Israel-Gaza war

[GoTfan]

https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/prc_2024-3-21_israel-hamas_1-02/

This is another interesting poll. Just confirms the anti-Israel crowd comes mainly from Muslims and white religiously unaffiliated and not mainline black churches.

Obviously it's understandable why Muslims are more likely to justify Hamas' actions but we need to examine these religiously unaffiliated under 30 voters more rigorously. Quite a bunch of these far leftists have major mental disorders and their antisemitism is really a front for some deeper issues. Mainstream educational institutions should stop teaching people that this is a hopeless country and start reflecting on some of the damage done in the social media era.

This is pretty offensive.

No it’s not, it’s a brutally harsh take but it matches the data from the “uncommitted” votes which were mainly places like Dearborn, college campuses but not inner city Detroit. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe it but younger leftists under 30 tend to believe antisemitic tropes more than any other group outside of the far far right.

No, it is. You're implying that anyone who has any mild criticism of Israel is an anti-Semite or mentally ill. It is extremely offensive, so I suggest you rethink what you typed.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

No, You and him are trying to equate mental illness with criticism of Israel, and that's extremely offensive, even if your own warped sense of morality refuses to accept that. So quite frankly, shut the hell up on this.

[Vosem]

https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/prc_2024-3-21_israel-hamas_1-02/

This is another interesting poll. Just confirms the anti-Israel crowd comes mainly from Muslims and white religiously unaffiliated and not mainline black churches.

Obviously it's understandable why Muslims are more likely to justify Hamas' actions but we need to examine these religiously unaffiliated under 30 voters more rigorously. Quite a bunch of these far leftists have major mental disorders and their antisemitism is really a front for some deeper issues. Mainstream educational institutions should stop teaching people that this is a hopeless country and start reflecting on some of the damage done in the social media era.

This is pretty offensive.

No it’s not, it’s a brutally harsh take but it matches the data from the “uncommitted” votes which were mainly places like Dearborn, college campuses but not inner city Detroit. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe it but younger leftists under 30 tend to believe antisemitic tropes more than any other group outside of the far far right.

No, it is. You're implying that anyone who has any mild criticism of Israel is an anti-Semite or mentally ill. It is extremely offensive, so I suggest you rethink what you typed.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

No, You and him are trying to equate mental illness with criticism of Israel, and that's extremely offensive, even if your own warped sense of morality refuses to accept that. So quite frankly, shut the hell up on this.

I am only trying to equate mental illness with criticism of the conduct of the war, not with all criticism of Israel.

[GoTfan]

https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/prc_2024-3-21_israel-hamas_1-02/

This is another interesting poll. Just confirms the anti-Israel crowd comes mainly from Muslims and white religiously unaffiliated and not mainline black churches.

Obviously it's understandable why Muslims are more likely to justify Hamas' actions but we need to examine these religiously unaffiliated under 30 voters more rigorously. Quite a bunch of these far leftists have major mental disorders and their antisemitism is really a front for some deeper issues. Mainstream educational institutions should stop teaching people that this is a hopeless country and start reflecting on some of the damage done in the social media era.

This is pretty offensive.

No it’s not, it’s a brutally harsh take but it matches the data from the “uncommitted” votes which were mainly places like Dearborn, college campuses but not inner city Detroit. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe it but younger leftists under 30 tend to believe antisemitic tropes more than any other group outside of the far far right.

No, it is. You're implying that anyone who has any mild criticism of Israel is an anti-Semite or mentally ill. It is extremely offensive, so I suggest you rethink what you typed.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

No, You and him are trying to equate mental illness with criticism of Israel, and that's extremely offensive, even if your own warped sense of morality refuses to accept that. So quite frankly, shut the hell up on this.

I am only trying to equate mental illness with criticism of the conduct of the war, not with all criticism of Israel.

Don't try to weasel your way out of it. You've previously characterised me as a slavery supporter and a Nazi, so I'm not much inclined to believe a word you say on this at all.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/prc_2024-3-21_israel-hamas_1-02/

This is another interesting poll. Just confirms the anti-Israel crowd comes mainly from Muslims and white religiously unaffiliated and not mainline black churches.

Obviously it's understandable why Muslims are more likely to justify Hamas' actions but we need to examine these religiously unaffiliated under 30 voters more rigorously. Quite a bunch of these far leftists have major mental disorders and their antisemitism is really a front for some deeper issues. Mainstream educational institutions should stop teaching people that this is a hopeless country and start reflecting on some of the damage done in the social media era.

This is pretty offensive.

No it’s not, it’s a brutally harsh take but it matches the data from the “uncommitted” votes which were mainly places like Dearborn, college campuses but not inner city Detroit. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe it but younger leftists under 30 tend to believe antisemitic tropes more than any other group outside of the far far right.

No, it is. You're implying that anyone who has any mild criticism of Israel is an anti-Semite or mentally ill. It is extremely offensive, so I suggest you rethink what you typed.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

No, You and him are trying to equate mental illness with criticism of Israel, and that's extremely offensive, even if your own warped sense of morality refuses to accept that. So quite frankly, shut the hell up on this.

I am only trying to equate mental illness with criticism of the conduct of the war, not with all criticism of Israel.

Stop

[Wiswylfen]

Don't derail the thread, please.

I'll move the answer elsewhere if you insist (and I won't be very upset if the chain of posts is deleted by mods, really).

Of course you'd reply to the throwaway line. Your commitment to being wrong is admirable. Latin American evangelicalism is completely and utterly irrelevant, while concern about Palestine is hardly the sole realm of (or, for the most part, originating from) NGOs. There's more of a case that the unhesitating support for Israel is unsustainable; there is little love for it in Europe among younger generations. Support for Israel as Staatsräson is a(n absurd) sentiment confined to the middle-aged and elderly not just there but in America as well.

