After the conclusion of the Derek Chauvin trial a few weeks ago, it became apparent that across the worlds of culturally left/liberal US corporations, non-profits, academia, professional sports, and electoral politics, certain slogans were mandatory to recite. The phrase “There Is Still Much Work To Be Done,” or some slight variation thereof, was
What you've done is notice the things that the now vilified and totally erased-off-the-internet 'alt right' noticed during 2013-2017. When you criticize those who are never to be criticized, the entire syndicate comes after you, and they'll eventually stigmatize the movement until it's suffocated out of existence. "Alt right" was a term coined by sleepy libertarian Paul Gottfried many years ago - it was specifically directed at the inconsistencies of the Neocons and their fealty to Israel and the Big Gov't that mindlessly supports it. You can go even further back to the early 50's with John Beaty's "Iron Curtain Over America" for the genesis of this viewpoint.
The thing is you're not allowed to 'notice' any of this. The parroting you see, and the bipartisan bootlicking is manifest in all the Neoconservative and Neoliberal politicians. DJT had a unique angle in that he was a Boomer, and pro Israel, while savagely attacking their stranglehold on the Media and the Campus. That border wall he was pushing was a bridge too far. Border walls are only for certain countries, where they are not only necessary, but also inherently good. For evidence of this watch the human human ferret Ben Shapiro tag DJT supporters as 'racist' over and over for supporting a tight USA / Mexico border. (It's why they replaced Savage with Shapiro). It was all fascinating to watch. Now he's gone, from an election where 30 million more people voted than usual, including the historic 2008 election. So strange.
But these are all things you're not allowed to notice. That fact that you have, and have written about it; and even said truthful things about Buchanan and Ron Paul... that's bold. Fantastic work.
It isn't unreasonable to voice support for a strategic ally in the Middle East. But it is equally reasonable to question whether our unwavering support for Israel is at least one reason that our relationships with so many other nations in the area are strained.
That said, pulling our support for Israel would set off a firestorm of epic proportions. Israel seems to have a, "fuck around and find out" policy and frankly, I don't blame them. Iran seems to use Hamas to poke the bear on occasion to see what they will do.
If you are surrounded by enemies, you are going to be in a defensive posture all the time. That doesn't mean that indiscriminate violence against Gaza is justifiable. But you do need to consider that Palenstians are being used by other nation states to taunt their shared enemy.
When we talk about Israelis and Palestinians, the influence of other nations like Iran never seems to come up as active participants in unrest. Palenstians are being victimized by their own leadership and by other nation states that are all too happy to throw them into the meat grinder.
Western discourse on this issue seems to be one of hubris and ignorance. I don't have a comprehensive understanding of the history or the current issues at hand. It seems to be propaganda and bullshit on all sides. Peace would be a nice change of pace.
To say there's not *enough* scrutiny of Iran in American discourse is a bizarre take. You may criticize the scrutiny for being shallow but Iran's stance towards Israel and Lebanon is a persistent theme in this country.
You seem to be under the impression that I have a more nuanced understanding of the situation than I do. I am merely stating that the discussion about Israel and the Palestinian people always seems to come down to whether you support one or the other. It is framed as a binary choice between good and evil but from my experience, it is never that simple.
I would like to see more coverage about Iran's involvement in this conflict. I would also like to know whether US foreign policy or funding has emboldened Iran. If so, I am of the opinion that the American people should know about that. But instead, we are bombarded with moral dissertations that distill the complexity of the situation to a false choice. That is what I take issue with.
I don't know if it's as much of a contradiction as you're making it out to be. America First means that the U.S. government should put the interests of U.S. citizens above all else in its policies, both foreign and domestic, and that the governments of other countries should do the same for their citizens. It's certainly arguable, but it's not irrational to believe that: (1) Israel puts the interests of its citizens above all else when it responds disproportionately to Palestinian attacks; and (2) America puts the interests of its citizens above all else when it unconditionally supports its most reliable ally in the Middle East.
