Despicable and evil. I have nothing to say other than that, the sheer denial of any wrongdoing by israel or the woman being interviewed, despite such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is...
Despicable and evil. I have nothing to say other than that, the sheer denial of any wrongdoing by israel or the woman being interviewed, despite such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is sickening.
Oof. I just cannot understand that way of thinking. Maybe I would if I'd lived through similar experiences. But, I rather hope not. Edit: I swear the post about typing/editing on mobile was...
Oof.
I just cannot understand that way of thinking. Maybe I would if I'd lived through similar experiences. But, I rather hope not.
Edit: I swear the post about typing/editing on mobile was prescient. Why would it correct to "liced"
You can't understand it because it's, at its root and core, deeply evil. No amount of suffering can justify it because it aims not to alleviate suffering but to perpetuate it and replicate it. No...
You can't understand it because it's, at its root and core, deeply evil. No amount of suffering can justify it because it aims not to alleviate suffering but to perpetuate it and replicate it.
No matter the circumstance or experiences, it is fundamentally evil.
I have degrees in psych and counseling. I've worked with people who have done evil things by that standard. I've often understood even if I obviously don't agree. I can sort of understand the "my...
I have degrees in psych and counseling. I've worked with people who have done evil things by that standard. I've often understood even if I obviously don't agree. I can sort of understand the "my children must come first." But like, if I had to choose between two children to save, not .... To kill the children to establish sovereignty over the land.
The problem is: What entity decides a certain action in a certain context is evil? What entity will enact consequence of them thinking and doing "evil" stuff?
The problem is:
What entity decides a certain action in a certain context is evil?
What entity will enact consequence of them thinking and doing "evil" stuff?
I'm religious so, God. Sorry but the answer for that is gonna be incredibly blunt. And even if you're not into divine command, there are many, many secular frameworks of morality that we commonly...
I'm religious so, God. Sorry but the answer for that is gonna be incredibly blunt. And even if you're not into divine command, there are many, many secular frameworks of morality that we commonly understand and accept that simply obviously condemn the actions of Israeli apartheid. From the perspective of simple utilitarian observation, of the golden rule, &c it's untenable.
oh and also Israel's occupation and treatment of Palestinians directly violates international law.
The international community has failed routinely to serve even the smallest of condemnations for what should be incredibly cut and dry cases. Even asking Israel to not indiscriminately bomb civilian populations on purpose is too much for them. I think a great place to start for consequences would be to stop cheering them on as they slaughter innocents.
They are intentionally targeting civilians and their bombings are indiscriminate according to UN journalists (whom Israel also killed). There are definitely innocent people in this case, and...
They are intentionally targeting civilians and their bombings are indiscriminate according to UN journalists (whom Israel also killed). There are definitely innocent people in this case, and Israel is the one killing them on the largest scale. This is being cheered on by international community.
And, for context, the median age of people in Gaza is 18. (Only 30% are over 30.) Effectively, half of the population of Gaza are children Israel has penned into an open air prison that they...
And, for context, the median age of people in Gaza is 18. (Only 30% are over 30.) Effectively, half of the population of Gaza are children Israel has penned into an open air prison that they routinely cut off water from and indiscriminately bomb. A couple decades ago, the median age was well under 18.
Whenever you read about medics being killed or hospitals being bombed, you're primarily hearing about children applying field dressings to people injured from bombings getting bombed. And then the big, advanced military blowing up fish in a barrel rationalizes it because they're afraid of the guerillas with peashooters. Same cycle, different year.
And yet, if they didn't have the blockade, Hamas would have much heavier weaponry right now. The reason Hamas doesn't have proper military-grade precision guided missiles, shoulder-mounted...
And then the big, advanced military blowing up fish in a barrel rationalizes it because they're afraid of the guerillas with peashooters. Same cycle, different year.
And yet, if they didn't have the blockade, Hamas would have much heavier weaponry right now. The reason Hamas doesn't have proper military-grade precision guided missiles, shoulder-mounted antitank and anti-air missiles, etc. is precisely because of the blockade on the Gaza strip. Without that blockade, Hamas would have the kind of heavy weaponry Hezbollah does, given to them by Tehran. And yet they still managed to murder 1000+ Israelis. Imagine what Hamas could do with unlimited access to Iranian heavy weaponry.
The blockade, for all its harms, was not created to starve the Gazan people. The blockade, the wall, etc., all of these are in place to prevent Hamas from getting access to heavy weaponry, the type of equipment that can't be made locally and can't easily be smuggled through a tiny tunnel.
Honestly, this should be quite sobering. Hamas was able to cause the damage it did, even when it has been subject to years of blockade and interdicted arms shipments. If the Gazan borders were open, and Hamas could import whatever it wanted, the Israeli death toll in this attack likely would have been at least ten times greater.
it gets a little repetitive quoting this wikipedia article over and over again, but: can't allow Hamas to get their hands on any paper. imagine the damage they could do if they snuck into an IDF...
