"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
The DNC and Democratic Leadership must go, this party is dead.
Okay, maybe I was wrong about you being a tankie, because it does seem like you’re engaging in good faith. That was my bad.
But I still disagree with you. In the current state of US politics, right-winger has a very specific meaning. Republicans are right-wingers, including the very few remaining moderates who maga call “rinos.” Right-wingers are fiscal and social conservatives. Most of the right-wingers in US are quite far to the right, and nearly the entire party is subservient to the alt-right maga agenda, with very few exceptions.
Democrats are the centrists. They call themselves liberals, but most of the establishment Democrats are actually neoliberals, which in reality is fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, many people in the US mistake Democrats for leftist, because relatively speaking, they’re the party that’s further left than the other (though being centrist).
The Democratic Socialists of America or DSA is a caucus within the Democratic party that includes the progressives. They typically oppose the establishment DNC party line on matters of fiscal policy. On the absolute scale, sure, they’re only mildly leftist. But on the relative scale of US politics, they’re the only true leftists in office.
But just because they understand the merits of working within the system for incremental change, doesn’t mean they’re secretly right-wingers. They are left of center.
What you’re describing as “centrists” are social democrats. Common in Europe, including the Nordic Model (which was arguably one of the most successful political experiments in history regarding universal human rights, equal opportunity, and wealth distribution). There are no social democrats in US politics, but if there were they would be on the left of the spectrum.
The problem with choosing an absolute scale over a relative scale is that it’s divorced from reality. It’s an idealization rather than a realization. And the centerpoint is somewhat arbitrary, depending on the lens of the author. It’s theory without practice, an ideological lens without a pragmatic application.
Calling Bernie Sanders a right-winger is just a mental masturbatory armchair exercise for people whose leftier-than-thou attitude prevents them from contributing to any meaningful change in the world.
I don’t think we really disagree much. But I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on categorizing people that are liberal Zionist and also in favor of maintaining capitalism as “not right wing”. Bernie Sanders is both of those things.
You criticize the idea of what “the left” is in the US; basically a creation of two neoliberal parties. Which I agree with. But, you’re kind of conforming to it by not recognizing that Bernie is a right winger on many issues.
The most important issue recently being his Liberal Zionism and constant “Israel has a right to exist”. I’m sorry. But I don’t consider anyone that says that to be “on the left”. No matter how much I might agree with their domestic policies.
If you said “Israel needs a regime change” I would agree with you, but there are people in Israel who were born there, people whose parents were born there, people who don’t have any other citizenship but Israeli. Where do you expect all those people to go if the state of Israel ceases to exist?
You can point to the atrocities surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel, and the continuing atrocities surrounding their settler-expansionism, and you wouldn’t be wrong. Because those are infringements on other people’s territory; territory and people who should have sovereignty.
In an ideal world, the UN and ICC would have teeth and be able to enforce international law to prevent such infringements and atrocities. And every nation would be governed by heads of state and legislative coalitions that respect human rights, and are bound by constitutions which assure human rights are respected, so there would be no need for IGOs to use the teeth that they would have.
But that’s not the world we live in. Yes, Israel’s government commits atrocities and that’s bad. They should be held accountable and replaced by people who don’t do that. But the people who live there, who were born there and don’t have anywhere else to go, have a right to live and be self-determining just like everyone else in the world.
It’s unfortunate that not everyone’s basic rights are respected, and I’m all for holding the people who are responsible for those infringements accountable. But I’m not on board with wiping an entire civilization of people off the map because their leaders are psychopaths, or even because historically their forebears shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
And in case you’re wondering, yes, the same applies to Palestinians. Because they’re people and deserve autonomy, sovereignty, dignity, and self-determinism, just like everyone else.
This might seem a little idealistic, but I don’t believe life has to be a zero-sum game. I believe it’s entirely possible for two nations with a history of conflict to learn to live in peace. It would require a lot of progress, and we currently seem to be going in the wrong direction, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aiming for that goal. Because if we accept the premise that “only one may survive,” then the only way we can go is backwards, and it can only end in the destruction and devastation of one or both nations. So as long as either one is calling for the death and destruction of the other, there can’t really be an ideal outcome.
