Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    A couple of reasons:

    - Firstly, because Israel, like so many ethno-nationalist projects, has essentially built an ideology of a constant siege mentality. Hamas isn't really much of a "huge problem" at all, but blowing it into one serves Israel's interests. It gives it an excuse not to sincerely talk peace, will give a popularity boost whatever government is in power at the time of each war, and so on.
    I think any group which conducts attacks on your country, killing your countrymen is a valid target for destruction. Also, It is hated by most of its neighbours.

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    - Secondly, because of "second-order effects". For example if in a battle you kill 100 Hamas fighters, but because of the destruction and measures required in doing so, more than 100 new fighters joined up, then you have actually suffered a strategic defeat despite a tactical victory. This is why the Americans failed in Vietnam - they concentrated solely on how many Vietcong guerillas they were killing, without considering how many new recruits were joining as a result.
    Yes, this is true. However, once Palestine is within the country, Israel has a ton more power over the region. They can move people around and divide the Palestinian people to make them less powerful, for instance.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    I think any group which conducts attacks on your country, killing your countrymen is a valid target for destruction.
    Which is precisely what Palestinians say about Israel as well.

    Which is why peace agreements are a thing. Or even just ceasefires - while during ceasefires, Hamas refrains from firing rockets and tries to stop other Gazan factions from doing so, while rockets increase a thousandfold during the assaults. The most effective way of Israel stopping the rockets is to keep the ceasefires.

    Yes, this is true. However, once Palestine is within the country, Israel has a ton more power over the region. They can move people around and divide the Palestinian people to make them less powerful, for instance.
    Move them where exactly? Gaza is already effectively treated as a ghetto.

    Also, what happens to the Palestinians if Israel simply annexes the West Bank and Gaza? Do you think Israel can really deny them citizenship rights over the long term?

    Besides which all of this would almost certainly be flagrant violation of international law and would likely risk pushing the US (whose backing Israel relies on) over the edge.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Which is precisely what Palestinians say about Israel as well.

    Which is why peace agreements are a thing. Or even just ceasefires - while during ceasefires, Hamas refrains from firing rockets and tries to stop other Gazan factions from doing so, while rockets increase a thousandfold during the assaults. The most effective way of Israel stopping the rockets is to keep the ceasefires.
    Would Israel even need to react if it wasn't being attacked? Hamas really needs to do more if they genuinely don't hate israel.

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    Move them where exactly? Gaza is already effectively treated as a ghetto.

    Also, what happens to the Palestinians if Israel simply annexes the West Bank and Gaza? Do you think Israel can really deny them citizenship rights over the long term?

    Besides which all of this would almost certainly be flagrant violation of international law and would likely risk pushing the US (whose backing Israel relies on) over the edge.
    The roman empire did a thing where they would move about soldiers far away from where they were from as a means of preventing rebellion, Israel could do that.

    There are many ways Israel could do this without breaching things. For instance, they could claim that parts are unsanitary (which they are) and used that to evacuate and hence resettle Palestinians inside the homelands, and give them stimulus as an apology for moving them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    What do we call the equivalent on the right? The ones that harp on about free speech while seeking to suppress it, the militant atheists that attack Islam and cosy up to Christians and Jews.
    Well there is the Alt-Right who include the likes of Milo. In my view every bit as unhelpful as the regressive left.

    As for Militant atheists who cosy up to Christians I could not name you a single one but please prove me wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    I see this term bandied around a lot, but what does it actually mean? How is the regressive left different from the "normal" left, the progressive left, the classical left, etc?
    If no one has recommended this already read Islam & the future of tolerance by the liberal muslim Maajid Nawaz. You will then be more informed than 99% of people on this issue.

    But to sum up it's when left wing people use derogatory terms about other left wing people who they dont like.

    John Pilger for example or in the US there is Glen Greenwold. Either way the term is over used now and lost all meaning I would not use it myself.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    A bunch of people getting triggered because Israel did something isn't going to change the fact that Israel is backed by the US most likely.
    *Given that Israel humiliated half the Arab world by crushing them in battle when they were attacked on Yom Kippur while praying and fasting, Israel doesn't need US backing to obliterate Hamas. What these idiots who think that Israel are currently to carry out a "genocide" (like any genocide in world history has ever resulted in the target population growing lol) is that Israel could obliterate them by lunch time tomorrow if there was the appetite for it.

    But given how much the Muslim populations around the world and their useful idiot regressive sympathisers lap up any opportunity to blame all their failings on the Jews, sorry I mean "Zionists", it simply wouldn't fly*
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    is that Israel could obliterate them by lunch time tomorrow if there was the appetite for it.
    Is there appetite for that?