Exemplary
The blockade, for all its harms, was not created to starve the Gazan people. The blockade, the wall, etc., all of these are in place to prevent Hamas from getting access to heavy weaponry
According to Gisha, items that have at various times been denied importation into Gaza in 2010 include ordinary consumer goods such as jam, candles, books, musical instruments, shampoo, A4 paper, and livestock such as chicken, donkeys, and cows. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs also lists wheelchairs, dry food items, crayons, stationery, and soccer balls as shipments that Israeli authorities have prevented from entering Gaza. International aid group Mercy Corps said it was blocked from sending 90 tons of macaroni and other foodstuffs. After international pressure, Israeli authorities said that they were giving the shipment a green light. Israel was also reported to have prevented aid groups from sending in other items, such as paper, art supplies, tomato paste and lentils.
can't allow Hamas to get their hands on any paper. imagine the damage they could do if they snuck into an IDF barracks and gave all the soldiers paper cuts.
Hamas was able to cause the damage it did, even when it has been subject to years of blockade and interdicted arms shipments. If the Gazan borders were open, and Hamas could import whatever it wanted, the Israeli death toll in this attack likely would have been at least ten times greater.
and you're saying that if the blockade hadn't been present, it would have been worse.
so, what's the solution? should the blockade get even more strict?
perhaps Israel should mandate that the only food allowed in Gaza is pureed baby food, and it can only be sent to Gaza through a pipeline filled with mesh filters. after all, bags of flour or grain could be used to smuggle guns or explosives.
God doesn't exert a direct force of consequence, unlike say, US military, so such morality framework source doesn't matter (even if such supernatural entity exists). To address your argumentum ad...
God doesn't exert a direct force of consequence, unlike say, US military, so such morality framework source doesn't matter (even if such supernatural entity exists).
To address your argumentum ad populum: Accept, by what? Military, economical, or societal might of the United States of America? In absence of American global influence, would they truly believe in what America (or more accurately, a popular norm from the US) currently thinks as "righteous" or "evil", or would they drop those beliefs like a hot potato, especially since they came from different environments? (Alert: personal opinion) I know that I believe that Israel is supporting evil, but of different reasons.
(Alert: personal opinion) Agree, cheering them on is not a great idea.
But a superior might in American political scene than humanitarians, Israeli lobbyists, thinks differently, and since they have greater political pressure, their words becomes law.
Her experiences aren't uniquely bad. She's not a Holocaust survivor, she grew up in Tel Aviv, she's been through two wars that her country has won. There are millions and millions of people who...
Her experiences aren't uniquely bad. She's not a Holocaust survivor, she grew up in Tel Aviv, she's been through two wars that her country has won. There are millions and millions of people who have been through lives 100 harder than this that don't turn genocidal. It's also not an issue with her, there's an entire political movement that thinks this way.
It's not a psychological issue, any more than the Armenian genocide was a psychological issue for the Turks. Settlers hate the Palestinians. They're in the way of what they want, and they'd rather they be dead.
Why did the Spanish burn down Tenochtitlán? Why did the Belgians cut off people's hands? Why did the Germans out the Jews in death camps? Why did the Russians starve the Ukranians, and are currently bombing them? Why did the Armenians flee Nagorno-Karabakh before the Azeri took over? Sometimes tribes want to wipe out other tribes and take their stuff.
I'd like to make it clear, I don't think her experiences, whatever they are, would justify a damn thing. But I do want to understand why people do the things they do, and believe the things they...
I'd like to make it clear, I don't think her experiences, whatever they are, would justify a damn thing. But I do want to understand why people do the things they do, and believe the things they believe. Because otherwise "tribes just want to wipe out other tribes" leaves us as "and there nothing we can do about it." So I want to understand.
I've worked with people who have intentionally killed another person. And I can understand them. I do not think I can understand her.
I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to accuse you of anything either. I just wanted to clarify that her experiences aren't particularly unique or traumatic. There's no deep personal trauma that led to her...
I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to accuse you of anything either. I just wanted to clarify that her experiences aren't particularly unique or traumatic. There's no deep personal trauma that led to her decision to want to extermine another ethnicity. There are Holocaust survivors still living in Israel, and she is not one of them. She also didn't grow up in a border town where she's be conditioned to see the people killing her loved ones constantly as the enemy. She lived in what essentially was the Israeli capital. There's a whole community of people that have lived in comfort their whole lives, and made it their lives goal to live uncomfortably if it meant that the people they hate would get hurt.
There are things we can do about it, we just lack the political will. There's nothing we can do to make her empathise with Palestinians. But we could certainly stop her from murdering them. We won't, but we can.
