For Zionism being all about the “land of Israel”, and wanting to build “greater Israel”, why do they hate and abuse the land so much? I mean ok, they hate the people, I get that, they are fascist colonizers. But why the land? They do the same to the West Bank when they destroy centuries old olive groves, and that’s in their supposed “Judaea and Samaria” that they are supposed to love so much that they want to ethnically cleanse.
How the fuck do far right simps for the oligarchy keep being able to position themselves as “outsiders” and “fresh”?
Oh yes, I agree. It would be a major major shift.
I think you’re underestimating the extent to which if the US establishment decides AIPAC is a problem for its own interests they can destroy its influence overnight. Especially with weakened democratic norms and checks and balances, no group, no matter how well connected can be safe from an unhinged executive acting in the name of “saving the country”. If AIPAC becomes a problem to them, if it no longer serves them, they will deal with it. Similar to how whoever doesn’t play nice with Putin meets various kinds of windows.
It is not an accident that a part of the MAGAsphere has already pivoted against Israel. And remember that the fascists have no actual solutions to anything, just an infinite progression of “purification”. They would have zero qualms about going full antisemite within the US if it suited them. And when that time comes, the Zionists will experience the actual difference between antisemitism and antizionism in practice.
Wait, that’s a conspiracy theory?
The arms industry is far from black and white. It’s a spectrum of shitty grey. Some part of that spectrum is made up of actual Israeli companies like Elbit. That’s not some neutral “IKEA” that “happens” to sell something that someone “happens” to use to do something bad. It’s a company that’s literally part of the military-industrial complex of a genocidal apartheid state. That’s a part of the shitty spectrum of the arms industry that Ukraine should not be put in a position to depend on.
Or to put it differently: if Ukraine is made to depend on those motherfuckers, don’t clutch your pearls if the consequences (political blowback and uncertainty due to direct action from pro-palestinian activism and movements in the west) of that really bad decision end up affecting Ukrainian capacity. Don’t blame the activists trying to grind the gears of Israel’s genocide to a halt. They were going to do that anyway AND THEY ARE MORALLY CORRECT TO TRY TO DO THAT. If that inadvertently ends up hurting the Ukrainian war effort, blame Ukraine’s allies for exposing Ukraine to that strategic liability. Do you understand what I’m saying?
Or if you want it all the way down to brass tacks: Palestinians don’t have an obligation to die for Ukrainans. Palestine solidarity actions in the West don’t have an obligation to Ukraine to facilitate the industry that actively participates in Palestinian genocide. If the West’s Ukraine armament strategy depends on such a fucked up moral catastrophe and also depends on their citizens going along with that moral catastrophe, the West’s armaments strategy is just plain fucking stupid because it will keep producing friction and uncertainty and they should fucking do better.
Iran should have the exact same nuclear capacity as Israel. Preferrably zero for both, but if that’s off the table then non-zero. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
And somehow it’s Piker and Uygur that get banned from the UK.
Lol no, I’m not following you up Stupid Mountain.
You make an argument that chooses a priority: “regardless of the fact that”. Guess what, other people make their own priority arguments where they make their own “regardless of the fact that” calculations. If you get to call other people “morally dubious” for not following your absolute priority, so do they get to call you “morally dubious” for not following theirs. Then the conversation becomes “which genocide matters more, Putin’s or Netanyahu’s”. Is that the conversation you really want to be having though?
Here’s what I say instead and you should be able to see the pragmatism in this point of view:
Ukraine should have the tools to fight for its freedom which is why it should not be put by its allies in the position to have to navigate suppliers that are politically toxic and a source of uncertainty and division in its support base (the conflicting moral priority arguments in my first paragraph).
The cold hard logic is that Elbit is a politically toxic, politically compromised supplier that comes with unnecessary uncertainty and risk. The fact that there are large sections of western populations that hold very legitimate grievances against them is very much an opening for Russian propaganda and manipulation. The UK should not expose Ukraine to any of that.
So if you really care about Ukraine having a shot, you should simply demand the exclusion of Israeli linked suppliers. They are a strategic liability for Ukraine. It’s just not worth the drama and uncertainty from the point of view of Ukraine focusing on what matters to them and for sure nobody needs to be giving Putin any more talking points about western hypocrisy.
What I find morally dubious is why Ukrainians are put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in genocide.
Russia is not the only barbarian in town.
I’m not “arguing” anything in front of any court and I’m not saying the judge did not follow the letter of the law. Top UK lawyers are making the case that as tried this case poses grave constitutional threats. And they’re going to litigate this as far as it goes.
What I am saying is that what you’re presenting as a slam dunk …isn’t. This is unprecedented (the law is from 2020 and it’s the first time it’s used in such a case in such a way) and serious people are raising serious issues.
EDIT: oh and by the way, at the end of the day, legal schmegal, the Palestine Action people are actually morally squarely on the right. They are not terrorists. They are activists putting their lives between Elbit’s butcher machines and Palestinian genocide victims. The cop who got injured should not have been in that Elbit factory because Elbit should not be allowed to build genocide machines period. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter really does apply here, and these are indeed freedom fighters. History will vindicate them. One day, everyone will have always been against this, but these folks will actually have the receipts. Tiocfaidh ár lá.
Yea, no, it most definitely is not that simple. Top UK lawyers are not bullshiters:
“It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.
“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”
Either give them a trial as terrorists or don’t.
It’s literally a disinhibitive ruling. Someone somewhere will inevitably think “well if I’m going to be called a terrorist anyway for some property damage, why not shoot at the cop that’s coming to stop me? In for a penny in for a pound.”
The double negative is breaking my brain.
So, taking into account that:
Judge Jeremy Johnson kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage.
All defences on the charge of criminal damage were banned by the Judge before he heard the evidence, meaning the defendants weren’t allowed to argue that their actions were legally justified as they acted to save lives and prevent a greater crime. He also barred the defendants from telling the jury about their motivations for taking action, their emotional reactions to the massacres of Palestinians or the illegality of Israel’s actions.
It seems that in this case the intent didn’t matter when it came to allowing the defendants to fully make their case in front of a fully informed jury but it mattered when it came to sentencing them after a conviction had been secured.
Can’t have it both ways mate.
EDIT: Turns out the leading UK lawyers are saying the exact same things:
“It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.
“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”
Can’t have it both ways mate.
Only a jury of their peers didn’t convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.
“They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.
Your tirade about violence is quite silly actually, because it’s far too indiscriminate. The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*). Placing them in the same category as motherfucking ISIS is simply making a mockery of the principle of proportionality, which is a cornerstone of any liberal democracy.
(*) The incident with the policewoman is not indicative of their modus operandi. They did not hope to affect political change by injuring police officers, the same way that, say ISIS used murder as a political tool of terror. It’s the difference between murder and manslaughter.
That’s because the Middle East Eye is directly run by Qatar’s embassy in London.
Citation needed.
Also, please elaborate on exactly why, even if it were true, that would be so fucking scary.
In the 21st century, Presidential systems seem to be uniquely vulnerable to fascist politics. Not just Trump, but also Bolsonaro, Bukele, and the Chilean and now the Colombian examples as well. Parliamentary systems are of course not immune (cf Meloni and Orban) but they seem to be more resilient. At the same time, eg. in Turkey, the move towards authoritarianism seems to also be coupled with a move towards more and more presidential models. It seems fascists love the kinds of institutional shortcuts that strong executives can take.