Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 26
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't claim that this pattern is unique to anti-Zionists, but I find it a bit strange the way otherwise sensible and down-to-earth people (people who might have even scoffed at previous generations of conspiracy theories, turning "9/11 was an inside job" and "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" into punchlines) reflexively reach for the "it was a Mossad false flag" explanation the second they hear about anything bad targeting Jews.
@Tanista below me writes:
Acknowledging that the bad thing happened but insisting that the victim had it coming is, indeed, a perfectly ordinary human response. But in my experience, Western anti-Zionists/pro-Palestinians seem to be afflicted with a far stranger kind of conspiratorial cognitive dissonance. When a bad thing happens to Jews, they demand far more evidence that it really happened than they would ever demand had it befallen a different ethnic group. (Indeed, lots of people who are credulous about hate crimes targeting black people or Muslims are maximally sceptical about crimes targeting Jews.) When you can finally get them to begrudgingly concede that it really happened, they'll insist that it was a false flag, or that the IDF knew about it and allowed it to happen as a casus belli. When you can finally get them to concede that this is absurd (why would a nation capable of and intent on committing genocide wait until they were attacked to start doing so? Does that pattern-match to any historical genocide?), only then will they say that the bad thing happened, the Jews didn't "allow it" to happen to them – but they had it coming because of Gaza.
I don't quite know why this is the case, but it's a pattern I've observed across dozens of people who call themselves pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist. To reiterate: I'm not claiming this pattern is unique to them.
I don't see as strong an effect as you seem to do - if you open German newspaper comment sections now, there are still people trying to inject conspiracy theories about how the Nord Stream bombing was really a Russian false flag, and they are not falling behind your median Mossad tale in complexity. Whatever difference there still is, in terms of the complexity hostile conspiracy theories impute to Israeli plots, can surely be explained by the Israelis and their cheerleaders themselves cultivating an image of superhuman competence and non-pickiness of means. Surely the idea that they recruited Hitler's former right hand man to assassinate Germans working for their adversaries would have been in the class of conspiracy theories you would call out the ridiculousness of, had they not publicised it themselves.
Because they require continued Western backing, if not for the genocide itself then at least to sustain their long-term economy and strategy. I can't think of any historical precedent for the general configuration that necessitates this strategy, where an overwhelming global hegemon's actions are constrained by a somewhat well-informed population's perceptions of morality - the window perhaps opened with Vietnam, and is now closing as tribalism and consensus-manufacturing tech are catching up. Any candidate examples would therefore have to be putative genocides, by nations the US could be expected to intervene for or against, in the last 50 years. That's not a big pool, and what there is is largely still hot culture war material that it's impossible to analyse dispassionately.
That's really swinging it far. Skorzeny was a warrior who happened to be German (well technically Austrian but you know...), so he ended up fighting on the wrong side, but he wasn't anywhere in the top Nazi hierarchy and as far as I could see, played zero role in setting any plans or policies or ideology. So "right hand man" is not a very proper description. He AFAIK also wasn't implicated in any atrocities or "final solution" type programs, so the decision to employ him is no stranger than the decision to use, e.g., Von Braun. There are moral questions with both, for sure, but neither are "Hitler's former right hand men".
I concede this wording was a bit hyperbolic/imprecise, but given his pivotal role in the Horthy abduction and Mussolini's rescue it's hard to imagine that someone would have been considered a higher-pedigree spy in the Hitler administration, at least.
He was certainly a very valued technical specialist (just as Von Braun or Heisenberg or Porsche were), but that was all he was, he didn't have any "hand" in higher (or, deeper) circles. I am not saying this to somehow praise or excuse him, but rather to emphasize it's quite a common phenomenon - there were a number of highly capable specialists working for that horrible regime, and when that regime had been destroyed, they continued to be valued.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't seem that complicated. Any sort of reasonable standard for war crimes or violation of international law damns Hamas (and Hezbollah) as much as Israel and functions as a casus belli for Israeli actions against Hamas that would cost a ton of lives. You go this way and then you're just Biden and everyone else complicit in the "genocide".
Any rejection of moral standards turns this into an amoral contest of strength, which Palestinians cannot win. If they both suck, why not go with the richer, more competent, more militarily capable force and close your eyes and let nature take its course?
So the only response when faced with things done by the other side is to deflect, deny, minimize and hope that enough people have internalized the progressive stack enough to find those denials convincing.
It makes sense for the Palestinians to do this - though kind of sad that they've had to Christianize their jihadism - but why Westerners care is the strange thing.
tl;dr: They're pussies. Pussies cannot win fights, so pussies construct a moral system in which responding to their indirect or feeble aggression with the direct version is unacceptable (this has already been trialed in local contexts with the whole prescription against "punching down")
One of the things I find annoying about the whole free palestine thing is that people conflate palestine with gaza. And while a case could be made that Gazans deserve what happens to them by using "Russians deserve what happens to them" as template, it is the west bank where israel is doing unjustified things.
More options
Context Copy link
Because the news says it. Because that’s the oil region of the world. Because it’s The Holy Land. Because The Jews. Because we want sensemakers to explain how bad people aren’t bad, actually. Pick a reason, there are dozens more.
Here’s one I just thought of. A world full of govts has taken the place of God in our lives, and the Middle East is its theodicy: if Civilization is all-powerful, why does evil still exist in the Middle East?
Either Civilization is not all-powerful (which bodes poorly for socialists) or is not all-good (even more poorly), or Israel/Islam is the dualist enemy of Civilization, as powerful as all good governments put together, insidiously worming its way into each and corrupting it (which is too prevalent a conclusion).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link