It is rational to say that an extension of America First and that it is preferable that each country do the same thing. It is *irrational* to conflate that with an obligation to do 2), particularly when it's abundantly clear that the US' meddling in the Middle East has been at best neutral for the average American, and in all likelihood much worse than that, in terms of monetary cost, goodwill across the region, and "invade the world, invite the world" resulting in both losses for the US military and endless parades of (justifiably) embittered refugees.
This kind of snotty, evasive dissembling does your argument no favors. They're not in conflict at all. My position - it is *at best* a neutral proposition, and I regard this as undeniable. It is then at least partially debatable - I personally think not by much, but it is debatable - that we're actually the worse off for it, in much the same way that our current border crisis is at least in part the fruit of our meddling in Central America for so long.
You can disagree with the substance of my argument all you like but don't say it's internally conflicted when it's clearly not. It makes you look like you're avoiding the point. Which you're not - right?
No, I'm not sure about that. I'm not even sure about whether "extremely close relationships with China" are good or bad. My only point is that there's certainly an argument (basically persuasive to 90+% of elected officials in Washington across every period in U.S. politics for the last 70+ years) that it's in our interests to more or less unconditionally support Israel, no matter how much blowback we receive from their actions.
I just wish US politicians, especially democrats, showed as much interest in defending our borders as they have in defending Israel's borders. In terms of rhetorical logic, it makes little sense what our politicians do. In terms of DC politics, it makes perfect sense. There is no US version of AIPAC demanding we control our borders securely and also willing to dole out millions in bribes to US politicians to make it happen.
David French offers good insights and observations. Here are 2 excerpts and a link below:
"Moreover, under the laws of war, once Hamas initiated hostilities against Israel, then Israel possessed the legal right to not just defend itself against Hamas’s attacks or to retaliate against Hamas’s attacks, but to also destroy Hamas as a military force. It merely has to comply with the laws of war if it chooses to do so."
"Any discussion of the law of war often sounds cold and clinical, even though we’re discussing matters of life and death, including the inevitable and tragic deaths of civilians who always suffer when wars rage in city centers—especially when jihadists [Hamas] wear civilian clothes and embed themselves in civilian structures. When Hamas does so, it violates the law of war by inhibiting the distinction between civilian and military targets. The legal and moral responsibility for resulting civilian deaths rests with Hamas, not Israel."
Okay. Is that it? Is that their Big Crime to you? They voice their support (that they consistently show) for Israel when it's attacked?
Okily dokily. That's some crime there.
Umm, IF they said one thing then did another, you'd have something, Scooby Doo. But, this is nothing.
Now, let's talk about the empty platitudes on the Left. The "leaders" like Pelosi and Schumer like to play both sides, claiming to support Israel when there's a terrorist attack, but the other 364 days out of the year, they support Hamas. It is THEY who post their widdle hashtag hearts out on Twitter. #FreePalestine
100% agree with conservatives being WAY too uncritically pro-Israel. This leads them to overlook the areas where Israel is definitely in the wrong, like not making good on their promise to pull out of the other areas of the WB and tacitly (at the very least) allowing Israelis to continue to establish illegal settlements. They are also way too quick to violently engage, and this isn't always proportionate. When Israeli soldiers use disproportionate violence against a Palestinian citizen, it's a human rights abuse, plain and simple. Though this doesn't happen as much as BDS people like to pretend it does, it still happens far too often.
That being said, I do feel like there is a bit of a difference between blind support no matter what shady activities Israel is engaging in and acknowledging that Israel definitely has "the right to defend itself" in this specific situation. Yes, it's terrible that they blew up an apartment building. However, the Israeli military more often than not warns civilians via announcements or "knock on the roof" bombs so that they can evacuate. If they were indiscriminately lobbing bombs at civilians, the death toll would be much higher. Hamas doesn't perform such courtesies when THEY bomb civilian areas. Then there's the reality that they wouldn't target buildings like this at all if Hamas didn't use them as staging grounds for their own attacks. If Hamas cared about the death of civilians, they wouldn't hole up in residential buildings.