But, like, it isn't: this is generally not what polls show when not hopelessly cherrypicked, many Democratic campaigns in the 2020s hire staffers from pro-Israel campus movements, and the large-scale growth in support for Israel in the United States only began in the 1980s and clearly accelerated during the Second Intifada. (One rather strongly suspects, comparing things like Sunak's policies to Thatcher's, or the emergence of governments like Austria/Czechia whose stances are the thing G-Mac was banned for, that this is also the case in western Europe, with support for Israel having been unusual outside of the West German state apparatus in the 1970s but being broadly common across society today.) There exists a pious fiction that modern Western support for Israel is a holdover from the wars against the Arab states, but that was when it was weakest: modern support for Israel is either religiously motivated or (primarily) motivated by an active distaste for the Palestinian movement, and a desire for it to be destroyed.

Western concern about Palestine held above other global conflict hotspots is broadly what is keeping the conflict going, considering things like UNRWA's budget coming largely from Western sources, and in the absence of funding for such organizations (and the likely evolution of demographic reality in the region) the conflict becomes much likelier to simply end. Western funding for these organizations is a holdover from where public opinion was in the 1990s, and doesn't reflect opinion in the 2020s. It'll go away one way or another.

(Latin American evangelicalism is relevant in the sense that large parts of the world have religious motivations for supporting the state, and this was not true 50 years ago. 'World opinion' is commonly cited as a source of Palestinian strength, but I think this is hopelessly outdated -- if we revisit the question in 20 years, like you suggest, we'll find much more 'world opinion' supporting Israel in a literally religious way.)

I forgot your commitment to arguing the impossible. Know that I appreciate the part about 'cherrypicked polls'.

Support for Israel among Americans of any generation closely correlates with the percentage that claim to be following news closely, which of course rises with age. I don't think there is actually a cohort effect here, substantially because I think support for Israel among American news-watchers is of recent vintage and its causes are still active/strengthening.

There is a distinction between support for Israel and the notion that it constitutes Staatsräson. You're also confusing public attitudes with elite attitudes, and failing to understand the significance of cohorts in opinion changing over time. Those are the main issues.

But I don't think support for Israel depends on the notion of it being a Staatsräson. (And, while it being a Staatsräson is commonly invoked in rhetoric, I'm not sure any country besides Israel has actually behaved in that way, except maybe like 1940s Czechoslovakia.)

Going point by point, I'm not sure what Democrats still hiring staffers from pro-Israel groups is supposed to prove?

It is meant to demonstrate that pro-Israel organizing among young left-wing Americans exists and is relatively active. I may come from a particular campus (Ohio State) where it was unusually common, but the fact that it was very successful makes me suspect that it could be expanded easily.

If anything is to be proved by which staffers are hired, more indicative as to attitudes seems the whole controversy about staffers not being supportive enough of Israel (and accusations that they were racist and/or stupid because they didn't agree) a few months back.

Why would this be more indicative? Your occasional pro-Palestinian statements among staffers are virtually always anonymous, as if those signing don't want to know that they hold an opinion which they know to be unpopular. (In fairness to those staffers, they're probably likelier to be afraid of the opinion being unpopular among the electorate rather than among other staffers. But still.)

Going back and checking news from the time—looking at Jonathan Chait's article, I can understand why you might not want to remember all this—I would assume those staffers hired from pro-Israel groups were the minority opposed to them, conflating their opinions with those of "liberal and progressive Jews" supposedly let down by their allies and saying that their colleagues would applaud swastikas being painted on their cars!

I really don't find your writing or allusions clear at all and I don't understand who "they" are meant to be in the context of this sentence. Is it meant to be pro-Palestine staffers? They definitely don't behave as if they were a majority; nor would it make sense for them to think their opposites would applaud swastikas drawn on their cars? What are you even saying here?

Support for Israel growing over time is completely irrelevant to this. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make by mentioning it. Do you think that it'll indefinitely continue or something like that?

My point is that the reasons for it continue to be present and are mostly strengthening in Western societies, and I don't think we have very good reasons to think that the continuing shift will peter out. (The shift away from police reform over the last half-decade in the United States happened for basically similar reasons; it is because pro-Palestinian individuals and groups in civil society have adopted a style that repels, such that demagogues like Fetterman can score easy points even among the left by adopting comical pro-Israel stances.) There's no reason to think this is going away in the near-term future.

Support for Israel growing has more to do with cohort replacement and the growth of evangelicalism than anything else. The spikes of support during the Intifadas are just that. Also not sure what "actually there are lot of dog pfp 60-year-olds who cheer Palestinian children dying" has to do with anything? Anyway: things like the difference of Thatcher and Reagan's responses to Sunak's and Biden's have more to do with elite attitudes.

I don't think elite attitudes are as divorced from popular attitudes as you imply; nor do I think that cohort effects are as important as predictable outcomes to news events.

"a holdover from where public opinion was in the 1990s, and doesn't reflect opinion in the 2020s"—I get that this is your whole thing but it could at least be a bit more convincing. I don't for a single second think that you actually, sincerely believe this.

Oh, trust me, I have opinions about the future of public opinion much more exotic than that one. Do I need to find my posts where I argue that it is plausible that in the absence of a World Wars-level calamity that the American public school system and the NHS will eventually be destroyed in a mass popular movement?

Your interesting euphemism for ethnic cleansing: "the likely evolution of demographic reality". It's quite something when you are using such language.

This is a forum about demographics, and those of us that discuss Israel know that the long-term trend is Palestinian emigration and Jewish immigration; that over the long run the Jewish TFR is rising; and that Palestinian emigration tends to spike during periods of conflict. It's no more genocide than the fact that the once-heavily-Russian neighborhood I grew up in in Brooklyn is now heavily-Chinese.

Also if we're looking at religion twenty years from now, Israel is going to be in the process of transforming into a halachic state, which should about finish off any support from secular or mainline/Catholic quarters.

