You realize that there are racist lunatics in every country, right? The Maccabi fans are, yeah, horrible, but I'm not sure how you're thinking they're representative of general public opinion or national policy.
And re ethnic cleansing in Gaza, surely you know that Israel withdrew its forces and took down all settlements in the mid-2000s. The current Israeli gov is horrific, but your arguments seem only barely above TikTok memes.
There were 5000 Israeli settlers in Gaza when Sharon pulled them out. He didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart. The Arab League had just adopted the Saudi peace proposal and got the endorsement of "The Quartet" (USA, Russia, UN and the EU). Sharon decided to pull the few settlers out of Gaza to stop international pressure to negotiate with the Palestinians; he also explicitly refused to involve the Palestinian authority, but rather put Gaza under a blockade that cut out the PA and set the stage for Hamas to take over. He did it because it's easier to control Gaza by surrounding it, rather than having to protect a handful of settlers there by actively patrolling it with IDF troops.
"The motivation behind the disengagement was described by Sharon's top aide as a means of isolating Gaza and avoiding international pressure on Israel to reach a political settlement with the Palestinians." He successfully stopped all conversations about peace talks with the withdrawal. Every international organziation and court said that this was a continuation of the occupation by alternative means, not "independence and freedom".
By the way, Bezalel Smotrich was arrested while trying to plant bombs with 700 gallons of gasoline attacking the troops carrying out the withdrawal. He ultimately wasn't charged, and is now Israel's finance minister. He refused to cooperate with the investigation and they couldn't put together a case.
"A free Palestine would have to entail a peaceful, democratic, self-determining Syria-- something that Israel lives in greater fear of than it does of a Syria run by genocidal maniacs." - Can you explain this a bit more? If by "free Palestine" you mean a Palestinian state, Israel has offered them versions of that many times over, all without a peaceful, democratic Syria. I'm not clear on the connection between a peaeceful Syria and Palestinian statehood.
"Everyone on the actual left, including those listed above, see Israeli apartheid/genocide and a destabilized Syria and Lebanon as linked and to the advantage of Israel (they are great pretexts for Greater Israeli expansionism)." - Re: Greater Israeli expansionism, how do you square this with the actual history of Israel returning the Sinai, withdrawing from Gaza and taking down all settlements (and offering Gaza to Egypt in the 70s), making numerous offers of Gaza and nearly all the West Bank to Palestinians for a state, etc.? There's no denying there're some crazy, ethnic-cleansing-loving wackos in Israel, but that's far from the whole story. The history is a lot more complicated.
And re: apartheid/genocide, yes, what's happening in the west bank sure seems like apartheid, but what is your case for the genocide charge? There are numerous wars this century with way higher death tolls that aren't considered genocides. And in this one, the ratio of civilians to combatants killed is much lower than the norm for urban warfare. In fact, that ratio is no higher than the US battles against ISIS in places like Mosul, and possibly quite a bit lower. And of course it's in Hamas's best interests for Gazan civilians to get killed, and they've fought the war with that as their main goal.
Okay, so some of these questions are a bit rhetorical, but I ask them out of genuine curiosity and actually want to hear your views.
There was never a plan for a “state”; there were 3 sets of negotiations, one where Barak offered Bantustans to the Palestinians, and 2 where Clinton and the Israeli prime minister were lame ducks (Barak and Clinton once in Dec 2000, Olmert once in 2008). No one would consider any of those plans serious; one would create a permanent dependency on Israel, and 2 were not real proposals delivered by anyone with the political capital to actually implement them (not to mention, time in office).
The first plan Ehud Barak proposed in 2000 was not a state; the West Bank would be cut up into 3 islands of land with Israel controlling movement across and between them, and separating all the Palestinian areas from Jerusalem. Israel would also control Jerusalem, all the airspace, the water resources, and the border.. they would keep the Jordan River valley (so Palestine would not have a border with Jordan).
They met again with much better plans proposed by Clinton about 6 months later (the “Clinton Proposals”)… except everyone was a lame duck and they were putting on a show. Clinton only had 3 weeks left in office, and Barak had already resigned and was losing in the elections against Ariel Sharon. Sharon went to the Al-Aqsa Mosque to claim it as Israeli, and campaigned on rejecting whatever they agreed to. When Bush and Sharon won the 2000 election, they said those negotiations were null and void.
