Why does the left side with the Palestinians?

Question

The Western moderate left is associated with certain values, in no particular order and with no claim of completeness or nuance: social mobility, personal freedom, safety net, secularism, humanism, religious tolerance, racial equality, sexual inclusiveness, anti-jingoism, pro-immigration, multi-culturalism.

It seems to me that the Israelis score much better on virtually all of these traits than the Palestinians.

Why does the left overwhelmingly support the Palestinians while also holding the values listed above?

jim · Answer 1 · 2014-10-29T02:48:31.677

58

The question seems to assume that sharing values with someone necessarily implies that you support that person (or group etc) in all things.

There's a difference between sharing certain values with a person or group on the one hand and supporting them regarding a specific issue, conflict or contention.

For example, if Jane is a dyed-in-the-wool left-winger and she is out drinking with a fellow left-winger, Ted. If Ted were to steal a wallet from a right-winger, Lynda, the question's reasoning would imply that Jane would have to be out of her mind to support Lynda's right to ownership of the wallet or to call the police or what-have-you.

Now clearly whether or not Israel did something equivalent to stealing the Palestinian's wallets is obviously contentious, but that's beyond the scope of the question.

If the Western moderate Left (rightly or wrongly) believes that Israel acted unjustly towards Palestinians, it should not matter to them that Israel have more in common with the Left than Palestinians.

Indeed, the values of the Left would make them especially careful not to favour Israel (on the question of the acceptability of its treatment of Palestinians) simply because of Israel's similarity to the Left. To do that would be deciding a question of justice on the basis of their own similarity to either belligerant - that's a pretty clear case of discrimination.

Another way of reading the question is as implying that support for Israel or Palestine is necessarily a vote for who should exist versus who should cease to exist - a life or death decision. In that case there might be a stronger case for expecting the decision to boil down to which group the Left has more in common with. However, there's little reason to think Israel/Palestine needs to be a winner takes all conflict. More to the point there's no reason to believe moderate left people believe that it must. Indeed moderate left-wing people would likely be equally horrified if Palestinians were to completely dominate the land as if Israelis were to do so, they're hoping the land can be shared peacefully or separated equitably into two states.

edited Oct 29 '14 at 02:48

answered Oct 28 '14 at 09:40

jim

872
5
10

3

The reason I am assuming that you would be more likely to side with people of similar values is that, unlike the wallet situation, absolutely nothing about the situation is clear cut. So even if you try to keep your judgment neutral, your interpretation of the facts will not be. Were the Jews immigrants or invaders? If they were merely immigrants, do the Palestinians have a right to wish them gone? Is the formation of the Israeli state imperialist aggression or self-defense of the new migrants? It would plausible to me that you arrive at conclusions fitting your ideology, but why against it? – John Woo Oct 28 '14 at 10:36
1

Here is some scientific support for the "facts by ideology" hypothesis: Check the paragraph "Motivated Reasoning" up until "know to be true". http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/confident-idiots-92793/ – John Woo Oct 28 '14 at 11:04
1

@JohnWoo those are all good questions, but significantly more complex than whether one sides with them or not. I think Jim said better than I did with what I was trying to get across: that 'sides with' is open to interpretation. – Oct 28 '14 at 18:16
1

@DA Okay I believe your point might be starting to sink in in the denser regions of my mind. Not sure yet what a better question would be though; perhaps something a long the lines of "Why is it a common belief on the left that Israel is the main obstacle to peace with the Palestinians" – John Woo Oct 29 '14 at 09:06
@JohnWoo That's definitely a more specific question! – Oct 29 '14 at 15:08
7

This is an excellent answer. It's not about similarity in values, culture or social norms with Palestinians and Israelis. It's about what is perceived to be an injustice, committed by people who are similiar to us, against people that are quite different to us. Mohammed Ali had more in common with white Americans than with the Vietnamese people, but he still sided with the Vietnamese, against his own people in the Vietnam war. – Icarian Sep 14 '18 at 06:46
1

I would add, liberals want all the things the original poster said they want for Palestine. Liberals want Palestine to implement changes in those directions, but none of that changes their overall viewpoint on which nation has the proper claim to the land. Also, we should add, not all liberals support Palestine over Israel. – userLTK Sep 15 '18 at 22:16
10

The OP does, indeed, post a question, about a situation that has many layers, facets and complexity, in a very binary fashion. I don't see why I can't say that I support Israel's right to exist, and their right to defend themselves against existential threats, and also say they shouldn't violently oppress powerless minorities within their own borders. – PoloHoleSet Sep 19 '18 at 14:41
1

"Indeed moderate left-wing people would likely be equally horrified if Palestinians were to completely dominate the land as if Israelis were to do so, they're hoping the land can be shared peacefully or separated equitably into two states." - that doesn't sound like any pro-Palestine rally I've ever heard. @PoloHoleSet you absolutely can say those things. But OP's experience, and mine, is that "the left" in North America is nowhere near that nuanced, at least whenever they actually get an audience for an opinion on the topic. – Karl Knechtel Oct 16 '23 at 11:09
(Also keep in mind the existence of https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/6149 .) – Karl Knechtel Oct 16 '23 at 11:13
2

@KarlKnechtel - you have that exactly backwards. Almost everyone on the "left" in North America both want Israelis to be able to live in peace, and oppose treating Palestinians like sub-humans. It's the right that will gaslight and claim that having a nuanced position is impossible, and either you support any and all Israeli government policies, no matter how brutal, or you are anti-Semitic. Or the idea that Palestinian automatically means Hamas/terrorist. If your "experience" is swallowing whatever right-wing media spoon-feeds you, that's on you. – PoloHoleSet Nov 15 '23 at 19:42
@PoloHoleSet you may believe that, but it is fundamentally incompatible with actual rhetoric I have actually heard shouted at real pro-Palestine rallies. "From the river to the sea" etc. is fundamentally arguing for a one-state solution, and it is not the right that gaslights by correctly pointing out that obvious fact. – Karl Knechtel Nov 16 '23 at 17:50
1

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", correctly interpreted, actually expresses a more left wing vision (a secular, democratic, multi-ethnic state) by far than modern day Israel, an apartheid ethnostate with a de facto state religion and culture. The phrase means free as in freedom, not "free from Jews". That's not an opinion, those two senses of the English word "free" are different words in Arabic, and only the first is used in the chant. https://theconversation.com/from-the-river-to-the-sea-a-palestinian-historian-explores-the-meaning-and-intent-of-scrutinized-slogan-217491 – jim Nov 21 '23 at 10:29
1

