6 ms·

It's even worse than that. Israel's minister of the security services is ideologically aligned with the terrorists, and has openly supported their causes all h

It's even worse than that. Israel's minister of the security services is ideologically aligned with the terrorists, and has openly supported their causes all his life. A quite unprecedented situation, I think!

cess11 1y ago
No, it's been the norm for Israel since its inception. To mention just a couple of examples, ben-Gurion was a founder of Haganah, of which Rabin, infamous for his "break-their-bones" policy, was a member. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-their-bones_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-their-bones_policy
- slt2021 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - mring33621 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - tptacek 1y ago
    No, this was a misquote, but it sounds juicy so it will never stop being passed around on the Internet. Netanyahu cited a completely different verse of the Torah, which was then mischaracterized.
    - Fraterkes 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - slt2021 1y ago
      there is plenty of Israeli officials like smotrich bengvir and other invoking Amalek doctrine. Also Israel officialy had "mowing the lawn" doctrine that is literal genocide https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2025.2506162 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2025.2...
      - tptacek 1y ago
        I'm really not so much interested in litigating the broader conflict; just, this is a factoid that gets brought into these threads, and it's worth knowing the quote people are referring to was mischaracterized.
        slt2021 1y ago
        if we are interested in truth and justice, there is a mountain of evidence of genocide at ICC/ICJ awaiting the trial, so we should let the judicial process run its way, just like with Nuremberg trials
        tptacek 1y ago
        Whether or not this is true, it has nothing to do with the comment I left.
        FireBeyond 1y ago
        “There are many other quotes either similar meaning and intent, but you got the intent of this one quote wrong” is not… something I’d feel the need to point out to people. “Technically correct, the worst kind of correct”.
        tptacek 1y ago
        The claim being made is the Netanyahu himself expressed coded genocidal intent, by citing a passage from the Book of Samuel in which God commands King Saul to kill every member of Amalek. But he's quoting an entirely different passage, unrelated to the Book of Samuel, about a surprise attack. It's not a technical distinction. People should stop bringing up the Amalek thing. Virtually everyone who cites it has no idea what it's a reference to. Given the gravity of everything that has happened since 2023, it's a pointless diversion. Any argument you want to make, you can make without this.
    - regularization 1y ago
      The verse Netanyahu quoted said to blot out even the memory of the Amaleks, after comparing Gazans to Amaleks. How is this a misquoted? This is the verse he cited, although the other verse you mentioned is just as bloodthirsty.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        Yair Rosenberg explains it well here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/israel-south-africa-genocide-case-fake-quotes/677198/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/is... In particular, the quote is apposite given the attack Israel had suffered just 2 weeks prior.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        NPR puts that in context: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-references-to-violent-biblical-passages-raise-alarm-among-critics https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-referen... Especially the correction (italics are my own and added to contrast your view with that of those who disagree with your interpretation): > [POST-BROADCAST CORRECTION: This interview incorrectly says a quote from a speech that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave on Oct. 28 refers to the Amalekites from the biblical Book of Samuel. The prime minister’s office added a citation to his written and translated remarks to indicate Netanyahu was quoting from the Book of Deuteronomy. Both stories call for the Israelites to completely eliminate their attackers. In the Book of Deuteronomy, the text reads “blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
        cess11 1y ago
        It's a weird nitpick about 'blotting out the memory' of another society being much nicer and not at all genocidal compared to the 'spare no one' of 1 Samuel, and Rosenberg spends a lot of words to avoid describing how Netanyahu's speech was perceived by his constituents. At the time half of jewish israelis said outright in polls that they supported genocidal actions by the israeli state (p. 5 https://en.idi.org.il/media/21835/war-in-gaza-public-opinion-survey-2-data.pdf https://en.idi.org.il/media/21835/war-in-gaza-public-opinion...).
ml-anon 1y ago
I guess if they are viewed as an occupying force, it’s much less unprecedented. In fact it’s exactly how you’d expect an occupation to act.
- tedivm 1y ago
