The bare minimum expected of a leader of the American left, and a democratic socialist, should be a willingness to say “I endorse the conclusion of mainstream human rights organizations.” Why wouldn’t Sanders be willing to do that? He says that it doesn’t really matter “what you call it,” because it’s horrific. But clearly it does matter to Sanders, because he is making a choice not to use the same language as the human rights organizations. Why is he making that choice? He has not explained.
Sanders is right that the more important debate is about actions rather than language. But genocide is also the supreme crime against humanity, and it is so unanimously reviled that it makes a difference whether we use the term. For instance: there might be a debate over whether we should cut off weapons to a state that has “engaged in war crimes.” (How many? Are they aberrations or policy?) The Allied powers in World War II engaged in war crimes, and many Americans think war crimes can be justified in the service of a noble end. But there can be no debate over whether we should ever arm a state that has engaged in genocide. Genocide has no justification, no mitigation. If a state is committing it, all ties should be cut with that state.
Actually, we can see the difference in Bernie Sanders’ own policy response to Israel’s crimes. He told CNN that “your taxpayer dollars” should not go to support a “horror.” This is true. Sanders, to his credit, has repeatedly proposed a bill that would cut off a certain amount of weapons sales to Israel. Democratic opinion has so soured on Israel that Sanders’ bill attracted a record amount of Democratic support (27 senators, more than half the caucus.) But notably, Sanders’ bill only cuts off “offensive” weapons to Israel, leaving “defensive” weapons sales intact.
We might think that it’s perfectly fine to sell “defensive” weapons. Israel’s “Iron Dome” system, which U.S. taxpayers help pay for, protects the country against incoming missiles, and protection against incoming missiles is surely a good and noble thing. But notably, we have not bought Hamas its own “iron dome.” Or Iran. Or Russia. This is because we do not support the causes for which they fight. We understand in these cases that to help the “defense” is to help the “offense.” If Russia is protected from Ukrainian missiles, it will fight Ukraine more effectively. Likewise, if Israel is protected from Hamas rocket fire, but Gaza is not protected from Israeli missiles, the balance of arms is tilted toward Israel, and they can pulverize Gaza without Hamas being able to inflict similar damage in response.
Haven't Yemen and Iran effectively debunked this claim? The missile shield is good at knocking down the odd munition from Lebanon or Syria, but it collapses in the face of a coordinated, continuous salvo by a sophisticated attacker.
What effectively curtailed the Israel-Iran ten day war was the consistency with which Iran's bombs penetrated Israel's defenses. As soon as the Israelis realized Iran could keep hitting back, they signed a ceasefire.
The Nakba of 1947 was a genocide by definition.
Subsequent military campaigns to brutalize Palestinians in the West Bank - via incremental land grabs and assassinations of political opposition - and in Gaza - via strategic assassinations along with restricting the import of durable goods and to impose a "calorie count" intended to shrink the population - were de facto genocides played out over decades.
What the current Israeli government has done is so nakedly and categorically genocidal, even to the point of Israeli politicians explicitly advocating for genocide in open debate, has removed the ability of Western supports to equivocate and hedge.
But the modern Palestinian State has existed under a policy of intentional ethnic cleansing for decades.
The only inertia is Zionism. And you're not going to cause Zionists to change their minds now. Not when they have been working towards this moment for sixty years.
Either the Israeli State is dismantled or the killing will continue unabated. The notion that this war will end once rational minds prevail is the same naive optimism that kept the US in Iraq for 13 years and Afghanistan for 23.
The decisions around whom to support in 2011 are not based on what was going on in 1948.
Your reply takes such a one-sided view that I'm not sure there's much point in having an extended discussion. I don't support Israel's genocide against Palestinians, but I also refuse to view the history of the conflict starting in 1948 and ignoring Arabs' role in it, and do not support the dismantling of Israel as a state, which would itself be ethnic cleansing on a greater scale than anything we have yet seen there.
Opposing the genocide of Palestinians by supporting a fresh ethic cleansing of Jews is abhorrent.
You sound normal, you should avoid touching grass for a bit. Extreme viewpoints and black and white thinking are the spice of life!
Being extremely against apartheid isn't being extreme.
I didn't see any comments about that
The Palestinian key is the Palestinian symbol of homes lost in the 1948 Nakba, when more than half of the population of Mandatory Palestine were ethnically cleansed by Zionist militias as part of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, and were subsequently denied the right to return
It is a symbol that shows up at every Palestine Protest. It was at the heart of The Great March of Return in 2018, a peaceful protest march out of Gaza that ended with Israelis slaughtering hundreds of protesters. The Nakba was been - until Oct 7th, 2023 - as central to the Palestinian understanding of their history as the Holocaust was for the Jews.
Might as well start waving the flag of the Russian Federation and Imperial Japan, while you're at it.