@KarlKnechtel - It sounds exactly like the rhetoric at most Pro-Palestinian rallies I've attended, if we want to play the game of phony authority via unconfirmable Internet anecdote. And what you've "actually heard" is subjectively dependent on the filter through which you are interpreting it. "From river to the sea" is a commentary that Palestinians do not enjoy freedom and equality at any location, currently, under Israeli rule. You thinking it's a demand for Palestinian ruled one-state solution is your own convenient take on it. – PoloHoleSet Nov 27 '23 at 22:59
It's not a "convenient take", it's the result of my attempt to understand English when other people speak it. @jim people who chant in English are responsible for the English meaning of the English translation. And I didn't say anything about the second line because it isn't necessary to the meaning inferred here. I do not take my views from right-wing media and consider it offensive to be told such. – Karl Knechtel Nov 28 '23 at 03:36

Icarian · Answer 2 · 2018-10-15T03:52:12.883

The shortest answer I can give, is that Israel and Palestine aren't sports teams. We don't just pick one or the other based on a single issue, or based on how similar they are to us. We look at a wide range of issues and the history as best we can, and in the end, we find the Palestinian arguments to be more compelling. It would be silly to make a decision on the right of one group or another to live and settle in a land based on their record regarding LGBT rights or women's rights. These are also important issues, but do not relate directly to a territorial conflict and the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of each party's claim to the right to live, settle, and self determine in a geographic location.

LGBT rights and Gender Equality

Left wing people generally are pro LGBT rights, and Israel is of course the most friendly nation to LGBT folks in the middle east. It also has a good record for gender equality, something quite rare in the middle east (Assad controlled regions of Syria and Fatah controlled Palestine also have good gender equality laws, but are not good on LGBT rights.

Gender equality and LGBT rights are important to western liberals, and in this regard, the Israelis are better than Palestinians, so having these two common values more closely aligned, why do liberals seem to favor Palestinians over Israelis?

Pink Washing

Well, there are other factors and values that liberals hold, where Israel has a pretty indefensible record. Code Pink have coined the term Pink Washing, as using support for LGBT rights as a mask for some pretty terrible policies. Justin Trudeau is an excellent example of this, as is Hillary Clinton and Obama. They have far right, hawkish foreign policies, and have no problem waging war, bombing, invading, overthrowing sovereign governments and a host of other crimes. But they cover up their right wing policies with support of LGBT rights.

The goals of Zionism

Israel does the same thing. The Israeli state was founded via the Zionist movement. The goals of the Zionist movement are usually framed in an innocuous way that few could oppose. The right of Jewish people to self determination and create a national home for the Jewish people. This state was to be both Jewish and democratic. Sounds good? Of course it does! But this framing completely ignores the existence of another people.

Ethnic Cleansing

Palestinians, Christians and Arabs, who were the majority population. The foundation of a Jewish and democratic state required a Jewish majority in Palestine. And in 1948, even after decades of mass immigration, the Jewish population was still only 33% of the total population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

So how do you create a Jewish and democratic state in a land that is 66% non Jewish? This is the part that Israel's defenders don't like to address. There are two answers, one is mass immigration to bolster the Jewish population, the other is ethnic cleansing of as many Muslims and Christians as possible. And this is what happened. So here comes the first reason: liberals don't like racism, ethnic or religious supremacism, or ethnic cleansing. And these are the foundations of the Israeli state.

Settler Colonial Expansion

Zionism has a goal, explicitly stated among Israelis, but seldom mentioned in western press: Eretz Israel. An Israeli state that encompasses all the land between the Jordanian river and Mediterranean sea. This means that from the beginning, Israeli intended to expand their state into lands designated Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian. Israel started a war in 1967 in which it expanded into all of these states and lands. Israel claims that this was a pre-emptive war, that it was in danger of being attacked. There is evidence to the contrary, including an admission from Menachem Begin:

The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever. Iron Wall, p. 25 & Simha Flapan, p. 32

Israel will not transfer Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District to any >foreign sovereign authority, [because] of the historic right of our nation to this land, [and] the needs of our national security, which demand a capability to defend our State and the lives of our citizens." Iron Wall, p. 356

In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

55 Address by Prime Minister Begin at the National Defense College- 8 August 1982

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Another reason for the attack against Egypt is Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran as sea trade route to Israel. The Likud charter expressly states that Israel will never allow a Palestinian state between the Jordanian river and Mediterranean sea. The new Jewish Nation State laws also state the goal of creating illegal Israel colonial settlements on Palestinian lands. This is colonialism. Another reason why liberals do not side with Israel. We generally recognize the genocidal and racist nature of settler colonialism, and thus despite Israel's relatively good LGBT policies, we still do not support Israel.

Militarism

A state that is created by an immigrant people, who usurped and ethnically cleansed many natives is going to have problems. Unless it kills all the people it wronged, those people are going to fight back. They're going to want to take their homes and lands back, so a powerful military is required in order to dominate neighbors and control the Palestinian population, to ensure they never achieve sufficient military capacity to retake their homeland.

Israel has somehow become the recipient of 4.5 billion dollars of military aid, annually, it is the single biggest recipient of American aid despite being a developed, advanced first world nation. It uses this aid to maintain its military dominance. It is the best equipped army in the middle east, maybe in the world. It also has nuclear hegemony. No other nation in the middle east has nuclear weapons. Israel gets a free pass. We can go into the reasons for this, but powerful lobbying interests as well as American desire to have a friendly military base in the region play a part.

Apartheid

The Palestinians on the other hand, are not allowed to have a military, not allowed to have air defense systems, not allowed to have nuclear weapons or anything like that, leaving them at a permanent military disadvantage. Given the vast gulf in military capabilities, there's not a lot Palestinians can do. Israel on the other hand, can basically do whatever they want. The only restraint is international outrage. Up until now, America has shielded Israel from any sanctions or punitive measures for crimes it has committed (which has necessitated the BDS movement as the only means left to pressure Israel to stop illegal behavior), but if Israel were to commit an outright genocide, even America couldn't shield Israel from the rest of the world. So instead, Israel has this process, where it colonizes the West Bank, demolishes Palestinian homes and villages, replaces them with Jewish settlements, then builds fences and roads around these settlements for the settlements security.

As a consequence, Palestinians have been shepherded into small bantustans. Basically little prisons with limited self autonomy, but with Israel controlling all movement in and out of people, goods and money. The Israeli Jewish settlers, who tend to be fanatical extremists, many from America, live under Israeli civil law, while the Palestinian, Muslim and Christian bantustans live under Israeli military law. This system very closely resembles apartheid, and liberals generally are opposed to apartheid. Right wingers on the other hand, have historically sided with Apartheid, whether it was Thatcher in the UK or Reagan in America. Today right wingers are horrified by the mild land ownership reforms in South Africa to restore a small amount of white colonized and "owned" land to the native African people. Apartheid and indigenous people land ownership has always been a left/right issue.

