Shame on you. It is a vile mischaracterization to say that progressives are anti-Israeli or even anti-Zionist. Instead they are opposed to the brutal policy of the current Israeli government which follows more than 50 years of predecessor regimes refusing to seriously deal with recognition of Palestinian rights to a homeland, in the meanwhile keeping those Palestinians captive, second class citizens on their own land. Those regimes depended politically on factions of West Bank Jewish settlers, Right wingers, and religious fundamentalists. They pretended some commitment to a two-state solution all the while undermining the negotiating process by actively getting money to the most radical and vehememently anti-Israeli Palestinian actors while more responsible Palestinian leaders were discredited in the eyes of their own people for cooperating with their Israeli jailers. Netanyahu got the Palestinian leaders he wanted--Hamas--so that he could provoke them into inviting a war of destruction. And Hamas got the Israeli leader they wanted--Netanyahu--who would never permit the detente that was coming until Hamas embarked on their unspeakably blood course.
This Hamas-Netanyahu axis based a lot around funding as well is being completely ignored by Western media and is really the basis for the conflict to begin with. No different than the West provoking Putin to invade Ukraine and then falling back on pearl clutching and hand wringing of Putinist expansionism when in truth it’s territorial protectionism. Interesting too, nobody talks about the Israeli Military Intelligence Brief of October 23,2023 titled Options for Public Policy Regarding Gaza’s Civilian Population. In it the preferred Option C - Evacuation of civilian populations to Sinai are discussed in detail both operationally and politically. So much of this is open source knowledge yet completely ignored.
The question with this is how much influence Israel's Ministry of Intelligence actually has. Several other initiatives that they seemed to be pursuing - talking to African countries about resettling Gazans there - have come to nothing.
Re Russia, I have to say that I've never understood this argument from the left that everybody else is acting in their own rational self-interest, while only the US is conniving and imperialistic. I assume that when you talk about "provocations," you mean NATO's eastward expansion in the '90s and then greater ties between the US and Ukraine in the 2010s, particularly within intelligence-sharing? I guess I would see that as taking on a new alliance possibly beyond the reach of what's sustainable, but I certainly don't think there was ever an intention of "provoking" an invasion. I also don't see how invading a sovereign state counts as "territorial protectionism." Putin, like Hamas, has agency here.
Hi Sam. We can always talk in terms of questions as a back and forth in regards to present conditions so let’s refer instead to the past and clear historical transgressions of US hegemony and failed empire everyone without an agenda clearly agrees on. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are its most recent examples of vast geopolitical overreach to the extent it’s easily argued criminal intent was involved. Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger are surely war criminals under international law as is Netanyahu today. Genocide is now also a valid claim by international law that needs proper investigation along with the mass graves found in Gaza. So really what you’re saying by your line of questioning is - “this time is different”? And yet nobody from the Israel lobby has clearly outlined why Palestinians need be forced from their homeland? As if that’s even a reasoned line of thought. So instead all arguments for genocide are cloaked now in antisemitism as the cause. This is an obvious political creation once again and most people no longer believe this cynical abstraction. Which is a great moment btw!!
As to Ukraine, we can’t really discuss it in detail as again you refuse to even allow for even the most basic of historical and factual analysis to enter your arguments. Victoria Nuland, for example, was instrumental in the 2014 regime change that has been extensively documented and subsequently fired for her failures in the proceeding failed war with Russia. Let’s just say for arguments sake Ukraine will lose this war miserably in 2024-25 as it will almost certainly do. How was that possible given all the billions in funding from the US? I’ll ask you again when it comes to fruition.
"Anti-Zionist," which is now a widespread rallying cry in ongoing protests, clearly does not mean "two-state solution" or equity within Israel. "Anti-Zionist" can only mean "no Israel." I also genuinely don't understand the argument that, because the Israeli regime had worked with Hamas, they are somehow morally complicit in inviting the 10/7 attack. Maybe that was a failed policy but why is that on Israel's moral ledger?
There's no argument that it's valid for progressives (or anyone else) to criticize decades of Israeli policy towards Palestinians. But "anti-Zionism" means something else.
"Anti-Zionism" is an imprecise term, but it is not useless.
Moving 6 million white European Jews into the Middle East is certainly Zionism. (I allow 1 million out of a total of 7 million Israeli Jews for Middle Eastern Jews.) One meaning then would be to say "This is a bad idea." Of course, that meaning is useless now.
