The Senate is a bleak landscape. If we win it this year it'll be a miracle. But if Trump and when Cocaine Mitch retires loses it'll be interesting to see what new form the GOP senate takes.
To which Question? Certainly the GOP is slightly more totally and unconditionally supportive in this polling than the Dems are which brings us back to the question of what friend is the better friend- the intervening "dude you're going to kill yourself" friend or the "go ahead and do all the coke you want" friend? The GOP, of course, sympathizes with Netanyahu more that the Dems do, of course, since Netanyahu has been trying to turn Israel into a partisan question in the US; an act of colossal political stupidity.
In answering the question of "Does a given party pick Israel or Palestine to favor" the poll question "Which side do you favor, Israel and Palestine?" strikes me as a LOT more germaine than "Who do you sympathize with more in the current situation?"
Well I will grant that the two sides have very different opinions on Netanyahu and if you'd worded it that way we wouldn't have a problem. But you, instead, said Israel vs the Palestinians and, as I pointed out, your poll actually specifically asks about opinions on Israel vs Palestinians and those numbers don't support what you're saying. So even on your own poll terms the assertion is incorrect.
So, firstly, by pointing at this polling you're saying "It doesn't matter what actual liberals or Democratic Party members do or say under their own names- these anonymous poll respondents are more representative. That strikes me as ludicrous.
But even if we stick to the fig leaf of this poll, you're skipping past the polling question that directly checks attitudes towards the Israeli's and Palestinians (Changes in Favorable Ratings of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, by Party ID) which shows the Dems overwhelmingly supporting Israel over the Palestinians (but having a reduced opinion of both vis a vis 2023) and, thus, contradicts your assertion. Instead, you're skipping down to the poll question (Sympathies in the Middle East Situation by Party ID and Age) which is both far more ambiguously worded and also is specifically about present matters and basically acts as a question of whether Dems approve of Bibi fishin' Netanyahu who, I would like to remind you, has been pissing on Dems and nakedly supporting Trump* for years now. That's really weak tea.
*Which, I'd also point out, is ludicrously and insanely against Israel's own long term interests and beneficial only to one Bibi Netanyahu's welfare.
Which leaves us back with my original complaint- that characterizing the Dems, or even liberals generally as "Picking Palestine over Israel" in the culture war is unmoored from reality.
I don't have any particular quibble with your analysis at all. I just object to Jays original assertion that put Dems and liberals in the "Picking Palestine as an ally in culture war matters" bucket which, I still insist, is nakedly and ludicrously inaccurate. I
OKay fine, point at the occupations on the quad. I will note two things: first that they were -opposed- to "Genocide Joe" the Democratic President. And then, secondly, I will ask if you recall the folks chanting "The Jews will not replace us" as they demonstrated in Charlottesville and I'll remind you they were demonstrating in favor of the Republican President at the time.
Most actual Muslims with skin in the game have no control over the terrorists or "governments" that purport to act in their name do nor over the Israeli's that actually control their day to day do. So, there's no cost at all to them shooting off their mouths on the internet or to pollsters .
But that still just doesn't work Jay. You can point to an occasional Dem politician who's hostile to Israel and I can point to an occasional Republican politician who's the same. You can point to an internet group of lefties who're hostile to Israel and I can point out the same on the right. And, yes, so far Democratic executive officials have been substantively supportive of Israel as have Republican ones. The only real difference between them is the Dems go "Hey that west bank coke you're snorting is going to kill you eventually, as your friend I advise you to lay off it and wean yourself off it." while the GOP ones go "Enjoy that coke, friend, I have an old book that says Jesus is going to pop out of your chest like Aliens when you finally OD so breathe deep!"
So, I still see no justification for you to characterize the Democratic Party as being somehow on the "hostile to Israel" side of the culture war divide. However you define it: Major Actors of the Formal Democratic Party; Minor Actors of the Formal Democratic Party or all the way down to folks who code kind of left on twittspace, it just isn't accurate.
Sure, sure, DD except the Soda Ban you're referring to is actually more substantive since it was actually, ya know, enacted by a politician into policy whereas this imaginary Democratic hostility to Israel is, of course, imaginary and has no accompanying policy plank that's being campaigned on by the Dems, let alone any substantive law or regulation in any prospect of being enacted.
Though, on the other hand, your Soda ban example was proposed by a Republican (Bloomberg) and only carried on by a Dem later until the courts (rightfully) knocked it down.
