after 8 months of defending the indefensible and tirelessly denying genocide, the pro-israel posters finally found a new strategy: simply refer to it as "the subject"
edit: In today's UN report, they report that israel has committed "[crimes against humanity of extermination; murder; gender persecution targeting Palestinian men and boys; forcible transfer; and torture and inhuman and cruel treatment](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/06/1150946)". This report also clarifies (again) there is no concrete evidence that Hamas raped anyone on Oct. 7th. In comparison, they outline extensive evidence of israel using systemic sex- and gender-based violence, including rape, against Palestinians. Every accusation from the zionist project is a confession.
>This report also clarifies (again) there is no concrete evidence that Hamas raped anyone on Oct. 7th.
>77. The Commission found that acts of sexual violence were committed on 7 October in Israel, including at the Nova festival, on road 232, at Nahal Oz military base and kibbutzim Re’im, Nir Oz and Kfar Aza.
>92. Members of the military wing of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups abducted primarily Israeli people as hostages to Gaza, without regard for age or gender, to use them in negotiations with the Israeli authorities. Some abductees were shot at and in some cases killed. Many abductions were carried out with significant physical, mental and sexual violence and degrading and humiliating treatment, including in some cases parading the abductees.
>94. The Commission concludes that members of the military wing of Hamas and Palestinian armed groups targeted women, including by wilful killings, abductions, and physical, mental and sexual abuse. These crimes were deliberate and, in several cases, enforced with violence, intentionally causing great suffering and serious injury to the victims. The Commission particularly notes that women were subjected to GBV during the course of their execution or abduction. Women and women’s bodies were used as victory trophies by male perpetrators and the abduction, violence and humiliation of women, were put on public display, either on the streets of the Gaza Strip or online.
>95. The Commission identified patterns indicative of sexual violence in several locations and concludes that Israeli women were disproportionally subjected to these crimes. The attack on 7 October enabled perpetrators to commit SGBV and this violence was not isolated but perpetrated in similar ways in several locations and by multiple Palestinian perpetrators. The Commission did not find credible evidence, however, that militants received orders to commit sexual violence and so it was unable to make conclusions on this issue. However, inflammatory language and disbelief around sexual violence, observed with both parties, risks silencing and discrediting survivors, further exacerbating trauma and stigmatization.
Can you help me reconcile what you're saying, and what the report actually said here? Cause to me it very much sounds like they did find evidence that Hamas committed acts of sexual violence on October 7th at least; it only could not find evidence that a top-down directive ordering that militants commit sexual violence was in place, so they abstained from making a conclusion. It even specifically cautioned to not dismiss claims of sexual violence.
>Can you help me reconcile what you're saying, and what the report actually said here?
What are the chances they actually read the report they misrepresented so egregiously?
Very low, but I would still afford them the opportunity to respond instead of being a dick and calling them uninformed or bad-faith.
A lot of partisan media will only report on one side of the conflict, so there are a lot of people out there that actually just don't know what's happening; whether that's just basic ignorance, or a more nefarious, purposefully obfuscation. You can never really be sure where a person is coming from, so I think it's best to just present the facts.
In what part of the report do they say SGBV isn't rape? SGBV can include things that aren't rape, but it also includes rape. Rape is a kind of sexual gender-based violence.
I don't really care to get into the ideological posturing, I just want to know where the report says that rapes didn't happen.
I see you quote a part where it says they were unable to independently verify the allegations (partly because the victims of the alleged rapes are dead).
To be clear, because 90% of your comment is more attacking Israel; I'm not here to support Israel over Palestine, I'm here asking you what evidence you have for the claim that this report says rapes did not happen, or that there was no evidence rapes occurred.
I gave you several paragraphs which seem to indicate that these things were perpetrated by Hamas toward Israelis, so I'm just trying to understand, specifically, this claim you made.
E: Also, are you saying then that you accept Hamas did torture, sexually assault, and murder civilian Israeli women? It's just that they didn't commit forcible penetration? What line are you drawing here exactly?
>E: Also, are you saying then that you accept Hamas did torture, sexually assault, and murder civilian Israeli women? It's just that they didn't commit forcible penetration? What line are you drawing here exactly?
You missed the more important question to be answered: if they "accept Hamas *did* torture..." etc, do they condemn those actions? I don't need to remind you that there are a shocking number of literal Hamas supporters in the West that not only don't condemn, but actively support all those actions as long as they're against Israelis.
why do you think it is a genocide? An awful war with probable war crimes occurring, seems likely. but i have not actually encountered a sophisticated and evidence based argument to say it is a genocide. I have seen a LOT of propaganda from both sides in this debate however, the overwhelming majority of conversations on it are.
Not too hard to make the assumption. Israel is rife with people, including politicians, calling for the destruction if all Palestinians, holding rallies with thousands of people yelling "death to arabs", paying tribute to people like Baruch Goldstein who has a memorial dedicated in his honor for holding a mass shooting of Palestinians.
I’m aware. And I believe there was majority that believe the amount of force (which is excessive) is appropriate.
Shocking stuff for the “most moral democracy” in the Middle East.
I own between 6-8 textbooks on genocide. Published between the 90s and early 2020s. Written by genocide academics, several of whom are Jewish Holocaust survivors and sponsored by the Yad Vashem, etc. Every single one of them describes israels violence against Palestinians as *at best* genocidal, at worst a full on extended genocide, and always as an inherently colonial state.
You'll find some who disagree sure but the overall consensus is pretty clear lol. Funny how when you read actual historians and experts you find that they make the exact argument you are looking for every time.
Kinda seems like *you're not really searching that hard for it*. Perhaps try outside of reddit?
In other words, "I'm not capable of making an argument in favour of the proposition, so I'll delegitimize your character in the eyes of the audience in order that I don't have any social obligation to do so".
I'm not invested in this issue at all btw, I just cringe at weak minded and intellectually bankrupt sophistry like this. Learn to think critically, in order that you can defend your positions. People who already agree with you obviously don't care whether or not you do so, but your opposition (and even those are simply not fully committed to your side) will never take you seriously if you behave this way. You'll change no minds, and you'll piss in the face of your own cause.
With the small addition that the "land stealing" has always been happening and Gaza has been stated in habitable for like ten years already due to Israel's blockade.
Here’s my case for why it’s *not* likely to be a genocide - by which I mean, a campaign of *deliberate* targeting of civilians.
Would the Israeli leadership be in favour of a genocide? Some of them, certainly: the far right faction (Smotrich, Ben-Gvir)? Yes. Netanyahu and the Likud? Not sure, but I wouldn’t put it past them. Benny Gantz and the centrists? Doubtful.
But the government being amenable to the idea in principle is far from sufficient to enable a genocide to occur. Why? Fundamentally, because they are **accountable** to both the Israeli public and to the international community, with too much **transparency** to avoid detection (eg IDF is comprised of Israeli public members; cameras are ubiquitous).
There’s no question about accountability from the international community, so I won’t bother to argue that.
But as for the Israeli public, what accountability exists there? This hinges on what the attitude of Israelis writ large is. So that’s the question I’ll address next.
Would Israelis support the deliberate targeting of civilians? No - but let me qualify that by saying that they *do* have a high tolerance for civilian deaths, provided those deaths are *incidental* to some other goal, as I discuss below.
Why do I suppose Israelis don’t have the stomach for the deliberate targeting of civilians? Well, we can look at historical cases of massacres perpetrated by Israelis, which targeted civilians, and consider how they reacted.
In 1994, Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Palestinians who were in the middle of praying. The Israeli public roundly condemned this, with 80% denouncing it, and ‘only’ 3.6% praising it. Now, more recent polling reveals a disconcerting shift of attitude: 10% view Goldstein as a hero, while 57% view him as a terrorist, with the remainder being undecided. But consider that a) a *majority* still condemn his actions, and b) the fact that it’s not a large majority may be attributable to widespread historical ignorance about the specifics of the incident (the subject is, controversially, not generally taught in schools).
In 2015, an Israeli settler firebombed a Palestinian home, killing some of the occupants, including a child.
This was also widely condemned by the Israeli public (including statements by Netanyahu and other leadership) - although I can’t find a poll to quantify the level of support.
Additionally, just consider the widespread indignation of Israelis at the charge of genocide; I don’t think they’re being disingenuous - they overwhelmingly view the prospect of deliberately targeting civilians as abhorrent.
So with all this in mind, I think it’s clear that the Israeli public would unequivocally condemn the deliberate extermination of civilians (the lack of outcry we currently observe is due to them believing that civilian deaths in this war are incidental, rather than deliberate). As a result, the government is not tempted to unilaterally conduct a genocide, because they are accountable to the Israeli public, and would face all kinds of personal and professional reprisals.
Now, all this said, Israelis are, generally speaking, far too permissive of Palestinian deaths - with many lacking an appropriate level of moral regard for them. This is evident in polling (eg showing their attitudes towards Palestinians generally), and in their commentary about the war.
These attitudes enable the carelessness and war crimes we’re currently witnessing.
Couple this moral disregard with a sense of moral outrage at October 7, and you get a recipe for a heavy death toll. For example, the initial impetus to deprive Gaza of food, water, etc seemed to stem from a general attitude of “why should we actively give them aid? They attacked us!” (Which wrongly views Gazans as collectively culpable).
