Israel didn't make those statements. Specific members of radical parties did. Imagine judging a country by their worst people. I bet your country would fare quite badly.
IDF generals did. Who else would you consider credible in representing what the IDF intended to do? Regardless I wasn't trying to make this about Israel's actions. But rather about what Biden (and didn't do) with Israel.
He didn't even go as far as condemn the radical parties that you mentioned. Absolutely no red line, or anything. Just complete carte blanche. Again, even Bush or Reagan didn't let Israel do whatever they want with no political repercussions. Israel knew back then that some lines couldn't be crossed without losing American support. With Biden, they did whatever they wanted, said whatever they wanted and took advantage of that.
Likud is a mainstream party in Israel. Their prime minister has been making genocidal and atrocious statements for a very long time. Mainstream television in Israel has been in overdrive to secure popular consent for absolutely obscene crimes for more than one and a half year.
80% of israeli jews in Israel approve of genocidal treatment of palestinians in the Gaza strip in the form of ethnic cleansing, while 14% believe the public statements about this from world leaders to be a distraction and 3% consider it immoral.
The broad israeli opposition, i.e. the large demonstrations in Tel Aviv and elsewhere and the politicians that support them, disagree with the government in which order to do things, not on whether the palestinians should be treated genocidally. They want to make the palestinians 'freyer', suckers, by signing any deal that brings israeli prisoners and hostages back and then continuing the genocidal process anyway. Meanwhile the government considers the prisoners and hostages better positioned in captivity, hence why they have been refusing negotiations, and then broke the ceasefire deal they went into earlier this year.
> genocidal treatment of palestinians in the Gaza strip in the form of ethnic cleansing
Well that made no sense. Genocide is killing people. Ethnic cleansing is moving people. Those are extremely different things. The entire Muslim world has already done a 99% ethnic cleansing of Jews, and where is the outrage? That's 10x the number of people that live in Gaza.
No, the crime of genocide can be perpetrated through non-fatal means, through "serious bodily or mental harm" as the convention puts it. Displacement, starvation, the eradication of homes and records, and so on, are common tactics applied by genocidal regimes.
The state of Israel systematically destroys educational institutions, libraries, archives, historical monuments and buildings, cemeteries, homes, hospitals, agrarian land, and more, according to leading politicians and pundits with the explicit intent to erase the palestinians from the land they're indigenous to. Israeli palestinians are called "arab" as part of this policy.
The ambition to establish a zionist colony and move the region's jews there caused a lot of outrage at the time, in part because the zionist movement had engaged in terrorism and other atrocities for decades already and wasn't exactly received as a welcome innovation in western antisemitism. It also came right after the influence of the previous innovation had subsided, i.e. nazi antisemitism.
US and british planes moved most of the jews from Iraq, Yemen and so on, so claiming that is was done by "the entire Muslim world" is blatantly false. In Indonesia the plight and flight of the jews was mainly caused by imperial Japan, who put pretty much the entire jewish community in labour camps. Today indonesian antisemitism is strongly connected to israeli atrocities and the antisemitic conflation of judaism and the state of Israel that zionists insist on.
Huh? I don't think it's the Muslim world that did the cleansing lol. At least in morocco most of the Jewish population left after Israel was founded, after the actual Holocaust in Europe. Not because of ethnic cleansing (though I agree they were treated badly, and I understand why they left).
But according to you the ethnic cleansing of the Jews was okay because it somehow wasn't a genocide right? Otherwise why would you be okay with what Israel is doing right now after saying that what israel is doing is
just like the cleansing of the Jews?
And going back to the original point, are you saying that voting against the administration that enabled the gen- I mean ethnic cleansing of your population is somehow voting against your self interests? Talk about complete partisan blindsidedness.
You don't believe that Jews were ethnically cleansed from Muslim countries? Considering Egypt for example, what else would we call the expulsion of 25,000 Jews?