In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered a “similar plan”.. but he also had already resigned and was on trial for corruption charges (he went to jail after leaving office).
There were 5000 Israeli settlers in Gaza when Sharon pulled them out. He didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart. The Arab League had just adopted the Saudi peace proposal and got the endorsement of "The Quartet" (USA, Russia, UN and the EU). Sharon decided to pull the few settlers out of Gaza to stop international pressure to negotiate with the Palestinians; he also explicitly refused to involve the Palestinian authority, but rather put Gaza under a blockade that cut out the PA and set the stage for Hamas to take over. He did it because it's easier to control Gaza by surrounding it, rather than having to protect a handful of settlers there by actively patrolling it with IDF troops.
"The motivation behind the disengagement was described by Sharon's top aide as a means of isolating Gaza and avoiding international pressure on Israel to reach a political settlement with the Palestinians." He successfully stopped all conversations about peace talks with the withdrawal. Every international organziation and court said that this was a continuation of the occupation by alternative means, not "independence and freedom".
By the way, Bezalel Smotrich was arrested while trying to plant bombs with 700 gallons of gasoline attacking the troops carrying out the withdrawal. He ultimately wasn't charged, and is now Israel's finance minister. He refused to cooperate with the investigation and they couldn't put together a case.
This is the problem with you anti-semites. No matter what Israel does you will ALWAYS declare those dirty Jews only did it because they're dirty Jews.
You started a war and you lost. Get over it.
I posted references to Ariel Sharon's top aides detailing why they made those decisions. I wasn't making those claims, Israeli politicians were talking about their own plans.
This is the problem with you anti-semites. No matter what Israel does you will ALWAYS declare those dirty Jews only did it because they're dirty Jews.
You started a war and you lost. Get over it.
I posted references to Ariel Sharon's top aides detailing why they made those decisions. I wasn't making those claims, Israeli politicians were talking about their own plans.
No... you posted Wikipedia.
Regardless of the nefarious evil Jew reasons you think they gave 100% of Gaza to the palestinians for they still gave 100% of Gaza to the palestinians.
And then they voted for Hamas and the dumbest people alive sent them billions and billions of dollars and Hamas stole most of it and spent the rest building tunnels and weapons depots under schools and hospitals.
I posted references to Ariel Sharon's top aides detailing why they made those decisions. I wasn't making those claims, Israeli politicians were talking about their own plans.
No... you posted Wikipedia.
Regardless of the nefarious evil Jew reasons you think they gave 100% of Gaza to the palestinians for they still gave 100% of Gaza to the palestinians.
And then they voted for Hamas and the dumbest people alive sent them billions and billions of dollars and Hamas stole most of it and spent the rest building tunnels and weapons depots under schools and hospitals.
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.
Here's the interview Dov Weissglass gave to an Israeli newspaper about it.
The money that the dumbest people alive sent Hamas was facilitated by Netanyahu in the most cynical political position possible. And cheered on by Smotrich on the extreme right, who called Hamas "an asset".
Revelation to speculation that Israeli policymakers have sought to strengthen the group over the years to diminish the chance of an independent Palestinian state
You realize that there are racist lunatics in every country, right? The Maccabi fans are, yeah, horrible, but I'm not sure how you're thinking they're representative of general public opinion or national policy.
And re ethnic cleansing in Gaza, surely you know that Israel withdrew its forces and took down all settlements in the mid-2000s. The current Israeli gov is horrific, but your arguments seem only barely above TikTok memes.
There were 5000 Israeli settlers in Gaza when Sharon pulled them out. He didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart. The Arab League had just adopted the Saudi peace proposal and got the endorsement of "The Quartet" (USA, Russia, UN and the EU). Sharon decided to pull the few settlers out of Gaza to stop international pressure to negotiate with the Palestinians; he also explicitly refused to involve the Palestinian authority, but rather put Gaza under a blockade that cut out the PA and set the stage for Hamas to take over. He did it because it's easier to control Gaza by surrounding it, rather than having to protect a handful of settlers there by actively patrolling it with IDF troops.
"The motivation behind the disengagement was described by Sharon's top aide as a means of isolating Gaza and avoiding international pressure on Israel to reach a political settlement with the Palestinians." He successfully stopped all conversations about peace talks with the withdrawal. Every international organziation and court said that this was a continuation of the occupation by alternative means, not "independence and freedom".