Another possible meaning for anti-Zionism would be "Let's move the 6 million European Jews somewhere else." I think that meaning alarms you. I avoid dwelling on that meaning by a simple line of thought, "It would require a nuclear war."
Another meaning would be, "Let's not steal any more land from West Bank and East Jerusalem Palestinians." That meaning is both logical and useful.
Also consider "Zionism-lite". That meaning would certainly include a two-state solution and the one-state solution which you call "equity". It would also include "Stop destroying Gaza and pay to rebuild it." The final possibility is certainly logical, ethical, and about as likely as saying "Restore to life 35,000 Palestinians."
Another implied meaning would be "Stop lying about Palestinians." For example, stop saying "Palestinians hate Jews" when the truth is that Palestinians hate occupation. (2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel apparently do not hate Jews, though they resent the fact that they don't have full equality.)
The biggest lie is this: "We are fighting an existential war." (Yair Lapid in NYT) When prime minister Netanyahu and opposition leader Lapid agree precisely, you can know that this is either undeniable or dogma. And since the notion that 30,000 guerilla fighters armed with rifles and unguided rockets can overwhelm one of the strongest military forces in the world is ludicrous, it must be dogma.
Of course, the most important thing about the phrase anti-Zionism is that it contradicts the false notion that opposing occupation is antisemitism.
BTW funding Hamas was not a failed policy. Since the goal was to sabotage a two-state solution, it was highly successful.
Sam, There is no basis to say that any Israeli government in the past 20 years has done anything positive to restore any land or independent self government to the subjugated Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, instead official Israel policy has been to steal more Palestinian land and water, and tightening degrading restrictions on everyday life. In the process Israel first squandered the moral highground they had occupied in world politics and now, carrying on this campaign of murder masquerading as a military exercise they have simultaneously alienated everyone who might have made an honest judgment of the situation and made it possible for both their enemies and anti-semites across the world to cast them as brutes. If the Israeli government doesn't quickly agree to a cease fire there will be generations of bloodshed. Do you think any Israelis who looked to their government to keep them secure, can imagine the lives of their grandchildren growing more secure as the number of Palestinian civilians continuing to die is well past 25,000? Secondly, do you really contend that Israeli 'cooperation' with Hamas wasn't a cynical ploy to elevate Hamas at the expense of other, more moderate Palestinians who, not tarred with the label 'terrorist' might have generated more political support inside and outside Palestine. This Israeli government has brought Israel to a tipping point after which Israel will be, like the Jews of the Holocaust, alone, truly alone. And this rash of political theater claiming to fight anti-semitism will disappear, and the haters of Jews will have the field to themselves.
Well, I'm not sure how you're evaluating the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. (Are you tweaking the timeline and scope - "last 20 years in the West Bank" - just to not address that?) I'm also not sure how the Second Intifada, Hamas' incessant rockets, and 10/7 fit into your narrative. Lots to criticize in Israeli policy! - but let's not pretend that this isn't a two-way street.
I genuinely don't follow the logic in saying that Israel's working with Hamas makes them somehow morally culpable for Hamas' subsequent actions. Hamas had, after all, taken control in Gaza and had a degree of electoral legitimacy. Maybe that was bad policy - in retrospect, Hamas was clearly banking everything on the 10/7 attack - but it's not surprising that Israel would work with the powers-that-be in the Gaza Strip.
The genocide/ethinic-cleansing that of Gaza is so evil, and the US is so complicit, that if the result of protest is 4 more years of Trump, then I accept this as karma/justice for the US.
I just read a book by Batya Ungar-Sargon about the working class called Second Class. I don't buy all her economic arguments, but I do buy this: the working class is predisposed to view immigration as having been very harmful to their economic condition. That's their perception, true or not. And that's bad for Biden as is campus disorder.
Andrew Sullivan has an interesting article where he says that the Democrats' failure to achieve any cohesive position on illegal immigration is the number one reason why Trump may well be reelected in the fall. And I guess I see that: how can people across the country see the influx of below-minimum wage labor as anything other than an attack on their own livelihoods?
The reporting she does on the views of the working class gives a valuable insight.
How immigration, illegal and not, affects wages and opportunities is far more complex than she and the people she interviews thinks. But what matters in the near term is perception. And saying that you'll be super tough on immigration is a winning issue for Trump.
