Dem Post Mortem

[laughing dog]

And, I believe Mamdani’s gov’t grocery stores are not envisioned as monopolies.

They are not. But if you have stores that do not pay rent, do not pay property tax and do not have to turn a profit, you undercut the already low margin grocery business. Unintended consequence will be grocery stores and corner bodegas going out of business.

Even if that is an outcome (which I doubt), grocery stores and corner stores go out of business anyway, so what’s your point?

 

[Derec]

He cited the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., noting the museum used the word “intifada” when translating the Warsaw Uprising into Arabic, as intifada means “struggle.” This led to the museum issuing a rare statement denouncing the comparison, calling it “offensive to survivors.”

This is feeble apologetics. There is a difference in using an Arabic word in a text that is in Arabic and using it as part of an English language phrase. In Arabic, "intifada" may just mean struggle, and the meaning is dependent on the context. But if you use the term "intifada" in English, it has a much more specific meaning, which is the violent uprisings by Palestinians against Israel. For example, the 2nd Intifada where hundreds of Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
The anti-Israel protesters who are chanting "globalize the Intifada" have that narrower meaning of the word in mind. It's not about a generic struggle.

Compare this to the term "Mein Kampf". "Kampf",also merely means "struggle". But you would not buy the feeble excuse by a Neonazi that his use of "Mein Kampf" was innocuous. And neither should we accept it from the likes of Mamdani.

Mamdani has responded to the criticism by maintaining he would be a major (sic, I assume it's supposed to say "mayor") for all New Yorkers and is committed to protecting his Jewish constituents against rising antisemitism.

Yeah, right!

He sounds like a terrible person who will soon show up to Gracie Mansion wearing a suicide vest.

That's quite a strawman you are erecting.

Your anti Muslim bigotry is shining through brightly and clearly.

No, your islamophilia is. You are quick to excuse his support for Palestinian violence against Israel, i.e. "intifada".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The electorate is made up of people. I'm one of them. I'm standing where I am not because I find it a "workable compromise" but because according to decades of asking what the nature of what is right actually is, this is the answer I have found.

In other words, letting perfect be the enemy of good. You can't have everything so you reject a partial solution.

Working across an ideological divide to come to some sort of compromise is political life. Every Progressive you can throw a dart at makes deals and compromises routinely. But actually embracing conservative ideology as though it were your own and agreeing to call black "white" just because it's popular to do so? Is cowardice. If the Democrats cannot find an answer to the question "what do you stand for?" that doesn't sound like a malfunctioning AI wrote it, they will continue to leak voters for as long as we still have the vote.

That does not address the issue at all.

Not voting says they are equal in your mind. Do you actually think they are equally bad?

 

[ZiprHead]

He cited the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., noting the museum used the word “intifada” when translating the Warsaw Uprising into Arabic, as intifada means “struggle.” This led to the museum issuing a rare statement denouncing the comparison, calling it “offensive to survivors.”

This is feeble apologetics. There is a difference in using an Arabic word in a text that is in Arabic and using it as part of an English language phrase. In Arabic, "intifada" may just mean struggle, and the meaning is dependent on the context. But if you use the term "intifada" in English, it has a much more specific meaning, which is the violent uprisings by Palestinians against Israel. For example, the 2nd Intifada where hundreds of Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
The anti-Israel protesters who are chanting "globalize the Intifada" have that narrower meaning of the word in mind. It's not about a generic struggle.

Compare this to the term "Mein Kampf". "Kampf",also merely means "struggle". But you would not buy the feeble excuse by a Neonazi that his use of "Mein Kampf" was innocuous. And neither should we accept it from the likes of Mamdani.

Mamdani has responded to the criticism by maintaining he would be a major (sic, I assume it's supposed to say "mayor") for all New Yorkers and is committed to protecting his Jewish constituents against rising antisemitism.

Yeah, right!

He sounds like a terrible person who will soon show up to Gracie Mansion wearing a suicide vest.

That's quite a strawman you are erecting.

Your anti Muslim bigotry is shining through brightly and clearly.

No, your islamophilia is. You are quick to excuse his support for Palestinian violence against Israel, i.e. "intifada".