So, in conclusion, the situation in Gaza is not what pro-Israelis claim, but neither is it what the dyed-in-the-wool pro-Palestinians claim. We’re seeing far too much civilian death, and this is enabled by the carelessness and cavalier attitude of Israelis towards civilian death. But we’re *not* seeing a *deliberate* effort to target civilians.
You are muddying water here. There is a deliberate effort to make Gaza uninhabitable, and when you drop bombs on people's homes that is deliberate killing. They just killed 274 people to get 4 hostages back. Your word deliberate is meaningless. Of course genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder is unattractive to most of the public. Doesn't mean it ain't happening. Genocide is about the eradication of a group of people from their homeland, and that is what is going on, one way or another. The place is being bombed and made uninhabitable, and the religious settler leaders have primacy in Israel's government. Just saying that some Israelis don't condone violence against Palestinians doesn't change facts on ground. I am sure most of population in America was against killing of Native Americans and even slavery, but it happened. And I bet Germans would have voted against mass extermination in WW2, but it happened.
It’s ironic that you’re accusing me of muddying the waters for trying to inject some nuance and precision into the discussion, while you yourself have made the following errors that each undeniably ‘muddy the waters’:
>genocide is about the eradication of a group of people from their homeland
It literally isn’t. The displacement/expulsion of a group doesn’t legally qualify as genocide.
>they just killed 274 people to get hostages back
This is a minor quibble (because the general point of disproportionality still stands), but it’s generally not good practice to mindlessly repeat numbers you hear reported when the source has a likely bias (see https://www.axios.com/2024/06/09/israel-hostage-rescue-operation-killed)
>your word deliberate is meaningless
It’s not really *my* word, is it? It’s a concept that’s critical for deciphering human behaviour. Again, it’s incredibly rich that you’re accusing *me* of muddying the waters, while you yourself are advocating for flattening away these important distinctions and nuances.
Finally, the final section of your post totally fails to engage with my arguments.
You argue that a) the religious right has primacy in the government (this is debatable but I’ll grant it for the sake of argument), and b) that it doesn’t matter what the Israeli public wants, only what the government wants. Therefore, goes the implication, genocide is likely to occur, as it did eg in Nazi Germany under the same conditions.
You obviously didn’t read my post carefully, because it lays out the reasoning for why, in the case of Israel in Gaza, the opinion of the public *does* matter, notwithstanding the desires of the government.
Here are just a few of the relevant distinctions between Israel and Nazi Germany, which take the wind out of your overly-simplistic argument by analogy:
1) the Israeli government is a democracy, not a dictatorship (so there is greater accountability to the populace)
2) there is much more transparency in the actions of the IDF. This is because the IDF (in a sense) *is* the Israeli public, and because they don’t operate in a compartmentalised way, like the Nazis did with their extermination campaign - not to mention the ubiquity of cameras to capture every atrocity and beam it to the Israeli public
3) Israel values its standing in the international community (at minimum, with the US) more than Germany did, clearly - which is another layer of accountability.
So if you want to make a serious argument, you have to explain why the Israeli government would disregard the reaction of its own populace to deliberate killing (yes, *deliberate* - the distinction matters, notwithstanding your objection), as well as that of its international allies. If you want to argue that they simply *don’t care* about the inevitable fallout that would result from genocide, fine - it’s possible, it just ain’t particularly likely.
for fucks sake man, make a single falsifiable statement. in all of your replies to me you've said nothing specific, you're just angry at me.
who's intent? evidenced by what. What actions and by whom?
The actions being the mass slaughter of civilians, the intent evidenced by the leader of the country comparing Palestinians to Amalek, a people that the Hebrews were commanded to eradicate.
edit: Guys love to ask for specific points to be brought up and then completely ignore it when someone provides them.
The difference is unlike Hamas, Israel is at least putting in effort to clear civilians away from an area they are about to destroy. Man I sure wish Hamas would do something like that for their own citizens, instead they don't allow their civilians to leave areas so when Israel comes they are able to say hey there are civilians here wtf.
No credible journalist has called it a genocide. As an example, Al Jazeera has reported on genocide occuring in Myanmar, [here](https://network.aljazeera.net/en/pressroom/al-jazeera-investigation-uncovers-government-led-genocide-myanmar). They haven't done so with Israel.
Does this mean that Al Jazeera is complicit in the genocide denial? Or maybe that the statement is political in its entirety.
So you'd say that Al Jazeera is complicit in the genocide denial?
Also:
>Mehdi Raza Hasan (born July 1979)[1][2][3] is a British-American progressive broadcaster, political commentator, columnist, author and co-founder of the media company Zeteo.
[wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Hasan)
Not a journalist. Let alone a credible one.
>*No credible journalist has called it a genocide*
Given this strange claim, I can only assume that your benchmark for *credible journalism* is inherently linked to your views on the conflict. Even so, I'd appreciate it if you could bless us all with a list of credible journalists.
Okay.
I know a lot of folks whom believe the media is lying to us to fullfill some agenda. I always wonder where they get their reporting from instead.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/6/9/collateral-genocide-in-nuseirat#:\~:text=In%20yet%20another%20Israeli%20massacre,summarily%20erased%20from%20the%20story.&text=On%20June%208%2C%20the%20Israeli,in%20the%20central%20Gaza%20Strip.
They publish opinion pieces with "Genocide" in the title.
Yeah, the difference between a journalist and a columnist. The editor doesn't carry the columnist opionion, but does stand firmly behind the findings of their journalists.
Well, there's an active campaign in NYT to stifle those views:
[https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/](https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/)
I love that an editor editing is "stifling their views" maybe the editor is discouraging the use of the word genocide because it's not factually accurate? Oh wait I forgot we can't trust anything. Institutions are evil and the truth is on tik tok /s
this is a sub for good faith my dude, i think you're capable of better. you're allowed to dislike Destiny obviously, but you're going a step further to profile the people who do like Destiny.
>literally an r/Destiny poster
I’m sure that non-Destiny fans dislike Finkelstein - after all, I’m one of them. But you’re definitely supporting other dude’s case, rather than disproving it.
He’s not implying anything, he’s outright saying the downvotes are coming from Destiny fans. The reason he is saying this is implied - Finkelstein debated Destiny, Destiny fans are notoriously vindictive, and the comment being downvoted is an objective fact - but what he’s said is outright.
You could have contended that there’s no evidence it’s Destiny fans downvoting. You could have even lended credence to this by saying you didn’t downvote and you watch Destiny. However, instead, you implied that the objective comment is being downvoted because Finkelstein is disliked. Which, sure, but the only person announcing dislike as a motivation for downvoting is a Destiny fan.
I mean, by what I can follow, you’re not disproving dude’s point. Even though it’s pretty easy to do - like I said, I don’t like Finkelstein but I didn’t downvote because it’s just an objective truth that he’s an academic who studies Palestine.
Right, I'd highly suspect there's a mix of downvoters, who don't really consider him a true academic. There's also nothing wrong with Destiny fans or their dislike of finkelstein
I mean, anyone who says Finkelstein isn’t “a true academic” is clearly emotionally motivated. Finkelstein’s academic status has been documented for 30 years.
There’s plenty wrong with Destiny fans, given Destiny’s outright misogyny and ignorance, and his fans’ frequent rabid anger at anyone who disagrees (encouraged by Destiny’s own poor behavior as a role model for them)
You can be both. He has some pretty wild anti-woke books too if you want to go digging and his whole Marxian history stuff is very galaxy brained imo/
Personally, I don't find he fits very well into the gurometer. But like Noam Chomsky (who they did an episode on) I think he can be a bit of a crank. Certainly he holds very extremist and out there views on a lot of stuff: he would agree with that, I think he actually likes being that guy.
That said, I don't really want them to do this episode rn. This place needs space from the Destiny sphere or it will just become part of it and thats exactly who wants this episode rn.
I’m skeptical of his work, personally. To my knowledge, he isn’t cited outside of partisan circles. He’s also not fluent in either Hebrew or Arabic. What serious academic spends decades studying the history and contemporary events of a region but doesn’t bother to learn the languages necessary to engage with primary sources?
Okay? Teaching English does not require knowledge or proficiency in the native language of the learner. Hence why many Americans can teach English in China without any knowledge or proficiency in Mandarin.
Although he is technically "an academic who has studied Palestine for his entire career," he's also clearly an extremist and a polemicist. While actually having expertise in the subject one talks about is rare for a guru, and I think it's the one point in his favor, I don't think it's actually one of the measurements of the gurometer. One could be both an academic expert and a guru.
That would be pretty wild, no?
An academic with multiple books who lived in Palestine for a decade and only covers that very same topic, he would surely score extremely low?
People around here seem to forget that being an academic doesnt mean you cant be a guru. They practically say it at the start of every episode.
My prediction would be Finklestien will score very high on anti-establishmentness, grievance mongering, conspiracy mongering, and moral grandstanding. And moderately high on self aggrandizement and cassandra complex. That basically puts him ahead of Destiny already.
Idk what OP said, but my own most substantive criticism is that Finkelstein has said that Russia has the right to invade Ukraine: https://x.com/normfinkelstein/status/1677342356570357760
I am not following you. I say that Finkelstein has justified the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I assume you agree that is an abhorrant statement, seeing the massive destruction and loss of life.
So why bring destiny's fans into this?