    I don't know much about the situation but Gaza strip seam to be a problem of the Palestinians not really having citizen rights there. Obliteration means what exactly? Carpet bombing population centres (where there are Jews/Israelis as well)?

    When the IRA were carrying out their terrorist activities the solution was not and could not be to treat every single person as a soldier and fight it that way. The UK state with its vastly superior army and police force had the strength to just obliterate Northern Ireland if it wanted to. So what?

    Your statement is pointless. Sure Israel could annihilate "the enemy". But that cave man type thinking is part of the problem. It is no surprise Israel could do that, they are a much stronger state in every possible way. Stating that doesn't say anything useful unless you are saying that geopolitics should just be done on the basis of the weaker states bending to the will of stronger states ignoring every other ethical/moral etc factors.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)

    As for Militant atheists who cosy up to Christians I could not name you a single one but please prove me wrong.
    Genuine New Atheists like Christoper Hitchens don't. The likes of Dawkings don't like Christianity but generally say that Islam is worse. Hitchens considered himself left wing and a marxist, whilst Dawkings describes himself as vaguely left.

    There are however people who are basically right wing Christian nationalists, a position that most New Atheists would probably be against, who adopt the language of New Atheists when it allows them to bash Muslims and Islam. They are contemptible hypocrites and are as bad as what they claim they are fighting against in Muslim communities in a lot of ways. The absolute worse of this lot are essentially fascists and are the mirror image of the Islamists, who are another kind of fascist. They are the same as the thing that they profess to hate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    If no one has recommended this already read Islam & the future of tolerance by the liberal muslim Maajid Nawaz.
    Just realised the guy who termed the phrase was a Muslim :rofl:

    All the horrible xenophobes are using a phrase, to attack Muslims, that was coined by a Muslim.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Genuine New Atheists like Christoper Hitchens don't. The likes of Dawkings don't like Christianity but generally say that Islam is worse. Hitchens considered himself left wing and a marxist, whilst Dawkings describes himself as vaguely left.

    There are however people who are basically right wing Christian nationalists, a position that most New Atheists would probably be against, who adopt the language of New Atheists when it allows them to bash Muslims and Islam. They are contemptible hypocrites and are as bad as what they claim they are fighting against in Muslim communities in a lot of ways. The absolute worse of this lot are essentially fascists and are the mirror image of the Islamists, who are another kind of fascist. They are the same as the thing that they profess to hate.
    Hitchens is quite famous for saying he was worried about wiping out Christianity in Britain only for Islam to take over. Hitchens apparently slept with tory ministers so he cant be that left wing!

    Generally new atheists take the line of Islam & christianity texts are as bad as each other but the problem is muslims tend to take quron as the word of god whereas christains these days see it more as recommendations for a way of living. You really dont have to spend watching the news to see which religion is the most intolerant. Dawkins has done far more debates against christains than muslims (though his twitter feed got a bit obsessed with islam).

    As for christian nationalists, I'm not really sure who you're talking about (maybe you mean the likes of EDL?). I would need some examples but I'd still be wary of comparing them to islamists (who want to see sharia law put in place).

    "All the horrible xenophobes are using a phrase, to attack Muslims, that was coined by a Muslim. "

    Yes like I said the phrase has lost all meaning to me I would not use it anymore myself. But I see it used against white far lefties more than muslims but no doubt that happens.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Would Israel even need to react if it wasn't being attacked?
    .

    Would Palestinians even need to resist if they weren't being occupied and dispossessed?

    The roman empire did a thing where they would move about soldiers far away from where they were from as a means of preventing rebellion, Israel could do that.
    There are three obvious differences:

    i) Redeployment of soldiers (especially volunteer soldiers like the Roman Army) far away from their home is rather different to forced movement of civilians. A soldier's deployment area is not their home, and is purely temporary besides. To use a hypothetical example closer to home, your argument would imply that: a) The British government deploying British soldiers (who had joined up voluntarily) from Cornwall in Scotland, and; b) The British government forcibly relocating British civilians in Cornwall to Scotland, are essentially the same thing. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't think that to be the case should it actually happen.

    ii) The Roman Empire was thousands of years ago. What is feasible and appropriate has changed since then. International law has evolved. Technology has reduced many of the practical obstacles of geographical distance that existed centuries ago.

    iii) While the Romans generally didn't, many empires through history, such as the Assyrians or Tsarist Russia, to name just two, did indeed deport and disperse entire peoples to try and stop them being rebellious. Even if we ignore that ii) still makes then different from now, these were huge, continent-spanning empires that could move people thousands of miles away. Israel is not nearly as large.