Siege of Gaza

Then there's the Gaza strip. This was also under apartheid control from 1967 to 2005 when Israel withdrew its 8000 settlers and began laying siege to the city and coastal enclave. The reason was the democratic election of a political party who had declared war against Israel, whose stated goal was the removal of all Jewish people from Palestine, and the restoration of Palestinian Muslims (Hamas doesn't care about Palestinian Christians). This group is far right, very repressive of women's rights and uses terrorism as a tactic in its fight against Israel. Terrorism is a widely employed tactic, its used by America and Israel. All nations really, but the term has been politicized in recent years to exclude Jewish or Christian attacks against civilians. Liberals aren't overly fond of this hypocrisy.

The siege of Gaza has resulted in Hamas firing unguided rockets into Israel, and in the second intifada, bus and suicide bomb attacks, car attacks and stabbings against both armed Israeli soldiers and innocent Israeli civilians. It has also resulted in Israel bombing schools, hospitals, refugee camps, sending military snipers to shoot unarmed protesters and more. Liberals here are not very fond of Hamas, but view the situation through a David and Goliath lens, the vastly disproportionate numbers of deaths of Palestinians, especially civilians and children, compared to Israelis, mostly soldiers has resulted in more sympathy for Palestinians, though no love for Hamas.

Political and media collusion against European and American liberals and Progressives

It doesn't help that liberals see Israelis and Israeli agents as siding with racists, white supremacists and right wing nationalistic parties in Europe and America https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/union-israel-european-180716085952930.html. Particularly parties than are strongly anti-Muslim. Israeli agents also fund right wing neo "liberal" and conservative corporatists (Haim Saban and Hillary Clinton, Sheldon Adelson and Trump) https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/israeli-president-rewards/ and general opposition and hostility to left wing liberals, and "democratic socialists" like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Jeremy Corbyn, attempts to criminalize and punish peaceful resistance like Boycott Divest And Sanction, and to intimidate, smear and threaten college kids (Canary Mission). Here an Israeli diplomat (agent) admits to conspiring to "take down" UK MPs. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/07/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-caught-on-camera-plotting-to-take-down-uk-mps . People should be up in arms about this in my opinion. Instead, Labour has just accepted a new definition of ant-semitism that equates criticism of the Israeli state and its policies as anti-semitism. This is 1984, Orwellian stuff... Facebook has been deleting social media accounts at the request of the Israeli and US government https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/ . FOX news is a news network with a very strong pro Israel and anti Palestinian newtwork. FOX news founder Rupert Murdoch has investments in an Israeli shale oil company that is operating on illegally occupied Syrian land https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/27/rupert-murdoch-and-the-israeli-genie/, https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2011/05/11/conflict-of-interest-fox-doesnt-disclose-murdoc/179523 . This is not a quid pro quo arrangement in order to produce propaganda in America on behalf of the Israeli state, but it does demonstrate at very least, a conflict of interest and circumstancial evidence of close ties between the Israeli state and the far right news corporation.

Right wingers generally think in broader strokes, a lot of people view politics as team sports. We're on team "Judeo Christian values" (aka white European values), they're on team "Islamic Jihad". Liberals tend to have more nuanced views and can support Palestinians while acknowledging that culturally and socially, we have more in common with Israelis. In some ways, Israeli society is absolutely better and more liberal than Palestinian society. But I can't let that whitewash (or rather "pinkwash") colonialism, ethnic cleansing, ethno-religious supremacism, war mongering, apartheid, siege and oppression of Palestinians. And I really don't like the influence of Israeli agents on western governments and mainstream media.

Suppression of Free Speech

Liberals are increasingly concerned with pro Israel groups that attempt to censor and criminalize Palestinian rights activists. Palestinian poets https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/dareen-tatour-sentenced-months-prison-poem-180731084215893.html and artists https://www.timesofisrael.com/italian-graffiti-artist-arrested-for-mural-of-ahed-tamimi-on-security-barrier/ are arrested. Ocasio Cortez and Cynthia Nixon https://nypost.com/2018/09/09/ny-state-dems-call-cynthia-nixon-anti-semitic-prompting-outrage-denials/ are smeared as anti-Semites. British former MP George Galloway was smeared and assaulted by an Israeli extremist https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738230/Attacker-breaks-George-Galloway-s-jaw-street.html (full details not published in print, but explained in his radio show. Jewish journalist Max Blumenthal being banned from giving speeches at German universities https://www.alternet.org/world/why-i-was-censored-talking-about-israel-germany. Son of two Holocaust survivors, Norman Finklestein is banned from Israel, loses his job at the university of Chicago despite being very popular with students and Israeli historians respecting his work https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa. Jeremy Corbyn is facing relentless smears https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-running-campaign-against-jeremy-corbyn, accusations of anti-Semitism for attending a ceremony for PLO members killed in an Israeli terrorist attack, and for hosting an event where a Holocaust survivor criticized Israel or Holocaust Remembrance day. Ahed Tamimi is banned from leaving the West Bank, unable to attend events in Europe she was invited to https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/israel-bans-ahed-tamimi-and-family-from-traveling-abroad-1.6464439. Hurricane Maria victims in parts of Texas who support BDS are not eligible for aid for reconstruction of their homes https://forward.com/fast-forward/385628/houston-suburb-wont-give-hurricane-relief-to-bds-supporters/. Attempts in New York make it illegal for the city to do business with BDS supporters https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/cuomo-and-b-d-s-can-new-york-state-boycott-a-boycott. Facebook taking down Palestinian activist profiles at Israels request, criticism of Israel to be banned and on college campuses https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/trump-administration-moves-curb-campus-criticism-israel. Left wing folks find this kind of thing quite disturbing, as is the sight of US presidential candidates and politicians swearing loyalty to Israel at AIPAC events every election cycle (they don't do this for any other country). There's a lot of very disturbing political collusion and corruption, as well as censorship and media smear campaigns against Palestinian rights activists. Even if you're a hardcore, died in the wool Israel fan, who believes that Israel should be above criticism and Palestinians are the cause of the problems, these things should be of concern to you if you oppose government and media censorship of free speech and protests.

