SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

you say that, and yet the left is veering much more toward anti-israeli rhetoric as evidenced by the last election and the demonization of any candidate who dared take money from aipac or any other israeli supporting group. 

and part of this one of those strange ironies where because one side is totally out of reach of Western influence and communication, the intransigence of the side you think you should have some influence on, or that at least you believe could do better, ends up becomes the primary focus of frustration sort of by default. In the US a lot of anti-Israel energy on the left is young people, who know little or no history, but have the finely tuned sense of injustice of the young. In the main they are not culturally, racially, religiously anti-semitic in any traditional sense of the word (those parts are more likely on the right) but they have bought into the narrative that Israel's national conduct is no longer the lesser of the two evils in the region. I don't think that many people yet believe that, but if Israel doesn't start helping it's own cause, more will.

Also the 'demonization' of Aipac on the left also ties into their  support to Trump and/or Trump aligned candidates.

Edited 13 hours ago by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, buddha said:

you say that, and yet the left is veering much more toward anti-israeli rhetoric as evidenced by the last election and the demonization of any candidate who dared take money from aipac or any other israeli supporting group.  if you had paid much attention to the last elections in chicago, you would have seen left wing candidates all do a desperate dance to distance themselves from israel, even in the most jewish district in the state, il-9, where the current jewish candidate retired and refused to endorse candidates in the district and around chicago who had taken money from jewish pacs like aipac (kat abuzelagh won most of the chicago portion of the district, but lost the suburbs to daniel biss, a jewish candidate who has denounced bibi netanyahu but has not gone as far as the other candidates in their extreme rhetoric toward israel).

the fact that you dont know that, and you dont know who the most vociferous alderman in your own city is who espouses rhetoric on social media about "please send me an anti-zionist doctor" (or sigcho who stands before burning american flags espousing "genocide") and phrases the city council resolutions on gaza that dont mention hamas at all tells me NOT that the rhetoric on the left is fringe, but that youre not paying attention.

the democratic party is very much moving away from israel, as are most left wing political parties in the western world (check out the latest british council election results and the rise of the green party).  part of this is israel's aggressive military campaign and how its covered in the western media, and part of it is good ol fashioned anti western attitudes of the new immigrant class that is increasing its influence in the west.

when people complain about "poxes on both houses", it usually means "dont dare put a pox on my house."  so it seems it is here.

Paying attention is exactly the point. You're reading a governing trend from the noisiest data points: aldermanic social media posts, a primary race in a single Illinois district, candidates distancing themselves from AIPAC. That's real political pressure, and I don't dismiss it. But political pressure from a vocal constituency is not the same as ideological capture of a governing party. The Democratic mainstream haven't abandoned Israel, but while they have complicated their relationship with the current Israeli government, that's not the same thing, and besides, it's what Israeli opposition figures and mass protest movements have done as well.

The distinction that actually matters is the one between policy-driven anti-Israel sentiment (even when it's overwrought, and even when it edges into troubling territory) and the kind of ethno-nationalist, eliminationist antisemitism that has historically seized control of parties and governments, and is doing so again on the right in real time. The former is a problem that bears close watching. The latter is the thing that has historically gotten people killed. Conflating them because they share some surface rhetoric muddles, not sharpens, the analysis, and lets the genuinely dangerous version off the hook by treating it as merely one data point along a bipartisan spectrum.

[gehringer_2]

30 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The distinction that actually matters is the one between policy-driven anti-Israel sentiment (even when it's overwrought, and even when it edges into troubling territory) and the kind of ethno-nationalist, eliminationist antisemitism that has historically seized control of parties and governments, and is doing so again on the right in real time. The former is a problem that bears close watching. The latter is the thing that has historically gotten people killed. Conflating them because they share some surface rhetoric muddles, not sharpens, the analysis, and lets the genuinely dangerous version off the hook by treating it as merely one data point along a bipartisan spectrum.

I agree with this. The problem is that mainstream Dem policy disagreement with the current Israeli government draws an Arab emigree population (among others) to the party who actually are revuanchist wrt the existence of Israel and eventually they become a constituency for harder anti-semitism - IOW the situation brewing in Dearborn MI or Omar's district in MN.

This is a hard problem because I don't want the main stream Democratic party to be in bed with Netanyahu.

Edited 33 minutes ago by gehringer_2