5 ms·

They have killed over 30k Palestinians. The settlers using that rhetoric are killing people in the West Bank. It’s pretty clear it means the Palestinian people

They have killed over 30k Palestinians. The settlers using that rhetoric are killing people in the West Bank. It’s pretty clear it means the Palestinian people.

tptacek 3y ago
Kahanist extremists have used the term to refer broadly to Palestinians in the same way Christian extremists have deployed Christian tropes to dehumanize, well, everybody in the world at one time or another. But the "Amalek" quote is famous because Netanyahu said it, and we have the context for the speech in which he did: he was referring specifically to Hamas.
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  All the child and infant Hamas members. Yeah, right.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I don't know what you're trying to argue here. Nobody denies that an enormous number of civilians have been killed in the IDF's Gaza operation.
    - khokhol 3y ago
      I don't know what you're trying to argue here. That you are attempting to wiggle away from the plainly obvious nature of the quote, for some reason. Nobody denies that an enormous number of civilians have been killed in the IDF's Gaza operation. Except of course numerous Israeli government officials. (They don't deny that many civilians have been killed -- but they have continually attempted to dial down the proportion of civilian casualties, along with all the rhetoric about there being "no innocents" or "no uninvolved civilians" in Gaza to begin with).
      - tptacek 3y ago
        In what way? You get that the Gaza offensive can be a long series of war crimes and unjustifiable civilian casualties and the quote can not mean what the parent comment said it meant, right? If you think the quote is an unimportant side detail, I think we can agree on that generally. This is a thread about rhetoric, not a judgement of the whole conflict.
        khokhol 3y ago
        In what way? In that it's plainly clear that the Amalek quote does mean what the parent commenter (and anyone else who understands the region) can easily see that it does. But you keep coming up with weird evasive arguments to claim that it doesn't. Like the above, for example. If you think the quote is an unimportant side detail Unfortunately and very tragically -- it is anything but.
        tptacek 3y ago
        You're not engaging with what I've said. You're looking at what's happening in Gaza and deriving axiomatically a new meaning for the quote. That's understandable, but it's not valid. Or, at least, that's what I think. We're running towards the right margin of the site with this thread now, and we're not going to convince each other of anything, so we can also let it go.
        khokhol 3y ago
        To engage with what you said: I don't think you grasp the extent to which "extremist" thinking on the question of what to do with the Palestinians (backed by violent action) has now become quite normalized in Israel. For example, it is odd that you attempted to claim, way up top, that it's just the "Kahanist extremists" who take the broader view of the Amalek reference, as this signifies some distance with what Netanyahu thinks. When what defines the current Netanyahu era is its willful alliance with Kahanist parties -- crowned by the appointment of two of its premier representatives to Minister positions. Along with all the obscene horror of what's been happening on the ground.
- khokhol 3y ago
  He was referring specifically to Hamas. That's the spin that the PM's office came up in an attempt to cover its tracks after the massive stink cloud that was raised once the quote became known outside Israel. But for naught. Because it's manifestly clear from the language of the quote (and its historical context) that it refers to the entire population, not just Hamas. And unfortunately backed now by the IDF's actions on the ground, the zillions of TikTok videos gleefully posted by its soldiers, the rantings and ravings of countless government officials and other public figures, etc.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    No, it's not. There's a long analysis of this in The Atlantic, with the verbatim quote.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      This seems irrelevant at this point. Failure to prevent genocide is also a crime (of which Milošević was convicted). He did use that phrase, it has been repeated by actual perpetrators of (potential) genocide, and he has not withdrawn, clarified nor condemned since. Netanyahu’s speech leading up to the genocide is even more clear then Trumps speech leading up to the Jan. 6th insurrection. Trump at the very least called off the insurrectionists (albeit late and unconvincingly). Netanyahu on the other hand has doubled down.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        See, you're implicitly asking me here to defend Netanyahu. I believe Netanyahu to be among the very worst leaders of the last 75 years, a world-historically bad prime minister who has done more than almost anybody to heighten the intractability and human tragedy of the Israel/Palestine conflict. If you think the "Amalek" speech is irrelevant to that analysis, I agree. What I object to is the deployment of religious tropes that essentialize Netanyahu-ism or Kahanism into Israel, or, worse still, Judaism as a whole. If you're going to get into this "Amalek" stuff, get it right. If not, it's not like you needed it to take shots at Netanyahu. There is a decent chance that when he is ultimately ousted, he's going to be imprisoned by the Israelis.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