Probably not; unlike in the Anglophone world in Israel there is heavy attrition from ultra-Orthodox Judaism. It'll be more like 80 years. (I also don't see why that would finish off support from secular or mainline/Catholic quarters? Most current support for Israel comes from distaste or opposition to the Palestinian movement in the West, which would probably not fundamentally change in such an event. Some of the support for Israel is undergirded by sympathy for ultra-Orthodox Judaism -- consider the Lubavitcher Rebbe having been a relatively prominent public intellectual in the US in his time, or everything about Javier Milei -- and while most of it isn't, I don't really think this would change much even if it happens in the way you describe.)

Finally and frankly, it is irrelevant if tens of millions of Brazilians join American evangelicals—who, conversely, are relevant and in decline—in placing the interests of Israel before their own state's. It has as much value as Russia appealing to third-worldism and the 'global south'. 'World opinion' is irrelevant. This century is still the West's and China's.

So long as this is true, the West and China will eventually eviscerate the current culture which exists among humanitarian organizations, and my suspicion is that without their propaganda that the left-wing pro-Palestinian movement will wither away, and I indeed expect this to happen over the next few decades. As with all long-term predictions there is substantial uncertainty, but I think this is the path of least resistance.

As a wise man once said, you're not a sushi chef. This approach—cutting the post up into paragraph-sized chunks—is not only visually painful but also seems to have caused you to miss things completely: hence why you get confused over my writing being 'unclear' when it would have been clear had you read and replied to it together with the previous paragraph, with 'them' referring to those 'not supportive enough of Israel'.

Of course, you also find my writing 'unclear' in the sense that you're reading things that aren't there. I haven't said support for Israel depends on the notion of it being Staatsräson, or ascribing that belief to you. I don't know how you can look at the actions of the German political class that thinks it Staatsräson and think it's all rhetoric with nothing else to it.

There is a common thread in your beliefs: despite your relative honesty about what they mean (aside from the euphemism for genocide—I don't know, were Chinese politicians and officers loudly calling for genocide and killing the Russians?), in defence of them you offer nonsensical arguments and deny reality itself.

You ignore that the extent and depth of support for Israel is unique and an aberration, not shared by the elderly, news-following Greatest Generation (and much of the Silent as well), even admitting the recency but ignoring the causes of it. You present meaningless anecdotes as meaningful, and then dismiss significant protests because of the anonymity (probably more to do with the people they work for than the electorate) of the people protesting.  You claim that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is equivalent to Israel becoming a halachic state, or that Javier Milei is indicative of anything except how bizarre he is. You talk of a 'shift away from police reform'—the numbers have barely changed, and the passage of time seems a much more plausible explanation for that infinitesimal decline than anything else.

Your predictions—and yes, I am very aware of them, this is why I said 'your whole thing'—basically amount to wishcasting. What ground you find is extremely unstable at best. Support for Palestine is dying because Fetterman loves Israel, and Brianna Wu is talking about how generous the Trump peace plan was and calling 'the left' a bunch of racists. Support for Palestine will die because it's all down to the NGOs and the West will stop supporting them for reasons. I limit myself here to your comments in this conversation, for brevity as much as anything else.

[Devils30]

https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/prc_2024-3-21_israel-hamas_1-02/

This is another interesting poll. Just confirms the anti-Israel crowd comes mainly from Muslims and white religiously unaffiliated and not mainline black churches.

Obviously it's understandable why Muslims are more likely to justify Hamas' actions but we need to examine these religiously unaffiliated under 30 voters more rigorously. Quite a bunch of these far leftists have major mental disorders and their antisemitism is really a front for some deeper issues. Mainstream educational institutions should stop teaching people that this is a hopeless country and start reflecting on some of the damage done in the social media era.

This is pretty offensive.

No it’s not, it’s a brutally harsh take but it matches the data from the “uncommitted” votes which were mainly places like Dearborn, college campuses but not inner city Detroit. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe it but younger leftists under 30 tend to believe antisemitic tropes more than any other group outside of the far far right.

No, it is. You're implying that anyone who has any mild criticism of Israel is an anti-Semite or mentally ill. It is extremely offensive, so I suggest you rethink what you typed.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

I have re-thought it many times over the past few months and am sticking by my opinion (which you and anyone else here may respectfully disagree with). You have many people at these campus events and street rallies wearing KN-95 masks (I am not talking about the Keffiyehs that serve as a political symbol). There is a strong overlap with those completely paranoid over covid, years after we developed an effective vaccine and these protestors. This is not an example of people taking reasonable precautions, it is antisocial, abnormal.

There are also many studies pointing to much higher depression levels among young liberals than young conservatives, no one should ignore this data. This narrative from academics, left leaning politicians does nothing but make kids think this is a hopeless world at an early age.

And in case you were wondering, I will be casting my vote this November for Joe Biden.

[GoTfan]

https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/prc_2024-3-21_israel-hamas_1-02/

This is another interesting poll. Just confirms the anti-Israel crowd comes mainly from Muslims and white religiously unaffiliated and not mainline black churches.

Obviously it's understandable why Muslims are more likely to justify Hamas' actions but we need to examine these religiously unaffiliated under 30 voters more rigorously. Quite a bunch of these far leftists have major mental disorders and their antisemitism is really a front for some deeper issues. Mainstream educational institutions should stop teaching people that this is a hopeless country and start reflecting on some of the damage done in the social media era.

This is pretty offensive.

No it’s not, it’s a brutally harsh take but it matches the data from the “uncommitted” votes which were mainly places like Dearborn, college campuses but not inner city Detroit. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe it but younger leftists under 30 tend to believe antisemitic tropes more than any other group outside of the far far right.

No, it is. You're implying that anyone who has any mild criticism of Israel is an anti-Semite or mentally ill. It is extremely offensive, so I suggest you rethink what you typed.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

I have re-thought it many times over the past few months and am sticking by my opinion (which you and anyone else here may respectfully disagree with). You have many people at these campus events and street rallies wearing KN-95 masks (I am not talking about the Keffiyehs that serve as a political symbol). There is a strong overlap with those completely paranoid over covid, years after we developed an effective vaccine and these protestors. This is not an example of people taking reasonable precautions, it is antisocial, abnormal.