By the way, Bezalel Smotrich was arrested while trying to plant bombs with 700 gallons of gasoline attacking the troops carrying out the withdrawal. He ultimately wasn't charged, and is now Israel's finance minister. He refused to cooperate with the investigation and they couldn't put together a case.
Your history seems pretty speculative. I've seen other motives cited for Sharon's withdrawal; after all, it's strongly suspected he'd been planning to withdraw from most of the West Bank, something that would not have left Gaza isolated. I'm well aware he wasn't some dove doing things out of generosity, but the account you're giving doesn't necessarily capture the complexity of that moment.
Also, you haven't addressed Israel's attempt to give control of Gaza to Egypt in the 70s. Historically, at least from what I've read, it's not a piece of land they've really wanted.
And re the blockade, Israel was not capable on its own of cutting off Gaza; they weren't in charge of the Rafah crossing during the 2005-2007 period.
And yeah, I'm aware of Smotrich's past and think him an ogre.
There were 5000 Israeli settlers in Gaza when Sharon pulled them out. He didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart. The Arab League had just adopted the Saudi peace proposal and got the endorsement of "The Quartet" (USA, Russia, UN and the EU). Sharon decided to pull the few settlers out of Gaza to stop international pressure to negotiate with the Palestinians; he also explicitly refused to involve the Palestinian authority, but rather put Gaza under a blockade that cut out the PA and set the stage for Hamas to take over. He did it because it's easier to control Gaza by surrounding it, rather than having to protect a handful of settlers there by actively patrolling it with IDF troops.
"The motivation behind the disengagement was described by Sharon's top aide as a means of isolating Gaza and avoiding international pressure on Israel to reach a political settlement with the Palestinians." He successfully stopped all conversations about peace talks with the withdrawal. Every international organziation and court said that this was a continuation of the occupation by alternative means, not "independence and freedom".
By the way, Bezalel Smotrich was arrested while trying to plant bombs with 700 gallons of gasoline attacking the troops carrying out the withdrawal. He ultimately wasn't charged, and is now Israel's finance minister. He refused to cooperate with the investigation and they couldn't put together a case.
Your history seems pretty speculative. I've seen other motives cited for Sharon's withdrawal; after all, it's strongly suspected he'd been planning to withdraw from most of the West Bank, something that would not have left Gaza isolated. I'm well aware he wasn't some dove doing things out of generosity, but the account you're giving doesn't necessarily capture the complexity of that moment.
Also, you haven't addressed Israel's attempt to give control of Gaza to Egypt in the 70s. Historically, at least from what I've read, it's not a piece of land they've really wanted.
And re the blockade, Israel was not capable on its own of cutting off Gaza; they weren't in charge of the Rafah crossing during the 2005-2007 period.
And yeah, I'm aware of Smotrich's past and think him an ogre.
These pro-Hamas types never seem to realize Gaza shares a border with Egypt.
Regardless of the nefarious evil Jew reasons you think they gave 100% of Gaza to the palestinians for they still gave 100% of Gaza to the palestinians.
And then they voted for Hamas and the dumbest people alive sent them billions and billions of dollars and Hamas stole most of it and spent the rest building tunnels and weapons depots under schools and hospitals.
Here's the interview Dov Weissglass gave to an Israeli newspaper about it.
The money that the dumbest people alive sent Hamas was facilitated by Netanyahu in the most cynical political position possible. And cheered on by Smotrich on the extreme right, who called Hamas "an asset".
Add "the left" to the list of things you are aggressively, confidently, ignorant of.
Lots of people on the left-- the actual left, not liberal Democrats-- have been calling out HTS attacks on Alawites as potentially genocidal, even though the regime they have replaced arguably wasn't any better. (You can start with Dan Cohen at Uncaptured News, Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal at Grey Zone, Trita Parsi at Quincy Inst, Yanis Varoufakis at Diem25, who between them have over 2 million followers).
The Left has been absolutely awful on Syria for a decade. You literally just named a list of genocide deniers. Don't trust those ghouls. "Arguably wasn't any better"? Assad had hundreds of thousands tortured to death in a system designed by a literal Nazi.
There is no single "left" position on Syria, though everyone in the discussion: 1. Recognizes that the Assad regime was authoritarian and committed gross human rights violations; and 2. Acknowledges that the west aided and abetted violent extremists (that, in another context, they had officially declared "terrorists") in an effort to destabilize and topple Assad.