The Israelis ultimately have to make the tough decision to "discourage" the attacks by Hamas (which is really too soft of a word for it), thereby risking the lives of Palestinians, or to not respond and risk the lives of Israelis. Ultimately, governments have the responsibility to defend their own citizens. It's horrible, but a government's core function is protection and there would be no use having a state if it didn't do so. When peace is no longer possible, the best outcome in these types of situations is to do what Israel is doing now, which hopefully minimizes collateral. I hate referring to human beings like this, but that's how one has to look at it in these situations if the military is to fulfill its duty to its citizens.
I think that's part of it but I think you underestimate the genuine strength of feeling towards Israel from many on the Right. Maybe it began as a purely cynical engagement but if so it's taken on a life of its own. Many people with very little to gain from the military industrial complex have a fervent belief that it is the responsibility of the US to protect Israel.
I can only speak for myself, but my general sympathy for Israel comes from knowing that millions of European Jews we slaughtered, and ghettoized before that. Given world history over the last 2000 years, I support the existent of the Jewish state. That said, I don't think either side should get a pass when they are wrong. Michael Tracey rightly mentions Israel leveling apartment buildings. I'd add that Hamas has launch over a 1000 rockets into primarily residential neighborhoods.
I agree with your take on history 95%. My argument is that our continued interference does more harm than good in the long term and that any moves towards peace - or indeed war - should be organic from the region.
Not one of the people listed in this article are AF patriots.
Not close.
As soon as Trump hired Kirshner and listened to him over Stephen Miller, he stopped being AF in foreign policy.
What you've done is notice the things that the now vilified and totally erased-off-the-internet 'alt right' noticed during 2013-2017. When you criticize those who are never to be criticized, the entire syndicate comes after you, and they'll eventually stigmatize the movement until it's suffocated out of existence. "Alt right" was a term coined by sleepy libertarian Paul Gottfried many years ago - it was specifically directed at the inconsistencies of the Neocons and their fealty to Israel and the Big Gov't that mindlessly supports it. You can go even further back to the early 50's with John Beaty's "Iron Curtain Over America" for the genesis of this viewpoint.
The thing is you're not allowed to 'notice' any of this. The parroting you see, and the bipartisan bootlicking is manifest in all the Neoconservative and Neoliberal politicians. DJT had a unique angle in that he was a Boomer, and pro Israel, while savagely attacking their stranglehold on the Media and the Campus. That border wall he was pushing was a bridge too far. Border walls are only for certain countries, where they are not only necessary, but also inherently good. For evidence of this watch the human human ferret Ben Shapiro tag DJT supporters as 'racist' over and over for supporting a tight USA / Mexico border. (It's why they replaced Savage with Shapiro). It was all fascinating to watch. Now he's gone, from an election where 30 million more people voted than usual, including the historic 2008 election. So strange.
But these are all things you're not allowed to notice. That fact that you have, and have written about it; and even said truthful things about Buchanan and Ron Paul... that's bold. Fantastic work.
It isn't unreasonable to voice support for a strategic ally in the Middle East. But it is equally reasonable to question whether our unwavering support for Israel is at least one reason that our relationships with so many other nations in the area are strained.
That said, pulling our support for Israel would set off a firestorm of epic proportions. Israel seems to have a, "fuck around and find out" policy and frankly, I don't blame them. Iran seems to use Hamas to poke the bear on occasion to see what they will do.
If you are surrounded by enemies, you are going to be in a defensive posture all the time. That doesn't mean that indiscriminate violence against Gaza is justifiable. But you do need to consider that Palenstians are being used by other nation states to taunt their shared enemy.
When we talk about Israelis and Palestinians, the influence of other nations like Iran never seems to come up as active participants in unrest. Palenstians are being victimized by their own leadership and by other nation states that are all too happy to throw them into the meat grinder.
