12-28-2023, 01:38 PM
(12-24-2023, 02:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The byline from your NBC article,
"Hundreds took to the streets of Tel Aviv after it emerged that Israel’s soldiers had killed three hostages in Gaza."
Not sure if you know your history, but there were far more than hundreds, fare more, took part in a pro Nazi rally in Manhattan in 1939.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan
More than 20,000 men and women streamed inside and took their seats. The view they had was stunning: Washington was hung between American flags — and swastikas.
Is the act of protest an automatic validation of what is being protested? I would think not, as the pro-Nazi protest, whose numbers dwarf your example, would illustrate. As for the father of the slain hostage, his anger is understandable, if misplaced. His son would never have been in that position except for the terrorist activities of the dogs of Hamas. But a mourning family member is entitled to mourn as they please and anger is a well known stage of grief.
The interesting thing about your post is that it highlights anti-establishment protest in Israel. The key point being that such protests are allowed in Israel, where even a small group such as yours can protest vehemently against their own government. Such cannot be said for Hamas controlled Gaza, where such protests would invite horrible reprisals. But, please, let us focus on anything but Hamas.
A "by line" is a line containing the author of an article.
Now a separate post to explain why the immaterial points above are immaterial--off topic--as far as my argument goes.
1. Yet another Nazi analogy from the guy who insists people not use them. I'm aware of the rally you refer to, to make the wholly immaterial point that acts of protest and protestor numbers of do not validate what they are protesting. ( At the Nazi rally of your analogy there was also a "small group" protesting Nazis.) "Immaterial" because I wasn't claiming that protests/numbers validate what is protested; rather I was establishing THE FACT that many Israelis believe the IDF's callous indifference to human life is to blame for the hostage killings. My argument depends on 1) the current conception of international human rights, as embodied in International Humanitarian Law, and 2) the facts on the ground, as given us so far. If you are not addressing/disputing either of those bases, then you are not following my argument.
2. Hamas did not appear out of nowhere. It is a consequence of brutal military occupation, and Netanyahu's policy of supporting it over democratic opposition, and the IDF's routine disregard for civilian life, not just when fighting Hamas. But this is easy to miss if you restrict discussion of Hamas to Hamas, and not the conditions which created it. Likely the father the grieving father understands this well enough, so I don't dismiss his anger outright as "misplaced" in some stage of grief.
3. To address your final non-point--most of my evidence of IDF war crimes comes from the Israeli press, from historical/sociological scholarship produced in Israeli universities, and from Israeli human rights groups. These are all groups who recognize that Israel's claim to democracy does not entitle it to violate democratic ideals-- even if Hamas is not democratic in practice. All reject your repeatedly defended principle that criticism of the IDF= a claim of equivalence to Hamas. I have expressed my alignment with and admiration for these elements of Israeli society on other threads. There is no "key point" against my argument to be made by reminding me of principles which I affirm and defend in my own posting practice in this forum, and which you oppose in yours. Given that under liberal democracy, no IDF war crimes can be justified with reference to an adversary's anti-democratic practice; that is the "key point" to emphasize here.
