Random Vosem and eadmund conversation

[Vosem]

And it’s not just X who has publicly taken the role on the cross, Virginia—descended from anti-soviets—former veteran Texasgurl, and Britain33 are also the ones who have gone publicly to voice the same attitudes [...]

lmao almost the entirety of my public posts here weighing in on that conflict amount to asking users to not advocate for ethnic cleansing and genocide. Come to think of it, that might be all of it. Anyone who actually knows me here would know my thoughts on this are much more nuanced than what you are saying.

Without any comment on what PSOL has said, it is darkly funny that what G-Mac got banned for back in October is now allowed to be openly supported—including by moderators who call anyone who disagrees with them a racist troll—with no repercussions whatsoever.

Also the refusal to accept the reality that is the genocide taking place is very interesting. Unfortunately, sticking your head in the sand and pretending that actually nothing is happening doesn't work. What a thing it'll be when we revisit all this twenty years from now.

Anyway if what PSOL has said deserves a reply I certainly deserve one. Or is it just that nobody on the mod team is able to actually defend the action, and also it's easier to attack PSOL's post? I'm shocked.

What, when evangelicalism is the dominant religious tendency in Latin America and "populist" right-wing governments in Europe and North America have defunded the global NGO/"humanitarian" organization complex? I suspect that we are kind of unlikely to revisit the issue in 20 years (as a society; a forum like this one well might), precisely because the pro-Palestinian movement in Western countries is just not a very sustainable one. Its pillars are built out of collapsing ideas.

[Wiswylfen]

And it’s not just X who has publicly taken the role on the cross, Virginia—descended from anti-soviets—former veteran Texasgurl, and Britain33 are also the ones who have gone publicly to voice the same attitudes [...]

lmao almost the entirety of my public posts here weighing in on that conflict amount to asking users to not advocate for ethnic cleansing and genocide. Come to think of it, that might be all of it. Anyone who actually knows me here would know my thoughts on this are much more nuanced than what you are saying.

Without any comment on what PSOL has said, it is darkly funny that what G-Mac got banned for back in October is now allowed to be openly supported—including by moderators who call anyone who disagrees with them a racist troll—with no repercussions whatsoever.

Also the refusal to accept the reality that is the genocide taking place is very interesting. Unfortunately, sticking your head in the sand and pretending that actually nothing is happening doesn't work. What a thing it'll be when we revisit all this twenty years from now.

Anyway if what PSOL has said deserves a reply I certainly deserve one. Or is it just that nobody on the mod team is able to actually defend the action, and also it's easier to attack PSOL's post? I'm shocked.

What, when evangelicalism is the dominant religious tendency in Latin America and "populist" right-wing governments in Europe and North America have defunded the global NGO/"humanitarian" organization complex? I suspect that we are kind of unlikely to revisit the issue in 20 years (as a society; a forum like this one well might), precisely because the pro-Palestinian movement in Western countries is just not a very sustainable one. Its pillars are built out of collapsing ideas.

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.

[Vosem]

And it’s not just X who has publicly taken the role on the cross, Virginia—descended from anti-soviets—former veteran Texasgurl, and Britain33 are also the ones who have gone publicly to voice the same attitudes [...]

lmao almost the entirety of my public posts here weighing in on that conflict amount to asking users to not advocate for ethnic cleansing and genocide. Come to think of it, that might be all of it. Anyone who actually knows me here would know my thoughts on this are much more nuanced than what you are saying.

Without any comment on what PSOL has said, it is darkly funny that what G-Mac got banned for back in October is now allowed to be openly supported—including by moderators who call anyone who disagrees with them a racist troll—with no repercussions whatsoever.

Also the refusal to accept the reality that is the genocide taking place is very interesting. Unfortunately, sticking your head in the sand and pretending that actually nothing is happening doesn't work. What a thing it'll be when we revisit all this twenty years from now.

Anyway if what PSOL has said deserves a reply I certainly deserve one. Or is it just that nobody on the mod team is able to actually defend the action, and also it's easier to attack PSOL's post? I'm shocked.

What, when evangelicalism is the dominant religious tendency in Latin America and "populist" right-wing governments in Europe and North America have defunded the global NGO/"humanitarian" organization complex? I suspect that we are kind of unlikely to revisit the issue in 20 years (as a society; a forum like this one well might), precisely because the pro-Palestinian movement in Western countries is just not a very sustainable one. Its pillars are built out of collapsing ideas.

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.)