This situation is very similar to that of Saddam and Iraq, wherein the serious left could recognize both that Saddam was a violent authoritarian AND that the west was not a "liberating" force in invading Iraq and removing Saddam.
I suspect that you say the left has been "terrible on Syria" because you're a liberal Democrat who fully buys US security state and defense industry propaganda about "promoting democracy" in places like Syria and Ukraine. At the core of the most informed left position is advocacy for genuine democratic self-determination for these and other countries, which can only be on offer by means of serious and sincere international diplomacy involving the world's existing power blocks. And if you look at the history of the last 30-odd years, the US has been the prime instigator of imperial maneuvering, forcing allies and rivals alike to respond. It is an empire in decline that increasingly has only one tool left in its kit: military predominance.
The lib Democratic condemnation of Assad sounds cynical as hell given who and what they have been prepared to support in the middle east as a whole. This is a big part of why Americans are disillusioned with the Democratic Party, and were willing to roll the dice on the chance that Trump and Co. might actually swear off imperial meddling (which, sadly, they almost certainly will not).
"Everyone on the actual left, including those listed above, see Israeli apartheid/genocide and a destabilized Syria and Lebanon as linked and to the advantage of Israel (they are great pretexts for Greater Israeli expansionism)." - Re: Greater Israeli expansionism, how do you square this with the actual history of Israel returning the Sinai, withdrawing from Gaza and taking down all settlements (and offering Gaza to Egypt in the 70s), making numerous offers of Gaza and nearly all the West Bank to Palestinians for a state, etc.? There's no denying there're some crazy, ethnic-cleansing-loving wackos in Israel, but that's far from the whole story. The history is a lot more complicated.
And re: apartheid/genocide, yes, what's happening in the west bank sure seems like apartheid, but what is your case for the genocide charge? There are numerous wars this century with way higher death tolls that aren't considered genocides. And in this one, the ratio of civilians to combatants killed is much lower than the norm for urban warfare. In fact, that ratio is no higher than the US battles against ISIS in places like Mosul, and possibly quite a bit lower. And of course it's in Hamas's best interests for Gazan civilians to get killed, and they've fought the war with that as their main goal.
Okay, so some of these questions are a bit rhetorical, but I ask them out of genuine curiosity and actually want to hear your views.
Genocide isn't about the number of people killed; it's determined by whether they are trying to eliminate a nation. The Likud party's founding platform starts with "from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan River there will only be Israeli sovereignty. There is no place in Greater Israel for a 'Palestinian state'. Settlement is the means of achieving Eretz Israel". Netanyahu held up a map at the Un with the entire territory from the river to the sea labeled "Israel", called it "The Blessing" and advocated for that map as his vision for the future of the Middle East. He also was giddy when Trump announced his plan to expel 2 million Palestinians from Gaza.
I wrote a separate post about the Gaza withdrawal (Netanyahu resigned in protest when Sharon did that, by the way).
As far as the Sinai, Egypt attacked Israel in 1973, destroyed the Bar Lev line of defenses and caught them off guard. Israel needed Nixon's airlift (Operation Nickel Grass) to bail them out of a military and intelligence failure. Egypt is 10 times Israel's size and the only real military threat to them (in the Arab world). They decided to neutralize that threat when Sadat indicated he would normalize relations unilaterally. With Egypt off the table, no Arab country could ever pose a threat to Israel.
Again, your history here is highly selective. Yes, Israel needed American help in 73, but surely you're aware that Egypt was highly dependent on its own great power patron. Without Soviet support, Egypt wouldn't have stood a chance in the first place.
And I'm not quite sure of the bigger point your history is supporting. Yeah, Israel gained security by giving back the Sinai. But the fact they gave it back suggests they weren't committed above all to "Greater Israeli expansionism." That was my original point. It would seem, really, that what they valued above all was security and peace over land (at least in this case - what they're doing these days in the west bank is awful).
And re genocide, I'm aware that it's not about numbers; I mainly brought up numbers because that's what lots of people out there base their accusations on, and I was curious if that was the case with SB too.
In the case of this war, though, I don't know how you can establish intent. Hamas literally puts away their military uniforms and dresses as civilians, fighting from within the civilian population. It's quite clearly to their advantage to get as many civilians killed as they can, since they know there're lots of gullible people in the West who'll just instinctively blame Israel for those deaths.