There are also many studies pointing to much higher depression levels among young liberals than young conservatives, no one should ignore this data. This narrative from academics, left leaning politicians does nothing but make kids think this is a hopeless world at an early age.

And in case you were wondering, I will be casting my vote this November for Joe Biden.

I don't respectfully disagree. There is no respectful disagreement to be had. You're trying to equate mental illness with criticism of Israel, and as someone who does struggle with depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts, I do find it extremely offensive at your implication that my mental health struggles are somehow indicative of my pretty damn mild criticisms of Israel.

[Devils30]

https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/prc_2024-3-21_israel-hamas_1-02/

This is another interesting poll. Just confirms the anti-Israel crowd comes mainly from Muslims and white religiously unaffiliated and not mainline black churches.

Obviously it's understandable why Muslims are more likely to justify Hamas' actions but we need to examine these religiously unaffiliated under 30 voters more rigorously. Quite a bunch of these far leftists have major mental disorders and their antisemitism is really a front for some deeper issues. Mainstream educational institutions should stop teaching people that this is a hopeless country and start reflecting on some of the damage done in the social media era.

This is pretty offensive.

No it’s not, it’s a brutally harsh take but it matches the data from the “uncommitted” votes which were mainly places like Dearborn, college campuses but not inner city Detroit. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe it but younger leftists under 30 tend to believe antisemitic tropes more than any other group outside of the far far right.

No, it is. You're implying that anyone who has any mild criticism of Israel is an anti-Semite or mentally ill. It is extremely offensive, so I suggest you rethink what you typed.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

I have re-thought it many times over the past few months and am sticking by my opinion (which you and anyone else here may respectfully disagree with). You have many people at these campus events and street rallies wearing KN-95 masks (I am not talking about the Keffiyehs that serve as a political symbol). There is a strong overlap with those completely paranoid over covid, years after we developed an effective vaccine and these protestors. This is not an example of people taking reasonable precautions, it is antisocial, abnormal.

There are also many studies pointing to much higher depression levels among young liberals than young conservatives, no one should ignore this data. This narrative from academics, left leaning politicians does nothing but make kids think this is a hopeless world at an early age.

And in case you were wondering, I will be casting my vote this November for Joe Biden.

I don't respectfully disagree. There is no respectful disagreement to be had. You're trying to equate mental illness with criticism of Israel, and as someone who does struggle with depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts, I do find it extremely offensive at your implication that my mental health struggles are somehow indicative of my pretty damn mild criticisms of Israel.

I am talking about many of the people involved in this movement in general, not every criticism of Israel. A lot of these anti-Israel protestors seem to be people with many issues who are looking for a group (Jews/Israelis) to use as an outlet for their general dissatisfaction. No, that doesn't mean every single person involved is mentally ill or don't have legitimate struggles. I just think a lot of the college left's movement today is becoming toxic. Spending a day blocking traffic to protest Israel but not a billion other things in the world is not what a normal human being in the US should do.

[Wiswylfen]

https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1771184129331142947
Occasional reminder that the vast majority of opposition to the Israeli war in Gaza is disingenuous posturing

I don't think this indicates that at all actually.

If we really cared about human rights then get them to stop selling to the Azeris. Much easier to do and has more impact.  Instead all that matters is Biden's reelection.

I agree, Israel should stop selling arms to Azerbaijan, and the United States should pressure them on that. Anything else?

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

I do like how Devils30 was talking about those justifying Hamas' actions, and you're talking about how "anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza". Quite different things. I'm not quite sure how you concluded he was saying that? In any case, I suppose that's irrelevant, since he seems to now be tripping over himself to catch up with you. I might write that post about the Arab Legion after all.

[Vosem]

Don't derail the thread, please.

I'll move the answer elsewhere if you insist (and I won't be very upset if the chain of posts is deleted by mods, really).

Of course you'd reply to the throwaway line. Your commitment to being wrong is admirable. Latin American evangelicalism is completely and utterly irrelevant, while concern about Palestine is hardly the sole realm of (or, for the most part, originating from) NGOs. There's more of a case that the unhesitating support for Israel is unsustainable; there is little love for it in Europe among younger generations. Support for Israel as Staatsräson is a(n absurd) sentiment confined to the middle-aged and elderly not just there but in America as well.

But, like, it isn't: this is generally not what polls show when not hopelessly cherrypicked, many Democratic campaigns in the 2020s hire staffers from pro-Israel campus movements, and the large-scale growth in support for Israel in the United States only began in the 1980s and clearly accelerated during the Second Intifada. (One rather strongly suspects, comparing things like Sunak's policies to Thatcher's, or the emergence of governments like Austria/Czechia whose stances are the thing G-Mac was banned for, that this is also the case in western Europe, with support for Israel having been unusual outside of the West German state apparatus in the 1970s but being broadly common across society today.) There exists a pious fiction that modern Western support for Israel is a holdover from the wars against the Arab states, but that was when it was weakest: modern support for Israel is either religiously motivated or (primarily) motivated by an active distaste for the Palestinian movement, and a desire for it to be destroyed.

Western concern about Palestine held above other global conflict hotspots is broadly what is keeping the conflict going, considering things like UNRWA's budget coming largely from Western sources, and in the absence of funding for such organizations (and the likely evolution of demographic reality in the region) the conflict becomes much likelier to simply end. Western funding for these organizations is a holdover from where public opinion was in the 1990s, and doesn't reflect opinion in the 2020s. It'll go away one way or another.

(Latin American evangelicalism is relevant in the sense that large parts of the world have religious motivations for supporting the state, and this was not true 50 years ago. 'World opinion' is commonly cited as a source of Palestinian strength, but I think this is hopelessly outdated -- if we revisit the question in 20 years, like you suggest, we'll find much more 'world opinion' supporting Israel in a literally religious way.)

I forgot your commitment to arguing the impossible. Know that I appreciate the part about 'cherrypicked polls'.

Support for Israel among Americans of any generation closely correlates with the percentage that claim to be following news closely, which of course rises with age. I don't think there is actually a cohort effect here, substantially because I think support for Israel among American news-watchers is of recent vintage and its causes are still active/strengthening.

