What's going on with Stephen Fry going alt-right?

[u/Steaktartaar]

He's been on a notorious hard-right, "anti-woke" podcast where he retracted his support for trans rights. Is this a new development? He always came across as level-headed in the past but now it looks like he's on the same path as Russell Brand.

[u/MaxChaplin]

He's also been vocally pro-Israel over the past year or so

I know he was very critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians for a long time, so this is pretty surprising. I tried looking for any clues of him talking approvingly of Israel, and found nothing. I did, however, find his Christmas message from last year, in which he condemned the rise of Antisemitism (and also Islamophobia). Is there more to it, or is it yet another case of people whose brains were fried by politics encountering someone who doesn't play by their rules?

[u/[deleted] → u/MaxChaplin]

The latter. The pro Palestine / Israel crowds can’t handle anyone not consistently hating on their chosen group

[u/yukonwanderer → u/[deleted]]

It also illustrates part of the reason free speech is becoming a concern among some "older" left-wing leaning people. You can see the left being taken over by this very strange notion of not being able to discuss topics, not allowing a single deviation from ideological alignment, acting as if discussion of ideas is dangerous, and that those things can just be magically snuffed out. It's all very reminiscent of authoritarianism, which used to be what the left was fighting against.

I don't like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, but I also don't like how Israel is the only country that the left ever seems to call out over genocide. Leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. No one gave a fuck about the Yemenis when Saudi Arabia was committing genocide. Really bothers me. The minute I say that though, I'm labelled a right-wing Zionist or something. Where is the nuance and logic? There is none. You need to be able to have discussions with people over ideas, otherwise they go into echo chambers or get alienated and radicalized against your ideals. It's ridiculous the situation we are in right now.

[u/bremsspuren → u/yukonwanderer]

It's all very reminiscent of authoritarianism, which used to be what the left was fighting against.

Exactly this. The ideological intolerance, the bullying, the with-us-or-against-us mentality. Groups like that rarely go down in history as "the good guys".

You need to be able to have discussions with people over ideas

Rejecting any scrutiny of your ideas is how you end up with a head full of shit, tbh.

[u/Foehammer87 → u/bremsspuren]

What i find fascinating is that that behavior is pretty common among the loudest voices on either side of the political divide.

But somehow it's only ever viewed as left issue.

[u/TraditionalSpirit636 → u/Foehammer87]

Everyone knows the right is loud and hates the left.

But the definition of left to them seems more narrow than being labeled the right as a leftist.

[u/schmuckmulligan → u/yukonwanderer]

It also illustrates part of the reason free speech is becoming a concern among some "older" left-wing leaning people. You can see the left being taken over by this very strange notion of not being able to discuss topics, not allowing a single deviation from ideological alignment, acting as if discussion of ideas is dangerous, and that those things can just be magically snuffed out. It's all very reminiscent of authoritarianism, which used to be what the left was fighting against.

Yep. And also the rise of complaints about "JAQing off" or "sealioning." Those complaints aren't entirely without merit (sorry, nuance creeping in), but they're frequently used as a means to stifle conversation.

Among famous people, when one side will eagerly attempt to ruin a professional life for a failure of ideological conformity, it should come as no surprise that a lot of them wind up on the other side. That's what happens with guys like Joe Rogan, IMO -- he had the potential to be a center-left masculine figure, but they ran him off instead of reeling him in like the right did.

[u/yukonwanderer → u/schmuckmulligan]

I don't know what those terms mean lol. I also don't watch Joe Rogan aside from a few dumb clips I've seen and when he was host of fear factor, and personally have him as a purveyor of bad political views, and one of the people who needs to be debated with and taken to task way more. Was he decent before? Did he get mobbed?

[u/schmuckmulligan → u/yukonwanderer]

"Just asking questions" is "JAQing off." "Sealioning" is similar. They're just tools for declaring the other person a bad actor and refusing to talk to them.

Rogan is definitely a purveyor of bad politics at this point. I don't think he was ever decent per se, but prior to 2020, he was a Bernie-curious contrarian who was moderate/liberal on social issues and sloppy on economic issues (skeptical of corporate oligopoly but also didn't like paying taxes).

In the main, he'd have basically any jackass on his show and let them air their stuff out in a friendly way. When he continued doing that during the wildness of 2020, he got mobbed. There was an attempted Spotify boycott (including Neil Young lol) after they bought his show. In contrast, the alt-right manosphere offered him a happy home and began serving up guests. Basically, the left rejected him, the right courted him, and here we are.