Western discourse on this issue seems to be one of hubris and ignorance. I don't have a comprehensive understanding of the history or the current issues at hand. It seems to be propaganda and bullshit on all sides. Peace would be a nice change of pace.
To say there's not *enough* scrutiny of Iran in American discourse is a bizarre take. You may criticize the scrutiny for being shallow but Iran's stance towards Israel and Lebanon is a persistent theme in this country.
You seem to be under the impression that I have a more nuanced understanding of the situation than I do. I am merely stating that the discussion about Israel and the Palestinian people always seems to come down to whether you support one or the other. It is framed as a binary choice between good and evil but from my experience, it is never that simple.
I would like to see more coverage about Iran's involvement in this conflict. I would also like to know whether US foreign policy or funding has emboldened Iran. If so, I am of the opinion that the American people should know about that. But instead, we are bombarded with moral dissertations that distill the complexity of the situation to a false choice. That is what I take issue with.
I share your opinion. Theres way too much of people talking passed each other, and way too little real analysis and search for a solution
Here we go, the comment section is about to be overrun with angry Israel-firsters.
I don't know if it's as much of a contradiction as you're making it out to be. America First means that the U.S. government should put the interests of U.S. citizens above all else in its policies, both foreign and domestic, and that the governments of other countries should do the same for their citizens. It's certainly arguable, but it's not irrational to believe that: (1) Israel puts the interests of its citizens above all else when it responds disproportionately to Palestinian attacks; and (2) America puts the interests of its citizens above all else when it unconditionally supports its most reliable ally in the Middle East.
It is rational to say that an extension of America First and that it is preferable that each country do the same thing. It is *irrational* to conflate that with an obligation to do 2), particularly when it's abundantly clear that the US' meddling in the Middle East has been at best neutral for the average American, and in all likelihood much worse than that, in terms of monetary cost, goodwill across the region, and "invade the world, invite the world" resulting in both losses for the US military and endless parades of (justifiably) embittered refugees.
Your use of the terms "abundantly clear" and "in all likelihood" seem to be in conflict with each other.
This kind of snotty, evasive dissembling does your argument no favors. They're not in conflict at all. My position - it is *at best* a neutral proposition, and I regard this as undeniable. It is then at least partially debatable - I personally think not by much, but it is debatable - that we're actually the worse off for it, in much the same way that our current border crisis is at least in part the fruit of our meddling in Central America for so long.
You can disagree with the substance of my argument all you like but don't say it's internally conflicted when it's clearly not. It makes you look like you're avoiding the point. Which you're not - right?
No, I'm not sure about that. I'm not even sure about whether "extremely close relationships with China" are good or bad. My only point is that there's certainly an argument (basically persuasive to 90+% of elected officials in Washington across every period in U.S. politics for the last 70+ years) that it's in our interests to more or less unconditionally support Israel, no matter how much blowback we receive from their actions.
I’d take it in a heartbeat.
I just wish US politicians, especially democrats, showed as much interest in defending our borders as they have in defending Israel's borders. In terms of rhetorical logic, it makes little sense what our politicians do. In terms of DC politics, it makes perfect sense. There is no US version of AIPAC demanding we control our borders securely and also willing to dole out millions in bribes to US politicians to make it happen.
David French offers good insights and observations. Here are 2 excerpts and a link below:
"Moreover, under the laws of war, once Hamas initiated hostilities against Israel, then Israel possessed the legal right to not just defend itself against Hamas’s attacks or to retaliate against Hamas’s attacks, but to also destroy Hamas as a military force. It merely has to comply with the laws of war if it chooses to do so."
