I think you should have left the Palestine section on the drafting board.
Let's just summarize your points:
* Free Palestine is a bad slogan, and that's why the U.S has sent over $30 billion dollars over the past two years to Israel, why the UK has sent weapons and provided spy flights, why numerous European and South American countries have provided diplomatic support to Israel, why Turkey continues to sell gas and trade with Israel, and why China continues to invest in Israel. If people sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people simply revamped their messaging, they would upend decades of entrenched establishment support for Israel. I have to ask though, if Free Palestine is bad messaging, how does mass murder and starvation play in your workshop?
* Although there are Crimes against Humanity actively taking place, the technical term genocide confuses the matter and lets nefarious lawyers stroke their chins and magically keep all of the support I mentioned above flowing to Israel. Meanwhile, the IDF intentionally targets children with sniper fire, blocks critical food and medical supplies, mass bombs the entire enclave, arbitrarily imprisons and tortures Palestinians, and arms and enables the Islamist gangs you seem to dislike. It's like a horrified onlooker appealing to a crowd as a serial killer stabs a person to death "Help!! He is murdering him!!" - "No sir, we do not know yet if he's murdered him, it's unclear if those stab wounds are really fatal, and anyway, that guy is still kicking and screaming so he certainly isn't murdered yet".
* Because there are some people who have learned about Palestine before October 7th, who know what Nakba means, who have watched Israel continue to annex the west bank while mowing the lawn in Gaza over the past (checks notes) 70 years - they are actually performative leftists who consider Palestinians...pets??? They want to pet and cuddle up next to a dismembered Palestinian child?
* Millions of people have immigrated from Europe to Israel and violently displaced the local population (and continue to do so, with outputs expanding in the West Bank), while implementing a system of apartheid against the indigenous Arabs and non-jews in Palestine. But calling that a settler colony is...offensive I guess?
I think there are so many strawmen there, it would be a lot easier for all of us if you just burned the whole article. But let me know if my summary is not fair.
I agree completely. This 'essay' is just an exercise in reactionary spleen-venting. Straw men and unsubstantiated statements proliferate. One could be charitable and put it down to illness, but my impression is that this blimpish and defensive pro-English establishment etc. undercurrent has always been here.
For example: "Of course, this appeals to a certain edgy, transgressive tendency in the West that likes to talk abut Israel as a “colony” or its army as an “occupation force” and its citizens as “settlers.”
This is 'edgy and transgressive'? It is just a simple statement of fact. It is either by definition true, or else all current English dictionaries will have to be radically re-written. Israel is a state planted by force into the 'Middle' east, colonised by people who have been 'European' (whatever that means) for many hundreds of years (or more [relatively] recently US citizens), it's so called 'army' is legally an occupying force in the West Bank and Gaza (eliding it's presence by annexation in much of the rest of Palestine), and the people (again) forcibly occupying Palestinian land in the west bank are clearly settling there. Or at least they show no signs currently of knocking down the homes they have built, or stopping their farming activities.
This sort of garbage discourse really tries the patience of these readers who expected 'Aurelian' to live up to his own billing, and provide some fresh and interesting light on current affairs - instead what we get is often only a re-iteration of tired old prejudices, with the odd bit of real insight thrown in as some sort of click-bait.
I understyand what you're saying but the trick is to force people who you KNOW don't support you into having to accept the undeniable. A frontal assault with this group will be resisted. Having said that, there are lots of levels to this conflict and there is room for them all. But with my local MP I just ask him to do what he can to stop the slaughter, and when he passes that message onto Mr Starmer the real fight begins because Starmer is actually a die-hard pro-Israel supporter for very practical diplomatic reasons. And this opens up the debate, doesn't it?
Aurelien explained that there a lots of pundits that talk with less understanding and more audience than himself and he's angry about it. Then he gives an example: Western governments do nothing to stop the slaughter because we, the public, are so influenced by these know-nothings that we use the wrong language to make demands of our governments and that answers the question "why has the international campaign been so totally ineffective in changing the behaviour of the government of Israel, and even its western supporters?"
Aurelien's tendency in this way of thinking has been evident all along. There's usually some of it there and it's why I seldom share his articles. It's just not normally as concentrated as this.