Morocco in particular didn't have an explicit state policy of ethnically cleansing Jews, but "treated badly" is a bit of an understatement, considering the pogroms and the government policy of essentially holding Jews for ransom.
Actually you are right, I was wrong about that. I was thinking about before Israel's foundation (as in, Jews lived in the Muslim worlds for a long time without ethnic cleansing).
As for morocco, yes they were very much treated as worse than second class citizens.
So yeah, I agree that Jews were basically pushed to leave, and at some point were just directly kicked out and cleansed out of a lot of Muslim countries.
I just find it weird to justify Israel's actions by saying that what they are doing is "just ethnic cleansing" which is basically what the comment I was replying was doing. Not only is it super weird, but it's also telling to only apply that logic to Muslims. Can Jews just go and massacre Germans and Europeans because of the Holocaust? Then why justify the wholesale destruction of a Muslim city with that?
I didn't say "just" ethnic cleansing. I said that ethnic cleansing is different from genocide. Because it is. We should be careful to use the correct words.
In the sense mass murder is different from genocide, sure. It can be an expression of a genocidal regime but in some case it might not be.
But since you refuse to explain why you want to make this distinction and how it applies to the treatment of the palestinians it doesn't seem like care, it seems more like you want to bikeshed.
The jews in Egypt didn't have much problems with their neighbours until nazism and zionism arrived.
'The bad muslims mistreated the jews when they came under influence of german thought, typical muslims, a european would never'.
Jews lived in Morocco since the first century AD, with the exception of the Fez massacre in 1033, mainly in peace. It's where jews could find immediate refuge when the christians drove them out of al-Andalus. 1948 onwards there were anti-jewish riots in Morocco, in response to jews leaving to presumably take part in the zionist atrocities in Palestine and the state of Israel.
Today anti-jewish and anti-zionist sentiment in Morocco is typically tied into anti-monarchist views, the king is perceived to be a traitor and possibly controlled by some supposed jewish conspiracy. You'll find a rather clear expression of this in e.g. Ahmed Rami, the infamous exiled antisemite, who combines distinctly nazi antisemitism with a moroccan muslim nationalism.
I take it you wanted to start your list after islam arrived, but failed and doesn't know the muslims didn't arrive until 639 or so? And that's why you left out the roman pogroms?
It's for good reason sharia prescribes legal protections for jews, christian romans and byzantians persecuted jews incessantly.
Edit: Zionism is mainly a protestant christian movement, it's a lot about historical revisionism regarding christian antisemitism. Most of the members are christians, the funding comes mainly from christians, the weapons are provided by christian countries, it's based on a naive distinctly protestant (i.e. 'literal' and cherry picked) reading of the Bible, and so on.
But you didn't, you showed some examples of christians massacring jews and didn't explain in any of the examples how it was islamic religion rather than e.g. politics that caused the murder.
I still have the impression you just Ctrl-F:ed 'egypt' in a random list of supposed muslim on jew violence without looking into whether it was truthful or the historical context.
What do you think the significance of Khaybar is? Are you unaware that the story goes something like this, Muhammad and his group were established in Medina, and had peace treaties there except for a group of medinese jews in Khaybar, which they besieged for some time, until they signed a treaty with them where they left them in peace in exchange for a tax in the form of dates? This is roughly at the same time as the first muslims got a peace treaty with the meccans and were allowed to begin with pilgrimage.
Usually these events are retold as evidence of Muhammad's ability to quickly resolve violent conflict and enter into diplomatic relations with their neighbours without a lot of bloodshed, but you don't seem to be aware of this. The battle of Khaybar saw something like fifteen thousand from jewish tribes in Khaybar against a tenth of that in a very brief siege and some skirmishes, with only like a hundred dead and fifty injured. Quick and relatively bloodless, and other peace treaties were also negotiated as a result.
It's also very weird to recall battles in the early 600s to excuse more than a century of terrorism and other atrocities in recent times. Roughly as absurd as the serb nationalist cult of the battle of Kosovo Polje. Are you into that stuff as well?