[Wiswylfen]

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'.

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.

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

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!

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? 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.

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

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.

[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.

[Wiswylfen]

(Following cont. discussion in the Gaza thread.)


Indeed: as I have been very vocal about on this forum, genocide is not when (a lot of) people die. That Israel is pursuing the extermination and/or expulsion of Palestinians in Gaza—that is, carrying out a genocide—has two crucial pieces of evidence to it: first, the manner in which the war is being conducted, though by itself this would hardly be conclusive; second, the fact that Israeli ministers and officers can't shut up for ten minutes without proudly admitting it, which is rather damning. Scrambling for whatever you can find, you settle upon the idea that 'Gaza is special' and I am setting a double standard: not at all, as I have a wide range of concerns; and in this I am maintaining the healthy interest in matters overseas that saw Englishmen cast their votes against the atrocities being carried out by one of our Middle Eastern allies. Now, let's move on from your childhood recollections to the substance of your post.

There is no proof whatsoever that support for Palestine is dying. This is just another one of your wishcasting things: you want something to happen, therefore it will in spite of all the evidence against it. I note that, in your post, you don't even attempt to respond on the matters of (a) Staatsräson, (b) this denial of reality in favour of what you want to be true, and (c) generations—I assume that's a sort of concession. You also move on from police reform at breakneck speed: your arguments (see the scrambling thing) are thrown together from whatever you can find no matter how meaningless or wrong it is, they instantly fall apart, and you just ignore it. How do we know support for Palestine is dying? Well, it's simple. John Fetterman is now beloved by a decent chunk of Republicans because he's pro-drug and he's pro-Israel. That means it must be happening, because that's a consequence of it.

What you claim often not only has no evidence for it, but is at odds with the evidence we do have. For instance, this thing you have where people support Israel out of 'antipathy towards the Palestinian movement' and that therefore Israel could become a halachic state without suffering any loss of support because the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Except there's nothing showing either of those things. That so much of pro-Israel messaging in America is that it's a Western democracy surrounded by religious oppression goes some way to demonstrating that. I guess maybe you could say evangelicals wouldn't care, but support for Israel is wider than them. Our disagreement is, as you admit yourself, a matter of timescale and also you yet again failing to read my posts; you think it'll take a majority, I don't, and I said 'the process'.

It's the same with your dreams of a world where pro-Palestine NGOs—your belief that their propaganda is behind support for Palestine another thing with nothing to it (Israeli soldiers posting videos of themselves in cots and blowing up schools on TikTok are probably a more important factor)—are dead or proscribed. UNRWA might not be an NGO, but I suppose it's the closest example to use: Israel made a bunch of allegations and got many governments to suspend funding—but more than a few didn't, and more than a few of those that did are unsuspending it with nothing having been found. And that's with a Western political class that is unhesitatingly supportive of Israel (until they suggest that perhaps a little restraint would be nice this time, in which case they're racist or something and how dare spokesmen not be allowed to attack 'allies' on Twitter). What's it going to be like when they've moved on? Even more supportive of Israel, according to you: but yet again that's just you wishcasting.

I would also appreciate your clarification as to what, exactly, does not make sense about my 'speculation'.

[Vosem]

Where did I say that Gaza is special? I don't think it is. I think the war is similar to other recent episodes of urban warfare (and if anything stands out for the relative safety of civilians, in comparison to Mosul and Mariupol), and I think the war's rationale is clearly similar to that of the wars in Afghanistan or Chechnya. I think the international law position of Gaza is definitely unusual, but even in that case there is a ready analogy to be made with Chechnya, where individuals tendentiously pretended the territory's government was a valid state.

I don't think you can have a 'genocide' without a deliberate effort to kill all individuals belonging to some ethnicity in a particular territory. I think in the case of the present war it is fairly obvious that Israel could carry on a campaign within the bounds of international law which would kill many more people (consider Chechnya, whose high-level planners have never even really been accused of crimes in any forum, even if lower-level individuals have), and that they aren't doing this is pretty clear evidence that there isn't one. WW2-style rhetoric from ministers is not evidence of anything at all, in the same sense that quotes from Morgenthau do not prove Dresden was a genocide.

There is plenty of proof that support for Palestine is dying: you can observe the changes in the policy of different governments across decades, you can observe the differences in polling over the course of decades, and you can use your pattern recognition skills to observe that similar movements are also dying for reasons which clearly seem to apply. I understand that this makes you angry.

