Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Tamas]

How many laps has this thread's core argument run now?

I haven't even posted my thing about how, really, Palestine is a queer issue.

You think you are joking, but then you have probably missed Queers for Palestine's open letter to Eurovision's participants to boycott due to Israel being represented. Which they politely declined by the way.

[Josquius]

1: Hamas are far right. Fatah and the historic Palestinian liberation movement have deep left wing roots.

2: Tonnes of people who support Palestinian rights aren't anti Semitic dicks.
Why are the exceptions somehow particularly relevant in the case of people sympathetic to Palestine but not to Israel supporters? You consistently seem to ignore that part of the equation.

Fatah, has little support and their "socialism" has been more of the 1930's German variety.  They are basically fascists.  The majority of Palestinians are Far-Right.  The majority of Israelis are not far-right.  Palestinian fascism is bleeding into the West which is why you have leftists spouting Holocaust Denial.

You might want to learn some history.
I'm not big on this revolutionary nationalist strain of socialism either- not just in Palestine but elsewhere in the world too.
But its roots are squarely on the left.
Its interesting as despite being a completely alien situation you can sort of see parallels in Palestine for modern politics in Europe, with a big part of Hamas managing to/being supported in becoming a big opponent to the Palestinian establishment being out of this idea that the socialists have failed so lets completely flip and support fascists.

So you're saying the effect is worse when fringe nutters with relatively little power engage in egregious behavior than when fringe nutters with more power engage in egregious behavior?

Not sure I see that.  Can you please explain the logic behind this assertion or provide evidence of this phenomenon's existence?

In terms of getting their point across yes.
Those in power already broadly accept the arguments of the pro-Israel crazies. They've nothing to win. It is possible their actions could cause a recoil but this would take serious effort.
I suppose you could argue that they actually want more, they want the full OVB cleansing of Palestine, and they're some way off getting this... but then that's their problem. There are no moderates wanting this same thing.

Those calling for Palestinian rights however are pushing a boulder uphill. Its already a difficult and time consuming challenge even without people supposedly helping them taking actions that do nothing but make the rock  heavier.

[Razgovory]

How many laps has this thread's core argument run now?

I haven't even posted my thing about how, really, Palestine is a queer issue.

You think you are joking, but then you have probably missed Queers for Palestine's open letter to Eurovision's participants to boycott due to Israel being represented. Which they politely declined by the way.

I'm not joking.

[viper37]

How is that evil?

The bit about excluding people who don't fit the characteristics set by the nationalists for belonging to the nation.

There is no one excluded.

A nation is formed around a core of people.  That is only normal.

America wasn't formed around the Spanish and the French and the Dutch and the Black slaves.  It was formed around the former British citizens who opposed the crown.  This is who the majority were, even if some were of Dutch, German, Irish or Scottish origins, their language was English.  Not Spanish, not Dutch, not French, not Creole, not Cherokee, not Mohawk.

They identified as Americans, and they were fighting the British and their Indian allies.

Their history does not say it was wrong.

[Razgovory]

1: Hamas are far right. Fatah and the historic Palestinian liberation movement have deep left wing roots.

2: Tonnes of people who support Palestinian rights aren't anti Semitic dicks.
Why are the exceptions somehow particularly relevant in the case of people sympathetic to Palestine but not to Israel supporters? You consistently seem to ignore that part of the equation.

Fatah, has little support and their "socialism" has been more of the 1930's German variety.  They are basically fascists.  The majority of Palestinians are Far-Right.  The majority of Israelis are not far-right.  Palestinian fascism is bleeding into the West which is why you have leftists spouting Holocaust Denial.

You might want to learn some history.
I'm not big on this revolutionary nationalist strain of socialism either- not just in Palestine but elsewhere in the world too.
But its roots are squarely on the left.
Its interesting as despite being a completely alien situation you can sort of see parallels in Palestine for modern politics in Europe, with a big part of Hamas managing to/being supported in becoming a big opponent to the Palestinian establishment being out of this idea that the socialists have failed so lets completely flip and support fascists.

I have learned some history.  Fatah is Arab Socialism.  Like Syria and Saddam Hussein.  It's just Nationalism.  With the word "socialism" tacked on.

