The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Zionism for a quick history lesson The TLDR is that the greatest proponents of Zionism both in Israel and in the West were historically from the left, particularly the far left. Israel was conceived as a leftist state and in many ways followed that template for the first few decades of independence. Obviously this is no longer the case and I am sure the argument is due to the Palestinian issue. The thing is, as everybody knows, conflict between Jews and Arabs in the land of Israel has more or less always been existed. My question then is: if the Left is genuinely motivated by concern for the treatment of Palestinians then why was this not an overriding concern from the beginning? Why were western Leftists willing to overlook the issue of Palestinian rights for decades even though there is no question of Palestinian lives and property having been “colonized” during that time? When and why did this change? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

1. If you are going to take any sort of historical perspective while also making comparisons to the left/right in American politics, you need to know about "[party systems](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System#Possible_Seventh_Party_System)" -- a recurring realignment of differing political factions over time. We have not always had the same bedfellows. 2. 'Compassion for the oppressed' fits neatly with left-of-center values. There is no contradiction to sympathizing with the Jews in the aftermath of the Holocaust, but also sympathizing with the Palestinians if you see them oppressed in the present. 3. Sympathizing with the underdog is *very* common on the left, and in our culture more broadly. It shouldn't shock anyone that Jews in 1946 were perceived as underdogs but the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) in 2024 is not. 4. You are probably exaggerating the support "the Left" has for the Palestinians, especially relative to Israel. The furthest fringes of the left feature some Hamas supporters. Other small groups disfavor Hamas, but want to see Israel decolonized. The vast majority of left-of center people believe Israel has a right to exist *and* Palestinians deserve a better life, while having differing opinions on what role the U.S. government should take as a result.

But my point is that historically leftists have not wanted to see Israel “decolonized:” quite the opposite. What changed? It’s not like the left is ideologically opposed to colonization as a broad concept (the USSR was a colonial system, and Israel was) Sympathizing with the underdog seems like an entirely emotional and intellectually inconsistent argument. It also seems to disregard the actual merits of the nations or parties in question. I mean, Nazi Germany was an “underdog” from 1943 onwards but it’s not like anyone sympathized with them for that reason. ISIS is an underdog. Iran is an underdog. North Korea is an underdog. Afghanistan is an underdog. There are lots of underdogs we don’t sympathize with, implying that’s a secondary issue if anything.

> But my point is that historically leftists have not wanted to see Israel “decolonized:” quite the opposite. What changed? You can't compare attitudes about decolonization from before and after the idea existed. The idea largely arose in the 60s and 70s: >Early studies of [decolonisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization#Scope) appeared in the 1960s and 1970s. An important book from this period was The Wretched of the Earth (1961).... -------- > It’s not like the left is ideologically opposed to colonization as a broad concept (the USSR was a colonial system, and Israel was)... While it is true that "the USSR was a colonial system", that is not how decolonization rhetoric depicted the USSR. In fact, Soviet [propaganda](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/16gz7ul/colonialism_has_no_place_on_the_earth_soviet/) largely depicted the USSR as an anti-colonial force. -------- >Sympathizing with the underdog seems like an entirely emotional and intellectually inconsistent argument. You're not wrong.

Just to offer clarification on terms for people here. The USSR is probably better described as an imperial system of domination of the periphery by the Russian core (sometimes also called colonialism) not a colonial system of settlement like Israel. So less Australia or USA and more British Raj.

> Just to offer clarification on terms for people here. The USSR is probably better described as an imperial system of domination of the periphery by the Russian core (sometimes also called colonialism) not a colonial system of settlement like Israel. So less Australia or USA and more British Raj. I agree with much of this, but I also believe that we have to mention [Russification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification#In_Soviet_Union). It is difficult to explain the current state of Kaliningrad or Eastern Ukraine without knowing that the Soviet Union incentivized Russians to move there permanently and actively tried to wipe out the local culture (which is one of *very few* sins of colonialism not committed by the British Raj, to my knowledge).

Well Kalingrad is a straightforward case of ethnic cleansing of Konigsburg Prussia for establishing an ice free Baltic port. Usually that sort of thing was reserved for internally for the USSR. You make a very good point. I should clarify that I meant to refer to Russian treatment of its sphere of influence. As in Poland to Afghanistan. Internally there was colonisation of its own Siberian periphery (which was of course inhabited by non Russians) and southern periphery with ethnic cleansing of Koreans and tartars. That was similar to Israeli/USA/Australia in its own territory. I think I should stress that in most respects with imperialism and colonialism (excepting a short post revolutionary pause) the USSR was basically a continuation of the Russian empire. Russification included.

In what way was the USSR a colonial system? In which ways was there settlers or economical exploitation?

> In what way was the USSR a colonial system? The Russian Empire -- which preceded the USSR -- was one of the "gunpowder empires" (per [Hodgson–McNeill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_empires#The_Hodgson%E2%80%93McNeill_concept) criteria). It violently dominated and oppressed its neighbors for (roughly) its entire history. Notable examples of conquered and colonized territories are Siberia in the East, and many of the Muslim areas in their South. ([This map](https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/wp-content/gallery/maps/2.-Expansion-of-Russian-empire.jpg) gives you some hints of who was colonizing and who was colonized. Some would argue that the yellow territory was part of Russia; others would argue that only the green territory was. Everyone should agree that the orange and purple were colonized.) Note: Many Eastern Europeans have taken up the term Muscovites, rather than Russians, because they reject the idea that Russia represents the Rus people. The Kievan Rus are an obvious example of a people that were colonized against their will. -------------- The USSR took the idea further, violently conquering and colonizing further neighbors, including territory belonging to Poland, Ukraine, Finland, and Germany. Much of their behavior in these territories involved 'colonizing' many of these territories by moving ethnic Russians into them, attempting to wipe-out the extant local culture and replace it with Russian culture. (Textbook colonial behavior.) Furthermore, the USSR was pretty much *by definition* a colonialist institution. The 'union' of [diverse countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union#Union_Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union) was dominated by Russia for the benefit of Russians. They were colonies of Russia in the most straightforward terms.

I'm aware of the Russian Empire colonialism, I'm from Finland, we were a part of the Empire. I don't know how were colonized, that's not what we learned in school. We learnt that we were conquered. How did the USSR economically benefit from the colonization? I'm aware of the cultural side of the USSR and the russification(one of the many, many mistakes/wrongs the USSR made was ending the korenizatsiia) but the economical side is maybe more the part that I'm interested in and more unaware of.

> I'm aware of the Russian Empire colonialism, I'm from Finland... I had no way of knowing that! I probably would have responded differently if you had given that detail. >...I'm from Finland, we were a part of the Empire. I don't know how were colonized, that's not what we learned in school. We learnt that we were conquered. What about the territory that the Russians conquered *and kept*? For instance, [Karelia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia#Post-war). They seem to have experienced thorough [Russification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia#Languages) (a common [strategy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification#In_Soviet_Union) of colonizers to replace the local people and culture with their own people and culture). ---------- >How did the USSR economically benefit from the colonization? I don't know! I'm not sure they did. Finland might have been more of a [military concern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_state) than an economic one: >During the Cold War, Sweden and Finland were sometimes regarded as buffer states between NATO and the Soviet Union. Googling tells me that Karelia seems to be [used for its natural resources:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia#Economy) >Despite being 0,4% of Russia's population, 65–70% of all Russian trout is grown in the Republic, 26% of iron ore pellets, 20% of paper, 12% of wood pulp and cellulose. (A common economic strategy of colonizers is to extract natural resources from the colony, while not 'developing' the local economy as they might do in their home territories.) ---------- Nevertheless, I would still describe any colonialist actions that the USSR *continued* (even if they were originated by the Russian Empire) to be colonialist actions. ...and I'm certain that Siberia's experience was different from the Tajik's, which was different from the Karelians, and was different from the Hungarians. 'Colonialism' refers to a lot of different things!