Leadership change is necessary on both sides, and robust measures put in place with impartial international oversight. Only then, with time the people of both nations can learn to coexist.
Of course, either side would skewer me for not picking a side. Maybe I’m naïve. I’m just not on board with ethnic cleansing, no matter which way it goes.
Palestine is what “Israel” sits on. Israel is the invention of a western colonial project and an apartheid state.
I think it’s odd you think the only solution to undoing the crimes and injustice of Israels formation is to perform a reverse genocide or remigration. Or at least you are hinting and fear mongering at this like your a white person in apartheid South Africa.
No. Israel does not have a right to exist. An apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist. A state that has enacted a genocide does not have a right to exist. The power structures of that state need to be destroyed.
I really think it’s odd that you call yourself a “socialist” and can’t understand basic vocabulary have used to describe class and state structures.
This conversation is just getting dull. Because you are consistently jumping to liberal narratives and definitions that are rooted in idealism and not in dialectical materialism. I really think you need to stop calling yourself a socialist or maybe do some reading. You’re just not capable of understanding the vocabulary am using. It’s exhausting having to try to explain what I mean by “a states right to exist” and even what “a state” means when you go off on a tangent about “what will the people living there do”.
It’s clear. They will continue living there under a different state if they so desire. The abolishment of Israel is the abolishment of the apartheid state. The apartheid state IS what Israel is. It always had been. Since it’s formation.
Please go read some Marxist literature if you’re gonna call yourself a “socialist”.
Or at the very least pick up a Norm Finkelstein book to understand some history on Israel.
Yeah. Realized I’m banging my head against the wall. They said Marx was against socialism. Dude is dumb enough to fall for liberals that don’t read not understanding that Marx lived in an era of Utopian vs. Scientific Socialism.
They’re just a liberal Zionist. Definitely why they freaked out over me saying Bernie was.
I think it’s odd you think the only solution to undoing the crimes and injustice of Israels formation is to perform a reverse genocide or remigration.
I don’t think that’s the only solution, but it would be the inevitable result if Israeli citizens suddenly lost the protection of the state. Hamas and other organizations have the declared purpose of exterminating every Israeli. You can’t just expect them to willingly disarm when there are militant organizations that want them all dead. That’s how you get an endless war. It’s not fear mongering, it’s called being in touch with reality.
An apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist.
South Africa was reformed and abolished apartheid without dismantling the entire structure of the state.
A state that has enacted a genocide does not have a right to exist.
Nazi Germany ceased to exist, but it was replaced by a constitutional republic. It was still Germany, and no one swept in to exterminate all the ethnic Germans. The same can not be said of what would happen if you suddenly dismantled the state of Israel.
The power structures of that state need to be destroyed.
Yeah, sure, destroy the power structures. If you can do so without exposing the civilian populace to violence and persecution.
I really think it’s odd that you call yourself a “socialist” and can’t understand basic vocabulary have used to describe class and state structures.
I do understand the vocabulary, I just have a different take on it than you based on the fact that 1) Neither side’s civilians deserve to be exterminated, and 2) Israel’s neighbors include militant organizations that want to exterminate them all.
This conversation is just getting dull. Because you are consistently jumping to liberal narratives and definitions that are rooted in idealism and not in dialectical materialism.
If “liberal narrative” means “ethnic cleansing is wrong,” then fuck it I guess that makes me a liberal? I’m against any side arguing for ethnic cleansing. That’s not idealism, that’s basic moral cognition.
You’re just not capable of understanding the vocabulary am using.
I understand it just fine. You’re just assuming that I don’t because that makes it easier to dismiss my arguments without actually engaging with them.
It’s clear. They will continue living there under a different state if they so desire.
It’s clear that Hamas would exterminate every Israeli civilian if the state of Israel suddenly laid down arms. That doesn’t justify what they’re doing in Gaza. Their response has been completely disproportional to the instigating attack. Targeting civilians is a war crime, no matter which side is doing it. What’s so hard to get about that?
Please go read some Marxist literature if you’re gonna call yourself a “socialist”
I’ve read Marx. I like many of his ideas, but I don’t treat it like a fucking bible. I can engage with its critically and have a nuanced take. I can accept some of his premises and conclusions while rejecting others. Because I’m not a campist nor an ideological purist.
