Big leftist cause? No, I don’t think so. Leftist cause perhaps, but not a big one. The key event I think was the intifida ( and perhaps the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the subsequent Reagan-era American involvement there - that certainly didn’t endear the left to Israel either). Before that leftists thought did tend to side with the “underdogs”, who may have had a certain revolutionary cachet to the knee-jerk anti-establishmentarians. But I don’t think it was nearly as public and common.
I think the big turning point was 1967, not 1982 or the Intafada. I certainly remember Palistinian radical chic from the late '70s, although it has become more and more mainstream ever since.
All of which appears to be in accord with the theory I have been attempting to formulate.
Well, a) I think you make this sound too much like a conscious decision by the Central Steering Committee of “the left” and b) while I would certainly say it probably describes one of the dynamics at work, I think it is too pat of an answer to be the whole story.
I think it is more a whole confluence of events, including some quite legitimate anger at policies the left find abhorrent, combined with somewhat less legitimate “underdogism”. And I still think it is media attention that is driving the scope and frequency of the response.
Care to shut up now, or do you want to continue embarassing yourself? Your comparison is beyond ludicrous. Tibet has been an issue for a long, long time. When situations change, there quite naturally will be more discussion and more protests. For example, if the Chinese government were to assasinate the Dalai Lama, I assure you you’d be hearing A LOT about it. There were plenty of protests when the Chinese invaded Tibet; were you expecting a protest EVERY DAY since?
To paraphrase you, Ooh. Fashion statements. Yes, that really helps.
I understand it’s an emotional issue for you, but I’m simply pointing out the error of your assertion that liberals don’t care about Tibet or any of a host of other issues. Of course people care about other things.
I don’t think that it was a concious choice deliberately decided on, rather an emotional need which was met.
There are certainly other dynamics at work. For the sake of berevity, I have ommitted much. For example, the anger of certain of a generation of Europeans at being tarred with the stigma of the events of the Nazi era finds a convenient outlet in over-emphasising the misdeeds of Israel - the point being that the victims can turn oppressors, given the opportunity, so there is no such thing as “good and bad” ethnicities (which I think true).
Certainly there is much in the notion of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. But that does not in itself explain why the left, by and large, sympathises with one side over the other.
But hey - any attempt at an explaination of a phenominon so complex is likely to be incomplete. My main points are:
This is an issue that does actually require explaination (with which I suspect you will agree);
Jew-hatred is not a satisfactory explaination (with which I suspect you will also agree).; and
A better explaination is to be sought within leftist ideology (which is open to debate).
My, this is funny. Link 1 is from 1999; link 2 is from 2001; link 3 is from 1993 and says the demonstration is to be the largest in North America, which could mean twelve people. (Were you there?); link 3 & 4 are from sites with the word Tibet in their name, hardly mainstream sources.
So you searched long and hard and found 4 instances of leftist interest in Tibet in the past 12 years. Yes, I guess I should be embarassed. To even reply.
Do you have a word for that?
Exemplified by the kind of conversation in your hypothetical ‘free tibet’ thread.
Sure, because Tibetans don’t need your support right now.
Hmm. I assume that means you’d catch the first plane to Beijing and demonstrate in Tienanmen square.
More or less, yes. I would expect people who take their activism seriously to demonstrate for Tibet as often as they demonstrate for Palestine.
Are you picking on the kefiahs while ignoring the rest of my examples that you have no reply for?
No, it’s an issue about consistency in denounciation of injustices.
I suppose you will now dig up a demonstration about Burma from 1990, attended by two kids and their cat.
Why is that funny? Wasn’t my point that people tend to hold demonstrations when something happens? (Like when Chinese officials come here.) As I said, you’re comparing Israel, WHICH IS ALL OVER THE NEWS RIGHT NOW, with Tibet, which is not. There tend to be more demonstrations when something is in the news. Therefore, there would have been demonstrations in the past, AT TIMES WHEN TIBET WAS IN THE NEWS. What part of that didn’t you understand?
You poo-poohed the fact that people have bumperstickers because they don’t protest, then when I point out that they do protest, you bitch because they don’t protest when you think they should. I think you have your mind set in conspiracy mode, and no evidence can possibly change your mind.
I see you’re already backpedaling. First, it was this:
First it’s “there has been not one demonstration”. Now it’s been modified to there aren’t enough people at the demonstrations, maybe.
And I don’t believe you have provided any numbers as to how many people are involved in these protests regarding Isreal, yet you question the numbers for other issues. Cute.
Is that relevant? I wasn’t at any anti-Israel protests either.
