Edit: and, to be absolutely clear, it is in Israel's continued interest for us to not have a good litmus test for the two. I believe that most international messaging and the intentional obfuscation of Israeli foreign policy behind Jewish identity demonstrates that keeping the two murky is a continued policy goal of Israel's leadership.
Motte: Israel's use of Palestinian "guest workers" who have no opportunity to participate in either a robust Palestinian economy or a neighboring Arab economy, even when those workers receive the Israeli minimum wage or higher, does fit into an analogy to the treatment of black South Africans under apartheid as captive cheap labor. If Israel wants to avoid being subjected to this analogy, it should simply stop exploiting Palestinian labor this way.
Bailey: Israel is an apartheid state, and not exploiting Palestinian labor would just be covering it up. The only way for Israel to stop being an apartheid state is to stop being Jewish-Israeli: dissolve itself into a single state of Palestine ruled by its natural Arab majority.
Super-bailey: Israel is so apartheid, white-supremacist, and settler-colonial that not exploiting Palestinian labor, were it possible or even implemented at some point in existing history, would only make it more racist (see: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/kibbutz-labor-zionism-ber...). Israel owes these jobs to the Palestinians, as a precursor to the genocide reparations it will pay when it dissolves itself into a single state of Palestine ruled by its natural Arab majority.
So yeah. The people who could just lay down the motte as a serious moral charge don't want to. They want the bailey, or preferably the super-bailey. Likewise, the people who could just admit to the motte and fix the problem are assured that, were they to actually do so, the goalposts would only be moved to the bailey. Then the bailey will be moved to the super-bailey.
I agree with your analysis: it's very easy to play the trump card at the onset and rest safely knowing that your position is insurmountable. Argumentatively, it's the equivalent of two opposing armies refusing to leave their respective high grounds to get down to the dirty business of war (or peace, in this case).
I am not an Israeli and I have never been to Israel, so I'll spare the world from another opinion on how to solve the problem. It is only my perspective, as a diaspora Jew, that many of Israel's actions qua sovereign state are not defensible on the basic plane of human rights.
I heard someone point out that Israel can't help but kill children in Palestine because the median age there is 20. Like what do you even say to something like that? The conversation is just totally hosed at this point.
I think you're right though in a lot of ways - critics of Israel tend to fall into a trap of over-exaggeration which does their arguments no favors in some highly educated circles. Subtlety doesn't spread fervor though, and I don't think it's ever toppled regimes.
Isn't that the point of a motte and bailey? The motte is what you think you can defend to an outgroup member without prior convictions, or even an actively skeptical outgroup member. The bailey is what you and your ingroup believe and act upon when nobody's asking you to justify yourselves. They're very different.
In this case, there's a very easy, substantially stronger, and often-used claim that might make a better 'motte'.
Furthermore, if we look at these past related threads, we can almost always find some person with the same opinions crying victim before anything has been said.
This absurd victimhood - one that places some imaginary nonexistent hurt to some outsider before either side's actual hurt - describes very effectively the mentality and connection to reality of those 'critical' voices.
I don't know about that connection with 'wokeness'. Progressives are frequently tagged as anti-semitic for criticizing Israel.
There are many research groups that confirmed the feeling of fear by Jews in Europe and more recently in the U.S as well, there is nothing dubious about what I said. It's become very common for Jews to not leave the house with any Jewish identity (skullcaps for instance) in Germany, France, Netherlands and now in the U.S as well. This is also confirmed by a substantial increase in antisemitic incidents throughout the Western world. In fact only a few days ago there was one in Texas that luckily didn't end in deaths.
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/half-of-jewish-c...
https://www.ajc.org/news/top-3-takeaways-from-ajcs-survey-on...
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-20...
Honestly it feels ridiculous to keep adding links here, this is so well researched and written about I think it's beyond debate. Now does what I say here apply to all Jews equally? Obviously if you are non religious and wear no identifying clothes, and never mention your judaism, you will be exposed to less anti semitism (if any). But that's not saying there is no problem is it?
I don't think this is a good representation of anti-anti-Israel debate.
