terrorists must be destroyed. If that is genocide, so be it.
You are conveniently omitting the key fact of the conflict, the violent seizure of land and displacement of 750K or so Palestinians in 1948. And calling the continuous violence violence since, terrorism. Why should the state of Israel have had a moment’s peace since “the country was formed”? Have you never imagined what you would have done or would do, if your family was Palestinian?
When the sin is great, the sinner must either blame the victim, or acknowledge the sin. What is genocide is decided by the “winners”, right?
We can argue back and forth all day. The issues go way back before 1948. That's why I pointed out the Muslim Brotherhood which, for over a century, has dedicated itself to persecuting infidels. 'Infidels' can be defined here as anyone who isn't Muslim, anywhere in the world. That includes Christians, along with Jews.
Take a look at various places in Africa. Take a look at Pakistan. Jews are not the issue concerning the genocides in Africa or Pakistan. Muslims are. Jews are not everywhere that genocide is happening, but Muslims are. Israel has always been reactive: Leave them alone and they will leave you alone. Attack them, and they will attack back. Try to find an instance where that is not true. Some people conveniently forget that the only reason this action is taking place right now in Gaza is that Hamas slaughtered over 1200 people on Oct 7. The ONLY reason. Palestinians generally fear Hamas as much or more than Jews do.
Is Israel a legitimate country, founded in accordance with international law? Good question, and I don't know the answer. Neither, I suspect, do you. Nobody ever brings that up. Why not? Numerous countries were formed after WWII, along with Israel. Borders change, countries come and go. Countries aren't as rock solid and perpetual as a lot of people seem to think. So, does the nation of Israel have a legitimate right to exist? If you want to make an intelligent argument that it does not, I will listen. If you want to continue to support the slaughter of innocent people by psychopathic terrorists, I will not.
Based on the UN definition... 'any of the following acts '... how many 'genocides' do you believe have occurred since the definition was created? The UN legally recognizes 3. I suspect your reading of the definition would lead you to declare many, many more, if you were to apply it rigorously.
For starters, the October 7 attacks also meet the UN definition of genocide.
"Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group".... I suspect the conflict in Ireland caused serious mental harm. Saddam Hussein against the Kurds. The expulsion of millions of Germans from the Sudatenland who had lived there for 500 years. Indonesia... Sri Lanka... On and on ...
Under that UN definition almost every large scale episode of violence in recorded history is plausibly genocide.
I’m reminded of learning about the crime of conspiracy in criminal law class and how the definition is often so broad as to seemingly swallow everything.
Personally, I find the UN definition to be ridiculous.
Technically yes. But October 7 IMO, was essentially a prison riot, an explosion of rage at the decades long brutalization of the Palestinian people by especially, the IDF. The mostly young Israeli victims were apparently oblivious to the danger of partying next door to a maximum security prison, Gaza, and to their own identity, to the imprisoned, as their oppressors. To believe that this one act of rage was intended as the opening of a sustained attempt to eradicate the Jewish population of Israel/Palestine, strikes me as denial of the truly calculated genocide being waged against the Palestinians. Who have been the indigenous people of that region for centuries. In this sense the better historical analogy is the attempted extermination of the Native Americans by the European colonizers.
"Technically yes" - hopefully you can see that that is why this definition of genocide is so broad as to be meaningless. The constant invocation of the term to describe the conflict in Gaza seems disingenuous (at best) to observers who are otherwise sympathetic to the plight of the Gazans.
On the subject on indigineity, I call your attention to this from Freddie de Boer (who shares your disdain for the state of Israel):
"Let me also take a moment to say that the whole concept of indigeneity, constantly invoked by a certain species of pro-Palestine activist, is an utter waste of time. Neither side has any clear historical claim to being the first people there, as neither are descendants of the Canaanites described in the Torah. (The notion that Jewish people are indigenous to Palestine is denied by their own holy book - Abraham was from Iraq!) We will never, ever resolve the historical debates to anyone’s satisfaction. More to the point, though… rights do not stem from indigeneity. I understand that, to a large degree, academics essentially reverse-engineered the concept in order to give moral heft to the plight of the Native Americans, who were the victims of a largely-successful genocide. But the rights of the Native Americans did not depend on their indigenous nature, especially considering that like all people they came here from somewhere else. We shouldn’t have slaughtered them not because they had some sort of unique connection to the land that they were on but because they were human and in possession of rights. The same applies to Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs - they are there, they have the right to stay and to live in peace and prosperity. There is no lawyering our way out of this by pretending we know who was there first. The concepts of democratic rule, human rights, egalitarianism, and international law must be enough."