The Left has been absolutely awful on Syria for a decade. You literally just named a list of genocide deniers. Don't trust those ghouls. "Arguably wasn't any better"? Assad had hundreds of thousands tortured to death in a system designed by a literal Nazi.
There is no single "left" position on Syria, though everyone in the discussion: 1. Recognizes that the Assad regime was authoritarian and committed gross human rights violations; and 2. Acknowledges that the west aided and abetted violent extremists (that, in another context, they had officially declared "terrorists") in an effort to destabilize and topple Assad.
This situation is very similar to that of Saddam and Iraq, wherein the serious left could recognize both that Saddam was a violent authoritarian AND that the west was not a "liberating" force in invading Iraq and removing Saddam.
I suspect that you say the left has been "terrible on Syria" because you're a liberal Democrat who fully buys US security state and defense industry propaganda about "promoting democracy" in places like Syria and Ukraine. At the core of the most informed left position is advocacy for genuine democratic self-determination for these and other countries, which can only be on offer by means of serious and sincere international diplomacy involving the world's existing power blocks. And if you look at the history of the last 30-odd years, the US has been the prime instigator of imperial maneuvering, forcing allies and rivals alike to respond. It is an empire in decline that increasingly has only one tool left in its kit: military predominance.
The lib Democratic condemnation of Assad sounds cynical as hell given who and what they have been prepared to support in the middle east as a whole. This is a big part of why Americans are disillusioned with the Democratic Party, and were willing to roll the dice on the chance that Trump and Co. might actually swear off imperial meddling (which, sadly, they almost certainly will not).
The left learned absolutely nothing from Iraq.
A secular thug is absolutely the best case scenario in the muslim world.
When you depose the secular thug you get the religious extremists.
The religious extremists are worse than secular thugs.
Agreed that the first barak offer wasnt good; I wouldn't have accepted it in their shoes either. But the broader history you're giving seems questionable. Clinton certainly blamed Arafat for walking away from the better proposal; he at least sure seemed to think there was time for a deal. It's telling, too, that afaik at no point did Arafat ever make a counterproposal to any of these offers.
And Bernard Avishai has written about how close Olmert and Abbas got in 08. The timing was definitely bad. My impression from Avishai's account (memory foggy here) is that Abbas also just lost interest and walked away and hasnt tried to revive it since.
What I'm saying is that Israel seems to have had, at least on a few occasions, leaders willing to reach some sort of pragmatic, realistic agreement within the realm of what would be politically acceptable in their society. I'm not sure you can say the same about the other side (I realize there're proposals like the Arab Peace initiative that have been endorsed by Palestinian leaders, but at least from what I've seen, those hardly seem realistic on some of the key issues).
"A free Palestine would have to entail a peaceful, democratic, self-determining Syria-- something that Israel lives in greater fear of than it does of a Syria run by genocidal maniacs." - Can you explain this a bit more? If by "free Palestine" you mean a Palestinian state, Israel has offered them versions of that many times over, all without a peaceful, democratic Syria. I'm not clear on the connection between a peaeceful Syria and Palestinian statehood.
"Everyone on the actual left, including those listed above, see Israeli apartheid/genocide and a destabilized Syria and Lebanon as linked and to the advantage of Israel (they are great pretexts for Greater Israeli expansionism)." - Re: Greater Israeli expansionism, how do you square this with the actual history of Israel returning the Sinai, withdrawing from Gaza and taking down all settlements (and offering Gaza to Egypt in the 70s), making numerous offers of Gaza and nearly all the West Bank to Palestinians for a state, etc.? There's no denying there're some crazy, ethnic-cleansing-loving wackos in Israel, but that's far from the whole story. The history is a lot more complicated.
And re: apartheid/genocide, yes, what's happening in the west bank sure seems like apartheid, but what is your case for the genocide charge? There are numerous wars this century with way higher death tolls that aren't considered genocides. And in this one, the ratio of civilians to combatants killed is much lower than the norm for urban warfare. In fact, that ratio is no higher than the US battles against ISIS in places like Mosul, and possibly quite a bit lower. And of course it's in Hamas's best interests for Gazan civilians to get killed, and they've fought the war with that as their main goal.
Okay, so some of these questions are a bit rhetorical, but I ask them out of genuine curiosity and actually want to hear your views.
I'm going to thank PCRF-Guy for doing most of the work to answer the questions about the history of Israel/Palestine "peace talks". His answers are detailed, accurate, and very well grounded in the history.
