Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Prior to Medieval times? Even most of Europe was still forming the nations that exist now within the last century or two. Israel is older that a fair number of countries globally, many of which include ongoing ethnic conflicts because the governments are not equally representative of all peoples ruled by them geographically. That's like every civil war on the planet right now.
There has been a sea change in the last few centuries here, though. One of the most important is probably the development of nationalism, particularly in the 19th century, which increasingly started to identify states with nations (which is to say "nation" as a relatively distinct and coherent racial / cultural group) when before states were just whatever land they could grab. Most of the development of European nations in the last 200 years has been the establishment of nation states, away from unwieldy empires. Much of that driven by the fact that varied peoples in those empires increasingly resented and resisted "foreign" rulership.

In the process, wars have largely been about a) asserting control of territory that states have believed populated by their nation, or b) just establishing dominance. You can even see that now in Ukraine - a major plank of Putin's de facto underlying rationale is that Ukrainians are not a distinct people but misguided Russians, who should therefore be under the control of the Russian state. Thus actually relatively few wars have involved the sort of wholesale conquest you suggest.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
As to him recanting, the closest I could find is the Labour party (not him directly) issuing a statement saying "no actually, he didn't say that, don't believe your lying ears". No it's really not impressive. He's just a genocide fan that you like.
Sure, okay then, let's run with that.

Seeing as you're always sticking up for Seanchaidh, you buddy up to the friends of Putin and all the war crimes Russia commits, and your defence of Hamas means you're chummy with terrorists. So how do you feel about supporting repressive, murderous, anti-gay, anti-trans, misogynist authoritarian regimes? Is that fun for you? Gee, thanks for telling us what you actually believe in under that faux-progressive schtick.

You see, if you want to take that sort of line then you can go down to hell with everyone else, because someone's blood will be vicariously on your hands, too.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,360
3,548
118
Sure, okay then, let's run with that.

Seeing as you're always sticking up for Seanchaidh, you buddy up to the friends of Putin and all the war crimes Russia commits, and your defence of Hamas means you're chummy with terrorists. So how do you feel about supporting repressive, murderous, anti-gay, anti-trans, misogynist authoritarian regimes? Is that fun for you? Gee, thanks for telling us what you actually believe in under that faux-progressive schtick.

You see, if you want to take that sort of line then you can go down to hell with everyone else, because someone's blood will be vicariously on your hands, too.
The difference being that I haven't defended Putin or Hamas, you've defended Zionism directly.

I'll grant that your last post was a far better defense than the one I called mealy mouthed, it actually tried to rebut the claim that he's a war crime fan and that he's a Zionist. At that point it came down to whether one would believe him or not. Having seen his actions and his contemporaries, I'm not particularly inclined to believe him, but it at least serves as the foundation of a debate.

But your first instinctual defense when presented with him advocating for war crimes to displace people was to not at all deny he was trying for Zionism and just took it in stride that he wanted to oppress Palestinian civilians. You tried to convince everyone he's not a monster by saying his stated desire to hurt innocents wasn't a war crime in his mind. That was an extreme level of telling on yourself.

I think Starmer, who I do not like, is less likely a Zionist and more likely terrified of not appearing sufficiently pro-Israel, given it was the stick used to beat Corbyn many times. Starmer does not strike me as a man who has opinions not birthed within focus groups.
My argument is that it's a largely immaterial distinction if he's just going to do everything Zionists want, he may as well be one himself.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,800
6,155
118
Country
United Kingdom
My argument is that it's a largely immaterial distinction if he's just going to do everything Zionists want, he may as well be one himself.
Keep in mind the context in which this originally came up. It was a claim that the purge of the Labour Party was 'directed by Zionists'. That implies an external, true-believer group of Zionists were controlling the actions of the Labour Party. It does not imply what I consider to be far more likely: that cynical leaders took these actions for cynical PR reasons.

And I consider that distinction, in that context, to be far from immaterial. One narrative leans too closely to conspiracy for my liking, and lets people off the hook for simple self-serving cynicism.

I wouldn't have much cared if it had just been the claim 'Starmer is a Zionist', divorced from that context. That context stinks.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,360
3,548
118
Keep in mind the context in which this originally came up. It was a claim that the purge of the Labour Party was 'directed by Zionists'. That implies an external, true-believer group of Zionists were controlling the actions of the Labour Party. It does not imply what I consider to be far more likely: that cynical leaders took these actions for cynical PR reasons.

And I consider that distinction, in that context, to be far from immaterial. One narrative leans too closely to conspiracy for my liking, and lets people off the hook for simple self-serving cynicism.

I wouldn't have much cared if it had just been the claim 'Starmer is a Zionist', divorced from that context. That context stinks.
Who said external? The top of Labour is more than just Starmer, he's fun to focus on because he's the head, but there's verifiable proof of an actual literal conspiracy to depose Corbyn and purge the leftists, including anti-Zionists, from the party. Which they've done. Literally nobody has said there's a secret cabal of Jews or anything, just a recognition that Zionists exist and exert pressure whenever they can for their own benefit, and they're usually on the right-wing of any given group.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
The difference being that I haven't defended Putin or Hamas, you've defended Zionism directly.
Really. And what do you even mean by "Zionism", precisely?