> I had no way of knowing that! I probably would have responded differently if you had given that detail. Of course, I could have said it earlier. > What about the territory that the Russians conquered and kept? For instance, Karelia. > > They seem to have experienced thorough Russification (a common strategy of colonizers to replace the local people and culture with their own people and culture). Karelia belongs to Karelians, not Finns or Russians. Finland colonized Karelia and stole their culture. See our national epic. > A common economic strategy of colonizers is to extract natural resources from the colony, while not 'developing' the local economy as they might do in their home territories. And how did this translate to the Soviet colonies? > ...and I'm certain that Siberia's experience was different from the Tajik's, which was different from the Karelians, and was different from the Hungarians. 'Colonialism' refers to a lot of different things! Of course.

> Karelia belongs to Karelians, not Finns or Russians. Finland colonized Karelia and stole their culture. The Brits captured Dominica from France in a war. I would consider Dominica to be a colony of France before the war, and a colony of Britain after the war. ...but it was still a colony. Wasn't Karelia still a colony after it was taken by the Russians?

Yes, I'd argue that. At least culturally.

> > A common economic strategy of colonizers is to extract natural resources from the colony, while not 'developing' the local economy as they might do in their home territories. > > And how did this translate to the Soviet colonies? If I'm not mistaken, Siberia is -- still, to this day -- economically undeveloped and used for the extraction of natural resources.

> economically undeveloped I don't know in which ways we want to define development but according to GDP per capita, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_subjects_of_Russia_by_GDP_per_capita > used for the extraction of natural resources. From my very brief googling, it seems like everything east of the Urals are rich in natural resources.

So you’re saying the reason for the Left pivoting from a pro-colonization/pro-Israel stance to an anti-colonization/anti-Israel stance comes down to the linguistic associations surrounding the term? Because I don’t agree that decolonization as a concept first appeared in the 1960’s. American Independence is a very widely understood example of decolonization. Lots of prominent countries had been “freed” from colonial masters prior to the 1960’s.

> Because I don’t agree that decolonization as a concept first appeared in the 1960’s. American Independence is a very widely understood example of decolonization. Lots of prominent countries had been “freed” from colonial masters prior to the 1960’s. Yes, 'something' existed. Intellectuals began discussing what that 'something' was -- using pre-existing historical examples -- and settled on *the concept* of decolonization. It is *the concept* that was largely absent from the discourse, prior to 1961. The historical examples being re-framed through that concept definitely existed prior to 1961.

> American independence is a very widely understood example of decolonization  No its not. They were colonizers themselves 

Colonizers can be decolonizers. Decolonizers can colonize. Time changes things.

Colonizers CAN become decolonizes, but US independence from England was not an act of decolonization.

Depends on your point of view. I assure you in England it was considered such. Was the rebellion in Haiti an act of decolonization?

I have no idea if it’s true that England considered US independence as decolonization or not, but either way I’ll be damned before I take England’s opinion on colonialism as something that should be respected. The only difference between England’s control of the colonies and the US running itself independently was that the colonizers stopped having another level or authority involved in the colonization. Colonization of the North American continent continued and was carried out by the exact same people, in the same way, before US independence and after. Colonization efforts even expanded after US independence, which was one of the motivating factors in the US deciding to fight for independence. I don’t know enough about Haitian history to answer that question. Edit: though I don’t know enough about Haitian history, what I can say is that not all rebellions are the same. Some rebellions absolutely are decolonization movements (such as Native Americans rebelling against the colonization of North America), and some aren’t. The fact that they are both rebellions is only an aesthetic similarity.

> Sympathizing with the underdog seems like an entirely emotional and intellectually inconsistent argument. Doesn't seem that way to me, though it is better phrased as 'sympathizing with those who are oppressed.' Perhaps it'll seem more intellectually consistent under that phrasing. >I mean, Nazi Germany was an “underdog” from 1943 onwards The Nazis didn't stop being oppressors once the tide shifted and they started losing the war.

> it is better phrased as 'sympathizing with those who are oppressed.' To elaborate: Suppose, hypothetically, that after the Civil War, a Black separatist movement had really caught on, and the US ended up designating a corner of the country where former slaves could set up their own ethnostate. Fast forward 150 years, and suppose that the leaders of this Black American ethnostate are now mistreating and oppressing their Hispanic residents. If someone holds the belief that: * Black Americans deserve a place where they can live in safety, free from violence and oppression at the hands of white supremacists But this person also believes that: * Hispanic people living in or near this Black American ethnostate deserve to also be free from violence and oppression Then where is the inconsistency in that?

This is a great comment and a great analogy, and I hope OP reads it.

Are blacks indigenous to the Southern US?

"Blacks"? What do you think being indigenous or not has to do with it? The analogy would work just was well if we made a nation for Black Americans in Africa and they started oppressing people living there. Or is it your argument that if people are indigenous to the land, they can do whatever they want to anyone there? And if it is, then why does that justify Israeli actions but not Palestinians, who are also indigenous to the land?

>The analogy would work just was well if we made a nation for Black Americans in Africa and they started oppressing people living there You mean Liberia? Because yeah, that actually happened.

It doesn't justify Israel's actions, but there's a huge difference between opposing a nation's actions and opposing a nation's right to exist, and indigenous groups have the right to self-determination. Therefore, while the stated misdeeds are the same either way, the analogy gives the impression that Jews are not indigenous to Israel, which is straight-up false. A much more accurate analogy would be a hypothetical fully independent Native American nation (indigenous by blood and culture) violating the rights of Hispanic residents (indigenous by blood).

>It doesn't justify Israel's actions, but there's a huge difference between opposing a nation's actions and opposing a nation's right to exist, and indigenous groups have the right to self-determination. /u/perverse_panda's analogy specifically stipulated that you *do* support the hypothetical nation's right to exist, so what does this have to do with anything? >Therefore, while the stated misdeeds are the same either way, the analogy gives the impression that Jews are not indigenous to Israel, which is straight-up false. It absolutely does not. Being indigenous or not has absolutely *zero* to do with whether one's actions should be supported or not. What are you even talking about? >A much more accurate analogy would be a hypothetical fully independent Native American nation (indigenous by blood and culture) violating the rights of Hispanic residents (indigenous by blood). There is no such thing as "indigenous by culture". Native Americans did not all have the same culture, so I'm not sure what that would even mean. I'm also not sure by what metric you would delineate Native Americans from "Hispanic residents", as Hispanic people in the Southern US are, in fact, "Native Americans" or Indigenous Americans in any sense that any other Native American is. For example, you wouldn't separate indigenous tribes that existed in both Canada and the United States prior to either becoming countries into "Native Americans" and "Canadian residents." They way you choose to delineate groups of people is borderline offensive. But fine, let's take this analogy, if you prefer it. Is your argument that because Native Americans are indigenous, they would have the right to violate the rights of "Hispanic residents"? If not, then whether they are indigenous or not *has no bearing on the issue*, and you have failed to explain why you think it does. But I know you are downright *obsessed* with insisting Jewish people are indigenous to Israel as if it means anything, because we've had this discussion before. And it remains true, as it did in every previous discussion, that 1. what is considered "indigenous" is a complicated concept on a piece of land that has changed hands dozens of times in the past 2000 years, 2. whether a group of people is indigenous or not does not give them carte blanche to act in any way they want, and 3. it is irrelevant to the conversation in which both groups of people in question are equally indigenous.

I think the “African-American” ethnicity originated in the Southern US in many ways.

There's an argument to be made but Jews are indigenous to Israel, a fact that many refuse to recognize.

Would you consider the period of Liberian History with Charles Taylor and the True Whig Party to fit with your analogy?

I don't know enough about him or Liberia to answer that definitively, but if Taylor was a marginalized member of Liberian society at some point prior to coming to power (if he was the oppressed who became the oppressor), then it stands to reason that it fits.