No doubt, the identarian lefts double standard grates, for sure, and Palestinians get infantilized and treated like hapless victims. Jewish people will just have to console themselves with their successful country, dignity, control of their own destiny and historic accomplishments. Don't pretend for an instant that you actually would trade the Jewish folks position with the Palestinians one just so online twits would say nice infantilizing things about you.
I also am dubious that, as a matter of real politic, the Israeli's are capable of prosecuting a unilateral withdrawal. For fish's sake, they're right against the wall trying to resist Bibi provoking a constitutional crisis. So much the worse for them, alas, because I don't see anything else reversing the paradigm they're confronting.
That's just quibbling. Israel had a pretty free hand overall. If anything Bibi held himself back a lot both because he didn't want to do too much intervention there and because he's always preferred Hamas over the PA since Hamas is unambiguously odious and unacceptable- indeed it was propped up by the Israeli right in the first place for just that reason.
Facts trump theory and the facts don't support your theorizing here Dark.
For instance, you keep suggesting the only way Israel disengages from the Palestinians is a negotiated settlement under a left-wing Israeli government. That’s quite a-historical since Israel’s largest disengagement and settlement remove project (and also its’ most successful one) happened unilaterally under a right-wing Israeli government (Sharon in 2005).
You can point at the terror that resulted from that but, firstly, Israel prospered mightily in international diplomacy, strategic posture and economic terms for almost twenty years after that withdrawal and that’s without even talking about how greatly its demographic terms were improved by eliminating the possibility of millions of Palestinians being integrated into Israel proper. Secondly, that assumes that an Israel that remained imbedded in Gaza would have suffered less terrorism which is, to put it mildly, an incredible presumptive leap.
You posit that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal would expose Israel to border violence, terrorism attacks and such like but that is literally what Israel is struggling with -now- and with all the downsides of the West Bank occupation larded on top of it.
Finally, there’s a curious inversion from normal right-wing mantras in the way you talk about the Palestinians. You and Lee both say that peace will only come when the Palestinians embrace Israel in their hearts and accept its existence. I say that peace will come when the Palestinians have their state and have to bear the consequence of their actions. If the Palestinians in the West Bank attack Israel and suffer a non-inconsequential portion of the West Bank being flattened in response (and yes, in that scenario the world would -emphatically- shrug in indifference) they would think very carefully about doing it again in a way that they absolutely don’t think about it when they’re answering a pollster on the telephone. Also, if you think that the actual Palestinians in the West Bank would endure misery and privation over the right of return for their distant relatives living in camps about the middle east I have a bridge to sell you. That would be… contrary… to human nature to put it mildly.
Yes, Lee, this is changing. That has been my point in all of our genial arguments over the years. The West Banks occupation is slowly seeping poison into everything. In Israel the occupation creates A) a settler population that votes exclusively based on maintaining their subsidized housing positions and opposes anything resembling disengagement or moving towards it and B) a growing revanchist right wing movement that's socially conservative and religiously fanatical.
At the same time, internationally, the occupation is the beating heart that has been growing a left wing rooted movement that is both A) vociferously anti-Israel and B) has the capacity to persuade more and more youngsters because of the radically imbalanced position Israel has vis a vis the West Bank Palestinians.
Israel has gone from Admirable Scrappy Jewish underdog to Formidable admirable Regional Power to Dominant Regional Power that's trying to do good, to Dominant Regional Power that's mostly just looking out for #`1 to, Dominant Regional Power that seems to not care about resolving matter in the eyes of the developed world in basically two generations or so. You can see where the trend line is going. So can I. I don't -like- that this is happening but that doesn't change that it is. And don't get me started about Bibi's earnest efforts to make Israel into a partisan question in the US*. The developed world is Democratic- if the masses views change enough it'll bleed through to the decision makers eventually.
*Sweet God(ess?) what a stupid, selfish, short sighted arrogant fisher!
No one of consequence, which is to say no one in the reality based and decision making community, thinks that the Israeli's would be expected to not respond to aggression from a West Bank Palestinian entity. This is completely at odds with history.
Israel withdrew from Gaza under Sharon and they were awarded with both a decade of international support and were allowed to do virtually anything in response to Gazan aggression. Isolate and choke off the place? Sure. Blast the Gazans for any provocation? Absolutely. Turn the place into an open air prison? Yup, they invited it.
If Israel withdrew from the West Bank they would absolutely be allowed, indeed expected, to respond devastatingly to the Palestinians if they tried to attack from within it. And if the Palestinians or their supporters cried about it I can tell you what the response would be: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
Yeah totally agree on this. Israel is more advanced that SA was but that economic advancement is based almost 100% on international trade. SA at least had primary industries- Israel isn't going to sustain itself on olive and apricot exports. Additionally the economically most dynamic Israeli's are also incredibly mobile- if international opinion turns on Israel and trade gets crunched those Israelis could decamp for other developed countries extremely quickly and would be well inclined to do so if Israel keeps trudging down the track it's on.