I'll grant that your last post was a far better defense than the one I called mealy mouthed, it actually tried to rebut the claim that he's a war crime fan and that he's a Zionist. At that point it came down to whether one would believe him or not. Having seen his actions and his contemporaries, I'm not particularly inclined to believe him, but it at least serves as the foundation of a debate.
Kier Starmer spent a lot of time working for Liberty and as a human rights lawyer. He's done more concrete work to protect people from injustice than you or I probably ever will. Whilst this doesn't give him an unlimited pass, I think it does give us good grounds to not assume he favours genocide off the evidence of one brief and unclear statement on a radio show.

You claim I hate Corbyn, but I fear really the bigger issue that you hate Starmer. And all those comments you make about "shitlibs" and so on. You have a very narrow political tolerance with strict morality, and you don't like people outside that morality, or accept bending for pragmatism. You are inclined to be unfair to Starmer - that is the real issue here. The comment he was being battered for over social media for was never a strong case, it's just in the febrile atmosphere of 24/7 news and Twitterati, people just read shit and start throwing stones without thinking.

But your first instinctual defense when presented with him advocating for war crimes to displace people
My instinctual response is to look at information reasonably and come to a reasonable conclusion. It seems to me that the claim he was advocating for war crimes is at best thin, and at worst illusory. Just because lots of people wrote Twitter posts about it doesn't make it true.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,360
3,548
118
My instinctual response is to look at information reasonably and come to a reasonable conclusion. It seems to me that the claim he was advocating for war crimes is at best thin, and at worst illusory. Just because lots of people wrote Twitter posts about it doesn't make it true.
If your "reasonable look" is to support genocidal actions as long as they aren't made in malice, supposedly, then I'll happily take whatever purity badge you want to throw at me. I don't like genocide apologists, I think they're bad for fighting the right. If you have no standards, you have no platform, you're just a power seeking ghoul like any rightoid and when given power will wield it like any rightoid, in whatever way inflicts the most pain on the most people. We saw it with Blair, we're seeing it with Biden, and I think it'd be foolish to see Starmer as anything but a continuation of that.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,613
3,326
118
Country
United States of America

Biden can't exit the White House soon enough.

That implies an external, true-believer group of Zionists were controlling the actions of the Labour Party.
The idea that there are no Zionists among the various groups within and without Labour that hysterically hyperventilated about pro-Palestine Labour members is silly. But let us examine. You may want to read 'authoritatively dictate', but direction needn't be so formal. Labour Friends of Israel, your awful media, and every other group and personality to whose support of Israel you identify as purely unprincipled and pusillanimous did in fact demand Labour act in certain ways which they then did, including that purge. But, if we assume for the sake of argument that there are no British Zionists-- that the Zionist inclination simply disappears from the brain of anyone traveling on or over that benighted isle to be replaced by cynical calculation-- where did they get these ideas of what to demand from Labour? From Zionists elsewhere, obviously: the equation of Israel with Judaism is a pillar of the Zionist communications strategy. And the public condemnation of pro-Palestinian voices as 'anti-semitic' (or 'self-hating' in Jewish cases) is another pillar. So when the Labour Party follows these two principles to their logical conclusions, as they did under Starmer, they are following directions authored by Zionists. However much you want to describe the complex of support for Israeli impunity as a function of cowardice and cynicism, as a whole it is directed by Zionists and it is of no significance whether any particular individual among that complex is a 'true believer' or an empty suit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,800
6,155
118
Country
United Kingdom
The idea that there are no Zionists among the various groups within and without Labour [...] we assume for the sake of argument that there are no British Zionists [...]
Nobody is positing this ridiculous strawman. I simply do not believe this lobby is commanding immense power over mainstream political parties. When their largest lobbying groups combined can scarcely drum up a few million.

There is a far simpler explanation, that relies on nothing more than cynical self-interest. Just like genuine principled commitment to the Saudi government's ideology is not necessary or realistic to explain the US arming Saudi Arabia.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,360
3,548
118
Nobody is positing this ridiculous strawman. I simply do not believe this lobby is commanding immense power over mainstream political parties. When their largest lobbying groups combined can scarcely drum up a few million.

There is a far simpler explanation, that relies on nothing more than cynical self-interest. Just like genuine principled commitment to the Saudi government's ideology is not necessary or realistic to explain the US arming Saudi Arabia.
I'm confused, is the Zionist lobby too small to care about, or are they big enough that they need to be pandered to to maintain power, you aren't clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,760
846
118
Country
United States
I'm confused, is the Zionist lobby too small to care about, or are they big enough that they need to be pandered to to maintain power, you aren't clear.
There are many Christian and Jewish Zionists who have amassed large amounts of capital. They therefore wish to use said capital to lobby the government for their interests which yes does include less regulation and taxes for their sector and or overall. But they also have funded civil society groups that support their country of interest, and it's not unique, there are Brazilian, Iranian, Chinese, Arab, Russian, Irish, and other nationality-based civil society groups in the US. When I was a conservative in the 2010s there was a Chinese person who was a police officer in New York who recklessly discharged their weapon on an African American in an apartment building and I signed a petition on Whitehouse.gov for President Obama to do leniency on his sentence based on Chinese American interests. That is an example.

