The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Understanding Pro-Hamas Sentiment on the Far Left
It's not just antisemitism, it's a Manichean worldview that assigns moral worth based on whether a group is identified as "oppressors" or the "oppressed"
Recent events have been clarifying for many of us. While many left-wing Jews have grasped that they wound up political bedfellows with people who at best downplay and at worst celebrate massacring, torturing, raping, and kidnapping several thousand innocent civilians, from babies to the elderly, even those distinctly not on the left have had some epiphanies. This includes me.
Recall my post on October 9: "There has been too much pointless debate over whether those who call for Israel's destruction are necessarily antisemitic. The important point is that such people know that the end of Israel most likely means genocide for 7.5 million Israeli Jews, and they are okay with that." But why? As I noted, antisemitism is only a partial explanation: "Most antisemites aren't full-on Nazis, and as much as they dislike Jews would object to mass murder (just like most people who have racist opinions of black people would object to mass murder.)"
Moreover, some of those exhibiting indifference or much worse to the fate of Israeli Jews, on Oct. 7 or otherwise, have Jewish partners, Jewish friends, or are even Jewish themselves, and don't otherwise exhibit hostility to Jews, and would reject various antisemitic notions if put before them.
So what I have come up with is that these folks have imbibed and adopted a version of anti-racist, anti-colonial theory that divides the world into two classes by group: the oppressors and the oppressed. The oppressors, in this worldview, are permitted nothing in their battles with the oppressed. Because they are oppressors, they have no right to self-defense, no right not to have their children slaughtered, their women raped, and so on, if it's done by the oppressed, in particular if done in the name of anti-colonial resistance. Members of the oppressor class, regardless of age, regardless of individual attributes, are innately guilty, and thus none can claim innocence.
The oppressed are the opposite. Members of this group are, by definition, innocent. Nothing they do to oppressors, no matter how morally depraved it might seem to normies, is blameworthy. Each side is just acting out the historical struggle of liberation of the oppressed vs. the oppressors.
Grasping this has led me to understand, for example, various interactions I've had over the years with those, most famously Glenn Greenwald, who condemn any Israeli actions in self-defense against Hamas, but consistently decline to state what actions *would* be permissible. The answer, though they won't say so publicly because they usually are purporting to rely on international law, rather than ideology, is that nothing is permitted to the oppressor (Israel), nothing is forbidden to the oppressed (Palestinians).
Of course, this does not explain how Israelis came to be "the oppressor," given that Israeli in this context effectively means "Israeli Jews," and almost every Israeli Jew is no more than two generations away from an attempt by their government in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa to murder or expel them. A very good part of the how Israelis came not just "the oppressor," but perhaps, in competition with the United States, THE great representative of the oppressor is a product of antisemitism, and in particular antisemitism spread by the USSR from the 1960s to the 1980s and absorbed into Western post-colonial theory.
Anyway, once we understand the underlying theory far left "antizionists" have, we can also understand how morally depraved it is. Israeli babies are guilty, because they are members of the oppressor class. Medieval Hamas theocratic butchers are innocent, no matter how many babies they murder. You may occasionally puzzle over leftist "Queers for Palestine" marching on behalf of people who would kill them on sight. Post-colonial theory, like other forms of fanatical belief, is impervious to reason, common sense, or common decency.
UPDATE: This also explains the desperate pleas of Jewish progressives over the last few years to persuade their comrades that Israelis and/or Jews in general aren't white. If you're not white, you're presumptively not the oppressor. This has been a largely unsuccessful gambit. In any event, while this may get to part of the antisemitism issue, it doesn't get to the root of the problem, which is that assigning people moral worth and agency based on whether they belong to a broad ideologically contoured "class" is abhorrent and inevitably leads to defending atrocities.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
People are doing to "Manichean" what had previously been done to "Pharisee", and it's not right.
It's particularly awkward now that we know there might still be literal Manichaeans in the world.
Of course, there are also literal Pharisees in the world. I should know--I am one. So were my teachers, and their teachers, and their teachers before them.
"Pharisee," after all, is just the term in use approximately 2,000 years ago for what we would now call "Orthodox Jew."
So yeah, every time the term "pharisee" is used as an insult, that is the exact equivalent of using the term "rabbi" or "Jew" as an insult.
It all stems from Jesus’s criticising Pharisees in the Gospels for hypocrisy. CS Lewis has an unpleasant reference to Pharisees in “The Screwtape Letters”
I’m an apikouros, but that notwithstanding, I am of the Pharisaic tradition.
I don't think it's the exact equivalent. I agreed with everything you wrote until that point — it's an argument I've raised myself in the past — but the reason it's not equivalent is that most of the people using the term don't realize what it refers to. They think of "Pharisee" as referring to nothing more than some long gone Biblical group like the Sadducees; they're not trying to insult observant Jews.
Yeah, "black and white worldview" or "us versus them worldview" are more accurate to what's meant. They just sound less highfalutin'.
I have no idea why anyone would support Hamas, but I don't think David Bernstein is the person I'd ask. (Before or after reading this post.)
In other words, "this is a perfectly reasonable post, but I feel obligated to say something nasty regardless, so I'll just use a reverse argument from authority." Logical fallacies do tend to be your thing.
This is rich, given that the OP is so rife with intellectual dishonesty it's hard to know where to begin with a critique.
Hey, it's a baby step in the right direction. At least he acknowledged that there might just maybe could be something other than antisemitism at work.
The funny thing is, I think he's actually correct that the oppressor/oppressed worldview is the correct reason why many on the left support the Palestinian cause and see the Israeli government as evil. I'm sure some of them are also antisemitic, but most of them aren't. It's an interesting point I'd never considered.
Of course it is. They say as much, explicitly, all the time... it's not exactly a secret.
But David's given the topic the most superficial possible treatment, having just barely opened his eyes to it himself. It's an embarrassingly imbecilic post, especially for a law professor.
I'm not sure how defining Jews as oppressors who are always in the wrong, and their genocidal enemies as victims who may properly torture Jewish babies to death, could be anything other than antisemitic.
I see the problem, a strawman snuck his way into your thinking.
Neither of those is an accurate account of the position of, for example, the anti-Zionists.
If you don't know where to begin with a critique, means you don't have much.
No, it means that sometimes pointing out, explaining, and refuting all of the rhetorical tricks employed by polemicists like David can be hard to do in a succinct, clear way. He is counting on the complexity of his flim-flammery to make direct refutation tiresome and difficult. It's like trying to untangle a plate of cooked spaghetti.
And, it's worth noting, the project is largely pointless here on the VC, since most of you seem to be sharing a brain cell. Only a handful of regular commenters would be able to follow, and only one or two of those would be inclined to disagree.
That and he/Queenie likes to say my mother (Horror-cost survivor, VA Burn Nurse during Veet’nam) has sex with scores of Black Ath-uh-letes
People support Hamas for the same reasons they would support the Klu Klux Klan -- except there are negative consequences for supporting the Klan. There are only rewards for joining Hamas.
Rewards?? the 70 Virgins? Shooting a bunch of hippies/hipsters??(OK, that does sound enticing) Funny how the terrorists become scarce when guys with guns show up.
Frank, that line was mistranslated — it’s actually 70 brown-eyed Virginians
But my point is that it isn't the the actual terrorists that comprise Hamas no more than it was the actual hooded Klansmen night riders who comprised the Klan -- in both cases it is more those who support them. There is a great deal of reward (including financial) for supporting Hamas and that is my point.
It’s not fair that the Jews have displaced the arabs.