[crazy canuck]

Go back and reread the definitions. You yourself posted, and you will see that there is indeed a necessary exclusion of others from the national identity.

[The Minsky Moment]

Fatah was "socialist" because they came to being during the era of "liberation armies" funded by the Soviets and their satellites.  If little green men took up their cause and funneled them explosives and hard currency they would have been Martianists.  In areas under Fatah control there is plenty of corruption. Socialism, not so much.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

How is that evil?

The bit about excluding people who don't fit the characteristics set by the nationalists for belonging to the nation.

That's inherent of the concept group:
Some people are in, some are out (how else to define what the group is), some can get in, some want out, others will never get in and some others don't want to get in.
And yes, in general the people who make up the group get to decide what the group is and who is part of it.

A group that contains everyone is not a group, it's just everyone. And that's not going to happen, except at some high almost abstract level since we're all individuals and gravitate towards people that are like 'us' (and 'us' has a great many options here). And the people that are 'us' know they are not 'them'.
It's human, and humans are tribal.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, and that is the problem of Nationalism.  It creates tribalism on a national scale.

[celedhring]

Yeah, tribalism is what's we have sports for. No need to foment it in places that matter.

[Jacob]

I find the distinction between nationalism and patriotism a bit semantic. Like, I know what it's getting at and think the distinction is worth making - but I don't know if cramming the distinction in to the definition of those two words is always appropriate.

From my perspective the idea that "I love my country, its people, its values, and its many peculiarities. I'm willing to work hard and potentially make sacrifices for the sake of my country. I also enjoy it when people representing my country do well" is pretty core to human behaviour and identity (with the caveat that "country" could be other groupings at different times).

There's a shitty version that then adds "... so therefore I'm going to being a shitty bigot to people who don't belong to my country and/or not care about negative things happening to people who aren't from here. I'll also be a harsh gatekeeper for who I consider belonging to me country 'for real' and exclude folks I don't like. I will get highly offended at any criticism of my country, whether legitimate or not. Additionally, I'll be easily bamboozled by flag waving and country-loving rhetoric. Loving my country is all about being in an ingroup that I can benefit from, while externalizing the costs to members of various outgroups."

There's a positive version that adds "... so I will be inclusive and welcoming to those who belong to my country, and find ways to work together and unify. I won't be a jerk to people from other countries, but rather I'll find commonality with them in how they love their countries the way I love mine. I will generally take criticism of my country (especially internal criticism) as a way to continually work to make it a better place."

... more or less.

If someone wants to call the first (bad) one "nationalism" and the second (good) one "patriotism" that's fine, but it doesn't mean that people who call themselves "nationalists" don't conform to the second (good) set of attitudes, or that people who call themselves "patriots" don't conform to the first (bad) set of attitudes.

The two set of sentiments are pretty closely related, IMO, and I think there's a bit of semantic treadmill going on with giving them separate names.

[crazy canuck]

The problem with nationalism is how nationalists define the "its people" part of your definition.  If it is defined as everybody who becomes a citizen regardless of ethnicity, religion, or some other signifier then you are talking about something other than nationalism.

 

[The Brain]

"Patriotism" isn't a political program. "Nationalism" is. Leaving every question of good/bad aside, they are apples and oranges.

[Razgovory]

The question was "is Trump a Nationalist"  Viper said no, because Americans don't understand the word.

[Jacob]

The problem with nationalism is how nationalists define the "its people" part of your definition.  If it is defined as everybody who becomes a citizen regardless of ethnicity, religion, or some other signifier then you are talking about something other than nationalism.

I agree that the problem lies in how "the people" is defined. I disagree that it's clearcut that "if it's nationalist it's exclusive; while if it's inclusive, it's not nationalism."

There's a strong inclusive strain in Scottish nationalism - "we're all Jock Tamson's bairns" and all that. Similarly, from discussions here it seems Quebec nationalists are fairly inclusive - as long as you're in Quebec and you consider yourself to belong, then you're Quebecois regardless of colour, creed, and origin.

I mean, I guess we can say "you're doing it wrong and you're not actually nationalists" to people who call themselves nationalists and whose big political project is national independence because they're inclusive about who they consider belonging to their nation, but I'm personally not that convinced by that line of reasoning.