There is a distinction between support for Israel and the notion that it constitutes Staatsräson. You're also confusing public attitudes with elite attitudes, and failing to understand the significance of cohorts in opinion changing over time. Those are the main issues.

But I don't think support for Israel depends on the notion of it being a Staatsräson. (And, while it being a Staatsräson is commonly invoked in rhetoric, I'm not sure any country besides Israel has actually behaved in that way, except maybe like 1940s Czechoslovakia.)

Going point by point, I'm not sure what Democrats still hiring staffers from pro-Israel groups is supposed to prove?

It is meant to demonstrate that pro-Israel organizing among young left-wing Americans exists and is relatively active. I may come from a particular campus (Ohio State) where it was unusually common, but the fact that it was very successful makes me suspect that it could be expanded easily.

If anything is to be proved by which staffers are hired, more indicative as to attitudes seems the whole controversy about staffers not being supportive enough of Israel (and accusations that they were racist and/or stupid because they didn't agree) a few months back.

Why would this be more indicative? Your occasional pro-Palestinian statements among staffers are virtually always anonymous, as if those signing don't want to know that they hold an opinion which they know to be unpopular. (In fairness to those staffers, they're probably likelier to be afraid of the opinion being unpopular among the electorate rather than among other staffers. But still.)

Going back and checking news from the time—looking at Jonathan Chait's article, I can understand why you might not want to remember all this—I would assume those staffers hired from pro-Israel groups were the minority opposed to them, conflating their opinions with those of "liberal and progressive Jews" supposedly let down by their allies and saying that their colleagues would applaud swastikas being painted on their cars!

I really don't find your writing or allusions clear at all and I don't understand who "they" are meant to be in the context of this sentence. Is it meant to be pro-Palestine staffers? They definitely don't behave as if they were a majority; nor would it make sense for them to think their opposites would applaud swastikas drawn on their cars? What are you even saying here?

Support for Israel growing over time is completely irrelevant to this. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make by mentioning it. Do you think that it'll indefinitely continue or something like that?

My point is that the reasons for it continue to be present and are mostly strengthening in Western societies, and I don't think we have very good reasons to think that the continuing shift will peter out. (The shift away from police reform over the last half-decade in the United States happened for basically similar reasons; it is because pro-Palestinian individuals and groups in civil society have adopted a style that repels, such that demagogues like Fetterman can score easy points even among the left by adopting comical pro-Israel stances.) There's no reason to think this is going away in the near-term future.

Support for Israel growing has more to do with cohort replacement and the growth of evangelicalism than anything else. The spikes of support during the Intifadas are just that. Also not sure what "actually there are lot of dog pfp 60-year-olds who cheer Palestinian children dying" has to do with anything? Anyway: things like the difference of Thatcher and Reagan's responses to Sunak's and Biden's have more to do with elite attitudes.

I don't think elite attitudes are as divorced from popular attitudes as you imply; nor do I think that cohort effects are as important as predictable outcomes to news events.

"a holdover from where public opinion was in the 1990s, and doesn't reflect opinion in the 2020s"—I get that this is your whole thing but it could at least be a bit more convincing. I don't for a single second think that you actually, sincerely believe this.

Oh, trust me, I have opinions about the future of public opinion much more exotic than that one. Do I need to find my posts where I argue that it is plausible that in the absence of a World Wars-level calamity that the American public school system and the NHS will eventually be destroyed in a mass popular movement?

Your interesting euphemism for ethnic cleansing: "the likely evolution of demographic reality". It's quite something when you are using such language.

This is a forum about demographics, and those of us that discuss Israel know that the long-term trend is Palestinian emigration and Jewish immigration; that over the long run the Jewish TFR is rising; and that Palestinian emigration tends to spike during periods of conflict. It's no more genocide than the fact that the once-heavily-Russian neighborhood I grew up in in Brooklyn is now heavily-Chinese.

Also if we're looking at religion twenty years from now, Israel is going to be in the process of transforming into a halachic state, which should about finish off any support from secular or mainline/Catholic quarters.

Probably not; unlike in the Anglophone world in Israel there is heavy attrition from ultra-Orthodox Judaism. It'll be more like 80 years. (I also don't see why that would finish off support from secular or mainline/Catholic quarters? Most current support for Israel comes from distaste or opposition to the Palestinian movement in the West, which would probably not fundamentally change in such an event. Some of the support for Israel is undergirded by sympathy for ultra-Orthodox Judaism -- consider the Lubavitcher Rebbe having been a relatively prominent public intellectual in the US in his time, or everything about Javier Milei -- and while most of it isn't, I don't really think this would change much even if it happens in the way you describe.)

Finally and frankly, it is irrelevant if tens of millions of Brazilians join American evangelicals—who, conversely, are relevant and in decline—in placing the interests of Israel before their own state's. It has as much value as Russia appealing to third-worldism and the 'global south'. 'World opinion' is irrelevant. This century is still the West's and China's.

So long as this is true, the West and China will eventually eviscerate the current culture which exists among humanitarian organizations, and my suspicion is that without their propaganda that the left-wing pro-Palestinian movement will wither away, and I indeed expect this to happen over the next few decades. As with all long-term predictions there is substantial uncertainty, but I think this is the path of least resistance.

As a wise man once said, you're not a sushi chef. This approach—cutting the post up into paragraph-sized chunks—is not only visually painful but also seems to have caused you to miss things completely: hence why you get confused over my writing being 'unclear' when it would have been clear had you read and replied to it together with the previous paragraph, with 'them' referring to those 'not supportive enough of Israel'.

Of course, you also find my writing 'unclear' in the sense that you're reading things that aren't there. I haven't said support for Israel depends on the notion of it being Staatsräson, or ascribing that belief to you. I don't know how you can look at the actions of the German political class that thinks it Staatsräson and think it's all rhetoric with nothing else to it.