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/can-the-liberal-democratic-project
To the original post, it is worth flagging that many states recognise more than 3 genocides, including the US, which recognised recent genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur (twice, once in the mid-2000s and again earlier this year), ISIS genocide of the Yazidis, and the genocides of the Uyghurs and Rohingya. Maybe I am forgetting others.
Arguably the recent Tigray war in Ethiopia would qualify as an attempted genocide of the eponymous Tigray people. Turkish operations against the Kurds might also qualify (the intent would seemingly be easy to prove, what with the Turkish insistence that the Kurds aren't a separate people at all, but instead "Mountain Turks", though the level of violence/force might not be enough). Arab (mostly Kuwaiti but also Saudi, Emirati, Qatari, etc.) policies regarding the "Bedoon" would also seem to qualify - they're officially stateless, face restrictions in employment and education, and are refused any sort of state documentation, as well as subjected to state repression from time to time.
I too had that thought, skimming these, it sounds like most wars, particularly ethic ones, are genocide.
Okay, I'll bite, but just so we're clear, the true enemy of the State of Israel is BiBi Netanyahu, NOT the Palestinian people.
Shadi, with all due respect, the only atrocity here is your unwillingness to steelman the other side.
"Because, now, there is no denying it: if you support Israel’s ongoing war, you are also a supporter of ethnic cleansing (if not genocide)."
Sounds a lot like many left leaning dismissals of people they object to.
-Because now, there's no denying it: if you don't support gay marriage, you're homophobic
-Because now, there's no denying it: if you don't support race-based admissions, you're a racist.
-Because now, there's no denying it: if you support banning pornography, you're a fascist theocrat.
The problem isn't your criticism per se, it's the license that you imply it gives you to dismiss the other as unworthy of your consideration and worse, unworthy of your engagement.
And I still haven't seen you publicly declare that the Armenian genocide was a real thing. So, feel free to address that while we're at it.
I do not support race-based admissions, and without question, I am not racist. Admissions, appointments, jobs, etc, should be based first on talent and work ethic. Can you do the job well?
I like pornography, but that does not mean I am not a fascist or a theocrat.
The Armenian genocide was a genocide. Here are but a few of man's "good works." I only went back to 1950 because the reply would be really long. But I have added a few references to literature detailing the genocide of Armenians in 1913. See after the URLs.
List of Genocides (since 1950)
1950's, Guatemala, 200,000 Mayans, Government army
1959-2006, Burundi, 400,000+ Hutus: Tutsi
1971, East Pakistan,1.5 million Bengalis, West Pakistani 1966-1970, Nigeria, 1 million Ibos,: Nigerian army, Cambodia
1975-79: 2 million Cambodians: Khmer Rouge-Poi Pot
1987-88, Iraq, Anfal Campaign Kurdistan
1992-1995, Bosnia-Herzeogvia, Serb ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims
1994-, Rwanda 800,000 Tutsis: Hutus-Kambanda
2001-present, Nigeria, Niger delta groups, Nigerian army
2003-present, Darfur (Sudan), 200,000-400,000: Janjaweed Arab Militias, Sudan Gov't
2012, Syria, 14,000: Assad
http://questgarden.com/80/34/7/091112084950/process.htm
http://adarwinstudygroup.org/warfare/genocide-ethnic-conflict/
http://www.genocidewatch.org/howpreventgenocideic.html
Kévorkian, Raymond H. The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History. London: I.B. Tauris, 2011.
Akçam, Taner. A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006.
Balakian, Peter. The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.
Werfel, Franz. The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. Translated by Geoffrey Dunlop. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2004.
Balakian, Grigoris. Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1918. Translated by Peter Balakian with Aris Sevag. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.
Hovannisian, Richard G. The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2007.
http://www.gpanet.org/content/genocides-politicides-and-other-mass-murder-1945-stages-2008 (bitly: http://bit.ly/KQ4pKs)
I see you list only Armenian articles. One sided on the so-called Armenian genocide. Try reading some Ottoman historians like Heath Lowry. You may find a different view.
I can vouch for Werfel Franz. he was not Armenian. I'll check out Heath Lowry, Thank you.
Yes. and Yes it is genocide. and Yes historical victims of genocide are perpetrating genocide. May we all stop hiding from the truth.
The acts of Hamas also satisfy this definition of genocide.