  This isn't an occupation, it's an ethnic cleansing.
  - echelon_musk 1y ago
    Deuteronomy 9:4 > After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. I think there is a common belief that Israel was "given" the land beyond the Jordan because they were God's chosen people based on their merits. Deuteronomy seems to imply Israel were just the least bad people. Israel seems wicked to me now.
    - wds 1y ago
      Keep in mind this was written by man. People are being murdered thousands of years later because of the ancient Judea equivalent of 'Harry Potter', and the batshit insane people who still believe it in earnest.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - pc86 1y ago
        [flagged]
        wds 1y ago
        Don't put words in my mouth. Unacceptable strawman.
saubeidl 1y ago
[flagged]
- fractallyte 1y ago
  Well, it's more complex than that... Definitely, the government of Serbia supported (or at the very least, ignored) Serb paramilitaries, which were infamous for carrying out "ethnic cleansing". On the Croatian side, right-wing paramilitaries were quicker to organize national defense, and were far more effective, than government forces. This led to a rather uncomfortable situation for the government, which was resolved by assassinating the paramilitary leaders (note: I have no citation for this, it's just a strong suspicion), and absorbing their soldiers into the official armed forces. Bosnia's muslim population had a confused notion of nationalism, which was fully taken advantage of by the Serbs, and to some extent the Croats, to further their ambitions. I believe that is a more accurate summary of the situation in 1990s Balkans.
lotsofpulp 1y ago
There is a lot of precedent for one tribe eliminating another tribe to gain land. The only way a conflict over land ends is if one side wins.
- mc32 1y ago
  The problem is that until a few hundred years ago, you could stand your ground and either win or lose (happened a lot) or you sought uninhabited land elsewhere )or a weaker party to kick out) That also happened a lot. Back then borders were defined by what you could actively defend, though treaties also existed. These days though, there is no unclaimed land or unpopulated place to move in to. Practically speaking anyway. No one would want to move into the Yucatan jungles or Boreal Siberia even if the host countries invited them in to settle land.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    > The problem is that until a few hundred years ago, you could stand your ground and either win or lose (happened a lot) or you sought uninhabited land elsewhere )or a weaker party to kick out) That also happened a lot. Back then borders were defined by what you could actively defend, though treaties also existed. That is the same situation that exists today. Might makes right is the only rule of nature. Treaties are just hopes that someone will help with defending your borders. See Russia expanding its borders into what was previously recognized as Ukraine.
    - mc32 1y ago
      Right. But before you could “run away” if you were willing to. Today you don’t have places to run to without running into other people willing to defend their places. In the past you had lots and lots of peoples who just got erased as modern concepts of fairness and justice didn’t work the same way. See the warring states period.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Maybe. I don’t know that there was a place to run to a few hundred years ago. That was when Native Americans were pushed out (in North and South), Aborigines in Australia, etc.
reverendsteveii 1y ago
we're precedenting it in the united states. our government is deeply ideologically aligned with the people committing the vast majority of domestic terrorism in this country.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - pc86 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
    The Family by Jeff Sharlet is great for a look at the actual working process of the political Evangelical movement. i'll have to take a look at Hedges' book, thanks for recommending!
  - sc68cal 1y ago
    Chris Hedges is _always_ an excellent source. Wish more journalists were like him
    - burnt-resistor 1y ago
      There are a few. Chris Owens just interviewed Jeremy Corbyn and it was really revealing. Jordan Chariton/Status Coup gets out to communities after the mainstream media leaves and misses the aftermath. Democracy Now! has been following the atrocities in Gaza nearly every day with personal accounts from people on the ground. Medhi Hasan, Sam Seder, Robert Reich, David Pakman, Meidastouch, Malcolm Nance, and Thom Hartmann to name a few. Another one particular to Israel is The Salukie who is a half Arab Israeli Jew who goes undercover to West Bank refugee camps to show what's really going on and how everyday people are treated on all sides.
- pc86 1y ago
  The vast majority of the government are full-time employees without any express political allegiance aside from whatever they happen to personally believe. I doubt they are "deeply ideologically aligned with...domestic terrorism" and most of them would probably physically assault you for suggesting they agreed with domestic terrorists in person.
throwaway29812 1y ago
[dead]