I, unlike InMD, am affirmatively pro-Israeli so I do care and would mourn this development. But who is the better friend? The one who says "whatever you choose I support you unconditionally, you snort as much of that West Bank coke as you want!" or the one who says "Buddy, I'm on your side but that West Bank coke is going to fry your brain and leave you a broken jewish reflection of the revanchist cultures you've fought for the past decades. You have to stop." ?
That line of thinking seems both questionable as a matter of fact and also destined to put Israel in a post apartheid South Africa situation likely within our lifetimes.
Calls not to respond have always been quick. So what? As for the more material impatience and terseness from the powers that matter Israeli's has been experiencing? It's not ambiguous that the credit from the Gaza withdrawal is spent down and the same applies ten times over for the Oct 7th disaster. Bibi has been dining on Sharons' tab for years now and that credit card is maxed out now.
True, but Israeli withdrawal means that all the long term threats to Israel are undercut, the primary justification for anti-israeli people (who matter vs the powerless Muslim masses who don't) is eviscerated; and the Israeli state is secured.
Also, the lesson of Gaza is that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal will be rewarded with significant international diplomatic rewards and a very long leash to secure Israel vis a vis the withdrawn from territory. A withdrawal from the West Bank cold only yield even greater applaus and understanding from the international audience (that matters). It's not like the West Bank Palestinians would be able to attack Israel with impunity and, assuming they were dumb enough to do so, only that cycle of action and consequence has any real hope of breaking them of that notion.
The Israels, pre-October 7th, said "We can't disengage from the West Bank because then we'll have threats on our border, danger to our towns and violence on all sides". Well, lo and behold, the Israelis' have threats on their borders, danger to their towns, threats on all sides AND all the moral and practical costs of the occupation too.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Race to Control the Senate”
The Senate is a bleak landscape. If we win it this year it'll be a miracle. But if Trump and when Cocaine Mitch retires loses it'll be interesting to see what new form the GOP senate takes.
On “Why a Trump Loss is Best for Conservatives”
To which Question? Certainly the GOP is slightly more totally and unconditionally supportive in this polling than the Dems are which brings us back to the question of what friend is the better friend- the intervening "dude you're going to kill yourself" friend or the "go ahead and do all the coke you want" friend? The GOP, of course, sympathizes with Netanyahu more that the Dems do, of course, since Netanyahu has been trying to turn Israel into a partisan question in the US; an act of colossal political stupidity.
"
In answering the question of "Does a given party pick Israel or Palestine to favor" the poll question "Which side do you favor, Israel and Palestine?" strikes me as a LOT more germaine than "Who do you sympathize with more in the current situation?"
"
Well I will grant that the two sides have very different opinions on Netanyahu and if you'd worded it that way we wouldn't have a problem. But you, instead, said Israel vs the Palestinians and, as I pointed out, your poll actually specifically asks about opinions on Israel vs Palestinians and those numbers don't support what you're saying. So even on your own poll terms the assertion is incorrect.
"
So, firstly, by pointing at this polling you're saying "It doesn't matter what actual liberals or Democratic Party members do or say under their own names- these anonymous poll respondents are more representative. That strikes me as ludicrous.
But even if we stick to the fig leaf of this poll, you're skipping past the polling question that directly checks attitudes towards the Israeli's and Palestinians (Changes in Favorable Ratings of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, by Party ID) which shows the Dems overwhelmingly supporting Israel over the Palestinians (but having a reduced opinion of both vis a vis 2023) and, thus, contradicts your assertion. Instead, you're skipping down to the poll question (Sympathies in the Middle East Situation by Party ID and Age) which is both far more ambiguously worded and also is specifically about present matters and basically acts as a question of whether Dems approve of Bibi fishin' Netanyahu who, I would like to remind you, has been pissing on Dems and nakedly supporting Trump* for years now. That's really weak tea.
*Which, I'd also point out, is ludicrously and insanely against Israel's own long term interests and beneficial only to one Bibi Netanyahu's welfare.
"
That is an interesting point I hadn't even considered. That's
"
Which leaves us back with my original complaint- that characterizing the Dems, or even liberals generally as "Picking Palestine over Israel" in the culture war is unmoored from reality.
