i think it’s pretty fair to mock him for breaking from the line. why do succs always try to redefine terms and make up new slogans like “humanitarian pauses” and “Israel has a right to exist as a non-apartheid state”? We already have debated this for decades, the international left has already come to a consensus that Israel has no right to exist. Why does he feel he’s above the international line? That he’s more “mature” and “pragmatic” than the “loony left” that he supposedly emerged from and that makes up his base? What gives him the right to play with slogans and water down principled positions for his own benefit?
Why does he get to ride high on “globalize the intifiada” and “defund the police” and “abolish ICE” and then once he’s taken advantage of the leftists who believe in that and stepped on their shoulders, he gets to change it and back away from all of it? It’s so obviously cowardice and opportunism.
States have no right to exist at all, so I don’t see what your point is. If Israel is not an apartheid state, that’s the end of the entire project because it being an ethnostate is the most core thing that it’s founded on. If you call that piece of land Israel or Palestine, it’s immaterial if the state has equal rights, right of return for the displaced, etc.
If you call that piece of land Israel or Palestine, it’s immaterial if the state has equal rights, right of return for the displaced, etc.
It is very chauvinistic to speak of “that piece of land” in this way. The only people who can decide what “that piece of land” is called are the indigenous people of Palestine. The perspective of the “you” used in that sentence is irrelevant in all other cases.
And they have happened to call their beautiful country Palestine, it is not up for debate in any way shape or form. Their will is sovereign as the rightful owners of the land and they have the right to self-determination, like any other indigenous population.
Most of that is chest-puffing that ranges from vacuous to reactionary in a way that radlibs call progressive, but I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere trying to discuss it.
I’m not interested in “Israel” continuing to exist and I think, in even liberal-democratic conditions, it would rapidly cease to exist even in name (we can point to many other former colonies where this happened), but you’ve completely lost the plot if you think that people are dying for what a piece of land is named rather than how the people who are on it (or those who have been wrongfully denied a place on it) are treated, in no small part because people can and already do call it different things anyway, and will continue to, but you can’t merely speak in different words to not be starving. My point in saying this is that what people are fighting for is an end to the blockades, apartheid, genocide, military occupation, and so on, and Zohran has been very clear in opposing those things. I’d rather him take a different line, given the option, but ultimately I think that he correctly identified what’s important and is focusing on that.
Like, we can point to ways in which the end of South Africa’s apartheid was inadequate, but I don’t think it’s a major factor at all that we aren’t now calling it Mzansi or Azania. From what I can tell, many South Africans do themselves call it Mzansi, and it’s consistent as an isiZulu version of an abbreviation of the legal name in the isiXhosa version of the Constitution, “uRhulumente waseMzantsi Afrika,” but not directly the slightly-bulkier corresponding isiZulu term for south, “Ningizimu”. It’s a little confusing to me because there are several languages involved, the Constitution being printed in about 11 of them.
Anyway, if you want to attack Zohran specifically for being a lib on Palestine, you might have a better time by investigating what he said about a one or two state solution, though I don’t remember if he addressed that issue directly.
Most of that is chest-puffing that ranges from vacuous to reactionary in a way that radlibs call progressive, but I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere trying to discuss it.
*You wont get anywhere trying to discuss it because you have made a blatant mistake and want to avoid it.
How is pointing out an example of blatant chauvinism that is borderline zionism, i.e. dismissing the fact that the “piece of land” you refer to is actually a truly beautiful sovereign nation whose indigenous inhabitants have decided to call Palestine? Like its not up for anyone else to debate, “that piece of land” is called Palestine. Its kind of disturbing how you think it is “vacuous” or “reactionary” to respect the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Thinking the name of “that piece of land” is up for debate already concedes to a zionist framing of the invasion and genocide. The land is already a country called Palestine and it is being invaded by zionists who want to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population via murder and expulsion. This is a fact and it is unacceptable to say otherwise.
but you’ve completely lost the plot if you think that people are dying for what a piece of land is named rather than how the people who are on it (or those who have been wrongfully denied a place on it) are treated
Strawman argument. Palestinians are dying because the zionist entity is killing them in a genocide. They are fighting to expel a settler colonial entity and its invaders from their land so they can live in peace. The “piece of land” is already a sovereign country called “Palestine”, why would they be fighting for what it is named when it is already called “Palestine”?
because people can and already do call it different things anyway
Zionists aren’t people. 2) There are some people who think black people aren’t human, similarly, there are some zionists who think that the country of Palestine doesn’t exist. They can think whatever they want but at the end of the day they are deluded and their opinions are rubbish.
Zohran has been very clear in opposing those things
Accepting “israel has a right to exist” renders the rest moot because you’ve already conceded that an invading cancer that has stolen the land of a sovereign nation through a genocide of its indigenous population should continue to exist on said stolen land. That is already a military occupation, an act of genocide, and apartheid. A big concession to a zionist framing of the genocide which does not recognize Palestinian self-determination, a hallmark of liberal zionism. Furthermore the zionist concept of “israel” itself is fundamentally and inextricably a settler-colonial jewish-supremacist ethnostate. You can’t say “<ethnostate> has a right to exist but I’m fully against the idea of ethnostates!”.
This is already enough to point out how he is a filthy liberal zionist.
Literally not one pro-palestine person before Mamdani ever said “Israel has a right to exist as a non-apartheid state!”. This is non-committal word game mumbo jumbo done specifically to be obscure. Stop playing games with us, stop being obscure, stop concealing our views like they’re something to be ashamed of.