Not worth the electrons to respond to. We all recognize your bigotry.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that they have never really looked.

But that does not change the problem he's pointing out: you represent an attitude that cost the country dearly.

You see the fascist tide rising, and the only villains you see are those who were brave enough to call it what it is.

I see the fascist tide rising and I see a bunch of you sitting back and ignoring it because the alternative wasn't good enough for you.

And we saw the fascist tide rising and said "the solution to this is to do this specific stuff". We said it for decades, and watched people just ignore the advice "because trust us"

Instead of taking the advice and leaning towards social policies and emphasizing the value of social policies, we watched the Democrats do nothing as the GOP maneuvered a coup.

We decided to quit propping up an alternative that was never going to work, not for anyone and most certainly not for the folks championing it.

Or, other people did. I still voted for the ineffective alternative.

You cost the country dearly. You and anyone else who leaned right, from the left. The only question was whether they would get more time to dig the hole deeper.

2024 had so many voting irregularities that it's clear that one didn't even matter; 2016 was the last election that mattered, and YOU lot fucked it up by not playing ball with Bernie and taking whatever licks the scoreboard indicated.

You're just repeating yourself. I'm pointing out that you're in a hole (wanting policies left of the electorate) and your response is dig deeper (move farther from the electorate.)

You have yet to prove that conjecture.

You have shown a fair amount of support for government give-mes, but the Democrats have done a lot of anti-"discrimination" stuff that quite a few people consider going past neutrality.

 

[Politesse]

Not voting says they are equal in your mind. Do you actually think they are equally bad?

For the thousandth time, I do vote, and always have. But the electorate is complex and fickle, and a lot of people sat out this poorly handled election, from both sides of our supposed ideological divide.

 

[Jarhyn]

The electorate is made up of people. I'm one of them. I'm standing where I am not because I find it a "workable compromise" but because according to decades of asking what the nature of what is right actually is, this is the answer I have found.

In other words, letting perfect be the enemy of good. You can't have everything so you reject a partial solution.

Ironic coming from the master of the excluded middle fallacy.

And it's not even that I reject a partial solution; I reject the lack of a definitive solution.

I don't think it's right to choose to do something substantially wrong when we all know and should damn well admit it's substantively wrong to do it.

Like, there are times when the middle thing is right, when a false dichotomy is offered, but this isn't one of them.

I have been clear, repeatedly, about why Trump can get votes.

I watched a gay man vote for that shitheel, probably three fucking times, because he thought it would be entertaining.

I watched an election happen where the young folks who weren't voting didn't want to vote because it was all the same, where the messaging that reached my demographic and resonated with people around me was about how Hillary shafted progressive elements rising within the party, and where it has been a constant struggle of corrupt boomers trying to suppress voices of people who have *direction*.

This thread is about why Democrats fail.

I am telling you this is why I feel failed by the Democrats.

I feel like if the Democrats even manage to muster even a small amount of goal-setting they can win, but they can't be so absolutely tepid and they need to acknowledge that people still with most of their lives to live need to be the ones deciding how those lives will be lived.

The fact is, there's a difference between Bernie and a boomer, though I expect that he's really aging out at this point, too; Bernie is important because he represents consistent goals, vision, and direction.

Maybe that's why the cons can support Mr Poopy Pants even though he's an incoherent mess: he represents a specific goal and direction. He is a banner to follow right into hell itself.

I will accept no gods, masters, nor kings. I do want the people who stand to represent me to be goal-oriented, because I am myself goal-oriented.

Obama won his election because he carried a banner.

At any rate, the union is done. The SCOTUS is out of control on giving powers over to the executive, and I don't see how progressive areas are going to tolerate this.

I'm expecting military action perpetrated by Trump against the city where I live by the end of the year, and making plans for how to dodge folks trying to load me on a goddamn train, and it happened because congressional Democrats during the Biden administration weren't imprisoning and trying MTG and pals and the complicit senators and possibly changing the congressional rules to censure or remove their power.

Instead of taking back power, and going even halfway towards some public trials where Republicans are deplatformed over their complicity, we got... Well, we got what we got.