Religion and Morals

Lastly, the left tends to be less religious than the right, so Biblical promises don't move them as much. They also tend to be more interested in justice and fairness (human rights, animal rights, the environment, indigenous peoples, immigrants etc). As to why these same left wing people don't seem to be so sympathetic to Israelis, particularly the Mizrahi Israelis of Arab origin who have experienced ethnic cleansing, and the European Israelis descended from Holocaust survivors, it probably is because two wrongs don't make a right. The ethnic cleansing of Mizrahi Jews in Jordan, and genocide European Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, does not justify what the Jewish settlers have done to the Palestinians. Over decades of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, siege and massacres, and the very obvious injustice of it all, a lot of people just have lost sympathy for Israelis. The bullied became the bully. When I was a kid in school, and 9/11 happened, I felt very bad for Americans. Everyone did. And then America invaded Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and I started to news stories about Iraqi kids with their arms, eyes and legs blown off by American bombs, and whose family were killed. Then the oil for food program, no WMDs were found... My sympathy was lost, and now when I think if 9/11, it's very difficult to sympathize with Americam even though I know that the people who died that day had nothing to do with those events. Now I just think about all the bad things that were done, and how 9/11 was abused to justify what I would deem to be colonial invasions and illegal wars. I think a lot of people feel the same way about Israel. They may once have had sympathy, but it's gone now, spent, due to the terrible things they've done... It doesn't help that Israelis have weaponised and abused the legacy of the Holocaust in a smear campaign against Palestinians and their supporters, such as Natanyhu defending Hitler and blaming a Palestinian man for the Holocaust. https://youtu.be/-Ju1w-iDR0o So as a result of these factors, a lot of people who would otherwise be very sympathetic with Israeli people's various histories, have lost their sympathy.