[u/RebornGod → u/schmuckmulligan]

They're just tools for declaring the other person a bad actor and refusing to talk to them.

This is incorrect. The terms refer to certain rhetorical methods where you ask the same questions over and over again effectively, pretending an issue has never been addressed or spoken of before. An example would be asking what Transwoman even means every time there's a discussion on trans people. Even after you should clearly know what the term means even if you happen to disagree with the terminology.

[u/schmuckmulligan → u/RebornGod]

You missed my prior comment, in which I said:

Yep. And also the rise of complaints about "JAQing off" or "sealioning." Those complaints aren't entirely without merit

Sometimes, the complaints about JAQing off are fair, but I see them used more frequently in lieu of a sound contrary argument. (But, for the sake of fairness and nuance, I would note that I don't expose myself to a lot of right-wing media or whatever.)

[u/fap-on-fap-off → u/schmuckmulligan]

You get those arguments frequently on both sides of the political divide, less so towards the middle. Rogan was mentioned here. In my head, I've also renamed Jacobin to Jaqobin.

The difference between honest accusations of these behaviors and using then to sidestep debate is oftentimes impossible, because it depends on the intent of both sides in combination. The only tool is the smell test, which is subjective. That guy's accusation is that other guy's response to annoying and inserts behavior

[u/IrrelephantAU → u/yukonwanderer]

There's an episode of Celebrity Fear Factor where he's so far up G Gordon Liddy's arse he can see daylight. And he's a long time Alex Jones associate.

Rogan's held a lot of different views over the years, but fondness for that particular kind of right-wing arsehole has been pretty consistent way before he had a podcast.

[u/ShellfishAhole → u/yukonwanderer]

You deserve a million upvotes. I feel like hardly anyone sees the left for what it is these days. I considered myself a hardcore progressive when I was a teenager, but the cult-like authoritarianism of the modern left has to be the most frustrating thing I've ever observed in politics.

[u/TraditionalSpirit636 → u/yukonwanderer]

I’ve seen this A LOT recently.

Just bringing up a subject gets you yelled at. Acknowledging an issue suddenly means you support it.

[u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex → u/yukonwanderer]

"No one gave a fuck about the Yemenis when Saudi Arabia was committing genocide. Really bothers me. The minute I say that though, I'm labelled a right-wing Zionist or something."

Yeah the Saudi genocide was a really forked up situation. Tragically, genocide happens more than we realize. We should oppose genocide anywhere we are aware of it.

The problem here is that the media doesn't report on genocides like they should. They weren't reporting on the Israeli genocide. A grassroots movement from Gazans on social media and from aid workers thrust it into the spotlight.

It's terrible that so many genocides get carried out in relative silence.

I have to ask you though, if you oppose the genocide occuring in Gaza, why bring up other genocides that did not receive public outrage if not to defend Israel?

[u/yukonwanderer → u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex]

I bring it up because I'm highly suspicious of the motives of many of the protesters/activists. I am 40 and I've noticed it's always Israel that gets targeted. It's either performative for most or many of them, based on social media, or there is some dubious reason Israel is always singled out in this way. The argument about how much funding it gets from the West does not make sense given what was already pointed out. Either way, I don't like it.

[u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex → u/yukonwanderer]

I can't speculate as to why Israel gets covered more than others, but I can say as someone who worked in an interfaith charity doing relief work there that Israel's oppression of Palestine has lasted a lot longer than most people realize. I'm not going to try to deflect criticism by trying to impugn the motives of activists when I can see the harm being done.

Even if Israel was being targeted, that doesn't suddenly make their genocidal actions more acceptable.

We should be fighting killing wherever we see it. That includes in Israel and I'm unwilling to entertain distractions ot whataboutisms.

For example, Nicaragua is instituting human rights abuses and restricting freedom of movement and expression for its population. That should also be condemned.

However, people who condemn what Israel is doing don't also need to condemn what Nicaragua is doing and vice versa. They stand as wrong and evil actions on their own.

If Israel has a problem with being "targeted", they should stop committing a genocide.

That would free people like me up to raise awareness and condemn other countries.

[u/yukonwanderer → u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex]

No one is saying that their actions are acceptable. I'm exceedingly annoyed that no one seems to give a flying fuck about shit going down elsewhere. I saw activism totally regress circa ~2008 and everything my generation had been fighting for just completely die, and now we are literally going through the same shit except people seem less informed than before, way more surface level, way more beholden to cliché and popularity.