There is a common thread in your beliefs: despite your relative honesty about what they mean (aside from the euphemism for genocide—I don't know, were Chinese politicians and officers loudly calling for genocide and killing the Russians?), in defence of them you offer nonsensical arguments and deny reality itself.

You ignore that the extent and depth of support for Israel is unique and an aberration, not shared by the elderly, news-following Greatest Generation (and much of the Silent as well), even admitting the recency but ignoring the causes of it. You present meaningless anecdotes as meaningful, and then dismiss significant protests because of the anonymity (probably more to do with the people they work for than the electorate) of the people protesting.  You claim that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is equivalent to Israel becoming a halachic state, or that Javier Milei is indicative of anything except how bizarre he is. You talk of a 'shift away from police reform'—the numbers have barely changed, and the passage of time seems a much more plausible explanation for that infinitesimal decline than anything else.

Your predictions—and yes, I am very aware of them, this is why I said 'your whole thing'—basically amount to wishcasting. What ground you find is extremely unstable at best. Support for Palestine is dying because Fetterman loves Israel, and Brianna Wu is talking about how generous the Trump peace plan was and calling 'the left' a bunch of racists. Support for Palestine will die because it's all down to the NGOs and the West will stop supporting them for reasons. I limit myself here to your comments in this conversation, for brevity as much as anything else.

I really don't think it is. I think modern support for Israel is downstream of a reaction to the tactics used by the Palestinian movement, which is funded primarily by NGOs themselves primarily funded by Western governments. I think that as it gets less popular these NGOs will eventually die or be proscribed, and that as a consequence the movement will go away. I do not think that, outside of the Muslim world, it is sustainable without constant propaganda efforts, and it's slowly dying in spite of these. The cause of support for Israel is not sympathy for the Holocaust, or for attacks by Arab powers in the 1960s: the cause of support for Israel is antipathy towards the Palestinian movement. And I don't think the Palestinian movement can survive such antipathy in the West. I think 'Israel will be a halachic state in 20 years' is a laughable prediction which shows a poor understanding of its society, but I think 'and therefore it will lose Western support' is even more laughable; it would very likely survive becoming an actual very authoritarian state. (There are various forms of large-scale cultural revolution in Palestine I can imagine Western support for Israel not surviving, but I think very little else could happen that would actually dislodge it.)

You know, before it was a Russian-American neighborhood, it was an Italian-American neighborhood, and when non-Italians (particularly African-Americans) tried to buy property in that neighborhood, they were sometimes threatened with violence, as late as the 1980s. Was that genocide? No, very obviously genocide is when you actually conspire to kill people because of their ethnicity, not when you take some course of action that leads to people dying as a consequence. By your standards someone advertising Marlboros in Gaza is also committing a genocide. (But I'd assume not elsewhere: probably someone advertising Marlboros in Bensonhurst isn't. Gaza is special that way.)

The subject of the sentence preceding that 'they' is 'staffers not supportive enough of Israel', but I pointed out that your speculation about these people makes no sense. I still don't understand what you're trying to say there.

Support for Palestine is obviously not dying because Fetterman mocks them; Fetterman mocking them is a consequence of support for Palestine dying.

[Wiswylfen]

Stop

Should he have said that anyone who criticises the Israeli war effort wants to finish what Hitler started instead? It is quite something that you are trying to criticise Vosem when you have said far worse yourself.

[Vosem]

https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1771184129331142947
Occasional reminder that the vast majority of opposition to the Israeli war in Gaza is disingenuous posturing

I don't think this indicates that at all actually.

No; this is merely another example.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

I do like how Devils30 was talking about those justifying Hamas' actions, and you're talking about how "anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza". Quite different things. I'm not quite sure how you concluded he was saying that? In any case, I suppose that's irrelevant, since he seems to now be tripping over himself to catch up with you. I might write that post about the Arab Legion after all.

I've been part of this community for many years, am familiar with different posters' positions, and have corresponded with Devils30 over direct messages, so I had a pretty good idea of what he meant? By contrast, your posts are written in a context which is strange and difficult to interpret, and take for granted bizarre lies and dissembling definitions.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Clearly only mentally ill people would be critical of a war effort that involves indiscriminate bombings and shootings of unarmed civilians

[Wiswylfen]

https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1771184129331142947
Occasional reminder that the vast majority of opposition to the Israeli war in Gaza is disingenuous posturing

I don't think this indicates that at all actually.

No; this is merely another example.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

I do like how Devils30 was talking about those justifying Hamas' actions, and you're talking about how "anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza". Quite different things. I'm not quite sure how you concluded he was saying that? In any case, I suppose that's irrelevant, since he seems to now be tripping over himself to catch up with you. I might write that post about the Arab Legion after all.

I've been part of this community for many years, am familiar with different posters' positions, and have corresponded with Devils30 over direct messages, so I had a pretty good idea of what he meant? By contrast, your posts are written in a context which is strange and difficult to interpret, and take for granted bizarre lies and dissembling definitions.

I do understand that my posts—which involves reading what someone has said, taking it in, and then replying to it—are exceptional on this forum.

That happens to be precisely what I did with his post: he linked to a poll asking people if Hamas had valid reasons to fight Israel; I therefore quite reasonably interpreted this as being what his comments were about, rather than (all) criticism of the Israeli war effort, which he made no mention of and which seemed an extraordinarily uncharitable interpretation of his post; and I was wrong. Dissembling indeed.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Enough with the 20,000 word quote walls, people.

What's the validity of this story about Israel nabbing hundreds of Hamas people in the raid on Al-Shifa?

[PSOL]

Enough with the 20,000 word quote walls, people.

What's the validity of this story about Israel nabbing hundreds of Hamas people in the raid on Al-Shifa?

Ayyy Lmao

As discussed previously Israel has a loose detention policy to nab anyone they please as suspects. Usual behavior from the usual crowd to call injured civilians terrorists.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It might also be an optics thing. If Russia or China vetoes it (which is actually pretty likely), then the USA won't be the only country having vetoed a "ceasefire" resolution.