Where are your red lines for inconsistency?
This is classic whataboutism... I would encourage us to not spiral into that plane crash.
Really?
His whole argument collapses because also Hamas - using the same definition - is committing a genocide.
This is called rebuttal.
Whataboutism is pretty much the opposite: not addressing the original argument.
Fair enough. I'll try again: If you have to accuse EVERYONE of something before you can accuse ANYONE of something. You may never write ANYTHING. It's an impossible standard and not to Shadi's point. If you try to make it part of Shadi's point, that indeed "serves to reduce the perceived plausibility or seriousness of the original accusation or question by suggesting that the person advancing it is hypocritical or that the responder’s misbehavior is not unique or unprecedented."
While I may have misunderstood what you were saying, I think the above still applies.
The accusations against Israel have to be much more specific to be informative.
What exactly Israel is doing what it should not be doing?
Of course, you have to also show that Israel is actually doing it too. The source cannot be Hamas.
I am not implying there are no such things. What I am implying is that the question is much more difficult and complex than described in the article.
"If you have to accuse EVERYONE of something before you can accuse ANYONE of something."
This is a bit of a straw man. The previous poster is pointing out the inconsistent application of a principle, that's not whataboutism. It's not about accusing everyone but about being morally and rationally consistent (if one cares about Socratic reasoning at all).
For example, imagine I'm a high school teacher and a couple of kids have been misbehaving and talking during class but I haven't called them out on it. Then I see that some other kid is misbehaving slightly (maybe he's on his phone during the lesson) and I call him out and judge him harshly for the disruption. While it's true that the other kid was misbehaving too, I'm failing to apply the judgment fairly and letting others get away with similar behavior with no judgment.
Yes, we could question my intentions and call me a hypocrite, which I certainly am in the example. And yes that doesn't take away from the wrongness of the one kid's behavior. But, it does illustrate that I am failing to consistently apply a moral principle. And that one kid can rightfully say, "Why are you picking on me when those kids in the back have been talking and been on their phones all semester?!"
If one wants to argue that Israel IS exceptionally bad in a way that other "misbehaving states" are not, then that's not necessarily inconsistent. However, Shadi and others who have tried have failed to do this. It will also be quite hard to do considering that states like Syria, China, the Sudan, etc., have generally engaged in objectively worse behavior than has Israel.
Respectfully, I can appreciate the desire for consistency. But I admit that I am also questioning the intentions, which pass the smell test of 'what about [x]' to me.
This thread discussing Israel 0% proves my point. And ultimately, I call it out because it's such common theme of disingenuousness in partisan debate.
Fair enough. I think you're right that sometimes people engage in whataboutism regarding this topic, but my point was to steel man the argument--and as I noted I do think it's steel-man-able.
Steel-man-able, btw, is a great name for a Black Sabbath song.
I don't use the g word because I am not an international law expert nor human rights expert but if I did, I would have the intellectual humility to also examine the credible evidence against the notion that Israel is engaged in that. Most of the time, if not all the time, Shadi has approached the conflict with reason and compassion for "both sides," that's why and how I learned from him to better approach this, also check out solutions not sides, based in the UK, they build common ground and eschew violence, antisemitism, Islamophobia from both sides.
As a paid subscriber, Shadi, I've made a good-faith effort to listen to you and understand your point of view. I've actively supported Palestinians and Palestinian rights for over 55 years.
I am, with sadness, cancelling my subscription.
I find the term "Pro-Palestinian" to be painfully inaccurate to describe anyone lacking an unequivocal commitment to defending Palestinians, Jews, Christians, Hindus, secularists, Israel, and everyone living on this earth against Hamas and their warped interpretation of Jihadism.
I am horrified by your lack of attention to the Arab world's (especially Egypt's) responsibility for the continued suffering. I've concluded that you are using "humanitarian" arguments and the accusation of "atrocity denial" to obscure the central question for the people of Gaza, Palestine, Israel, and the rest of the world: how are we going to stop Hamas and their allies?
I am glad that I don't have to depend on your support for my own survival. I've been waiting ever since Oct 7th, 2023, and I don't see it coming.
Do you feel you’ve lost something, with the way that this war has affected you? Open-mindedness is a beauty in itself, for all that it takes effort. Having reasons—even reasons you feel to be good ones—to leave it behind seems like it might be an occasion for regret as much as relief.
