Left-Wing Jewish Leaders Shocked To Discover Their Liberal Friends Support Hamas

[rjs330]

There are Palestinians living in Gaza who are not Hamas.
I have friends who are Palestianian Christians, with family members living in the region. One of the oldest Orthodox Churches in the world was partially destroyed by Israeli bombing in Gaza. The church has no association with Hamas, but it was Palestinian. I can support them, oppose war and violence from all parties, and not necessarily be anti-semitic.
I make a distinction between palestinian and Hamas whether others are able to do so or not. That's because there is a distinction whether others acknowledge it or not.

Oh I think pretty much knows not every Palestinian is Hamas. However the majority of them are Hamas supporters where their attacks and policy on Israel is concerned. And since Hamas looks like every other Palestinian is pretty hard to tell the difference until they launch a rocket grenade at you while being shielded by other Palestinians.

Yes you can oppose the war. Lots of people do. However this is a just war from Israel due to Hamas' never ending attacks and the major one on October 7. I'm sure you opposed those attacks as well. But unless someone is willing to actually do something about it, opposition is meaningless. I am guessing a lot of people were opposed to Hamas' attacks but they happened anyway. What galls me in these incidents is that we never saw a lot of marching in the street against Hamas, the media said little to nothing against them. The UN was largely silent unless it was to criticize Israel. And the moment Israel decides to put a stop to it, so many jump on the "how dare you" band wagon. Protests in the streets, Jews being harassed and attacked. The media is all anti-Semetic.

Everyone was "oh the poor Jews, well at least they have the iron dome", let's pat the Jews on the head and send them in their way. Meanwhile their people are killed. Then when the Jews start to fight back it's all "hey you can't do that!"

No in this fight being Palestinian = Hamas simply due to the amount of support Hamas is getting from the Palestinian people. No not everyone, but close enough.

 

[rambot]

Actually, the Jewish peoples inhabited that land before Islam or Christianity were even a religion...going back to 2,000 BC

Great. AND and before that proto humans lived there.

dibsies going back 2000 years isn't quite a fair response to land just being fully usurped less than a century ago...case it seems like you may be trying to create an equivalency there.

And the same question could be asked right now in the other direction, why aren't other countries like Egypt and Lebanon offering to bring Palestinians in and give them some land in their countries? (there's actually several different answers to that question...a few of them would be politically incorrect to say out loud)

1. Because suddenly European countries have taken to understanding that sovereignty means something.

2. Why should they? They didn't displace Palestinians to begin with.

Obviously the Palestinians are understandably perturbed about the land transition, but it's basically the equivalent of if a bunch of people in America got mad because the government re-allocated some of the land back to Native Tribes that inhabited it hundred and hundreds of years before their ancestors even showed up on the shores.

OK...and? Obviously those people would have every right to complain. And that's hilarious that you think it would think to make the analogy of something like that happening under thr duress of non-native in the US. There is land voluntarily being given back but rhata different

As it is though it's more like 17th and 18th century America in how the brittish (and a few other, surprise, surprise European countries) basically were ambivalent and tried at least dipping their toes into the genocide of native Americans.

That is similar to Israel and gaza.

 

[Bradskii]

No in this fight being Palestinian = Hamas simply due to the amount of support Hamas is getting from the Palestinian people. No not everyone, but close enough.

Do you agree with these comments?

'It is exceptionally important that the long term view is not ignored. And important that no action should be taken that would give advantage to terrorists and extremists to damage any hope for a long term solution for peace in the region.'

The state of Israel must be guaranteed it's undeniable right for the security of its land and it's people. And Palestine should see a clear recognition that their own state be recognised and made equally as secure.'

 

[rjs330]

Do you agree with these comments?

'It is exceptionally important that the long term view is not ignored. And important that no action should be taken that would give advantage to terrorists and extremists to damage any hope for a long term solution for peace in the region.'