Why is that? I haven't really been following the Russian or Chinese postures on this.

Because it’s simply just obvious? US insistently vetoed every proposal of ceasefire made by those two, why would they give a geopolitical victory to US by approving theirs?

I get confused with people seemingly really believing that geopolitics is driven mainly out of principles. It never is for anyone. Competing interests. Why did US veto every ceasefire proposal up until now when that’s basically a consensus in the international community?

Usually when this kind of bickering happens, two powers measuring dicks by domestically instrumentalizing third-party countries issues in order to not give a “win” to the other, in order to advance the agenda a small “neutral” country tends to be the one that has to advance the proposal by dialoguing with the major powers that have the veto ability in order to find a common ground for approval.

Otherwise every peace proposal created by Russia or China will be blocked by USA and every peace proposal made by USA will be blocked by Russia or China.

So, in other words, it's so they can keep using this as a cudgel to beat the US with. I did understand that already, and the stated rationale, which is what I was trying to ask about, is honestly even more phoned-in than I would have expected.

[Vosem]

https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1771184129331142947
Occasional reminder that the vast majority of opposition to the Israeli war in Gaza is disingenuous posturing

I don't think this indicates that at all actually.

No; this is merely another example.

I am really only saying (and I think Devils30 is only saying) that anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza, which I think all decent people everywhere in the world should support. There are many quite valid criticisms of Israel (consider the size of their welfare state!) -- but the ideas that the war effort is unjustified or cruel are not among them.

I do like how Devils30 was talking about those justifying Hamas' actions, and you're talking about how "anti-Semitism and mental illness are common among those who criticize the Israeli war effort in Gaza". Quite different things. I'm not quite sure how you concluded he was saying that? In any case, I suppose that's irrelevant, since he seems to now be tripping over himself to catch up with you. I might write that post about the Arab Legion after all.

I've been part of this community for many years, am familiar with different posters' positions, and have corresponded with Devils30 over direct messages, so I had a pretty good idea of what he meant? By contrast, your posts are written in a context which is strange and difficult to interpret, and take for granted bizarre lies and dissembling definitions.

I do understand that my posts—which involves reading what someone has said, taking it in, and then replying to it—are exceptional on this forum.

That happens to be precisely what I did with his post: he linked to a poll asking people if Hamas had valid reasons to fight Israel; I therefore quite reasonably interpreted this as being what his comments were about, rather than (all) criticism of the Israeli war effort, which he made no mention of and which seemed an extraordinarily uncharitable interpretation of his post; and I was wrong. Dissembling indeed.

Yes, it is often difficult to understand that conversations take place in a context and that this thread is on its 264th page.

Clearly only mentally ill people would be critical of a war effort that involves indiscriminate bombings and shootings of unarmed civilians

What, the Gazan war effort? The Israeli one, as the past 264 pages have shown, involves discriminate bombings (each individual one having a justification provided to the Israeli court system and if necessary the US military) and shootings at armed combatants.

'Mentally ill' is perhaps too strong (Devils30 was, in my understanding, referring to the profile of protesters in the US, rather than everyone holding an opinion critical of the war), but certainly, like...extremely immature? Those who are criticizing the war effort are speaking in the same tones as  little boys who insist that they don't like little girls, no, really. They're obviously speaking their truth, but we know what events would change their minds with 98% certainty, so it is very difficult to take these utterings seriously. Of course if there were a foreign government trying to kill them because of where they lived they would support whatever efforts it took to displace that government. I kind of appreciate Wiswylfen being ultra-consistent and voicing his disapproval of the Allied war effort in WW2, but in real war efforts this attitude invariably retreats to a tiny minority (and good thing, too).

I could maybe respect individuals who were citing the opinions of actual generals and military experts, but this is never what we actually see (where we have statements from figures in the US military establishment it is almost invariably awe that there are so few civilian casualties); similarly, comparisons with similar recent battles suggest the casualty count is very low. Instead, we are meant to believe that a war where the number of civilian casualties has exceeded some number is ipso facto illegitimate, or that a war effort where the ethnic identities of casualties are known beforehand is ipso facto a genocide. Both of these opinions are absurd, mostly trotted out disingenuously as a result of (or pretending) ignorance of other wars, and I have a very deep and abiding disrespect for them.

[GeneralMacArthur]

There are two things that I just find it very very difficult to believe, which lead to my contempt for the anti-Israel left.

The first is the notion that people are coming to the extreme anti-Israel position down some rational and defensible path.  Social media is overwhelmed by a tidal wave of propaganda and fake news.  We see it in this thread as well.  The sheer volume of hyperbole and misinformation is staggering, it's something I haven't seen since the WikiLeaks days of 2016.

I find it very hard to believe that people are filtering through all of that to look at actual facts on the ground and the real context of the conflict, and coming to an extreme anti-Israel position based on that.  I find it far, far more likely that people are getting radicalized by videos of Syrian Civil War victims labeled with "look what Israel did", or videos of Hamas combatants in civilian clothing getting rekt labeled with "look at Israel killing civilians", or videos of Israel collapsing a tunnel network labeled with "look how Israel destroys our homes", or pictures of smiling teenagers labeled with "look at this child Israel keeps locked in prison" that mysteriously fail to mention that the smiling teenager tried to shoot up a police checkpoint in Hebron.

And the disinformation is far from the most nefarious content, as we also see tons of openly anti-semitic neo-nazi propaganda flooding social media and getting boosted by extremist networks on the left and right.  Notions of "Jews control the strings of our government" and "everything America does is for the profit of Jewish bankers" and "just look at those outrageous, lurid atrocities Jews have committed" are not even pro-Palestinian propaganda (although the Palestinians love this stuff).  They are just straight up neo-Nazi stuff.  But I have seen tons of progressives echoing these notions of AIPAC having all our politicians on a leash and forcing them to support the war so the Jew-owned military-industrial complex can profit from dead Palestinians.  The f--king Hadid sisters started this now widespread conspiracy theory that Israel is intentionally murdering Palestinians so it can harvest their organs and sell them on the black market.  I know dips--ts in the Netanyahu cabinet love to overuse this term so much that it's lost its meaning, but that is just the classic blood libel trope.

