Iran War

[crazy canuck]

Except historically that particular organization has been scrupulously bi partisan. 

I do not know what caused the shift, but a shift has certainly occurred.

[Sheilbh]

I think it still was, no? Could be wrong but from what I've seen of the DSA sweep in New York a lot of them were campaigning against incumbent Dems taking that money.

[The Minsky Moment]

Bibi deliberately injected himself in American electoral politics in an obvious and undeniable way.  And he did so in a way that further alienated his regime from Jewish voters, who still strongly lean to the Democrats (70% in prior 2 elections, up slightly to 71% in 2024). The stability in those numbers is a little misleading, because while Trump has locked down the Orthodox vote, non-Orthodox Jews are breaking harder against him.

The message that is sent when an Israeli leader comes to the US and lambastes Obama in an unprecedented Congressional session and then essentially campaigns for Trump in multiple elections is that he views Israel's key base of support to be Christian evangelicals, not American Jews who were raised from the cradle on stories of 1967 and passing around envelopes for the State of Israel every high holidays.  That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  When American Jews see Israeli leaders praising Trump, praising Orban, attacking American leaders that many American Jews respect, and filling his cabinet with disturbing characters like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, it naturally increases a sense of alienation that impacts how they view the state.

Bibi would probably say he doesn't care - there are a lot more evangelicals then secular Jews in America.  True enough.  But evangelicals are far from being all powerful in the MAGA coalition. There are also the Tucker Carlsons and the Candace Owenses and Nick Fuenteses.  You can dismiss them as fringe, but they have substantial followings.  More importantly, they have a Normie face in power who happens to be (by far) the leading GOP candidate for President, and doesn't even bother to use the doggie version when whistling to the MAGA far right.

2028 could be the year Bibi's American political strategy definitively blows up in Israel's face, if the candidates end up being a hostile JD Vance on the one hand, and a Democrat that has little love for Likudnik hijinks, and feels safe enough to say some critical things about Israel without risking losing the majority of Jewish support.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, but that does not address my point JR.  the AIPAC has been targeting any American politician who is critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, the West Bank or Lebanon. That was not Bibi's doing, that is a decision made by an American SuperPac to influence domestic politics.

At Sheilbh, yes and that is an indication of what is happening in the US. There once was a broad consensus within the United States regarding the two state solution.  All of which was supported by the AIPAC.  Those days are long gone, and the AIPAC is firmly on board with the current policies of the Israeli government.  Bipartisanship is an impossibility now.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, but that does not address my point JR.  the AIPAC has been targeting any American politician who is critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, the West Bank or Lebanon. That was not Bibi's doing, that is a decision made by an American SuperPac to influence domestic politics.

I agree, a lot of the damage done to Israel's standing in the US has been self-inflicted.
The same goes for the ADL, whose mission shifted from combatting antisemitism (Elon getting a pass) to backing the messaging of the Israeli State.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'd also point out that the men and women who ran Mapai/Labour in the old days were hard people who did hard things.  They did not take it easy on the Palestinians by any stretch of the imagination.  What they did do was:

1) Have the common sense to put forward their Abba Ebans to the rest of the world, to provide the contrast between the appearance of Israeli cultured reasonability versus the terrorists and Baathist thugs that ran the show in the Arab world.  As opposed to the current government where cabinet ministers compete with each other to outdo each other's public lunacy.

2) Try to have a realistic understanding of their adversaries.

The fact that Bibi genuinely seems to have believed he could achieve genuine regime change in Iran with a hard shove seems astonishing except when you realize that he abolished the Intelligence ministry, and put a loyalist ideologue as the head of Shin Bet despite lack of intel experience.  One can only imagine what sorts of echo chamberish nonsense he is getting. As with Trump 2.0 in the US, there seems to have been a collapse in the capacity of Israel to properly govern itself.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, but that does not address my point JR.  the AIPAC has been targeting any American politician who is critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, the West Bank or Lebanon. That was not Bibi's doing, that is a decision made by an American SuperPac to influence domestic politics.

I agree, a lot of the damage done to Israel's standing in the US has been self-inflicted.
The same goes for the ADL, whose mission shifted from combatting antisemitism (Elon getting a pass) to backing the messaging of the Israeli State.

Yep

[Razgovory]

I can't help but wonder where some of you folks would have stood on South African apartheid, seeing as how remarkably similar arguments are being raised here. 

I kinda wonder where many of you would have been with the Khmer Rouge.

[Razgovory]

GWB's speech writer coined an excellent phrase:  "soft bigotry of low expectations".  Raz, you're exactly right, which is why everyone is dancing around your point and looking for various differences between Israel and its Arab neighbors to find justification post-hoc for different standards being applied.  Somehow I don't think that mainstream hatred of Israel in countries like Spain has anything to do with US aid.

But surely the double standard cuts both ways. To the extent American aid is an expression of deeply held American values then I'd take your point - but the electrocuted bollocks of legions of Latin American poets suggest that might not alwyas be the case. The reason there is a double standard is because it exists in the purposes of American aid.