So while there aren't many zionists vs young and arab-Americans they tend to have a larger financial amount of capital on average.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
If your "reasonable look" is to support genocidal actions as long as they aren't made in malice, supposedly, then I'll happily take whatever purity badge you want to throw at me. I don't like genocide apologists, I think they're bad for fighting the right. If you have no standards, you have no platform, you're just a power seeking ghoul like any rightoid and when given power will wield it like any rightoid, in whatever way inflicts the most pain on the most people. We saw it with Blair, we're seeing it with Biden, and I think it'd be foolish to see Starmer as anything but a continuation of that.
Note that Putin has denied that Ukraine exists as a separate country and Ukrainians as a separate people; indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and particularly civilian infrastructure (power, water, etc.) former Ukrainian oblasts with Ukrainian majorities now must learn Russian history and culture in Russian language. This is also credibly genocide, the destruction of a people. I just don't see you criticising this forum's "genocide apologists" on that issue, so your explanation above does not ring true.

I repeat seeing as you just avoided it: what do you mean when you say "Zionist" and that I am one?
 

Gyrobot

Ask Revachol/Renegades of Woke
May 13, 2020
585
137
48

And now we have gone to salting the earth, what's next, tanks with flamethrowers and lmgs driving down in a column burning and gunning down anything in front of them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,360
3,548
118
Note that Putin has denied that Ukraine exists as a separate country and Ukrainians as a separate people; indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and particularly civilian infrastructure (power, water, etc.) former Ukrainian oblasts with Ukrainian majorities now must learn Russian history and culture in Russian language. This is also credibly genocide, the destruction of a people. I just don't see you criticising this forum's "genocide apologists" on that issue, so your explanation above does not ring true.

I repeat seeing as you just avoided it: what do you mean when you say "Zionist" and that I am one?
This is notably not a thread on Ukraine. I've already said what a Zionist is multiple times. And it doesn't much matter anymore, I just don't really respect your opinion on this. If you want to say agree to disagree sure, if you want to say I'm too in love with purity whatever, but this discussion really threw into relief what your opinions are on foreign politics and it's pretty disgusting. What I've come away from this discussion is that a politician telling the truth to power is stupid, foolish, and needs to be condemned; but if a politician is willing to murder foreign brown people to win power, we should support them and give them every benefit of the doubt.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,037
964
118
Country
USA
If you're going by nations in their present incarnations, rather than the countries as distinct polities, then your point about all of them starting through brutal conquest becomes even less tenable.
Are you aware of the history of your homeland and the island immediately adjacent to it? Like, within the last century.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
This is notably not a thread on Ukraine. I've already said what a Zionist is multiple times.
You are explicitly avoiding answering. Why is that?

I just don't really respect your opinion on this.
And I don't respect your refusal to engage. I don't respect your retreat into emotive accusations without any willingness to apply reason. I don't respect the fact you have ignored the vast reams of comment I have put into this thread making clear my very strong objections to the conduct of Israel and the IDF, and just say that because I won't condemn one politician on what I perceive to be weak evidence that I therefore support mass murder. I don't respect the fact you find that small disagreement so difficult to tolerate without such a disproportionate overreaction. I don't respect the fact that you talk about harming the ability to resist the right, and then assault and alienate the people broadly on your side. I don't respect that this is precisely the sort of behaviour that right-wingers point at to make fun of and trivialise leftists.

But you know, such is life.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,360
3,548
118
I don't respect your retreat into emotive accusations without any willingness to apply reason.
🤡

You spend the entire argument ignoring what's written and act like it isn't there to just look back on. The one being emotive over logical here is you.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,800
6,155
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm confused, is the Zionist lobby too small to care about, or are they big enough that they need to be pandered to to maintain power, you aren't clear.
These are the wrong questions. Starmer isn't pandering to "the Zionist lobby" in doing these things. The press successfully created an atmosphere in which any action from Labour that could conceivably be spun as antisemitism gets spun as such. The press doesn't give a single shit about Zionism, and the average people who've been convinced that antisemitism is rife in Labour don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other and don't even realise that lines are being blurred here.

But Starmer (correctly) identified that strong criticisms of Israel are very easy for a hostile press to spin as antisemitism, so he identified that as an area where he can blunt that criticism.

To be clear: in doing so, he kicked people out who absolutely did not deserve to be kicked out, and took some indefensible positions (I.e. on the ceasefire). These are not defences. Explanations are not defences.