Especially since all the Jews I know are rich and greedy.
Therefore Hamas is the sympathetic side.
Does that sum it up?
Meanwhile no one spends two seconds thinking about where the Jews are supposed to go. Long Island?
The other half of Oklahoma.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/holy-city-of-the-wichitas
Someone on Twitter said:
The second to last person who steals land is the rightful owner of it forever.
I guess that’s why colonialism is bad.
With the possible exception of some Pacific Islanders, name a group that did not eventually practice "colonialism".
The Maori massacred another tribe on a neighboring island just before the Brits showed up.
Fortunately these pro-Hamas Manichaeans are a fringe. They might be loud noises in academia but they have no influence in the Democratic Party. Among people who matter the debate is over to what extent Israel's retribution should be supported and how to make overtures to non-Hamas Palestinians. The real world is complicated.
By contrast, Manichaean thinking has pretty much taken over the Republican Party, on this and practically every other issue. They don't believe in compromise and they turn their fire on fellow Republicans who attempt it. We see this currently playing out in the House of Representatives.
Dumbfuck is too kind to describe you.
"They might be loud noises in academia"
The stages of denial:
-No-one believes this.
-Some fringe terrorists believe this, but nobody else.
-Some fringe terrorists, and some Western academics and students, believe this, but they're just kids and academics, they won't influence the wider political world .
-Shut up, you racist Zionist
.
"Fortunately these pro-Hamas Manichaeans are a fringe."
I wish that I could believe that, but after hearing Jake Tapper's editorial this morning (counseling that Israel should wait a year before doing anything) I am not so sure. Every day the choice of stories and commentaries in the US press increasingly promote the idea that Israel has to accept Hamas on its border because of crying mothers and dead innocents. I also am suspicious that the pleas for ceasefires and patience are frequently, although not always, and outlet for latent anti-Semitism.
As for House Republicans, mass psychiatric treatment might help. But even there I am pessimistic.
Try reading the comments in the Washington Post on any story on Gaza. Given the Post’s target readership, most of the people supporting Hamas and disparaging Israel are liberals. Many claim to be Jews.
We elected Ronald Reagan 43 years ago and we've been sabotaged for 43 years -- how long must we be sabotaged before we say "no mas" and expel the traitors?
Ronald Reagan, governor of a border state, got along with immigrants. Anyone who likes Trump should no mention his name.
Funny, how come Trump's approval and support among black and latino voters keeps going up? Maybe there is a difference between law abiding and law breaking that they can understand that apparently eludes you.
Tlaib, Omar and AOC have no influence in the Democratic party?
Not much. Not nearly as much as Gaetz, MTG, and Jordan have in the Republican party for example.
From just about calling Jake Tapper pro-Hamas to discussions of expelling American Citizens, this really seems a high water mark in authoritarian wankery from the VC commentariat.
To be sure, I find some on the left here making me wince as well.
But this has revealed things about the character (at least as revealed online) of some who I used to merely disagree with that I find pretty dissapointing.
The Republican party believes that the world is the almost accidental creation of an eternal conflict between equal entities of good and evil?
I suppose you didn’t listen too closely to McCarthy’s nominating speech for Jim Jordan on Friday. At one point he said, “The ancient philosopher Mani described our current predicament via a trenchant synthesis. Without going into detail as to the epistemological difficulties of translation, his formulation was not unlike that arrived under separate auspices by Spinoza in the first serious attempt to unify rationalism with scholasticism. I refer the Members of this Body to my monograph on Kirkegaard in the Yale Journal of Philosophy and Metaphysics, specifically my review of the research and the nosological difficulties involved, I believe you will find it at page 798 et seq."
This post has cause and effect mixed up.
Anti-western, anti-civilization haters justify their hatred using "post colonial theory" or whatever other nonsense keeps the audience engaged.
The content of "post colonial theory" or queer theory or critical race theory or any of the rest of them are just noise patterns designed to shape hatred into something that mimics academic inquiry. Academics had high social standing until recently and are able to get paychecks if the noises they make fit into their peculiar academic pattern.
If haters and narcissists and their followers didn’t have "post colonial theory", they’d hate based on something else just as specious.
Interesting.
Dennis Prager frequently speculates whether leftism attracts bad/mean people, or makes its adherents mean/bad. Your argument (1) seems sensible, and (2) supports the former theory.
I think in part we are seeing echoes of the Cold War. The USA backed Israel so the Soviet Union backed the PLO and the issue became polarized. The groups who are now standing up for Palestinians in general or Hamas in particular look like the traditional Cold War left.
Yes John, and Egypt managed to (successfully) play both us and the Soviets against each other -- although with notorious Soviet building standards, I'm waiting for the Aswan dam to become a pending emergency.
But you have to go back to WW-II and remember that the Arabs were never de-Nazified -- and the Soviets were more fascist than communist, always were.
Yes, the Soviets were funding and supporting the Cold War Left --- more than a lot of people realize -- but there still was a shared philosophical/political basis of shared values and ideals.
The Cold War Left didn't evaporate when the Soviet Union did, they are still around today and the big question no one asks is who is funding them today?
…and the janitor adds civil engineering to his areas of expertise.
I suppose you're right: someone who, in a confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, would support the latter, is the sort of person that would "stand up for Palestinians" (even after the horrors of 10/7).
Like Prof. Bernstein said: "morally depraved" and "impervious to reason, common sense, or common decency."
Way more "Diplomatic" than I would be David. We can't afford to be "Decent" anymore. Forget Peace for now.
Frank
A test of David Bernstein's hypothesis is whether the far-ish left holds to these principles consistently.
Communist China is the oppressor, and the Uyghurs are the oppressed.
Sundry Burmese governments are the oppressors and the Rohingya are the oppressed.
Turkey is the oppressor and the Kurds are the oppressed,
There are others, of course.
Do we see much in the way of protests on behalf of these groups in the US or elsewhere? Are there sizable student organisations in US colleges who advocate for them?
If not, then the oppressor/oppressed idea, appealing and plausible though it be, is missing an important dimension. And that dimension, of course, is that in the unique case of Israel, the purported oppressors are Jews.
On this exception, I recommend an excellent book by another Jewish DB, David Baddiel - "Jews don't count".
"Do we see much in the way of protests on behalf of these groups"
Of course not, out of sight out of mind.
I think that the reason for the present protests is exactly that "Jews don't count."
“Jews don’t count."
Only the special people matter. The special people have rights. Everyone else only has obligations.
Careful not to commit any microagressions on your way back from the funerals.
HE MEANS BLACK PEOPLE AND GAY PEOPLE ONLY YOU CAN'T HEAR HIM OVER THE GRINDING OF HIS TEETH BECAUSE HE'S SO ANGRY AT BLACK PEOPLE AND GAY PEOPLE FOR THINKING THEY'RE PEOPLE!
Sorry, people who don't count. If you didn’t want to be thrown in leftists' trash can with the rest of us, you should have been one of the special people who must always be catered to.
If you ever decide you don’t like the view from inside leftists' trash can, you can join the rest of us and together we’ll make a society that rejects leftists' hierarchies of victimization and recognizes only one class of people that includes everyone.
Until then, you must always be vigilant to avoid microagressions (even unconscious ones) that might result in one of the special people having an imperfect day. Be especially vigilant on your way back from funerals. When leftist protestors are chanting for you to be killed, be sure to ask them their pronouns before you respectfully respond.
Ben puts himself in a trash can blames ‘leftists.’ It's not even a real trash can, its a pillow fort labeled 'trash can.'