So, here's my take. In Israel there are two main voices; one that calls for peace, and one that would rather kick everyone else out. The main form of radicalization happens through lived...
So, here's my take.
In Israel there are two main voices; one that calls for peace, and one that would rather kick everyone else out. The main form of radicalization happens through lived experience - when we grow up alongside military operations, the way that our parents frame these operations has a massive effect on how we will view things down the line (keep in mind that, in Israel, Jewish (and only Jewish) life is seen as very important and even a few deaths are extremely impactful to the country).
For a lot of people this is an existential conflict and nothing we can say will change that. They, without any compromise, believe that if the Palestinians get power they will flip the equation on the Israelis and either kill them or exile them.
I think it's hard to really put into words, but sometimes - especially during wartime - some people 'click' and, no matter how progressive they were, start to radicalize in that point of view. They get it in their head that there is no good solution because, to them, the Palestinians are the ones starting hostilities. That's the most important thing to understand; to these people, Palestinians are the problem. This often leads them to genuinely believe that God has promised them this land.
This exact anger and bewilderment you feel towards their actions, they might hold towards yours.I think the best thing to compare this to would be white supremacists. A lot of people there are just radicalized, but if you look at where they come from (as in, who is educating them) it's not so surprising that they end up like that. Some are beyond help, like this woman, but it doesn't mean we can't try to de-radicalize the rest, which can only be done by trying to understand them like you are doing.
I agree 100% with you on everything... up to the point where these people are choosing to move into Palestine, into the West Bank, into historical Palestinian areas. These are not people living in...
I agree 100% with you on everything... up to the point where these people are choosing to move into Palestine, into the West Bank, into historical Palestinian areas. These are not people living in the border, these are people claiming parts of Egypt and Syria. Yes what you said it's true, but this behaviour is not what you would expect from people afraid for their lives. These are people with full awareness that their military will crush any threats around them, even deep in enemy territory.
This is part of radicalization. You have a few select people who go through these experiences and take away the worst possible conclusions, that then spread their ideas like poison to people with...
This is part of radicalization. You have a few select people who go through these experiences and take away the worst possible conclusions, that then spread their ideas like poison to people with like minds, fueling their biases. Especially during times of war it is very easy to sway people to believe that their cause is just and right, to the point where the enemy's existence is continually seen as a nuisance.
I'm going to try to be completely frank; the surprise I see in the comments over these words is kind of strange to me. In the middle east there is no shortage of people to threaten one another with genocide and exile. You have two groups, each willing to die for land they see as theirs, with a literal lifetime of pain behind them. This article is far from the worst Israeli statements I've heard, and also far from the worst Palestinian statements. This is just how extremism talks here.
The tale of Israel is one that warns of the dangers of radicalization. The region is very much a victim of proxy politics, where the west and east vied for power with disregard for the hatred they are sowing on the ground. Today, we see the fruits of it all. Rather than amplifying these voices that represent a fraction of a community that is already radicalized, we should promote a more human discussion.
Yes, this woman is horrible, but I just feel so hopeless that we think she's worth our time. I think that it's possible to report and discuss this situation without just resorting to "look how EVIL this side is" because, like I said, I can find you hundreds of worse things that were said from either side, things that would probably not be allowed to be posted here. She does not represent what most Israelis want, in fact people like her are usually hated with a passion and not given the light of day among the non-radicalized community. Whatever is left of it.
I rambled a bit, but my main point remains that extremism usually spreads from specific people who have, through their experiences, come to some horrible conclusion. Those few among these that are charismatic will become activists and expand their rhetoric. The counter to this is to appeal to humanity and understand that these people are damaged - even if you theoretically don't see their experiences as valid, they do; to them, it's as real as anything else. It takes time to get people out, and you will never convince people like her, so time is better spent combating the rhetoric rather than speaking about how horrible she is, a fact that everyone here obviously agrees with.
Thanks for your reply. Look, I'm not particularly surprised by this woman. Like I mentioned to the other commenter, this is basic colonial logic. Colonists generally want to wipe out the natives...
Thanks for your reply. Look, I'm not particularly surprised by this woman. Like I mentioned to the other commenter, this is basic colonial logic. Colonists generally want to wipe out the natives to take their land and stuff. If the Israeli state fell, Arabs would also want to take Jewish land and stuff and exterminate them. I'm not wanting to clutch my pearls, I just don't think there's much use in psychoanalysing her.
How do you get this lady to sympathise with Palestinians? I dunno, how do you get Cortés to not burn down Tenochtitlán? It's a pointless question.
Felicity, thank you for your comment. I agree with you about extremists. Everyone right now sees Gaza, both the horror of the Hamas' attack and rhetoric, and also the suffering of the civilian...
Felicity, thank you for your comment. I agree with you about extremists.