Shame on you. It is a vile mischaracterization to say that progressives are anti-Israeli or even anti-Zionist. Instead they are opposed to the brutal policy of the current Israeli government which follows more than 50 years of predecessor regimes refusing to seriously deal with recognition of Palestinian rights to a homeland, in the meanwhile keeping those Palestinians captive, second class citizens on their own land. Those regimes depended politically on factions of West Bank Jewish settlers, Right wingers, and religious fundamentalists. They pretended some commitment to a two-state solution all the while undermining the negotiating process by actively getting money to the most radical and vehememently anti-Israeli Palestinian actors while more responsible Palestinian leaders were discredited in the eyes of their own people for cooperating with their Israeli jailers. Netanyahu got the Palestinian leaders he wanted--Hamas--so that he could provoke them into inviting a war of destruction. And Hamas got the Israeli leader they wanted--Netanyahu--who would never permit the detente that was coming until Hamas embarked on their unspeakably blood course.
This Hamas-Netanyahu axis based a lot around funding as well is being completely ignored by Western media and is really the basis for the conflict to begin with. No different than the West provoking Putin to invade Ukraine and then falling back on pearl clutching and hand wringing of Putinist expansionism when in truth it’s territorial protectionism. Interesting too, nobody talks about the Israeli Military Intelligence Brief of October 23,2023 titled Options for Public Policy Regarding Gaza’s Civilian Population. In it the preferred Option C - Evacuation of civilian populations to Sinai are discussed in detail both operationally and politically. So much of this is open source knowledge yet completely ignored.
Hi Medium,
I wrote a bit about the agitation for resettlement among Israel's right here - https://samkahn.substack.com/p/commentator-008
The question with this is how much influence Israel's Ministry of Intelligence actually has. Several other initiatives that they seemed to be pursuing - talking to African countries about resettling Gazans there - have come to nothing.
Re Russia, I have to say that I've never understood this argument from the left that everybody else is acting in their own rational self-interest, while only the US is conniving and imperialistic. I assume that when you talk about "provocations," you mean NATO's eastward expansion in the '90s and then greater ties between the US and Ukraine in the 2010s, particularly within intelligence-sharing? I guess I would see that as taking on a new alliance possibly beyond the reach of what's sustainable, but I certainly don't think there was ever an intention of "provoking" an invasion. I also don't see how invading a sovereign state counts as "territorial protectionism." Putin, like Hamas, has agency here.
Hi Sam. We can always talk in terms of questions as a back and forth in regards to present conditions so let’s refer instead to the past and clear historical transgressions of US hegemony and failed empire everyone without an agenda clearly agrees on. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are its most recent examples of vast geopolitical overreach to the extent it’s easily argued criminal intent was involved. Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger are surely war criminals under international law as is Netanyahu today. Genocide is now also a valid claim by international law that needs proper investigation along with the mass graves found in Gaza. So really what you’re saying by your line of questioning is - “this time is different”? And yet nobody from the Israel lobby has clearly outlined why Palestinians need be forced from their homeland? As if that’s even a reasoned line of thought. So instead all arguments for genocide are cloaked now in antisemitism as the cause. This is an obvious political creation once again and most people no longer believe this cynical abstraction. Which is a great moment btw!!
As to Ukraine, we can’t really discuss it in detail as again you refuse to even allow for even the most basic of historical and factual analysis to enter your arguments. Victoria Nuland, for example, was instrumental in the 2014 regime change that has been extensively documented and subsequently fired for her failures in the proceeding failed war with Russia. Let’s just say for arguments sake Ukraine will lose this war miserably in 2024-25 as it will almost certainly do. How was that possible given all the billions in funding from the US? I’ll ask you again when it comes to fruition.
Hi Paul,
"Anti-Zionist," which is now a widespread rallying cry in ongoing protests, clearly does not mean "two-state solution" or equity within Israel. "Anti-Zionist" can only mean "no Israel." I also genuinely don't understand the argument that, because the Israeli regime had worked with Hamas, they are somehow morally complicit in inviting the 10/7 attack. Maybe that was a failed policy but why is that on Israel's moral ledger?
There's no argument that it's valid for progressives (or anyone else) to criticize decades of Israeli policy towards Palestinians. But "anti-Zionism" means something else.
- Sam
"Anti-Zionism" is an imprecise term, but it is not useless.
Moving 6 million white European Jews into the Middle East is certainly Zionism. (I allow 1 million out of a total of 7 million Israeli Jews for Middle Eastern Jews.) One meaning then would be to say "This is a bad idea." Of course, that meaning is useless now.