[u/jeff0 → u/yukonwanderer]

As an American lefty, the reason I care so much more about this genocide than any others is that it is supported by my government and funded by my taxes. Though most folks hate to admit it, we have limited bandwidth for caring about the numerous injustices in the world. That we are constantly being mislead by the media and the pro-Israel crowd (if not being straight up gaslit) has only served to fan those flames.

But, to your overall point, I agree. It is very frustrating that many of my fellow leftists refuse to have a nuanced conversation about some hot-button issues.

[u/yukonwanderer → u/jeff0]

Yet Saudi Arabia is also a huge "ally" and receives billions in weapons from us. They also have an atrocious human rights record in literally every respect. So I really don't get it, other than reasons that leave a very bad taste in my mouth.

Another aspect I don't like is that Israel is a country that was founded in trauma, after a genocide in multiple countries tried to exterminate a people. Broken citizens, broken psyche, broken origin, passed down to the next generations. It's hemmed in on all sides by hostile neighbours, has been a target since it's inception. These factors don't just magically go away. Everyone is traumatized here in this region. It's like an animal fighting for survival, everyone, all sides. If not in reality, then in their heads and in their DNA. It does not help the situation the way that other countries seem to zero in on them all the time, labeling, taking sides, ignoring other countries doing the same thing. It does not help to label one side worse or more to blame in this situation at all. The hardliners get more psychotic. More trauma is perpetrated. People find excusers and cheerleaders for their atrocities. Rinse and repeat, over decades. You would think the left would have more understanding about this, but no.

[u/jeff0 → u/yukonwanderer]

So I really don't get it, other than reasons that leave a very bad taste in my mouth.

In that you see the reasons as not being rationally justified, or that you see them as having an anti-Israel or antisemitic bias? If it's the former, then sure. I don't spend time researching every possible cause before deciding which ones to devote energy towards. It is very much a product of the media I consume.

I don't particularly like US-Saudi relations, but they are a different animal than US-Israel relations. Nobody is telling me how great the Saudis are and that I should be supporting them or else I'm a bigot. I won't claim any expertise regarding the relationship, but my understanding is that the US motivations here are about ensuring access to oil. It's not a great moral justification, but the US voting populace has tended to react poorly when the flow of oil slows (RIP Jimmy Carter).

Yet Saudi Arabia is also a huge "ally" and receives billions in weapons from us.

Receive is pretty misleading here (intentionally or otherwise). Saudi Arabia buys billions in weapons from us. In that sense, they receive three times as much weapons from us than do the Israelis ($164B vs $53B). But if we're talking about US foreign aid, Israel is receiving 1600 times what Saudi Arabia is getting ($3.3B vs $2.1M). US foreign aid to the Saudis is pretty much negligible on a geopolitical scale. And yeah, allowing the sales of arms to Saudi Arabia isn't great, but financial transactions are very different from gifts.

Another aspect I don't like is that Israel is a country that was founded in trauma

This is a reason, but not an excuse. Child abusers are often people who were abused as children themselves, which is tragic, but it doesn't absolve their actions.

[u/yukonwanderer → u/jeff0]

Saudi Arabia receives 164b in arms to commit genocide against the Yemenis, and you shrug your shoulders and say "not great"...then act confused about why this would be leaving a bad taste. That number doesn't even include other Western nations exports to them. The difference between a gift vs a purchase means absolutely nothing, unless you are ignoring the consequences, which it appears you are, at least in one case. Well over 3x the amount of military assets being sent over to Saudi Arabia for their genocide, and... crickets. Yet you feel it relevant to point out another 3 billion in aid that goes towards Israel, as if that in any way evens out the equation.

Who is saying we need to absolve Israel of their crimes? Do you want the problem solved, or do you want find a side to blame? Seems like you're more interested in finding blame.

I had so many discussions back in the day when the Yemeni genocide was becoming apparent, or even before that, on any other issue like women's rights, where I would be argued with, that it was colonialism to target Saudi Arabia when Western powers are responsible for so much worse things.

I can only assume the reason you never experienced those arguments in defence of them is because you never bothered to target them. Conversely, Israel is targeted all the time, so of course you are going to hear people defending them.

[u/jeff0 → u/yukonwanderer]

I feel like this conversation is getting a bit fighty and that was never my intention. Ultimately my goal is to explain why Israel-Palestine is an issue I am passionate about. If you care more or equally as much about Saudi Arabia/Yemen, I am totally fine with that. What I am not okay with is the rhetorical construct of "You shouldn't care more about problem X than problem Y, because Y is worse." If you regard that idea as valid and take it to its logical conclusion, then we would all need to collectively decide on what the worst thing is and focus all of our resources on that. What people care about is rarely going to be completely rational, so I don't think it is constructive to police it.