Everyone right now sees Gaza, both the horror of the Hamas' attack and rhetoric, and also the suffering of the civilian inhabitants, children, hospital patients etc. The West Bank is not getting publicity by and large, neither Jewish settlers nor Palestinians.
I’ll echo @Felicity here. While the lady in the article wasn’t a Holocaust survivor, she grew up and came of age during a period when Arab armies tried to invade and destroy Israel on three...
I’ll echo @Felicity here. While the lady in the article wasn’t a Holocaust survivor, she grew up and came of age during a period when Arab armies tried to invade and destroy Israel on three separate occasions. That alone, combined with her parent’s reaction to this, had a powerful influence on her. And once her views were “set” so to speak, every Palestinian attack/uprising/whatever you want to call it confirmed and hardened her views further.
Millions of people have grown up with armies trying and failing to invade their country. The French were invaded and beaten by Germany twice. The Ethiopians by Italy. The Iraqi by the US and so...
Millions of people have grown up with armies trying and failing to invade their country. The French were invaded and beaten by Germany twice. The Ethiopians by Italy. The Iraqi by the US and so on. Being attacked by a foreign enemy is not a particularly rare event in our planet, even today. This lady's views are unusual for someone from a country that's won two wars.
It would not be strange for the British to hate Germany after the blitz failed. But it would be strange if the blitz caused some Brits to want to leave London to settle in Bavaria, and concurrently feel that Bavarians don't belong there and their children should die. The cultural paradigm for this bizarre series of events would not have existed.
Most of those aren’t the best examples, because the countries aren’t contiguous with each other. The France-Germany example is the most analogous to Israel-Palestine, because those two countries...
Most of those aren’t the best examples, because the countries aren’t contiguous with each other. The France-Germany example is the most analogous to Israel-Palestine, because those two countries border each other and fought over Alsace-Lorraine, which had a German-speaking majority, and had people come from Germany after 1870. This back-and-forth lasted from 1648 to 1945, and only ended with the utter defeat of Germany at the end of World War II.
I guess my point is, there's not much need to think too hard about this. We already have a paradigm for when people from a great power want the land of stuff from weaker people. It's just plain...
I guess my point is, there's not much need to think too hard about this. We already have a paradigm for when people from a great power want the land of stuff from weaker people. It's just plain colonisation. The criollos in New Spain dehumanised, tortured and attempted to exterminate the native people of their lands. The British attempted to successfully eradicate Irish identity. The French barely even tolerate other languages. And same to your point in the French-German border.
There's no mystery here, no particular way to interpret this woman being interviewed. This is what colonists are generally like. They usually have a justification for wanting to eradicate the natives, but that's not strictly necessary. She believes the land is Jewish, and believes her empire should expel the natives to make it so.
The reason to analyze her worldview is in terms of counter-radicalization: we look at her and see a belief shaped by wartime upbringing and religious zealotry, and reinforced by every single...
The reason to analyze her worldview is in terms of counter-radicalization: we look at her and see a belief shaped by wartime upbringing and religious zealotry, and reinforced by every single instance of Palestinian violence. So from that, we focus on reducing the number of instances of major and minor violence (which by extension, cuts down on the number of kids exposed to it), finding Orthodox and Haredi rabbis who are open to coexistence with Muslims and Christians, and giving Palestinians a peaceful outlet, to break the cycle of violence and radicalization.
I'm sorry, I just don't agree that this is something to be talked about in the context of radicalisation. I mean, you're technically correct, in the same way Romans were radicalised into burning...
I'm sorry, I just don't agree that this is something to be talked about in the context of radicalisation. I mean, you're technically correct, in the same way Romans were radicalised into burning down Corinth, or the Hurrians were radicalised into raiding Sumer and Akkad. I think it's just much simpler. She's a colonial settler. She wants their stuff, and went to take it. She and her community aren't reachable by words. Every single Palestinian could beg at her feet, and she'd be happy that the process of demolishing their homes just got way easier.
She's not radicalised. There's no point at which you could've caught this. She's a colonist. You can't reach her because the core motivator is the desire for the land and property of the enemy tribe, so that she and her own can enjoy it and prosper.
If you find a way to reach her, then you've found away to convince the English settlers from dispossessing the Native Americans. Which would be great, but so far, we haven't cracked that code yet.
It's just your ordinary religious extremism, except it's hiding behind the tragedy of the holocaust which makes it a lot more difficult for normal folks to condemn it. She was literally asked...
It's just your ordinary religious extremism, except it's hiding behind the tragedy of the holocaust which makes it a lot more difficult for normal folks to condemn it. She was literally asked "Should you stop killing children in Gaza" and replied "My children are more important." Complete denial of reality and evasion of the question.