I responded to you on the question of generations: I don't think there's a real cohort effect, and I think the mirage of one is a byproduct of younger people paying less attention. YouGov and Gallup polls in the US consistently have support for Israel correlated with the fraction of individuals claiming to pay attention to the conflict, such that a lower level of support can be easily explained by the phenomenon. I have very little to say about 'denial of reality' to someone who doesn't think Britain supplied the Arab Legion, or who thinks that modern Israel poses a threat to Britain because they sold weapons to Argentina 40 years ago. I authentically have no idea what you mean by Staatsräson here -- contrary to German rhetoric I don't think support for Israel is really a Staatsräson in any country at the moment. It certainly animates many political parties across the democratic world, of course.

No, John Fetterman is now beloved by a decent chunk of Democrats among whom previously he was not very popular. This is an example meant to demonstrate that his attitude (of flagrant disrespect to pro-Palestinian protesters) is what voters on the American left want: other politicians have copied it, but have generally been covered less by media. Fetterman appears particularly interesting merely because he was a Sanders '16 supporter (this is probably also the reason Ritchie Torres's views get play).

Yes, I think the reason that support for Israel began increasing across the West after the 1980s is a backlash to a Palestinian movement which is often visibly violent or racist. I think this is unlikely to change (unless there is some very large change to Palestinian society), and so long as this continues to be true they will continue to lose support. I think this is the primary mechanism by which support for Israel tends to increase during periods of warfare, which is a pretty clear in US polling. I think the primary reason for support for Palestine is not TikTok videos, the reactions to which seem very mixed as a whole, but persistent propaganda from media associated with organizations like UNRWA, which I think are unlikely to survive hostile public opinion in Western societies. I think this would continue even if Israel were to become an overtly authoritarian society, which is presumably what you mean by 'halachic state', although in the immediate future this is really no more likely than the US or UK becoming such an authoritarian society.

Where did I use the word 'speculation'? I think you have been pretty consistently dishonest about the role Britain played in the 1947-1949 war (although this is not something which is very relevant to the present of UK-Israel relations), and you have insisted on a definition of 'genocide' which is dishonest, and if consistently applied would probably prevent any country from existing.

If portions of your posts are replies to direct excerpts of my posts, you should probably quote the specific excerpt you are responding to: otherwise, you can call me out for saying things like 'special' or 'speculation', and then after I don't find those words using Ctrl+F I will be confused about what you are imagining. (As a general pointer to writing English, incidentally, sentences with many pronouns are difficult to understand, especially if you are also using definitions of common words which are unique to you or meant to mislead: when writing essays you will be better served with fewer 'theys' and 'thems', and more writing out subjects and direct objects.)

[jojoju1998]

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.

It's not just the left wingers who are sympethetic to Palestine.....



The Catholic Church has been one of the most vocal pro palestinian religious groups for a while.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/13/pope-benedict-palestinians-gaza#:~:text=Today%20the%20pope%20made%20his,of%20the%20coastal%20strip%20lifted.


"Today the pope made his strongest call yet for a "sovereign Palestinian homeland". He said mass in Bethlehem's Manger Square and offered his "solidarity" to the Palestinians of Gaza, telling them he wanted to see the Israeli blockade of the coastal strip lifted."

This was from Pope Benedict XVI, who I don't think anyone on this planet would consider to be a liberal in anyway shape or form.

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'.

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.

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

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!

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? 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.

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

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.

Ironically, a large percentage albeit declining of Palestinians are Christians ( they have fled however, having more education, and more job skills; fleeing to places like the US.).

They are no fans of Israel, but they fear Hamas as well.


Also, these christians are probably not " Christian " enough for Evangelicals anyway. They're latin rite catholic or maronite; Eastern Orthodox.

[CumbrianLefty]

What, can other people join this "conversation" as well?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What, can other people join this "conversation" as well?

That would be good for popcorn sellers.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What, can other people join this "conversation" as well?

That would be good for popcorn sellers.

I'm looking forward to this thread. Even though I don't agree with Vosem entirely, I admire his unflinching stands on a number of issues of which he is passionate about.

[Alcibiades]

Any reason why this thread is pinned?

[Wiswylfen]

Where did I say that Gaza is special? I don't think it is. I think the war is similar to other recent episodes of urban warfare (and if anything stands out for the relative safety of civilians, in comparison to Mosul and Mariupol), and I think the war's rationale is clearly similar to that of the wars in Afghanistan or Chechnya. I think the international law position of Gaza is definitely unusual, but even in that case there is a ready analogy to be made with Chechnya, where individuals tendentiously pretended the territory's government was a valid state.