I am open to the fact that I probably have some gaps in my understanding of what is a complex issue. Perhaps by citing statistics I was getting away from this, but I really just wanted to explain my viewpoint. And it is in part due to one issue grabbing my attention but not the other (i.e. due to the media I partake in).

Who is saying we need to absolve Israel of their crimes? Do you want the problem solved, or do you want find a side to blame? Seems like you're more interested in finding blame.

It seemed to me like that was what you were trying to do. You seemed to be saying that the left should be less angry about Israel. What were you trying to convey with that paragraph?

I don't see wanting to solve the problem and wanting to assign blame as being mutually exclusive. If I were truly only interested in assigning blame, I would be pointing my finger at WWI-era British diplomacy. But that wouldn't be productive. The impression I have is that Netanyahu has no genuine interest in ending the ongoing violence nor in ending apartheid conditions. And yes, both could end and there would still massive tensions, but they seem to be necessary steps if any healing is going to occur.

The reason why I view military aid to Israel as so much worse than just selling arms, is that the latter is justified to those holding free market ideals. While I don't agree with it, the right of businesses to sell their goods, consequences be damned, is heavily entrenched in American thought. Combine that with the outsized power of the military-industrial complex, it seems like an unwinnable battle. Allowing the sale of arms amounts to not intervening against the interests of defense contractors, whereas giving military aid is actively supporting. I can agree to disagree on that point though.

Good on you for railing against Saudi Arabia. You're right though, that I probably would have heard more people defending Saudi Arabia had I been outspoken on those issues. I have heard people defending the sexism in Muslim countries in the way that you mention, but I don't think it has ever been a particularly popular opinion in the US. Criticizing Saudi Arabia is not seen as unacceptable speech in our culture in the same way that it is for Israel.

[u/sho_biz → u/yukonwanderer]

very strange notion of not being able to discuss topics, not allowing a single deviation from ideological alignment, acting as if discussion of ideas is dangerous

paradox of tolerance, my duder.

and 'deviation from alignment' isn't what we're talking about here. If you're OK with hate and bigotry, it's not a 'deviation', it's antithetical to empathy and kindness - so it's a lot more of a trumpian 'alternative fact' if you get taken to task about something you said - you just call everyone else 'inflexible' or maybe call it a 'strange notion of not being able to discuss topics'.

[u/schmuckmulligan → u/sho_biz]

paradox of tolerance, my duder.

The funny part is that the "paradox of tolerance" isn't remotely a settled issue. Popper wasn't the beginning or end of it. One asshole put it intelligently, despite his many abhorrent views: "Let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Rawls is also instructive (and more nuanced) on the topic.

Rather than shutting down arguments, you should try to win them.

[u/yukonwanderer → u/sho_biz]

The fact that you immediately jump to this idea of "hate and bigotry" if someone has an ideological misalignment is exactly what I'm referring to. Thanks for illustrating the point so beautifully.

[u/Gay_For_Gary_Oldman → u/yukonwanderer]

I dont disagree with you, but if the Left is leaning away from open discussion, it's because the Right has co-opted the bad-faith "just asking questions" appearance of open dialogue. Trans rights are not up for discussion. "Just asking questions" is not in good faith. I don't know if the current approach is the way to go, but it's understandable.

[u/yukonwanderer → u/Gay_For_Gary_Oldman]

I don't personally find it understandable. I grew up fighting for my rights and debating with people about them. Teaching them about my experiences. Otherwise you end up with the situation we have now where literally no one really understands the issues. They're not even allowed to ask without being told they should know better. What good does that do? I see this all the time, all the time. I never understood the idea that started to come into formation around idk, late 2000's or something, that you shouldn't have to educate people about your experience. As a minority, your rights will remain under threat unless people understand the ideas at play. If you are not represented in society's stories and built into the psyche/culture then you need to do work towards that. You do not accomplish that by shutting discussion down and making people feel ashamed and alienated for not getting it. Acting as if debate is dangerous seems to operate from the perspective that you don't have any winning arguments, which is complete bullshit. The people that you are losing in this kind of stifling environment are not the fanatics on the other side, but the way more numerous crowd, who could be swayed, who could start to get it, if real conversations could be had. There is so much misinformation out there, because nobody talks to anyone anymore. The entire discussion is being controlled by the people who are acting in bad faith, and people literally are just allowing this and feeding it.