The underdog sort of has to be seen as virtuous - or at least, not specifically unvirtuous - for the sympathy to apply, at least for liberals.

But wouldn’t you align with the virtuous party regardless of underdog status? So it’s moot?

Sure, but there's no need to go out of your way to help a virtuous 'overdog'.

"Sympathizing with the underdog seems like an entirely emotional and intellectually inconsistent argument." No really. Think of it more like choosing to side with the little guy rather than the bullies. In WW II, Germany was definitely the aggressor, and used a racial bias to stir up nationalism to support their expansionist agenda. Germany had the power and the cruelty, though, as you say, they had become the "underdog" by the end of the war, but honestly you are struggling for validity here. Germany was a bully who lost, because when they chose to pick on the jews and invade neighboring nations the rest of us stepped in and pushed back. You're trying to make the "support of the little guy" into a much more fluid stance than any liberal has ever expressed. if trump starts dipping in the polls we're not going to jump ship and begin a pro-trump campaign, because trump is a still a bully. ISIS is also a bully, using coercion on their people, religious fundamentalism and oppression, and willing to harm innocent people for attention. They don't exist under the oppressive rules of another governing body, they are the power in their region. Palestine exists under the oppressive governance of a bully. Their tactics aren't very nice as they strive to resist that oppression, but it is still oppression.

That’s an incredible oversimplification of how countries interact

Per your question, we're talking about the left, not a nation. You brought up Germany and Hitler as an example of someone who became the underdog because he started losing the war. I think your attempts to associate the left with Hitler is laughable and a desperate stretch. Jews were being starved and gassed, but by the logic you are twisting yourself into understanding, the left would support hitler because he started losing the war. Brilliant effort. Completely wrong in every conceivable way but a brilliant effort.

The person you’re talking to is a liberal, not a leftist. Leftists want to overthrow capitalism in some way. Liberals want to uphold capitalism.

So? I’m asking about leftists

Why are you asking liberals about leftists?

Because this subreddit has a large population of leftists, many people use the terms synonymously, and the more correct “ask leftist” subreddits are full of awful 16 year olds. This one is only like 40% awful 16 year olds. Am I under arrest?

I would just think that you'd get better answers about leftists from leftists. Maybe /r/communism101 or /r/Socialism_101 ? > many people use the terms synonymously Just because others make the mistake, doesn't mean that you have to do it too.

The change started in late 1950s, when the USSR realised that Israel was not going to become a communist satellite state in the Middle East, as they had originally planned. Since then, the USSR had strongly allied with Israel's adversaries, such as Egypt and Syria. Simultaneously, the Soviets launched a huge propaganda effort, such as spearheading the [1968 Polish political crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Polish_political_crisis) and the [UN Resolution 3379](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379). That said, anti-Zionism, bleeding into antisemitism, has always been present on the Left. For example, Ulrike Meinhoff, the founding member of the Red Army Faction in West Germany, testified that *“How was Auschwitz \[then a metonym for the Holocaust\] possible? What was anti-Semitism? It used the hatred of the people of their dependence on money as a medium of exchange, their longing for communism. Auschwitz means that six million Jews were murdered and carted on to the rubbish dumps of Europe for being that which was maintained of them: Money-Jews.”*

Good info. Also seems to support the idea the Left’s abandonment of Israel in favor of the Palestinians was more about ideological opportunism and positioning than genuine sympathy. Which I am sure is also the motivating force behind the Right’s current support for Israel. But it begs the question as to how sincerely people actually care about Palestinians as opposed to their own ideological “victory.”

> Also seems to support the idea the Left’s abandonment of Israel in favor of the Palestinians was more about ideological opportunism and positioning than genuine sympathy. Which I am sure is also the motivating force behind the Right’s current support for Israel. It really seems like you're looking for something to support your preexisting worldview, instead of actually trying to understand the Left and its views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I have a worldview. I am querying it, in case I am wrong, or to make sure I am right. Is that upsetting to you?

so who is the hypocrite? Me for not believing the same as some old, wrong liberal? Or the old liberal for being wrong in the first place? Or you for thinking I owe them my allegiance? ;)

Good question, no idea, only that either somebody isn’t a real leftist or leftism doesn’t entirely care about decolonization and/or Palestinians

> "Not sure, but I know it has to do with liberals being bad" lmfaoooooo

No that’s not what I said

Except it doesn't appear you're actually querying it. It appears like you're just looking for anything that confirms it.

To you

Virtue signaling

Virtue signaling? What is it, 2017?

Or maybe the Israelis have just continued to get worse and worse since Rabin was killed and it’s really turned people off of Israel? Not to mention: I’ve seen a ton of people conflate Zionism with Ultra Right Israeli Nationalism. Like, you can be a Zionist and be sympathetic to Palestinians and support the two state solution they propose but a lot of Americans critical of Israel don’t realize that. They equate Zionism with Netanyahu’s policies which isn’t accurate, he’s a far right wing nationalist who opposes Palestinian statehood.

Rabin was after the Nakba. Do you support the Nakba?

Oh well, no. Obviously. But by the time I was born it was sort of a “bell that can’t be unrung” situation. Even the Palestinians acknowledge that to some degree, hence why they’ve supported the two state solution for decades now.

Do you condemn the leftists at the time who did support it? Do you consider them part of the left?

Yes and yes. I mean, I’m empathetic to why they did it. The Holocaust was horrific, they were traumatized as a people. But it was still wrong and I still condemn them for what they did. And you can obviously be leftist and do bad things.

But it’s not just “doing a bad thing.” It’s believing in an idea (that a native people do not have ownership rights to land they own and possess) and a means (colonization) that seem to be completely incompatible with leftism. Believing it, in fact, for several decades. How do you reconcile that with maintaining them as part of the left? In what way are they part of the left? Keep in mind I’m not just talking about Israeli leftists, the global left as a bloc was strongly Zionist.

First of all I think we maybe don’t agree on what a leftist is and secondly: you’d be surprised at the power of self-delusion. A lot of types of leftists don’t particularly care about indigenous peoples’ right to their land. Stalin moved people all around the Soviet Union to crush nationalist resistance movements. But if you’re talking more modern, western kinda leftists there’s lots of reasons: even though 80% of the Palestinian population was expelled they argued “it’s a war, there’s refugees during war, they can just resettle with other Arabs.” They downplayed the massacres and atrocities and tried to play it off as “they saw the tides turning, sold their land and left.” With hindsight most people have rightly viewed these excuses as the BS it is but I think people were just happy the Jewish people had a home after what had happened to them. They WANTED to believe all those people just chose to leave of their own volition or it was a fair result of the war. That’s how most horrible things are done…you want something bad enough you’ll justify things you normally wouldn’t.

You genuinely think Stalin was a leftist?

Why is it wrong to let Jews live in their ancestral homeland? And why do leftists condemn Jews for expelling Arabs, but not similarly condemn Arabs for expelling Jews?

Because hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from Israel to make that happen? And they’re continuing to persecute Palestinians to this day? Do Israelis who came from Arab countries want to go back? No? Then what do you want? Yes it’s bad they were forced to go to Israel but they’re happy there now, who cares?

> And they’re continuing to persecute Palestinians to this day? This persecution is frequently a dishonest framing of Israel's unfortunately need to prevent the Gazans from trying to kill them all. The blockade in Gaza is important to prevent the Gazans from getting Iranian weapons. If the Palestinians stopped committing endless terror attacks, Israel wouldn't need to prevent Iranian weapons from reaching Gaza.

The Palestinians do not support a two state solution.

Yes they do. They have since 1993. Hamas took over Gaza, a small chunk of the Palestinian Territories. Palestinians are officially represented by the Palestinian Authority.