Also, Marx wasn’t a socialist. He disparaged socialists. So there’s that.
Good rule of thumb when you hear someone say “it’s clear that”, and then they follow it with a conclusion they present no evidence, it’s a good sign they are full of shit.
Your comment is filled with fear mongering of a theoretical ethnic cleansing in order to defend and maintain a real and existing ethnic cleansing being done by that same state you’re defending the existence of.
You’re entire argument is based in your head and not in material reality. You are not a socialist. You are a liberal Zionist.
A socialist wouldn’t confuse Marx’s criticism of Utopian Social (what I’m assuming you’re referring to) for a criticism of socialism as we use the word today. That is, scientific socialism, that Marx’s life work is entirely based on.
Marx spent his entire life outlining every definition and detail of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism and how he defined each. It’s just a testament to your lack of reading to make such a simple mistake. Stop reading people that quote Marx out of the massive context of his works and just read Marx. Because it sounds like you’re reading garbage from the right. Like, literally Hitler said Marx perverted the meaning of “socialism” when asked about why the Nazis were the “national socialist”.
Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal… Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property.
You have the same “take” on Marx and socialism as Hitler did. You might want to rethink what you’ve read if you’re siding with Hitler and saying Marx disparaged socialism.
The problem you will have with Marxist (like myself) is that we do not care about the “ideas” in your head anymore then what they promote in material reality. You can feel “good” about making an argument to maintain an apartheid state by saying “well, CLEARLY, the currently oppressed will become the oppressors if we do that”. But all that that “idea” is doing is giving you justification for the current oppression. You are not engaging with an arguing of how to dismantle the apartheid state. You are defending it’s continued existence. And, to a Marxist, that is what is important. It’s how I will “define” you on a left to right spectrum. And in the case of Israel you are clearly “right wing”. No matter how much liberal “thought” you use to justify your defense of it.
All you are doing is searching for a justification for your support of maintaining the oppression that makes you not feel like a supporter of an ethnostate. It’s text book Liberal Zionism. It’s why you can’t see that Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing.
Good rule of thumb when you hear someone say “it’s clear that”, and then they follow it with a conclusion they present no evidence, it’s a good sign they are full of shit.
That’s hilarious, because I was borrowing your “it’s clear” language when I said that. Self-awarewolves.
Your comment is filled with fear mongering of a theoretical ethnic cleansing in order to defend and maintain a real and existing ethnic cleansing being done by that same state you’re defending the existence of.
That’s not even what I was doing. 1), it’s not fear-mongering when the official stated purpose of hamas is to eradicate jewish Israelis from the Levant. 2). I explicitly mentioned that I don’t support Israel’s actions in Gaza and that they need a change in leadership, up to and including governmental structure, to ensure universal respect for human rights going forward.
You have the same “take” on Marx and socialism as Hitler did.
You had to severely distort what I said in order to arrive at that conclusion. Pointing out that Marx criticized socialism (which he did, on the grounds that they weren’t radical enough) is completely different from professing national socialism as the “true socialism.” Get bent with your ludicrous strawman.
The problem you will have with Marxist (like myself) is that we do not care about the “ideas” in your head anymore then what they promote in material reality.
You might as well reverse that statement too, because your idealism is not even inline with dialectical materialism. The ideas in your head are divorced from reality.
I feel like this whole argument boils down to your refusal to admit that Hamas explicitly promotes the eradication of all Jewish Israelis from the Levant.
You can feel “good” about making an argument to maintain an apartheid state
I never did that, in fact I discussed examples of how former apartheid states were able to be reformed and abolish the apartheid systems without leaving entire demographics exposed to revenge killings. Literally the opposite of what you’re claiming I said, because I pointed out how it is possible to do properly.
You are defending it’s continued existence.
Nope, if you actually read what I wrote that’s not what I was doing.
And in the case of Israel you are clearly “right wing”.
Not even a little bit. There are plenty of Israeli citizens who are leftists and disapprove of their governments and want regime change, but don’t want to dismantle the entire structures that protect them from neighbors who hate them and want them to die in the lands where they were born and hold their only citizenship. They, like I, oppose the right-wing, ultra-orthodox government in the Knesset.