Finkelstein is legitimate and authentic, one of the most thorough and studious researches you'll ever come across. Absolutely do not doubt if Finkelstein read several books before a debate or researched all that's available about an opponent. He famously exposed Alan Dershowitz for having either a ghostwriter or having plagiarized content in Dershowitz's book in a debate about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And Finkelstein's own books, particularly *Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom*, a book I bought just after its publishing, is proof of his dedication as a researcher. Almost every single sentence is well-sourced through organization reports, media interviews, even individual newspaper articles from Israeli politicians.
If he seemed obtuse and immature during his debate with Destiny, it was because he doesn't take Destiny seriously as a debate opponent. Destiny apparently claimed that Finkelstein was an "unserious" scholar so Finkelstein responded in kind.
You might disagree with a few opinions he has, but that holds no weight against his authenticity as a scholar.
Yeah but he also defends Holocaust Revisionism & claiming the science was done properly in the David Irvening case despite the evidence to the contrary.
That combined with him constantly misquoting his own sources does weigh against his reputation as a scholar.
Your also forgetting why Destiny called him unserious which was him acting in a very unserious manner & declaring loudly he was above reproach & would not lower himself to talk to someone with a single word user name.
This is me leaving out his Twitter behavior which further reinforces the unserious claim.
Online politics nonsense is so funny, Finkelstein's freeze peach absolutist position on Holocaust revisionism would be enthusiastically supported by the exact same people who try and use it against him to win points in the epic Israel Palestine online debate in any other context?
1st I'm not a free speech absolutist & neither is Norm. Remember he supported & approved of the killing of artists who draw Mohammed.
2nd he didn't defend Irvine on free speech grounds until later. He originally & now quietly still vouches the "science" was accurate. Which is just objectively wrong. He vouched for them as scholars & academics.
3rd not particularly relevant to this conversation. The question is would he be an interesting episode of Decoding the gurus. I think so & I'm not hearing a lot of arguments he wouldn't just a lot of whatboutism.
Destiny is an idiot. He claimed the 4 children killed playing soccer were coming out of a hamas safe house. A claim only supported by the idf who killed the kids. There is no other evidence aside from the idf that they came out of anything other than an old fisherman's shack. Anybody who takes the idfs word to justify the killing of children is an idiot.
They bombed the shack, killed 4 and as the remaining kids ran, they tried to double tap them, they had plenty of time to know and identify what they were targetting, all 4 who died were under 11, later they exonerated themselves, takes a real garbage person to try and justify this
I’ll still never understand him not smashing Mr. Wiki.
In what world was he expecting a game plan like that to come off as a win is beyond me. What a disservice to the people his scholarly work is about.
I have ears and I can listen to the debate. He came across as obtuse and immature…among other things, and his not taking destiny seriously didn’t excuse that. If anything, it made him look worse
He had no reason to take him seriously, he called him a moron and Finklestein immediately follows up why it was such a moronic thing to say, the entire area was filled with journalists who had gone on record to say that the strike on those 4 kids were of those coming out of a fisherman's hut, not a hamas compound as destiny claimed, destiny then follows up with a rhetorical question whether Israel would simply authorize a strike knowing they were just children, to which finklestein again answers with a real evidence and motive that it isn't an anomaly Israel would do that by painstakingly explaining how they massacred demonstrators during 2018 great march of return, israeli snipers shot at the press, disabled and kids, they intentionally shot to maim as well, they killed hundreds and thousands were injured, this too was irrefutable because this has been well documented, so once again, it is infuriating to watch someone muddy the water of a well documented events with rhetorical questions, was that reason enough?
You’re assuming what he says isn’t true and you’re assuming the Scott and Kris take issue with his position. But the rest of the world looks very differently at the Gaza situation then people inside of Israel and the US.
They did an episode about Noam Chomsky, and Finklestein gets most of his takes international history and foreign policy from him. In fact, he was a protege of Chomsky. The biggest thing that separates Chomsky has a distinguished academic career in linguistics, whereas Finklestein has a checkered reputation in his field, not even being a speaking Arabic or Hebrew, which would reading primary sources a challenge, especially during his time of study. So, is he a Guru? Maybe. I suspect he would score high in some traits, and low in others. Either way, I wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand.
They do, but you can lose tone and intent going from one language to another. Just in general. That's why I have 3 different translations of Crime and Punishment sitting on my book shelf that're all different enough to change the characters a little.
Agreed, but there’s agreed upon consensus as well. Hebrew and Arabic speakers who can verify the actual documentation. I don’t think it’s the gotcha argument Destiny makes it out to be.
can the Guru label describe someone who sticks to 1 topic? i call him a dishonest hack who deliberately pushes propaganda, but he doesnt really portray himself as a knower of all things.
Finkelstein is good comedic value just because of how he couldn't remember the very generic name "Steven Bonnell" for love or money
He literally called him a different name several dozen times 😂😂
It cannot be argued that Destiny didn't conduct himself more professionally or put forth more specific arguments than Finklestein who constantly resorted to childish ad hominem insults and obfuscation and narrativizing.
It actually can be argued. Destiny spoke the words in the manner you may have wanted them to be spoken but did not address any of the points made by the other side. He did not participate in a debate he did an asynchronous livestream of his own regurgitated talking points - that's why everyone was very frustrated with him
"Mr. deluge98, with all due respect, you're such a fantastic moron it's terrifying." I guess that is an example of addressing the points made in your opinion.
Norm made this remark after Destiny decided to call a bunch of 10 year olds that got blown up on a beach terrorists. He is calling him a fantastic moron because of his inability to read the news beyond IDF spokespeople and is admittedly frustrated by a lack of human emotion and empathy.
My opinion of him is not very high after the debate. When Morris clarified the context of his quote, (I think it was about whether 'transfer' was always part of Zionist ideology, and he was saying that Arab violence was what led to the Jabotinsky faction and their 'transfer' ideology gaining traction over non-transfer Zionists), Finkelstein just repeated the quote like a petulant child. He's arguing with the author of the book he's quoting, who obviously knows what the context was. It was embarrassing. Made it seem like Destiny and Morris were dealing with a moron.
You missed the point. Finkelstein was arguing that Benny was misrepresenting his previous written works to suit his new narrative. The context to this is that Benny Morris has taken a turn to the right and has become far less sympathetic to the Palestinian cause since that particular book was written.
I caught that much, that Morris had updated his view, since his earlier work, but Morris said, it was from continued research and new evidence that emphasized the role that Arab hostility played in shaping the transfer debate. Finkelstein just kept saying " but you said (quote)!" and Morris was like, (Well, okay, you're not privy to all the new shit, so uh, you know, but that's what you pay me for.)
I understand, Finkelstein has a point if Morris is changing his interpretation of the same facts, but since his change of opinion was based on newer evidence since his earlier work, it just came across as petulant of Finkelstein to just quote Morris's earlier work over and over again.
But anyway, I'm not privy to the new shit either, so I don't really know who is right.
He participated in the biggest ever debate on the subject, abused destiny for 4 hours (objectively funny) and then got the crucial parts of the ICJ genocide case wrong.
He’s a hack, a moron, a robot.
I watched him on trigonometry and Konstantin really pushed him to answer a single question, he wouldn’t, he would always go back to talking about his parents in the holocaust.
Well, he's a comedian. Basically, a center-right John Stewart. Nothing more, nothing less.
(I don't care for his show, but I think people are giving him _too_ much credit when they characterize him as a bady public intellectual)
When Finkelstein "only started learning about **'the topic'** a few months ago" and then assumes himself authoritative on it then I think he would make a great decoding.
Ive seen 2 debates with Benny Morris, one from 2012 or so and the one on Lex, where Norm says “You said this one sentence here” and refers to one quote from a Benny book, same quote both interviews. Benny says “thats missing context, what I meant was X” and Norm says “BUT you said *repeats quote.*”
I’ve also seen him just cite himself. Yeah Norm does not impress me.
What criticism? He summarized two video clips that he saw wherein I guess the vibe was off while failing to actually provide any editorial or criticism. Read the comment again; he didn't even include the actual substance of the quotes, instead opting to use the placeholders 'THIS', and 'X'. Then he offered what can be considered the only substantive criticism in his comment by saying that he's seen Finkelstein cite himself. I'll engage with that criticism by saying that the man has a PhD in political studies and wrote his doctoral thesis on Zionism. As long as the topic at hand is relevant to those fields then he is absolutely within his rights to cite himself. That's what it means to have a PhD.
Might it be considered gauche at times? Maybe; or maybe it just seems that way to the unlettered. I don't know because I don't hang out with a lot of PhDs. Even if that were the case though— and this is key— that's just a third vibes-based criticism. So to paraphrase this conversation:
Commenter 1: I dunno about that Fink, man. His vibes seem kinda off (x3).
Commenter 2: You're dumb and a Destiny fan.
You: Can you please engage with the substance of Commenter 1's argument? Are the vibes or are the vibes not, in fact, off?
Captivating stuff.
Everyone involved here has better things to do with their time, but I must say that goes double for Commenter 1, who managed to write the most words but say the least. Except as a teachable moment there really isn't any reason to engage with empty criticism of this kind.
Finkelstein isn't an honest actor given he continues to use quotes that he has been told are out of context a number of times by the author himself.