I would add the following general statements:
1. The struggle for Palestinian statehood has always depended on the strength of support emanating from neighboring countries (esp, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt). Thus, the US and Israel, prior to entering into any kind of diplomatic process with the Palestinians, did its utmost to weaken this support by almost any means necessary, including support for violent suppression of Palestinian resistance politics in the named countries. These means ranged from taking on Egypt as a client state and inducing Sadat to finally abandon the Palestinian Revolution, to encouraging Assad the father to massacre supporters of Palestinian liberation in Syria (see the Hama Massacre in 1982). In fact, Palestinian liberation remains extremely popular in the middle east in general, and the authoritarianism on the part of most regimes in the region is based in part on keeping this popular support from ever being expressed in policy.
2. With the US acting as both mediator and material supporter of the enemies of full Palestinian statehood, there was never any chance of a deal that would involve anything but the complete betrayal of the cause. The one offered to Yasser Arafat was so far from acceptable that even some Israeli officials could see that it was impossible for him to accept it without going down in history as a complete sellout of the movement.
3. The recourse to "complexity" is a tired ploy by Israel apologists. It relies on a complete de-historicization and de-politicization of the 100 year old Palestinian liberation struggle by reducing Palestinians to a perpetual "problem" to be solved by Israel and the imperial US, when in fact Palestinians are behaving in exactly the way any colonized people would under the similar circumstances. They are refusing to let their legitimate claim to territory taken from them in 1948 simply lapse with the passage of time. The "problem" here is not a complex one: It is the very idea of an ethnostate on colonized land. The success of a project like this eventually relies on either the permanent control of the disqualified and non-compliant indigenous peoples, or their removal by means of expulsion or murder. All the talk of "complexity" eventually boils down to racist claims about the inability of Palestinians to ever, under any circumstances, live peaceably alongside Jewish settlers. We have seen these assumptions made before about whole categories of people, from indigenous North Americans, to freed African slaves, to colonized Africans, to European Jews, and it always ends the same way-- with terror, repression, and sometimes genocide.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Hey boomer, why didn't you post about genocide when Putin and his lackey Assad were barrel bombing densely populated cities? Is that because you've always been one of Putin's useful idiots? Don't worry I am sure the Syrians haven't forgotten the savagery of the Russian forces who are still on Syrian soil. Soon there will be payback.
You really need to read a little...
Obama let Russia and Syria do whatever they wanted in Syria. Perhaps this was because Obama knew his own stupidity empowered ISIS and created the entire mess to begin with... who knows.
Obama in typical Obama fashion called Assad and Putin all kinds of names in the media and even declared that it was a red line if Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people. Obama declared that carpet bombing them was fine but chemical weapons were too much! And then Assad used chemical weapons and Obama did NOTHING because he didn't want to upset Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump bombed the hell out Assad, killed hundreds of Russians, and routed ISIS in less than a month in Syria.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Because you're stupid you think because Assad and Putin are bad guys that anyone who replaces them must be better!
Wrong! Now the people running Syria are islamic militant animals and they are slaughtering civilians.
Congratulations on being an idiot.
They are Islamic militant animals we can control (to a point) unlike Assad who was controlled by our adversary Putin and to a lesser extent Iran. Trump by routing ISIS helped Assad stay in power which was a huge win for Putin.
There is no single "left" position on Syria, though everyone in the discussion: 1. Recognizes that the Assad regime was authoritarian and committed gross human rights violations; and 2. Acknowledges that the west aided and abetted violent extremists (that, in another context, they had officially declared "terrorists") in an effort to destabilize and topple Assad.
This situation is very similar to that of Saddam and Iraq, wherein the serious left could recognize both that Saddam was a violent authoritarian AND that the west was not a "liberating" force in invading Iraq and removing Saddam.
I suspect that you say the left has been "terrible on Syria" because you're a liberal Democrat who fully buys US security state and defense industry propaganda about "promoting democracy" in places like Syria and Ukraine. At the core of the most informed left position is advocacy for genuine democratic self-determination for these and other countries, which can only be on offer by means of serious and sincere international diplomacy involving the world's existing power blocks. And if you look at the history of the last 30-odd years, the US has been the prime instigator of imperial maneuvering, forcing allies and rivals alike to respond. It is an empire in decline that increasingly has only one tool left in its kit: military predominance.