The opposite of antisemitism is equality, where there is no "special" treatment of either Jews or Israel. Anyone can criticize Israel for its policies, provided they also criticize other states that have similar policies and not "single out" Israel as such. If only Israel is criticized for certain policies and other states aren't, this brings up the question of inequality. This may be perceived a sort of thinly-veiled antisemitism.
Please go to [1] + [2] searches, while not a big channel on YouTube, ~200K subscribers in politics is kind of big for alternative-media with the top videos getting ~500K views.
And now, please note that every video on China is something like "China is actually doing more for Climate-Change", or "Is China to Blame For Covid-19?" all suggesting China has so many good parts that we missed...
While Israel search result are all about the conflict, ".. The [Media] BIAS", ".. The Death Toll".
While Israel is dominant enough to deserve such critics. The Bias of the channel against Israel and Pro China is a spectacle to be hold.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/NovaraMedia/search?query=china [2] https://www.youtube.com/user/NovaraMedia/search?query=Israel
So I will now go return the straw to the barn because I can't seem to find any strawman.
When you say "China apologism" I expect to see people praising China's "wonderful socialist state", talk about how free and happy the Chinese are, defend China's treatment of Uighurs (or deny it's happening) etc. Explaining that China, while being the top country by GHG total emissions, is not even in top 10 by per capita emissions is not China apologism - it is simply stating an uncomfortable fact.
[0] https://novaramedia.com/2020/08/05/neither-washington-nor-be...
[1] https://novaramedia.com/2017/11/24/in-search-of-the-chinese-...
* praising China's "wonderful socialist state" [2] (more like its totalaric structure)
* how ... happy the Chinese are [3]
* defend China's treatment of Uighurs [4] (downplay it a lot)
And after I looked, that one article you gave ([0] in your comment) is the only time they say anything about it, no mentions on their youtube or twitter. Furthermore, in the opening statement of the article, they described what the Uighur experienced as ".. have long faced discrimination". Wow... such strong words for what happend [5]. Brave and not apologetic.
---------
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novara_Media
[1] https://novaramedia.com/?s=Aaron+Bastani+Israel
[2] https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1462805238969...
[3] https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1476873294338998284/pho...
[4] https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1476874275223126021/pho...
For item [4], his opinion seems rather complex. Here he is praising a thread that condemns China's treatment of Uyghurs in no uncertain terms [2]. Here he is again mentioning the U(i/y)ghur problem and China's authoritarian surveillance state [3].
(Note that if you want to see real honest-to-god tankies, there are plenty in the replies to his tweets. It seems an outlet called Gray Media, that they cite, is also a good example of actual tankies, directly claiming the Uyghur crisis is a "Western fabrication").
It's also important to remember that there is a major difference between Israel and China speaking from a UK/US/EU journalist: our countries are generally pouring billions of dollars of direct support, and heaps of diplomatic support, for Israel. They are doing no such thing for China. So, we have a much better reason to criticize Israel compared to China: we are partly responsible for Israel's crimes; while we bear little to no responsibility for China's (with some exceptions, such as slave labour for the production of export goods, or the status of Hong Kong). We can huff and puff all we want at China, it won't budge. Israel will.
What you're doing here is similar to people complaining that Chomsky criticized the USA without criticizing the USSR as much or more. His point was simple: he lived in the USA and had some measure of say on its direction. He had no such measure of say on the USSR's behavior, so he was naturally more silent on it.
[0] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Goalkeepers-speech-20... - "In the past quarter-century, China lifted more than 500 million people out of extreme poverty"
[1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end... - "China pulled 680m people out of misery in 1981-2010, and reduced its extreme-poverty rate from 84% in 1980 to 10% now."
[2] https://twitter.com/aaronbastani/status/1285358145003556864 - "Great thread Ammar.", in response to a thread that says things like "This repression is widely documented: it’s difficult to cover-up concentration camps. It’s also hard to argue against the statements of escapees who describe being ‘brainwashed’, as well as being tortured for speaking the Uyghur language and reciting the Qur’an."
[3] https://twitter.com/aaronbastani/status/1115585109736996864 - "All encompassing surveillance state...not a democracy...uighurs"
I don't care some fact are true. There are a lot of nice facts about Israel too. And I don't care if there are honest tankies. In the original comment you said you don't know anybody like that. Now you know. and still ignore him.
So parroting the line of the Economist and US state department makes you a tankie?