The Republicans had a goal. Because they had a goal, they made a plan that would take them there and they accomplished it.

 

[Derec]

The fact is, there's a difference between Bernie and a boomer,

Bernie is too old to even be a Boomer. He is member of the Silent Generation. Quite ironic, given how much he likes to yell.

though I expect that he's really aging out at this point, too; Bernie is important because he represents consistent goals, vision, and direction.

Of course he has aged out. He is about to turn 84, for fuck's sake!
I disagree that he has been entirely consistent. He used to be an old school leftist, concerned with class and not so much with identity politics. After 2016 he adopted more of an identity politics vibe though. He even took on the Islamofascist Linda "Cockroach" Sarsour as a surrogate.

I'm expecting military action perpetrated by Trump against the city where I live by the end of the year, and making plans for how to dodge folks trying to load me on a goddamn train, and it happened because congressional Democrats during the Biden administration weren't imprisoning and trying MTG and pals and the complicit senators and possibly changing the congressional rules to censure or remove their power.

The first part is fearmongering hyperbole. The second part is you basically saying that Biden administration should have jailed and prosecuted political opponents in Congress.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Republicans had a goal. Because they had a goal, they made a plan that would take them there and they accomplished it.

The thing is people didn't vote for their plan. People voted for a mirage.

As usual, lies beat honesty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because, as I said, these are not generally things the rider wants. People don't ride city buses for a hobby. They are riding the bus in order to do something else - go to work, go to the shops, go to a show; The bus is part of the infrastructure that enables these economic activities, it is not an economic end in itself, and should have its costs paid by society at large, in rough proportion to the benefits each member society reaps from the existence of infrastructure.

Nitpick: usually, not always.

I've been known to take the bus to the area south of here where the buses run close to the wilderness. Then hike through the wilderness to the area north of here where the buses run not horrendously far from the wilderness. No company is getting my business from that other than the guys who sell outdoor gear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In Melbourne there are lots (and more coming ) of tolls roads. And lots of potholes, all of which are free to damage your vehicles. The beneficiaries of that are the repair shops.
In Australia we already have a user pays for roads called the commonwealth government excise of 50.8c/l + GST last time I looked. This money allegedly goes back to road maintenance etc. I remain to be convinced.

Yeah. In theory charging a fee to the users is good. In practice unless it's required by statute to be correct it never is at all realistic. And even if it's "realistic" doesn't mean it's honest. You run some sort of outcall business around here, you'll need licenses in each "city". Does that provide any benefit to anyone except the bureaucrats over a system where you would have one license for the whole area? Many professional licenses here have to have separate business entities even though the business also has a license. Nothing but padding bureaucrat pockets. And those businesses must have sales tax licenses--even if they are purely service businesses that never sell things to the customer. In theory, no cost, as you're just sending in the sales tax you are collecting. But there's $100/yr minimum even if you collect $0 in sales tax.

And quite some time ago I ran into a bit about this and outcall strippers--they need background checks also. From each "city". Added up to over $1000/yr back then.

 

[bilby]

Because, as I said, these are not generally things the rider wants. People don't ride city buses for a hobby. They are riding the bus in order to do something else - go to work, go to the shops, go to a show; The bus is part of the infrastructure that enables these economic activities, it is not an economic end in itself, and should have its costs paid by society at large, in rough proportion to the benefits each member society reaps from the existence of infrastructure.

Nitpick: usually, not always.

I've been known to take the bus to the area south of here where the buses run close to the wilderness. Then hike through the wilderness to the area north of here where the buses run not horrendously far from the wilderness. No company is getting my business from that other than the guys who sell outdoor gear.

I won't try to refute this, I shall just mention that you already refuted it yourself, and that I have highlighted that for your reconsideration.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because, as I said, these are not generally things the rider wants. People don't ride city buses for a hobby. They are riding the bus in order to do something else - go to work, go to the shops, go to a show; The bus is part of the infrastructure that enables these economic activities, it is not an economic end in itself, and should have its costs paid by society at large, in rough proportion to the benefits each member society reaps from the existence of infrastructure.

Nitpick: usually, not always.