You do not have to look very hard to find western advocates for all those groups. Out of your sight out of your mind, maybe. But neither China, Burma nor Turkey receive billions in western support, so they're not exactly directed AT the west, other than to try to raise awareness.
"to look very hard to find"
bully for you that you see them frequently, because they are very seldom noted in the news reports, in films of protests and demonstrations, etc.
Gasp! Not the so-called liberal media!
Meaning what?
When was the last report about concentration camps for Uighurs in the NYT?
Jews are not good at oppressing. Its because historically they've had so little chance to play that game.
Who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed are not based on objective reality, but based on whatever is fashionable for political reasons in far left circles. Jews have been quite UN-fashionable since the USSR decided to cultivate Arab and Moslem allies by demonizing Israel and Jews.
David, it was Hitler who cultivated Arab support.
It was, but Hitler was only around 12 years, and had lots of other stuff on his plate. The USSR did so for longer and more intensely, and they also had various front groups in the Western left that spread these idea through leftist intellectual circles. Read the article linked, among others by that author.
Oddly, though the USSR voted in favour of recognition of Israel at the UN (and they had 3 votes, Ukraine, Byelorussia and the rest of USSR)
Stalin though that the leftists who founded Israel would be a reliable anti-British nation. When that turned out to be wrong, he switched on which side to support.
Yup. Stalin was antisemitic himself, of course, but he really misjudged that one.
Some Zionists were actually antisemites. Chesterton, for example, wanted the Jews to go to Israel because he wanted them out of England. Even the Nazis did deals with Zionists early on, arranging for Jews to leave Germany without confiscating their property.
As for Stalin, when they decided to create a “Jewish S.S.R.”, look where he put it!
There are Zionist antisemitic evangelicals here in the US who think that a Jewish state is required before the second coming. Oy.
"Only around for 12 years"?? WTF is he like Sandy Koufax or something? Doesn't get into the Murderous Dictators HOF because he didn't kill as long as Mao or Stalin??
"Who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed are not based on objective reality, but based on whatever is fashionable for political reasons in far left circles."
What could you possibly know about "far left circles" to give you even the slightest bit of authority to throw out such a conclusion without a shred of evidence?
You need to get your own bias figured out before you start dressing up such opinions as fact.
Who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed are not based on objective reality, but based on whatever is fashionable for political reasons in far left circles.
The shifting scope of far left to be the fringey dumbasses when discussing their positions, but an actual important political force when discussing their power is...well, it reminds me of Eco: "Thus by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Criticisms of leftists aren’t precise enough for Sarcastr0. No argument about whether they are correct or incorrect, just that they fail some precision standard.
But once you’re very precise, Sarcastr0 will argue that your very precise criticism doesn’t match specific individuals very well.
Heterogeneous leftists can therefore never be criticized correctly as a group because some are the leaders and the others are the fools.
Yes, Ben. If your generalities you are so mad about, when they are nailed down to specifics, end up being contradictory or absurd.
That is because you are not a man of principle or reality, just of emotion.
As I've told you before, looks like a miserable way to operate. But you work hard at it.
In the context of the entire American people, they are "fringey dumbasses", in the context of media and entertainment and academia and, increasingly, the Democratic Party, they are an "actual important political force". Two things can be true at once!
The Hamas Caucus and friends are too junior yet to wield Congressional power, but that will come with time.
You can say it, but neither you nor Prof. Bernstein have established it. In fact, reaching down to some random statement by a single dorm's resident advisor is such a weak choice it calls the argument itself into question.
People have been supporting Free Palestine and advocating for peace in the conflict since the sixties. Hardly a passing phase.
This includes many Jews. Some of whom live in Israel and quite sensibly don't want to die in an utterly useless and wasteful and endlessly prolonged conflict.
“Free Palestine and advocating for peace in the conflict since the sixties.” unfortunately Palestinian leaders constantly walk away from that idea unless it includes wiping out the Jews in the area.
Jews have been quite UN-fashionable
That's news to a lot of Jews I work with.
"Communist China is the oppressor,"
You expect leftists to oppose Communists?
Never saw a single rightist campaign for the Uyghurs.
You just don't look.
Silly me, all I did was look at people advocating for Uyghurs.
Like I said the other day, (I've been off camping...) these categories aren't observed, they're just assigned.
Communist China can't be an oppressor, because this is the left we're talking about.
"Of course, this does not explain how Israelis came to be "the oppressor," given that Israeli in this context effectively means "Israeli Jews," and almost every Israeli Jew is no more than two generations away from an attempt by their government in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa to murder or expel them."
You're still not quite there yet because the above is totally irrelevant.
They hate Israel because Israel is free -- it may be free because of its underlying reliance on Jewish values, but they hate it because it is free. They hate it because it is a country where the individual matters, a culture of life and not one of death. They hate it because the individual has free choice and because there is true diversity amongst the citizenship.
I've used the term "hippie music festival" but everything I have seen indicates that the slaughtered music festival was pretty much in the tradition of American anti-war music of the late 1960s, that the people murdered were more likely to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than the average Israeli. I may be wrong here, but it clearly wasn't sponsored by the IDF or the Israeli VFW.
Which leads to the cartoon: "Please don't kill me -- I'm on your side."
What??????
David, I've said this before, but it bears repeating: your writing on this topic is so full of errors and unhinged that one might be well-advised to approach your other, more "scholarly" work with a healthy skepticism. You probably should not be trusted to speak authoritatively on any subject.
In this post, you purport to characterize "pro-Hamas sentiment on the far left" but cite almost no "far left" statements, and indeed even where you do seem to cite someone, you cannot cite them directly, and instead attribute to them a position you invalidly infer from something they've said. You're not, after all, talking about anything besides your mischaracterization of a caricature of maybe a handful of tweets that confirms your bias on this issue.
So, who, in the end, is the OP for? It's not written to be persuasive for anyone who doesn't already agree with you, is it? Or do you somehow believe that it could be? The intellectual dishonesty and laziness reflected in this post is shameful.
"In this post, you purport to characterize 'pro-Hamas sentiment on the far left' but cite almost no 'far left' statements, and indeed even where you do seem to cite someone, you cannot cite them directly, and instead attribute to them a position you invalidly infer from something they’ve said."
I didn't bother posting links or quotes because (a) I don't want to give them any further attention; and (b) anyone who has been paying the slightest attention to the news and has an IQ above a peanut has seen such sentiment expressed. So have you not been paying attention, or has it just gone over your head?
I didn’t bother posting links or quotes because…
I’m going to stop you right there, David. Is that the sort of thing you would say, if a colleague were to critique a paper of yours for developing an argument about a class of statements, without citing a single one? No. Because that’s not how arguments work.
Part of the reason this is necessary is apparent even in your reply to me. You presume that your “audience” has viewed all the same sentiments that you have and has reached the same conclusions about them that you have – or, if they haven’t, that they must have “an IQ of a peanut” (add “ad hominem” to the list of fallacies you’ve employed here). But a good-faith argument can’t presume this. If you were writing for anyone but yourself, you’d have to acknowledge that not everyone has paid the same amount of attention that you have to the views of the “far left” on this issue. And so, you’d start by being clear about what you’re talking about, establishing that it’s representative, etc., before fleshing out your point.
And spare me this bit about not wanting “to give them any further attention.” You’ve done so before, in the comments for other posts. Indeed, you seem very keen on devoting a lot of attention to law students who say offensive, pro-Hamas sorts of things. This excuse is transparently fake.