Coupled with the fact that Israel should apparently span from the Euphrates to the Nile, which means that in the most extreme interpretation (which I'm going with here because she is an extremist) this would involve invading, occupying and eradicating/displacing the population of: Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Parts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, maybe Kuwait and maybe parts of Turkey.
I don't know that I agree that it's ordinary extremism. It truly feels above and beyond into an incomprehensible territory. I think her stance is abhorrent, I just don't understand how one gets there.
I don't know that I agree that it's ordinary extremism. It truly feels above and beyond into an incomprehensible territory.
I think her stance is abhorrent, I just don't understand how one gets there.
Most extremism for me is incomprehensible. Sometimes I can understand how people got there, but that's it. Is that what for you defines ordinary and not ordinary extremism?
Most extremism for me is incomprehensible. Sometimes I can understand how people got there, but that's it. Is that what for you defines ordinary and not ordinary extremism?
Honestly it's probably the "seeing children as impediments to her children's safety" thing. Most religious extremism wants to "protect" children, or claims to. They may think that other people's...
Honestly it's probably the "seeing children as impediments to her children's safety" thing. Most religious extremism wants to "protect" children, or claims to. They may think that other people's children need brought around to the right side, not that they are en masse impediments to their own child's survival. At worst to most a child might be collateral damage.
I'm used to dehumanization, but the level of it here is, well, it's what is required to kill an entire people.
The headline seems slightly misleading: this is an interview with one extremist settler. I don't doubt that there are more like her, particularly since she seems to be some kind of leader. But the...
The headline seems slightly misleading: this is an interview with one extremist settler.
I don't doubt that there are more like her, particularly since she seems to be some kind of leader.
But the generalization from the one to the many is largely left to the reader's imagination, and I like to.take note of subtle misdirection like that. Maybe others aren't so ambitious?
But this isn't some random schmoe off the street. This is an interview with someone who founded a new settlement in occupied Palestine, and trained other people to do so over the course of...
But this isn't some random schmoe off the street. This is an interview with someone who founded a new settlement in occupied Palestine, and trained other people to do so over the course of decades. If it was a Hamas leader being interviewed, someone who taught people how to fight the Israelis, you wouldn't say "Oh, but maybe the people they trained don't think that way." You seem to be presenting an exceptionally charitable take, given the statements she made and the documented actions she's undertaken.
She does come across as a terrible person, and there's no doubt that she's not alone. But who did she "train," what did that consist of, what were they like, what did they do? The article doesn't...
She does come across as a terrible person, and there's no doubt that she's not alone. But who did she "train," what did that consist of, what were they like, what did they do?
The article doesn't tell their stories. It doesn't necessarily need to. It's just one interview, well worth publishing.
I don't see this as being charitable towards anyone in particular. It's just noting the limits of this bit of evidence.
This woman is a great example of the dangers of religious extremism. If you believe God is on your side, you can do anything to the other side.
If someone decides to invent a new religion today, who will decide the rules? The first nation that got the word from God, the promise from God—the first nation is the one who has the right to it. The others that follow—Christianity and Islam, with their demands, with their perceptions—they’re imitating what existed already.
This woman is a great example of the dangers of religious extremism. If you believe God is on your side, you can do anything to the other side.
She certainly operates on "might makes right", which works because Israel has the most powerful might of the region, and players of bigger might in the region has given Israel the right to enact...
She certainly operates on "might makes right", which works because Israel has the most powerful might of the region, and players of bigger might in the region has given Israel the right to enact their rights (with no indication of stopping).
Despicable and evil. I have nothing to say other than that, the sheer denial of any wrongdoing by israel or the woman being interviewed, despite such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is sickening.
Oof.
I just cannot understand that way of thinking. Maybe I would if I'd lived through similar experiences. But, I rather hope not.
Edit: I swear the post about typing/editing on mobile was prescient. Why would it correct to "liced"
You can't understand it because it's, at its root and core, deeply evil. No amount of suffering can justify it because it aims not to alleviate suffering but to perpetuate it and replicate it.
No matter the circumstance or experiences, it is fundamentally evil.
I have degrees in psych and counseling. I've worked with people who have done evil things by that standard. I've often understood even if I obviously don't agree. I can sort of understand the "my children must come first." But like, if I had to choose between two children to save, not .... To kill the children to establish sovereignty over the land.
I just don't want to ever understand.
The problem is:
What entity decides a certain action in a certain context is evil?
What entity will enact consequence of them thinking and doing "evil" stuff?
oh and also Israel's occupation and treatment of Palestinians directly violates international law.
They are intentionally targeting civilians and their bombings are indiscriminate according to UN journalists (whom Israel also killed). There are definitely innocent people in this case, and Israel is the one killing them on the largest scale. This is being cheered on by international community.
And, for context, the median age of people in Gaza is 18. (Only 30% are over 30.) Effectively, half of the population of Gaza are children Israel has penned into an open air prison that they routinely cut off water from and indiscriminately bomb. A couple decades ago, the median age was well under 18.