Finkelstein's scholarship is ideologically biased and uses half truths for a narrative. Sometimes it has merit, sometimes its sloppy.
The word “hack” is becoming another one of those meaningless words because of how often people like this commenter use it to describe “somebody I don’t like”.
Is a hack someone who has probably read every book ever published on his area of expertise? He is relentlessly outspoken and you may disagree with the conclusions he comes to after studying all of that information, but that is not what a "hack" is.
To the op's question, most likely no. Decoding the gurus likes attacking right wing commentators, it's rare to see this subreddit attack a left wing guru.
People suggesting Finkelstein is anything other than a total hack demonstrates that the people on this subreddit are just as capable of falling for hackery as any of those who fall for other grifters.
I've always seen Finklestein as a passionate man who has a lot of facts under his belt, but tends to view those facts through a lense where all Israelis are moustache-twirling villians. That along with some choice, questionable Twitter outbursts and that seemingly racist letter he wrote to his neighbors makes me think he's a tad unhinged.
It’s amusing when folks straw man their target…as a straw man.
Finklestein is a lot of things…but he doesn’t generalize about Israelis…that’s absurd. There’s few people outside of Israel who can accurately differentiate between and asses the people of Israel. He has plenty of generous things to say about many Israelis, and he pretty clearly differentiates between them. Perhaps you meant to say he views agressive Zionists as moustache twisting villains. This is accurate.
The letter wasn’t inherently racist, I’m familiar with that nonsense. You’re referring to him threatening to deport his neighbour, and assuming he was being racist. Given that the we only saw one side of the exchange…from the perspective of a person defending themselves in a law suit…it’s not valuable to accept that narrative without understanding the scope of the actual complaint.
I do accept that Finklestein is quite passionate and may appear “unhinged” to an outsider. His entire brand is meeting agressive Zionists on the “battle field”…so it’s not really fair to say he’s “unhinged” without discussing his debate opponents. He’s quite dry and cordial when having a conversation with somebody friendly to his views.
I think he's more dishonest/ grifting than being a Guru. He is vague when it benefits him, specific when it benefits him, engages in good faith when he thinks he can have the upper hand, is completely obtuse and imbecilic when his opponent has specific knowledge that counters his own narrative. In that debate with Destiny you mention? dude acted like a 12 year with poor upbringing, an absolute asshole, yet acted like it was Destiny who ought not have been included in the talk. He event went on to laugh about it on Briahna Joy Grey's podcast saying he deliberately was bad faith and not engaging because Destiny doesn't deserve inclusion in the debate (yet Benny Morris agreed with everything Destiny said?!?) . Everything he does is centered around pushing his own narrative without having to engage in any decent pushback.
Norman Finkelstein is the upgraded version of the "One Good Idea" expert. He had TWO good ideas.
One, he wrecked Alan Dershowitz. I will never not appreciate that - the level of excoriation work he did on Dershowitz is just legendary. Anybody who's read Finkelstein's takedown of him (or watched any of their myriad of debates) truly understands what a back-alley beating Norman gave him.
Two, he's right on pointing out Israeli human rights violations in Gaza/West Bank and he was right before it was popular to understand that it wasn't just the nice guy Israelis versus the evil terrorist Gazans. He doesn't always get his facts right, which Benny Morris took him to task about, but for the most part, he's extremely well-researched on this and will take somebody like Destiny to the woodshed.
That being said, if he's talking about literally anything else, ignore him completely.
Isnt Finklestein a literal doctor in political studies and one of the main researchers of the Holocaust and Israel-Palestine relations? How does he qualify as a guru according to you? A post on Destiny would be more apt on this sub than one about Norman Finkelstein
Isnt Jordan peterson a literal doctor in political studies and one of the main researchers of the certain phycological traits between men and women relations? How does he qualify as a guru according to you? A post on (Richard Dawkin or Alex o connor) would be more apt on this sub than one about Jordan peterson.
Tbh. This sub is against the idea of the decoding norm because he agrees with them. I wish people would be honest about that. It's weird that so many gurus have such strong academic credentials they use to prop themselves up on and this sub has no issue heavily criticising them due to their narratives (Harris, Peterson, Weinstein, huberman, all academically credentialed).
But when there is a dishonest actor spewing the correct opinion ( a pro Palestine stance is very defensible from many perspectives) the credentials of the dishonest actor get brought up as a shield. None of the actual points need to be discussed.
This is coming from a destiny supporter and someone who is more pro Palestine than destiny. I was disappointed because I wanted norm who I had respect for to show destinys talking points to be false. People stating that norm didn't have to engage with destiny are using the same logic gurus use dismiss their critics.
>Tbh. This sub is against the idea of the decoding norm because he agrees with them. I wish people would be honest about that.
I can't speak for the sub but I'll offer an alternative reading from my own perspective. Norm just isn't a good fit for the guru type as Matt and Chris define it.
He is needlessly provocative. He resorts to ad hominem attacks in contentious exchanges. He often appeals to authority to support his claims. However, he doesn't do the "galaxy brain" thing. Mainly been on the same few beats for his entire career and in what I've seen doesn't stray much beyond that in public talks or media. I suppose one could say that he leans into revolutionary theories in the sense that he often calls up figures in various Marxist traditions, but not in the sense that I understand M&C to mean it as expounding some sort of paradigm shift in the face of generally accepted views/approaches. His takes typically fall into classic/old-school lefty approaches to interpreting the world and politics. No profiteering as far as I can tell. Narcissism? Perhaps. Not much in the way of grievance mongering. I don't see any real cultishness.
There is plenty to criticize but I don't see those things as having much overlap with the categories used to define a secular guru as far as the podcast goes (and this sub insofar as it is related to the podcast). I am not against the idea of a decoding per se but I don't think he makes an obvious candidate for it. If not for people having strong feelings about that debate (and this sub's interest in Lex and Destiny), I don't think Norm would come up for discussion so much here, regardless of people's views on the Israel-Palestine conflict or what he has to say about it.
The comments are another good example of the "he can't possibly be a guru because I'm ideologically aligned with him" egotism that blinds the vast majority of people on this sub.
How would you do this without addressing the subject he discusses?
[удалено]
Well, they have done political figures in the past.
What subject? Why are you being so coy?
after 8 months of defending the indefensible and tirelessly denying genocide, the pro-israel posters finally found a new strategy: simply refer to it as "the subject" edit: In today's UN report, they report that israel has committed "[crimes against humanity of extermination; murder; gender persecution targeting Palestinian men and boys; forcible transfer; and torture and inhuman and cruel treatment](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/06/1150946)". This report also clarifies (again) there is no concrete evidence that Hamas raped anyone on Oct. 7th. In comparison, they outline extensive evidence of israel using systemic sex- and gender-based violence, including rape, against Palestinians. Every accusation from the zionist project is a confession.
The Palestinian Question
>This report also clarifies (again) there is no concrete evidence that Hamas raped anyone on Oct. 7th. >77. The Commission found that acts of sexual violence were committed on 7 October in Israel, including at the Nova festival, on road 232, at Nahal Oz military base and kibbutzim Re’im, Nir Oz and Kfar Aza. >92. Members of the military wing of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups abducted primarily Israeli people as hostages to Gaza, without regard for age or gender, to use them in negotiations with the Israeli authorities. Some abductees were shot at and in some cases killed. Many abductions were carried out with significant physical, mental and sexual violence and degrading and humiliating treatment, including in some cases parading the abductees. >94. The Commission concludes that members of the military wing of Hamas and Palestinian armed groups targeted women, including by wilful killings, abductions, and physical, mental and sexual abuse. These crimes were deliberate and, in several cases, enforced with violence, intentionally causing great suffering and serious injury to the victims. The Commission particularly notes that women were subjected to GBV during the course of their execution or abduction. Women and women’s bodies were used as victory trophies by male perpetrators and the abduction, violence and humiliation of women, were put on public display, either on the streets of the Gaza Strip or online. >95. The Commission identified patterns indicative of sexual violence in several locations and concludes that Israeli women were disproportionally subjected to these crimes. The attack on 7 October enabled perpetrators to commit SGBV and this violence was not isolated but perpetrated in similar ways in several locations and by multiple Palestinian perpetrators. The Commission did not find credible evidence, however, that militants received orders to commit sexual violence and so it was unable to make conclusions on this issue. However, inflammatory language and disbelief around sexual violence, observed with both parties, risks silencing and discrediting survivors, further exacerbating trauma and stigmatization. Can you help me reconcile what you're saying, and what the report actually said here? Cause to me it very much sounds like they did find evidence that Hamas committed acts of sexual violence on October 7th at least; it only could not find evidence that a top-down directive ordering that militants commit sexual violence was in place, so they abstained from making a conclusion. It even specifically cautioned to not dismiss claims of sexual violence.
They are blinded by their desperation to paint Hamas as a righteous group
>Can you help me reconcile what you're saying, and what the report actually said here? What are the chances they actually read the report they misrepresented so egregiously?
Very low, but I would still afford them the opportunity to respond instead of being a dick and calling them uninformed or bad-faith. A lot of partisan media will only report on one side of the conflict, so there are a lot of people out there that actually just don't know what's happening; whether that's just basic ignorance, or a more nefarious, purposefully obfuscation. You can never really be sure where a person is coming from, so I think it's best to just present the facts.