I know what you’re doing, David. You’re cherry-picking examples; you are conflating them with a broader class of statements that are not expressly “pro-Hamas”; you are justifying that conflation to yourself by attributing a strawman to people taking a pro-Palestinian but not pro-Hamas position; and then you are saying a silly thing about that strawman, to us. If you had to make your referents patent, people would be able to criticize your reasoning directly. Instead, you are relying on equivocation to make your point logically unassailable (and then defending that equivocation by lying and employing an ad hominem attack).
Citing a single tweet by a Yale professor or a statement by a SJP chapter is not sufficient to attribute to any subset of the “far left” a “Manichean worldview.” Attempted justifications for the use of violence by “resistance movements” aimed at non-combatant citizens of an “oppressor state” are not necessarily rooted in a simplistic ideology, even if attributing that simplistic ideology to them makes your debunking of them that much easier. They may be rhetorically extreme to raise awareness of a more nuanced reality. They may be rooted in a belief that this kind of incomprehensible violence is the only means left for the Palestinians to be heard. They may be rooted in a belief that tit-for-tat attacks are justified, given longstanding Israeli indifference to civilian casualties caused by its own regular “lawn-mowing” in Gaza (including 1.8k children, as of this writing).
Who knows. The point is that an argument must be made. You can’t handwave off the need to link a conclusion to sound premises, complaining that everything you would deem relevant to the argument is both common knowledge and something you don’t want to further publicize.
Manichaean. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. In fact, I think you're projecting.
Manichaean. You keep using that word.
He used it once, and not even in the post you're responding to.
I do not think...
Apparently not.
“The world would be better off if it had more actual, committed, principled pacifists… But I suspect that what we have instead are mostly people who believe that violence is only the legitimate province of some people, and what is morally required of everyone else is submission.”
– Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò
As a Jew who spent considerable time in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait, the Moose-lums would be the first to murder their US supporters and Palestinians. There's a reason no Moose-lum nation takes Palestinian Refugees. Arafat just barely survived getting killed by Assad the Elder back in the 80's.
Frank
From ” I (don’t) Love the 80’s” “Towards the end of the siege, the US and European governments brokered an agreement guaranteeing safe passage for Arafat and the PLO—guarded by a multinational force of eight hundred US Marines supported by the US Navy—to exile in Tunis. Arafat returned to Lebanon a year after his eviction from Beirut, this time establishing himself in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. This time Arafat was expelled by a fellow Palestinian working under Hafez al-Assad. Arafat did not return to Lebanon"
A year later Hez-bolla-bolla murdered 241 Marines/Sailors. Heck of a job Ronnie!
Frank
After 75 years it's time for "never again" to mean never again.
I’ll throw out a hypothesis about *some* of the double-standard criticism of Israel.
I’d call it the soft bigotry of high expectations.
Israel is supposed to adhere to a much higher standard than Gentile powers – a very high standard which I don’t think has ever been achieved by real-world countries surrounded by enemies. But the critics are simply disappointed that Israel hasn’t lived up to its own high principles!
There's some truth to that.
I see Bill Maher came up with the phrase before me:
https://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/21/bill-maher-israel-is-victim-of-soft-bigotry-of-high-expectations-video/
He's 1/2 Jewish BTW
It is attributed to a GWB speech in 2000 (written by Gerson)
It is attributed to a GWB speech in 2000 (written by Gerson)
No, his original was the "soft bigotry of low expectations". Maher was making a play on that.
That’s just a game. They make up standards and pretend to believe in them for the sole purpose of attacking their enemies for falling short of the pretend standards. No one else is ever held to those standards because it was all pretense from the start.
Any attempt to tar the "double standard" applied to Israel, by American critics, that fails to account for the "special relationship" with Israel that has long defined American foreign policy, isn't worth serious consideration.
The US provides Israel significant diplomatic cover in the UN, looks the other way on its nuclear program, sends it billions of dollars a year in military aid. Pro-Israel lobbies are unusually prominent and active in American politics, relative to other nations; the Israeli Prime Minister always seems to have the president's ear and vocal allies in Congress. Our national news media are also extremely invested in Israeli news; coverage of the war in Gaza has dominated recent news coverage, despite the fact that there are a number of other conflicts and significant political events happening right now (e.g., elections in Poland and Argentina, military coups in Africa, etc.).
Americans are so critical of Israeli's approach to Palestinians because, while our high-cost relationship with Israel is driven primarily by pragmatic geopolitical considerations vis-a-vis Iran, it is ideologically explained by the powers that be as having something to do with their being an electoral democracy and the historical legacy of the Holocaust. There is a fundamental inconsistency and tension there that the criticism addresses.
Again, the “special relationship” is a justification for holding Israel to what can euphemistically be called double standards. Standards the US won’t observe.
And the special relationship, I think, goes both ways, what with sharing of intelligence and, in this case, Israel fighting a group which has killed and kidnapped Americans.
In a situation where by the law of nations, America could wage war in response to the killing and capturing of her citizens, relying on Israel as a proxy seems to make more sense.
It’s bizarre to see arguments like this about Israel being singled out when the US has received MOUNTAINS of quite justified criticism for initiating wars and its conduct of those wars. Britain got the same criticism during the NI troubles, France did in Algeria. Massive criticism at the failures of the UN happen all the time. Remember the Balkan conflict and during the North African conflict Clinton and Obama were severely criticised. Oh, and Russia got criticised so much most western nations allied to support Ukraine! And plenty of people criticise *them* for doing that!
These examples of criticism all seem to be of Western states - often with the same impulse behind it. Why *wouldn't* the West (or at least the U. S.) support Israel vis-a-vis the same people attacking us?
Missing in all of this is the role played by Jimmy Carter's Islamic Republic.
There’s more to it than that. There’s a romance of idyllic natives living a full life oppressed by a soulless industrialization that begins with at least Rousseau. People on the fringes of Western society feel their life soulless, empty, and respond to that sense of emptiness by projecting.
Nor does this phenomenon exist only on the left.
One of the reasons the lost cause/glorious Confederacy myth endured so long into the 20th century is it too tapped into the archetype. That too had the myth of a noble pre-industrialized people with a traditional, happy culture based on loyalty rather than profit conquered and oppressed by dour and remorseless Westerners, a people conquered and forced to submit not just to rule by rnferiors, but to all kinds attrocities. It’s worth thinking about the atrocity stories passed down about the brief time during Reconstruction when black prople had power and they used it to rape white women in their beds willy-nilly. It was as easy to believe the atrocity stories told about black people as it is easy today to believe these stories about Jews.
I think people on today’s left believe the stories that Israelis slaughter innocent Palestianins by the thousands just because they can. The same sorts of routine rapacious atrocity stories are told as were told about Reconstruction a century ago.
An excellent analysis and deconstruction of the "oppressor/oppressed axis," showing it is both morally and intellectually bankrupt when used to judge *any* conflict, not just those of Jews.
Those who regard other people's earned wealth as "privilege" are just sore losers. And if they'd let go of their envy, they could earn some for themselves.
Nuance works both ways. Automation tends to put wealth into the hands of a small group of people who own the automatons. It tends to create a highly unequal society in which large parts of the population have no realistic way to escape poverty. Most people get their wealth by inheriting it, not earning it. That creates real problems for society that can’t be solved by reciting simple moral platitudes.
Similarly, nobody likes being ruled by others. It’s not a binary choice. There is a lot of gray between saying that the mere existsnce of the state of Israel on Arab land makes Jews horrible settler-colonist oppressors, making mass slaughter of Jews completely justifiable, and saying it is morally wrong for the Arab minority living in historically Jewish land to dislike living under Israeli rule and want to steal Jewish land to create their own country.