The Egyptians and the Saudis (primarily) are strategically important allies who get aid because they are strategically useful. The US has had an energy relationship with Saudi dating back to the thirties (interestingly partly brokered by Kim Philby's father, St John Philby who may even, astonishingly, be even more of a wrong'un) - and the relationship with Egypt for decades is one in which Suez really matters. Both also provide incredibly important intelligence in relation to violent Islamist terrorist groups. They provide capacities for the US to project power to further advance its interests in the region. Same goes for most of the Gulf States - I'm no fan of the Qataris but part of the reason they were hosting Hamas was in order to help provide backchannels for Israel and to allow payments to be made from Israel and the US in ways that didn't breach sanction regimes. And they end up being the only state bombed by both Israel and Iran for it. Everyone low-key hates Qatar but finds them useful. I don't think any of those relationships have ever been based on "values" but on a quid pro quo and when those countries push strategic agendas that do not align with the US (such as Saudi in Yemen, or Saudi's confrontation with Iran) sensible American administrations have limited their involvement.

I agree with JR's point on the values point and I think aid to Israel has been more based on values and empathy than a quid-pro-quo on strategic utility. That is why a collapse in support or identification with Israel on the basis of values and empathy (which we have seen in opinion polling of all types of Americans, including American Jews in recent years) is really, really bad for Israel in a way that it isn't for Egypt or Saudi. That was never the deal for them - but if they stopped being strategically useful then I'm pretty sure US aid would dry up very rapidly. This is part of the disaster of Netanyahu's strategy which first of all got really involved in playing American domsestic politics in such a way that I think he has possibly permanently damaged the bipartisan consensus on Israel. He's then prosecuted wars in Gaza and Lebanon and presided over policies in the West Bank (with minister like Ben Gvir) that offend the values and empathy point for many, many Americans (and others). And finally he has convinced an American president to go along with his decades long idee fixe of attacking Iran and it has been a strategic disaster that is humiliating the US in the region. I think he's been a disaster for Israel because it's undermined the political basis of strong support for Israel, alienated many on the values issue (which was key for Israel, and not Saudi) and then turned out not to be a strategic advantage in the region but a liability.

FWIW off the top of my head I think Israel might be the only recipient of American aid that is in some way based on values or empathy v strategic utility - though there are other cases where there's overlap, such as Ukraine (until Trump stopped it due to a rather different analysis of American strategy to Rusia).

It's difficult to see why Irish or Canadians or Italians would develop such bizarre double standards based on who the US gives aid to.  My point goes far beyond simply the US and Israel.  I am asking why so many leftists across the West take adopt this sort of paternalism when it comes to non-whites.  When I bring this up all I get are that the only double standards worth talking about are the ones in the US government.

[Sheilbh]

It's difficult to see why Irish or Canadians or Italians would develop such bizarre double standards based on who the US gives aid to.  My point goes far beyond simply the US and Israel.  I am asking why so many leftists across the West take adopt this sort of paternalism when it comes to non-whites.  When I bring this up all I get are that the only double standards worth talking about are the ones in the US government.

You talked about the double standard in US aid with Israel v Saudi. I think I've set out why the reason there is a double standard between Israel and its Arab neighbours and why Netanyau's been a problem for it.

FWIW the same goes for British aid to the region. We're supportive of Qatar and Jordan and Kuwait and Saudi not because they're nice guys but because they're advancing our interests. When Cameron was PM he was challenged about Saudi and Yemen in an interview in particular (it was in the news at the time, Israel wasn't - because that does happen) and his answer, which I think was impressively honest, was the UK supports Saudi because they provide us and others with a stream of intelligence that prevents Islamist terrorist attacks here and in Europe. That's valuable - the exchange is that we give recognition, international legitimacy and supportive relations.

I would add that under Starmer the RAF flew hundreds of sorties over Israel from the bases in Cyprus shooting down Iranian missiles, as well as spy planes regularly flying over the region - and the reward for that were attacks by Netanyahu and insinuations that Starmer was anti-semitic.

To the wider point on the left - there's absolutely a strand of anti-semitism. I think it's growing and I think it's very concerning and it's something I've posted about a fair bit. There's old school third worldism (personally I am sympathetic to a lot of that world view) and "anti-imperialism". I think both of those are very significant in the case of the Irish left (particularly Sinn Fein and historically the PIRA) and in Italy. I think also there's an element of communal politics in some countries - I've posted a lot about the Gaza Independents in the UK, for example. However, particularly in relation to other Muslims and people of Arab descent I think that PIRA case is striking because Americans raised a lot of money for an organisation that is profoundly anti-American and opposed to American "empire" (to this day Sinn Fein not only have their stance on Israel, but oppose NATO, deeper European defence, are pretty squishy on Russia etc). The reason they did it, harming a strategically helpful American ally, was for reasons of emotion and heritage about the six counties and Ireland. That sort of sentiment also applies.