    There are many ways Israel could do this without breaching things. For instance, they could claim that parts are unsanitary (which they are) and used that to evacuate and hence resettle Palestinians inside the homelands, and give them stimulus as an apology for moving them.
    Move them where? Inside what "homelands"? Do you mean within Israel?

    Also, not sure how deliberate your choice of words was, but the forced relocation of peoples to "homelands" is, right down to the same terminology, what apartheid South Africa did.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    .

    Would Palestinians even need to resist if they weren't being occupied and dispossessed?
    It was British territory, it was never their choice to begin with. It also doesn't help that they fought wars with Israel in 1948 and lost.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    .


    There are three obvious differences:

    i) Redeployment of soldiers (especially volunteer soldiers like the Roman Army) far away from their home is rather different to forced movement of civilians. A soldier's deployment area is not their home, and is purely temporary besides. To use a hypothetical example closer to home, your argument would imply that: a) The British government deploying British soldiers (who had joined up voluntarily) from Cornwall in Scotland, and; b) The British government forcibly relocating British civilians in Cornwall to Scotland, are essentially the same thing. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't think that to be the case should it actually happen.

    ii) The Roman Empire was thousands of years ago. What is feasible and appropriate has changed since then. International law has evolved. Technology has reduced many of the practical obstacles of geographical distance that existed centuries ago.

    iii) While the Romans generally didn't, many empires through history, such as the Assyrians or Tsarist Russia, to name just two, did indeed deport and disperse entire peoples to try and stop them being rebellious. Even if we ignore that ii) still makes then different from now, these were huge, continent-spanning empires that could move people thousands of miles away. Israel is not nearly as large.
    .
    I) Alright then, the russian empire did a great job of that then. It worked until it was supremely ****ed during world war 1.

    II) Not if the Israelis quarantine the palestinian territories and guard it well enough.

    III) Well, again, government can artificially make distances larger.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    .



    Move them where? Inside what "homelands"? Do you mean within Israel?

    Also, not sure how deliberate your choice of words was, but the forced relocation of peoples to "homelands" is, right down to the same terminology, what apartheid South Africa did.
    Within Israel. Stick some of them in the Negev or something. I think we all want to stop the killing, and this is a situation which isn't going to end itself.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    It was British territory, it was never their choice to begin with.
    i) What it was in terms of sovereign territory until 1948 has no relevance to a) the dispossession of Palestinians from their private lands and homes as part of the ethnic cleansing of the country in 1948, or b) the colonial settlement of the West Bank since 1967.

    ii) So you believe that colonialism was totally legitimate? Or do you, like most people nowadays including the UN, hold that political rights and self-determination render colonialism illegitimate?

    iii) Palestine was, from the start not strictly a colony in the same sense as most, but a mandate, supposedly set on course to prepare the area for independent self-government. Britain was never intended to hold it indefinitely.

    It also doesn't help that they fought wars with Israel in 1948 and lost.
    Do you believe might makes right? That whoever lost the war is automatically deserving of it and all its results?

    I) Alright then, the russian empire did a great job of that then. It worked until it was supremely ****ed during world war 1.
    Don't really see the relevance of this to the main point. I wasn't saying Tsarist Russia's deportation policy was good or successful, just giving it as an example of an empire which did such a thing.

    II) Not if the Israelis quarantine the palestinian territories and guard it well enough.
    So segregating and repressing them even more than they do already?

    Setting aside moral questions here, how does this exactly 'solve' the problem considering that, in large part, that is the problem?

    Within Israel. Stick some of them in the Negev or something.
    The Negev currently has about 600,000 inhabitants, nearly a third of those in Beersheba. How do you suggest it suddenly become able to accomodate another 2 million Palestinians from Gaza?

    Also, if these Palestinians are going to be relocated to Israel, will they become Israeli citizens?

    I think we all want to stop the killing
    No, I think most people want a settlement of some sort. Call it a 'peace agreement', a 'political solution', whatever. Sure, ending the violence and killing is the intended result of that, but the difference between a truce or ceasefire and an actual settlement is that the latter (in theory, at least) provides a solution to the issues that are in conflict and bringing about that violence.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    i) What it was in terms of sovereign territory until 1948 has no relevance to a) the dispossession of Palestinians from their private lands and homes as part of the ethnic cleansing of the country in 1948, or b) the colonial settlement of the West Bank since 1967.
    Is this the same ethnic cleansing where the Israelis allow the Palestinians to have a growth rate 1.1% in excess of its own?