The state of Israel must be guaranteed it's undeniable right for the security of its land and it's people. And Palestine should see a clear recognition that their own state be recognised and made equally as secure.'

Oh come on. There hasn't been a hope for a long term solution since 1948. How is Israel giving up going to suddenly create long term solutions?

What gives advantage to terrorists is weakness. They smell weakness.

Yes Israel should guaranteed security. That's why they are going after Hamas. If Palestine would have stopped their attacks in Israel and instead worked towards an actual state instead of splitting their country between terrorist organizations then may actually be able to have a state.

My hope is that the terrorists in the region decide to back off and the people decide it's not worth it and focus on uniting and creating their own state with a central government focused on peace and getting along with their neighbors. Creating a flourishing country.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes Israel should guaranteed security.

My hope is that the terrorists in the region decide to back off and the people decide it's not worth it and focus on uniting and creating their own state with a central government focused on peace and getting along with their neighbors. Creating a flourishing country.

Those are the two main points. I'm glad you agree with them.

Now all we have to do is concentrate on not making the position a lot harder to achieve those ends. And if this cease fire continues then at least the matter isn't getting worse. And Israel's friends will thank them for allowing the cessation of violence and if it continues help them to reach a solution that attains those two main aims. Which, I would add, would include the end of Hamas.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Great. AND and before that proto humans lived there.

dibsies going back 2000 years isn't quite a fair response to land just being fully usurped less than a century ago...case it seems like you may be trying to create an equivalency there.

There is an equivalency in terms of the arguments we hear about tribal lands in the US.

2. Why should they? They didn't displace Palestinians to begin with.

They're the ones who displaced all the Jews in their own countries that ended up needing a place to go.

Would there had been a need for Western countries to carve a piece out of that area for Jews had Jews not been getting kicked out of places like Egypt and Lebanon in record numbers?

There's already 20+ Muslim countries in the region, the Jews have one country the size of New Jersey (that they currently have to share with people who want them wiped out for religious reasons)

What makes more sense? Palestinians moving into nearby countries with a shared language and many cultural similarities? Or making all the Jews move to US, Britain, and Canada?

 

[expos4ever]

On the matter of proportionality. Here are some extracts from a Forbes article on the Israel-Hamas conflict (I added the bolding):

Urban warfare is one of the most difficult and dangerous types of warfighting—not only because of the risks to soldiers fighting terrorists in a maze of underground tunnels. An equal or larger challenge lies in the difficulty of minimizing incidental injury to civilians and collateral damage—cold, clinical terms for death and injury of civilians and civilian property damage resulting from war. In a densely populated place like Gaza, If Israel conducted every strike lawfully and with all of the military precision that technology allows, many horrible deaths of innocent civilians would still occur. The law of war recognizes that risk to civilians and civilian property in war are both inevitable and a tragedy. The law seeks to mitigate this risk while recognizing the harsh realities of war.

Proportionality requires military commanders to balance two incommensurable concepts: expected military advantage and potential damage to civilian life and property. The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks that damage civilian life or civilian property when they are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack. A commander, then, cannot be indiscriminate about their target. The commander must know what military advantage they expect the attack to achieve and seek to avoid or mitigate incidental civilian injury and property damage that are excessive considering the advantage to be gained.

This makes sense to me and I believe it challenges the overly simplistic notion that Israel is to be criticized solely on the basis of the fact that they have killled more innocents. On the other hand, I think it is indeed appropriate to ask whether there are not less bloody options available to Israel that will have the same effect in eliminating, or at least greatly crippling, Hamas, an objective I suspect any reasonable person would support.

For example, it is very easy for me to imagine that a much slower, more methodical campaign of highly targeted strikes over months and months might be more effective. And the cynic in me imagines that the Israeli government has chosen to act swiftly and with great violence to assuage the perfectly understandable desire for revenge of the Israeli voter - the people want to see decisive action now. But just because we can empathize with such a desire does not mean we should endorse acting on it.