When ownership is disputed, as it often is in human history, absolute moral platitudes assume the conclusion. They preach to the converted, and nobody else.
It would be great if the Israelis and Palestinians could negotiate a workable splitting of the assets (territory). Yes, there are the proverbial extremists on both sides who reject the idea of such a compromise.
But the fact is that one group of extremists is not simply rejecting compromise but deliberately killing babies, too.
As for class divisions, they’re unjust, but the right of inheritance isn’t the problem in itself. Someone who earns things honestly has every reason to want to pass the inheritance to his children. That should be encouraged, not discouraged. Injustice could creep in if the heirs grow arrogant (heir-ogant?) and behave like they earned everything themselves and shouldn’t cooperate with their fellow humans at improving things – including improving things for those who *didn’t* inherit much stuff.
It’s off topic, but I’ll take the bait and digress.
Kings made a similar argument that they had every right to pass on their inheritance to their children.
At some level of massive wealth, being a multi-billionaire controlling assets ordinary people need to access to survive and function reflects a power over others that may more resemble that of a king or feudal lord than a small freeholder in an idealized free society.
OK, but your original remark was
“Most people get their wealth by inheriting it, not earning it. That creates real problems for society that can’t be solved by reciting simple moral platitudes.”
Billionaires, whatever you think of them, are not “most people.” The target of your criticism is the system of inheritance. The idea that a family can accumulate wealth over generations, not merely leaving it to each generation to start from Year Zero, is essential to social justice, especially for the working classes. How can you claim to have profamily policies if you deny families that right? Working in the hopes of improving your children’s lives is a *good* thing, and passing on an honestly-earned inheritance to one’s children instead of having a socialist government seize it, is the morally just thing.
People who squander their income during their lifetime, leaving their children back in poverty, are not good parents, and anyone who seizes the property of good and thrifty parents so their children don’t get it, is a thief.
I mean, no: automation is how they escape poverty.
The only equal societies are where everyone is equally poor.
Most people get their wealth by inheriting it, not earning it.
And you base that on...what, exactly?
What‘s interesting here is there’s no concept non-Western peoples colonized. Both Islam and Pacific Island civilizations were conquoring and colonizing into the 18th and sometimes 19th centuries, and Japan did so into the 20th. China conquered and conized nearby territories over its long history. Many Islamic pockets in Europe were formed by Turkish (and earlier Arab) colonists.
Westerners just happened to have better technology and did it better. Part of the fury of ISIS, and Hamas, is the anger of a conquoring, colonizing people that a naturally inferior civilization, barbarans that it’s their natural role to subdue and civlize, should somehow have gotten the better of them. Like Germany’s loss in WWI, it just seems so unfair, something that couldn’t possibly have happened in any natural or reasonable way.
None of this nuiance is comprehensible to today’s left. In the 19th century, for example, the Maori of New Zealand used guns acquired from the West to go on a conquoring and colonizing spree, in some cases wiping out the populations of islands they conquored. Yet today’s left would regard them as completely aboriginal to those islands, however recent the date of conquest and colonization and however brutally they wiped the previous inhabitants out, simply because of the color of their skin. Their skin color means they can do no wrong. The concept that non-Western people colonized – a clear fact of history – is incomprehensible to them.
Part of the fury of ISIS, and Hamas, is the anger of a conquoring, colonizing people that a naturally inferior civilization, barbarans that it’s their natural role to subdue and civlize, should somehow have gotten the better of them.
I am sure that part of the reason for the hatred of Israel is that a traditionally subjugated people is now doing far better than those who subjugated them and who thought their subjugation was part of the natural or divide order.
Jews make good scapegoats generally. In this case, the “Islamic civilization” angle represented by ISIS and Hamas sees a war between Islamic civilization and barbarous infidels. It sees the State of Israel as simply an extension of the Crusades. In doing so, it conveniently ignores that the historical crusaders began and sometimes ended their crusades by slaughtering local Jews. But as Professor Bernstein notes, people tend to classify in terms of a small set of categories, and such distinctions don’t matter. To the American left, Jews are white western colonialist capitalists. But to Hamas, Jews in Israel are infidel Crusaders to be driven out of Islamic land, just as the Americans were to al-Qaeda and ISIS.
"To the American left, Jews are white western colonialist capitalists."
I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. To some on the left, maybe? Are you using the word "Jew" to mean "Israeli?"
As I said above, I think Prof. Bernstein is actually correct here, it's the oversimplification of viewing Israel as oppressor and Palestinians as oppressed, the need to fit all situations into a certain narrative. But I don't think that necessarily translates into general antisemitism, as he seems to be suggesting. I'm on the left, and I have some sympathy for the Palestinian people. I don't think I'm any more antisemitic than the average Jew.
It's weird that people pretend that groups like this aren't funded, armed and supported by richer and more powerful countries, that it has been happening since the Great Powers started competing for colonies, that it never stopped, and that it has helped utterly deform and distort those countries and societies. Acting like all of this has somehow occured and evolved naturally is like believing in Adam and Eve. Spinning elaborate straw men to hide this fact and acting like that's not what they mean when they talk about colonisation is pure dishonesty.
To understand opponents of Zionism, one need only read Raphael Lemkin - Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government - Proposals for Redress
Zionism is an ideology of genocide. The international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens on Dec 11, 1946.
The Zionist movement has been perpetrating genocide against Palestinians since the start of the Nakba in Dec 1947. This genocide will not end until Palestinians return to their homes, property, villages, and country.
All of these sorts of posts lead to some questions:
1. What would you expect Israel to do? Lose wars on purpose? Allow attacks to go unanswered?
2. What difference does it make to Israel whether or not you are mad at them? What difference should it make? Do they need your approval? Why?
3. Do you have anything to offer anyone in exchange for agreeing with you on anything you say? Does Hamas? Do the Palestinians? How does the net benefit for agreeing compare to the net benefit for disagreeing?
The solution is simple.
Force Israel to obey international law.
I am addressing black letter international law.
The existence of the Zionist state negates the international anti-genocide legal regime and undermines international law.
The international community (meaning the white states) has allowed the Zionist state to break a peremptory international legal norm (jus cogens) for 75 years. Genocide is an international capital crime without statute of limitations. It has to stop, or we return to the law of the jungle.
No one will do that.
International law is a joke. Force decides. And no one will force Israel to do much of anything.
International law of genocide has been applied in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Cambodia.
The bans on slavery and piracy (also jus cogens) are mostly respected.
Some people want to give a pass to commit genocide to people, whose ancestors practiced Rabbinic Judaism.
From the standpoint of a Jew, who used to be haredi, I make a reasonable conjecture that asserts the Zionist pass to commit genocide will only instigate ever greater antisemitism until there is another catastrophe that is comparable to the Holocaust.
Only the white states support the continued existence of the Zionist state, and support even in these states is dropping precipitously.
That’s a bunch of sentences. So what though?
Israel won’t listen to you and no one will make them listen. You have nothing to offer them to get them to listen.
They’ll probably just do whatever they think will lead to their people being safe. Because that’s highly valuable — an existential necessity level of value — and words and appeals and whatever other talk are not valuable at all.
Since you have made it clear that you view Israel’s existence and indeed the presence of Jews in Israel as a violation of international law, compliance with international law could only mean that, at best, every Jew currently in Israel is permitted to escape with their lives. At best. I doubt you intend such a favorable final solution.