Yes, I feel like I've lost something. I think it's hurt some of my friendships. So, yes, there is regret. I wish it were otherwise. That said, as someone once said about an open mind, if you keep it too open, your brains fall out.
Do those friends at least acknowledge the devastation in Gaza even if, like me (for reasons previously explained in these comments), they don't use the g word?
I don't know what it is about Israel and Jews that makes otherwise intelligent and insightful people almost completely suspend their reasoning ability only to engage in unhinged, unfair moral condemnation. I'm not a Zionist or Jewish, sympathize greatly with the Palestinians, and believe that there are fair criticisms that can be leveled at the Israeli govt. I only started studying this topic and getting into the history a couple of years ago, but time and again I've seen people like Shadi (otherwise adept critical thinkers) sound like woke freshmen at Columbia.
This issue is morally complicated, but here Shadi is stretching the definition of genocide so that, as others have pointed out, it could nearly apply to any war. Yet, he is mainly applying it to Israel. And here he is sharing an article that is so one-sided and lacking context that it borders on misinformation. When Fox News gives an unfair framing of, say, illegal immigration, the usual suspects rightly jump in to correct the record. But with Israel, unfair framings and morally-righteous, Disney-movie level black and white morality are the norm.
I have always resisted going here, but now I'm starting to think that some of this genuinely is about antisemitism.
If you want to engage in atrocity denial, that’s your choice. But like I said, that’s a red line for me. Everything about your response reeks of bad faith, including of course attributing the motive of antisemitism without evidence to people you disagree with. That’s a really basic one. You can do better.
I'm guessing by "atrocity denial" you mean I don't agree that it's a genocide? I already said in my post that the Israeli govt has some (fair) criticism coming to it, such as regarding settlement building, or particular bombing campaigns and tactics that could have been better planned and executed with fewer casualties. But you have not made a good argument that it's a genocide, so I disagree with your premise.
The red line for you is the supposed genocide? Did you draw that same line in Syria during the Civil War when double tap strikes were used by Assad against civilians? Where the death count was significantly higher and the civilian to combatant ratio was worse? Did you draw that line in China with the Uyghers? Maybe you did, and if so point me to your work on it.
To be clear, I didn't directly accuse you of antisemitism, I said I'm starting to think that it's part of the explanation for why people have such heavy, disproportionate condemnation of Israel. If there's a better explanation, I'd love to hear it. And please don't say, "because it's a genocide" because that's just begging the question.
Yea I did draw that red line on Syria as even a casual google search would indicate. That was like the defining issue for me in the 2010s. I don’t talk to Assad supporters.
You're right on that point: I do see on a Google search that you have criticized the Assad regime. I still don't see the same level of moral condemnation as you give to Israel, though. And as far as I can see you never called it a genocide. You have multiple tweets calling the Israel situation a genocide (as well as this article) but when talking about Syria you use the word massacre or simply describe events.
For the same reasons you gave in this article regarding why you think Israel is committing a genocide, Assad's govt CLEARLY committed a genocide. He explicitly targeted civilians with Double Tap Strikes, meaning that one bombing of a hospital or school is done purposely, then when rescue workers come another is done to make sure all are dead including the workers, hence the name double tap. Israel can be criticized for its tactics, but when its govt attacks schools or hospitals it's because HAMAS is holing up in them, using Palestinians as human shields (sometimes). The death count both by most years and in total is also way higher in the Syrian Civil War.
Is there something I'm missing as to why one is a genocide and the other isn't?
Also I have an article coming up on how otherwise good people can come to support evil things. You might find that one of particular interest. I’ll let you know when it comes out.
Well since you're clearly being condescending here, I'll one up you: I'm guessing you're gonna be the subject of the article? ;)
Luke, you’re right. When it comes to Israel and the Jews it is just not possible for most observers to be fair and balanced, or engage in calm, reasoned discourse. Myself included, even though I try.
Israel and the Jews push too many hot buttons for too many people – religious, historical, cultural, psychological, and political – for Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. Friends and foes of Israel, living in alternate realities, committed with passionate intensity to uncompromising positions, engage in take-no-prisoners ideological jousts that inevitably devolve into incoherent paroxysms of righteous anger and rage. And yes, most of the anger and rage against Israel, these days largely, though not exclusively, on the Left, is driven by antisemitism. Walter Russell Mead called this new incarnation of Jew-hatred the “Israel Outrage Industry.”