 

[rjs330]

On the matter of proportionality. Here are some extracts from a Forbes article on the Israel-Hamas conflict (I added the bolding):

Urban warfare is one of the most difficult and dangerous types of warfighting—not only because of the risks to soldiers fighting terrorists in a maze of underground tunnels. An equal or larger challenge lies in the difficulty of minimizing incidental injury to civilians and collateral damage—cold, clinical terms for death and injury of civilians and civilian property damage resulting from war. In a densely populated place like Gaza, If Israel conducted every strike lawfully and with all of the military precision that technology allows, many horrible deaths of innocent civilians would still occur. The law of war recognizes that risk to civilians and civilian property in war are both inevitable and a tragedy. The law seeks to mitigate this risk while recognizing the harsh realities of war.

Proportionality requires military commanders to balance two incommensurable concepts: expected military advantage and potential damage to civilian life and property. The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks that damage civilian life or civilian property when they are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack. A commander, then, cannot be indiscriminate about their target. The commander must know what military advantage they expect the attack to achieve and seek to avoid or mitigate incidental civilian injury and property damage that are excessive considering the advantage to be gained.

This makes sense to me and I believe it challenges the overly simplistic notion that Israel is to be criticized solely on the basis of the fact that they have killled more innocents. On the other hand, I think it is indeed appropriate to ask whether there are not less bloody options available to Israel that will have the same effect in eliminating, or at least greatly crippling, Hamas, an objective I suspect any reasonable person would support.

For example, it is very easy for me to imagine that a much slower, more methodical campaign of highly targeted strikes over months and months might be more effective. And the cynic in me imagines that the Israeli government has chosen to act swiftly and with great violence to assuage the perfectly understandable desire for revenge of the Israeli voter - the people want to see decisive action now. But just because we can empathize with such a desire does not mean we should endorse acting on it.

I like this post. You may be right that a more methodical approach would be better. And it may save more lives. The question is how many more? A thousand, two thousand, three?

We have heard from some that a thousand deaths is too many. I don't see where a more methodical approach leads to so few deaths that people would stop calling for Israel to lay off. There is something deeper here. We've seen the lefts opinions of Israel. They see Israel as the oppressor and the Palestinians as the oppressed. Anything the Palestinians do may be wrong, but it's perfectly understandable. Israel is the oppressor so anything they do is seen as wrong and not understandable unless it's minor.

I do think Israel responded quickly due to public pressure to do something now. I imagine ANY country would be the same. So the fact that they might have is not a surprise not should it be condemned. Because pretty much everyone would do the same under the circumstances.

I'd like to know what the less bloody options there would be and how many lives would be saved under the circumstances.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I like this post. You may be right that a more methodical approach would be better. And it may save more lives. The question is how many more? A thousand, two thousand, three?

We have heard from some that a thousand deaths is too many. I don't see where a more methodical approach leads to so few deaths that people would stop calling for Israel to lay off. There is something deeper here. We've seen the lefts opinions of Israel. They see Israel as the oppressor and the Palestinians as the oppressed. Anything the Palestinians do may be wrong, but it's perfectly understandable. Israel is the oppressor so anything they do is seen as wrong and not understandable unless it's minor.

I do think Israel responded quickly due to public pressure to do something now. I imagine ANY country would be the same. So the fact that they might have is not a surprise not should it be condemned. Because pretty much everyone would do the same under the circumstances.

I'd like to know what the less bloody options there would be and how many lives would be saved under the circumstances.

Bolding the part above for emphasis.

I think the US tribalistic partisan lens muddies the waters on this topic to a huge degree. To the point where Israel can be seen as either "the good guy" or "the bad guy" for nearly the exact same set of actions, merely based on who, in the US political landscape, is doing the "Israel-criticizing".