> Because the USA hurt Muslim before they need to keep silent now when other do it?
The thread doesn't say they should keep silent, it says they should not apply sanctions (and obviously should not use military force) against China.
> So I gave you a clear proof that a person, a cofounder of a big left alternative media, is clearly a inconsistent tankie who endorse China fully while criticize Israel.
I still don't see him as endorsing China.
Anyway, I concede that the people he attracted in his comments are indeed examples of tankies, and I also found this Gray Media site that fulfills the description you gave.
Still, I will not concede that this is in any way a mainstream opinion in leftist circles. It is a fringe position, and the vast majority of Leftists in Europe and the Americas are generally against all oppressive regimes, including China and Israel occupation of Palestine. Most are much more vocal against human rights abuses than industrialists and billionaires, who could care less as long as their pockets are secure.
The only exception is global warming, where the left realistically sees that China is doing about as well as most industrial countries, and much, much better than the USA. To be fair, I think Israel is also decent on this front, but that is much easier for such a tiny country.
Beyond that, here in the USA, I don’t know anyone who I would consider both a “China apologist” and a “leftist” (“far” or otherwise) – China has not been anything remotely resembling socialist for at least a generation, and the China apologists I know all vote GOP (or would if they could vote).
Unless by “apologist” you just mean “has a low expectation that China’s political system is going to collapse or radically democratize in the near future, and thinks that some level of economic and diplomatic engagement is necessary despite China’s human rights record”.
So yeah basically the intersection of "left wing" and "thinks the Chinese government is great" (which as you point out is not a particularly large group of people, at least in the USA).
Depending on who you're talking to, the bar to become a "China apologist" is not very high.
"Why I [female/transgender/black/etc.] receive half of what that straight white dude gets?" — "That's whataboutism."
"Why do that woman receive half of what that straight white dude gets?" - "Why are you asking? Why aren't you asking about the black dude get only a quarter?"
THAT is whataboutism. Implying you shouldn't make remarks (about a woman's wage, about Israel, ...) without also taking other cases (transgenders, blacks, China) into account is whataboutism: using a claim to fair and equal treatment as a way to avoid having to answer an isolated question.
Selective application of a principle (or a law) to some, may be considered as a form of oppression, like in the US, when white guys caught with a small amount of marijuana get sent home, but black guys with the same amount get sent to prison; or in Russia, where the laws are extremely strict, but are rarely applied to rich or powerful or well-connected.
Signed, Iraq war vet (it was more for Israels interests than ours!)
That would be odd way of serving the Israeli interest, as the actual Israeli government opposed the Iraq war and thought it would be bad for Israel:
https://forward.com/opinion/217842/how-bibi-and-bush-made-a-...
Here’s the source I usually use[1]: 45% of American Jews consider Israel essential to them. Another disjoint minority consider it “important but not essential.” Neither of these imply support for the Israeli state, and neither separates the importance of Israel qua state or political institution from Israel qua the family our loved ones of the people being polled.
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/21/u-s-jews-ha...
Regardless all of the major Jewish denominations in the US (reform movement, conservative movement, modern orthodox and even most of the heredi movements these days) officially support Zionism. Now you have individuals in each group who may describe themselves as anti-Zionist, but it is a very small minority (although growing in the reform movement).
Among non affiliated Jews the percentage of anti Israel/anti Zionist Jews may be a bit higher but it is still pretty low. It’s no where near millions (you only have 6.5 Million Jews in the US).
Now none of the above means that there is not a large segment of pro Israel, American Zionist Jews who are against a lot of the current and previous governments policies when it comes to the West Bank and Gaza (or in general).
Heck I am a Canadian born Israeli, who is personally against a lot of the policies of the Israeli government. I quite often cringe at some of the comments and actions of some of our politicians. On the bright side it helps me chose who not to vote for
It's my understanding that pro-Israeli sentiment on the right is somewhat rooted in antisemitism in the first place. They love the idea of Jews having their own country away from everyone else.
Besides, the whole Q conspiracy wing currently taking over the American right is blatantly antisemitic.
There are a few things going on: Jewish Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, there is a powerful (and loud) conservative pro-Israel lobby, and hardline conservative Christians overwhelmingly support Israel - likely Israel's most powerful American constituency.