I don't think you can have a 'genocide' without a deliberate effort to kill all individuals belonging to some ethnicity in a particular territory. I think in the case of the present war it is fairly obvious that Israel could carry on a campaign within the bounds of international law which would kill many more people (consider Chechnya, whose high-level planners have never even really been accused of crimes in any forum, even if lower-level individuals have), and that they aren't doing this is pretty clear evidence that there isn't one. WW2-style rhetoric from ministers is not evidence of anything at all, in the same sense that quotes from Morgenthau do not prove Dresden was a genocide.

There is plenty of proof that support for Palestine is dying: you can observe the changes in the policy of different governments across decades, you can observe the differences in polling over the course of decades, and you can use your pattern recognition skills to observe that similar movements are also dying for reasons which clearly seem to apply. I understand that this makes you angry.

I responded to you on the question of generations: I don't think there's a real cohort effect, and I think the mirage of one is a byproduct of younger people paying less attention. YouGov and Gallup polls in the US consistently have support for Israel correlated with the fraction of individuals claiming to pay attention to the conflict, such that a lower level of support can be easily explained by the phenomenon. I have very little to say about 'denial of reality' to someone who doesn't think Britain supplied the Arab Legion, or who thinks that modern Israel poses a threat to Britain because they sold weapons to Argentina 40 years ago. I authentically have no idea what you mean by Staatsräson here -- contrary to German rhetoric I don't think support for Israel is really a Staatsräson in any country at the moment. It certainly animates many political parties across the democratic world, of course.

No, John Fetterman is now beloved by a decent chunk of Democrats among whom previously he was not very popular. This is an example meant to demonstrate that his attitude (of flagrant disrespect to pro-Palestinian protesters) is what voters on the American left want: other politicians have copied it, but have generally been covered less by media. Fetterman appears particularly interesting merely because he was a Sanders '16 supporter (this is probably also the reason Ritchie Torres's views get play).

Yes, I think the reason that support for Israel began increasing across the West after the 1980s is a backlash to a Palestinian movement which is often visibly violent or racist. I think this is unlikely to change (unless there is some very large change to Palestinian society), and so long as this continues to be true they will continue to lose support. I think this is the primary mechanism by which support for Israel tends to increase during periods of warfare, which is a pretty clear in US polling. I think the primary reason for support for Palestine is not TikTok videos, the reactions to which seem very mixed as a whole, but persistent propaganda from media associated with organizations like UNRWA, which I think are unlikely to survive hostile public opinion in Western societies. I think this would continue even if Israel were to become an overtly authoritarian society, which is presumably what you mean by 'halachic state', although in the immediate future this is really no more likely than the US or UK becoming such an authoritarian society.

Where did I use the word 'speculation'? I think you have been pretty consistently dishonest about the role Britain played in the 1947-1949 war (although this is not something which is very relevant to the present of UK-Israel relations), and you have insisted on a definition of 'genocide' which is dishonest, and if consistently applied would probably prevent any country from existing.

If portions of your posts are replies to direct excerpts of my posts, you should probably quote the specific excerpt you are responding to: otherwise, you can call me out for saying things like 'special' or 'speculation', and then after I don't find those words using Ctrl+F I will be confused about what you are imagining. (As a general pointer to writing English, incidentally, sentences with many pronouns are difficult to understand, especially if you are also using definitions of common words which are unique to you or meant to mislead: when writing essays you will be better served with fewer 'theys' and 'thems', and more writing out subjects and direct objects.)

Another post with lots of wishful thinking and very little to back it up—and, mustn't forget, plenty of mendacious complaints. What a surprise. I will add that I will not heed your ridiculous requests as to how I post, the product of which is certainly more intelligible than your sushi; that you are unable to remember what you have just accused me of is not my problem, and the same goes for your inability to infer from context (while, of course, expecting me to be aware of what is said between you and others privately).

I suppose I'll start by acknowledging my mistake: you did, in fact, reply concerning cohorts. I will qualify that with a reminder that, as with so many of the other things you say, that reply was a mere denial with nothing to support it. I of course apologise for the mistake made.

Let's go through the wishful thinking, then.
 
You claim that "John Fetterman is now beloved by a decent chunk of Democrats among whom previously he was not very popular"; by this I assume you mean some people on Twitter whose feelings on the subject you have projected onto the wider Democratic electorate (you also omit that he did not support Sanders in 2020, and made that clear).