Case in point, many on the left are almost parroting the back the same statements about Israel that got James Baker (former secretary of state, and Bush advisor) labelled an "antisemite" by many on the left (ironically enough, for a very similar set of circumstances that were happening in the 90's)

James Baker had said that Israel's insistence on expanding settlements was detrimental to the negotiation process, and called on them to cease expanding settlements immediately, and condemned them for a retaliatory casualty count that he felt was unacceptable and hinted at loans and aid being withheld if it continued...basically the same thing the "Squad" is asking for.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/04/02/charge-of-antisemitism-abhorrent-baker-says/741d6a59-6d27-4c4c-8e13-b653d02941df/

The end result (per WaPo back in '92)? Bill Clinton and the DNC accusing the GOP of being antisemitic.


At best, it's mixed messages (for self-serving purposes)... at worst, it implies an underhanded tactic in which no matter what "side" the GOP takes on the Israel-Palestine conflict, it still gives their rival an opportunity to accuse them of some form of bigotry or another.

Take a Israel-sympathetic position: "Look at those Islamaphobic conservatives!"
Take a Hold Israel to account position: "Look at those antisemitic conservatives!"


The litmus test should always be "would the critiques be received the same if they came from a different source"...if yes? Then it's a consistently held position.

Meaning, if someone embraced an Israel critique because it came from Tlaib, but had a viscerally negative reaction to that very same critique if it came from Matt Gaetz, then it would be clear, it's more about domestic beefs than it is about a consistent international policy.

 

[Bradskii]

The litmus test should always be "would the critiques be received the same if they came from a different source"...if yes? Then it's a consistently held position.

And easy enough to prove. Reword any given statement so it can't be Googled and ask if the person agrees with it and I guarantee you won't get an answer from some people until they know who said it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And easy enough to prove. Reword any given statement so it can't be Googled and ask if the person agrees with it and I guarantee you won't get an answer from some people until they know who said it.

I assume you're being somewhat facetious here since there's almost no statement that can't be googled these days...

But you point is pertinent.

For instance, if all a person knew (amid the current conflict) is that someone said "The Zionists have too much control over US politicians", it's hit or miss on whether or not they'd agree or disagree

However, if the person uttering that statement was Rashida Tlaib vs. Marjorie Greene, I bet I could predict the political affiliation of the people (with a high degree of confidence) based on whether or not they agreed or pretended to take offense to the statement.

For instance, the people who claimed to be deeply offended by the "Jewish Space Lasers" comment (just because MTG said it) are the same ones who are openly defending a group of people, of whom, 93% believe that "The Jews control all the money".

Likewise, many of the people who now want to claim to defend Israel against antisemitism (because they happen to be feuding with a Muslim faction, I mean, they're not fooling anyone...they're doing it because they're not fans of Muslims and they know it agitates liberals) were the same people who were trying to defend some of the bad actors at the Unite the Right "tiki torch rally" where people were marching & chanting "Jews will not replace us".

The Israeli/Jewish people are getting a, yet again, raw deal...where US factions are using them as a pawn in a domestic beef.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Bolding the part above for emphasis.

I think the US tribalistic partisan lens muddies the waters on this topic to a huge degree. To the point where Israel can be seen as either "the good guy" or "the bad guy" for nearly the exact same set of actions, merely based on who, in the US political landscape, is doing the "Israel-criticizing".

Case in point, many on the left are almost parroting the back the same statements about Israel that got James Baker (former secretary of state, and Bush advisor) labelled an "antisemite" by many on the left (ironically enough, for a very similar set of circumstances that were happening in the 90's)

James Baker had said that Israel's insistence on expanding settlements was detrimental to the negotiation process, and called on them to cease expanding settlements immediately, and condemned them for a retaliatory casualty count that he felt was unacceptable and hinted at loans and aid being withheld if it continued...basically the same thing the "Squad" is asking for.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/04/02/charge-of-antisemitism-abhorrent-baker-says/741d6a59-6d27-4c4c-8e13-b653d02941df/

The end result (per WaPo back in '92)? Bill Clinton and the DNC accusing the GOP of being antisemitic.