Also, Hamas is a right-wing organization. So I really don’t get this moral pedestal-standing that’s so common on the left…
All you are doing is searching for a justification for your support of maintaining the oppression that makes you not feel like a supporter of an ethnostate
Another uncharitable mischaracterization of my position because you’re unable to tolerate any nuance or disagreement. I don’t need to justify my position, because my position is that “ethnic cleansings are bad.”
You’re the one who has to jump through all these hoops and apply layers of leftist theory in order to make your position seem justified, when the end result of your position is necessarily one of two options: 1), you succeed, the state of Israel is dismantled, and Hamas exterminates every Jewish Israeli remaining in the Levant; or 2), you fail, and because there was never any option for a peaceful resolution, Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
There is no peaceful resolution in your approach. You literally remove that option from the table when you say the only solution is to completely abolish the state of Israel.
Under my approach, “Palestinian civilians and Israeli civilians alike are innocent and deserve to have their human rights respected” while “Hamas and the Knesset/Mossad/IDF alike are genocidal terrorist organizations which need to be abolished and replaced by forms of civil governance if the Palestinian and Israeli people are ever going to live together in peace.”
Do you see how that’s different from saying either “Israeli civilians and government = Good; Palestinian civilians and Hamas = Bad” or “Palestinian civilians and Hamas = Good; Israeli civilians and government = Bad”?
My view is actually more in line with critical theory in that respect, distinguishing between the disenfranchised proletariat and ruling class on both sides, while avoiding the trap of ethnoreligious campism altogether.
But since my position is nuanced and well-reasoned, and doesn’t mindlessly parrot the narrative you prefer to push, I guess you’ll just continue to call me ignorant and a zionist and pretend I don’t know what I’m talking about because that’s easier for you than considering a view that doesn’t perfectly align with your own which might make you question your own presumptions…
I think at this point you are just hallucinating “facts”. I’ve spent two and a half years trying to educate idiot liberal Zionist. If you are still regurgitating the same stupid talking points they were making in 2023. There is no hope for you. You are not worth speaking to. You’ve spent no time trying to educate yourself but only justify.
Keep viewing the world through your tunnel vision, I’m sure calling everyone a zionist just because they don’t support Hamas is going to work out fine for you. It seems to have helped everyone in Gaza tremendously. You know, since we’re being delusional.
I’ve made my position clear, and it’s not one of zionism. But you seem pretty intent on disregarding everything I say so you can call me a zionist just because I don’t support the ethnic cleansing of israeli Jews.
There’s a difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. The funny thing is, the only people trying to conflate the two concepts are the Israeli government and Hamas. That seems to be the one thing they agree on. Although, they differ in that one calls anti-zionism anti-semitism, and the other calls anti-semitism anti-zionism.
Most people are capable of recognizing the difference though. They’re just not the ones astroturfing the entire internet.
Okay, maybe I was wrong about you being a tankie, because it does seem like you’re engaging in good faith. That was my bad.
But I still disagree with you. In the current state of US politics, right-winger has a very specific meaning. Republicans are right-wingers, including the very few remaining moderates who maga call “rinos.” Right-wingers are fiscal and social conservatives. Most of the right-wingers in US are quite far to the right, and nearly the entire party is subservient to the alt-right maga agenda, with very few exceptions.
Democrats are the centrists. They call themselves liberals, but most of the establishment Democrats are actually neoliberals, which in reality is fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, many people in the US mistake Democrats for leftist, because relatively speaking, they’re the party that’s further left than the other (though being centrist).
The Democratic Socialists of America or DSA is a caucus within the Democratic party that includes the progressives. They typically oppose the establishment DNC party line on matters of fiscal policy. On the absolute scale, sure, they’re only mildly leftist. But on the relative scale of US politics, they’re the only true leftists in office.
But just because they understand the merits of working within the system for incremental change, doesn’t mean they’re secretly right-wingers. They are left of center.
What you’re describing as “centrists” are social democrats. Common in Europe, including the Nordic Model (which was arguably one of the most successful political experiments in history regarding universal human rights, equal opportunity, and wealth distribution). There are no social democrats in US politics, but if there were they would be on the left of the spectrum.