You claim that "voters on the American left" are with him in his pathetically slavish support for Israel no matter what it does; there is simply nothing to support this. You ignore the utter absurdity of German society's reaction to even the slightest, most moderate criticism of Israel—such as the borderline hilarious film festival incident, to name one example—to dismiss it all as just 'rhetoric'.

You claim that support for Palestine is in decline. Once again, despite you repeating it over and over, you don't actually have anything to support this. You tell me to look at policy (no indication), to look at polling (no indication), and to apply my 'pattern recognition skills'. I'm going to apply them to conclude that this is indeed just another instance of you wanting something to be true and ignoring reality so as to assert that it is.

Beyond the wishful thinking, though, there are just straight-up lies. You pretend that the genocide in Gaza is somehow better than 'other recent episodes of urban warfare' (as we were informed on the Israel-Gaza thread by a guy whose numbers excluded deaths in Gaza). You accuse me of being 'consistently dishonest' about Britain's involvement, that I deny that Britain supplied the Arab Legion. Both counts are plainly false. There is an important distinction to be made on the latter: your ignorance of it only serves to make clear your wider ignorance on the subject. Arms were sent for internal security in the Transjordan; arms were not sent for use in the Cisjordan.

That—actually knowing what happened, and additionally being aware of which states keep up nonsensical, obsessive grudges against us with no basis in reality (see also: Russia)—constitutes a denial of reality, supposedly. I would, then, be very interested as to how your insistence without evidence that it is not a matter of cohorts, but a mere mirage, aligns with the documented increase of support for Israel in the 65+ group over the last three decades.

I'd rather not do your paragraph-by-paragraph thing but if I must make an exception I will: I do not see how at any point I have insisted on a 'dishonest' definition of genocide (and I must ask what your own is supposed to be), and once again, I would ask you to elaborate; you used 'speculation' here, and I am willing to believe that this is an honest mistake on your part given your repeated forgetfulness of your own posts' contents. On a related matter to that, I note your question as to where you said Gaza is special: I refer to your own ramblings about Marlboros implying that I thought that, as could be understood from its surroundings.

Your case against calling a genocide a genocide is that we should ignore every confession made and remember that, actually, Israel could kill even more people if they wanted to. An exceptional argument. I suppose at least you've tried to back that up.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

My reply to Eadmund's last post in the Moderation Complaints Thread:

I know this conversation should be allowed to rest, but one last point that I think is worth making: isn't it rather strange for a poster who believes to this day that

1066 remains sufficient grounds for the mass expropriation of landowners without compensation.

and (allegedly) that "Normans" should be expelled from Britain

The older someone is the more likely they are to get the "Saxon vs. Norman" concept (and identify with the "Saxons"), whether that's because they were raised on Eagle or the last generation to inherit the folk memory of 1066.

More founding father. Regnal numbering still begins with William I after all.

We studied the Norman Conquest in Year 7 and one of the exercises my class did was to rank the various claimants taking into account their pros and cons. If I'm remembering correctly William got high marks for being a "strong" ruler.

Is there a North v South divide on opinions regarding him, thanks to his harsh treatment of the former?

No.

I recall you from AH.Com urging that the British left run on a platform of expelling the (((Normans))).

OK.

Also claims to believe that Israeli airstrikes on Gaza constitute a genocide?

Presumably, any standard that banned GMAC for supporting Israel would also obviously require the banning of a poster who wants to start a bizarre Norman-Saxon race war within England that includes expelling "Normans" and expropriating "Norman" property.

Of course, I personally believe in Eadmund's right to free speech, just as I do GMAC's. But I think posters seeking to ban other posters for "denying genocide" should perhaps be a bit more cautious in doing so when (to my eyes) their own speech advocates genocide.

This is one of those 'genocide is a word with meaning to it' things. The definition of genocide doesn't include class and therefore it doesn't matter what you think about stuff I said as a child four years ago and you are wrong.

This is not just four years ago -- you made the expropriation comment earlier this year! And you've made other comments since 2021 hinting at this position as well.

Additionally, you're right, it wouldn't be genocide advocacy to call for class based expropriation if your motive was communist. But that is not what you have argued, or your motive. You have always and consistently framed this as a 1066/Norman based argument -- in other words, an ethnic-based expropriation/genocide, not a class based one.