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    ii) So you believe that colonialism was totally legitimate? Or do you, like most people nowadays including the UN, hold that political rights and self-determination render colonialism illegitimate?

    .
    I think that Colonialism has virtues.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    i
    iii) Palestine was, from the start not strictly a colony in the same sense as most, but a mandate, supposedly set on course to prepare the area for independent self-government. Britain was never intended to hold it indefinitely.
    Mandate was basically a colony. The scramble for Africa was supposedly to civilise the natives.

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    Do you believe might makes right? That whoever lost the war is automatically deserving of it and all its results?
    Yes. Nations aren't moral actors.

    (Original post by anarchism101)



    Don't really see the relevance of this to the main point. I wasn't saying Tsarist Russia's deportation policy was good or successful, just giving it as an example of an empire which did such a thing.

    .
    I read that before I saw you mention it. It was successful, stopped the poles agitating so much for independence.

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    So segregating and repressing them even more than they do already?
    If it puts an end to the problem and it is necessary (I believe it is) yes.

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    Setting aside moral questions here, how does this exactly 'solve' the problem considering that, in large part, that is the problem?
    I meant in a biological way, get an excuse to evacuate Palestinians out of Palestine. It's hardly the greatest environment for infectious disease. It means that Israel can break up the Palestinians more and make it difficult to organise on their own turf.

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    The Negev currently has about 600,000 inhabitants, nearly a third of those in Beersheba. How do you suggest it suddenly become able to accomodate another 2 million Palestinians from Gaza?

    Also, if these Palestinians are going to be relocated to Israel, will they become Israeli citizens?
    There is more than just the Negev in Israel. Just generally mix them about.

    After a short period of acclimatisation I would offer citizenship or the opportunity to **** off.

    (Original post by anarchism101)

    No, I think most people want a settlement of some sort. Call it a 'peace agreement', a 'political solution', whatever. Sure, ending the violence and killing is the intended result of that, but the difference between a truce or ceasefire and an actual settlement is that the latter (in theory, at least) provides a solution to the issues that are in conflict and bringing about that violence.
    So what is your issue with this statement? You don't think that this will be as easy (I know it wasn't easy at all) as northern Ireland? This situation is far greater.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    "The regressive left... leap(s) whenever any (not merely their own) liberal democratic government commits a policy error, while generally ignoring almost every fascist, theocratic or Muslim-led dictatorial regime and group in the world.—Maajid Nawaz[1]"

    "While the term originates from within the left, with progressives challenging regressives to stand up for their alleged leftist values in all matters, thus implying an internal criticism (the argument being that regressives arenot consistently liberal), the term has also been picked up from the outside and has been used by conservatives (and others) as a snarl word directed at any leftist positions they don't happen to like like, similar to the snarl usage of the term "social justice warrior". As is to be expected, rival camps revel in the infighting of their opponents."

    This forum is full of the bolded bit. The term originates within the left yet people who are fundamentally apposed to the left like to hijack it. See all the horrible racist morons on here moaning about cucks and adopting left wing positions they would not normally hold to when ti allows them to attack Muslims/refugees/migrants/brown looking people.

    Basically the term regressive left comes from left wing self criticism. It is a term invented by leftists. None leftists using the term to discredit the entire left do not understand the history of where the term comes from. It is a left wing position.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regressive_left
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The regressive left is a term coined by anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz[2] to describe a perceived segment of the left which ignores certain reactionary attitudes in the name of tolerance. Nawaz originally used it to refer to misguided leftist tolerance of conservative and fundamentalist Islam (underbelly and all) in contrast to their progressive stance against the scourge of conservative and fundamentalist Christianity, but the term has since been extended to encompass many (but curiously not all) leftist positions that appear contradictory to progressive values.While the term originates from within the left, with progressives challenging regressives to stand up for their alleged leftist values in all matters, thus implying an internal criticism (the argument being that regressives arenot consistently liberal), the term has also been picked up from the outside and has been used by conservatives (and others) as a snarl word directed at any leftist positions they don't happen to like like, similar to the snarl usage of the term "social justice warrior". As is to be expected, rival camps revel in the infighting of their opponents.
    In the original sense of the term, it's essentially mostly liberals (I'd say most are more 'liberal' than 'left') who are still essentially Orientalists and looking for a way to justify it, often through precisely the same argument styles they accuse the 'regressive leftists' of.