Let’s look at international law here. Hitler made very similar claims to the ones you’re making regarding international law. The Nuremberg laws stripped Jews of citizenship, making them aliens. All legally. Hitler was careful to wait for war ro break out before declaring them enemy aliens. All legally. Enemy aliens are, of course subject to both being intereed and to deportation under international law. All legally. So Hitler’s forcible internment and deportation of Jews was completely legal under international law.
Of course, your intent for what ultimately happens to Israel’s Jews once Israel is forced to comply with “international law” is as murky as Hitler’s was from the point of view of the “Hitler is fully complying with international law” story, which the Nazis very loudly promulgated. Let me just say that your very similar murkiness regarding the final outcome in your pontifications about international law, indicates your intents are the same.
And it’s not just your claims about international law here are twisted against Jews’ ability to exist in ways remarkably similar to Hitler’s international-law lawyers. Your horror stories about Jewish/Zionist attocities are similarly just old recycled Nazi propaganda stories.
See a pattern here?
Why are you treating Martillo as if he is anything other than an antisemitic troll?
You’re of course aware that the Nazis declared Jews to be enemy aliens illegally occupying the lands they lived in? And you’re aware that the Nazis themselves came up with many of the genoicide-by-Jews stories that you’re passing on? The Mufti of Jerusalem was, after all, a Nazi ally, and they aligned their stories. You’re simply turning their prediction story into a tale about the past, claiming the Jews actually did the things the Nazis and their allies claimed Jews would do if they were allowed to have power anywhere.
Lemkin coined the word genocide for his book "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe." He published the book in 1944. I doubt that any Nazi leader had even heard the word genocide before the 1946 Nuremberg International Tribunal.
A propagandist for ongoing Zionist genocide invariably brings up the Mufti. No one cares any more, and whatever the Mufti did, it does not justify the meticulously planned genocide that the Zionist movement and the Zionist state have perpetrated against the Palestinian peasantry from Dec 1947 until today.
For the record, the Zionist movement collaborated far more effectively with the Zionist movement from Jan 1933 until Kristallnacht. But for Herschel Grynzspan's assassination of German Diplomat Ernst vom Rath, the Zionist movement might have collaborated with the Nazi government up to start of WW2 and beyond.
Israel gave its Arab citizens full citizenship after 1948. Their numbers increased considerably, and while less than Jewish citizens, their standard of living is considerably higher than surrounding Arab countries. Similarly, there has been no population decline in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Some people killed in fighting? It happened. Some discrimination amd some unjust treatment in individual cases? That happens. And nobody wants to be ruled by foreigners. And of course, the Arab governments invading the new state of Israel told the local population to flee so they wouldn’t be in the way when they slaughtered rhe Jews.
But genocide this is not. Your claim that Jews engaged in “systematically planned genoicide” is bullshit. It’s very similar to Nazi propaganda about supposed Jewish atrocities. That you’re willing to lie about Jews in a manner so similar to the Nazis is a tell that your intent for their end is similar.
Whenever a Zionist propagandist tries to redefine genocide to be mass murder at Holocaust levels, he practically makes a legal admission that the Zionist movement has been perpetrating genocide since Dec 1947. The Nazi government perpetrated genocide against Jews from Jan 1993 until the start of the Holocaust when this government added mass murder to the genocide that was already being committed.
Genocide and mass murder are separate and distinct crimes unless the mass murder is directed at persons, who belong to a specific racial, ethnic, religious, or national group.
Two of my relatives worked at the Jewish Agency and at the Jewish National fund. From Dec 1946 through Dec 1947, they helped to create the PR scripts that ReaderY is parroting. The working group also planned the logistics of the genocide as well as the legal defense to an accusation of genocide.
In Dec 1947, the Zionist colonial settlers started the planned and prepared genocide immediately after the UN Partition Proposal vote, the Palestinian leadership was not even given a chance to respond to the proposal.
When the genocide was already well underway in May and the British had departed, the Arab League made a humanitarian intervention to stop the genocide, but the Arab armies were bogged down by all the refugees — as the Zionists had planned.
The white states for complex reasons allowed the bad guys (Zionists) to get away with this genocide for 75 years. Now the shit is hitting the fan.
Palestinians owned 80-90% percent of the real, business, and personal property in Palestine. In areas under Zionist control, the Zionist state stole practically everything that Palestinians owned.
I meant:
The Nazi government perpetrated genocide against Jews from Jan 1933 until the start of the Holocaust when this government added mass murder to the genocide that was already being committed.
I object to calling a Zionist a Jew. A Zionist is post-Judaism. Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.
I object to your existence. Fuck you Nazi scum.
Israel: never again
J. A. : [words]
Israel: wow, that’s a really good point. We never thought about it that way before. I guess we’ll let Hamas chop our babies' heads off every 5-10 years.
Then they’re doing a terrible job. The population of Palestine increases ever year. Why is that?
Since the OP set the precedent that we should all blab about our cockamamie assumptions and unresearched mind-reading, here's mine.
What I see in statements like the NYU Law School student's one is not so much a celebration of Hamas's acts as a shifting of blame onto Israel. It's an attempt to keep the focus on the larger context and not get bogged down in slaughtered babies and the like.
The larger context I think she has in mind is that Israel has adopted a policy of perpetuating the status quo in the region. The status quo -- at least until a few weeks ago -- was pretty good for Israel and pretty crappy for Palestinians.
The question is then, does Israel have any responsibility for the Palestinians? DB, for example, likes to blame Hamas entirely for their plight. But I could imagine someone feeling like Israel does have some responsibility of care over Palestine.
If you think Israel has a responsibility and has been selfishly shirking it for decades, that's how you get to sympathy for Hamas's attempts to shake things up.
Again, this isn't my position, it's just my random take on what I think other people's positions probably are, since that's what we're doing today.
The status quo objected to is that there are Jews living in the land of Palestine and they aren’t subject to Muslim rule. The idea that Hamas has anything to do with objections to details of Israel rule or the boundaries of the Israeli state is as rediculous as the idea that Hitler would be satisfied if Jews didn’t work in banks and labor organizations.
Yeah no shit. Not sure how that's responsive to my comment though, which is about the beliefs of American students, not Hamas.
From The Onion.
Dying Gazans Criticized For Not Using Last Words To Condemn Hamas
GAZA CITY, GAZA—The complicity of each and every Palestinian in the violent actions of their militant ruling authority was reportedly on full display Friday morning when dying Gazans received justified criticism for not using their last words to condemn Hamas. For example, instead of issuing a full-throated denunciation of the violent attacks by Hamas that have left over 1,300 Israelis dead, one dying woman holding her 6-year-old son who had just been killed in a bombing is said to have doubled down by telling her child she loved him. According to reports, such barbarism on the part of Palestinians was on full display across the Gaza Strip, where many men of fighting age could not muster a single world of reproof for Hamas’ actions while they coughed up blood. In war-ravaged Gaza City, a dying reporter was heard blatantly begging for help instead of labeling Hamas a terrorist organization. At press time, the Israeli Defense Forces Twitter account underscored the massive surge of contempt they were contending with by posting a video that featured the shocking savagery of a Palestinian corpse that refused to condemn Hamas even when kicked.
The post is largely correct but it leaves out the general anti-West bias of the left. Europe and the US and its friends are per se bad, Israel is a Western nation so is also bad.
Then add Jew hating and intersectionality and "settler-colonial" BS and you get apologists for a religious fundamentalist group murdering babies.