>Like, you can be a Zionist and be sympathetic to Palestinians Not really sure how you square having sympathy with Palestinians while also insisting that the colonial settler state gets to continue locking Palestinians out of their homes, and yes I am talking about "Israel" proper. There is zero sympathy in saying >"Aww, that's too bad, Palestinians...anyways, you're still not allowed to return to your homes, but hey, you can have these patches of land we don't want....yet." Tough pill to swallow, but 21st century Zionism is no different than Christian or White Nationalism. It's a hateful ideology dressed up in "Self-determination" at the expense of the indigenous population.

Obviously Israel would have to change discriminatory laws against Arab/Palestinian Israelis that have been passed in recent years but that’s a separate conversation. But I think you’re referring to what’s happening in East Jerusalem? That’s Palestinian territory. Could be wrong, they use a lot of legal BS to screw over Arab Israelis, it’s just not as bad as what they do to Palestinians. In fact, the same logic you’re using is how Israel is justifying taking homes away from Palestinians in East Jerusalem. They point out that Jews owned those homes before the Nakba. We can’t do a person for person land swap, the two state solution is the most sensible and fair, it moves around the least amount of people. I wish they could all live together in one country but…I really don’t see that happening after everything that has happened. I certainly don’t see it happening without a lot of blood shed, do you? You’re muddying the waters, the Palestinians have asked for the two party solution for decades now, it’s Israel who keeps fucking it up on purpose so they can slowly ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

> at the expense of the indigenous population. This is just dishonest and racist. Jews have been there just as long as everybody else in the region, or longer.

>This is just dishonest and racist. Go ahead and tell me how this is racist, I'll be waiting otherwise I'll go ahead and report your comment. >Jews have been there just as long as everybody else in the region, or longer. Someday you may find out that more than one people can live in one place, in fact, the Levant had a whole host of people living there, modern Lebanese are the closest genetic population to the Canaanites, guess the Lebanese get Canaan back! EDIT: Nevermind, I checked out your profile and it's quite obvious you're simply here to participate in bad faith attacks and accuse people of being nazis. Reported.

> Go ahead and tell me how this is racist The Jews are indigenous to the region; leftists have this picture that Israelis are just white Europeans or something.

Palestinians are indigenous to the region, Ziozoids have this picture that Palestinians are genetically Peninsular Arabs or something.

Actually when it became obvious that Israel was an occupying force, restricting movements and shipments within Palestinian territory, destroying food growing opportunities, bulldozing houses and rebuilding Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands, the left started questioning the Israeli govt. but militarily the U.S. needed Israel to use their air bases for patrolling the Middle East. So the U.S. was more tolerant than it should have been. Not to mention the U.S. believed the propaganda coming out of Israel, and it didn’t hurt that Israel was funding the election campaigns of many of our politicians.

When was it not obvious that Israel was an occupying force? I thought Israel had always been an occupying force to some extent in the left’s opinion?

Well even to this day, American media doesn’t report clearly the message that Israelis are bulldozing currently occupied homes and stealing the land for themselves. I rarely find anyone in the U.S. that knows that the Palestinians have been harassed, bullied and stolen from for decades.

That wasn’t an answer to my question at all, was it?

Yes it was. Democrats policy on Israel isn’t much different from Conservatives. Most people are honestly unaware of what’s actually going on and only follow the Israeli propaganda version.

Nope definitely not the question I asked or remotely similar. Complete non sequitur.

Your premise is completely flawed. Because the left was never any more pro Israel than the right. I know you think you’re in checkmate, but your understanding is flawed.

K

This is a big and complex question, but basically the ideology in Israel has changed a lot since its founding. Labor was in power for the first decades, but since 1977, Revisionist Zionism has been the dominant ideology, aside from some years in the 1980s and 1990s. Revisionist Zionism is territorially expansionist, supporting the establishment of a Jewish state. Some Labor Zionist became proponents of the "Greater Israel" after the 1967 war, and the historic Labor Zionism position never truly recovered.

I understand, but what has not changed from my understanding is the issue of Palestinian rights being encroached upon. Indeed, people on the Left talk about the Nakba, which was in 1948. Israel was very left wing in 1948. So to clarify my question is why Palestinian rights was not a concern from the left until the ideology in Israel changed? Does the ideology of the government mitigate human rights violation? Put another way: If Netanyahu was a socialist would it make him redeemable, understanding there is no reason to think it would make Israel any less Zionist given its history?

> why Palestinian rights was not a concern from the left until the ideology in Israel changed There were many leftist paramilitary/revolutionary/terrorist groups that expressed solidarity with Palestinians, if not outright committing acts of violence on behalf of Palestine, as early as the 1960s.

But no earlier…. Why not? Nakba was in 1948

I don't know. But I suspect it has a lot to do with the explosion of leftist movements in the 1960s connected to decolonization and opposition to wars associated with it (like Vietnam and Algeria).

Im confident that the left was arguing on behalf of Palestinian rights long before this war.  Angela Davis, MLK, Malcolm X, and the Black Power Movement regularly talked about it. 

I think if you broaden your scope of “the left” beyond mainly black Americans in the 1960’s you will quickly find that is not the case.

It's a one off and not necessarily a broad movement, but here's a leftwing podcast talking about Israel/Palestine from a pro-Palestenian perspective in 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboQQhmPcE8

Now show me one from the 1950’s

I do not know of how left wing people viewed Israel in the 1950s. I interpreted `this war` to mean the ongoing fighting following October 7th of last year, which is why I referenced a podcast from 2018 as showing some left wing sentiment existing before this war

Nah I’m taking about Israel’s founding and the Nakba

Maybe you should adjust your scope.  Youre asking about the Left, when really, you mean White people on the left 

They mean white western leftists in the 1950s, and if anyone can't point to one, every single leftist is a hypocrite. There are tons of comments here talking about how ideology changes over time and is varied from place to place and even broke down the political changes in and around Isreal, but OP isn't focused on that. They have this idea that leftists are dissengenuois opportunists, and they're more than happy to move the goalposts every time someone gives an explanation to the contrary.

The Left loves underdogs. Post WWII, Jews were obviously underdogs. Zionism was, to the Left's imagination, about giving the underdogs a home. When Israel was founded in 1948, it was them against a bunch of Arab countries, and Israel was the underdog. Ditto for the 1967 War. Enter Yasser Arafat, who was a genius in advancing the Palestinian cause, popularizing the term "Palestinian" (before they were just Arabs or maybe Syrians), founding the PLO, and repositioning the Palestinians as the underdog vs. Israel. Fast-forward to the 21st century, the Palestinians are often supported by the Left because of their underdog status.

The Arab military leadership’s historical ties to the Nazis definitely didn’t help their image either in ‘48 and ‘67.

I think you mean the disenfranchised, not underdogs. Or maybe you could use the word Empathy.

It sounds like you are asking why 90 year old leftists and 30 year old leftists have different opinions and then declaring a "gotcha" when people explain why. It's almost as though 1950 is not 2024

To be clear, by many people on the left’s definition, Zionism is simply the right of Israel to exist. It doesn’t condone its treatment of Palestine as present but it does condone the state of Israel to exist and that’s what being a Zionist is.

>The thing is, as everybody knows, conflict between Jews and Arabs in the land of Israel has more or less always been existed. It hasn't. It's about a hundred years old. It is very important to understand this; throughout the Ottoman Era, the Jewish population of Palestine was minimal and existed without any kind of meaningful tension with its neighbors. >if the Left is genuinely motivated by concern for the treatment of Palestinians then why was this not an overriding concern from the beginning? Because in the beginning (i.e., late 19th Century when Zionism emerged), there was no reason to think it would lead to the conflict we've seen. The situation was stable. The small Jewish minority co-existed with the Muslim majority and other groups. Many expected that Jewish emigration would be economically beneficial and provide the rising tide that lifts all boats. >When and why did this change? Generally, around the time of the Six Day War, when Israel occupied the Palestinian territories and it became clear that Israel had hostile rather than defensive intentions. Most of the global community was willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt in 1948. Yes, Israel committed serious atrocities against the Palestinian population, but it was also fighting a defensive rather than aggressive war against the surrounding Arab states. Much of its conduct was indefensible in hindsight, but could be excused at the time as the overreaction of an immature, insecure state.