I've been known to take the bus to the area south of here where the buses run close to the wilderness. Then hike through the wilderness to the area north of here where the buses run not horrendously far from the wilderness. No company is getting my business from that other than the guys who sell outdoor gear.

I won't try to refute this, I shall just mention that you already refuted it yourself, and that I have highlighted that for your reconsideration.

The outdoor guys get their money however I get there. It's just a quirk of geography that that particular path is viable.

 

[bilby]

It's just a quirk of geography that that particular path is viable.

No, it's a consequence of the existence of enabling infrastructure.

Infrastructure is the lubricant of the economic engine. It defines the difference between the developed and the developing world.

And to residents of the developed world, it's about as noticable as water is to fish.

 

[pood]

Also, there is no such thing as an “islamoleftist.” This is a made-up word by right-wing hate media to stir up simple-minded people against both leftists and Muslims. Not surprisingly, you took the bait.

I actually think the word does have a reasonable meaning: the crowd on the left that always sides with Muslims and against Jews.

Speaking for myself — and I am sure this is true for a great many and probably most on the so-called left — the opposition to Israel with respect to Gaza has nothing to do with Muslims and Jews per se. It has to do with opposing the Israeli government’s forced displacement, ethnic cleansing and genocide against Gazan citizens. Ours is not support for Hamas, whose actions I and others have repeatedly condemned. And if it were a Muslim-led government doing the same thing to a Jewish population, I and a great many others would oppose the actions of the Muslim government and support the Jewish population. In the same way I and others oppose the Russian slaughter in Ukraine, which has nothing at all to do with Jews or Muslims. All of this has to do with opposing violence and oppression in any form.

Israel and its supporters just love to play the anti-semite card against those on the left who oppose Israeli actions in Gaza, and it is a despicable well-poisoning tactic. The actual anti-semites, for that matter, are the evangelical Christians who support Israel’s actions in Gaza, because they think the war is preparatory to the Second Coming, at which time all the Jews will be required to convert to Christianity or go to hell. It does not get any more anti-semitic than that.

That there may be some on the so-called left who are anti-semitic may be true, but I suggest it is a small minority. That some on the left voiced Hamas-espoused sentiments has mostly to do, I suspect, with frustration and anger at Israel and not authentic hatred of Jews.

 

[bilby]

Spare me the way you misinterpret things.

Spare me the hyperbole, and I might.

I didn't misinterpret anything; I took you literally. Your complaint seems to be that I refused to misinterpret what you said, which frankly is the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the universe.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Also, there is no such thing as an “islamoleftist.” This is a made-up word by right-wing hate media to stir up simple-minded people against both leftists and Muslims. Not surprisingly, you took the bait.

I actually think the word does have a reasonable meaning: the crowd on the left that always sides with Muslims and against Jews.

Speaking for myself — and I am sure this is true for a great many and probably most on the so-called left — the opposition to Israel with respect to Gaza has nothing to do with Muslims and Jews per se. It has to do with opposing the Israeli government’s forced displacement, ethnic cleansing and genocide against Gazan citizens. Ours is not support for Hamas, whose actions I and others have repeatedly condemned. And if it were a Muslim-led government doing the same thing to a Jewish population, I and a great many others would oppose the actions of the Muslim government and support the Jewish population. In the same way I and others oppose the Russian slaughter in Ukraine, which has nothing at all to do with Jews or Muslims. All of this has to do with opposing violence and oppression in any form.

Israel and its supporters just love to play the anti-semite card against those on the left who oppose Israeli actions in Gaza, and it is a despicable well-poisoning tactic. The actual anti-semites, for that matter, are the evangelical Christians who support Israel’s actions in Gaza, because they think the war is preparatory to the Second Coming, at which time all the Jews will be required to convert to Christianity or go to hell. It does not get any more anti-semitic than that.

That there may be some on the so-called left who are anti-semitic may be true, but I suggest it is a small minority. That some on the left voiced Hamas-espoused sentiments has mostly to do, I suspect, with frustration and anger at Israel and not authentic hatred of Jews.