Whenever you read about medics being killed or hospitals being bombed, you're primarily hearing about children applying field dressings to people injured from bombings getting bombed. And then the big, advanced military blowing up fish in a barrel rationalizes it because they're afraid of the guerillas with peashooters. Same cycle, different year.
And yet, if they didn't have the blockade, Hamas would have much heavier weaponry right now. The reason Hamas doesn't have proper military-grade precision guided missiles, shoulder-mounted antitank and anti-air missiles, etc. is precisely because of the blockade on the Gaza strip. Without that blockade, Hamas would have the kind of heavy weaponry Hezbollah does, given to them by Tehran. And yet they still managed to murder 1000+ Israelis. Imagine what Hamas could do with unlimited access to Iranian heavy weaponry.
The blockade, for all its harms, was not created to starve the Gazan people. The blockade, the wall, etc., all of these are in place to prevent Hamas from getting access to heavy weaponry, the type of equipment that can't be made locally and can't easily be smuggled through a tiny tunnel.
Honestly, this should be quite sobering. Hamas was able to cause the damage it did, even when it has been subject to years of blockade and interdicted arms shipments. If the Gazan borders were open, and Hamas could import whatever it wanted, the Israeli death toll in this attack likely would have been at least ten times greater.
it gets a little repetitive quoting this wikipedia article over and over again, but:
can't allow Hamas to get their hands on any paper. imagine the damage they could do if they snuck into an IDF barracks and gave all the soldiers paper cuts.
so with 18 years and counting of the blockade (which, again, I get tired of linking to this, but multiple United Nations officials described the blockade as a crime against humanity) and the open-air prison conditions in Gaza, Hamas was still able to mount an attack that killed 1000+ people.
and you're saying that if the blockade hadn't been present, it would have been worse.
so, what's the solution? should the blockade get even more strict?
perhaps Israel should mandate that the only food allowed in Gaza is pureed baby food, and it can only be sent to Gaza through a pipeline filled with mesh filters. after all, bags of flour or grain could be used to smuggle guns or explosives.
To address your argumentum ad populum: Accept, by what? Military, economical, or societal might of the United States of America? In absence of American global influence, would they truly believe in what America (or more accurately, a popular norm from the US) currently thinks as "righteous" or "evil", or would they drop those beliefs like a hot potato, especially since they came from different environments? (Alert: personal opinion) I know that I believe that Israel is supporting evil, but of different reasons.
But a superior might in American political scene than humanitarians, Israeli lobbyists, thinks differently, and since they have greater political pressure, their words becomes law.
Her experiences aren't uniquely bad. She's not a Holocaust survivor, she grew up in Tel Aviv, she's been through two wars that her country has won. There are millions and millions of people who have been through lives 100 harder than this that don't turn genocidal. It's also not an issue with her, there's an entire political movement that thinks this way.
It's not a psychological issue, any more than the Armenian genocide was a psychological issue for the Turks. Settlers hate the Palestinians. They're in the way of what they want, and they'd rather they be dead.
Why did the Spanish burn down Tenochtitlán? Why did the Belgians cut off people's hands? Why did the Germans out the Jews in death camps? Why did the Russians starve the Ukranians, and are currently bombing them? Why did the Armenians flee Nagorno-Karabakh before the Azeri took over? Sometimes tribes want to wipe out other tribes and take their stuff.
I'd like to make it clear, I don't think her experiences, whatever they are, would justify a damn thing. But I do want to understand why people do the things they do, and believe the things they believe. Because otherwise "tribes just want to wipe out other tribes" leaves us as "and there nothing we can do about it." So I want to understand.
I've worked with people who have intentionally killed another person. And I can understand them. I do not think I can understand her.
I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to accuse you of anything either. I just wanted to clarify that her experiences aren't particularly unique or traumatic. There's no deep personal trauma that led to her decision to want to extermine another ethnicity. There are Holocaust survivors still living in Israel, and she is not one of them. She also didn't grow up in a border town where she's be conditioned to see the people killing her loved ones constantly as the enemy. She lived in what essentially was the Israeli capital. There's a whole community of people that have lived in comfort their whole lives, and made it their lives goal to live uncomfortably if it meant that the people they hate would get hurt.
There are things we can do about it, we just lack the political will. There's nothing we can do to make her empathise with Palestinians. But we could certainly stop her from murdering them. We won't, but we can.
So, here's my take.
In Israel there are two main voices; one that calls for peace, and one that would rather kick everyone else out. The main form of radicalization happens through lived experience - when we grow up alongside military operations, the way that our parents frame these operations has a massive effect on how we will view things down the line (keep in mind that, in Israel, Jewish (and only Jewish) life is seen as very important and even a few deaths are extremely impactful to the country).