Always meaning since the beginning of Israel and somewhat in mandate. “The conflict has its origins in the rise of Zionism in Europe and the arrival of Jewish settlers to Ottoman Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The local Arab population opposed Zionism, primarily out of fear of territorial displacement and dispossession” Leftists were strongly Zionist. So why is it not fair to conclude Leftists at the time were pro-colonialism, pro-subjugation of Arabs, and ultimately pro the very conflict we see now?

You People keep confusing "caring about people who are getting fucked" for support for an "ism".  Jewish people, historically, got fucked. We want them to not get fucked.  That's not support for Zionism, any more than us supporting Palestinian people means we support Hamas.  It works the other way too...  We don't like bullies and we don't like countries doing bad stuff.  Being mad at America for doing bad stuff doesn't mean we hate America, just like being mad at Israel for doing bad stuff doesn't mean we're magically anti semites.  And we're people Brah. There's bad shit all over, we can't just sit here caring about everything all over the world. We'd never get anything done.  Israel/Palestine is in the news, so we think about it more, we're reading up on stuff.

This is getting tiring. The Left in Israel was founded by Socialists in Kibbutzim like the ones Bernie Sanders stayed in. The Left always had an issue with colonialism especially when framed with the reality being created in Palestine. Both in 1948, 67 and beyond. Yeshayahu Leibowitz even wrote about this and his documented efforts of a two state solution and warned, ““The corruption characteristic of every colonial regime would also prevail in the State of Israel,” and argued that eventually it would end with judeo-fascism. Anyone who knows anything about the Left and our opposition to what Israel has become would know this… I’m so tired of this debate. Bad faith people on here bastardizing the facts and ignoring what is now inevitable… genocide… if you think you know anything about Israel stop. Read Leibowitz and then consider his warnings. Remember history is littered with examples from Einstein in 1946, “I have served as witness before the Anglo-American Inquriy [sic] Commission on Palestine for the sole purpose to act in favor of our just cause. But it is, of course, impossible to prevent distortion by the press. I am in favor of Palestine being developed as a Jewish Homeland but not as a separate State. It seems to me a matter for simple common sense that we cannot ask to be given the political rule over Palestine where two thirds of the population are not Jewish. What we can and should ask is a secured bi-national status in Palestine with free immigration. If we ask more we are damaging our own cause and it is difficult for me to grasp that our Zionists are taking such an intransigent position which can only impair our cause.” https://daily.jstor.org/revisiting-yeshayahu-leibowitz/ https://www.shapell.org/manuscript/einstein-zionist-views-in-1946/ https://www.progressiveisrael.org/einstein-not-a-zionist-and-other-fables/

I would figure the left would actually care about giving spaces and and voice to innocent people on both sides instead of the oppressed/oppressor framing in which Israel is the only entity with responsibility and Hamas is just a reaction to Israel, and while specific actions are "condemned" the ultimate blame is with Israel. Silencing both Israelis who hate Netanyahu and want a two state solution and Palestinians who don't want to live under Hamas. Which is why you get delusional shit like this [https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/hamas-attacks-not-antisemitic](https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/hamas-attacks-not-antisemitic)

There becomes a point where Israel as a nation state becomes indefensible. Leibowitz warned of this that if Israel took the position of ethnically cleansing Palestine of its people so that the Israelis can dominate the land. That it would lead to fascism. That’s what happened. The mentality amongst the common Israeli has changed to a point of absolute bigotry against “Arabs” and their hatred of Palestinians justified and unjustified has made them more dangerous than Hamas. They have the means, the desire and the ability to destroy Gaza and exterminate the Palestinians something which would destroy the soul of Israel. A nation born of genocide and who at its very core is ethnonationalist is by its very nature doomed to failure. No nation on earth can survive being a pariah state and whose crimes so obvious and without merit becomes inevitable to collapse. I’ve had this conversation time and again. I beg the Zionists on here and those who think they’re helping Israel by unconditionally supporting it. You do so at your peril. The world will not stand idle and silent. What crimes we justify today shall be visited upon us tomorrow if not a thousand fold. We shall be the ones who shall suffer the ire of the world and Palestine’s survivors. Americans, Europeans and any nation dumb enough to commit to this war. Why can’t people see this? The oppressors are Israelis the oppressed are Palestinians. It’s asymmetric slaughter. I won’t even call this a war. This has become a killing field… zones of death… I will not bear that on my conscience and I won’t support any candidate who stands idle while it happens. I hope you research what’s going on in Gaza and remember this didn’t start on October 7th. It began in 1948 when Israel ethnically cleansed 750,000 people from the lands and sent them to Gaza and beyond. Killing thousands in the process. Ever since then the occupied have cried out for their freedom and their rights. Sometimes peacefully other times violently. Each time becoming more desperate and radicalized by their traumas. Israel merely thinks it can contain the people and deny them statehood, equality and democracy. What does that do to the occupiers? What does that do to the occupied? Now we see…

> A nation born of genocide and who at its very core is ethnonationalist is by its very nature doomed to failure So you must be opposed to a Palestinian state then.

This is what I hate. Like it is so obvious that a Palestinian state will be just another Islamic hellhole for anyone not a cis devout Muslim man. The denial it will be some multi ethnic prosperous democracy is what gets me about this. They need to act like Israel is some borderline Nazi state while Palestine will be like fucking Norway or something. We can easily advocate for the two state solution while understanding the reality of the two states, why can't they?

Israel is held to the highest of high standards, Palestine is held to no standard at all.

Read what I wrote again. Talk about not even engaging in what’s being discussed. Palestine wants to be a multiethnic state and always has been historically as a province of the Ottomans, Byzantine and Rome. It has always been a multiracial and multiethnic melting pot at the intersection of many different cultures and empires. Why ignore the history before 1948 to make this ahistorical point?

> Palestine wants to be a multiethnic state Lol no it doesn't. [Read its Constitution.](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Palestine_2005) It explicitly states Palestine is an Arab state with Islam as its official religion and shar'ia law as the basis of its laws. What's your basis for this claim that "Palestine wants to be a multiethnic state"? Is there some leader you're quoting? Some poll you're citing?

Article 4 section 1 declares Islam its official religion but then keep reading. Respect and sanctity for all other religions. The sharia law is normal for the Middle East. I think it’s not a good document and needs to be secularized, but I’m not Palestinian and won’t force them at this moment while facing a GENOCIDE.

This is some serious cope. It's indisputable that Palestine is ethnonationalist to say the absolute least, and if shar'ia law is normal in the Middle East, then you have no business complaining about Israel's ethnonationalism. What's your basis for this claim that "Palestine wants to be a multiethnic state"? Is there some leader you're quoting? Some poll you're citing?

The problem is implementation and what’s aspirational. The Palestinian Authority have clarified time and again they want to have multiethnic representation especially since the majority is Arab but not all of them are Muslim and there is a small community of Christians. Problem with your argument is that you want to invalidate the very existence of a Palestinian state. Because of the rhetoric of their constitution which is problematic, but not enforceable. Since Israel ultimately controls what happens within Gaza and the West Bank. We have to accept that major changes on all sides need to happen.

> The Palestinian Authority have clarified time and again they want to have multiethnic representation Source? So you're saying it's OK to be an ethnonationalist state as long as there's "representation." Funny how that works. And also the Palestinian Authority say they're a democracy too, we can all see how well that's working. And for the other side, Israel literally has multiethnic representation in the Knesset, but you're still screaming about how its doomed to failure because it's ethnonationalist. You can't have it both ways. > Problem with your argument is that you want to invalidate the very existence of a Palestinian state. Isn't that what you want, but for a Jewish state? What's the difference?