"
I don't have any particular quibble with your analysis at all. I just object to Jays original assertion that put Dems and liberals in the "Picking Palestine as an ally in culture war matters" bucket which, I still insist, is nakedly and ludicrously inaccurate. I
"
OKay fine, point at the occupations on the quad. I will note two things: first that they were -opposed- to "Genocide Joe" the Democratic President. And then, secondly, I will ask if you recall the folks chanting "The Jews will not replace us" as they demonstrated in Charlottesville and I'll remind you they were demonstrating in favor of the Republican President at the time.
"
Most actual Muslims with skin in the game have no control over the terrorists or "governments" that purport to act in their name do nor over the Israeli's that actually control their day to day do. So, there's no cost at all to them shooting off their mouths on the internet or to pollsters .
"
But that still just doesn't work Jay. You can point to an occasional Dem politician who's hostile to Israel and I can point to an occasional Republican politician who's the same. You can point to an internet group of lefties who're hostile to Israel and I can point out the same on the right. And, yes, so far Democratic executive officials have been substantively supportive of Israel as have Republican ones. The only real difference between them is the Dems go "Hey that west bank coke you're snorting is going to kill you eventually, as your friend I advise you to lay off it and wean yourself off it." while the GOP ones go "Enjoy that coke, friend, I have an old book that says Jesus is going to pop out of your chest like Aliens when you finally OD so breathe deep!"
So, I still see no justification for you to characterize the Democratic Party as being somehow on the "hostile to Israel" side of the culture war divide. However you define it: Major Actors of the Formal Democratic Party; Minor Actors of the Formal Democratic Party or all the way down to folks who code kind of left on twittspace, it just isn't accurate.
"
Sure, sure, DD except the Soda Ban you're referring to is actually more substantive since it was actually, ya know, enacted by a politician into policy whereas this imaginary Democratic hostility to Israel is, of course, imaginary and has no accompanying policy plank that's being campaigned on by the Dems, let alone any substantive law or regulation in any prospect of being enacted.
Though, on the other hand, your Soda ban example was proposed by a Republican (Bloomberg) and only carried on by a Dem later until the courts (rightfully) knocked it down.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/23/2024”
No doubt, the identarian lefts double standard grates, for sure, and Palestinians get infantilized and treated like hapless victims. Jewish people will just have to console themselves with their successful country, dignity, control of their own destiny and historic accomplishments. Don't pretend for an instant that you actually would trade the Jewish folks position with the Palestinians one just so online twits would say nice infantilizing things about you.
I also am dubious that, as a matter of real politic, the Israeli's are capable of prosecuting a unilateral withdrawal. For fish's sake, they're right against the wall trying to resist Bibi provoking a constitutional crisis. So much the worse for them, alas, because I don't see anything else reversing the paradigm they're confronting.
"
That's just quibbling. Israel had a pretty free hand overall. If anything Bibi held himself back a lot both because he didn't want to do too much intervention there and because he's always preferred Hamas over the PA since Hamas is unambiguously odious and unacceptable- indeed it was propped up by the Israeli right in the first place for just that reason.
"
Facts trump theory and the facts don't support your theorizing here Dark.
For instance, you keep suggesting the only way Israel disengages from the Palestinians is a negotiated settlement under a left-wing Israeli government. That’s quite a-historical since Israel’s largest disengagement and settlement remove project (and also its’ most successful one) happened unilaterally under a right-wing Israeli government (Sharon in 2005).
You can point at the terror that resulted from that but, firstly, Israel prospered mightily in international diplomacy, strategic posture and economic terms for almost twenty years after that withdrawal and that’s without even talking about how greatly its demographic terms were improved by eliminating the possibility of millions of Palestinians being integrated into Israel proper. Secondly, that assumes that an Israel that remained imbedded in Gaza would have suffered less terrorism which is, to put it mildly, an incredible presumptive leap.
You posit that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal would expose Israel to border violence, terrorism attacks and such like but that is literally what Israel is struggling with -now- and with all the downsides of the West Bank occupation larded on top of it.
Finally, there’s a curious inversion from normal right-wing mantras in the way you talk about the Palestinians. You and Lee both say that peace will only come when the Palestinians embrace Israel in their hearts and accept its existence. I say that peace will come when the Palestinians have their state and have to bear the consequence of their actions. If the Palestinians in the West Bank attack Israel and suffer a non-inconsequential portion of the West Bank being flattened in response (and yes, in that scenario the world would -emphatically- shrug in indifference) they would think very carefully about doing it again in a way that they absolutely don’t think about it when they’re answering a pollster on the telephone. Also, if you think that the actual Palestinians in the West Bank would endure misery and privation over the right of return for their distant relatives living in camps about the middle east I have a bridge to sell you. That would be… contrary… to human nature to put it mildly.