For a lot of people this is an existential conflict and nothing we can say will change that. They, without any compromise, believe that if the Palestinians get power they will flip the equation on the Israelis and either kill them or exile them.
I think it's hard to really put into words, but sometimes - especially during wartime - some people 'click' and, no matter how progressive they were, start to radicalize in that point of view. They get it in their head that there is no good solution because, to them, the Palestinians are the ones starting hostilities. That's the most important thing to understand; to these people, Palestinians are the problem. This often leads them to genuinely believe that God has promised them this land.
This exact anger and bewilderment you feel towards their actions, they might hold towards yours.I think the best thing to compare this to would be white supremacists. A lot of people there are just radicalized, but if you look at where they come from (as in, who is educating them) it's not so surprising that they end up like that. Some are beyond help, like this woman, but it doesn't mean we can't try to de-radicalize the rest, which can only be done by trying to understand them like you are doing.
I agree 100% with you on everything... up to the point where these people are choosing to move into Palestine, into the West Bank, into historical Palestinian areas. These are not people living in the border, these are people claiming parts of Egypt and Syria. Yes what you said it's true, but this behaviour is not what you would expect from people afraid for their lives. These are people with full awareness that their military will crush any threats around them, even deep in enemy territory.
This is part of radicalization. You have a few select people who go through these experiences and take away the worst possible conclusions, that then spread their ideas like poison to people with like minds, fueling their biases. Especially during times of war it is very easy to sway people to believe that their cause is just and right, to the point where the enemy's existence is continually seen as a nuisance.
I'm going to try to be completely frank; the surprise I see in the comments over these words is kind of strange to me. In the middle east there is no shortage of people to threaten one another with genocide and exile. You have two groups, each willing to die for land they see as theirs, with a literal lifetime of pain behind them. This article is far from the worst Israeli statements I've heard, and also far from the worst Palestinian statements. This is just how extremism talks here.
The tale of Israel is one that warns of the dangers of radicalization. The region is very much a victim of proxy politics, where the west and east vied for power with disregard for the hatred they are sowing on the ground. Today, we see the fruits of it all. Rather than amplifying these voices that represent a fraction of a community that is already radicalized, we should promote a more human discussion.
Yes, this woman is horrible, but I just feel so hopeless that we think she's worth our time. I think that it's possible to report and discuss this situation without just resorting to "look how EVIL this side is" because, like I said, I can find you hundreds of worse things that were said from either side, things that would probably not be allowed to be posted here. She does not represent what most Israelis want, in fact people like her are usually hated with a passion and not given the light of day among the non-radicalized community. Whatever is left of it.
I rambled a bit, but my main point remains that extremism usually spreads from specific people who have, through their experiences, come to some horrible conclusion. Those few among these that are charismatic will become activists and expand their rhetoric. The counter to this is to appeal to humanity and understand that these people are damaged - even if you theoretically don't see their experiences as valid, they do; to them, it's as real as anything else. It takes time to get people out, and you will never convince people like her, so time is better spent combating the rhetoric rather than speaking about how horrible she is, a fact that everyone here obviously agrees with.
I'll add on, that I don't know if Israel will survive this as it currently stands. Something will have to change, in one direction or another.
Thanks for your reply. Look, I'm not particularly surprised by this woman. Like I mentioned to the other commenter, this is basic colonial logic. Colonists generally want to wipe out the natives to take their land and stuff. If the Israeli state fell, Arabs would also want to take Jewish land and stuff and exterminate them. I'm not wanting to clutch my pearls, I just don't think there's much use in psychoanalysing her.
How do you get this lady to sympathise with Palestinians? I dunno, how do you get Cortés to not burn down Tenochtitlán? It's a pointless question.
Felicity, thank you for your comment. I agree with you about extremists.
Everyone right now sees Gaza, both the horror of the Hamas' attack and rhetoric, and also the suffering of the civilian inhabitants, children, hospital patients etc. The West Bank is not getting publicity by and large, neither Jewish settlers nor Palestinians.
I’ll echo @Felicity here. While the lady in the article wasn’t a Holocaust survivor, she grew up and came of age during a period when Arab armies tried to invade and destroy Israel on three separate occasions. That alone, combined with her parent’s reaction to this, had a powerful influence on her. And once her views were “set” so to speak, every Palestinian attack/uprising/whatever you want to call it confirmed and hardened her views further.
Millions of people have grown up with armies trying and failing to invade their country. The French were invaded and beaten by Germany twice. The Ethiopians by Italy. The Iraqi by the US and so on. Being attacked by a foreign enemy is not a particularly rare event in our planet, even today. This lady's views are unusual for someone from a country that's won two wars.
