Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why are there such overwhelming consensuses of support for Palestine on the Left and Israel on the Right respectively? What is the reasoning which underpins this clear divide?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    Why are there such overwhelming consensuses of support for Palestine on the Left and Israel on the Right respectively? What is the reasoning which underpins this clear divide?
    America is an ally of Israel. The left have historically dally supported Russia.

    Any ally of America is an enemy of the left.


    Although the Cold War allegedly ended 25 years ago, those in the fringes in politics still follow out of date beliefs.

    Be thankful that the majority of the population behave normally.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    Why are there such overwhelming consensuses of support for Palestine on the Left and Israel on the Right respectively? What is the reasoning which underpins this clear divide?
    The situation is, of course, more nuanced than MatureStudent would have you believe, with his black-and-white view of the world.

    * Israel has, broadly, been supported by governments in the West, particularly the United States. The "left" has, historically, always been more willing to challenge claims made by its government: in Russia, you'll find "left-wingers" challenging the claims made by Putin to justify his interventions; in Britain, you'll find them challenging the claims made by the British government to justify their actions.

    This, for a start, would invariably lead people on the "left" in the West to be more likely to find something wrong with their government's reasoning, and so be more sympathetic towards Palestine.

    * Some on the "left", however, may not have any reason to oppose Western foreign policy, but they have a knee-jerk opposition to it in any case. This can sometimes lead them to support unsavoury types, like Assad.

    * The right has, historically, been less willing to challenge claims made by its government; they're more likely to believe that the government has benign, angellic motives and that their government is exceptional in some way. In Russia, right-wingers will tend to view Putin's interventions in Ukraine and Syria as humanitarian; in Britain or the United States, they'll tend to view our interventions in Iraq, Libya and so on as humanitarian.

    This, for a start, would invariably lead many people on the "right" in the West to be more accepting of Western foreign policy because, by definition, Western foreign policy is always motivated by humanitarianism or freedom or democracy, or any mishaps are due to a lack of planning. Thus, if our governments are selling arms to Israel and vetoing Security Council resolutions critical of Israeli actions, this must, by definition, be good.

    * The "right", particularly in the United States, significantly consists of evangelical Christians, who are overwhelmingly going to be "right-wing" because Christianity is concerned with maintaining traditions, and the "right", in part, is concerned with maintaining the status quo. Many of these Christians believe that, if the Jews manage to seize all of the area of Palestine, it will bring on the Second Coming of Jesus and the Apocalypse, in accordance with their interpretation of Biblical prophecy.

    * Many on the "right" believe that what is in the national interest is best. Given that Israel is a major manufacturer of military technology for Western countries, particularly the United States, they'll tend to support Israel.

    * In accordance with the belief of some on the "right" that their country is exceptional, there may be a subconscious belief amongst "right-wingers" in the United States that, because Israel is a settler-colonial society like the United States, Israel must be doing something right.

    * The "left" may view the Israel-Palestine conflict in the following terms: Israel is illegally occupying, seizing and annexing Palestinian land, and denying the Palestinians a state by doing so. In these Occupied Territories, there is clear discrimination by the Israeli government and the Israeli settlers against the Palestinians, as documented by numerous independent human rights organisations. The Palestinians are the oppressed underdog, whilst Israel is incredibly powerful, meaning that one has to be more critical of Israel.

    * The "right" may view the Israel-Palestine conflict in the following terms: Israel is a bastion of freedom and democracy, and is under seige by terrorists, and therefore has to be supported in order to allow it to defend itself and freedom, justice, human rights, democracy and freedom.

    It's important to note that there's an overwhelming consensus on the Left that there has to be a peaceful, two-state solution, from Noam Chomsky (who was, or is, as ChaoticButterfly describes, one of the left-wing Zionists, who were the most prominent Zionists before the Israeli state was created) to moderate social democrats. The few people associated with the Left who disagree with this argue for a peaceful, one-state solution, in which a bi-national state is created.

    On the Right, there are many who also believe in a peaceful, two-state solution. That, indeed, is the official position of Western governments, as is opposition to the illegal annexation of Palestinian land. There are also many, however, who believe that Israel should have all of the viable land, either because of their religious views or for some other reason. In essence, this would be a continuation of the current Israeli policy of expansion and land-grabbing. Virtually everyone on the right opposes a peaceful, one-state solution, in which a bi-national state is created, because the number of non-Jews in such a state would outnumber the number of Jews, which goes against the position universally held on the "right" that there should be a state created for a single race of people, belonging to them.