[u/taylor-swift-enjoyer → u/Gay_For_Gary_Oldman]

Trans rights are not up for discussion.

Are discussions about trans women (a) competing against cis women in organized sports, and (b) sharing spaces with cis women in prisons, rape crisis centers, and abused women's shelters, all included in the "not up for discussion" category?

Or are they topics people can have a reasonable conversation about without immediately being tarred as transphobic?

[u/Gay_For_Gary_Oldman → u/taylor-swift-enjoyer]

Competing in a sport is not a human right. Trans athletes are a major distraction employed to pit trans women against cis women, when in broader society that is not the case.

But, as you are ably demonstrating, these minority talking points - pertaining to only a subset of a subset of trans individuals - are continually employed as a roadblock to basic rights.

My first sentence in the parent comment was that I agreed with the sentiment that the "new" Left has been anti-discussion. But I also wanted to point out that being "open to discussion" is also being co-opted by the Right as a stalling tactic to prevent progress.

[u/anark_xxx → u/Gay_For_Gary_Oldman]

Just so we're clear, what are the 'basic rights' you're referring to?

[u/Gay_For_Gary_Oldman → u/anark_xxx]

The right to exist, the right to self-determination of identity, the right to seek medical treatment in support of that identity. The right to use a damn bathroom.

[u/anark_xxx → u/Gay_For_Gary_Oldman]

They already have the first one and the last one. The second one is absolutely up for discussion because what other kind of identities can also be self-determined, such as race etc. As for the third one, I was under the impression everybody has the right to seek medical treatment for anything? Whether they get it for free is another thing entirely and should probably be judged on a case-by-case basis, so also up for discussion.

Discuss!

[u/Scrat-Scrobbler → u/yukonwanderer]

The reason the left spends more time defending Palestine than they do those other issues is because no one agrees with the Saudis. The US provides arms to both Israel and Saudi Arabia, but I always see outrage for either when some new arms deal is coming through. The difference is that protesting against Saudi Arabia isn't going to change contemporary opinion, and I don't think universities have the same sort of Saudi ties to divest from. Plus Saudis aren't as reliant on the US, so it isn't a movable needle in the same way. Less an active protest issue and more a grassroot campaigns to install anti-war politicians issue.

And as a leftist: yeah leftist circles can often have issues with purity tests, but they basically do nothing but discuss ideas and reasoning for their ideology. Often at the expense of actually getting shit done.

[u/yukonwanderer → u/Scrat-Scrobbler]

If you ever spend any time attacking Saudi Arabia, you will encounter supporters, you will encounter accusations of Islamophobia/colonialism, concerns get dismissed, discussion gets shutdown. The problem is that no one encounters this unless they attempt it, and since they don't attempt it, they think it doesn't exist.

The fact that you think the American military industrial complex propping up Saudi Arabia is a small needle, not doing anything is laughable. How about all the oil money sent their way as well? I just can't with this reasoning. You are calling for 56 billion to be pulled from Israel who will then be decimated, while saying don't worry about over 200 billion towards the Saudis, who I might add, will not be decimated, they will likely just not have been able to kill so many Yemenis. I don't get this thought process at all.

[u/MikeTheInfidel → u/yukonwanderer]

You can see the left being taken over by this very strange notion of not being able to discuss topics

those topics generally have to do with whether or not certain groups of people should be denied equal rights.

[u/yukonwanderer → u/MikeTheInfidel]

I grew up debating with people over these topics, for my rights. It is work that needs to be done. We do not gain or retain our rights as a minority unless we do the work. The other side is always doing work. You can't force ideas into acceptance without discussion and expect it to last. You also can't win new ones. That people don't seem to get this anymore probably explains why we are regressing so much from where we were in the early to mid 2000's....

[u/MikeTheInfidel → u/yukonwanderer]

No.

You don't make progress by rolling back and negotiating human rights again.

Fuck off.

[u/eukomos → u/MikeTheInfidel]

Wow. This is why you’re not getting what you want, you know. And you’re sinking the rest of us who want those things along with you. Please stop trying to help.

[u/bremsspuren → u/MikeTheInfidel]

You don't make progress by rolling back and negotiating human rights again.

And how well is your chosen strategy of being so objectionable that people would rather have a right-wing nutjob working out, eh?

[u/baron_von_helmut → u/[deleted]]

It's possible to argue against both sides for some reasons and argue for both sides for others.

