Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates

[Silvanus]

Oh for goodness sake...

"The far-left and/or grassroots left," which have some overlap, even if it isn't 1:1, and no, I don't have statistics on how much overlap there is, routinely display anti-semitism that no, cannot be quanitifed, but has been observed countless times, is a matter of historical fact from Marx to Stalinism, and has reared its ugly head in the last week

Look. Do you know what "grassroots" means? It broadly refers to street-level support: a party or movement's volunteers, door-knockers, recruiters and pamphleteers, as well as activists and members. In any given country, that's millions of ordinary people, including those who just go out to volunteer at election time, or the rank-and-file membership for dozens of mainstream political parties or industry unions.

This isn't a "gotcha". If you're characterising a base that broad as "rabidly" anti-Semitic, you're tarring a gigantic proportion of ordinary people, including quite a few friends of mine.

I know that's not the sentence you highlighted, I was referring to the link in the sentence you highlighted.

....in which the author provides no substantiation for the actual claim in the article, which concerns the sentence I quoted and has nothing to do with the sentence you quoted.

I'd agree in principle, but you're talking about two separate articles, one that details with an idea for a three-state solution, one that details with anti-semitism on the left. You're talking about two separate articles out of a series of articles, neither of which have some grand declaration of non-partisanship.

Directly from the title of the article I'm criticising: "A personal, non-partisan..."
So yes, they claimed non-partisanship, and then made specious claims about one side only.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Except Noah Smith isn't excusing genocide. Like, at all. I don't know how you got from that article, not to mention that in the three-state article, he points out, uneqivoably, that ethnic cleansing is bad, period (which apparently we can't even agree on, but whatever).

You're rallying against arguments of your own imagination.

It's a fig leaf, I've been watching these arguments unfold all week now, as well as the tenor of that argument for years. It is absolutely genocide apologia by virtue of ignoring what Israel is doing and focusing exclusively on Palestine, and delegitimizing the pro-Palestine movement by trying to link them broadly to Hamas. He can say otherwise and you can be naive enough to believe him, but that argument is being used right now to actively clamp down on pro-Palestine protests, mostly in the EU. And what's telling is his "non-partisan" take has made no mention of

ISRAEL CURRENTLY ETHNICALLY CLEANSING THE PALESTINIANS, MURDERING JOURNALISTS, AND THREATENING MSF HOSPITALS IN THE REGION WITH BOMBINGS.

Hamas was incorrect in their actions, but they absolutely pale in comparison with Israel's viciousness and capacity for atrocity.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[Gergar12]

Gaza civilians afraid to leave home after bombing of ‘safe routes’

Analysis of aerial photos and social media posts confirms attack on road identified as safe by Israeli army

www.theguardian.com

Fog of war means we don't know who did it. There are people on Twitter saying that Hamas planted roadside bombs.

 

[Ag3ma]

is a matter of historical fact from Marx to Stalinism, and has reared its ugly head in the last week,

These would be those mythical communists everyone likes to talk a lot about, but who in practice don't really exist outside a tiny rump of dedicated ideologues who'd struggle to elect an MP even if every single one of them moved into the same constituency.

No, they really are not the grassroots left.

I do wish people would stop talking about communism as if it were any kind of force that mattered a damn in the modern world. It isn't a force. Sure, you might occasionally see a poster inviting you to a discussion group round town or come across a genuine commie on t'internet, but in practice they're just a traditional boogeyman - a storybook monster dragged out of history to scare the centreists and keep them in line.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

These would be those mythical communists everyone likes to talk a lot about, but who in practice don't really exist outside a tiny rump of dedicated ideologues who'd struggle to elect an MP even if every single one of them moved into the same constituency.

No, they really are not the grassroots left.

I do wish people would stop talking about communism as if it were any kind of force that mattered a damn in the modern world. It isn't a force. Sure, you might occasionally see a poster inviting you to a discussion group round town or come across one on t'internet, but in truth they're just a traditional boogeyman - a storybook monster dragged out of history to scare the centreists and keep them in line.