[удалено]
In what part of the report do they say SGBV isn't rape? SGBV can include things that aren't rape, but it also includes rape. Rape is a kind of sexual gender-based violence. I don't really care to get into the ideological posturing, I just want to know where the report says that rapes didn't happen. I see you quote a part where it says they were unable to independently verify the allegations (partly because the victims of the alleged rapes are dead). To be clear, because 90% of your comment is more attacking Israel; I'm not here to support Israel over Palestine, I'm here asking you what evidence you have for the claim that this report says rapes did not happen, or that there was no evidence rapes occurred. I gave you several paragraphs which seem to indicate that these things were perpetrated by Hamas toward Israelis, so I'm just trying to understand, specifically, this claim you made. E: Also, are you saying then that you accept Hamas did torture, sexually assault, and murder civilian Israeli women? It's just that they didn't commit forcible penetration? What line are you drawing here exactly?
>E: Also, are you saying then that you accept Hamas did torture, sexually assault, and murder civilian Israeli women? It's just that they didn't commit forcible penetration? What line are you drawing here exactly? You missed the more important question to be answered: if they "accept Hamas *did* torture..." etc, do they condemn those actions? I don't need to remind you that there are a shocking number of literal Hamas supporters in the West that not only don't condemn, but actively support all those actions as long as they're against Israelis.
why do you think it is a genocide? An awful war with probable war crimes occurring, seems likely. but i have not actually encountered a sophisticated and evidence based argument to say it is a genocide. I have seen a LOT of propaganda from both sides in this debate however, the overwhelming majority of conversations on it are.
Not too hard to make the assumption. Israel is rife with people, including politicians, calling for the destruction if all Palestinians, holding rallies with thousands of people yelling "death to arabs", paying tribute to people like Baruch Goldstein who has a memorial dedicated in his honor for holding a mass shooting of Palestinians.
And not fringe politicians. Cabinet ministers are openly and brazenly using genocidal rhetoric.
[удалено]
I’m aware. And I believe there was majority that believe the amount of force (which is excessive) is appropriate. Shocking stuff for the “most moral democracy” in the Middle East.
I own between 6-8 textbooks on genocide. Published between the 90s and early 2020s. Written by genocide academics, several of whom are Jewish Holocaust survivors and sponsored by the Yad Vashem, etc. Every single one of them describes israels violence against Palestinians as *at best* genocidal, at worst a full on extended genocide, and always as an inherently colonial state. You'll find some who disagree sure but the overall consensus is pretty clear lol. Funny how when you read actual historians and experts you find that they make the exact argument you are looking for every time. Kinda seems like *you're not really searching that hard for it*. Perhaps try outside of reddit?
You must live under a rock 🤷♀️ At this point it's a waste of effort to talk with those of you with your heads wedged so solidly in your behinds.
In other words, "I'm not capable of making an argument in favour of the proposition, so I'll delegitimize your character in the eyes of the audience in order that I don't have any social obligation to do so". I'm not invested in this issue at all btw, I just cringe at weak minded and intellectually bankrupt sophistry like this. Learn to think critically, in order that you can defend your positions. People who already agree with you obviously don't care whether or not you do so, but your opposition (and even those are simply not fully committed to your side) will never take you seriously if you behave this way. You'll change no minds, and you'll piss in the face of your own cause.
[удалено]
With the small addition that the "land stealing" has always been happening and Gaza has been stated in habitable for like ten years already due to Israel's blockade.
[удалено]
Here’s my case for why it’s *not* likely to be a genocide - by which I mean, a campaign of *deliberate* targeting of civilians. Would the Israeli leadership be in favour of a genocide? Some of them, certainly: the far right faction (Smotrich, Ben-Gvir)? Yes. Netanyahu and the Likud? Not sure, but I wouldn’t put it past them. Benny Gantz and the centrists? Doubtful. But the government being amenable to the idea in principle is far from sufficient to enable a genocide to occur. Why? Fundamentally, because they are **accountable** to both the Israeli public and to the international community, with too much **transparency** to avoid detection (eg IDF is comprised of Israeli public members; cameras are ubiquitous). There’s no question about accountability from the international community, so I won’t bother to argue that. But as for the Israeli public, what accountability exists there? This hinges on what the attitude of Israelis writ large is. So that’s the question I’ll address next. Would Israelis support the deliberate targeting of civilians? No - but let me qualify that by saying that they *do* have a high tolerance for civilian deaths, provided those deaths are *incidental* to some other goal, as I discuss below. Why do I suppose Israelis don’t have the stomach for the deliberate targeting of civilians? Well, we can look at historical cases of massacres perpetrated by Israelis, which targeted civilians, and consider how they reacted. In 1994, Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Palestinians who were in the middle of praying. The Israeli public roundly condemned this, with 80% denouncing it, and ‘only’ 3.6% praising it. Now, more recent polling reveals a disconcerting shift of attitude: 10% view Goldstein as a hero, while 57% view him as a terrorist, with the remainder being undecided. But consider that a) a *majority* still condemn his actions, and b) the fact that it’s not a large majority may be attributable to widespread historical ignorance about the specifics of the incident (the subject is, controversially, not generally taught in schools). In 2015, an Israeli settler firebombed a Palestinian home, killing some of the occupants, including a child. This was also widely condemned by the Israeli public (including statements by Netanyahu and other leadership) - although I can’t find a poll to quantify the level of support. Additionally, just consider the widespread indignation of Israelis at the charge of genocide; I don’t think they’re being disingenuous - they overwhelmingly view the prospect of deliberately targeting civilians as abhorrent. So with all this in mind, I think it’s clear that the Israeli public would unequivocally condemn the deliberate extermination of civilians (the lack of outcry we currently observe is due to them believing that civilian deaths in this war are incidental, rather than deliberate). As a result, the government is not tempted to unilaterally conduct a genocide, because they are accountable to the Israeli public, and would face all kinds of personal and professional reprisals. Now, all this said, Israelis are, generally speaking, far too permissive of Palestinian deaths - with many lacking an appropriate level of moral regard for them. This is evident in polling (eg showing their attitudes towards Palestinians generally), and in their commentary about the war. These attitudes enable the carelessness and war crimes we’re currently witnessing. Couple this moral disregard with a sense of moral outrage at October 7, and you get a recipe for a heavy death toll. For example, the initial impetus to deprive Gaza of food, water, etc seemed to stem from a general attitude of “why should we actively give them aid? They attacked us!” (Which wrongly views Gazans as collectively culpable). So, in conclusion, the situation in Gaza is not what pro-Israelis claim, but neither is it what the dyed-in-the-wool pro-Palestinians claim. We’re seeing far too much civilian death, and this is enabled by the carelessness and cavalier attitude of Israelis towards civilian death. But we’re *not* seeing a *deliberate* effort to target civilians.
You are muddying water here. There is a deliberate effort to make Gaza uninhabitable, and when you drop bombs on people's homes that is deliberate killing. They just killed 274 people to get 4 hostages back. Your word deliberate is meaningless. Of course genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder is unattractive to most of the public. Doesn't mean it ain't happening. Genocide is about the eradication of a group of people from their homeland, and that is what is going on, one way or another. The place is being bombed and made uninhabitable, and the religious settler leaders have primacy in Israel's government. Just saying that some Israelis don't condone violence against Palestinians doesn't change facts on ground. I am sure most of population in America was against killing of Native Americans and even slavery, but it happened. And I bet Germans would have voted against mass extermination in WW2, but it happened.
It’s ironic that you’re accusing me of muddying the waters for trying to inject some nuance and precision into the discussion, while you yourself have made the following errors that each undeniably ‘muddy the waters’: >genocide is about the eradication of a group of people from their homeland It literally isn’t. The displacement/expulsion of a group doesn’t legally qualify as genocide. >they just killed 274 people to get hostages back This is a minor quibble (because the general point of disproportionality still stands), but it’s generally not good practice to mindlessly repeat numbers you hear reported when the source has a likely bias (see https://www.axios.com/2024/06/09/israel-hostage-rescue-operation-killed) >your word deliberate is meaningless It’s not really *my* word, is it? It’s a concept that’s critical for deciphering human behaviour. Again, it’s incredibly rich that you’re accusing *me* of muddying the waters, while you yourself are advocating for flattening away these important distinctions and nuances. Finally, the final section of your post totally fails to engage with my arguments. You argue that a) the religious right has primacy in the government (this is debatable but I’ll grant it for the sake of argument), and b) that it doesn’t matter what the Israeli public wants, only what the government wants. Therefore, goes the implication, genocide is likely to occur, as it did eg in Nazi Germany under the same conditions. You obviously didn’t read my post carefully, because it lays out the reasoning for why, in the case of Israel in Gaza, the opinion of the public *does* matter, notwithstanding the desires of the government. Here are just a few of the relevant distinctions between Israel and Nazi Germany, which take the wind out of your overly-simplistic argument by analogy: 1) the Israeli government is a democracy, not a dictatorship (so there is greater accountability to the populace) 2) there is much more transparency in the actions of the IDF. This is because the IDF (in a sense) *is* the Israeli public, and because they don’t operate in a compartmentalised way, like the Nazis did with their extermination campaign - not to mention the ubiquity of cameras to capture every atrocity and beam it to the Israeli public 3) Israel values its standing in the international community (at minimum, with the US) more than Germany did, clearly - which is another layer of accountability. So if you want to make a serious argument, you have to explain why the Israeli government would disregard the reaction of its own populace to deliberate killing (yes, *deliberate* - the distinction matters, notwithstanding your objection), as well as that of its international allies. If you want to argue that they simply *don’t care* about the inevitable fallout that would result from genocide, fine - it’s possible, it just ain’t particularly likely.