For the records, this is a far-left view rather than a mainstream liberal view, well recognizable by painting Hillary Clinton or Justin Trudeau as right-wingers and claiming that Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, both from the left of a left party, are normal liberals. Nevertheless, a worthwile read to understand a political view. — Thern, Sep 13 '18 at 20:56
By Washington standards, it would be considered far left, but we have to keep in mind that there has been a big shift of the Overton Window to the right. Obama is a good example, he is considered left wing by the mainstream media, and far left by the American right wing media. But by his own admission, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJIlZxHfclc he would be moderate Republican by the standards of 20 years ago. Trudeau is very much in the same mold as Obama. Hillary is significantly to their right. Going by the issues and the voters, the politicians I support are populist center, not far left. — Icarian, Sep 14 '18 at 03:40
Far left would be fringe, unpopular ideas like open borders, or communism. Sanders, policy wise, is really just a moderate center left politician. Perhaps center right on foreign policy. Sander is not a fringe figure. He won 43% of the vote despite collusion and corruption in the DNC and media against him. He's the most popular politician in America today, and his policies have overwhelming support by the majority of Democrats and even republicans now. You really can't call him far left. Center left at most. Jill Stein would be left left. And there is no far left in America. — Icarian, Sep 14 '18 at 03:48
Corbyn won a landslide victory with labour, When Blair left, the party was decimated. Now it's the biggest left of center party in Europe. It is only by right wing standards that these politicians are considered far left. — Icarian, Sep 14 '18 at 03:48
"I have no idea why right wing people so often feel the need to speak on behalf of Left wing people." - because the question was asking about the views of left wing people. Would you rather only people of one political persuasion answered this question? — Golden Cuy, Sep 14 '18 at 03:52
Yes, to be honest I would. I don't think that you can really expect an honest or fair representation of left wing people's views from somebody who holds opposing views. Far too often it just results in straw manning the left. I'm sure there are some right wing folks out there who are very well informed about the positions of the left, but simply disagree, and are capable of accurately describing their positions. In reality its quite rare though, isn't it? More often than not resulting in a ridiculous straw man argument a la Fox News (Bernie Sanders wants to turn America into Venezuela!). — Icarian, Sep 14 '18 at 04:07
@Thern : You might be right, but since the "left-wingers" addressed in the question are left-winger who tend to support Palestinians rather than Israelians, I suppose it is correct not to include Clinton or Trudeau. — Evargalo, Sep 14 '18 at 07:28
-1 because of the following serious flaws failing to explain why they are fine with behaviour on one side not the other: "Ethnic Cleansing" interestingly, they seem fine with the ethnic cleansing of Jews, which has happened repeatedly. "Suppression of Free Speech" of course the Palestinians are renowned for their free speech "Political and media collusion against European and American liberals and Progressives" but against pro-Israel people that's fine - e.g 'smear and threaten college kids ' — , Sep 14 '18 at 08:32
more problems, this time factual: "The siege of Gaza has resulted in Hamas firing unguided rockets into Israel" factually incorrect - Hamas was at declared war with Israel when they were elected, precipitating the closing of the border. " when Israel withdrew its 8000 settlers and began laying siege to the city. " see above. It also is not a city, but multiple cities in the Gaza strip. The blockade also did not start at withdrawal but a year later. — , Sep 14 '18 at 08:36
Person A bullies person B. Do you sympathize with person B? Probably Person B then goes on to bully person C. Do you still sympathize with person B? Probably not so much. Now you sympathize with person C and while recognizing that person B has historically experienced bullying, you recognize that they have now become a bully themselves. I hope that explains it. I do not believe that Palestinians are suppressing free speech in America, Europe or college campuses. I don't believe that there is any Palestinian equivalent of Canary Mission for example, or AIPAC. — Icarian, Sep 14 '18 at 08:37
I will edit my post to reflect your corrections. I don't think that the corrections change the content or arguments in any way. I did state that Hamas's stated aim was the removal of all Jewish people and restoration of Palestinian Muslims to their homeland, but I didn't state that this was a declaration of war. Referring to the city of Gaza rather than the whole coastal enclave in that sentence has now been corrected. — Icarian, Sep 14 '18 at 08:39
Who are "Israeli agents", and how are they "[influencing] mainstream media"? — Golden Cuy, Sep 15 '18 at 03:28
Israeli agents are people who work to promote Israeli agendas and to undermine support for Palestinians. I mentioned two. Haim Saban "I'm a one issue guy, and that issue is Israel", one of Hillary Clinton's biggest donors, host of many events and parties for Hillary in the 2016 election cycle. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/top-five-clinton-donors-are-jewish-campaign-tally-shows-1.5453781 Of these donors, I believe only George Soros is not an Israeli agent. — Icarian, Sep 15 '18 at 04:10
On the Trump side, Sheldon Adelson is an obvious one. He has been a strong supporter of the most right wing elements of the Israeli government and Natanyahu's agenda for some time https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/trump-donors-1-year-later/. — Icarian, Sep 15 '18 at 04:10
I think anybody with eyes and years who has ever watched Fox news could tell you that they have an overt pro Israeli agenda. Their newscasters, from Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Bill O Reilley and Sean Hannity are all pro Israel propagandists. They make no attempt to provide anything even resembling balanced, fair or nuanced coverage of the conflict. It would be a waste of time searching for and providing links. — Icarian, Sep 15 '18 at 04:20
Btw, and agent is simply somebody who acts on behalf of a foreign state. RT reporters like Abbey Martin, Chris Hedges, Jessie Ventura et all have to register as foreign agents because they work for RT. Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson, Adam Milstein (Canary Mission founder) do not. — Icarian, Sep 15 '18 at 04:24
@Thern - claiming that Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, both from the left of a left party, are normal liberals I'm not sure about Sanders (though he seems to describe himself as a "democratic socialist"), but it is hard to believe that the head of a social-democratic party, such as Corbyn, would classify himself as "liberal", either of the normal or abnormal persuasion. His position, however, is, albeit not "liberal", pretty mainstream in the UK, and probably in most of the EU. He wins elections there, you know. — Luís Henrique, Sep 16 '18 at 01:59
Bernie Sanders main issues are single payer healthcare and raising the minimum wage. While the Democratic party and mainstream media may consider these ideas radical, they are the representative will of the majority of the American population based on polls. Sanders and Corbyn are not the left of a left wing party. They're actually the left of center right parties. — Icarian, Sep 16 '18 at 02:51
@LuísHenrique "but it is hard to believe that the head of a social-democratic party, such as Corbyn, would classify himself as "liberal"" - I mean "liberal" in the sense it is used in the US, not in the sense it is used in Europe and especially the UK. I know the ambiguity of the word, but it is difficult to avoid when you speak about British and American politicians at the same time. — Thern, Sep 16 '18 at 08:18
@IcarianX "They're actually the left of center right parties." That's what I mean. May anyone decide for himself where someone is positioned that calls the British Labor party "center right". — Thern, Sep 16 '18 at 08:20
@Thern - Fair point, but Corbyn is still a mainstream politician, just not a "liberal", even in the American sense. He is a labourite, or a social-democrat, or a democratic socialist, not a British version of Hillary Clinton. — Luís Henrique, Sep 16 '18 at 11:36
You're right, the Labour party of the past 3 years under Corbyn is not center right, but it does a have a significant center right element "Blairite" members, who would be much closer in ideology to the American Democratic party. Breaking up the NHS, selling off bits and privatizing it. They don't support re-nationalizing trains and water for example, and they're very VERY hawkish, as the party was under Blair. It's the opposite of the Democratic party, where the center right are running the party, and the left wing are vying for power. The right seem to be winning on both sides of the pond. — Icarian, Sep 16 '18 at 12:33
“Israeli agents are people who work to promote Israeli agendas and to undermine support for Palestinians. I mentioned two. ” - that’s not what the term “agent” means. — Golden Cuy, Sep 16 '18 at 20:43
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agent Is it not? It fits the definition quite well... — Icarian, Sep 17 '18 at 01:09
+1 While I'm afraid this subject will always be up and downvoted 'along party lines' in stead of on the merits of the answers, this actually answers the question. Have my upvote, just don't assume I agree with all of it :) — Douwe, Sep 18 '18 at 09:35
@IcarianX: FYI, your answer is being discussed on meta https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3633/we-should-not-deter-people-from-answering-based-purely-on-their-political-persua — the gods from engineering, Sep 19 '18 at 06:01
@Them - pointing out that Clinton, Trudeau and Clinton had very muscular foreign policy stances that do not track with the stereotype of what is considered to be traditionally "liberal" (think peace-loving 60s hippie), is not a claim that they are right-wing. The answerer specifically refers to their *foreign policies,* not the people, themselves, as more right-wing in stance and execution. If you are going to claim to speak "for the record," you should strive for more accuracy. — PoloHoleSet, Sep 19 '18 at 14:46
FYI - "agents" usually refers to someone under the direct employ and command of a government or political entity, not just a die-hard supporter, whose independent and voluntary support furthers their goals. I think that's where a lot of the confusion over the term is coming into play. — PoloHoleSet, Sep 19 '18 at 14:49
@Icarian "I think anybody with eyes and years who has ever watched Fox news could tell you that they have an overt pro Israeli agenda." I asked about "Israeli agents". These people, as far as I'm aware, are right-wing media personalities that have a right-wing stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Fox News' right-wing audience tend to prefer, rather than being "Israeli agents". I'm happy to create a question about that if you think otherwise. — Golden Cuy, Sep 20 '18 at 12:14
Please do. The Merriam Wesbster definition of agent is what I would argue Fox news is. Dishonest actors, from a far right news corporation that are dispensing and propagating Israeli propaganda. I have no idea of they are acting directly on behalf of the Israeli government on request or if they are doing so of their own volition. They are unlikely to admit to it regardless, are they? You can look at Fox News corporate structure and generate your own conclusions. Regardless, they do fit the definition of the Merriam Webster definition of agent. It may not be definition you care for. — Icarian, Sep 20 '18 at 12:37
I admit that I find the notion of pinkwashing as applied here a bit silly. It seems to work on the assumption that if a politician expresses support for LBGT rights and also has a hawkish or otherwise bad outlook, then they're simply trying to "hide" their unpalatable opinions on other issues, rather than the more obvious notion that they both genuinely support LBGT rights and also have a warlike foreign policy. I'm sure there are some people who are engaged in the former, but it seems a lot more likely that, for instance, there are a bunch of pro-LBGT, anti-Arab Israeli politicians. — Obie 2.0, Sep 26 '18 at 13:48
Consider it applied the other way. If the policies of Palestine are less pro-LBGT than those of Israel, are they trying to divert attention from their relatively bad LBGT policies by opposing anti-Islamic and anti-Arab sentiment? It doesn't seem likely, does it? It seems more likely that there are some people who are not terribly pro-LBGT, but who nonetheless are strongly opposed to anti-Arab or Islamaphobic policies. — Obie 2.0, Sep 26 '18 at 13:54
Also, while Israel (like most moderately powerful governments) certainly engages in attempts at propaganda and spying, the equation of, for instance, Netanyahu supporters or even outright anti-Palestinian with Israeli agents is implausible, and the denial of anti-Semitism and assertion that there's a concerted attempt to term all criticism of Israel anti-Semiticism is also a bad look. The attempted justification of not having "sympathy" for Jews is particularly bad. — Obie 2.0, Sep 26 '18 at 14:02
I won't downvote this answer, because whatever its apparent flaws (maybe because of them), it's still a rather good explanation for why some left-leaning people "side with the Palestinians," as the question put. — Obie 2.0, Sep 26 '18 at 14:05
It also seems to me like you fundamentally either misunderstand the new policy Labour adopted, or support it. The only difference between old and new is that Labour added four additional examples of anti-Semitism: "Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country;
Claiming that Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour;

Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations;

Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis." — Obie 2.0, Sep 26 '18 at 14:11
Examples 1 and 3 are clearly anti-Semitic (although 3 is hard to demonstrate definitively). Example 4 is a strong sign of anti-Semitism (c.f. "The Nation of Islam is as bad as the KKK," "feminists are the real sexists now"). Example 2 isn't necessarily anti-Semitic (because there is an argument to be made there), but it's certainly a red flag for me when I hear someone making it. In none of these examples is mere criticism of Israeli policy equated to anti-Semitism. — Obie 2.0, Sep 26 '18 at 14:13
Throughout history, people of faith have been accused of being more loyal to their faith or religious group than their king or state. It's one of the reasons why the British monarchy cracked down so hard on Catholocism in the UK and Ireland. And it's not without merit. In the Islamic world, many if not most would put their faith before their state. American Christians too. The difference with Judaism is that a single state purports to represent that faith, and there are real conflicts of loyalties. There are genuine examples of Christian and Jewish zionists supporting policies that hurt — Icarian, Sep 26 '18 at 23:34
American interests, but are widely favored by Israel and it's government. The Iran deal is a classic example. Christians and Muslism on the other hand, do not recognize a single state or political entity as being the representative of their faith, except Christian Zionists, and perhaps Catholics (the Vatican), which again, have historically been attacked for divided loyalty. There is a very good argument that Israel's foundation, was a racist endeavor which makes the new definition very worrying.I'm glad that you acknowledged this. You're right that many nationalist movements are racist. — Icarian, Sep 26 '18 at 23:41
Requiring higher standards of Israel than is an odd one. Israel is literally a state that enforces apartheid in territories it controls and annexed territory that did not belong to it. When Russia did we sanctioned them. We're holding Israel to a LOWER standard. Perhaps we hold Israel to a higher standard (rhetorically only) than "enemy" nations or say... Saudi Arabia. But the correct response is not to ignore Israel's crimes, but to also punish "allies" like Saudi Arabia. Be consistent. Lastly the Nazi example. Now this one I understand fully. The Israelis are nowhere near as bad as the — Icarian, Sep 26 '18 at 23:46
Nazis, and obviously among the greatest victims of the Nazis crimes against humanity, there is only one reason to claim that comparison and that is to cause offense. However comparisons with apartheid South Africa are very appropriate and should not be considered racist. If comparisons with apartheid or use of that term are adopted as definitions of anti-semitism then we really have gone too far in censoring Israeli criticism. I would argue that we already have. — Icarian, Sep 26 '18 at 23:51
The idea that Israel is held to a higher standard is odd. It's not. It's the opposite. Israel is held to lower standards of any other first world allied nation bar Saudi Arabia and UAE. The implication is that we should lower our standards expected from Israel, when we should do the opposite, raise the standards we expect from Saudi Arabia and UAE and sanction them until they comply with human rights laws. Now the UN is a different case, states with very poor human rights records hold Israel to a higher standard, hence the large number of resolutions against Israel, but none have ever — Icarian, Sep 27 '18 at 01:25
resulted in any actions, sanctions or punitive measures, they're purely rhetorical. — Icarian, Sep 27 '18 at 01:25
"if Israel were to commit an outright genocide, even America couldn't shield Israel from the rest of the world." This is not age well sadly — Miss Skooter, Oct 17 '23 at 12:09
This post would greatly benefit from an explanation of why the left was so quiet about the Israeli "settlements" for the past two decades, and suddenly is all about the problems of Palestinians only after Hamas goes and dramatically murders a bunch of Israeli civilians, including children. (Two footnotes: 1. I do not believe Hamas represents all Palestinians. 2. I consider myself fairly far left, so I'm arguing that my compatriots should be somewhat ashamed of their recent apparent change in opinion. The time to support Palestinians was before Hamas committed their latest huge atrocity.) — cjs, Mar 03 '24 at 18:29
Was the left silent about the illegal settlements for the past 2 decades? From what I've seen, the left have been quite vocal about it. Especially settler armed violence against the Palestinian population, from armed settler militias, sheep herders grazing Palestinian lands, hilltop youths, diverting streams, pouring concrete in wells, settlers and IDF killing and kidnapping Palestinians with impunity. the checkpoints that carved up the West Bank, restricting Palestinian movement etc... I really don't know where this perception that the left was unconcerned about the West Bank comes from. — Icarian, Mar 21 '24 at 10:16

user45891 · Answer 3 · 2014-10-26T01:05:35.997

I'd like to point out that the US left (as in Democratic Party) is, in this regard, not really comparable to the European left (as in SPD, Parti Socialiste, Swedish Social Democratic Party, ...) - and I have no idea about far eastern views on this but suspect that south-American views are more in line with the EU.

Anti-Capitalism & Anti-Imperialism
The Palestine Liberation Organization consists mainly of various communistic, socialist and far-left groups.
While Israel's involvement with the US obviously puts in on the other side (apart from the Kibbutz movement).
The whole "No border, no nation" thing also clashes with the wall around Gaza.

(This reasons especially is more of an far-left thing. The parties given above do not hold those views as extremely or even at all)

Left's general emphasis on equality of outcome and sympathizing with those worse off
(I stole that wording from DVK)
It cannot be argued against the fact that the Palestine Autonomy Regions are worse off than Israel. Compare infant mortality rate, unemployment rate, sources of drinking water, PPP, ...
Then there's the issue of the Palestinian refugees - since 1948 hundred thousand Palestinians live in Jordanian without any hope of getting back into either Israel or Palestine in the near future.

Luís Henrique · Answer 4 · 2018-10-08T16:40:27.327

9

Israel has a tough decision to make. If Palestinians are foreigners, then their land should not be under Israeli control. If they are nationals, then they should be afforded the exact same rights as actual Israeli citizens.

As it is, Israel wants it both ways: they want to avoid the existence of more a non-Jewish State on its borders, and they don't want to be responsible for the welfare of Palestinians who live within the occupied territory. This means apartheid: the existence, within the same polity, of two different classes of people, one that are afforded all citizenship rights the State may grant, and the other who are denied many of such rights.

Any left that is worth such name is against apartheid. And so, it must "side", if not with Palestinians, with either one of the following positions: or for the end of the occupation, allowing the Palestinians to have their own State, or for the end of the sub-citizen status of Palestinians. Anything else is a right-wing position, in that it would support the current apartheid situation.

edited Oct 08 '18 at 16:40

answered Sep 16 '18 at 11:49

Luís Henrique

948
8
10

5

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? If the West Bank truly does belong to Israel, as most Israelis and Zionists claim, then Israel is enforcing apartheid on millions of Palestinian Muslims living there. They didn't choose to be a part of Israel. They were merely engulfed by it, and had apartheid enforced upon them. If the West Bank is not part of Israel, then Israel has to withdraw all 600,000 civilian settlers living there and dismantle the setlements. Also, Israel has no right to the water and gas there. – Icarian Sep 16 '18 at 13:07
6

At present Israel is trying to have it both ways, colonize the land, exploit the natural resources, but refuse to give equal human rights for the non Jewish people living there. Israel refuses to even declare its borders. This leaves Palestinians in limbo, with the worst of both worlds, and Israelis in limbo with the best of both worlds. We know the end game. Take everything of value, make life as unpleasant and humiliating as possible for the people there and push the Muslims out into Jordan. It's not exactly a secret in Israel. – Icarian Sep 16 '18 at 13:10

score 4 · Answer 5 · answered Sep 19 '18 at 19:24

The left, generally speaking, is anti-imperialist. Noam Chomsky essentially represents the Left's position on this, which is this: Imperialism is Imperialism, regardless of who the victims are. In fact Lenin has a book on this topic a well.