Three simple questions for you:

1. Do you favor expelling Normans from Britain?

2. Do you favor expropriating Norman property in Britain?

3. Would you consider an Israeli expulsion of the Palestinians, or mass expropriation of their property, to be genocidal?

Help! Help! He thinks it would be good and funny to take the Duke of Northumberland's land and not pay for it! He's calling for a genocide! He's destroying the meaning of the word genocide! OK. IDK how expropriation is supposed to be genocide even by your nonsensical definition but whatever I'll answer your questions.

1/2. Yes. I am a full supporter of expelling Norman Baker, Norman Fowler, Norman Lamb, and Norman Lamont from Britain and expropriating their property.
3. Yes (sane).

1/2 -- you are playing dumb here, but this is strange, because you have clearly not struggled to understand the meaning of Norman vis a vis ethnicity before. In fact, you seem to have had a pretty clear idea of it, much clearer than my own: while I would say that there are no "Normans" in Britain today due to 1,000 years of admixture, you have previously said that all large landowners should have their property expropriated on the mere presumption that their ownership probably dates back to 1066, and (again, allegedly, but alleged by a poster several years ago separate from this conflict, and a long-time poster at that) that Normans even be expelled from England.

And in fact, you have not merely said this several years ago, or as a joke: your most recent advocacy of this subject was in January, at the same time as you were expressing such strident views on Israel's actions in Gaza, and you are clearly very serious about this because you have been so consistent in this advocacy, to the point where you were even banned from another forum for it.

I see no reason not to interpret your evasive, jokey denial here as confirmation that you do believe in Norman expropriation/expulsion, given the otherwise substantial evidence for the idea that you do. If I am wrong in that, feel free to correct me with an explanation that accounts for you having "joked" your way into an Althist forum ban for hating the Normans too much (seriously -- how does that happen? It's hardly a hot topic), that also incorporates your "joking" about Norman expropriation and the redrawing of borders on pre-Norman lines. You must be under deep cover to have kept this "joke" going so long.

But hey, if I am right, no worries: I frankly couldn't care less for its own sake that you have a nutty view. But I would encourage you (if so) to not spend so much time calling for other posters to be banned -- the crow shouldn't call the raven black.

[Wiswylfen]

1/2 -- you are playing dumb here, but this is strange, because you have clearly not struggled to understand the meaning of Norman vis a vis ethnicity before. In fact, you seem to have had a pretty clear idea of it, much clearer than my own: while I would say that there are no "Normans" in Britain today due to 1,000 years of admixture, you have previously said that all large landowners should have their property expropriated on the mere presumption that their ownership probably dates back to 1066, and (again, allegedly, but alleged by a poster several years ago separate from this conflict, and a long-time poster at that) that Normans even be expelled from England.

And in fact, you have not merely said this several years ago, or as a joke: your most recent advocacy of this subject was in January, at the same time as you were expressing such strident views on Israel's actions in Gaza, and you are clearly very serious about this because you have been so consistent in this advocacy, to the point where you were even banned from another forum for it.

I see no reason not to interpret your evasive, jokey denial here as confirmation that you do believe in Norman expropriation/expulsion, given the otherwise substantial evidence for the idea that you do. If I am wrong in that, feel free to correct me with an explanation that accounts for you having "joked" your way into an Althist forum ban for hating the Normans too much (seriously -- how does that happen? It's hardly a hot topic), that also incorporates your "joking" about Norman expropriation and the redrawing of borders on pre-Norman lines. You must be under deep cover to have kept this "joke" going so long.

But hey, if I am right, no worries: I frankly couldn't care less for its own sake that you have a nutty view. But I would encourage you (if so) to not spend so much time calling for other posters to be banned -- the crow shouldn't call the raven black.

Unsurprisingly, and as I have made clear previously, this is not a subject I have much interest in discussing and I have no obligation to do so—especially with people with no knowledge of it. And you have no actual interest in the subject beyond what hilariously false accusations you can level against me (wasn't I supposed to be making the word 'genocide' meaningless by calling a genocide a genocide? oh well).

But nonetheless: I have the radical belief that things in the present are the result of what happened in the past. This, for whatever reason, is the cause of much outrage in certain quarters.

'Norman' is not an ethnicity. Alan Rufus was a 'Norman'. Those ennobled for their 17th-century treason against England are 'Norman'. That I am capable of tracing the existence of these people back to 1066, when they destroyed the most beautiful thing to have ever existed, does not make them an ethnicity any more than pirates are an ethnicity. I don't like the Duke of Northumberland and I think it would be good and funny if we took 'his' land and didn't pay him, and I think it would be good and funny if we then threw him out. This is no more 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' than the transportation of a family of criminals was.