Another post 9-11 throwback heard from.
You would have excused Al Queda too.
You probably said I did, back in the day!
I think Bernstein theory is incomplete about what motivates much of the non anti-Semitic support for Hamas.
The missing part is that because Israel has so much support from the evangelical right then the progressive left must hate what ever the evangelical right supports. And that most clearly explains why many with ties to to the Jewish community embrace the Palestinian cause and refuse to condemn barbaric terrorism without caveat.
Of course that leads to jarring dissonance in some areas, such as turning a blind eye to the murder of gay men and women by the same people that are murdering Israelis.
Or to put it another way, support from right-wing fundamentalists who love to see violence and militarism as proof of toughness and patriotism and abhor peace processes as cowardice and weakness has only helped prolong the conflict and led to the deaths of many men and women, gay and straight. Plus the whole creepy evangelical end-of-the-world thing nobody likes to talk about.
Thanks for confirming my thesis.
Thanks for pretending I confirmed your thesis in favour of your warm cosy straw man.
David,
You fail to fully flesh out the problem. Read (or re-read) Horowitz' Radical Son. This is the Marxist playbook at work. Hamas and their fellow-travelers have taken the place of the communist Vietnamese. And the Black Panthers after that.
As for the useful idiots at prestige institutions who lap up the poison, Tom Wolfe skewered them. These young adults would have been gleeful to be invited to Leonard Bernstein's party for the Black Panthers.
the Marxist playbook
Some people never grow up.
And some people prefer to remain ignorant of history.
Oh, it's a thing *historically*. You are the one claiming it's a going concern.
And you are the one ignorant of the fact that it is. Communism didn't die just because the Soviet Union failed. Just ask BLM and its founders--they proclaim themselves Marxists.
The project of the radical left post-Ussr has been to distance itself from Stalin. Real communism just hasn't been tried, you know.
You betray yourself as someone who has not delved into the history of the New Left and how it has shed its old skin. But always the same snake underneath. Oppressor and oppressed. No individual action. The personal is political.
The Palestinians are the tools of the totalitarian Left no less than were the Latin Americans of Liberation Theology and the Vietnamese and Tom Hayden.
You used to seem pretty insightful to me. Now I see you are, at best, completely incurious as to how a pernicious ideology--a religious faith--is manifest in new ways as time passes.
But the constant--always there--is Jew hatred
You can't ask BLM, because it's not an organization. And one guy claims to be a founder and a Marxist.
There is no Marxist playbook, just a sad redbaiting playbook from the 1950s some idiots like to trot out regarding everything they don't like.
the history of the New Left and how it has shed its old skin.
Somehow, I don't think you are the one I'd ask about the left.
This is like claiming the Republican Party isn't an organization.
Yes, it is, just like BLM: There's a national one, a bunch of state ones, a bunch of affiliates (often using the name with qualifiers or location variants).
Of course, if you still object to people referring to "BLM" then you will never refer to "Republicans" again, right? To do otherwise would be dishonest!
Where does the fact that Netanyahu deliberately and calculatedly propped up and supported Hamas to counterbalance the Palestinian Authority fit in to all this?
While Israel propped up both the PA and also Hamas, the relationship was comparable to that of the Nazis and Zionists, who together collaborated to get Jews out of Germany, but the relationship was hardly an alliance of minds.
Israel (in the role of the Nazis during the 30s) wanted to have a Palestinian organization in charge of Palestinians in order to pretend that the never-ending occupation was over. The Zionist leadership did not worry about the ideology of Hamas because this leadership considered Hamas ineffective.
Alternate explanation:
They are a bunch of Jew-hating, racists, sexist bastards.
When the United States stops subsidizing and protecting Israel -- and that is destined to occur unless Israel changes course relatively soon and quite substantially -- it will be because the American mainstream doesn't like right-wing belligerence (especially when drenched in religious partisanship and silly dogma) at home, and should have no interest in subsidizing it at great and varied cost anywhere else.
This blog, of course, will blame liberals' moral failings rather than recognizing the Israelis who voted for Netanyahu and Likud, and engaged in annexation, dispossession, and various forms of brutality for decades, punched their own tickets from top to bottom.
First since apparently it's the be-all-end-all of whether your opinion is valid or not: I unequivocally condemn the terrorist scum making up Hamas. They're barbarians and butchers who disgrace the human race and are a blight on Palestine and other place unfortunate enough to be subjected to their savagery, ignorance, and amorality. I hope this makes how I feel about Hamas, specifically, crystal clear, though I don't think I should be presumed to feel differently if I don't repeat this *every time* I criticize Israeli government policy or IDF actions.
--
You have a pretty black and white perspective for someone (rightfully) calling out the black and white worldview of others. I don't care for the whole 'oppression hierarchy' types either, and have a long history of disagreeing with them from the perspective of someone who's *also* far left, and you've accurately captured the origin of their position, but you seem to have some problems seeing any other progressive view as existing and rigidly conflate all criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
I'll focus on the silliest part here. When I was protesting the US being insufficiently considerate of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't recall being told my lack of a detailed plan for military operational logistics to reduce them further made me, someone who lost family in 9/11, anti-American and pro-Al Qaeda, except by those whose opinions ranged from 'fuck civilians, kill em all and let god sort it out' to 'nuke the entire country until it's nothing but a radioactive hole in the ground'. But I guess you feel I'm an antisemite because I similarly lack detailed battle plans for the IDF, and you're totally not of the opinion Israel would be justified in glassing Gaza.
You also seem to have a bit of a double standard of who's a 'political bedfellow' like maybe left-wing Jews should consider the right, because those who *would* support a straight up 2nd Holocaust, who are nearly universally far right, don't count for them, but our identity-obsessed extremists reflect on all progressives or even the left in general.
What is Marxism all about? Well, there're these good guys -- the workers -- who're horribly oppressed by these bad guys (capitalists). Anything the former do to "free" themselves from the latter's "oppression" is (historically!) justified. End of story.
“Today [a] ‘left-fascist’ foreign policy takes shape when self-declared progressives idealize reactionary regimes or movements overseas, such as Iran or Hezbollah, whose record on civil liberties, especially free speech, and their treatment of women and gays stand at odds with the values the left otherwise purports to uphold. That parts of the left are willing to enter into these alliances indicates the superficiality of their commitment to rights.” (source)
In a 1976 essay titled "Psychology of Modern Enthusiasm," framed as an open letter to an Israeli leftist (Amos Kenan), Soviet dissident Nahum Korzhavin exposes this feature of leftism. He demonstrates the preposterousness of Mr. Kenan bitterly complaining about the Left’s treatment of Israel — leftists’ highhanded dismissal of any rights (including the right to self-defense and the right to life!) that Israelis might have. He asks him: Weren’t (aren’t!) you just as willing to disregard others’ (e.g., “capitalists’,” “bourgeois’”) rights?
This is obviously true. But your basic Marxist ideology is just as "morally depraved" and "impervious to common decency." Read Ayn Rand if you don't understand what I mean. Anyone who is willing to go along with “redistribution of wealth” or “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” has already revealed himself to be a moral degenerate.
What perceived power hierarchy is a baby in? It turns any kind of sound moral thinking on its head to conceive of people simple as members of a class of any sort rather than as individuals. It's exactly the same sort of thinking as racists engage in, just with different classifications.
The "left" tends to root for anything that they perceive will increase their power. They build nothing and success is measured by how much destruction they can cause.