When I see just how much this fake news and blatant anti-semitism is catching on among the progressive left, it's very difficult for me to grant the benefit of the doubt that people shouting at me about Israel arrived at their hatred through some rational path I ought to respect.  It's very easy for me to assume that if I look at their social media I'll see a picture of Yazan Kafarneh (the boy with cerebral palsy) labeled with "look at this child Israel tortured and starved to death so they could harvest his organs."

The second is the notion that their extreme anti-Israel rhetoric is genuine.  When people say the word "genocide" a hundred times over, or call for the abolition of Israel, or call Anthony Blinken a war criminal who's going to The Hague, or post memes of Joe Biden with a grim reaper skull and his suit soaked in Palestinian blood, I just don't believe that this is a sincerely-held belief.

Instead, I think what happens is people on the left get in these outflanking races where they're battling with each other for social credibility, and the main field of battle is who can issue the strongest, most extreme condemnation of the "enemy", which in this case is Israel and the Biden Administration.

Your buddy said Joe Biden is "supporting genocide" while you just said Joe Biden is "complicit in genocide"?  Uh-oh, he's using stronger language than you.  Is he more anti-Israel than you?  Is he more virtuous than you?  You can't have that.  So you shift your rhetoric to "Joe Biden is a genocidal maniac who masturbates at night to pictures of dead Palestinian children."  There you go, you should be safe for another day.  And after all, why not?  There's zero social consequence for going too far.  But plenty of social consequence for not going far enough.  Just look at how the progressive left has turned against AOC for not denouncing Joe Biden and Israel strongly enough.

When I have people trying to tell me that Joe Biden is committing genocide, and ask how I can possibly support such a monster, I just see that as a pointless conversation.  Because (A) their beliefs aren't based on reality so it's impossible to talk to them in a reality-based conversation, and (B) those aren't their actual sincerely-held beliefs anyway.

[GeneralMacArthur]

As an illustration of my post, I offer you this clip of my man Rep. Adam Smith, here in Seattle, dealing with exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about.  And being cheered on by our intrepid local media.

https://twitter.com/hannahkrieg/status/1771231604536467602

[Devils30]

As an illustration of my post, I offer you this clip of my man Rep. Adam Smith, here in Seattle, dealing with exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about.  And being cheered on by our intrepid local media.

https://twitter.com/hannahkrieg/status/1771231604536467602

And he has the covid KN-95 mask on, I rest my case regarding my posts about these people.

[GoTfan]

As an illustration of my post, I offer you this clip of my man Rep. Adam Smith, here in Seattle, dealing with exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about.  And being cheered on by our intrepid local media.

https://twitter.com/hannahkrieg/status/1771231604536467602

And he has the covid KN-95 mask on, I rest my case regarding my posts about these people.

What, that we're all mentally ill?

[Mechavada]

Folks, can we just stop with the enormously toxic practice of claiming certain folks have mental illnesses based on conjecture?

Thanks.

[Mechavada]

Stop

Should he have said that anyone who criticises the Israeli war effort wants to finish what Hitler started instead? It is quite something that you are trying to criticise Vosem when you have said far worse yourself.

To my knowledge Mr. X has never claimed that anyone who criticizes Israel wants to finish what Hitler started.  I've had disagreements with him on this subject but to my recollection this is an argument I've never ever heard from him.  He might imply that some critics (like we all know who) are anti-Semitic but I've never seen him make such a blanket statement.   He sure as hell has never accused me of wanting to do that.  He seems to be putting in a legitimate effort to analyze the conflict beyond his perspective.  I've always had some disagreements with Mr. X on the Israel-Gaza issue but it helps to know where he's coming from.

People on here often say things in the heat of the moment.  I sure have.  I'm a human being.  And often times the one thing that saved me was when someone on here, regardless of what they said before, just told me to "stop" or "you're being a dick".  Mr. X is letting the better angels of his nature win, he's choosing to say out loud that ascribing blanket statements of mental illness to people is toxic as hell, regardless of what he thinks of the people being described that way.

Me and him are on differing sides of Israel-Gaza, but right now in this moment we are allies in the battle against this kind of shaming.  Sorry man, I'm taking a W on this one instead of looking the gift horse in its mouth.

EDIT: Reread the post and had to edit some points for clarification.

[Wiswylfen]

Stop

Should he have said that anyone who criticises the Israeli war effort wants to finish what Hitler started instead? It is quite something that you are trying to criticise Vosem when you have said far worse yourself.

To my knowledge Mr. X has never claimed that anyone who criticizes Israel wants to finish what Hitler started.  I've had disagreements with him on this subject but to my recollection this is an argument I've never ever heard from him.  He might imply that some critics (like we all know who) are anti-Semitic but I've never seen him make such a blanket statement.   He sure as hell has never accused me of wanting to do that.  He seems to be putting in a legitimate effort to analyze the conflict beyond his perspective.  I've always had some disagreements with Mr. X on the Israel-Gaza issue but it helps to know where he's coming from.

People on here often say things in the heat of the moment.  I sure have.  I'm a human being.  And often times the one thing that saved me was when someone on here, regardless of what they said before, just told me to "stop" or "you're being a dick".  Mr. X is letting the better angels of his nature win, he's choosing to say out loud that ascribing blanket statements of mental illness to people is toxic as hell, regardless of what he thinks of the people being described that way.

Me and him are on differing sides of Israel-Gaza, but right now in this moment we are allies in the battle against this kind of shaming.  Sorry man, I'm taking a W on this one instead of looking the gift horse in its mouth.

EDIT: Reread the post and had to edit some points for clarification.

Sorry, yes, I was wrong. It was that they wanted to "finish what Hitler started" or that they supported "the rape, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing of all Jewish Israelis". Direct quotes from him in a post he later tried to disown and claim was 'just a social experiment' or something.