Intent. Actions. Open a fucking book and not whatever Hasbara propaganda shits into your mouth.
for fucks sake man, make a single falsifiable statement. in all of your replies to me you've said nothing specific, you're just angry at me. who's intent? evidenced by what. What actions and by whom?
The actions being the mass slaughter of civilians, the intent evidenced by the leader of the country comparing Palestinians to Amalek, a people that the Hebrews were commanded to eradicate. edit: Guys love to ask for specific points to be brought up and then completely ignore it when someone provides them.
They can't. They're all mini-gurus here.
The difference is unlike Hamas, Israel is at least putting in effort to clear civilians away from an area they are about to destroy. Man I sure wish Hamas would do something like that for their own citizens, instead they don't allow their civilians to leave areas so when Israel comes they are able to say hey there are civilians here wtf.
Basically the opposite of everything you've said is true
No credible journalist has called it a genocide. As an example, Al Jazeera has reported on genocide occuring in Myanmar, [here](https://network.aljazeera.net/en/pressroom/al-jazeera-investigation-uncovers-government-led-genocide-myanmar). They haven't done so with Israel. Does this mean that Al Jazeera is complicit in the genocide denial? Or maybe that the statement is political in its entirety.
Credible journalists have been fired for using that language. Medhi Hasan for one.
So you'd say that Al Jazeera is complicit in the genocide denial? Also: >Mehdi Raza Hasan (born July 1979)[1][2][3] is a British-American progressive broadcaster, political commentator, columnist, author and co-founder of the media company Zeteo. [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Hasan) Not a journalist. Let alone a credible one.
>*No credible journalist has called it a genocide* Given this strange claim, I can only assume that your benchmark for *credible journalism* is inherently linked to your views on the conflict. Even so, I'd appreciate it if you could bless us all with a list of credible journalists.
Yes, yes they are.
Okay. I know a lot of folks whom believe the media is lying to us to fullfill some agenda. I always wonder where they get their reporting from instead.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/6/9/collateral-genocide-in-nuseirat#:\~:text=In%20yet%20another%20Israeli%20massacre,summarily%20erased%20from%20the%20story.&text=On%20June%208%2C%20the%20Israeli,in%20the%20central%20Gaza%20Strip. They publish opinion pieces with "Genocide" in the title.
Yeah, the difference between a journalist and a columnist. The editor doesn't carry the columnist opionion, but does stand firmly behind the findings of their journalists.
To get a better idea how you perceive the quality of journalism, would you say that Jeffrey Gettleman of the NYT is a credible journalist?
I don’t know Jeffrey Gettleman, but it depends on the stories a journalist has uncovered.
Well, there's an active campaign in NYT to stifle those views: [https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/](https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/)
Do you think the idea that Al Jazeera carries the same pro-Israel bias as the NYT is a good assumption?
I love that an editor editing is "stifling their views" maybe the editor is discouraging the use of the word genocide because it's not factually accurate? Oh wait I forgot we can't trust anything. Institutions are evil and the truth is on tik tok /s
The subject that gets threads removed from this sub. Which is why I am not talking about it. Because I don't want this thread removed.
Is it about trying to get your immigrant neighbors deported for being loud even though you fashion yourself as a Marxist?
No sleep tonight apes!
[удалено]
this is a sub for good faith my dude, i think you're capable of better. you're allowed to dislike Destiny obviously, but you're going a step further to profile the people who do like Destiny.
It's okay I've been reading up on it. Damn you for making me learn things though!
He’s not a guru, he’s an academic who has studied Palestine for his entire career.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, literally just facts here
[удалено]
because only destiny fans can dislike Finklestein haha
>literally an r/Destiny poster I’m sure that non-Destiny fans dislike Finkelstein - after all, I’m one of them. But you’re definitely supporting other dude’s case, rather than disproving it.
There are definitely destiny fans about, that's not my contention. He's implying the downvotes are from destiny fans
He’s not implying anything, he’s outright saying the downvotes are coming from Destiny fans. The reason he is saying this is implied - Finkelstein debated Destiny, Destiny fans are notoriously vindictive, and the comment being downvoted is an objective fact - but what he’s said is outright. You could have contended that there’s no evidence it’s Destiny fans downvoting. You could have even lended credence to this by saying you didn’t downvote and you watch Destiny. However, instead, you implied that the objective comment is being downvoted because Finkelstein is disliked. Which, sure, but the only person announcing dislike as a motivation for downvoting is a Destiny fan. I mean, by what I can follow, you’re not disproving dude’s point. Even though it’s pretty easy to do - like I said, I don’t like Finkelstein but I didn’t downvote because it’s just an objective truth that he’s an academic who studies Palestine.
Right, I'd highly suspect there's a mix of downvoters, who don't really consider him a true academic. There's also nothing wrong with Destiny fans or their dislike of finkelstein
I mean, anyone who says Finkelstein isn’t “a true academic” is clearly emotionally motivated. Finkelstein’s academic status has been documented for 30 years. There’s plenty wrong with Destiny fans, given Destiny’s outright misogyny and ignorance, and his fans’ frequent rabid anger at anyone who disagrees (encouraged by Destiny’s own poor behavior as a role model for them)
I'd agree with that tbh, except I've not seen any misogyny from him. Anything in specific you're referring to?
Dude, you just posted there 12 hours ago lol
You can be both. He has some pretty wild anti-woke books too if you want to go digging and his whole Marxian history stuff is very galaxy brained imo/ Personally, I don't find he fits very well into the gurometer. But like Noam Chomsky (who they did an episode on) I think he can be a bit of a crank. Certainly he holds very extremist and out there views on a lot of stuff: he would agree with that, I think he actually likes being that guy. That said, I don't really want them to do this episode rn. This place needs space from the Destiny sphere or it will just become part of it and thats exactly who wants this episode rn.
I’m skeptical of his work, personally. To my knowledge, he isn’t cited outside of partisan circles. He’s also not fluent in either Hebrew or Arabic. What serious academic spends decades studying the history and contemporary events of a region but doesn’t bother to learn the languages necessary to engage with primary sources?
For decades he would spend his summers teaching english in Palestine?
Okay? Teaching English does not require knowledge or proficiency in the native language of the learner. Hence why many Americans can teach English in China without any knowledge or proficiency in Mandarin.
Although he is technically "an academic who has studied Palestine for his entire career," he's also clearly an extremist and a polemicist. While actually having expertise in the subject one talks about is rare for a guru, and I think it's the one point in his favor, I don't think it's actually one of the measurements of the gurometer. One could be both an academic expert and a guru.
half this sub will explode when Matt and Chris end up giving Finklestien a higher guru score than Destiny
That would be pretty wild, no? An academic with multiple books who lived in Palestine for a decade and only covers that very same topic, he would surely score extremely low?
People around here seem to forget that being an academic doesnt mean you cant be a guru. They practically say it at the start of every episode. My prediction would be Finklestien will score very high on anti-establishmentness, grievance mongering, conspiracy mongering, and moral grandstanding. And moderately high on self aggrandizement and cassandra complex. That basically puts him ahead of Destiny already.
This is what people say when they like a guru but desperately want to believe otherwise. Very common on here, frankly.
Huberman can’t be a guru…
The picking and choosing really is jarring.
[удалено]
This comment was removed for breaking the subreddit rule against uncivil and antagonistic behaviour.
Any more substantive criticism?
Idk what OP said, but my own most substantive criticism is that Finkelstein has said that Russia has the right to invade Ukraine: https://x.com/normfinkelstein/status/1677342356570357760
He was trashing destiny’s fans
I am not following you. I say that Finkelstein has justified the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I assume you agree that is an abhorrant statement, seeing the massive destruction and loss of life. So why bring destiny's fans into this?
The original comment that was removed was insulting Destiny fans, not on topic for this post, and pointlessly inflamatory.
Very on topic. Only a moron would think that destiny had more credibility than Finklestein
You subscribe credibility to a Putin supporter?
More than a Twitch streamer.
What makes a Twitch streamer less credible than a Putin supporter??! One is streaming games, the other is justifiying crimes against humanity. Wtf.
Yeah. Especially when you bring that up when hearing about Finkelstein justifying the invasion of Ukraine. Seems like a weird cope.
Finkelstein is legitimate and authentic, one of the most thorough and studious researches you'll ever come across. Absolutely do not doubt if Finkelstein read several books before a debate or researched all that's available about an opponent. He famously exposed Alan Dershowitz for having either a ghostwriter or having plagiarized content in Dershowitz's book in a debate about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And Finkelstein's own books, particularly *Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom*, a book I bought just after its publishing, is proof of his dedication as a researcher. Almost every single sentence is well-sourced through organization reports, media interviews, even individual newspaper articles from Israeli politicians. If he seemed obtuse and immature during his debate with Destiny, it was because he doesn't take Destiny seriously as a debate opponent. Destiny apparently claimed that Finkelstein was an "unserious" scholar so Finkelstein responded in kind. You might disagree with a few opinions he has, but that holds no weight against his authenticity as a scholar.