I think it would be more accurate to say "assigned" power hierarchies and "assigned" underdogs, because often that assignment has nothing to do with real world power. The meanest hardscrabble farmer in Appalachia has this sort of 'power', the children of a President lack it.
Because it's assigned, not observed.
A point I'd add is that there's a continual 'moral' arms race on the left, where one proves one's purity by taking ever more absurd positions. You can't stay in the in-group while maintaining a consistent position, it's a red queen's race.
So Israel is too good at fighting the wars the Arabs insist on starting and the Palestinians are really bad at fighting the wars they started?
Should the Israelis fight less well so as to make the Arabs feel better about themselves?
Spook says what?
You have to run to stay in place. You can’t just stand still.
If a feminist stands still and continues to hold the positions she held in the 1990s and 2000s, she becomes a TERF.
Anyone who stands still and holds to the positions many progressive leaders *claimed* to have at the beginning of the millennium concerning SSM becomes a homophobe.
etc.
Spook says what?
They had maps -- this wasn't some loose cannon going rogue.
And if Hamas were anything but a cadre of savages, if some loose cannon had returned with a couple hundred kidnapped persons, they'd have gone to either the Egyptians or (heaven forbid) the UN and said "please get these people home -- safely."
Spook says what?
Spook says what?
The key term is the past tense, "had."
Criticism of the Beijing regime is now a phobia. Leftists and Vermeulites concur on this.
The "Free Tibet" advocacy (and the sympathy for the Falun Gong) seems to operate on a parallel track, not interfering with the "stop Asian hate" talking points. (Anti-Asian racists spread the lab-leak theory!)
Define progress for us unenlightened clingers.
"yes, when it comes to policy leftists often think in terms of groups."
Just like racists on the right. Same mentality, different application. But note that, e.g., the Nazis also claimed that the Jews had "privilege" and thus could be dehumanized. If you are getting to the point when your objection to Naziism is based on empirics rather than morality, you are on the wrong side of history.
I think progress has a lot more to do with helping out working families (family in the old, repressive, patriarchal sense) than with defining new victim groups.
You'll need to explain that joke to me.
Of course new victim groups are getting defined, if that's uncharitable it's also quite true.
True.
Perhaps this is the time to point out that there is no prouder nationality than Jewish. No other people has given so many intellectual gifts to the human race, particularly considering their relatively small numbers.
Also years of Niggers calling us Hooknoses doesn't help bring us over to your "Side"
Too late, it's already unfunny.
Thanks. I try to be clear.
If you ever want to stop being evil, try building something instead of tearing things down or fighting to steal what someone else built.
Spook says what?
Spook says what?
Jake Tapper is a self-important asshole pretending to be a journalist/newsman.
No, I did not say that. But he sounded like a useful idiot this morning. The clip with General McCrystal, who failed in his assignment was telling. Why be so chickenshit as to put the words "wait a year to do anything" in someone else's mouth.
The Spook Speaks!
Ahh, now the Spook's gotta ex-spha-lane what he meant
When it comes to false equivalencies, obfuscating and dissembling no one beats the Queen.
Of course you do. Don't make me trot out the Heinlein quote again.
Spook knows he's a Spook at least, I mean, do I joke about Floyd George being a Homo and crying like a little bitch over a piss-ant arrest for trying to pass funny money? it was Minneapolis, if he hadn't taken a lethal dose of Fentanyl he'd still be beating up women and committing Class C Misdemeanors.
Do you suppose that Frank understands that "spook" is a racial epithet, or is he just parroting a term he picked up in some corner of the right-wing outrage-sphere, like a kid with a new swear word, not fully understanding the meaning?
Some jokes just die on the vine.
...or in the darkness.
Says big terrorist supporter.
Well, I'm sorry about whatever Trauma turned you into such a Bigot, but thanks for supporting Israel!!! (we still won't chose you)
You wouldn't know.
Spook says what? (HT FD)
Going through all the shit to go there in the next few weeks, not on the "Front Lines" although all of Israel is the "Front Lines" but to pass some gas, work some ICU while the real heroes are killing Terrorists, the 300,000 reservists aren't all trigger-pullers.
https://www.nbn.org.il/dr_volunteer/
Frank
You're right, you did really piss him off this time!
Now I know you're either brain damaged or been doing hard time, there's literally hundreds of thousands of Physicians practicing in Amurica who haven't mastered "Elementary English", they're called "Foreign Medical Graduates" and you can't go into a Dialysis clinic if you don't have a slight Indian accent (HT Parkinsonian Joe).
Frank
It's a wonder that conflation happens. Gazans voted Hamas into power. The lack of protests in Gaza and the lack of such protests by the Palestinian diaspora condemning the Einsatzgruppen like actions by Hamas on Oct 7 is an indication. I've seen plenty of calls for changes in Israeli leadership but nary a taste of calls for Hamas leadership change.
In that case the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were resounding successes.
I mean there's conservative and then there's literally stagnating in outdated views.
I would suggest that at the core, religion has little or nothing to do with the conflict, religion is just a tool that can be used to manipulate the population. Many of us feel culturally closer & more sympathetic to Israel, but that doesn't mean there are any "good guys" in the fight. Perhaps the civilians killed by armed men, regardless of what excuse those men offer.
What's at the heart of the conflict is a land dispute. If you (or your parents or grandparents) are driven away from your home by armed men, how long is it reasonable to try to reverse the situation? For Israelis today, the attempt is happening now, the same as if they came to your house and told you that you had a week to leave before they killed you. For Palestinians, the event was 70-80 years ago. For Native Americans, a few hundred years. For Zionists (pre-Israel) it was 2500 years. We need some reference time yardstick that can apply to all cases, if our position is not to be "possession is 10/10ths of the law". But the fact is, almost every spot on earth has experienced this multiple times. It's not clear that any just solution exists.
If it was about justice for the Jews after WW2, they would have gotten Germany, the principal offender. But I imagine most weren't keen on living there, they had a religious mythology centered on Jerusalem, and international politics wouldn't have cooperated anyhow (the game was then East vs. West, plus nobody wanted bands of disgruntled German vets roaming around Europe, where they might have arms stashes). The UK agreed to give them their "colony" of Palestine, to the detriment of many who lived there.
Did Jerry say that? No he did not.
So, what is your point.
“Fortunately these pro-Hamas Manichaeans are a fringe.”
I wish that I could believe that, but after hearing Jake Tapper’s editorial this morning (counseling that Israel should wait a year before doing anything) I am not so sure.
This is not a sentence about a useful idiot.
Spook speaks when it's spoken to! (say that 3 times fast)
Spook Speaks Back! OK, maybe because Engrish is my second language?? what's yours?
Which outdated views are you referring to?
Fuck you. Most modern racists are on the left with their bigotry of low expectations in every aspect of life. You hate the right, I get it, so go get back in bed with the racist anti-semitic marxists you excuse and seem to love so much.
I would suggest that at the core, religion has little or nothing to do with the conflict, religion is just a tool that can be used to manipulate the population. Many of us feel culturally closer & more sympathetic to Israel, but that doesn’t mean there are any “good guys” in the fight. Perhaps the civilians killed by armed men, regardless of what excuse those men offer.
What’s at the heart of the conflict is a land dispute.
Yes, that's why nobody hated and tried to kill Jews based on their ethnicity prior to the formation of the state of Israel. And of course religion doesn't drive groups like Hamas/Hezbollah at all. I mean, how could their fanatical devotion to a religious text that says things like...
"Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him — except for the gharqad tree, which is one of the trees of the Jews.”
...possibly motivate hatred for Jews and a desire to kill them?