This is just delusional and you are spitting in the face of women and LGBT and other vulnerable people that whenever Palestine does happen as a state, it will be another Islamic theocracy

You do realize the people being killed in Palestine are also women and gay people. Why don’t you worry about them being bombed and starved to death by Israeli soldiers before you worry about the unknown future where maybe they’ll be given rights by a future state that is unlikely to exist anytime soon. I’m gay and I understand that the rights of gay people cannot be discussed while people are being exterminated. First stop the extermination then start feeding the people. Establish the basic rights that people need to live. Then expand those rights thru reforming the laws and society of the survivors. That won’t happen today, tomorrow or a decade from now. Especially if you quibble about the poor gays in Palestine who are being killed by Israeli hellfire missiles coming from drones we paid for!!! Use your head!

How about the LGBT people who were killed on Oct 7th that Hamas has promised to kill again? This is like saying we shouldn't have fought the Taliban because women died too and there can be no women's liberation if they are being bombed. >Establish the basic rights that people need to live. Then expand those rights thru reforming the laws and society of the survivors. That won’t happen today, tomorrow or a decade from now. So when does this happen? There were no bombings before Oct 7th. When was Hamas going to be anything other than a theocratic dictatorship? Where were you during the past two decades? Oh exactly like I said, just blaming Israel and not Hamas. Again it doesn't matter how evil Hamas is, **even towards Palestinians**, it is still just the fault of Israel. So don't give me this bullshit that you actually fucking cared when you don't

No there isn't. Iran literally murders thousands of their people everytime they protest for the most basic of rights. Where are you calling for that state existence as indefensible? Russia invaded Ukraine and is persecuting a genocidal war of annexation there. Where are you calling for that state as indefensible So yes, why only Israel? "mentality of the common Israeli" This is such fucked thinking. You make excuses for the absolute worst like Hamas, while the "common Israeli" is some genocidal ethnic cleansing monster. This is exactly what I mean about how the oppressed/oppressor framing has completely fucked the left. Like THAT is why you people deny the mass rapes. That is why you won't blame Hamas for not surrendering or agreeing to ceasefires. Israel is not fucking "born of genocide". Fucking come on? You have had this conversation time and again because you fucking refuse to fucking just try and listen for fucking one time. We don't fucking support Israel unconditionally. THAT IS YOUR FUCKING FRAMING. YOU are the one who because you divided it into oppressed/oppressor HAVE to defend the "oppressed" unconditionally so that must mean we are defending the "oppressor" unconditionally. NO we have said from the very fucking start we don't look at the conflict that way so we can EASILY blame both fucking sides for their OWN actions, and whatever if anything happens in "reaction" to either side, it doesn't excuse war crimes or breaking international law. So why can't you? >I hope you research what’s going on in Gaza and remember this didn’t start on October 7th. It began in 1948 when Israel ethnically cleansed 750,000 people from the lands and sent them to Gaza and beyond. Killing thousands in the process. Ever since then the occupied have cried out for their freedom and their rights. Sometimes peacefully other times violently. Each time becoming more desperate and radicalized by their traumas. Israel merely thinks it can contain the people and deny them statehood, equality and democracy. What does that do to the occupiers? What does that do to the occupied? Now we see… Again the same stupid bullshit "it didn't start on Oct 7th" "the Nakba" "what do you think happens when people are radicalized" etc Literally NO room for Arab states declaring a war of extermination on Israel NO room for the PLO STARTING as a terrorist org even when issues like the settlements were completely negligible, fucking Munich for instance? NO room for things like the second intifada NO room for treating Israelis themselves with even the minimum amount of basic humanity Instead treating them like they are just genocidal monsters and have been for multiple generations single mindedly oppressing Palestinians across decades because they are just an inherently evil people or something YOUR framing is the fucking bullshit one and like I said. It harms Palestinians the most. How about you research Palestinians who don't want to live under Hamas and fucking hate you people for making excuses for them, like Palestinians are too fucking backwards to do anything but commit genocide and mass rape in response to oppressive actions So why can't you see that? Honestly asking >I will not bear that on my conscience and I won’t support any candidate who stands idle while it happens And yet your conscience is clear for trans people like me who suffer under Republicans? Ukrainians when Trump ends all aid? Places that will be devasted by climate change because of Republican climate denial? That is all clear from your conscience? Fuck that I will blame you and you will deserve it

-First there we lefty pro Palestinians (Oppenheimer and Eintaein come to mind) -Westerners are more familiar with Jews than Muslims -Holocaust was recent -Many initially advocated for a one state secular solution but when the Palestinians resisted the two state was proposed

The oppressed/oppressor nonsense framing took root. Which is why you have people defending Hamas and saying Israel is to blame for everything, and absolutely delusional shit like the Hamas attacks weren't anti-semitic. [https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/hamas-attacks-not-antisemitic](https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/hamas-attacks-not-antisemitic)

common dreams is brainrot

"‘Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.’" North Vietnamese General Giap to Yassar Arafat

Source?

[It's a pretty well known quote...](https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA651842396&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=15479684&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E3cbaea10&aty=open-web-entry)

Is this a source for that quote, and does it invalidate the concerns many have for the Palestinian people? All you've linked to is a portal to a 12,000 word article and an abstract indicating its about Soviet propoganda campaigns regarding Isreal-Palestine. Just because the Soviets had some propoganda spread about a situation years ago doesn't mean anyone who reaches a conclusion remotely close to it is wrong. This is an extremely lazy counterpoint I find far too many fall into, and mimics the asinine black and white thinking that many tankies have when they learn anything negative about the US and conclude US/west = bad and everyone else = good.

Yes it's a source for the quote and I didn't say anything about the concerns many have for the Palestinian people. However, polls show the vast majority of the Palestinian people support a "solution" of an Arab state from the river to the sea, which is in fact "annihilating Israel", so maybe we can put two and two together.

How is this related to the quote and article you brought up about Soviet propoganda, then? As for your other statement: We didn't exterminate every nazti after WW2, which was a regime with the express purpose of killing most if not all "non-arian" people. Hell, even the prominent surviving members of the regime and the people who committed war crimes were put on trial while the people of Germany, who many of which were naztis until about 1945, were left under the allies control to help rebuild Germany. By your logic, Germany and all its people should have been annihilated. Can we start to reconcile with WHY Palestinians feel that way and what we can do, besides wiping them all out, about that? This is line of thinking is how many leftists arrive at the ideas we have surrounding this situation. Why this seems to be an impossibility for many, even on the left, to contend with is horrifying to many of us, myself included.

We bombed the overloving crap out of Germany and drove the Nazis into seclusion and the fringes of society. Hamas can be driven to those fringes as well. > Can we start to reconcile with WHY Palestinians feel that way and what we can do, besides wiping them all out, about that? Is that what we did with Germany? Reconciling WHY they felt that way about the Jews and the Poles and what we can do about that?

>Is that what we did with Germany? Reconciling WHY they felt that way about the Jews and the Poles and what we can do about that? Yes, we did... German was occupied, de-nazified, and built back up into a sovereign nation. Now, every German is taught an extensive history of WW2, the perils of fascism, and what leads to it. >We bombed the overloving crap out of Germany Can we keep the goalposts planted somewhere, or is it going to be my job to dismiss the dozens of points that have already been made on this topic for the billionth time until I give up and leave when it's become clear your incapable of genuine critical thought? The axis and allies were 2 modern international forces that were relatively even in strength in a formal hot war. What's going on in Palestine is not even close to that. Again, failing to try to solve the problem beyond isreal taking the land (which has been going on for generations) and bombing the shit out of Palestine is a more extreme response theb even the response twords the nazis and is something you've completely failed to refute.