Fair enough. I don't disagree with all your post. However, would you at least be open that there is a little double standard when it comes to Israel. I guaranty you that if Mexico had attacked and killed civilians in Texas and held hundreds, we'd be smashing the shit out of them. Fox example, the UN estimated that the US attack on Iran killed 68 civilians. Where is the outrage on this attack? Would you agree at least with me that Israel has a greater. Second example is Russia. While outrage against Russia is growing; it's not nearly at the same level as the outrage against Israel. Again, Hamas directly attacked Israel. Ukraine did not directly attack Russia. Iran did not directly attack the US. I agree that Neta has gone too far. I do favor the two state solution. I hate the settlers. But I do think that there is a double standard against Israel.

 

[pood]

Also, there is no such thing as an “islamoleftist.” This is a made-up word by right-wing hate media to stir up simple-minded people against both leftists and Muslims. Not surprisingly, you took the bait.

I actually think the word does have a reasonable meaning: the crowd on the left that always sides with Muslims and against Jews.

Speaking for myself — and I am sure this is true for a great many and probably most on the so-called left — the opposition to Israel with respect to Gaza has nothing to do with Muslims and Jews per se. It has to do with opposing the Israeli government’s forced displacement, ethnic cleansing and genocide against Gazan citizens. Ours is not support for Hamas, whose actions I and others have repeatedly condemned. And if it were a Muslim-led government doing the same thing to a Jewish population, I and a great many others would oppose the actions of the Muslim government and support the Jewish population. In the same way I and others oppose the Russian slaughter in Ukraine, which has nothing at all to do with Jews or Muslims. All of this has to do with opposing violence and oppression in any form.

Israel and its supporters just love to play the anti-semite card against those on the left who oppose Israeli actions in Gaza, and it is a despicable well-poisoning tactic. The actual anti-semites, for that matter, are the evangelical Christians who support Israel’s actions in Gaza, because they think the war is preparatory to the Second Coming, at which time all the Jews will be required to convert to Christianity or go to hell. It does not get any more anti-semitic than that.

That there may be some on the so-called left who are anti-semitic may be true, but I suggest it is a small minority. That some on the left voiced Hamas-espoused sentiments has mostly to do, I suspect, with frustration and anger at Israel and not authentic hatred of Jews.

Fair enough. I don't disagree with all your post. However, would you at least be open that there is a little double standard when it comes to Israel. I guaranty you that if Mexico had attacked and killed civilians in Texas and held hundreds, we'd be smashing the shit out of them. Fox example, the UN estimated that the US attack on Iran killed 68 civilians. Where is the outrage on this attack? Would you agree at least with me that Israel has a greater. Second example is Russia. While outrage against Russia is growing; it's not nearly at the same level as the outrage against Israel. Again, Hamas directly attacked Israel. Ukraine did not directly attack Russia. Iran did not directly attack the US. I agree that Neta has gone too far. I do favor the two state solution. I hate the settlers. But I do think that there is a double standard against Israel.

I can only speak for myself, but I think I speak for many others.

First, the Mexico analogy is misguided. Gaza is equivalent to Mexico in the analogy, and Gaza did not attack Israel. Hamas did. So the proper analogy would be if Mexican terrorists slipped across the border, attacked Americans and took hostages. In that case, for the U.S. launch a massive ground invasion of Mexico, displace and starve and ethnically cleanse its people, would be wholly unacceptable, the very epitome of the sanitized rhetoric of “disproportionate response.”

To unpack the Mexico analogy further, the U.S. stole what today is the entire American southwest, including what is today California, from Mexico in a war launched by President James K. Polk in 1846 that was properly opposed by many, including then-Rep. Abraham Lincoln from Illinois. As Gore Vidal said back in the ‘80s, Mexicans who enter the U.S. either legally or illegally are merely sensibly reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. This holds true today.

Let’s also recall that no matter what gloss anyone puts on it, or however noble the motive may have been, Israel basically stole the land that they occupy in the Middle East today. I do not, however, think Israel could or should go away.

I wholly condemned both the Israeli and U.S. attack on Iran.

I have wholly condemned the Russian attack on Ukraine.

So I see no double standard being employed by me or anyone who takes these positions.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Also, there is no such thing as an “islamoleftist.” This is a made-up word by right-wing hate media to stir up simple-minded people against both leftists and Muslims. Not surprisingly, you took the bait.