    Thus, to say that there's either support for Israel or support for Palestine is slightly misleading. On the left, the support for a two-state solution is overwhelming, it just happens that Israel is illegally occupying and annexing the land on which the second state, Palestine, would be created. Naturally, the left would then be more critical of Israel. On the right, there are also many who argue in favour of a peaceful, two-state solution, but many would argue that Israel is a democratic state under seige by terrorists such as Hamas, so we have to guarantee their security before the two-state solution can occur. As shown above, there are also many on the right who do not recognise the right of Palestine to exist, and do outright support Israeli policy. So, there are many on the right who literally do solely support Israel.

    However, public opinion in general, around the world is becoming more and more critical of Israel. In defiance of Israeli policy, Sweden became the first state in the EU to recognise the State of Palestine, and both the British and French parliaments have done so unofficially as well. The EU already boycotts products made in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. And, even the United States government, historically Israel's biggest supporter, has seen its relationship with the Israeli government cool, particularly after they realised that Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, opposes a peaceful, two-state solution and made other comments such as "the Arabs are coming in droves to the polling stations". Nevertheless, it still seems unlikely that the US will go against Israel at the UN, for example.

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Zionism used to be very big in left wing groupings, with things like the Kibbutz in the olden days.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The situation is, of course, more nuanced than MatureStudent would have you believe, with his black-and-white view of the world.

    * Israel has, broadly, been supported by governments in the West, particularly the United States. The "left" has, historically, always been more willing to challenge claims made by its government: in Russia, you'll find "left-wingers" challenging the claims made by Putin to justify his interventions; in Britain, you'll find them challenging the claims made by the British government to justify their actions.

    This, for a start, would invariably lead people on the "left" in the West to be more likely to find something wrong with their government's reasoning, and so be more sympathetic towards Palestine.

    * The right has, historically, been less willing to challenge claims made by its government; they're more likely to believe that the government has benign, angellic motives and that their government is exceptional in some way. In Russia, right-wingers will tend to view Putin's interventions in Ukraine and Syria as humanitarian; in Britain or the United States, they'll tend to view our interventions in Iraq, Libya and so on as humanitarian.

    This, for a start, would invariably lead many people on the "right" in the West to be more accepting of Western foreign policy because, by definition, Western foreign policy is always motivated by humanitarianism or freedom or democracy, or any mishaps are due to a lack of planning. Thus, if our governments are selling arms to Israel and vetoing Security Council resolutions critical of Israeli actions, this must, by definition, be good.

    * The "right", particularly in the United States, significantly consists of evangelical Christians, who are overwhelmingly going to be "right-wing" because Christianity is concerned with maintaining traditions, and the "right", in part, is concerned with maintaining the status quo. Many of these Christians believe that, if the Jews manage to seize all of the area of Palestine, it will bring on the Second Coming of Jesus and the Apocalypse, in accordance with their interpretation of Biblical prophecy.

    * Many on the "right" believe that what is in the national interest is best. Given that Israel is a major manufacturer of military technology for Western countries, particularly the United States, they'll tend to support Israel.

    * In accordance with the belief of some on the "right" that their country is exceptional, there may be a subconscious belief amongst "right-wingers" in the United States that, because Israel is a settler-colonial society like the United States, Israel must be doing something right.

    * The "left" may view the Israel-Palestine conflict in the following terms: Israel is illegally occupying, seizing and annexing Palestinian land, and denying the Palestinians a state by doing so. In these Occupied Territories, there is clear discrimination by the Israeli government and the Israeli settlers against the Palestinians, as documented by numerous independent human rights organisations. The Palestinians are the oppressed underdog, whilst Israel is incredibly powerful, meaning that one has to be more critical of Israel.

    * The "right" may view the Israel-Palestine conflict in the following terms: Israel is a bastion of freedom and democracy, and is under seige by terrorists, and therefore has to be supported in order to allow it to defend itself and freedom, justice, human rights, democracy and freedom.
    Those are all good points but I think you did miss out this one.

    The left often has elements that go down the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" to the point where they can either directly or indirectly end up genuinely supporting some very unsavory types that are worse than the government at home they are rallying against. It is important to acknowledge how anti-Semitic and genocide advocating political forces inside Palestine can be.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Those are all good points but I think you did miss out this one.