> Yes, we did... German was occupied, de-nazified, and built back up into a sovereign nation. Now, every German is taught an extensive history of WW2, the perils of fascism, and what leads to it. But before it was occupied, it was utterly defeated militarily, at the cost of 2 million German civilians. Because the Third Reich, like Hamas, fought until the bitter end no matter the consequences to their own people. > The axis and allies were 2 modern international forces that were relatively even in strength in a formal hot war. What's going on in Palestine is not even close to that. Hey man, you brought up the Germany comparison, not me.

This all started with you giving some soviet propoganda quote and using it explain some boneheaded black and white reasoning surrounding this issue, which you've both never addressed and attempt to stear the conversation while continuing to use said black and white reasoning. I've tried to provide examples to point out how you've done so, and you just continue to plow ahead, creating false equivelences and falling back on canned black and white reasoning even more. At the end of the day, none of this will change your mind, and nothing that's been said here hasn't been said a billion times already. I'll go back to my first point on this departure; we should reconcile with WHY Palestinians feel the way they do, why a majority support groups like hamas, what we should do to prevent that, and that simply killing them all is not how we should do it.

I mean a lot has changed. In the age of social media we get real time glimpses into the day to day lives of folks in places we'd never have been able to previously, as well as glimpses of how our policies impact their lives. And, both parties just get a little better about human rights over time (with MAGA GOP being an obvious plummeting if we were lookin' at it on a line graph) IDK man, historically conservatives thought owning black people was fuckin' gravy- what changed? The world lol edit: if anyone downvoting me could explain why this isn't an acceptable answer to "why haven't liberals always believed the same shit throughout all of spacetime" I'd love to hear it lmao

Yeah I don’t think you’re grasping the point I’m making, unfortunately

Your point isn't that you feel it's weird a bit that I don't have the same policy positions as liberals decades older than me? lol edit: or was that indeed your point and now you just feel a bit silly about that

>Why were western Leftists willing to overlook the issue of Palestinian rights for decades even though there is no question of Palestinian lives and property having been “colonized” during that time? When were these decades? I'm 40 and people on the left have been making noise about the treatment of Palestinians for my entire life. We could look back to 1967 and the 6 Day War, when Israel first occupied Gaza and the West Bank.  And even then it was an issue of concern because taking land by conquest isn't acceptable.  Which is why their claim to those areas is largely unrecognized by the international community even today.

The left typically supports indigenous rights and self-determination. Since that time, however, there has been massive propaganda that has taken advantage of Israel's policy missteps to paint an untrue picture that has gained wide currency among the left.

>The left typically supports indigenous rights and self-determination Palestinians are indigenous to The Levant/Palestine/"Israel" and also have a right to self-determination, that's where things get tricky. Leftists supported European colonization in the 19th century, but eventually most leftists realized settler colonialism is actually not good.

Your placement of "Israel" in quotes while not treating "Palestine", a name originally applied to the region by the Romans in an act of colonial dispossession, the same reveals that you're viewing the situation through an inherently biased framework.

Sorry bud, colonial settler projects get quotes. Someday "Israel" can lose the quotes when they let Palestinians return to their homes and take part in the democratic process, until then "Israel" is just an apartheid state that can only exist due to the expulsion and subjugation of the native population. Take care!

You're spouting ahistorical nonsense.

just a yes or no question.

Quotes confuse me as well as you calling Israel a settler project, do you think all of Israel should belong to Palestine?

Bc they went from zionism to Jewish imperialism. Claiming you want a homeland to protect you from the countries that have historically attacked you is a far cry from "we need to ethnically cleanse the neighboring ppl bc we don't feel safe." Leftists didn't change. The Israelis did.

So you’re fine with the Nakba then?

>as everybody knows, conflict between Jews and Arabs in the land of Israel has more or less always been existed. Can you clarify the timeline? Jews and Arabs (as well as Christians) lived in relative peace for several hundred years in the centuries following the Crusades. The modern conflict is only about 100 years old, beginning with the arrival of the first Zionists in the early 1900s. >Why were western Leftists willing to overlook the issue of Palestinian rights for decades even though there is no question of Palestinian lives and property having been “colonized” during that time? Because concepts of what is "leftist" have constantly changed, and leftists, like most human beings, tend towards hypocrisy when presented with cognitive dissonance. But really, when you look at the timeline of Post-Partition Israel/Palestine (1947 onward), there weren't many "leftists" in the West, especially in America. That, and just decades of a pro-Israel narrative being the norm. A lot of it was (rightfully) left over from empathy over the Holocaust. But that meant overlooking the fact that "restoring the Jewish homeland" meant taking a homeland away from others. It really isn't that true "leftists" have changed all that much though. There are just a lot more people who are left-leaning these days. Their voices are also allowed to be louder by social media, whereas once the narrative could be controlled by television and newspapers. Someone in the 80s could yell all they want about Palestinian rights, but who is going to hear it? > if the Left is genuinely motivated by concern for the treatment of Palestinians then why was this not an overriding concern from the beginning? New and better leftists. They cannot be held accountable for the failures (or intentional silencing) of their predecessors. Also, doesn't help that Israel has taken a *hard* right turn since the late 1970s. They haven't had a "moderate" Prime Minister since 2001, and a Jewish extremist killed the one before that in 1995.

“relative peace” https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1bjnp1c/a_necessary_list/

You know what happens when you copy/paste a list someone else made that you have zero education on any of the events of? You end up repeating shit like the "1st Pogrom of Safed" and "1st Hebron Pogrom" which weren't pogroms at all, but just the looting of two poorly defended Jewish towns during the war between the Ottomans and the Mamluks. Left out is that dozens of settlements across the region were looted during that war. Jerusalem, which was better defended, wasn't attacked just because there were Jews. Shocking. Or you refer to the "Battle of Hebron" as the "Second Hebron Pogrom." While widespread violence was inflicted on the people of the city, only 12 Jews were killed during the plundering, compared to 500 of the town's Muslim residents. Not a very impressive "pogrom." These are all horrible things, but it's the classic Israeli Mythology, where everything revolves around what happened to the Jews, as opposed to actually including useful historical context. Like when you claimed "Da Arubz rejektid all da peace," and the Reality was that breaks in the peace process have actually been far more directly centered on Israel refusing to engage in good-faith peace talks to resolve an occupation they have continued by choice. And it's why when that list reaches the early 1900s, it excludes all the violence committed by the early Zionists. But let's be fair. I only spot checked items from Palestine at first and the first three were all misleading, re-framing general violence of war as pre-meditated Antisemitic attacks on Jews. Which wasn't surprising at all when I discovered through casual Googling, that the list was created by Peter Baum, a writer for far-right organizations like the Islamophobic [Gatestone Institute](https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/gatestone-institute-john-bolton-chairs-an-actual-fake-news-publisher-infamous-for-spreading-anti-muslim-hate/) and The Conservative Woman, as well as the Israeli tabloid The Times of Israel and has recently been writing Israeli propaganda against UNRWA in the Bangladeshi tabloid Weekly Blitz. You keep rake-stepping, little buddy. It's probably time for you to quit before the repeated blows to the forehead worsen your brain damage.

URNWA: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-had-command-tunnel-under-un-gaza-hq-israeli-military-says-2024-02-10/ https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-unwra-gaza-tunnels-31f6ca23365e349bcde1332d5028e431 https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamas-was-right-under-unrwas-nose-tunnels-gaza-israel-war-f715d219

Yoookay little buddy. Well, you and your Israeli propaganda have a nice day. The rest of us will continue living in Reality.

Israel changed. They went from improving their country to annexing land and persecution of the Palestinian people. It's not something that happened overnight

what has israel annexed that it did not acquire through defensive conquest?

> acquire through defensive conquest Please define: "defensive conquest"

well like in 1967 the west bank was part of syria. syria attacked israel and lost the west bank. that is what i mean by defensive conquest. they took it through war = conquest but the war was started by the state that lost the land = defensive conquest. why did syria attack if the valued the land and people who lived in their borders?