He’s not representing a movement, he’s doing focus tested sloganeering that is triangulated to offend nobody and mean nothing. I ask again, why are succs completely unable to hold to a line?
i think it’s pretty fair to mock him for breaking from the line. why do succs always try to redefine terms and make up new slogans like “humanitarian pauses” and “Israel has a right to exist as a non-apartheid state”? We already have debated this for decades, the international left has already come to a consensus that Israel has no right to exist. Why does he feel he’s above the international line? That he’s more “mature” and “pragmatic” than the “loony left” that he supposedly emerged from and that makes up his base? What gives him the right to play with slogans and water down principled positions for his own benefit?
Why does he get to ride high on “globalize the intifiada” and “defund the police” and “abolish ICE” and then once he’s taken advantage of the leftists who believe in that and stepped on their shoulders, he gets to change it and back away from all of it? It’s so obviously cowardice and opportunism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thawabit
These are the red lines. Mamdani plays with them like it’s his to toy with. DNC focus groups running roughshod over millions of activists and martyrs
States have no right to exist at all, so I don’t see what your point is. If Israel is not an apartheid state, that’s the end of the entire project because it being an ethnostate is the most core thing that it’s founded on. If you call that piece of land Israel or Palestine, it’s immaterial if the state has equal rights, right of return for the displaced, etc.
It is very chauvinistic to speak of “that piece of land” in this way. The only people who can decide what “that piece of land” is called are the indigenous people of Palestine. The perspective of the “you” used in that sentence is irrelevant in all other cases.
And they have happened to call their beautiful country Palestine, it is not up for debate in any way shape or form. Their will is sovereign as the rightful owners of the land and they have the right to self-determination, like any other indigenous population.
Most of that is chest-puffing that ranges from vacuous to reactionary in a way that radlibs call progressive, but I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere trying to discuss it.
I’m not interested in “Israel” continuing to exist and I think, in even liberal-democratic conditions, it would rapidly cease to exist even in name (we can point to many other former colonies where this happened), but you’ve completely lost the plot if you think that people are dying for what a piece of land is named rather than how the people who are on it (or those who have been wrongfully denied a place on it) are treated, in no small part because people can and already do call it different things anyway, and will continue to, but you can’t merely speak in different words to not be starving. My point in saying this is that what people are fighting for is an end to the blockades, apartheid, genocide, military occupation, and so on, and Zohran has been very clear in opposing those things. I’d rather him take a different line, given the option, but ultimately I think that he correctly identified what’s important and is focusing on that.
Like, we can point to ways in which the end of South Africa’s apartheid was inadequate, but I don’t think it’s a major factor at all that we aren’t now calling it Mzansi or Azania. From what I can tell, many South Africans do themselves call it Mzansi, and it’s consistent as an isiZulu version of an abbreviation of the legal name in the isiXhosa version of the Constitution, “uRhulumente waseMzantsi Afrika,” but not directly the slightly-bulkier corresponding isiZulu term for south, “Ningizimu”. It’s a little confusing to me because there are several languages involved, the Constitution being printed in about 11 of them.
Anyway, if you want to attack Zohran specifically for being a lib on Palestine, you might have a better time by investigating what he said about a one or two state solution, though I don’t remember if he addressed that issue directly.
*You wont get anywhere trying to discuss it because you have made a blatant mistake and want to avoid it.
How is pointing out an example of blatant chauvinism that is borderline zionism, i.e. dismissing the fact that the “piece of land” you refer to is actually a truly beautiful sovereign nation whose indigenous inhabitants have decided to call Palestine? Like its not up for anyone else to debate, “that piece of land” is called Palestine. Its kind of disturbing how you think it is “vacuous” or “reactionary” to respect the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Thinking the name of “that piece of land” is up for debate already concedes to a zionist framing of the invasion and genocide. The land is already a country called Palestine and it is being invaded by zionists who want to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population via murder and expulsion. This is a fact and it is unacceptable to say otherwise.
Strawman argument. Palestinians are dying because the zionist entity is killing them in a genocide. They are fighting to expel a settler colonial entity and its invaders from their land so they can live in peace. The “piece of land” is already a sovereign country called “Palestine”, why would they be fighting for what it is named when it is already called “Palestine”?
Accepting “israel has a right to exist” renders the rest moot because you’ve already conceded that an invading cancer that has stolen the land of a sovereign nation through a genocide of its indigenous population should continue to exist on said stolen land. That is already a military occupation, an act of genocide, and apartheid. A big concession to a zionist framing of the genocide which does not recognize Palestinian self-determination, a hallmark of liberal zionism. Furthermore the zionist concept of “israel” itself is fundamentally and inextricably a settler-colonial jewish-supremacist ethnostate. You can’t say “<ethnostate> has a right to exist but I’m fully against the idea of ethnostates!”.
This is already enough to point out how he is a filthy liberal zionist.
Literally not one pro-palestine person before Mamdani ever said “Israel has a right to exist as a non-apartheid state!”. This is non-committal word game mumbo jumbo done specifically to be obscure. Stop playing games with us, stop being obscure, stop concealing our views like they’re something to be ashamed of.
He’s not representing a movement, he’s doing focus tested sloganeering that is triangulated to offend nobody and mean nothing. I ask again, why are succs completely unable to hold to a line?