Anti-imperialism has been a long standing tradition on the Left.

Che Guevara also said...

imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism—and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world, is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capitals, raw materials, technicians, and cheap labor, and to which they export new capitals—instruments of domination—arms and all kinds of articles; thus submerging us in an absolute dependence.

In a nutshell, if you're anti-imperialist, you're anti capitalist... and the Left tends to be anti-capitalist. This is just an extension of that position.

..and expansionism is also a hallmark of imperialism and of course, Israel expanding into Palestinian lands would be interpreted as imperialism.

I'm not sure that the left is anti-Capitalist. Perhaps some fringe, far left college kids, but I think most people on the left would prefer a more regulated capitalism with social services and safety nets to ensure as equal as possible opportunities if not outcome. Even people on the right believe in taxation and social services like police and military. Right wing libertarians may differ. People on the left believe that these social services should extend to healthcare, education and water. That the private sector is doing a poor job with healthcare and puts profits before lives. — Icarian, Sep 19 '18 at 22:03
@Icarian I think anti-monopolisation would be a better wording — Adil Mohammed, Sep 08 '21 at 04:36

score 0 · Answer 6 · edited Mar 03 '16 at 00:07

Loosely speaking, I would say Western societies (UK, US, Aus, NZ, Canada, Europe etc) can be considered as "left" societies... We believe in freedom of speech, fair trials, democracy, limited power to government/police/military etc... Left vs Right becomes about strengthening or weakening those principles in the name of perceived protection from threats, or strengthening the economy, reducing government etc... But we consider western societies as peaceful and idyllic because they have traits that are most strongly advocated for by the left. It's not that the right directly moves against justice, equality etc... they just affect it as a bi-product of their agenda. So the dichotomy of "left" vs "right" is not really an "us" vs "them" it's more a difference in framing the problem, and a difference in focus.

So to your point: you're right in a sense. Israel is a Western society, Palestine or "the land left that Israel didn't arbitrarily decide to take over and force them out of" is more similar to societies which we don't consider Western, and without researching your claims of intolerance I can accept you're probably right: there are probably numerous examples of intolerance, abuse of power, etc within Palestinian society. So out of context, you would assume Israel is more Left, Palestine is more Right.

But like I said, the "left" is not about being a dichotomy with the right: the left just advocate for justice, freedom, non-violence, etc... i.e. Human Rights. The "right" is not AGAINST human rights (again: not always a simple dichotomy), it's just that the right happens to adversely affect human rights in its own agenda... The left can support Palestine because we believe that all humans are essentially the same (and all humans should celebrate our differences). While there may be corrupt or unjust mechanisms within Palestine, the Palestinian people should be regarded as: ... "people". With the same rights as anyone else.

When the left look at the Israel vs Palestine debate, we think about the entire history, and the left is on the whole opposed to the current and historical behavior of Israel. As a brief history (and forgive my recollection on all the details, it's been a while since I've read on the subject): there were people living in the Palestinian territory, Mass migration of Israelis was supported while it was under British rule, and yes migration is something the left support. But then the UN moved to split the land and declare "this part is Israel because roughly speaking a lot of the land within it is owned by Israelis because they have migrated there".

What a crazy concept. Australia is very anti immigration at the moment... imagine if the UN declared "well, these bits of land are privately owned by Muslims, and let's just build a big line around them as best we can and declare it as a new Islamic country". It's incredibly unfair to the people that were living on the land and their right to self-determination.

So they (with friends) went to war with Israel, unsuccessfully, so Israel thought "well here's a good chance to get MORE land in addition to what was gifted to us".

As a result of the war or various reasons 7 million Palestinians are refugees, who can't return to the land they once lived on, farmed, raised their families, etc...

So you now have a western country in the middle of land that millions of people consider "theirs". Without Israel then Jews and Palestinians would've lived together, formed their own government, progressed as a combined people etc.. That opportunity is forever lost to them now. But anyway...

And because Israel is western backed and very wealthy, there's bugger all they can do about it. So what happens when you get millions of people angry at a state and completely justified in their anger? They find ways to express it. Hence rockets, etc. I'm not condoning it (it hardly fixes the problem) but that's a typical human response ANY of us would have in that situation.

And the final problem the left has with Israel is its response to those attacks: how many times do you hear "some rockets land within 2km of an Israeli home: Israel decides to bomb Palestine for a week".

Israel kills roughly 10 times as many Palestinians: and they're the ones in the wrong! By all means defend yourself, but don't over do it! If you have the privilege of being given your own country, do you act like an aggressor or do you act with humility and work to mend relations with the people you affected?

So yes, while Israel society may be more "left" than Palestinian, its actions, its aggression, are akin to the "right". The "left" support Palestine because the left stand up for justice and human rights, and the Palestinian PEOPLE have been treated incredibly badly by Israel.

Without Israel then Jews and Palestinians would've lived together, formed their own government, progressed as a combined people etc.. What about the early Haganah and their counterparts? — user45891, Mar 03 '16 at 21:29

score -1 · Answer 7 · edited Jun 17 '20 at 09:20

Why do the left overwhelming support the Palestinians whilst holding left-wing values?

The implicit claim here is that it's not possible to support a people whose values are at odds with ones own. And all things being equal, this is more likely to be so than not. But not all things are equal here - and dramatically and transparently so. Here, other values come to the fore and weigh upon people's consciences.

Take a comparable situation. Why did the left overwhelming support the black South Africa in its bid for political and economic rights - self-determination and sovereignty - within the racist and Aparthied white dominated South Africa when black South Africans, on the whole, did not share their leftist values?

It's a question of justice and hence a question of a commitment to justice.

This was pointed out by Martin Luthor King in an early sermon given by him at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, 1953. Whereas he could not sympathise, he said, with the athiesm associated with Communism,

Yet we must realise that there is in Communism something that challenges us all ... it emphasises many essential truths that must forever challenge us as Christians. Indeed, it may be that Communism is a necessary corrective for a Christianity that has been all too passive and a Democracy all too inert.