I’m showing you that liberals care about Tibet. That’s gonna be pretty hard to do if you claim that using the word “Tibet” in the name of your group disqualifies you.:rolleyes:
I only needed ONE to counter your ridiculous assertion that “there has been not one demonstration about them”. I gave 3 more than I needed to. I could have given hundreds more, but neither do I feel like wasting that much time on you, nor do I feel like wasting that much bandwidth.
A word for beyond ludicrous? Umm…vapid, inane, vacuous, preposterous, asinine, daft, idiotic, laughable, peurile, insipid? Take your pick.
This isn’t even worthy of a response.
This isn’t about me. Why did you think we were talking about me? I’m just pointing out that your broad-brush characterization of “the left” is wrong. My personal political views have nothing to do with it.
The backpedaling continues. First, the assertion that there were NO demonstrations; then, that there maybe weren’t ENOUGH people at the demonstrations, and now we find that in fact nothing less than people taking to the streets EVERY DAY since 1949 would convince you that people care. It’s quite obvious that NOTHING could possibly satisfy you.
I was lampooning you. The errors in logic were on purpose, to point out your own errors.
If I were to present any evidence, you would immediately dismiss it out of hand, as you have done with everything else.
No, you have simply put your fingers in your ears and refused to listen.
I didn’t know that was your point. I thought your point was that the left cares about other issues as much as they care about Palestinians.
I didn’t understand that your point was that lefties only bother to go to a rally when prompted by what they see on TV. I thought you said they really cared. My mistake.
I like to change my mind. I would like you to change my mind. I would like you to convince me that the left is as interested in other injustice as they are interested in the plight of the Palestinians.
What’s wrong with that?
I have no problem admitting my mistakes. I was wrong to say that there has not been one demonstration. You’re right, there have been a few demonstrations about Tibet.
Didn’t think I needed to. Nobody else refuted the claims in the OP.
Just a figure of speech. Didn’t mean to get personal. Sorry.
Yes, you are. The point is can you show me that they care about injustice in an unbiased fashion? What I’m trying to get you to see is that we should care about all injustices, not the ones that happen to be in the news this week or the ones perpetrated by ‘the west’.
Point taken, Sir.
That could hurt. Are you sure this is not an emotional issue for you?
I choose ‘insipid’. Excessive salt raises blood pressure.
That is the whole point, my friend. If one is only interested in injustice when it hits the news, I find that interest superficial.
I’m still not convinced.
Just because some seem to be afraid or unable to change their minds, it doesn’t make backpedaling evil. I think it’s healthy.
Are you still convinced?
You chose an easy way out, then. It’s quite clear to me that the fervour in pro-Palestinian activism surpasses that found in other issues by a long way.
That’s unfair and untrue. Here I am, I listen to you. I don’t dismiss anything. I found your Tibet examples convinving insofar as they demonstrate, and I admit they do, that there has been some activism for Tibet.
Ultimately, whatever good intentions the left has, I do not believe it’s about injustice. I think anti-american (in europe) agendas dictate the issues. That is why I hijacked before to link to people who in my opinion fight injustice with a balanced approach.
I think a lot of emphasis is put on Israel’s faults is due to the fact that Israel is seen as ‘on our side’. For this reason we expect better from Israel than from Zimbabwe or China or Iran or … Also the way Israel deals with its terrorist problem is completely at odds with the way Britain deals with the Northern Ireland problem, or Spain deals with its Basque terrorist problem. This difference in dealing with terrorists makes Israel appear to be brutal compared to the other countries ‘on our side’. This is not to say that Israels way of dealing with terrorists is incorrect, Og knows the Northern Eire problem has been going on long enough.
I’ve an issue with that. The misdeeds of various other nations are frequently ignored plainly because nobody pays attantion to these countries, in particular the medias. I mean, in a week during which you watch news on TV, read the pares, etc…How many times do you hear/read something about the situation in Sri-Lanka, and how many do you read/hear about the situation in Israel?
People aren’t going to have opinions about places or situations they’re never exposed to. I read yeesterday that the EU has changed its stance concerning Togo. If I open a thread on this topic, asking what people think about president Eyadema’s policies and if the EU move was justified, how many people are going to answer? Now, if I open a thread asking what people think about Sharon policies and if whatever EU move re Israel was justified, how many answers can I expect?
Second reason : people won’t discuss issues essentially everybody agree about. If I open a thread about Syria, how many people are going to support the Syrian government? It doesn’t mean that people think that only Israel is evil and all other countries are fine. Nor that the west “can’t be blamed” regarding countries other than Israel. It can perfectly be blamed in both the Togo and Syria examples. It’s just that there’s no disagreement concerning most countries, hence their action will rarely be scrutinized, while there’s a great deal of disagreement re. Israel policies.
I just popped in to point out that both Bippy and clairobscur make eloquent points which taken in isolation are quite convincing - but when read sequentially, directly contradict each other!