I actually think the word does have a reasonable meaning: the crowd on the left that always sides with Muslims and against Jews.

Speaking for myself — and I am sure this is true for a great many and probably most on the so-called left — the opposition to Israel with respect to Gaza has nothing to do with Muslims and Jews per se. It has to do with opposing the Israeli government’s forced displacement, ethnic cleansing and genocide against Gazan citizens. Ours is not support for Hamas, whose actions I and others have repeatedly condemned. And if it were a Muslim-led government doing the same thing to a Jewish population, I and a great many others would oppose the actions of the Muslim government and support the Jewish population. In the same way I and others oppose the Russian slaughter in Ukraine, which has nothing at all to do with Jews or Muslims. All of this has to do with opposing violence and oppression in any form.

Israel and its supporters just love to play the anti-semite card against those on the left who oppose Israeli actions in Gaza, and it is a despicable well-poisoning tactic. The actual anti-semites, for that matter, are the evangelical Christians who support Israel’s actions in Gaza, because they think the war is preparatory to the Second Coming, at which time all the Jews will be required to convert to Christianity or go to hell. It does not get any more anti-semitic than that.

That there may be some on the so-called left who are anti-semitic may be true, but I suggest it is a small minority. That some on the left voiced Hamas-espoused sentiments has mostly to do, I suspect, with frustration and anger at Israel and not authentic hatred of Jews.

Fair enough. I don't disagree with all your post. However, would you at least be open that there is a little double standard when it comes to Israel. I guaranty you that if Mexico had attacked and killed civilians in Texas and held hundreds, we'd be smashing the shit out of them. Fox example, the UN estimated that the US attack on Iran killed 68 civilians. Where is the outrage on this attack? Would you agree at least with me that Israel has a greater. Second example is Russia. While outrage against Russia is growing; it's not nearly at the same level as the outrage against Israel. Again, Hamas directly attacked Israel. Ukraine did not directly attack Russia. Iran did not directly attack the US. I agree that Neta has gone too far. I do favor the two state solution. I hate the settlers. But I do think that there is a double standard against Israel.

I can only speak for myself, but I think I speak for many others.

First, the Mexico analogy is misguided. Gaza is equivalent to Mexico in the analogy, and Gaza did not attack Israel. Hamas did. So the proper analogy would be if Mexican terrorists slipped across the border, attacked Americans and took hostages. In that case, for the U.S. launch a massive ground invasion of Mexico, displace and starve and ethnically cleanse its people, would be wholly unacceptable, the very epitome of the sanitized rhetoric of “disproportionate response.”

To unpack the Mexico analogy further, the U.S. stole what today is the entire American southwest, including what is today California, from Mexico in a war launched by President James K. Polk in 1846 that was properly opposed by many, including then-Rep. Abraham Lincoln from Illinois. As Gore Vidal said back in the ‘80s, Mexicans who enter the U.S. either legally or illegally are merely sensibly reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. This holds true today.

Let’s also recall that no matter what gloss anyone puts on it, or however noble the motive may have been, Israel basically stole the land that they occupy in the Middle East today. I do not, however, think Israel could or should go away.

I wholly condemned both the Israeli and U.S. attack on Iran.

I have wholly condemned the Russian attack on Ukraine.

So I see no double standard being employed by me or anyone who takes these positions.

You missed my point. I don't think that you have a double standard here. Yes, you condemn Russian attacks on Ukraine and US attacks on whomever. The double standard is in the rest of the world. We don't nearly see as much protests against Russia as we do against Israel. Why isn't Greta protesting Russia?

Secondly, I don't agree with your Hamas to Mexican terrorist analogy. Hamas is the legal ruling party of Gaza. While I do believe that soldiers have a duty to minimize civilian deaths and misery. However, there is no doubt that the US would be as harsh against anyone who attacks us as Israel has been. There are Americans right now (maga dudes) who wanted to invade Mexico due to the migrants crossing the border.

 

[pood]

Also, there is no such thing as an “islamoleftist.” This is a made-up word by right-wing hate media to stir up simple-minded people against both leftists and Muslims. Not surprisingly, you took the bait.