    The left often has elements that go down the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" to the point where they can either directly or indirectly end up genuinely supporting some very unsavory types."
    Yes, I was meaning to add that in. And, good point about the left-wing Zionists: I believe Chomsky was and still considers himself to be a Zionist, just of a completely different type to the ones you usually observe today.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Yes, I was meaning to add that in. And, good point about the left-wing Zionists: I believe Chomsky was and still considers himself to be a Zionist, just of a completely different type to the ones you usually observe today.
    Well he did live in a Kibbutz for a time.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Yes, I was meaning to add that in. And, good point about the left-wing Zionists: I believe Chomsky was and still considers himself to be a Zionist, just of a completely different type to the ones you usually observe today.
    I think Chomsky, for most of his life, supported a binational one-state solution, though since around 2000 has shifted to supporting a two state solution.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I think Chomsky, for most of his life, supported a binational one-state solution, though since around 2000 has shifted to supporting a two state solution.
    What's that?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What's that?
    Well, depends exactly who you ask, but broadly, it would mean a single state in all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, with all its inhabitants as citizens, recognising both Jews and Palestinians as the nationalities of the state. Often this proposal also involves some sort of institutionalised power-sharing between the two communities such as in Northern Ireland (where mandatory coalition is enforced) or Belgium (where power-sharing is not strictly compulsory, but seat distribution and rules governing parliamentary voting make it all but impossible for a government to exist without a cross-community coalition).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Zionism used to be very big in left wing groupings, with things like the Kibbutz in the olden days.
    That's largely because Ashkenazi Jews, particularly those from Polish/Russian backgrounds, have generally been quite or very left-wing.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm of the right and take the view that Israel represents the greater good. It is wealthy and democratic while the experience of most other Muslim nations suggests that Palestine would be another Muslim hellhole barely capable of governing itself.

    I'm not opposed to peace but i just wouldn't go to any great efforts to create it or condemn Israel.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm of the right and take the view that Israel represents the greater good. It is wealthy and democratic while the experience of most other Muslim nations suggests that Palestine would be another Muslim hellhole barely capable of governing itself.

    I'm not opposed to peace but i just wouldn't go to any great efforts to create it or condemn Israel.
    What is your view on Saudi Arabia?

    Or the overthrowing of democratically elected secular government in Iran? If democracy is what is important why does this country have a bad history of subverting it in regimes we do not like? Was the coup of an elected government in Chile for the greater good?

    Is the fact that Israel a supposed democracy not actually the important factor, rather it is firendly to western interests, good or bad.

    Basically I do not trust most right wing views, of a certain kind, on foreign affairs... I think they are dishonest a lot of the time in what their true intentions are. Especially from someone who openly morns the loss of blatent imperialism... :rolleyes: Your supposed love of democracy and British imperialism are two conflicting veiws.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What is your view on Saudi Arabia?

    Or the overthrowing of democratically elected secular government in Iran? If democracy is what is important why does this country have a bad history of subverting it?
    If oil were of no importance to us then i would happily support aggressive regime change in the country, i am a liberal imperialist after-all.

    I don't know enough about Iranian History to make that judgment. The key question regarding that government in Iran would have been 'did they intend to ally with the USSR'. If not then i may have been opposed, if so then the west must reign supreme.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure but I have noticed a trend that the more well-read one is on the subject and especially the history and intricacies of politics and realities of the region, the more likely they are to be pro-Israel. Of course there are exceptions but as a trend it is definitely true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Not sure but I have noticed a trend that the more well-read one is on the subject and especially the history and intricacies of politics and realities of the region, the more likely they are to be pro-Israel. Of course there are exceptions but as a trend it is definitely true.
    I can't say I have noticed that myself. Academics seem to be generally pro-Palestine (as well as left-wing)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Not sure but I have noticed a trend that the more well-read one is on the subject and especially the history and intricacies of politics and realities of the region, the more likely they are to be pro-Israel. Of course there are exceptions but as a trend it is definitely true.
    On the contrary, I'd say pro-Israelis who are relatively well-informed and well-read tend to still subscribe to old, considerably discredited Israeli nationalist narratives of the conflict. A few don't, and still hold somewhat moderately pro-Israel stances, and a few remain strongly pro-Israeli due to some ideology or worldview creating reliance on moral reference points beyond meaningful engagement.

    Historiography on the conflict has drifted more pro-Palestinian in recent decades precisely because the historians in question have had access to more information.
 
 
 

5,362

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

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

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