I mean, China is still wearing the decomposing skin it flayed of communisms corpse`...

 

[Silvanus]

I mean, China is still wearing the decomposing skin it flayed of communisms corpse`...

Yep, while operating one of the most nakedly corporatist and hierarchical governments on the planet, alongside the United States.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Yep, while operating one of the most nakedly corporatist and hierarchical governments on the planet, alongside the United States.

Not arguing, just saying that their still wearing that corpse.

 

[Alienware]

Have you guys seen this? It's worth a look

 

[Hawki]

Look. Do you know what "grassroots" means? It broadly refers to street-level support: a party or movement's volunteers, door-knockers, recruiters and pamphleteers, as well as activists and members. In any given country, that's millions of ordinary people, including those who just go out to volunteer at election time, or the rank-and-file membership for dozens of mainstream political parties or industry unions.

Yes. And?

This isn't a "gotcha". If you're characterising a base that broad as "rabidly" anti-Semitic, you're tarring a gigantic proportion of ordinary people, including quite a few friends of mine.

Except I didn't characterise the base as anti-semitic. The very post you're quoting shows I didn't.

Are you seriously that frail that any statement of fact of fact has to be quantified with the phrase "not all X?"

....in which the author provides no substantiation for the actual claim in the article, which concerns the sentence I quoted and has nothing to do with the sentence you quoted.

Again. Follow the link.

Directly from the title of the article I'm criticising: "A personal, non-partisan..."
So yes, they claimed non-partisanship, and then made specious claims about one side only.

This is specious reasoning, and you should know it.

False balance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's specious because:

1: If you want to talk about far right protestors supporting Hamas in the same way, find some. To link this back to the protest thing, over the last week in Oz, the police have had to stand on guard at synagogues and Jewish schools, and ASIO's raised the terror level. They're not obliged to do the same thing for every religious school and mosque. If there's targeted attacks on one particular group, and people respond to those targeted attacks, it's the height of idiocy to say "what about other groups?"

2: I did a word search for "personal, non-partisan" before realizing you've switched from the Smith articles to the Medium article. Anyway, to go over the article:

or has going to the Al-Aqsa mosque and desecrating it. Nor do blockades and bombings and indiscriminate subjugation of a whole people. Nor does refusing to talk to non-terrorist leaders in Palestine. Nor does illegally continuing to expand and steal what is left of Palestinian land, as many Jews and Israelis have been doing in the 21st century despite cries from the global community to stop. A violent response was predictable — in fact, plenty of people did predict it.

Or more tellingly:

You cannot keep two million people living in the conditions people in Gaza are living in and expect peace.

Yep. The author sure is only focusing on one side there, mate.

 

[Hawki]

Snip

All of this, you might have a leg to stand upon if, again, you had more than two articles to draw from. If, however, you're talking about the Medium article (since you and Sil can't seem to decide what articles you're responding to), again, look at the quotes I've posted.

These would be those mythical communists everyone likes to talk a lot about, but who in practice don't really exist outside a tiny rump of dedicated ideologues who'd struggle to elect an MP even if every single one of them moved into the same constituency.

No, they really are not the grassroots left.

Did reading comprehension nosedive over the last week?

The grassroots left are not communists. There's only a handful of idealogues, as you say. Communism is dead apart from a few countries. All of this is true. Now point out where I ever said anything to the contrary.

What I did point out is that left-wing anti-semitism is well documented, and I used Stalin's USSR as an example of that, since while it's not as infamous as Nazi Germany, there were still pogroms and such as well. This is a historical fact.

I do wish people would stop talking about communism as if it were any kind of force that mattered a damn in the modern world. It isn't a force. Sure, you might occasionally see a poster inviting you to a discussion group round town or come across a genuine commie on t'internet, but in practice they're just a traditional boogeyman - a storybook monster dragged out of history to scare the centreists and keep them in line.

I completely agree, but again, this isn't a discussion about communism, is it?