The lib Democratic condemnation of Assad sounds cynical as hell given who and what they have been prepared to support in the middle east as a whole. This is a big part of why Americans are disillusioned with the Democratic Party, and were willing to roll the dice on the chance that Trump and Co. might actually swear off imperial meddling (which, sadly, they almost certainly will not).
The left learned absolutely nothing from Iraq.
A secular thug is absolutely the best case scenario in the muslim world.
When you depose the secular thug you get the religious extremists.
The religious extremists are worse than secular thugs.
Sorry, but this is just dumb. You clearly don't actually read any sources from the actual left. Again, you're talking about liberal Democrats, who, by any international or historical standard, are centrists at most-- though I get that by the standards of today's unhinged US conservatives, everyone but themselves, including Liz Cheney, is now "the left"!
It is a very common position on the left to argue that leaving Saddam (or Assad, or Gaddafi) in power would have been preferable to the consequences of removing them-- e.g. murder, mayhem, failed states, and the regional spread of extremism. But we on the serious left are also aware that these consequences are not always seen as unintended or unwanted by their perpetrators. Israel in particular, seems to prefer murder and mayhem in Syria and Lebanon in particular. Maybe your beef is with Israel, the US, and the EU and not "the left".
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
A secular thug is absolutely the best case scenario in the muslim world.
When you depose the secular thug you get the religious extremists.
The religious extremists are worse than secular thugs.
Sorry, but this is just dumb. You clearly don't actually read any sources from the actual left. Again, you talking about liberal Democrats, who, by any international or historical standard, are centrists at most-- though I get that by the standards of today's unhinged US conservatives, everyone but themselves, including Liz Cheney, is now "the left"!
It is a very common position on the left to argue that leaving Saddam (or Assad, or Gaddafi) in power would have been preferable to the consequences of removing them-- e.g. murder, mayhem, failed states, and the regional spread of extremism. But we on the serious left are also aware that these consequences are not always seen as unintended or unwanted by their perpetrators. Israel in particular, seems to prefer murder and mayhem in Syria and Lebanon in particular. Maybe your beef is with Israel, the US, and the EU and not "the left".
I don't know what this imaginary "actual left" of yours is but the hivemind left in the United States doesn't have any diversity of thought.
Some guy on X or Reddit that has zero political influence can declare he's on the left all he likes but the people that actually have power are very uniform in their thinking.
I do not care what the left in Europe thinks about anything. Europe is completely irrelevant on the global stage and it's getting more and more irrelevant every day.
Hey boomer, why didn't you post about genocide when Putin and his lackey Assad were barrel bombing densely populated cities? Is that because you've always been one of Putin's useful idiots? Don't worry I am sure the Syrians haven't forgotten the savagery of the Russian forces who are still on Syrian soil. Soon there will be payback.
There are no "good" sides in Syria.
Assad and Russia committed unspeakable war crimes in the >10-year civil war. Remember Aleppo? They did there exactly what Israel did in Gaza.
The group that eventually overthrew the Assad regime is an offshoot of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, who "rebranded" as Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS). There are videos of them literally executing children in Alawite areas of Syria, point blank, while laughing about it. They were supported by Turkey, who wanted to prevent the Kurds from getting ambitious in demanding an independent Kurdistan (they live in the north of Syria and Iraq, and the adjacent area in the south of Turkey). Turkey would rather have HTS than the Kurds, even if they get US support.
HTS is genocidal. They are not the "freedom fighters" you think they are, even if they overthrew a fascist, communist gov't.
It's not about HTS not being good guys, it's about weakening your adversary. If HTS overthrew a Putin's lackey Assad then it's good for America. Soon Russian troops and its navy will be kicked out of Syria. Just like when Mujaheeden of Afghanistan defeated the Soviet Union, it was good for America as it played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
So you’re not outraged by what’s going on in Syria? Why do you think only the left is outraged by genocide? Because the right is a morally degenerate cesspool that’s too busy worrying about made-up problems, like transgenders? Why won’t you lead the protests at Ohio State?
A leftist calling the right morally degenerate is absolutely hysterical.
What’s funny about the truth?
Also, I noticed you completely failed to answer the questions posed. Try again.
1. So you’re not outraged by what’s going on in Syria? 2. Why do you think only the left is outraged by genocide? Because the right is a morally degenerate cesspool that’s too busy worrying about made-up problems, like transgenders? 3. Why won’t you lead the protests at Ohio State?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