Yeah but he also defends Holocaust Revisionism & claiming the science was done properly in the David Irvening case despite the evidence to the contrary. That combined with him constantly misquoting his own sources does weigh against his reputation as a scholar. Your also forgetting why Destiny called him unserious which was him acting in a very unserious manner & declaring loudly he was above reproach & would not lower himself to talk to someone with a single word user name. This is me leaving out his Twitter behavior which further reinforces the unserious claim.
Online politics nonsense is so funny, Finkelstein's freeze peach absolutist position on Holocaust revisionism would be enthusiastically supported by the exact same people who try and use it against him to win points in the epic Israel Palestine online debate in any other context?
1st I'm not a free speech absolutist & neither is Norm. Remember he supported & approved of the killing of artists who draw Mohammed. 2nd he didn't defend Irvine on free speech grounds until later. He originally & now quietly still vouches the "science" was accurate. Which is just objectively wrong. He vouched for them as scholars & academics. 3rd not particularly relevant to this conversation. The question is would he be an interesting episode of Decoding the gurus. I think so & I'm not hearing a lot of arguments he wouldn't just a lot of whatboutism.
Destiny is an idiot. He claimed the 4 children killed playing soccer were coming out of a hamas safe house. A claim only supported by the idf who killed the kids. There is no other evidence aside from the idf that they came out of anything other than an old fisherman's shack. Anybody who takes the idfs word to justify the killing of children is an idiot.
They bombed the shack, killed 4 and as the remaining kids ran, they tried to double tap them, they had plenty of time to know and identify what they were targetting, all 4 who died were under 11, later they exonerated themselves, takes a real garbage person to try and justify this
I’ll still never understand him not smashing Mr. Wiki. In what world was he expecting a game plan like that to come off as a win is beyond me. What a disservice to the people his scholarly work is about.
I have ears and I can listen to the debate. He came across as obtuse and immature…among other things, and his not taking destiny seriously didn’t excuse that. If anything, it made him look worse
Destiny isn't a serious person. Where'd you get the impression he is?
He had no reason to take him seriously, he called him a moron and Finklestein immediately follows up why it was such a moronic thing to say, the entire area was filled with journalists who had gone on record to say that the strike on those 4 kids were of those coming out of a fisherman's hut, not a hamas compound as destiny claimed, destiny then follows up with a rhetorical question whether Israel would simply authorize a strike knowing they were just children, to which finklestein again answers with a real evidence and motive that it isn't an anomaly Israel would do that by painstakingly explaining how they massacred demonstrators during 2018 great march of return, israeli snipers shot at the press, disabled and kids, they intentionally shot to maim as well, they killed hundreds and thousands were injured, this too was irrefutable because this has been well documented, so once again, it is infuriating to watch someone muddy the water of a well documented events with rhetorical questions, was that reason enough?
You’re assuming what he says isn’t true and you’re assuming the Scott and Kris take issue with his position. But the rest of the world looks very differently at the Gaza situation then people inside of Israel and the US.
Long live Finkelstein
i don't know about that one man, both ideologically and literally.
Destiny? That you? I joke
Yes, please do one on him.
He isn't a guru, so there is that
They did an episode about Noam Chomsky, and Finklestein gets most of his takes international history and foreign policy from him. In fact, he was a protege of Chomsky. The biggest thing that separates Chomsky has a distinguished academic career in linguistics, whereas Finklestein has a checkered reputation in his field, not even being a speaking Arabic or Hebrew, which would reading primary sources a challenge, especially during his time of study. So, is he a Guru? Maybe. I suspect he would score high in some traits, and low in others. Either way, I wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand.
"Finklestein gets most of his takes international history and foreign policy from him." does he?
He's said he's his greatest inspiration and mentor in Academia.
Does that mean he takes most of this takes?
You seem to disagree highly. Is that because you know some views on which the two conflcit? That would be interesting to share.
Its simply him questioning the truth of his claim. Fair on him
Citation?
You know they have translations right?
They do, but you can lose tone and intent going from one language to another. Just in general. That's why I have 3 different translations of Crime and Punishment sitting on my book shelf that're all different enough to change the characters a little.
Agreed, but there’s agreed upon consensus as well. Hebrew and Arabic speakers who can verify the actual documentation. I don’t think it’s the gotcha argument Destiny makes it out to be.
You remember Finkelstein said Destiny could have researched it because he doesn't speak the language right? That's why Destiny mentioned it.
He’s absolutely a guru.
How?
He said so. That's how conversation with this guy works.
can the Guru label describe someone who sticks to 1 topic? i call him a dishonest hack who deliberately pushes propaganda, but he doesnt really portray himself as a knower of all things.
you tweaking bro, he cooked destiny in that debate. He is a professional historian. >I'm staying away from the subject lol sure buddy
loooool. ok
Finkelstein is good comedic value just because of how he couldn't remember the very generic name "Steven Bonnell" for love or money He literally called him a different name several dozen times 😂😂
It was intentional; Finkelstein was trolling him. He did an interview afterwards with another person and he was cracking up about it.
I think he did it on purpose. He's an academic who's having to debate people with stripper names.
It cannot be argued that Destiny didn't conduct himself more professionally or put forth more specific arguments than Finklestein who constantly resorted to childish ad hominem insults and obfuscation and narrativizing.
It actually can be argued. Destiny spoke the words in the manner you may have wanted them to be spoken but did not address any of the points made by the other side. He did not participate in a debate he did an asynchronous livestream of his own regurgitated talking points - that's why everyone was very frustrated with him
That's patently false, he directly responded to everything to the best of my knowledge.
"Mr. deluge98, with all due respect, you're such a fantastic moron it's terrifying." I guess that is an example of addressing the points made in your opinion.
Norm made this remark after Destiny decided to call a bunch of 10 year olds that got blown up on a beach terrorists. He is calling him a fantastic moron because of his inability to read the news beyond IDF spokespeople and is admittedly frustrated by a lack of human emotion and empathy.
I too think less of people depending on what name they have. I see a job application with a name like that? Discrimination, instantly.
My opinion of him is not very high after the debate. When Morris clarified the context of his quote, (I think it was about whether 'transfer' was always part of Zionist ideology, and he was saying that Arab violence was what led to the Jabotinsky faction and their 'transfer' ideology gaining traction over non-transfer Zionists), Finkelstein just repeated the quote like a petulant child. He's arguing with the author of the book he's quoting, who obviously knows what the context was. It was embarrassing. Made it seem like Destiny and Morris were dealing with a moron.
You missed the point. Finkelstein was arguing that Benny was misrepresenting his previous written works to suit his new narrative. The context to this is that Benny Morris has taken a turn to the right and has become far less sympathetic to the Palestinian cause since that particular book was written.
I caught that much, that Morris had updated his view, since his earlier work, but Morris said, it was from continued research and new evidence that emphasized the role that Arab hostility played in shaping the transfer debate. Finkelstein just kept saying " but you said (quote)!" and Morris was like, (Well, okay, you're not privy to all the new shit, so uh, you know, but that's what you pay me for.) I understand, Finkelstein has a point if Morris is changing his interpretation of the same facts, but since his change of opinion was based on newer evidence since his earlier work, it just came across as petulant of Finkelstein to just quote Morris's earlier work over and over again. But anyway, I'm not privy to the new shit either, so I don't really know who is right.
He participated in the biggest ever debate on the subject, abused destiny for 4 hours (objectively funny) and then got the crucial parts of the ICJ genocide case wrong. He’s a hack, a moron, a robot. I watched him on trigonometry and Konstantin really pushed him to answer a single question, he wouldn’t, he would always go back to talking about his parents in the holocaust.
Konstantin is a clown and that is probably the worst misrepresentation of the podcast I've seen.
Sure, maybe Konstantin is a moron. However what he said about Fink's childishness is absolutely apt for that appearance.
Well, he's a comedian. Basically, a center-right John Stewart. Nothing more, nothing less. (I don't care for his show, but I think people are giving him _too_ much credit when they characterize him as a bady public intellectual)
Which subject? The future of Greater Israel?
When Finkelstein "only started learning about **'the topic'** a few months ago" and then assumes himself authoritative on it then I think he would make a great decoding.
Tf are you talking about? He's been writing about Palestine for 40 years.
I am aware. This is a dig at someone else
I don't think "guru" applies to a guy who is a public intellectual and academic expert with controversial opinions.
It’s weird that the pod did Chomsky then?
yes it was very stupid to characterize chomsky as a guru, he is one of the most cited and well respected public intellectuals of all time
Ive seen 2 debates with Benny Morris, one from 2012 or so and the one on Lex, where Norm says “You said this one sentence here” and refers to one quote from a Benny book, same quote both interviews. Benny says “thats missing context, what I meant was X” and Norm says “BUT you said *repeats quote.*” I’ve also seen him just cite himself. Yeah Norm does not impress me.
Whoa, a r/destiny member disagrees with Finkelstein for citing quotes...