The problem with choosing an absolute scale over a relative scale is that it’s divorced from reality. It’s an idealization rather than a realization. And the centerpoint is somewhat arbitrary, depending on the lens of the author. It’s theory without practice, an ideological lens without a pragmatic application.
Calling Bernie Sanders a right-winger is just a mental masturbatory armchair exercise for people whose leftier-than-thou attitude prevents them from contributing to any meaningful change in the world.
I don’t think we really disagree much. But I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on categorizing people that are liberal Zionist and also in favor of maintaining capitalism as “not right wing”. Bernie Sanders is both of those things.
You criticize the idea of what “the left” is in the US; basically a creation of two neoliberal parties. Which I agree with. But, you’re kind of conforming to it by not recognizing that Bernie is a right winger on many issues.
The most important issue recently being his Liberal Zionism and constant “Israel has a right to exist”. I’m sorry. But I don’t consider anyone that says that to be “on the left”. No matter how much I might agree with their domestic policies.
If you said “Israel needs a regime change” I would agree with you, but there are people in Israel who were born there, people whose parents were born there, people who don’t have any other citizenship but Israeli. Where do you expect all those people to go if the state of Israel ceases to exist?
You can point to the atrocities surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel, and the continuing atrocities surrounding their settler-expansionism, and you wouldn’t be wrong. Because those are infringements on other people’s territory; territory and people who should have sovereignty.
In an ideal world, the UN and ICC would have teeth and be able to enforce international law to prevent such infringements and atrocities. And every nation would be governed by heads of state and legislative coalitions that respect human rights, and are bound by constitutions which assure human rights are respected, so there would be no need for IGOs to use the teeth that they would have.
But that’s not the world we live in. Yes, Israel’s government commits atrocities and that’s bad. They should be held accountable and replaced by people who don’t do that. But the people who live there, who were born there and don’t have anywhere else to go, have a right to live and be self-determining just like everyone else in the world.
It’s unfortunate that not everyone’s basic rights are respected, and I’m all for holding the people who are responsible for those infringements accountable. But I’m not on board with wiping an entire civilization of people off the map because their leaders are psychopaths, or even because historically their forebears shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
And in case you’re wondering, yes, the same applies to Palestinians. Because they’re people and deserve autonomy, sovereignty, dignity, and self-determinism, just like everyone else.
This might seem a little idealistic, but I don’t believe life has to be a zero-sum game. I believe it’s entirely possible for two nations with a history of conflict to learn to live in peace. It would require a lot of progress, and we currently seem to be going in the wrong direction, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aiming for that goal. Because if we accept the premise that “only one may survive,” then the only way we can go is backwards, and it can only end in the destruction and devastation of one or both nations. So as long as either one is calling for the death and destruction of the other, there can’t really be an ideal outcome.
Leadership change is necessary on both sides, and robust measures put in place with impartial international oversight. Only then, with time the people of both nations can learn to coexist.
Of course, either side would skewer me for not picking a side. Maybe I’m naïve. I’m just not on board with ethnic cleansing, no matter which way it goes.
Palestine is what “Israel” sits on. Israel is the invention of a western colonial project and an apartheid state.
I think it’s odd you think the only solution to undoing the crimes and injustice of Israels formation is to perform a reverse genocide or remigration. Or at least you are hinting and fear mongering at this like your a white person in apartheid South Africa.
No. Israel does not have a right to exist. An apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist. A state that has enacted a genocide does not have a right to exist. The power structures of that state need to be destroyed.
I really think it’s odd that you call yourself a “socialist” and can’t understand basic vocabulary have used to describe class and state structures.
This conversation is just getting dull. Because you are consistently jumping to liberal narratives and definitions that are rooted in idealism and not in dialectical materialism. I really think you need to stop calling yourself a socialist or maybe do some reading. You’re just not capable of understanding the vocabulary am using. It’s exhausting having to try to explain what I mean by “a states right to exist” and even what “a state” means when you go off on a tangent about “what will the people living there do”.
It’s clear. They will continue living there under a different state if they so desire. The abolishment of Israel is the abolishment of the apartheid state. The apartheid state IS what Israel is. It always had been. Since it’s formation.
Please go read some Marxist literature if you’re gonna call yourself a “socialist”.
Or at the very least pick up a Norm Finkelstein book to understand some history on Israel.