    Take Sam Harris as an example. The articles I've seen from him criticising people like Greenwald are full of bad Orientalist tropes, like the idea that 'bad' and 'backward' are synonymous, and that everything wrong with a society is the result of its "backwardness". Or talk of "tribalism". They're the kind of thing that serious scholars of these topics are long fed-up of refuting.

    Then he goes on to attack Greenwald for the article he wrote after Charlie Hebdo, somehow managing to understand Greenwald's ardently and provocatively pro-free speech article as an anti-free speech one.

    Harris has made heaps of blatantly reactionary statements, and openly aligned himself with Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, yet he calls others 'regressive'!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)

    Harris has made heaps of blatantly reactionary statements, and openly aligned himself with Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, yet he calls others 'regressive'!
    Yeah this is a big problem I have with these types of people. They just got o the opposite extreme. Take the Isreal/Pallistein situation. As a reaction those on the left who are in anyway pro palistien they overlook any problems on the Isreal side.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I'm not entirely with you on that one.

    I agree that they find the notion of the revoloution and the 'peoples will' manifest as romantic but i think there is some distinction to be made between the hopeless idealist regressive (Say, Dianne Abbot) to the outright nihilist who doesn't care so long as its against 'western imperialism' (Galloway). Both of whom may regard neoliberalism as enslavement but crucially one group wont settle for anything but the ideal whilst the others will make compromises in the pursuit of power with groups also hostile to the west. I think its essentially the distinction between trotskyism and stalinism.

    The focus point ends up being that there is either a universal order or relativism/nihilism. On this foundation as it were I am inclined to think that it is mainly on the right that we are going to see progress.

    (Little wonder that many trotskyists ended up as neocons!)

    You can see this as well with say the opposition to the iraq war- not everyone who did so was a regressive leftist (eg Robin Cook).
    Plenty of conservatives opposed the Iraq war, because they viewed it as an unnecessary expense, and didn't care about the atrocities of the Saddam regime, or at least didn't think the West had a moral duty to intervene. Peter Hitchens comes to mind. It's the conservatism of Disraeli's "splendid isolation" in the 19th century.

    I think what you've described is maybe a split within the regressive left - maybe regressive "hard" and "soft" left (Galloway and Abbott, respectively).

    Within the "regressive soft left", if you remove the anti-Western blinkers, then there is generally some genuine support for human freedom waiting to be liberated. But that's a difficult quagmire to escape from; I know, having escaped from it myself. Within the "regressive hard left", I don't think there's any hope. For instance, I sometimes wonder if George Galloway is an Islamist anti-Semite himself, while with someone like Jeremy Corbyn, I'm more charitable and say he's probably just completely deluded as to the aims of the people he appeals to (Hezbollah etc.).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    I meant literally walk in and conquer and annex it outright.
    Gaza was annexed by Israel prior to 2005 and since 1967 I believe. Wasn't the unilateral withdrawal (and expulsion of Jews) an attempt at concessions to the Palestinians? If so, Gaza must have been hostile since before Hamas controlled it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Gaza was annexed by Israel prior to 2005 and since 1967 I believe. Wasn't the unilateral withdrawal (and expulsion of Jews) an attempt at concessions to the Palestinians? If so, Gaza must have been hostile since before Hamas controlled it.
    Shouldn't have conceded.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Plenty of conservatives opposed the Iraq war, because they viewed it as an unnecessary expense, and didn't care about the atrocities of the Saddam regime, or at least didn't think the West had a moral duty to intervene. Peter Hitchens comes to mind. It's the conservatism of Disraeli's "splendid isolation" in the 19th century.

    I think what you've described is maybe a split within the regressive left - maybe regressive "hard" and "soft" left (Galloway and Abbott, respectively).

    Within the "regressive soft left", if you remove the anti-Western blinkers, then there is generally some genuine support for human freedom waiting to be liberated. But that's a difficult quagmire to escape from; I know, having escaped from it myself. Within the "regressive hard left", I don't think there's any hope. For instance, I sometimes wonder if George Galloway is an Islamist anti-Semite himself, while with someone like Jeremy Corbyn, I'm more charitable and say he's probably just completely deluded as to the aims of the people he appeals to (Hezbollah etc.).

    Yeah, I think that's about right.

    As something of a New Atheist disciple, i cant help but note that the more regressive elements are predominantly religious (Along with the more traditional tory voters) and tend to think that religion can be a reactionary force against global capitalism. Seumas Milne and Terry Eagleton have both wrote on this.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.