WarSclerotic

Alexandra Markus: 4 Types Of Anti-Israel Leftists

8.14.2014 Israel Revolt Truth Revolt

via Alexandra Markus: 4 Types Of Anti-Israel Leftists | Truth Revolt.

n recent weeks, debates have been flaring up on social media about who is to blame for the Arab-Israeli conflict in Gaza. Even celebrities such as Joan Rivers and Selena Gomez have gotten involved, dividing friends and fans. As someone who leans pretty left myself, I have always been baffled at how people who have rational, intelligent viewpoints that I agree with on every other issue somehow lose their minds when it comes to this conflict. The scientist that I am, I have investigated the reason for this discrepancy, and have noticed some patterns. The four categories displayed below seem to follow their own distinct flavour of anti-Zionism. They all have common threads in that they love to cite the heavily-biased UN for “evidence” of Israeli war crimes, to argue that criticizing Israel or even being anti-Zionist doesn’t make them anti-Semitic, and to nitpick at even the smallest of Israel’s faults, while obscuring the far more egregious faults of Hamas, to use as reasons for its nonexistence – something I never see done about any other country. However, the four schools of anti-Zionist thought are distinctive in their approach.

1. The Intellectual

The Intellectual is exemplified by that anti-Israel professor or scholar, who uses sophisticated and convoluted intellectual jargon to somehow create a moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians – or worse, overcompensate and demonize the Israelis.

This may stem from the following: scholars, especially anthropology scholars, often don’t like admitting ignorance, especially about a culture. They also fear admitting a culture is a negative influence on society as to them it “shows” they haven’t yet worked out the nuances – which to them might be embarrassing. So instead of admitting they don’t understand a culture (and to them, all cultures are inherently good, and that if they dislike a culture it is because they don’t understand it), they try to compensate for what they believe is ignorance and ethnocentrism. And no intellectual likes to admit he is ignorant or ethnocentrist, as such an accusation can be discrediting.

The Intellectual has been working his or her entire life to be the superego that triumphs over instinct, while doing everything possible to suppress the primal, intuitive id as the id has no place in intellectual discourse. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is a matter of instinct when looking at the big picture to support the Israelis, because their culture is closest to our own and has the progressive values we want to spread. The instinct is to try to preserve our progressive culture over their reactionary culture. However, they know that this is the very sentiment that sparks colonialism – so professors feel the need to fix that. Terms like “pinkwashing” are professors way of “checking” their colonialist tendencies – those being that other cultures should assume our values because we are better – at the door. Because to argue that we should support Israel instead of Palestine because Israel is pro-equality is, to them, a colonialist argument that might get them accused of of bigotry or ethnocentrism by other intellectuals who want to make it a point to prove how accommodating they are.

So as a cover for their “ignorance” assumed of course, as they feel there must be more to a culture that they don’t know because if it was as horrible as it looks from the west surely it wouldn’t have as many zealous adherents, and instinct taking precedence over “reason,” these individuals try to compensate with “reason.” They fail to consider Stockholm Syndrome as a probable reason for the retention of zeal by adherents, even after they move to the west, because it’s not a politically correct assertion. They try to compensate with “sensitivity”. And as a cover for their perceived ignorance, they use simplistic narratives and exploit them – for example, the Marxist narrative that the underdog is always right. Or, more frequently, the postcolonialist narrative, which paints any belief that the west is better than the east and therefore when there is a conflict the west should be preferred because they have better influence, is colonialist and therefore wrong and unethical. (Even though there is a difference between colonialism, which entered countries to try to exploit their resources and push their values and culture on other cultures and not just let them be, and a land dispute, where both cultures think the land is theirs and have equal claim to it).

When refuted, the intellectual feels the need to stand by his “accommodation” and avoid falling into ethnocentrist territory, so he distorts and convolutes his ideas. For example: “Israel stole the land from the indigenous population, therefore it is colonialist,” or “Israel exists because of British colonialism, so supporting Israel is supporting colonialism.” What they fail to realize is that pan-Arabist expansion, which would have occurred had there been no British mandate, is itself a type of colonialism. But since it does not the typical model of west upon east colonialism, they deem it politically incorrect.

The intellectual could also overlap with the other categories, and use frameworks and convoluted logic and jargon to support rather than compensate for or counteract their prejudices, emotion, and bias.

Common Giveaways:
-Use of jargon such as “pinkwashing” and “oppression” and “person/people of colour”
-Accusing Israel of colonialism.
-Use of academic frameworks (usually Marxist or post-colonialist) to compare Israel to other historical regimes such as the apartheid and the Nazis.