He’s a braindead liberal. Looks at his comment history, be goes around justifying wars and genocides and calls himself a socialist.
Yeah. Realized I’m banging my head against the wall. They said Marx was against socialism. Dude is dumb enough to fall for liberals that don’t read not understanding that Marx lived in an era of Utopian vs. Scientific Socialism.
They’re just a liberal Zionist. Definitely why they freaked out over me saying Bernie was.
I don’t think that’s the only solution, but it would be the inevitable result if Israeli citizens suddenly lost the protection of the state. Hamas and other organizations have the declared purpose of exterminating every Israeli. You can’t just expect them to willingly disarm when there are militant organizations that want them all dead. That’s how you get an endless war. It’s not fear mongering, it’s called being in touch with reality.
South Africa was reformed and abolished apartheid without dismantling the entire structure of the state.
Nazi Germany ceased to exist, but it was replaced by a constitutional republic. It was still Germany, and no one swept in to exterminate all the ethnic Germans. The same can not be said of what would happen if you suddenly dismantled the state of Israel.
Yeah, sure, destroy the power structures. If you can do so without exposing the civilian populace to violence and persecution.
I do understand the vocabulary, I just have a different take on it than you based on the fact that 1) Neither side’s civilians deserve to be exterminated, and 2) Israel’s neighbors include militant organizations that want to exterminate them all.
If “liberal narrative” means “ethnic cleansing is wrong,” then fuck it I guess that makes me a liberal? I’m against any side arguing for ethnic cleansing. That’s not idealism, that’s basic moral cognition.
I understand it just fine. You’re just assuming that I don’t because that makes it easier to dismiss my arguments without actually engaging with them.
It’s clear that Hamas would exterminate every Israeli civilian if the state of Israel suddenly laid down arms. That doesn’t justify what they’re doing in Gaza. Their response has been completely disproportional to the instigating attack. Targeting civilians is a war crime, no matter which side is doing it. What’s so hard to get about that?
I’ve read Marx. I like many of his ideas, but I don’t treat it like a fucking bible. I can engage with its critically and have a nuanced take. I can accept some of his premises and conclusions while rejecting others. Because I’m not a campist nor an ideological purist.
Also, Marx wasn’t a socialist. He disparaged socialists. So there’s that.
Good rule of thumb when you hear someone say “it’s clear that”, and then they follow it with a conclusion they present no evidence, it’s a good sign they are full of shit.
Your comment is filled with fear mongering of a theoretical ethnic cleansing in order to defend and maintain a real and existing ethnic cleansing being done by that same state you’re defending the existence of.
You’re entire argument is based in your head and not in material reality. You are not a socialist. You are a liberal Zionist.
A socialist wouldn’t confuse Marx’s criticism of Utopian Social (what I’m assuming you’re referring to) for a criticism of socialism as we use the word today. That is, scientific socialism, that Marx’s life work is entirely based on.
Marx spent his entire life outlining every definition and detail of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism and how he defined each. It’s just a testament to your lack of reading to make such a simple mistake. Stop reading people that quote Marx out of the massive context of his works and just read Marx. Because it sounds like you’re reading garbage from the right. Like, literally Hitler said Marx perverted the meaning of “socialism” when asked about why the Nazis were the “national socialist”.
You have the same “take” on Marx and socialism as Hitler did. You might want to rethink what you’ve read if you’re siding with Hitler and saying Marx disparaged socialism.
The problem you will have with Marxist (like myself) is that we do not care about the “ideas” in your head anymore then what they promote in material reality. You can feel “good” about making an argument to maintain an apartheid state by saying “well, CLEARLY, the currently oppressed will become the oppressors if we do that”. But all that that “idea” is doing is giving you justification for the current oppression. You are not engaging with an arguing of how to dismantle the apartheid state. You are defending it’s continued existence. And, to a Marxist, that is what is important. It’s how I will “define” you on a left to right spectrum. And in the case of Israel you are clearly “right wing”. No matter how much liberal “thought” you use to justify your defense of it.
All you are doing is searching for a justification for your support of maintaining the oppression that makes you not feel like a supporter of an ethnostate. It’s text book Liberal Zionism. It’s why you can’t see that Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing.