"
Gosh, you know what would be guaranteed to have no right of Palestinian return into green line Israel?!?! Unilateral withdrawal!
"
Does the PLO have a Jews out stance -now-?
"
My own worst case guess is we get Tehran in the Levant. An impoverished agressive Israel that's more or less a military state.
"
Yes, Lee, this is changing. That has been my point in all of our genial arguments over the years. The West Banks occupation is slowly seeping poison into everything. In Israel the occupation creates A) a settler population that votes exclusively based on maintaining their subsidized housing positions and opposes anything resembling disengagement or moving towards it and B) a growing revanchist right wing movement that's socially conservative and religiously fanatical.
At the same time, internationally, the occupation is the beating heart that has been growing a left wing rooted movement that is both A) vociferously anti-Israel and B) has the capacity to persuade more and more youngsters because of the radically imbalanced position Israel has vis a vis the West Bank Palestinians.
Israel has gone from Admirable Scrappy Jewish underdog to Formidable admirable Regional Power to Dominant Regional Power that's trying to do good, to Dominant Regional Power that's mostly just looking out for #`1 to, Dominant Regional Power that seems to not care about resolving matter in the eyes of the developed world in basically two generations or so. You can see where the trend line is going. So can I. I don't -like- that this is happening but that doesn't change that it is. And don't get me started about Bibi's earnest efforts to make Israel into a partisan question in the US*. The developed world is Democratic- if the masses views change enough it'll bleed through to the decision makers eventually.
*Sweet God(ess?) what a stupid, selfish, short sighted arrogant fisher!
"
No one of consequence, which is to say no one in the reality based and decision making community, thinks that the Israeli's would be expected to not respond to aggression from a West Bank Palestinian entity. This is completely at odds with history.
Israel withdrew from Gaza under Sharon and they were awarded with both a decade of international support and were allowed to do virtually anything in response to Gazan aggression. Isolate and choke off the place? Sure. Blast the Gazans for any provocation? Absolutely. Turn the place into an open air prison? Yup, they invited it.
If Israel withdrew from the West Bank they would absolutely be allowed, indeed expected, to respond devastatingly to the Palestinians if they tried to attack from within it. And if the Palestinians or their supporters cried about it I can tell you what the response would be: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
"
Yeah totally agree on this. Israel is more advanced that SA was but that economic advancement is based almost 100% on international trade. SA at least had primary industries- Israel isn't going to sustain itself on olive and apricot exports. Additionally the economically most dynamic Israeli's are also incredibly mobile- if international opinion turns on Israel and trade gets crunched those Israelis could decamp for other developed countries extremely quickly and would be well inclined to do so if Israel keeps trudging down the track it's on.
I, unlike InMD, am affirmatively pro-Israeli so I do care and would mourn this development. But who is the better friend? The one who says "whatever you choose I support you unconditionally, you snort as much of that West Bank coke as you want!" or the one who says "Buddy, I'm on your side but that West Bank coke is going to fry your brain and leave you a broken jewish reflection of the revanchist cultures you've fought for the past decades. You have to stop." ?
"
That line of thinking seems both questionable as a matter of fact and also destined to put Israel in a post apartheid South Africa situation likely within our lifetimes.
"
Of course you are, that's where you hang out and interact. But in terms of Israel's' welfare and future prosperity it's pretty much a sideshow.
"
Calls not to respond have always been quick. So what? As for the more material impatience and terseness from the powers that matter Israeli's has been experiencing? It's not ambiguous that the credit from the Gaza withdrawal is spent down and the same applies ten times over for the Oct 7th disaster. Bibi has been dining on Sharons' tab for years now and that credit card is maxed out now.
"
True, but Israeli withdrawal means that all the long term threats to Israel are undercut, the primary justification for anti-israeli people (who matter vs the powerless Muslim masses who don't) is eviscerated; and the Israeli state is secured.
Also, the lesson of Gaza is that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal will be rewarded with significant international diplomatic rewards and a very long leash to secure Israel vis a vis the withdrawn from territory. A withdrawal from the West Bank cold only yield even greater applaus and understanding from the international audience (that matters). It's not like the West Bank Palestinians would be able to attack Israel with impunity and, assuming they were dumb enough to do so, only that cycle of action and consequence has any real hope of breaking them of that notion.
The Israels, pre-October 7th, said "We can't disengage from the West Bank because then we'll have threats on our border, danger to our towns and violence on all sides". Well, lo and behold, the Israelis' have threats on their borders, danger to their towns, threats on all sides AND all the moral and practical costs of the occupation too.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.