TLDR: The Intellectual hides behind frameworks, paradigms, and narratives in order to hide their perceived ignorance.

2. The Naive Bleeding Heart

This person, usually a woman, sees the images of kids dying on TV and can’t deal. You can reason with them all you want but they will always respond that you can’t justify children dying.

These people really are nice. They really care about those who are suffering. But they also cannot fathom Hamas being evil and deliberately putting their own in harm’s way because they would never do such a thing and can’t even imagine it. They also cannot fathom anti-semitism as a driving force as to them again 1) it’s unfathomable to dislike someone due to their ethnicity and religion alone, and 2) they cannot imagine these sad, peaceful-looking dying Palestinians as standing for the expansionist, Islamist cause of the Muslim brotherhood faction they voted in. So because they cannot fathom Hamas’ motives and tactics, they accuse Israel of spreading conspiracy theories or propaganda from the powerful in order to “justify” keeping the powerless powerless. There isn’t any malicious or anti-Semitic intent here – just a passionate and empathetic support of the suffering underdog, and an accompanying distrust of the “oppressors” whom they feel are putting them in this situation, since they believe human shields are a conspiracy and blame Israel for killing Gazans as “it’s the Israelis pulling the trigger.”

What they don’t realize is that they are falling for the Hamas media machine. The simple human emotion of empathy is exploited in order to make it look like Israel is just killing children because they want to. What The Bleeding Heart doesn’t realize is that less than 1/5 of the casualties were children according to Gazan records! 50% of Gazans are children, so Israel cannot be “indiscriminately killing children” as Hamas and the sensationalist media like to pretend. And since there were even less women casualties, we can argue that Israel indeed targeted terrorists and succeeded for the most part.This article illustrates that point. Since these stats were provided by Gaza, and that a vast majority of the unknowns were men (11% men vs 3% women), I suspect the proportion of men of fighting age is even higher than I reported when excluding the unknowns.

Of course this is not something a bleeding heart will delve into. They will watch the news and see the powerless, defenceless Palestinians and immediately side with them and see them as victims of “Israeli brutality” and “power hunger”. And therefore they will find it a matter of “conscience” (or, if surrounded by other bleeding hearts, embarrassing), not to side with Israel or believe anything Israel says, as they see it as akin to justifying murder.

The bottom line is that The Bleeding Heart lives in an idealistic utopia where everyone is like them and willing to negotiate and work together for peace, if only they would just stop fighting!

Common Giveaways:
-“There is no way you can justify killing children!”
-“Israel has a right to defend itself, but must not use such excessive force!”
-“You cannot justify violence ever.”
-“I have a hard time believing Israel isn’t actually indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians!”
-Using casualty ratios and “imbalance of power” as their sole anti-Israel argument.

TLDR: The Bleeding Hearts support the underdog no matter what.

The Liberated Muslim

The liberated Muslim pretends to have secular values. They are often educated and often professionals such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, and journalists. If they are women they may or may not wear the hijab, but if they do they wear it stylishly and liberally. Sometimes they marry later than what is expected traditionally, and even continue working after they have children. They are articulate and participate in politics. They take on a lot of western cultural norms and often eschew ghettoization. They may have non-Muslim friends and appear to have “integrated” somewhat into mainstream western society. Or if they are from a Muslim country, love to put on a show of “look how progressive and modern I am!” If they really were as modern as they purport to be, they would think twice about being opposed to the
only modern, secular democracy in the Middle East.

But the bottom line is, they’re still culturally Muslim, more often than not religiously as well. This means they were likely raised immerse in anti-Israel diatribe. They go to the mosque and go to community events, where imams and other leaders often preach against Israel. A large part of their circle is usually Muslim because those are the people they grew up around. Therefore, their largest sphere of influence is Muslim, their Facebook newsfeed is likely filled with anti-Israel posts with the aim of “supporting our Muslim brothers and sisters.” Having perhaps lost points with their more traditional friends and family for perhaps being “too progressive,” they may aim to win them back by showing how loyal they are to the Muslim cause for Palestine. Eventually, the liberated Muslim, so immersed in anti-Israel discourse, begins to believe it earnestly. In fact, it started long before that – it is imbibed into them with their mothers’ milk, a huge part of a Muslim upbringing.

Western liberated Muslims also have the issue of a small-ish Muslim population, causing them to need to abandon their sectarian prejudices in order to be part of the community. And what is the unifying cause of Muslims regardless of sect? Being anti-Israel. It is almost universal.