Mead once wrote, with more than a touch of irony: “A suspicious person might be led to believe that this is yet another sign that Jew-hatred, rather than compassion for Palestinian suffering, motivates a lot of the Israel Outrage Industry. Thankfully, not that many people are suspicious. We live in a thoughtful, beautiful world, where the motives of those who hate Israel are always clean and pure.”
https://archive.ph/1bblV
Jew-hatred seems to be encoded in the cultural DNA of the Christian/Post-Christian West, and in Islam: the Jews rejected Christ and the Jews rejected Muhammad. With the decline of Christianity in the post-Enlightenment West, religious Judeophobia was transformed into race-based antisemitism which culminated in Nazism and the Holocaust. There is simply too much historical and emotional baggage for all involved.
Jeez, it just blows my mind. I understand what you're saying, it's just still hard to wrap my head around from people like Shadi whom I otherwise see as good faith interlocutors. I'm still not convinced it's ALL antisemitism. I think some of it for progressives anyway has to do with far left, settler-colonialist ideology (be it conscious or unconscious).
Perhaps it is not so much as being open-minded and true to who and what you are. I am so tired of niceties, pleasantries or what I prefer to call bullshit.
You should be biased (Shadi Hamid). Correct me if I am wrong. But you are of Egyptian heritage, and you are Muslim. For the sake of transparency, I am an American-born Jew with most of my family from Poland, a small segment from Ukraine, and a tiny segment of Sephardic heritage.
Gaza has been a mess with Hamas, backed by Iran, dedicated to wiping out Israel and all Jews, everywhere. Hamas has shielded itself in schools, hospitals, and other public places to avoid military attack and to gain favor when civilians, mostly Palestinians, are murdered by Israeli weaponry.
Netanyahu is responsible for the genocide of Palestinians. And I do not care what you call it because it is the catastrophic death of thousands of Palestinians who Israeli armies have murdered in a manner no different than Putin’s genocides in Chechnya, Kosovo, Georgia, and Ukraine. It is the wholesale slaughter of human lives that includes children, the elderly, adults, workers in medicine and journalism, but all civilians. Netanyahu is a war criminal.
All the Arab countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have GUILT here. None have granted access to Palestinians seeking refuge in other ME Arab states. Egypt has built a steel wall at the Southern border of Gaza & Egypt to keep Palestinians out. That sucks, as does the fact the the US & France helped Egypt build that steel wall. The wall is several kilometers long and extends deep underground. It was completed around 2010—such hypocrisy in many countries, including the US.
So yes, the Palestinian deaths are tragic, they are painful to my heart and soul. In medicine x 62 years, I care for all with love because it is someone’s husband, someone’s wife, someone’s mother or father, sister or brother or child. John Donne is weeping because
“Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind,” and because
“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.” Stern to Schindler
“Whoever saves a life is as though he had saved all mankind”. Quran, 5:32
“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)
I know many Jews, in Israel and all over the world, feel the same. And here’s my final take as an 82-year-old who has seen far better times.
1. The so-called Free World, the world of Democracies, sits on its fat ass while people after people fall prey to genocidal maniacs. Together, they could wipe such murderers off the face of the Earth, but they do not. Their attitude is "it's not my concern." Google “genocides in the last 100 years."
2. It is a travesty that Ukraine was abandoned by my Fascist President Trump- the useful idiot of Putin. Given a chance, Trump will destroy the world. And the GOP Congress plays along in their trance-like state, believing, like Trump, they will remain in office forever. Add to this the American mainstream media with one pundit or pontific after another, with all (excepting Jen Psaki and Lawrence O’Donnell) stating that Fascism is here, that Trump is an idiot, the worst POTUS in our history, and that DOGE is DOGE (Destroy Our Great Experiment).
3. I have only one further remark. I wish the masses of Palestinian citizens who are sick of Hamas had united as a group and destroyed Hamas. And along with that, in my idealistic world, I wish that Israel and other countries would realize all the inter-marriage and genetic closeness of all of these semitic peoples and stop the killing and bring happiness and prosperity to the ME.
This may be the most comments for a post in a long time. Well done, Shadi!
Ha, thanks!
“I don't discuss politics.” This is a typical response I get from others. Yet, how did we lose the full understanding of “politics?” How did we get so frightened that honesty and sincerity in confrontation have reached taboo levels? And how can we not see our bias in our “arguments” and op-eds versus the harsh reality of what comes closest to being true? Yes, Hamid, you’re not as open-minded as perhaps you used to be, and you are biased. That is my opinion.