cess11 1y ago

No, it's been the norm for Israel since its inception. To mention just a couple of examples, ben-Gurion was a founder of Haganah, of which Rabin, infamous for his "break-their-bones" policy, was a member. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-their-bones_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-their-bones_policy

slt2021 1y ago
[flagged]
- mring33621 1y ago
  [flagged]
- tptacek 1y ago
  No, this was a misquote, but it sounds juicy so it will never stop being passed around on the Internet. Netanyahu cited a completely different verse of the Torah, which was then mischaracterized.
  - Fraterkes 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - slt2021 1y ago
    there is plenty of Israeli officials like smotrich bengvir and other invoking Amalek doctrine. Also Israel officialy had "mowing the lawn" doctrine that is literal genocide https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2025.2506162 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2025.2...
    - tptacek 1y ago
      I'm really not so much interested in litigating the broader conflict; just, this is a factoid that gets brought into these threads, and it's worth knowing the quote people are referring to was mischaracterized.
      - slt2021 1y ago
        if we are interested in truth and justice, there is a mountain of evidence of genocide at ICC/ICJ awaiting the trial, so we should let the judicial process run its way, just like with Nuremberg trials
        tptacek 1y ago
        Whether or not this is true, it has nothing to do with the comment I left.
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        “There are many other quotes either similar meaning and intent, but you got the intent of this one quote wrong” is not… something I’d feel the need to point out to people. “Technically correct, the worst kind of correct”.
        tptacek 1y ago
        The claim being made is the Netanyahu himself expressed coded genocidal intent, by citing a passage from the Book of Samuel in which God commands King Saul to kill every member of Amalek. But he's quoting an entirely different passage, unrelated to the Book of Samuel, about a surprise attack. It's not a technical distinction. People should stop bringing up the Amalek thing. Virtually everyone who cites it has no idea what it's a reference to. Given the gravity of everything that has happened since 2023, it's a pointless diversion. Any argument you want to make, you can make without this.
  - regularization 1y ago
    The verse Netanyahu quoted said to blot out even the memory of the Amaleks, after comparing Gazans to Amaleks. How is this a misquoted? This is the verse he cited, although the other verse you mentioned is just as bloodthirsty.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Yair Rosenberg explains it well here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/israel-south-africa-genocide-case-fake-quotes/677198/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/is... In particular, the quote is apposite given the attack Israel had suffered just 2 weeks prior.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        NPR puts that in context: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-references-to-violent-biblical-passages-raise-alarm-among-critics https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-referen... Especially the correction (italics are my own and added to contrast your view with that of those who disagree with your interpretation): > [POST-BROADCAST CORRECTION: This interview incorrectly says a quote from a speech that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave on Oct. 28 refers to the Amalekites from the biblical Book of Samuel. The prime minister’s office added a citation to his written and translated remarks to indicate Netanyahu was quoting from the Book of Deuteronomy. Both stories call for the Israelites to completely eliminate their attackers. In the Book of Deuteronomy, the text reads “blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
      - cess11 1y ago
        It's a weird nitpick about 'blotting out the memory' of another society being much nicer and not at all genocidal compared to the 'spare no one' of 1 Samuel, and Rosenberg spends a lot of words to avoid describing how Netanyahu's speech was perceived by his constituents. At the time half of jewish israelis said outright in polls that they supported genocidal actions by the israeli state (p. 5 https://en.idi.org.il/media/21835/war-in-gaza-public-opinion-survey-2-data.pdf https://en.idi.org.il/media/21835/war-in-gaza-public-opinion...).

ml-anon 1y ago

I guess if they are viewed as an occupying force, it’s much less unprecedented. In fact it’s exactly how you’d expect an occupation to act.