And that was over 30 years ago. A significant percentage of today's "left" (basically, anyone under 50) was not politically conscious (or even born) yet. That's a bit of a stretch as a "double standard" - not quite as egregious as pretending like the fact that Democrats supported Jim Crow laws in the 50s and 60s is relevant to modern discussions of civil rights, but close.

Meaning, if someone embraced an Israel critique because it came from Tlaib, but had a viscerally negative reaction to that very same critique if it came from Matt Gaetz, then it would be clear, it's more about domestic beefs than it is about a consistent international policy.

That would indeed be a more relevant comparison. Do you have an example?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And that was over 30 years ago. A significant percentage of today's "left" (basically, anyone under 50) was not politically conscious (or even born) yet. That's a bit of a stretch as a "double standard" - not quite as egregious as pretending like the fact that Democrats supported Jim Crow laws in the 50s and 60s is relevant to modern discussions of civil rights, but close.

Actually, it's not that big of a stretch.

Many progressives were upset about Marjorie Taylor Greene's "Jewish Space Lasers" comment, yes? Yet, 93% of Palestinians believe much more harmful and ubiquitous tropes about Jewish people, and progressives are defending them.

That would indeed be a more relevant comparison. Do you have an example?

Sure, when alt-right antisemites like the likes of Nick Fuentes and Richard Spencer said that Israelis are controlling US politicians, many on the left took umbrage to those statements. BDS advocates say basically the exact same thing (in the name of defending Palestinians), and they seem to be okay with that.


So it seems to be a case where if it's

"Alt-right vs. Jews"...the left sides with Jews

If it's "Jews vs. Palestinians", the left takes the opposing position


Is there even a remote possibility that some on the left are approaching thing using a grading system that's based on an intersectionality hierarchy that's derived US-domestic conditions?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Actually, it's not that big of a stretch.

Yes, it really is. A double standard is only valid if the same person (or people) can be shown to hold both standards. Today's "left" is far removed from the DNC of 30 years ago, both ideologically and personally. Moreover, 30 years is plenty of time for views to shift organically

Many progressives were upset about Marjorie Taylor Greene's "Jewish Space Lasers" comment, yes? Yet, 93% of Palestinians believe much more harmful and ubiquitous tropes about Jewish people, and progressives are defending them.

Being a bigot doesn't exempt you from human rights laws or make your life any less valuable. Defending someone's right to not be bombed does not require agreement with everything that they say. If Ms. Greene found herself in the same situation, I'd advocate against bombing her too.

Sure, when alt-right antisemites like the likes of Nick Fuentes and Richard Spencer said that Israelis are controlling US politicians, many on the left took umbrage to those statements. BDS advocates say basically the exact same thing (in the name of defending Palestinians), and they seem to be okay with that.

I was asking for specific examples. Links and quotes, not your paraphrasing.

 

[Bradskii]

I assume you're being somewhat facetious here since there's almost no statement that can't be googled these days...

'I presume that you are treating this matter flippantly as the number of sentences that can't be searched via Google is practically zero.'

There may be an outside chance of Googling your exact statement above (I just tried, but no hits as yet - not sure if there's a time limit), but zero chance of finding out that the second represents your position exactly.

Edit: Here's one from you that got a hit: 'Options 1 & 2 seem to be popular & selectively interchangeable'

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I was asking for specific examples. Links and quotes, not your paraphrasing.

When Ilhan Omar made invoked some tropes (most notably, her tweet saying "it's all about the Benjamins"...a reference to the stereotypes about Jews and money), there were no formal consequences for it.

Rep. Omar apologizes for controversial tweets on Israel lobby after backlash from Democratic leaders

Pelosi, House Democratic leaders denounced Omar for promoting 'anti-Semitic tropes.'

www.nbcnews.com

Chuck Schumer called it out in a twitter response:

...but she was allowed to get off with an apology and claiming ignorance (as if anyone was supposed to believe that she simply wasn't aware of the "Jews control the money" trope) -- while simultaneously still using that apology post to make a comparison between AIPAC and the NRA at the end of it.