Politics comes from the Greek “polis,” which means city-state or community. It refers to the affairs, governance, and well-being of the entire community. As a global community, we should embrace politics as a pathway to higher expressions of human unity (humanity). WTF’s wrong with us? How did we get it so wrong? Even AI has a deeper and more accurate understanding of “politics.”
While often associated with government, elections, and political parties, politics has a more fundamental meaning. Politics can be seen as the process of human interaction, decision-making, and power dynamics that shape any community. Politics has various forms, from personal relationships to workplaces, social groups, and international relations. At its core, politics involves how individuals and groups interact, cooperate, and compete to achieve goals and shape lives. This includes how conflicts are resolved, resources are allocated, and collective decisions are made. Politics is about navigating the complexities of living together and organizing societies.
The opinions I have presented in my three comments to Hamid’s editorial are based on a lifetime spanning 82 years and interactions with people from around the globe. I see the many differing opinions; that is the nature of humankind (i.e., we see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear).
But perhaps this quote says it better:
“In the end, we will conserve only what we love,
We will love only what we understand,
And we will understand only what we are taught.”
I suppose many of you are like me, and we could all be classified as bibliomaniacs-- lovers of books and libraries, trying to take in as much as we can. I read your comments and replies. I can only present my perspective on what has evolved from what I have been taught. I see a reply in which I presented multiple references to the Armenian genocide that occurred from 1913 to 1918. Patricia Harmanci remarked:
"I see you list only Armenian articles. One-sided on the so-called Armenian genocide. Try reading some Ottoman historians like Heath Lowry. You may find a different view."
However, the primary focus of the comment I made was not on Armenia vs Turkish suffering or blame. But assuming it was, how many references written by how many scholars does one need to come as close as possible to the truth unless we were actually there?
Looking into what Patricia said made me wonder if we can, as sentient beings, ever agree on anything. I take Patricia’s remarks seriously. I think there is something more important that is of value here. It is that we, whom I will call “the civilized,” have in our nature the willingness to hear confrontation or argument and not run away from it. So many of the people I encounter respond or do not respond, and use “I do not talk politics.” Yet, politics involves every aspect of our lives. We cannot escape from this; it is reality. We ought to embrace such discussions and our differing opinions, but bring as much fact-based evidence as possible in any debate.
“The facts, ma'am, just the facts.” --Jack Webb in Dragnet
I bring this to support the conclusion that the interactions of 1913-1918 between Turks and Armenians were indeed an act of ethnic cleansing. And I speculate, Patricia, that you are of Turkish descent and are biased, as is Hamid, being of Egyptian descent. I am a Polish Jew, and yet I can say without hesitation that what Netanyahu has done and continues to do in Gaza is a genocide against the Palestinian people. I will accept the wrath of other Jews directed against me, but in my core, truth comes before all other issues.
I rest my "case" or argument on the statements below.
The vast majority of scholars, historians, and academic institutions recognize the events as the Armenian Genocide, where the Ottoman government systematically targeted and eliminated Armenians. And, while there’s debate on the scale of the killings and the degree of premeditation, the core narrative of Armenian suffering and the Ottoman government’s responsibility is widely accepted. Numerous eyewitness accounts, historical documents, and reports from international observers detail the systematic persecution, deportations, and mass killings of Armenians during this period. The deportations, often carried out under brutal conditions, are widely seen as a form of ethnic cleansing and a deliberate attempt to eliminate the Armenian population from the Ottoman Empire. Some Turkish perspectives argue that the events were a result of wartime chaos and inter-communal violence, not a systematic attempt to exterminate Armenians. However, these arguments are primarily viewed by the international academic community as attempts to downplay the scale and nature of the Armenian Genocide.
Ethnic cleansing has been official Israeli policy for 80 years. It took a genocide for much of the world to start waking up to this reality and caring about it
I think this is a really interesting piece and you certainly make a credible case. I was wondering what is it about mass atrocities which puts debating what constitutes one as beyond the pale? Is it because they're uniquely dangerous and bad things? Is it that having a discussion with someone who denies evidence pointing to a fact is a waste of time? Is it that you feel that discussing these things with people grants them airtime and space which they simply don't deserve?
Given we don't have an infinite amount of time, and time is our most precious commodity, I can completely understand why you would take this decision. Are there any other topics which you would now say are off limits? What about those who support Trump's deportation agenda? So, I guess I'm wondering is this becoming a more generalised stance of topics which are not worth discussing or is it specifically the case of mass atrocity and if so why?