It's like I post a single word and regardless of context, people jump on it and derive a different meaning.

Yep, while operating one of the most nakedly corporatist and hierarchical governments on the planet, alongside the United States.

So basically you're saying that all Chinese and Americans are naked greedy assholes.

(What? I'm just using your own logic.)

 

[crimson5pheonix]

All of this, you might have a leg to stand upon if, again, you had more than two articles to draw from. If, however, you're talking about the Medium article (since you and Sil can't seem to decide what articles you're responding to), again, look at the quotes I've posted.

Nobody cares about the quotes, nobody cares about the shit take guy you posted. Because it's blatantly apologia for genocide. What he posted about doesn't matter. It's irrelevant.

 

[Silvanus]

Except I didn't characterise the base as anti-semitic. The very post you're quoting shows I didn't.

Are you seriously that frail that any statement of fact of fact has to be quantified with the phrase "not all X?"

The article very clearly makes broad and sweeping generalisations about the "grassroots left". Then you did too. If you want to make shit-slinging accusations about broad swathes of the political spectrum, you need to expect members of the group you're accusing to respond and dispute it.

Again. Follow the link.

Again. Read what the actual claim is.

This is specious reasoning, and you should know it.

False balance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's specious because:

1: If you want to talk about far right protestors supporting Hamas in the same way, find some. To link this back to the protest thing, over the last week in Oz, the police have had to stand on guard at synagogues and Jewish schools, and ASIO's raised the terror level. They're not obliged to do the same thing for every religious school and mosque. If there's targeted attacks on one particular group, and people respond to those targeted attacks, it's the height of idiocy to say "what about other groups?"

If the article claims non-partisanship in a two-sided conflict with atrocities on both sides, and then exclusively focuses on one while saying zip about the other, then it's hardly idiocy to point out the inconsistent approach.

 

[Silvanus]

So basically you're saying that all Chinese and Americans are naked greedy assholes.

(What? I'm just using your own logic.)

Hm, except for the fact I was talking about two countries' governments, whereas you were throwing an accusation at millions of unaffiliated individuals worldwide.

 

[Hawki]

The article very clearly makes broad and sweeping generalisations about the "grassroots left". Then you did too. If you want to make shit-slinging accusations about broad swathes of the political spectrum, you need to expect members of the group you're accusing to respond and dispute it.

And what, exactly, have you disputed bar devolving into semantics?

I've given examples, I've given history, you've countered neither.

Again. Read what the actual claim is.

Again. Actually address the claim.

If the article claims non-partisanship in a two-sided conflict with atrocities on both sides, and then exclusively focuses on one while saying zip about the other, then it's hardly idiocy to point out the inconsistent approach.

So the fact that entire paragraphs are dedicated to Israeli war crimes escapes your notice?

This is getting insane. It's either intentional obfuscation (as I suspect), or...actually, I don't know what. Maybe Islamophilia (since you were fine with embassy burnings), but apart from that, I've got nothing.

Hm, except for the fact I was talking about two countries' governments, whereas you were throwing an accusation at millions of unaffiliated individuals worldwide.

What, exactly, have I accused people of that hasn't been verified?

 

[Silvanus]

And what, exactly, have you disputed bar devolving into semantics?

I've given examples, I've given history, you've countered neither.

I've disputed the characterisation of millions of people globally-- mainstream party members, volunteers, unionists and campaigners-- including quite a few good friends of mine, as "rabidly antisemitic" based on those specific examples and history.

Again. Actually address the claim.

The claim in the article-- that the sentence "75 years of occupation" automatically indicates support for ethnic cleansing-- is utterly moronic on its face. Ethnic cleansing is simply not indicated in any rational way in that sentence. I addressed it right at the start.

So the fact that entire paragraphs are dedicated to Israeli war crimes escapes your notice?

This is getting insane. It's either intentional obfuscation (as I suspect), or...actually, I don't know what. Maybe Islamophilia (since you were fine with embassy burnings), but apart from that, I've got nothing.