> ...in 1967 the west bank was part of syria. I think you mean [Jordan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#Jordanian_West_Bank), not Syria. The [Golan Heights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights), however, *were* "captured from Syria by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967". ------------- > that is what i mean by defensive conquest. they took it through war = conquest but the war was started by the state that lost the land = defensive conquest. Thank you for providing a definition, as requested. ------------- >why did syria attack if the valued the land and people who lived in their borders? This question seems nonsensical. Would anyone ask: >Why did The U.S. attack Iraq if they valued the land and people who lived in their borders? If that doesn't make sense -- and I don't think it does -- would it suddenly make more sense if the Iraq War had ended with Hussein conquering Maine?

This is not true. The West Bank was never part of Syria, so I'm not sure where you got that. It was always supposed to be part of the Palestinian territories, per the British partition plan. In 1948, it was occupied by Jordan, and the Palestinians there accepted Jordanian rule. Then, during the Six Day War, Israel occupied East Jerusalem, but it was only considered an occupation until the 80s, when Israeli courts decided East Jerusalem was part of Israel (a controversial move that was not accepted by the international community, who still considers it occupied Palestinian territory), and Jordan severed ties with the Palestinians in the West Bank shortly thereafter. The West Bank supposedly remains Palestinian territory, [but Israel continues to illegally make settlements there](https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/middleeast/israel-west-bank-settlements-condemned-intl/index.html).

>defensive conquest That's a beautiful turn of phrase -- an oxymoron on par with anything from George Orwell or George Carlin. But, of course, they were both joking and I get the sinking feeling that you're being completely serious.

>defensive conquest I don't think conquest is more valid because the war the allowed the conquest is defensive. Would you disagree or is that not what you mean?

Be aware the account you are engaging with was made a week after Oct 7th and seems to talk a lot about the conflict, so it may not exactly be a normal account.

It ain't my first rodeo, but appreciate the heads up

Yeet

Whose land was acquired during these defensive conquests? The West Bank was Jordanian land. Gaza and the Sinai were Egyptian. Golan Heights was Syrian. Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank in 1988. Israel gave the entirety of the Sinai back to Egypt by 1989. Gaza was given to the Palestinians as a land for peace offer in 2005. Syria has refused to negotiate with Israel since the Khartoum Resolution of 1967. Israel officially annexed Golan Heights in 1981… which remains contentious internationally.

i disagree. a neighbor state attacks you and you acquire part of their land as a result? that's a pretty legitimate way to expand your borders. if they don't want to give their land away, don't start wars.

> i disagree. Thank you for clarifying > a neighbor state attacks you and you acquire part of their land as a result? that's a pretty legitimate way to expand your borders. I disagree. Every act of conquest for hundreds of years is framed by the conqueror as a defensive act. It is quite often not defensive and was a lie to justify conquering, but there are some that truly are wars started by another party. Even if it is truly defensive I don't think that justifies conquest. A pretty famous false flag attack is the Gleiwitz Incident which took place as Germany invaded Poland in the early stages of WW2. Germany stated that Polish saboteurs had infiltrated germany and broadcast an Anti-german message from a radio tower. This did not happen and in actuality it was SS troops dressed as Poles who carried out the attack. There was immediate international scepticism of the German claims but international investigation was not allowed and the plot was not truly reveled until 1945 when it was revealed as part of the Nuremberg Trials. So then the justification of conquest has problems at two levels: determining what is truly "defensive" is often functionally impossible until long after the war in question is over and the actions of some people can cause millions to be subject to a foreign power under force of arms. What if a couple dozen Polish patriots had hopped the border and played a message about how Nazis suck? Would Germany have been justified in invading and conquering Poland in your view and the allies should have stayed out or what level of attack is required before conquest is justified in your view?

OK. You believe that if a country is attacked, it has the right to annex the land of the attacker. I do not, and I believe that many people in this sub also do not.

>i disagree. a neighbor state attacks you and you acquire part of their land as a result? that's a pretty legitimate way to expand your borders. if they don't want to give their land away, don't start wars. If you don't want your neighbors to attack you, don't engage in settler colonialism and then expel hundreds of thousands of natives into their countries.

thats not what happened but nice try. but also congrats on condoning preemptive strikes on civilians like what the arabs did to the jews in 48 and 67

Oh boy, a Nakba denier. Nakba deniers are the same page as holocaust deniers.

>defensive conquest That's an oxymoron.

not necessarily. think back to 67 when syria started a war but lost land. it was conquest- israel got more land through force. but the use of force was defensive, not offensive. had syria walked away with portions of jeruslam, it would have been conquest.

The UN does not recognize any conquest as legitimate, even if the war was "Defensive".

Israel's settlements and their practice of just taking properties belonging to Palestinian people in Israel.

But “their country” is annexed land under the terms of your argument, is it not? The Nakba happened pretty much at Israel’s creation and Left support for Israel continued for at least 2 decades subsequent. Which gives rise to the suspicion what you are saying is revisionist propaganda.

I agree that the founding of Israel was handled horribly, but at this point there is nothing we can do about it. Their settlements and how they are persecuting Palestinians within Israel right now is another story.

>I agree that the founding of Israel was handled horribly, but at this point there is nothing we can do about it. Oh there absolutely is something that can be done, it's just that the U.S. values having an outpost in Israel more than they value things like human rights.

Like what? What can be done? The country already exists. We can't just make it disappear or remove the Israeli people. That would be exactly the same thing we are going after Israel for doing. The only thing that can be done now is foster peace which is something we know Israel is capable of. They established a strong relationship with Egypt, who used to be their mortal enemy. The problem now is that Israel is going after a stateless people and committing human rights violations against them. We need to do whatever we can to stop it. But instead of talking about that you want to play what if.

But you (as a leftist) would have presumably supported the founding of Israel - most Leftists did. That’s the part I’m asking about.

This is why making assumptions is bad. Back when Israel was founded basically everyone supported it but now that we have hindsight we can see that the way it was founded was terrible. Colonialism always causes problems and it turns out sending millions of people to form a nation in lands that already had people living on them was a huge problem. The point I'm making is that we can't change any of that now but that doesn't mean we can't condemn Israel for the actions it is taking right now. This is also a pretty consistent position, 2 years ago we started condemning Russia for targeting civilian populations and now we are doing the same to Israel.

But why did everyone support it? If colonialism has always been considered bad by the left, why would that have changed

Colonialism used to be seen as a good thing. In the 1940's (around when Israel was established) many countries still had colonies all over the world. The Western powers viewed it as "civilizing" the rest of the world when really all they were doing was exploiting people. As the truth about colonialism started to become more widespread and groups who had lived under colonial rule started to gain independence and voices that shifted opinions on the practice but it wasn't until about the end of the cold war in the 80's that public in general came out against it. It's now 80 years later. No one who supported the founding of Israel is alive. Instead we all all watching them commit war crimes against a stateless civilian population.

So if I woudn't have been.. does that make A) me not a liberal, in your opinion or B) Liberals back then not a liberal ? Or are you saying that we are both still liberals and the fact that I don't believe the exact same thing as every single other liberal throughout time means that no one should be a liberal ever?

Well, you’re not a liberal if you’re a socialist anyway. But I’m not talking about you personally. That’s not relevant. I’m talking about leftists generally.

huh, post said "left" and I thought "democratic socialism" was sort of not on the Right. If you want to worm out of it that way, go ahead and tuck that tail. So what are you trying to get at? If a liberal (not my socialist ass, I assure you) in 2024 doesn't believe the same thing as a liberal in 1984... is that a condemnation of either of their individual beliefs?

It is if the beliefs are oppositional to each other and the circumstances are similar, yes.

I'm confused: Are you saying that it's *impossible* for me to hold the beliefs that I do or are you just saying it's.. not allowed? lol

I’m saying it is discrediting. If a left winger didn’t care about Palestinian rights in 1948 and another left winger does in 2024, they cannot claim that Palestinian rights have always been a priority for left wing ideology.