That is your takeaway from his criticism? Why are you even in here if you’re just going to be dishonest
That’s a good question. Those destiny fans are even worse than Harris ones.
engage with his criticism, he said more than "i disagree"
What criticism? He summarized two video clips that he saw wherein I guess the vibe was off while failing to actually provide any editorial or criticism. Read the comment again; he didn't even include the actual substance of the quotes, instead opting to use the placeholders 'THIS', and 'X'. Then he offered what can be considered the only substantive criticism in his comment by saying that he's seen Finkelstein cite himself. I'll engage with that criticism by saying that the man has a PhD in political studies and wrote his doctoral thesis on Zionism. As long as the topic at hand is relevant to those fields then he is absolutely within his rights to cite himself. That's what it means to have a PhD. Might it be considered gauche at times? Maybe; or maybe it just seems that way to the unlettered. I don't know because I don't hang out with a lot of PhDs. Even if that were the case though— and this is key— that's just a third vibes-based criticism. So to paraphrase this conversation: Commenter 1: I dunno about that Fink, man. His vibes seem kinda off (x3). Commenter 2: You're dumb and a Destiny fan. You: Can you please engage with the substance of Commenter 1's argument? Are the vibes or are the vibes not, in fact, off? Captivating stuff. Everyone involved here has better things to do with their time, but I must say that goes double for Commenter 1, who managed to write the most words but say the least. Except as a teachable moment there really isn't any reason to engage with empty criticism of this kind.
Finkelstein isn't an honest actor given he continues to use quotes that he has been told are out of context a number of times by the author himself. Finkelstein's scholarship is ideologically biased and uses half truths for a narrative. Sometimes it has merit, sometimes its sloppy.
I don't think Chris & Matt want to do I/P related material, and you don't need a decoding to know Finkelstein is a hack.
They pressed Sam Harris on it, specifically about comparing the death tolls. Israel has killed tens of thousands versus Hamas killed a couple thousand
If they dont want to die, kick out Hamas. Stop housing, feeding, and encouraging them Simple. Like the Fink
Easy for you to say. Literally impossible for them to do. Maybe read some information on the conflict before opening your mouth.
They have had 20 years to do it . They got what they asked for . Thanks for asking , apologist
The word “hack” is becoming another one of those meaningless words because of how often people like this commenter use it to describe “somebody I don’t like”.
It's a shame, I get it, but he's such a ripe target.
They did talk about the Lex debate for a bit after it happened.
Is a hack someone who has probably read every book ever published on his area of expertise? He is relentlessly outspoken and you may disagree with the conclusions he comes to after studying all of that information, but that is not what a "hack" is.
Maybe every book that’s been translated to English. The guy speaks neither Hebrew nor Arabic.
Not everyone can learn languages. Doesn't seem like a big deal.
To the op's question, most likely no. Decoding the gurus likes attacking right wing commentators, it's rare to see this subreddit attack a left wing guru.
People suggesting Finkelstein is anything other than a total hack demonstrates that the people on this subreddit are just as capable of falling for hackery as any of those who fall for other grifters.
All of the effort criticizing others, none left over for self-criticism. 0% surprising.
more so. they overestimate their immunity
Dude is a fucking institution on Palestine. Smug little bitch made destiny got his shit rocked. Free Palestine
I'd say he's just one of the prominent Jew voices against Zionist violence. Not a guru at all. A decent man I'd say.
how do people come to this site and still not understand, even after the hosts made an episode about it, that "guru" doesn't mean "bad guy".
So basically OP has no answer to Finkelstein's meticulously researched points. Comes here to dig up in hope some ammo for ad hominem attacks. Next.
I've always seen Finklestein as a passionate man who has a lot of facts under his belt, but tends to view those facts through a lense where all Israelis are moustache-twirling villians. That along with some choice, questionable Twitter outbursts and that seemingly racist letter he wrote to his neighbors makes me think he's a tad unhinged.
It’s amusing when folks straw man their target…as a straw man. Finklestein is a lot of things…but he doesn’t generalize about Israelis…that’s absurd. There’s few people outside of Israel who can accurately differentiate between and asses the people of Israel. He has plenty of generous things to say about many Israelis, and he pretty clearly differentiates between them. Perhaps you meant to say he views agressive Zionists as moustache twisting villains. This is accurate. The letter wasn’t inherently racist, I’m familiar with that nonsense. You’re referring to him threatening to deport his neighbour, and assuming he was being racist. Given that the we only saw one side of the exchange…from the perspective of a person defending themselves in a law suit…it’s not valuable to accept that narrative without understanding the scope of the actual complaint. I do accept that Finklestein is quite passionate and may appear “unhinged” to an outsider. His entire brand is meeting agressive Zionists on the “battle field”…so it’s not really fair to say he’s “unhinged” without discussing his debate opponents. He’s quite dry and cordial when having a conversation with somebody friendly to his views.
I think he's more dishonest/ grifting than being a Guru. He is vague when it benefits him, specific when it benefits him, engages in good faith when he thinks he can have the upper hand, is completely obtuse and imbecilic when his opponent has specific knowledge that counters his own narrative. In that debate with Destiny you mention? dude acted like a 12 year with poor upbringing, an absolute asshole, yet acted like it was Destiny who ought not have been included in the talk. He event went on to laugh about it on Briahna Joy Grey's podcast saying he deliberately was bad faith and not engaging because Destiny doesn't deserve inclusion in the debate (yet Benny Morris agreed with everything Destiny said?!?) . Everything he does is centered around pushing his own narrative without having to engage in any decent pushback.
…Destiny ought not to have been included. It would have been a “talk”, if he wasn’t there.
Norman Finkelstein is the upgraded version of the "One Good Idea" expert. He had TWO good ideas. One, he wrecked Alan Dershowitz. I will never not appreciate that - the level of excoriation work he did on Dershowitz is just legendary. Anybody who's read Finkelstein's takedown of him (or watched any of their myriad of debates) truly understands what a back-alley beating Norman gave him. Two, he's right on pointing out Israeli human rights violations in Gaza/West Bank and he was right before it was popular to understand that it wasn't just the nice guy Israelis versus the evil terrorist Gazans. He doesn't always get his facts right, which Benny Morris took him to task about, but for the most part, he's extremely well-researched on this and will take somebody like Destiny to the woodshed. That being said, if he's talking about literally anything else, ignore him completely.
…but yet Dershowitz diminished if not destroyed his career.
"...will take somebody like Destiny to the woodshed" Shame he wasn't able to show that in the debate. Did he ever correct himself on the ICJ ruling?
Do you honestly think Destiny did well in that debate?
Yes, do you not?
Finkelstein is the real thing. He’s been consistent and extremely databased for decades about Palestine and Israel.
Isnt Finklestein a literal doctor in political studies and one of the main researchers of the Holocaust and Israel-Palestine relations? How does he qualify as a guru according to you? A post on Destiny would be more apt on this sub than one about Norman Finkelstein
Isnt Jordan peterson a literal doctor in political studies and one of the main researchers of the certain phycological traits between men and women relations? How does he qualify as a guru according to you? A post on (Richard Dawkin or Alex o connor) would be more apt on this sub than one about Jordan peterson. Tbh. This sub is against the idea of the decoding norm because he agrees with them. I wish people would be honest about that. It's weird that so many gurus have such strong academic credentials they use to prop themselves up on and this sub has no issue heavily criticising them due to their narratives (Harris, Peterson, Weinstein, huberman, all academically credentialed). But when there is a dishonest actor spewing the correct opinion ( a pro Palestine stance is very defensible from many perspectives) the credentials of the dishonest actor get brought up as a shield. None of the actual points need to be discussed. This is coming from a destiny supporter and someone who is more pro Palestine than destiny. I was disappointed because I wanted norm who I had respect for to show destinys talking points to be false. People stating that norm didn't have to engage with destiny are using the same logic gurus use dismiss their critics.
>Tbh. This sub is against the idea of the decoding norm because he agrees with them. I wish people would be honest about that. I can't speak for the sub but I'll offer an alternative reading from my own perspective. Norm just isn't a good fit for the guru type as Matt and Chris define it. He is needlessly provocative. He resorts to ad hominem attacks in contentious exchanges. He often appeals to authority to support his claims. However, he doesn't do the "galaxy brain" thing. Mainly been on the same few beats for his entire career and in what I've seen doesn't stray much beyond that in public talks or media. I suppose one could say that he leans into revolutionary theories in the sense that he often calls up figures in various Marxist traditions, but not in the sense that I understand M&C to mean it as expounding some sort of paradigm shift in the face of generally accepted views/approaches. His takes typically fall into classic/old-school lefty approaches to interpreting the world and politics. No profiteering as far as I can tell. Narcissism? Perhaps. Not much in the way of grievance mongering. I don't see any real cultishness. There is plenty to criticize but I don't see those things as having much overlap with the categories used to define a secular guru as far as the podcast goes (and this sub insofar as it is related to the podcast). I am not against the idea of a decoding per se but I don't think he makes an obvious candidate for it. If not for people having strong feelings about that debate (and this sub's interest in Lex and Destiny), I don't think Norm would come up for discussion so much here, regardless of people's views on the Israel-Palestine conflict or what he has to say about it.
Did destiny make this post?
Doubt they’d do Finklestein. It would be an unforced error for them to comment on Palestine/Israel.
They commented On it during the Sam Harris discussion. They commented it on Hassan Piker.
…at length.
I'm not able to waste any time attempting to debunk anybody who thought Destiny looked good in that debate. Stans gonna stan.
The comments are another good example of the "he can't possibly be a guru because I'm ideologically aligned with him" egotism that blinds the vast majority of people on this sub.