I actually think the word does have a reasonable meaning: the crowd on the left that always sides with Muslims and against Jews.

Speaking for myself — and I am sure this is true for a great many and probably most on the so-called left — the opposition to Israel with respect to Gaza has nothing to do with Muslims and Jews per se. It has to do with opposing the Israeli government’s forced displacement, ethnic cleansing and genocide against Gazan citizens. Ours is not support for Hamas, whose actions I and others have repeatedly condemned. And if it were a Muslim-led government doing the same thing to a Jewish population, I and a great many others would oppose the actions of the Muslim government and support the Jewish population. In the same way I and others oppose the Russian slaughter in Ukraine, which has nothing at all to do with Jews or Muslims. All of this has to do with opposing violence and oppression in any form.

Israel and its supporters just love to play the anti-semite card against those on the left who oppose Israeli actions in Gaza, and it is a despicable well-poisoning tactic. The actual anti-semites, for that matter, are the evangelical Christians who support Israel’s actions in Gaza, because they think the war is preparatory to the Second Coming, at which time all the Jews will be required to convert to Christianity or go to hell. It does not get any more anti-semitic than that.

That there may be some on the so-called left who are anti-semitic may be true, but I suggest it is a small minority. That some on the left voiced Hamas-espoused sentiments has mostly to do, I suspect, with frustration and anger at Israel and not authentic hatred of Jews.

Fair enough. I don't disagree with all your post. However, would you at least be open that there is a little double standard when it comes to Israel. I guaranty you that if Mexico had attacked and killed civilians in Texas and held hundreds, we'd be smashing the shit out of them. Fox example, the UN estimated that the US attack on Iran killed 68 civilians. Where is the outrage on this attack? Would you agree at least with me that Israel has a greater. Second example is Russia. While outrage against Russia is growing; it's not nearly at the same level as the outrage against Israel. Again, Hamas directly attacked Israel. Ukraine did not directly attack Russia. Iran did not directly attack the US. I agree that Neta has gone too far. I do favor the two state solution. I hate the settlers. But I do think that there is a double standard against Israel.

I can only speak for myself, but I think I speak for many others.

First, the Mexico analogy is misguided. Gaza is equivalent to Mexico in the analogy, and Gaza did not attack Israel. Hamas did. So the proper analogy would be if Mexican terrorists slipped across the border, attacked Americans and took hostages. In that case, for the U.S. launch a massive ground invasion of Mexico, displace and starve and ethnically cleanse its people, would be wholly unacceptable, the very epitome of the sanitized rhetoric of “disproportionate response.”

To unpack the Mexico analogy further, the U.S. stole what today is the entire American southwest, including what is today California, from Mexico in a war launched by President James K. Polk in 1846 that was properly opposed by many, including then-Rep. Abraham Lincoln from Illinois. As Gore Vidal said back in the ‘80s, Mexicans who enter the U.S. either legally or illegally are merely sensibly reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. This holds true today.

Let’s also recall that no matter what gloss anyone puts on it, or however noble the motive may have been, Israel basically stole the land that they occupy in the Middle East today. I do not, however, think Israel could or should go away.

I wholly condemned both the Israeli and U.S. attack on Iran.

I have wholly condemned the Russian attack on Ukraine.

So I see no double standard being employed by me or anyone who takes these positions.

You missed my point. I don't think that you have a double standard here. Yes, you condemn Russian attacks on Ukraine and US attacks on whomever. The double standard is in the rest of the world. We don't nearly see as much protests against Russia as we do against Israel. Why isn't Greta protesting Russia?

I think there has been plenty of global condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, particularly in Europe and in the U.S. government before Trump.

Secondly, I don't agree with your Hamas to Mexican terrorist analogy. Hamas is the legal ruling party of Gaza. While I do believe that soldiers have a duty to minimize civilian deaths and misery. However, there is no doubt that the US would be as harsh against anyone who attacks us as Israel has been. There are Americans right now (maga dudes) who wanted to invade Mexico due to the migrants crossing the border.

Gaza does not have an army and Hamas is answerable to no one in Gaza. They are terrorists.