Anyway since you know what AH.com I'm sure you don't actually have to ask how people get banned from it. I must admit that I've never met anyone so enthusiastic about AH.com's moderation as you (btw Casey is also banned from the site for having fun, so). For that, I suppose congratulations are in order. Regardless, you are not Vosem and if you wish to continue this then you should create a separate thread.

[Wiswylfen]

But separately I must also thank you for the opportunity. As you have said, I despise William the Bastard and all those who came with him. And yet there is nobody in the world more against the idea that the Harrying of the North was a genocide than I (unlike those telling us that Israel isn't doing a genocide because they aren't, I can elaborate on this). I do not use the word 'genocide' to mean 'a lot of people died' or 'something I don't like'. I use it to mean what it means. I call Israel's genocide a genocide because that is what it is, however much some wish to deny it because admitting their support for genocide would make them uncomfortable.

Should note my beliefs aren't nearly as 'nutty' as you seem to think: they were quite widespread in England until not that long ago. Just that, as it is with me, it's something that only comes up when relevant.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

1/2 -- you are playing dumb here, but this is strange, because you have clearly not struggled to understand the meaning of Norman vis a vis ethnicity before. In fact, you seem to have had a pretty clear idea of it, much clearer than my own: while I would say that there are no "Normans" in Britain today due to 1,000 years of admixture, you have previously said that all large landowners should have their property expropriated on the mere presumption that their ownership probably dates back to 1066, and (again, allegedly, but alleged by a poster several years ago separate from this conflict, and a long-time poster at that) that Normans even be expelled from England.

And in fact, you have not merely said this several years ago, or as a joke: your most recent advocacy of this subject was in January, at the same time as you were expressing such strident views on Israel's actions in Gaza, and you are clearly very serious about this because you have been so consistent in this advocacy, to the point where you were even banned from another forum for it.

I see no reason not to interpret your evasive, jokey denial here as confirmation that you do believe in Norman expropriation/expulsion, given the otherwise substantial evidence for the idea that you do. If I am wrong in that, feel free to correct me with an explanation that accounts for you having "joked" your way into an Althist forum ban for hating the Normans too much (seriously -- how does that happen? It's hardly a hot topic), that also incorporates your "joking" about Norman expropriation and the redrawing of borders on pre-Norman lines. You must be under deep cover to have kept this "joke" going so long.

But hey, if I am right, no worries: I frankly couldn't care less for its own sake that you have a nutty view. But I would encourage you (if so) to not spend so much time calling for other posters to be banned -- the crow shouldn't call the raven black.

Unsurprisingly, and as I have made clear previously, this is not a subject I have much interest in discussing and I have no obligation to do so—especially with people with no knowledge of it. And you have no actual interest in the subject beyond what hilariously false accusations you can level against me (wasn't I supposed to be making the word 'genocide' meaningless by calling a genocide a genocide? oh well).

But nonetheless: I have the radical belief that things in the present are the result of what happened in the past. This, for whatever reason, is the cause of much outrage in certain quarters.

'Norman' is not an ethnicity. Alan Rufus was a 'Norman'. Those ennobled for their 17th-century treason against England are 'Norman'. That I am capable of tracing the existence of these people back to 1066, when they destroyed the most beautiful thing to have ever existed, does not make them an ethnicity any more than pirates are an ethnicity. I don't like the Duke of Northumberland and I think it would be good and funny if we took 'his' land and didn't pay him, and I think it would be good and funny if we then threw him out. This is no more 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' than the transportation of a family of criminals was.

Anyway since you know what AH.com I'm sure you don't actually have to ask how people get banned from it. I must admit that I've never met anyone so enthusiastic about AH.com's moderation as you (btw Casey is also banned from the site for having fun, so). For that, I suppose congratulations are in order. Regardless, you are not Vosem and if you wish to continue this then you should create a separate thread.

1. You don't have an obligation to discuss anything. Nor do I. Glad to get that out of the way.

2. I find your views mildly interesting separately from the genocide point. And I'm not wholly unsympathetic to them: like Jefferson, I agree that the Norman Conquest was probably on net a bad thing. What I find comical (and pretty deranged given your views on the Israel/Palestine conflict) is your belief that the Norman Conquest justifies mass land expropriation and even population expulsions today. There are ethnocacerists more reasonable than you are.