It would not be strange for the British to hate Germany after the blitz failed. But it would be strange if the blitz caused some Brits to want to leave London to settle in Bavaria, and concurrently feel that Bavarians don't belong there and their children should die. The cultural paradigm for this bizarre series of events would not have existed.
Most of those aren’t the best examples, because the countries aren’t contiguous with each other. The France-Germany example is the most analogous to Israel-Palestine, because those two countries border each other and fought over Alsace-Lorraine, which had a German-speaking majority, and had people come from Germany after 1870. This back-and-forth lasted from 1648 to 1945, and only ended with the utter defeat of Germany at the end of World War II.
I guess my point is, there's not much need to think too hard about this. We already have a paradigm for when people from a great power want the land of stuff from weaker people. It's just plain colonisation. The criollos in New Spain dehumanised, tortured and attempted to exterminate the native people of their lands. The British attempted to successfully eradicate Irish identity. The French barely even tolerate other languages. And same to your point in the French-German border.
There's no mystery here, no particular way to interpret this woman being interviewed. This is what colonists are generally like. They usually have a justification for wanting to eradicate the natives, but that's not strictly necessary. She believes the land is Jewish, and believes her empire should expel the natives to make it so.
The reason to analyze her worldview is in terms of counter-radicalization: we look at her and see a belief shaped by wartime upbringing and religious zealotry, and reinforced by every single instance of Palestinian violence. So from that, we focus on reducing the number of instances of major and minor violence (which by extension, cuts down on the number of kids exposed to it), finding Orthodox and Haredi rabbis who are open to coexistence with Muslims and Christians, and giving Palestinians a peaceful outlet, to break the cycle of violence and radicalization.
I'm sorry, I just don't agree that this is something to be talked about in the context of radicalisation. I mean, you're technically correct, in the same way Romans were radicalised into burning down Corinth, or the Hurrians were radicalised into raiding Sumer and Akkad. I think it's just much simpler. She's a colonial settler. She wants their stuff, and went to take it. She and her community aren't reachable by words. Every single Palestinian could beg at her feet, and she'd be happy that the process of demolishing their homes just got way easier.
She's not radicalised. There's no point at which you could've caught this. She's a colonist. You can't reach her because the core motivator is the desire for the land and property of the enemy tribe, so that she and her own can enjoy it and prosper.
If you find a way to reach her, then you've found away to convince the English settlers from dispossessing the Native Americans. Which would be great, but so far, we haven't cracked that code yet.
It's just your ordinary religious extremism, except it's hiding behind the tragedy of the holocaust which makes it a lot more difficult for normal folks to condemn it. She was literally asked "Should you stop killing children in Gaza" and replied "My children are more important." Complete denial of reality and evasion of the question.
Coupled with the fact that Israel should apparently span from the Euphrates to the Nile, which means that in the most extreme interpretation (which I'm going with here because she is an extremist) this would involve invading, occupying and eradicating/displacing the population of: Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Parts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, maybe Kuwait and maybe parts of Turkey.
I don't know that I agree that it's ordinary extremism. It truly feels above and beyond into an incomprehensible territory.
I think her stance is abhorrent, I just don't understand how one gets there.
Most extremism for me is incomprehensible. Sometimes I can understand how people got there, but that's it. Is that what for you defines ordinary and not ordinary extremism?
Honestly it's probably the "seeing children as impediments to her children's safety" thing. Most religious extremism wants to "protect" children, or claims to. They may think that other people's children need brought around to the right side, not that they are en masse impediments to their own child's survival. At worst to most a child might be collateral damage.
I'm used to dehumanization, but the level of it here is, well, it's what is required to kill an entire people.
The headline seems slightly misleading: this is an interview with one extremist settler.
I don't doubt that there are more like her, particularly since she seems to be some kind of leader.
But the generalization from the one to the many is largely left to the reader's imagination, and I like to.take note of subtle misdirection like that. Maybe others aren't so ambitious?
But this isn't some random schmoe off the street. This is an interview with someone who founded a new settlement in occupied Palestine, and trained other people to do so over the course of decades. If it was a Hamas leader being interviewed, someone who taught people how to fight the Israelis, you wouldn't say "Oh, but maybe the people they trained don't think that way." You seem to be presenting an exceptionally charitable take, given the statements she made and the documented actions she's undertaken.
She does come across as a terrible person, and there's no doubt that she's not alone. But who did she "train," what did that consist of, what were they like, what did they do?
The article doesn't tell their stories. It doesn't necessarily need to. It's just one interview, well worth publishing.
I don't see this as being charitable towards anyone in particular. It's just noting the limits of this bit of evidence.
This woman is a great example of the dangers of religious extremism. If you believe God is on your side, you can do anything to the other side.
Archive.
She certainly operates on "might makes right", which works because Israel has the most powerful might of the region, and players of bigger might in the region has given Israel the right to enact their rights (with no indication of stopping).