tedivm 1y ago
This isn't an occupation, it's an ethnic cleansing.
- echelon_musk 1y ago
  Deuteronomy 9:4 > After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. I think there is a common belief that Israel was "given" the land beyond the Jordan because they were God's chosen people based on their merits. Deuteronomy seems to imply Israel were just the least bad people. Israel seems wicked to me now.
  - wds 1y ago
    Keep in mind this was written by man. People are being murdered thousands of years later because of the ancient Judea equivalent of 'Harry Potter', and the batshit insane people who still believe it in earnest.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - pc86 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - wds 1y ago
        Don't put words in my mouth. Unacceptable strawman.

saubeidl 1y ago

[flagged]

fractallyte 1y ago
Well, it's more complex than that... Definitely, the government of Serbia supported (or at the very least, ignored) Serb paramilitaries, which were infamous for carrying out "ethnic cleansing". On the Croatian side, right-wing paramilitaries were quicker to organize national defense, and were far more effective, than government forces. This led to a rather uncomfortable situation for the government, which was resolved by assassinating the paramilitary leaders (note: I have no citation for this, it's just a strong suspicion), and absorbing their soldiers into the official armed forces. Bosnia's muslim population had a confused notion of nationalism, which was fully taken advantage of by the Serbs, and to some extent the Croats, to further their ambitions. I believe that is a more accurate summary of the situation in 1990s Balkans.

lotsofpulp 1y ago

There is a lot of precedent for one tribe eliminating another tribe to gain land. The only way a conflict over land ends is if one side wins.

mc32 1y ago
The problem is that until a few hundred years ago, you could stand your ground and either win or lose (happened a lot) or you sought uninhabited land elsewhere )or a weaker party to kick out) That also happened a lot. Back then borders were defined by what you could actively defend, though treaties also existed. These days though, there is no unclaimed land or unpopulated place to move in to. Practically speaking anyway. No one would want to move into the Yucatan jungles or Boreal Siberia even if the host countries invited them in to settle land.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  > The problem is that until a few hundred years ago, you could stand your ground and either win or lose (happened a lot) or you sought uninhabited land elsewhere )or a weaker party to kick out) That also happened a lot. Back then borders were defined by what you could actively defend, though treaties also existed. That is the same situation that exists today. Might makes right is the only rule of nature. Treaties are just hopes that someone will help with defending your borders. See Russia expanding its borders into what was previously recognized as Ukraine.
  - mc32 1y ago
    Right. But before you could “run away” if you were willing to. Today you don’t have places to run to without running into other people willing to defend their places. In the past you had lots and lots of peoples who just got erased as modern concepts of fairness and justice didn’t work the same way. See the warring states period.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Maybe. I don’t know that there was a place to run to a few hundred years ago. That was when Native Americans were pushed out (in North and South), Aborigines in Australia, etc.

reverendsteveii 1y ago

we're precedenting it in the united states. our government is deeply ideologically aligned with the people committing the vast majority of domestic terrorism in this country.

burnt-resistor 1y ago
[flagged]
- pc86 1y ago
  [flagged]
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
  The Family by Jeff Sharlet is great for a look at the actual working process of the political Evangelical movement. i'll have to take a look at Hedges' book, thanks for recommending!
- sc68cal 1y ago
  Chris Hedges is _always_ an excellent source. Wish more journalists were like him
  - burnt-resistor 1y ago
    There are a few. Chris Owens just interviewed Jeremy Corbyn and it was really revealing. Jordan Chariton/Status Coup gets out to communities after the mainstream media leaves and misses the aftermath. Democracy Now! has been following the atrocities in Gaza nearly every day with personal accounts from people on the ground. Medhi Hasan, Sam Seder, Robert Reich, David Pakman, Meidastouch, Malcolm Nance, and Thom Hartmann to name a few. Another one particular to Israel is The Salukie who is a half Arab Israeli Jew who goes undercover to West Bank refugee camps to show what's really going on and how everyday people are treated on all sides.
pc86 1y ago
The vast majority of the government are full-time employees without any express political allegiance aside from whatever they happen to personally believe. I doubt they are "deeply ideologically aligned with...domestic terrorism" and most of them would probably physically assault you for suggesting they agreed with domestic terrorists in person.

throwaway29812 1y ago

[dead]