They have killed over 30k Palestinians. The settlers using that rhetoric are killing people in the West Bank. It’s pretty clear it means the Palestinian people.

tptacek 3y ago

Kahanist extremists have used the term to refer broadly to Palestinians in the same way Christian extremists have deployed Christian tropes to dehumanize, well, everybody in the world at one time or another. But the "Amalek" quote is famous because Netanyahu said it, and we have the context for the speech in which he did: he was referring specifically to Hamas.

enterprise_cog 3y ago
All the child and infant Hamas members. Yeah, right.
- tptacek 3y ago
  I don't know what you're trying to argue here. Nobody denies that an enormous number of civilians have been killed in the IDF's Gaza operation.
  - khokhol 3y ago
    I don't know what you're trying to argue here. That you are attempting to wiggle away from the plainly obvious nature of the quote, for some reason. Nobody denies that an enormous number of civilians have been killed in the IDF's Gaza operation. Except of course numerous Israeli government officials. (They don't deny that many civilians have been killed -- but they have continually attempted to dial down the proportion of civilian casualties, along with all the rhetoric about there being "no innocents" or "no uninvolved civilians" in Gaza to begin with).
    - tptacek 3y ago
      In what way? You get that the Gaza offensive can be a long series of war crimes and unjustifiable civilian casualties and the quote can not mean what the parent comment said it meant, right? If you think the quote is an unimportant side detail, I think we can agree on that generally. This is a thread about rhetoric, not a judgement of the whole conflict.
      - khokhol 3y ago
        In what way? In that it's plainly clear that the Amalek quote does mean what the parent commenter (and anyone else who understands the region) can easily see that it does. But you keep coming up with weird evasive arguments to claim that it doesn't. Like the above, for example. If you think the quote is an unimportant side detail Unfortunately and very tragically -- it is anything but.
        tptacek 3y ago
        You're not engaging with what I've said. You're looking at what's happening in Gaza and deriving axiomatically a new meaning for the quote. That's understandable, but it's not valid. Or, at least, that's what I think. We're running towards the right margin of the site with this thread now, and we're not going to convince each other of anything, so we can also let it go.
        khokhol 3y ago
        To engage with what you said: I don't think you grasp the extent to which "extremist" thinking on the question of what to do with the Palestinians (backed by violent action) has now become quite normalized in Israel. For example, it is odd that you attempted to claim, way up top, that it's just the "Kahanist extremists" who take the broader view of the Amalek reference, as this signifies some distance with what Netanyahu thinks. When what defines the current Netanyahu era is its willful alliance with Kahanist parties -- crowned by the appointment of two of its premier representatives to Minister positions. Along with all the obscene horror of what's been happening on the ground.
khokhol 3y ago
He was referring specifically to Hamas. That's the spin that the PM's office came up in an attempt to cover its tracks after the massive stink cloud that was raised once the quote became known outside Israel. But for naught. Because it's manifestly clear from the language of the quote (and its historical context) that it refers to the entire population, not just Hamas. And unfortunately backed now by the IDF's actions on the ground, the zillions of TikTok videos gleefully posted by its soldiers, the rantings and ravings of countless government officials and other public figures, etc.
- tptacek 3y ago
  No, it's not. There's a long analysis of this in The Atlantic, with the verbatim quote.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    This seems irrelevant at this point. Failure to prevent genocide is also a crime (of which Milošević was convicted). He did use that phrase, it has been repeated by actual perpetrators of (potential) genocide, and he has not withdrawn, clarified nor condemned since. Netanyahu’s speech leading up to the genocide is even more clear then Trumps speech leading up to the Jan. 6th insurrection. Trump at the very least called off the insurrectionists (albeit late and unconvincingly). Netanyahu on the other hand has doubled down.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      See, you're implicitly asking me here to defend Netanyahu. I believe Netanyahu to be among the very worst leaders of the last 75 years, a world-historically bad prime minister who has done more than almost anybody to heighten the intractability and human tragedy of the Israel/Palestine conflict. If you think the "Amalek" speech is irrelevant to that analysis, I agree. What I object to is the deployment of religious tropes that essentialize Netanyahu-ism or Kahanism into Israel, or, worse still, Judaism as a whole. If you're going to get into this "Amalek" stuff, get it right. If not, it's not like you needed it to take shots at Netanyahu. There is a decent chance that when he is ultimately ousted, he's going to be imprisoned by the Israelis.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]