All of that's absolutely the case - and it may overlap. I don't think there's an issue with acknowledging it while at the same time accepting there are absolutely people who aren't anti-semitic, or necesssarily third-worldist who are opposed for all the reasons people have flagged here and that includes a significant and growing number of Jews in diaspora communities who should not just be erased. I think I'd put the people here in the last bucket who aren't anti-semitic or third-worldist etc.

[Razgovory]

Apartheid South Africa, Serbia 30-odd years back, Israel today....it is all the same ballpark as far as I am concerned.

Who do you think will be remembered better?  The Iranians who murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens for protesting to the cheers of their supporters in the West or the idiotic effort by Trump and Netanyahu to exploit protests months after they were dead?

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure what we mean by remembered better.

The question that occurs to me as more important, is what has strengthened the regime more?

FWIW I didn't see any cheers for the Iranian regime, only support for protesters.

[Razgovory]

It's difficult to see why Irish or Canadians or Italians would develop such bizarre double standards based on who the US gives aid to.  My point goes far beyond simply the US and Israel.  I am asking why so many leftists across the West take adopt this sort of paternalism when it comes to non-whites.  When I bring this up all I get are that the only double standards worth talking about are the ones in the US government.

You talked about the double standard in US aid with Israel v Saudi. I think I've set out why the reason there is a double standard between Israel and its Arab neighbours and why Netanyau's been a problem for it.

FWIW the same goes for British aid to the region. We're supportive of Qatar and Jordan and Kuwait and Saudi not because they're nice guys but because they're advancing our interests. When Cameron was PM he was challenged about Saudi and Yemen in an interview in particular (it was in the news at the time, Israel wasn't - because that does happen) and his answer, which I think was impressively honest, was the UK supports Saudi because they provide us and others with a stream of intelligence that prevents Islamist terrorist attacks here and in Europe. That's valuable - the exchange is that we give recognition, international legitimacy and supportive relations.

I would add that under Starmer the RAF flew hundreds of sorties over Israel from the bases in Cyprus shooting down Iranian missiles, as well as spy planes regularly flying over the region - and the reward for that were attacks by Netanyahu and insinuations that Starmer was anti-semitic.

To the wider point on the left - there's absolutely a strand of anti-semitism. I think it's growing and I think it's very concerning and it's something I've posted about a fair bit. There's old school third worldism (personally I am sympathetic to a lot of that world view) and "anti-imperialism". I think both of those are very significant in the case of the Irish left (particularly Sinn Fein and historically the PIRA) and in Italy. I think also there's an element of communal politics in some countries - I've posted a lot about the Gaza Independents in the UK, for example. However, particularly in relation to other Muslims and people of Arab descent I think that PIRA case is striking because Americans raised a lot of money for an organisation that is profoundly anti-American and opposed to American "empire" (to this day Sinn Fein not only have their stance on Israel, but oppose NATO, deeper European defence, are pretty squishy on Russia etc). The reason they did it, harming a strategically helpful American ally, was for reasons of emotion and heritage about the six counties and Ireland. That sort of sentiment also applies.

All of that's absolutely the case - and it may overlap. I don't think there's an issue with acknowledging it while at the same time accepting there are absolutely people who aren't anti-semitic, or necesssarily third-worldist who are opposed for all the reasons people have flagged here and that includes a significant and growing number of Jews in diaspora communities who should not just be erased. I think I'd put the people here in the last bucket who aren't anti-semitic or third-worldist etc.

I repeatedly brought up the Double standards outside the context of the US and Israel.  I think the US and Israel is just a symptom of it.  Mostly I am focused on white Westerners.  Muslims and Arabs have very different motives of course.  But like I said, it goes beyond just Israel and Jews, and reflects a paternalist attitude toward POC.  They are willing to let POC (I don't like that term very much, but it is easier to type), do and say things that they would be aghast if white people did or said.  Like I pointed out earlier, many of the things that are decried as "fascist" in the West, are pretty typical outside the West.  Sometimes, the paternalism is just weird.  A year or two ago we had a discussion on indigenous people's ability recall their the exact borders of their territory 6,000 years ago.  That is of course absurd, lacking a written language doesn't mean you are frozen in history.  Nobody has an accurate oral history (or any history) from that long ago  But several people defended these idea, I suspect because they came from indigenous POC.  It's sort of a magic negro-noble/savage type mindset that I find bizarre and frankly counterproductive.

There was some polling back in 2019, that showed that White leftists in the US demonstrated a negative ingroup bias and positive outgroup bias, which resulted in a strong support of for Palestine, among other things.  I wonder if this is at play here as well.  I always meant to post it here, but never got around to it.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure what we mean by remembered better.

The question that occurs to me as more important, is what has strengthened the regime more?

FWIW I didn't see any cheers for the Iranian regime, only support for protesters.

Who is "On the right side of history".   A term that I picked up from the antizionist groups I keep an eye on.  Zoupa keeps and eye on the Vatniks, I keep an eye on their cousins who support Palestine.  They were very happy to see the slaughter of the "Zionist mercenaries".

[Razgovory]

If you haven't noticed, I've very bitter.  The world I lived in seems to be dying.