"Any discussion of the law of war often sounds cold and clinical, even though we’re discussing matters of life and death, including the inevitable and tragic deaths of civilians who always suffer when wars rage in city centers—especially when jihadists [Hamas] wear civilian clothes and embed themselves in civilian structures. When Hamas does so, it violates the law of war by inhibiting the distinction between civilian and military targets. The legal and moral responsibility for resulting civilian deaths rests with Hamas, not Israel."
https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-two-wrongs-of-the-gaza-narrative?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo5MjE3NTgsInBvc3RfaWQiOjM2MzkzNDYxLCJfIjoielRiVmIiLCJpYXQiOjE2MjEwMjI3MDEsImV4cCI6MTYyMTAyNjMwMSwiaXNzIjoicHViLTIxNzY1Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.8Wm7ewDq5pyLsKqiEiUupkK431bwm47ykWScGtdTm3E
Okay. Is that it? Is that their Big Crime to you? They voice their support (that they consistently show) for Israel when it's attacked?
Okily dokily. That's some crime there.
Umm, IF they said one thing then did another, you'd have something, Scooby Doo. But, this is nothing.
Now, let's talk about the empty platitudes on the Left. The "leaders" like Pelosi and Schumer like to play both sides, claiming to support Israel when there's a terrorist attack, but the other 364 days out of the year, they support Hamas. It is THEY who post their widdle hashtag hearts out on Twitter. #FreePalestine
Boo hoo boo hoo.
100% agree with conservatives being WAY too uncritically pro-Israel. This leads them to overlook the areas where Israel is definitely in the wrong, like not making good on their promise to pull out of the other areas of the WB and tacitly (at the very least) allowing Israelis to continue to establish illegal settlements. They are also way too quick to violently engage, and this isn't always proportionate. When Israeli soldiers use disproportionate violence against a Palestinian citizen, it's a human rights abuse, plain and simple. Though this doesn't happen as much as BDS people like to pretend it does, it still happens far too often.
That being said, I do feel like there is a bit of a difference between blind support no matter what shady activities Israel is engaging in and acknowledging that Israel definitely has "the right to defend itself" in this specific situation. Yes, it's terrible that they blew up an apartment building. However, the Israeli military more often than not warns civilians via announcements or "knock on the roof" bombs so that they can evacuate. If they were indiscriminately lobbing bombs at civilians, the death toll would be much higher. Hamas doesn't perform such courtesies when THEY bomb civilian areas. Then there's the reality that they wouldn't target buildings like this at all if Hamas didn't use them as staging grounds for their own attacks. If Hamas cared about the death of civilians, they wouldn't hole up in residential buildings.
The Israelis ultimately have to make the tough decision to "discourage" the attacks by Hamas (which is really too soft of a word for it), thereby risking the lives of Palestinians, or to not respond and risk the lives of Israelis. Ultimately, governments have the responsibility to defend their own citizens. It's horrible, but a government's core function is protection and there would be no use having a state if it didn't do so. When peace is no longer possible, the best outcome in these types of situations is to do what Israel is doing now, which hopefully minimizes collateral. I hate referring to human beings like this, but that's how one has to look at it in these situations if the military is to fulfill its duty to its citizens.
I don't think one has to be a robot to say "I Stand With Israel." Last time I checked, I wasn't. Published today: would be interested to hear your thoughts. https://khmezek.substack.com/p/why-i-stand-with-israel
I think that's part of it but I think you underestimate the genuine strength of feeling towards Israel from many on the Right. Maybe it began as a purely cynical engagement but if so it's taken on a life of its own. Many people with very little to gain from the military industrial complex have a fervent belief that it is the responsibility of the US to protect Israel.
I can only speak for myself, but my general sympathy for Israel comes from knowing that millions of European Jews we slaughtered, and ghettoized before that. Given world history over the last 2000 years, I support the existent of the Jewish state. That said, I don't think either side should get a pass when they are wrong. Michael Tracey rightly mentions Israel leveling apartment buildings. I'd add that Hamas has launch over a 1000 rockets into primarily residential neighborhoods.
I don't know how to get the two sides on the same page, but a Marshall Plan type program is an intriguing idea.
We owe nobody in the region anything except a swift and irrevocable exit.
I agree with your take on history 95%. My argument is that our continued interference does more harm than good in the long term and that any moves towards peace - or indeed war - should be organic from the region.