It's that same hand wringing sentiment, of having to fall in line behind a genocidal regime because of paragliders.
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
This posted by NBC News appears to be a wholesale fabrication.
For one thing, the attacks were carried out on a Saturday morning, or to say it another way, during Shabbat, so the central premise that Hamas were trying to collect schoolchildren by targeting schools is highly suspect to put it mildly. The paper is also clean and crisp and, at least according to this person, the Arabic looks like the output of Google Translate-- I don't read or speak Arabic, so I can't verify that:
For one thing, the attacks were carried out on a Saturday morning, or to say it another way, during Shabbat, so the central premise that Hamas were trying to collect schoolchildren by targeting schools is highly suspect to put it mildly. The paper is also clean and crisp and, at least according to this person, the Arabic looks like the output of Google Translate-- I don't read or speak Arabic, so I can't verify that:
I'm also going to point out it also makes all American and British who were adults in by 2002 collectively responsible for the deaths of all those Iraqis and Afghans.
Sobering thought.
the logic actually applies better to that; Hamas acts under an entirely valid jus ad bellum whatever they might be criticized for as regards jus in bello--matters which are largely in dispute. The destruction and invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan lacked any valid jus ad bellum. To the extent that holding a population responsible for the actions of its government makes any sense, it would seem to apply better to broad policy choices than it would particular details, and making war without valid jus ad bellum is just the sort of broad policy choice that it could arguably be fair to attribute to a polity at least in theory. I don't regard US or UK populations as having enough agency in regards to these matters to be held responsible for them, however. These are not democratic nations, after all.
That isn't what it says. Like, at all.
The fact that you can't distinguish between "there's an issue in areas of the left" and "all leftists are evil" suggests that you either didn't read it, or you're absolutely blinkered.
Even you can distinguish between "contains" elements and is those elements.
Why are you making this a matter of "sides?"
I'm not on anyone's "side." Nothing in the articles cited mentions a "side." The second article I posted was against the idea of "sides" and for the idea of nuance. Every tweet you posted could be countered with an equally bloodthirsty tweet from the other "side."
No, it was written by a liberal giving cover for genocide, it is absolutely a side, a side that wants very specific nuance in a very specific direction. I looked through his other articles as much as I could without a pay wall and it was all the same claptrap. "I like leftism except for all the leftism."
This coming from the person whose idea of nuance is simply retweeting extreme tweets?
Everything you've just said applies to yourself. You're the one who's talked about "sides," may I remind you.
You walked in here posting a stupid take and I focused on the take, it's stupid. And I didn't say I was being nuanced, I just said the econ idiot's stupid take asked for nuance in a way to excuse genocide. Specifically it's the same idea as the onion article, the premise is that Hamas did wrong, therefore genocide is okay and shouldn't be denounced.
I suggest you examine tone and implication alongside literal wording.
Example: what does the wording imply here: "/even/ among the leftist grassroots, there wasn't /unanimous praise/ of Hamas war crime" (italics mine)? Seems clear to me: the writer is saying unanimous praise would be the expectation, and even so, those who didn't praise war crime are the exception.
Then we have the author's completely inane claim that the sentence "75 years of occupation" automatically constitutes support for ethnic cleansing. Utter hogwash.
The article made it a matter of "sides" when it chose to solely highlight examples from one side, and completely ignore examples from the other, while claiming non-partisanship.
Anyways, the dark side of “faith” really putting in some overtime here. How many millennia are these two going to keep killing each other in the name of God?
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.
That quote is pointing out that in the "grassroots left," unanimous praise for Hamas was non-existent.
The implication, as you put it, is that there's plenty on the left who are decent people (which is true), that there's a section of the left (grassroots/far) that is rabidly anti-Israel/anti-semitic (again, true, and has been for a long time), and said section of the left didn't universally endorse mass murder (which is true).
You might want to follow the link. "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" means, by definition, Israel doesn't exist, and barring something like a 5% chance, would mean no Jews in the region as well, one way or the other.
The writing in of itself might be silly, the reasoning behind it isn't.
Except that's not how this works, and I bet you know that.
If I'm writing about one issue, I'm not obliged to cover the other issue, even if it's related. If I'm discussing the horrors of Nazism, I'm not obliged to do the same for communism. If I'm writing about women suffering domestic violence, I'm not obliged to cover men suffering domestic violence. If I'm writing about climate change, I'm not obliged to cover the last 4.6 billion years. If I'm writing about Russian war crimes, I'm not obliged to cover Ukranian war crimes. If I'm writing about the far right, I'm not obliged to cover the far left. If I'm writing about Islamic terrorism, I'm not obliged to cover Christian terrorism (well, maybe I am, you seem to think so). Even if every one of those things were equal, I still wouldn't be obliged to cover them in every single article I wrote, nor would anyone else.
At the very most, you might question someone's motivations if they only ever wrote things in isolation, but this? You have one article suggesting a three-state solution, and one highlighting far-left bloodthirstiness. That's it. Multiply this by ten, maybe five, and you'd have something to stand on, but two articles? That's not a base to claim anything in terms of bias.
As opposed to swords of... cheese? What a dumb name.
Steel or bronze, might even be wood if one was naming a training mission.
Slap some obsidian on a length of wood, you got yourself a macahuatl, which both looks cool and probably makes a gnarly mess of whatever human flesh it's used on.
Also, Swords of Obsidian is just extra
In some places in the pacific, they'd put shark teeth on the edge of a wooden sword for much the same reason. Humans, wherever they are and whatever materials they have, just like making swords.
So, even in your own reading, the "grassroots left" is rabidly anti-Semitic, and is interchangeable with the "far-left". Hmm.
That wasn't the sentence I highlighted. The author said the sentence "75 years of occupation" automatically constituted support for ethnic cleansing.
If you present the article as a non-partisan take on the conflict as a whole, then yes, you're morally obligated to not focus exclusively on one side. That's what non-partisanship entails.
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, and no, criticizing Israel is not anti-semitism ipso facto, anti-zionism is not anti-semitism ipso facto, one can lead into the other in both cases, and to cover my bases, anti-semitism is also on the far right."
There. Have I covered all my bases, or is there another gatcha you've got waiting for me?
I know that's not the sentence you highlighted, I was referring to the link in the sentence you highlighted.
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.
And talking about "sides" doesn't even really apply to what the article was discussing. It's silly to call the DSA a "side" in this. The DSA is no more a "side" in Israel/Palestine any more than it's a "side" in Ukraine, despite having opinions on both.