When Greene made the Space Lasers comment, she was stripped of committee assignments not long after.

As far as the double standard?

Ilhan Omar: US congresswoman defends 'offensive' Israel remark

After a rare rebuke from colleagues, Democrat Ilhan Omar hits back at her critics' "tropes".

www.bbc.com

AOC rushed to Omar's defense and claimed the criticism of her was "unfair targeting"

Yet, AOC, actually cited Greene's comments when defending Omar.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

When Greene made the Space Lasers comment, she was stripped of committee assignments not long after.

"Jewish space lasers" was only a small component of why Greene was stripped of her committee assignments. The larger issue was her promotion of political violence, including calling for the execution of Nancy Pelosi and posting images of herself pointing a gun at members of the "Squad".

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html

House votes to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of committee assignments

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene did not renounce previous statements she made before the House voted 230-199 to remove her from her committee assignments.

rollcall.com

The House votes to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments. (Published 2021)

The move effectively stripped Ms. Greene, who represents Georgia’s 14th congressional district, of her influence in Congress.

www.nytimes.com

 

[rjs330]

"Jewish space lasers" was only a small component of why Greene was stripped of her committee assignments. The larger issue was her promotion of political violence, including calling for the execution of Nancy Pelosi and posting images of herself pointing a gun at members of the "Squad".

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html

House votes to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of committee assignments

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene did not renounce previous statements she made before the House voted 230-199 to remove her from her committee assignments.

rollcall.com

The House votes to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments. (Published 2021)

The move effectively stripped Ms. Greene, who represents Georgia’s 14th congressional district, of her influence in Congress.

www.nytimes.com

This is funny. You are proving how point for him.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

This is funny. You are proving how point for him.

Right. Because "person x said an antisemitic thing and got a slap on the wrist while person y said an antisemitic thing AND a bunch of violent things and was punished more" represents a clear double standard.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Right. Because "person x said an antisemitic thing and got a slap on the wrist while person y said an antisemitic thing AND a bunch of violent things and was punished more" represents a clear double standard.

Depends on how much of a tally is kept or what the "worthy of more than a slap on the wrist" threshold is.

What I provided was one example. But both Ilhan Omar and Tlaib have had multiple tweets/comments they've had to either walk back and apologize for, claim ignorance "Oh I didn't know that implying that Jews control the money was offensive, thanks for educating me on that" in order to rationalize why they said it, or tried to flip the script and claim that criticism against them for saying it was Islamaphobia.


But I don't think the tally marks need to have perfect parity (in terms of quantity) in order to see a double-standard at play.

For instance, if Greene made 50 insensitive comments and Omar only made 5...it's clear that Greene is a worse offender.

However, if the reaction to the latter is "let's find a reason why the latter actually isn't all that bad, or let's claim that the criticisms against the latter are tied to Islamaphobia", that's sufficient to establish that there's two sets of rules.


For lack of a better analogy:

If you've been busted 20 times for DUI's and I've been busted 2 times, if the cohort of people who bashed you incessantly for it rushed to my defense and said "well Rob only had 2-3 beers, that's not really all that bad" or projecting and saying "the fact that you're going after Rob for drinking 2 beers shows how bad the anti-Rob bias is in America", it would be clear that there's two sets of "grading criteria" based on which side a person is on.


Let's just be frank here...if a white Southern Republican lawmaker made a comment about a Jewish leader, saying "It's all about the benjamins" (as Omar did) or made a comment about the "shadowy force behind the curtain making the money" as Tlaib did (referring to Jewish leaders in Israel), would anyone honestly even remotely entertain the "plead ignorance" routine and even give a sliver of credibility to the "Oh, I didn't know that there was a Jews/money negative stereotype" defense?

We both know the answer is no.

It's tantamount to if someone made a snarky watermelon comment about a predominately Black locale, and then tried to claim "oh, I didn't know that was a racist trope, my bad...sorry"