That’s hilarious, because I was borrowing your “it’s clear” language when I said that. Self-awarewolves.
That’s not even what I was doing. 1), it’s not fear-mongering when the official stated purpose of hamas is to eradicate jewish Israelis from the Levant. 2). I explicitly mentioned that I don’t support Israel’s actions in Gaza and that they need a change in leadership, up to and including governmental structure, to ensure universal respect for human rights going forward.
You had to severely distort what I said in order to arrive at that conclusion. Pointing out that Marx criticized socialism (which he did, on the grounds that they weren’t radical enough) is completely different from professing national socialism as the “true socialism.” Get bent with your ludicrous strawman.
You might as well reverse that statement too, because your idealism is not even inline with dialectical materialism. The ideas in your head are divorced from reality.
I feel like this whole argument boils down to your refusal to admit that Hamas explicitly promotes the eradication of all Jewish Israelis from the Levant.
I never did that, in fact I discussed examples of how former apartheid states were able to be reformed and abolish the apartheid systems without leaving entire demographics exposed to revenge killings. Literally the opposite of what you’re claiming I said, because I pointed out how it is possible to do properly.
Nope, if you actually read what I wrote that’s not what I was doing.
Not even a little bit. There are plenty of Israeli citizens who are leftists and disapprove of their governments and want regime change, but don’t want to dismantle the entire structures that protect them from neighbors who hate them and want them to die in the lands where they were born and hold their only citizenship. They, like I, oppose the right-wing, ultra-orthodox government in the Knesset.
Also, Hamas is a right-wing organization. So I really don’t get this moral pedestal-standing that’s so common on the left…
Another uncharitable mischaracterization of my position because you’re unable to tolerate any nuance or disagreement. I don’t need to justify my position, because my position is that “ethnic cleansings are bad.”
You’re the one who has to jump through all these hoops and apply layers of leftist theory in order to make your position seem justified, when the end result of your position is necessarily one of two options: 1), you succeed, the state of Israel is dismantled, and Hamas exterminates every Jewish Israeli remaining in the Levant; or 2), you fail, and because there was never any option for a peaceful resolution, Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
There is no peaceful resolution in your approach. You literally remove that option from the table when you say the only solution is to completely abolish the state of Israel.
Under my approach, “Palestinian civilians and Israeli civilians alike are innocent and deserve to have their human rights respected” while “Hamas and the Knesset/Mossad/IDF alike are genocidal terrorist organizations which need to be abolished and replaced by forms of civil governance if the Palestinian and Israeli people are ever going to live together in peace.”
Do you see how that’s different from saying either “Israeli civilians and government = Good; Palestinian civilians and Hamas = Bad” or “Palestinian civilians and Hamas = Good; Israeli civilians and government = Bad”?
My view is actually more in line with critical theory in that respect, distinguishing between the disenfranchised proletariat and ruling class on both sides, while avoiding the trap of ethnoreligious campism altogether.
But since my position is nuanced and well-reasoned, and doesn’t mindlessly parrot the narrative you prefer to push, I guess you’ll just continue to call me ignorant and a zionist and pretend I don’t know what I’m talking about because that’s easier for you than considering a view that doesn’t perfectly align with your own which might make you question your own presumptions…
I think at this point you are just hallucinating “facts”. I’ve spent two and a half years trying to educate idiot liberal Zionist. If you are still regurgitating the same stupid talking points they were making in 2023. There is no hope for you. You are not worth speaking to. You’ve spent no time trying to educate yourself but only justify.
Fuck off Zionist.
Keep viewing the world through your tunnel vision, I’m sure calling everyone a zionist just because they don’t support Hamas is going to work out fine for you. It seems to have helped everyone in Gaza tremendously. You know, since we’re being delusional.
I’ve made my position clear, and it’s not one of zionism. But you seem pretty intent on disregarding everything I say so you can call me a zionist just because I don’t support the ethnic cleansing of israeli Jews.
There’s a difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. The funny thing is, the only people trying to conflate the two concepts are the Israeli government and Hamas. That seems to be the one thing they agree on. Although, they differ in that one calls anti-zionism anti-semitism, and the other calls anti-semitism anti-zionism.
Most people are capable of recognizing the difference though. They’re just not the ones astroturfing the entire internet.