Another possible meaning for anti-Zionism would be "Let's move the 6 million European Jews somewhere else." I think that meaning alarms you. I avoid dwelling on that meaning by a simple line of thought, "It would require a nuclear war."
Another meaning would be, "Let's not steal any more land from West Bank and East Jerusalem Palestinians." That meaning is both logical and useful.
Also consider "Zionism-lite". That meaning would certainly include a two-state solution and the one-state solution which you call "equity". It would also include "Stop destroying Gaza and pay to rebuild it." The final possibility is certainly logical, ethical, and about as likely as saying "Restore to life 35,000 Palestinians."
Another implied meaning would be "Stop lying about Palestinians." For example, stop saying "Palestinians hate Jews" when the truth is that Palestinians hate occupation. (2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel apparently do not hate Jews, though they resent the fact that they don't have full equality.)
The biggest lie is this: "We are fighting an existential war." (Yair Lapid in NYT) When prime minister Netanyahu and opposition leader Lapid agree precisely, you can know that this is either undeniable or dogma. And since the notion that 30,000 guerilla fighters armed with rifles and unguided rockets can overwhelm one of the strongest military forces in the world is ludicrous, it must be dogma.
Of course, the most important thing about the phrase anti-Zionism is that it contradicts the false notion that opposing occupation is antisemitism.
BTW funding Hamas was not a failed policy. Since the goal was to sabotage a two-state solution, it was highly successful.
Sam, There is no basis to say that any Israeli government in the past 20 years has done anything positive to restore any land or independent self government to the subjugated Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, instead official Israel policy has been to steal more Palestinian land and water, and tightening degrading restrictions on everyday life. In the process Israel first squandered the moral highground they had occupied in world politics and now, carrying on this campaign of murder masquerading as a military exercise they have simultaneously alienated everyone who might have made an honest judgment of the situation and made it possible for both their enemies and anti-semites across the world to cast them as brutes. If the Israeli government doesn't quickly agree to a cease fire there will be generations of bloodshed. Do you think any Israelis who looked to their government to keep them secure, can imagine the lives of their grandchildren growing more secure as the number of Palestinian civilians continuing to die is well past 25,000? Secondly, do you really contend that Israeli 'cooperation' with Hamas wasn't a cynical ploy to elevate Hamas at the expense of other, more moderate Palestinians who, not tarred with the label 'terrorist' might have generated more political support inside and outside Palestine. This Israeli government has brought Israel to a tipping point after which Israel will be, like the Jews of the Holocaust, alone, truly alone. And this rash of political theater claiming to fight anti-semitism will disappear, and the haters of Jews will have the field to themselves.
Well, I'm not sure how you're evaluating the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. (Are you tweaking the timeline and scope - "last 20 years in the West Bank" - just to not address that?) I'm also not sure how the Second Intifada, Hamas' incessant rockets, and 10/7 fit into your narrative. Lots to criticize in Israeli policy! - but let's not pretend that this isn't a two-way street.
I genuinely don't follow the logic in saying that Israel's working with Hamas makes them somehow morally culpable for Hamas' subsequent actions. Hamas had, after all, taken control in Gaza and had a degree of electoral legitimacy. Maybe that was bad policy - in retrospect, Hamas was clearly banking everything on the 10/7 attack - but it's not surprising that Israel would work with the powers-that-be in the Gaza Strip.
This is good. I we'll finish reading it later.
Lately my thoughts have been along these lines:
The genocide/ethinic-cleansing that of Gaza is so evil, and the US is so complicit, that if the result of protest is 4 more years of Trump, then I accept this as karma/justice for the US.
Thank you Peter, although I think we come to different conclusions!
I just read a book by Batya Ungar-Sargon about the working class called Second Class. I don't buy all her economic arguments, but I do buy this: the working class is predisposed to view immigration as having been very harmful to their economic condition. That's their perception, true or not. And that's bad for Biden as is campus disorder.
Thank you David! How is the book?
Andrew Sullivan has an interesting article where he says that the Democrats' failure to achieve any cohesive position on illegal immigration is the number one reason why Trump may well be reelected in the fall. And I guess I see that: how can people across the country see the influx of below-minimum wage labor as anything other than an attack on their own livelihoods?
The reporting she does on the views of the working class gives a valuable insight.
How immigration, illegal and not, affects wages and opportunities is far more complex than she and the people she interviews thinks. But what matters in the near term is perception. And saying that you'll be super tough on immigration is a winning issue for Trump.