[tptacek]

Once again: that quote refers to Hamas, not the Palestinian people.

I am not disputing that it represents religious rhetoric used to justify IDF actions. I'm only pushing back on the notion that it refers broadly to Palestinians.

[enterprise_cog]

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]

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.

[khokhol]

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]

No, it's not. There's a long analysis of this in The Atlantic, with the verbatim quote.

[khokhol]

The analysis is flawed, in that it intentionally omits the fact that among the extremists (who have come to dominate the decision-making process about what happens on the ground in Gaza), the "broader" references to Amalek have been commonly applied all Palestinians (not just Hamas or its "evil").

That's why the quote is basically a dog whistle -- intended to be heard loud and clear by one's core constituency, while seeming more innocuous to others.

BTW you'll note that Rosenberg goes on to call accusations of the current genocide "cavalier", which says a lot about where he's coming from.

[runarberg]

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 He did use that phrase, it has been repeated by actual perpetrators of (potential) genocide, and he has not withdrawn, clarified nor condemned since.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]

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.

[enterprise_cog]

All the child and infant Hamas members. Yeah, right.

[tptacek]

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]

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]

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.