It should challenge us first to be more concerned with social justice. However much is wrong with Communism, we must realise that it first arose as a protest against the hardships of the under-privileged. The Communist Manifesto, which was published by Marx and Engels in 1847, emphasises throughout how the middle-class exploits the lower-class. Communism emphasises a classless society. Along with this goes a strong attempt to eliminate racial prejudice ... with this passionate concern with social justice, Christians are bound to be in accord ... The Christian ought always to begin with a bias in favour of a movement which protests against unfair treatment of the poor, for surely Christianity was such a movement ...

We must admit that we as Christians have often lagged behind on this point. Slavery could not have existed in America for more than two hundred and fifty years if the Church had not sanctioned it. Segregation and discrimination could not exist in America today without the sanction of the Church ... How tardy we have been. The Church has too often been an institution that has served to crystallise the patterns of the status quo.

Who can blame Karl Marx for calling such a Church the opiate of the people, when religion becomes involved in a future good 'over yonder' when it forgets the present evils 'over here'. It is a dry as dust religion and needs to be condemned ... Marx revealed the danger of the profit motive as the sole [basis - remainder missing].

We cannot accept their creed, but we must admire their zeal, and their readiness to sacrifice themselves to the very uttermost and even to lay down their lives for a cause that they believe will make the world a better place ... would today, the Christian fire was burning with the same intensity in the hearts of Christians as the Communist fire is burning in the hearts of Communists.

In fact, in a book authored by him, Where do we go from here: community or Chaos?, he decried

Americas morbid fear of Communism

arguing that it

it prevented people from embracing a revolutionary spirit ... and declaring eternal opposition to poverty, racism and militarism.

These are common critiques by the left of the Palestinian situation: that they have been impoverished and marginalised and been reduced to asking for international aid, that the system of laws imposed by Israel in Israel proper and also on the West Bank and Gaza is racist, colonial and historically unjust and that their militarism makes negotiation difficult, if not impossible.

This is one reason that Palestinian civil rights group have come together in the last decade to campaign under the rubric of BDS - a campaign to acknowledge the injustice towards the Palestinians, to campaign for international pressure to be imposed upon Israel so that they come to the negotiating table under more equal terms; a campaign, modelled on the campaign against racial, economic and political injustice in South Africa by imposing Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions on - not the nation - but on its unjust constitution and it's unjust system of laws and custom.

It's interesting that you chose to reference MLK, given that he was a proponent of Israel and an opponent of antisemitism. The comparison of Israel to South African apartheid is also highly questionable. I think that this answer could be improved by including sources that show that (parts of) the left actually make this comparison (MLK certainly didn't), and that that is why they side with the Palestinians (which shouldn't be too difficult; the argument is wrong, but it is made by parts of the left). — tim, Sep 16 '18 at 10:02
@tim: Highly questionable by those who are pro-Israel; controversial for those who are undecided and not at all controversial - mostly - - for those that are pro-Palestinian. I didn't say that MLK made the comparison of South Africa with Palestine but that MLK compared the committment to justice by Communists and that of the Church and America and he found the Church and America wanting. — Mozibur Ullah, Sep 16 '18 at 10:23
@Tim: The situation of Israel was of course of importance after what had happened during WWII - I mean the holocaust - and so it's not at all surprising that MLK would call for the recognition of Israel then; that does not mean that he would still be pro-Israel today. It's worth noting - that he called for a Marshall Plan for the Arabs - presumably in recognition of how they had lost out. That suggests he recognised the injustice of the situation. — Mozibur Ullah, Sep 16 '18 at 10:36
@tim: Goven this, how do you think he might feel about a $35 Billion dollar military aid given to Israel over ten years by the Obama administration, and $300 million of aid withdrawn from UNHCR - an organisation set up to deal with the desperate plight of the Palestinians? — Mozibur Ullah, Sep 16 '18 at 10:40
@tim: I have added some further quotes from MLK to back up my argument. — Mozibur Ullah, Sep 16 '18 at 11:47
Great answer! Yes, MLK was a supporter of the Israeli state. I daresay he wasn't particularly informed about the foundation of the state, and also American Jews were great allies of the civil rights struggle. Funnily enough South African Jews were also great supporters of the anti-apartheid struggle. I think, if MLK was alive today, he probably would not be supportive of what Israel has become. At the time he was more focused on the Labour Unionization and civil rights struggles than in middle eastern geo-politics, — Icarian, Sep 16 '18 at 12:47
@IcarianX: Sure, MLK probably wasn't au fait with all the details of middle-eastern geopolitics nevertheless he did take an interest in international politics. It was this interest that led him to Gandhi - for instance - and which also helped inspire his own movement. Nevertheless, I think you are right to emphasise his struggles in the US - it's what he is known for - and where he made his greatest impact. — Mozibur Ullah, Sep 16 '18 at 22:00

score -2 · Answer 8 · answered Oct 27 '14 at 02:34

Anti-bigotry

The left tends to see Judaism being regarded by mainstream society as more of an "in-group" religion than Islam being seen as an "in-group" religion. You're far more likely to hear right-wing people talk about the USA or Australia being a "based on Judeo-Christian values" than it being based on "Islamo-Christian" or even "Abrahamic" values.

This means that, all things being equal, left-wingers who oppose bigotry would support Muslims.

The left thinks that mainstream society sees Jews as racially more similar to whites than Arabs are to whites. They think that western society is more racially prejudiced against Arabs than against Jews.

This means that, all things being equal, left-wingers who oppose bigotry would support Arabs.

Anti-imperialism

The left sees Israel as being allied with western governments, whereas Palestinians are not as strongly allied with western governments.

This means that, all things being equal, left-wingers who oppose imperialism would support Palestine.

Some of these factors don't just apply with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also with many conflicts between the west and non-western countries, even when the non-western country has an awful track record on causes that the left supports.

I have a suspicion that the left is more likely to evaluate the actions of western governments than the actions of non-western governments, but I can't give strong evidence for that, or an explanation as to why that's the case.

"all things being equal, left-wingers who oppose bigotry would support Muslims" = I think that's a bit of a logic stretch. Regardless, all things are absolutely not equal--which is probably the bigger draw to the left's political ideology. — , Oct 27 '14 at 03:26
There are various kinds of bigotry. It would be more accurate to say that left wingers who oppose imperialism or settler colonialism, support Palestinians in spite of the fact that in terms of LGBT rights, Palestinians are more bigoted than Israelis. In terms of gender equality, Fatah controlled secular West Bank is comparable to Israel. Hamas controlled Gaza is worse. In terms of religious tolerance, both have poor records due to conflict with each other and actual or perceived injustices committed by the other's religious group. We have to look at the history to decide who is better or worse — Icarian, Sep 14 '18 at 07:56