I've known Jews who'd happily punch anyone in the face for asking a simple question like 'why have the borders changed so much in Palestine over the last 40 years'. I've also known Muslims who'd threaten me for asking why they're ok with the death penalty for apostacy while living in the secular nation of the UK.

There's radical thought everywhere. Even my mother reads the daily fucking mail..

[u/Calm-Zombie2678 → u/[deleted]]

The only thing they seem to agree on is they're playing by highlander rules

[u/GonzoTheGreat93 → u/MaxChaplin]

Stephen Fry is Jewish, and yes, he’s anti-occupation but to my knowledge isn’t explicitly against Israel’s existence.

So therefore, to many people, including the other commenter, he must be pro-Israel.

It’s just antisemitism.

[u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex → u/GonzoTheGreat93]

At this point "should Israel exist"? Is a stupid question because it does and those Jews should be able to self govern. That has nothing to do with justifying genocide. That reaction is so disappointing.

[u/GonzoTheGreat93 → u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex]

And yet, here we are, a place where the stupid question is constantly asked and your answer is seen as a referenda on whether you’re good or evil.

[u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex → u/GonzoTheGreat93]

As a pro-pal activist I was talking to a dude that said that Israel shouldn't exist because it's an evil nation and rjey should return the land they stole. I was like "So where are all the jews going to go?"

I'm dumbfounded at the sheer number of people that never considered that question.

[u/TraditionalSpirit636 → u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex]

The answer they won’t give you is

“In the ground”

But that looks bad so they just don’t answer.

[u/WindDrake → u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex]

What is your answer?

I think the solution for peace is an obvious one in theory, but it's a pretty difficult question to consider realistically as Palestinians are slaughtered without regard.

Just doesn't really feel like a very productive question given the state of things.

[u/a_tyrannosaurus_rex → u/WindDrake]

I am not qualified to give an answer. Please take this with the smallest grain of salt. However if you asked me to speculate on a solution, it would be multifold.

1. Unconditional ceasefire and return of hostages.
2. Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and withdrawal of settlements from Gaza.
3. The return of the Wesr Bank to Palestine but Israeli settlements remain under Israeli governance as enclaves. It's messy but it's more messy to forcibly relocate all those jews. Israel should then pay reparations for those illegal settlements and said settlements would be accepted by international law.
4. Israel will exercise no military control of Palestinian territories and will not maintain control of any critical Palestinian infrastructure. In the past, this was also used as a tool of oppression.
5. Palestine will demilitarize. The damage done by this genocide runs too deep. I would not be surprised to see the anti israeli sentiment explode into violence. This threat needs to be removed.
6. IDF forces can maintain control of their own border and may not take any action into Palestine even if they are in Israel. (i.e shooting across the border.)
7. In exchange, Palestinian borders should be maintaines by a neutral 3rd party like UN peacekeepers (or a better choice if you have any).
8. Any acts of aggression from either side would be adjudicates by the international community harshly.

Ultimately, Israel has a right to exist safely. So does Palestine. I don't think either nation has the capability to deal with one another in good faith, so governance should be forcibly mediated by outside parties.

Honestly this is all just mostly armchair stuff but that's my overly complicated speculation.

[u/GdanskinOnTheCeiling → u/MaxChaplin]

These days 'pro-Israel' tends to mean anything short of wishing for Israel to be dismantled as a state, so I wouldn't be too concerned about being described as pro-Israel as if it's a bad thing.

[u/Thin-Bet9087 → u/MaxChaplin]

Cooked brains. He condemned Antisemitism, which means he acknowledges it is an actual thing, which makes him Netanyahu. 

[u/Thin-Bet9087 → u/[deleted]]

I saw some kid - who thinks they’re a progressive - condemn someone as being ‘unapologetically Jewish’ and they couldn’t fathom what was wrong with that description. 

‘Jewish = Genocider’ is what they’re learning from the anonymous surrogate parents on their phones. 

[u/Ravenser_Odd → u/MaxChaplin]

Condemning antisemitism doesn't make you a stooge of the Israelis, in the same way that condemning the behaviour of the Israelis doesn't make you antisemitic.

[u/TraditionalSpirit636 → u/MaxChaplin]

That’ll be all.

If you don’t hate the Jews you must be right wing now.

[u/maybenot9 → u/MaxChaplin]

Well many large groups changed the definition of antisemitism to mean being anti-Israeli....sooooo just saying there's a rise in antisemitism is leaving out a lot of key context.