Perhaps a smaller portion of liberated Muslims may also join leftist causes because in the west, they benefit them. In the west, Muslims are a minority, people of colour, and the left stands up for their rights and for the accommodation and tolerance of their culture. The “liberated” Muslim sometimes feels empowered by the women’s liberation movement, but may keep on the hijab as matter of pride in their heritage. Or perhaps, more controversially, they may wear it to further peg them as people of colour, who may be given special treatment in conscious compensation for their “lack of privilege” or “oppression”. But what they don’t realize is there is one country in the Middle East that shares these liberal values, and does not oppress minorities, which is Israel. If they were true champions of liberal values, such as gender, racial, and sexual orientation equality, investment in research and education, and socialist infrastructure, they would support Israel. Because although Israel isn’t perfect where anti-oppression is concerned, its alternative, Palestine, which would expel and oppress every Jew like the rest of the Middle East at best, is far more oppressive.

The liberated Muslim may take this as an opportunity to show leftists: “See? We do share your values! Support us!” which may further leftist-anti-Israel bias, as immigrant Muslims skew farther left politically because it benefits them.

Often, the liberal Muslim, knowing that religious arguments would not say modern-minded westerners, use the rhetorical devices employed by all of the other three types of anti-Israel leftists.

Not all Muslims are like this, or even all liberal Muslims. Many are very open-minded, support a two-state solution, and are actually willing to listen and compromise.

Common Giveaways:
-Using hyperbolic, inflammatory language and accusations such as “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, “apartheid,” “massacre,” “open-air prison,” and “siege.”
-Calling Israel “the real terrorists” or “Nazis”.
-Emphasis on Israel being land “stolen from Muslims.”
-Belief in the right of return.
-Use of Al-jazeera for most if not all Israel-related Facebook news posts and twitter tweets.
-Citing heavily lopsided proposals by the Arab League, the PA, and Hamas as evidence that they “want peace” or are “willing to negotiate for peace.”
-Hamas apologism, both direct and indirect. For example: “Hamas is there for a reason. Israel created Hamas,” or “I don’t support Hamas, but….[statement that indirectly supports Hamas, justifies their actions, or places the entire blame on Israel]“
-Accusing anyone who argues in support of Israel as being paid to do so by the Israeli government, because the liberated Muslim is so far removed from pro-Israel rhetoric and sentiment being in their echo chamber.
-Blaming Israel or the US for the presence of militant Islamist groups.

TLDR: The liberated Muslim might appear more progressive than their parents, but hold the same culturally-ingrained biases that they refuse to evaluate or question because they may not want to alienate their loved ones.

4. The Leftie Who Is Actually A Right-Winger

People talk about the “new antisemitism” – the anti-semitism disguised and manifested as anti-Israel sentiment. Some say that anti-semitism hasn’t died – it has just taken on a different form. But these people who see Israel as the epitome of the right wing, and everything that is “wrong” with rich, white, free-market capitalism – the bankers who stole their money in the recession, greedy people who only care about money and are willing to trample people on their way to the top. The fact that Jews are some of the most liberal-leaning people in America with 70+% voting democrat is lost on them. Moreover, due to Jews’ disproportionate success (and their “white privilege” and “class privilege”) they refuse to see Jews as the underdog, saying things like “they can go anywhere else, they don’t need Israel as they do just fine everywhere they go.” Does this sound familiar? That’s because it is the exact same rhetoric used by Nazi supporters and other anti-Semites before them. While nowadays, Nazism is associated with the far right, at the time, it was considered far left, as it espoused increased government regulation and control (“big government”) and socialist ideals (hence the name “Nationalist Socialist.”) Some of these “fake lefties” are aware of these similarities, so they try to disguise themselves as the above three types. Often, this type overlaps with the the liberated Muslim.

Common Giveaways:
-Mention of the “AIPAC lobby” or other implications that Jews control the government through their pockets.
-“Jews can go anywhere in the world. They’re doing just fine” or any other denial that Jews are the underdog.
-Accusing you of being paid to be pro-Israel by the Israeli government or Hasbara.
-“Jews never criticize Israel because they are too scared.”
-“Jews love to accuse anyone who is anti-Zionist or has legitimate criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in order to invalidate any opposition” – all four types of anti-Israel leftists use this line, but this wolf in sheep’s clothing has a particular affinity for it, as they are quick to try to hide that they are anti-Semitic knowing full well know that if their anti-Semitism was revealed, it would invalidatetheir claims.

TLDR: Lefties who are actually right-wingers tend to deny that the Jews are underdogs, and dispute the claim that Jews deserve a homeland by implying that they already have too much power, or that they are using this power to bribe officials and activists into supporting Israel.

by Alexandra Markus