3. Yes, events from the past shape the present. Great. I don't think anyone here thinks that view outrageous, including myself. The question is whether the Hunnic migrations, or Norman conquest, or expulsion of the Jews from Israel justifies violations of rights today. I take the no side on that.

4. What you are describing is an ethnicity. It is an ethnicity with an ethnogenesis that involves some Anglo-Saxon admixture, to be sure, and some foreign influences, but you are suggesting that there is a group sharing a common culture and at least some shared descent that is your enemy. To return to the ethnocacerist metaphor, one could substitute Spanish ancestry/influences for French and Anglo-Saxon ones for Quechua/Aymara/indigenous Peruvian descent to make the exact same statement, and it would be nonsense, because Peruvian mestizos (really whites for much of the country's leadership, but usually with some native admixture) are still an ethnic group. Advocating that this ethnicity have its lands expropriated and its members expelled (including, I presume, women and children, based on your mention of "families of convicts") is still ethnic cleansing and actual genocide. And before you say that I am wrongly using the word genocide: genocide is the intentional extermination of a people. Driving out members of an ethnic group for their membership in that ethnic group would be a classic example of genocide. I guess if you want to be pedantic you can argue that without killing it is merely ethnic cleansing, but that's it and this isn't really an arguable point. We can semi-reasonably argue about whether or not your description of "Normans" constitutes an ethnic group, but there's no remotely feasible argument that what you are proposing wouldn't be genocide if they are.

(BTW, I think it's hilarious to describe England circa 1050 as the most beautiful thing to have ever existed.)

5. Yeah, AH moderation is insane. But it's still pretty difficult to get banned for discussing the Norman conquest! If you got banned for discussing Israel-Palestine, or the Yugoslav wars, that would be one thing: trigger fingers and hot topics don't mesh well. But getting banned for the Norman conquest? That at least prima facie suggests some kind of really nutty belief. WTS, I don't care enough about what Cal or whoever thinks to discuss it to any great degree.

6. If you want to start a new thread, fine. Otherwise, seems kind of pointless to have two separate threads of posters debating you specifically when the reason this thread was set up initially was for a similar "let's not take up space" reason.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

But separately I must also thank you for the opportunity. As you have said, I despise William the Bastard and all those who came with him. And yet there is nobody in the world more against the idea that the Harrying of the North was a genocide than I (unlike those telling us that Israel isn't doing a genocide because they aren't, I can elaborate on this). I do not use the word 'genocide' to mean 'a lot of people died' or 'something I don't like'. I use it to mean what it means. I call Israel's genocide a genocide because that is what it is, however much some wish to deny it because admitting their support for genocide would make them uncomfortable.

Should note my beliefs aren't nearly as 'nutty' as you seem to think: they were quite widespread in England until not that long ago. Just that, as it is with me, it's something that only comes up when relevant.

Reasonable to dislike feudalist warlords. Glad to see you don't regard the harrying of the north as a genocide (I agree).

I don't think being pro Anglo-Saxon is a nutty belief. I share that belief! So did Jefferson, and I'm aware that many historical Englishmen did as well. What I find nutty is the idea that that justifies land expropriations or expulsions, which reminds me (ironically) of the Israeli extremists who make basically the same argument (but with 1,000 years tacked on) WRT to Palestinian land. I reject both arguments and think they're bad: yes, the actions of the Romans/Muslims or the Normans did constitute theft when committed a thousand years ago, but at this point the amount of labor/capital etc invested, the vast separation of time, the lack of moral culpability by the owners, and the lack of clear counter-owners for the land all mean that the argument doesn't imo hold water.

For a practical common law example of this: it is normally accepted in common law jurisdictions that if I farm a piece of land for some long length of time, it is mine even if I did not originally own it -- adverse possession. I have some personal problems with this (I think a contingent factor should probably be not knowing you didn't own the land, and there need to be more protections against squatters) but on the whole it seems pretty reasonable. After all, if a surveyor tells me the property line is at x mark, and so I build a fence there and farm and develop the land, and then 20 years later it turns out the surveyor calculated the mark wrong by 5 feet, it would seem reasonable to say that the investment I have put into the land outweighs my initial lack of property deeds: the land has been forfeited by my neighbor de facto ceding it to me (abandonment to the state of nature) and by my making it my own (mixing my labor with the land to remove it from the state of nature). Why shouldn't similar logic apply here?