Entire paragraphs aren't dedicated to Israeli war crimes in the article I'm disputing.

The part about me being "fine with embassy burnings" is just a despicable fucking lie.

What, exactly, have I accused people of that hasn't been verified?

Rabid anti-Semitism, which you accused a broad group of people ("the grassroots left") which includes good friends of mine, election campaigners, who've never done a fucking thing to justify that slur.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

According to a comment, that was just a warning shot, and the building was leveled fifteen minutes later.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Hamas critique removed from Palestinians' Abbas comments on Israel attack

The Palestinian Authority's official news agency published comments on Sunday by President Mahmoud Abbas that criticized Hamas over its actions but later removed reference to the militant group without providing an explanation.

www.reuters.com

 

[Specter Von Baren]

These would be those mythical communists everyone likes to talk a lot about, but who in practice don't really exist outside a tiny rump of dedicated ideologues who'd struggle to elect an MP even if every single one of them moved into the same constituency.

No, they really are not the grassroots left.

I do wish people would stop talking about communism as if it were any kind of force that mattered a damn in the modern world. It isn't a force. Sure, you might occasionally see a poster inviting you to a discussion group round town or come across a genuine commie on t'internet, but in practice they're just a traditional boogeyman - a storybook monster dragged out of history to scare the centreists and keep them in line.

"Mythical"? Marx was anti-Semitic

 

[Hawki]

I've disputed the characterisation of millions of people globally-- mainstream party members, volunteers, unionists and campaigners-- including quite a few good friends of mine, as "rabidly antisemitic" based on those specific examples and history.

I DID NOT say millions of people. I explicitly said that I didn't have figures, and it's absolute idiocy to descend into a numbers game. I DID NOT say that your friends are antisemitic, because I have no idea who your friends are (frankly, I don't care).

Even in your own quote you mention "specific examples" and "history." So you're well aware that I'm citing specific examples of anti-semitism on the far left and/or grassroots left, that I'm citing the history of antisemitism on the far left that has manifested at various points in time (most notably in the USSR, round about the 20s and 30s IIRC), and instead you've decided to take personal offence.

The claim in the article-- that the sentence "75 years of occupation" automatically indicates support for ethnic cleansing-- is utterly moronic on its face. Ethnic cleansing is simply not indicated in any rational way in that sentence. I addressed it right at the start.

Again. Follow. The. Link.

You're focusing on the wording and not the article it links to.

Entire paragraphs aren't dedicated to Israeli war crimes in the article I'm disputing.

This is an asinine argument. Your entire premise seems to be that if the article isn't focused entirely on Israeli war crimes, it must be biaised in favour of Israel. I could just as easily argue it's in favour of Hamas because it doesn't spend every paragraph on Hamas war crimes.

Actually consider this context, just for a moment. Suppose I'm writing an article on the breakup of Yugoslavia. War crimes were comitted by practically every state that emerged from that clusterfuck. I could cover Serbian war crimes, I could cover Bosnian war crimes, etc. By the logic you're presenting, you could say I'm biaised in favour of any one state because I don't spend every single paragraph focusing entirely on that state.

I mean, wow. Just, wow.

The part about me being "fine with embassy burnings" is just a despicable fucking lie.

Pot, meet kettle.

And yes, you rationalized embassy burnings in what should have been a simple matter. A Quran was burnt in protest, embassies were burnt in response, and you spent all that time equivocating.

Rabid anti-Semitism, which you accused a broad group of people ("the grassroots left") which includes good friends of mine, election campaigners, who've never done a fucking thing to justify that slur.

Again, that's another fucking lie - you're trying to turn demonstrable observations, as cited in various articles, as some kind of personal smear.

So again, I did not say the entire far left and/or grassroots left are anti-semitic, I said that anti-semitism was found in these areas. I did not say millions of people, I did not say everyone in these areas is anti-semitic, I did not say anything about your "friends" (who I don't know anything about), and I don't care about your "friends." Unless your "friends" are on this forum, they're completely academic.