I also concur. The argument that the protests against the genocide were not effective because "genocide" is a technical term is simply disappointing. Replacing "genocide" with "slaughter" would not preclude the interlocutor of asking for proof: there is ample evidence of an intent of racial erasure by Israeli government. I do grant that the evidence is not as ubiquitous as the mediatization of genocide, but it's still very easily found. AND: "Race" still very much exists in the social imaginary in both emic and etic sense and it is used in the Israeli rhetoric of slaughter with intent against Palestinians.
I do appreciate the argument reiterated from a few months ago that the efficacy of protests depends on ideological and organizational strength; and I do agree that in many, many respects both organization and ideology could be vastly improved. However, protests continue to happen on a mass scale and there are also very clearly articulated demands: "BDS", stop the funding, arm sales, cooperation, etc. Failing to notice these demands by Aurelien is indeed a giant straw-man: as if "free palestine" was all that was ever said?? There are so many examples; from BDS campaigns and public letters to university occupations last year that had clearly defined goals: ie. end co-op projects with Israeli universities, funding, collaboration, etc.
The irony is that a reasonable goal of the author to "try to understand the world" without choosing sides succeeds in the later but fails in the former: sadly, the reasons why governments choose not to listen to the protestors/public seem to me much more convoluted and reducing them to "it's the protestors' fault for not choosing their slogans more carefully" seems disingenuous and quite banal. It is, however, a question of utmost importance and seeing it reduced to this is disheartening.
When I read Aurelien's question "why has the international campaign been so totally ineffective in changing the behaviour of the government of Israel, and even its western supporters?" I paused to formulate my own answer. It didn't take very long and it's easy to set out. I won't do that here because I resumed reading and learned that I was wrong. It's because we are so influenced by influencers that we're using the wrong language to make our demands known to our governments.
It took a long time before the world turned against the US warfare in Vietnam. But in the end it did, and it was necessary for the US to draw out of the country to cut the losses.
I guess it will take some time before Israel's behaviour makes enough people sick to get their governments to stop their support for it.
Because of their history. I sympathize with resisting but you can’t move forward with them in power. They are corrupt. Everyone I know in Gaza doesn’t like them. You couldn’t even hold an election at this point, there is too much corruption. My opinion, I just want people I know to get out of there and be safe.
I have found that many people who have taken up the Palestinian cause just want to feel something. They have no desire to actually make anything better. Because if you wanted to help people in Gaza, you wouldn’t spend all your time on anti-Israel, anti-Western rhetoric. I’m just speaking about people in general. I’ve never understood the Free Palestine slogan. Immediately, Israel should adhere to the ceasefire and open the border. You need achievable aims for the present moment so you can save lives. Also, Hamas should not be governing in Gaza, let’s be real here.
That’s good but people seem very misguided on what can help. Maybe it’s a slow process but I can’t help but feel cringe at how many have made Pro Palestine their brand, encapsulate the bombing of Gaza into a larger colonial narrative which actually I do as well but it’s not going to win over a lot of people who you need on your side. It’s hypocritical especially when you live in the US and ultimately many people do come across as antisemitic while also ignoring the facts on the ground. Ultimately you need to bring everyone together to save lives and somehow enable everyone to live together in a single state while giving Palestinians dignity and yes, justice in some way. The fantasy of erasing Israel is just not possible or even desirable. Israel and the US has won for now so we need to move on from here. Ultimately will they lose? Probably but the constant clueless rhetoric is tiring. No one wants to solve problems and work together. What I would like to happen first? Open the border and allow some people to leave without having to pay off Egypt or any other neighboring government. Stop the gangs from stealing aid and jacking up prices. Send an international force in.
There are certainly people who only want to get even with somebody and use this campaign as a tool for that. But this is so in any campaign. You can't get around to ask people for their motives, that would clog up the management of the campaign completely.
Of course the ones who lead a campaign must take care to avoid making enemies among people one need as support. For example, it is suicidal to fly Hamas flags in a manifestation. But it is impossible to sift everything beforehand.
Yes and there should be a somewhat achievable goals in your demands other than “Israel is a white colonialist and should never have existed and shouldn’t exist now.” Mind you, I know no actual Palestinians who say this at least openly but plenty of other people. That’s not a goal, the goal in my opinion is to stop the killing in Gaza, open the prison of Gaza and stop settlements in the West Bank.
One thing is a campaign for an achievable goal, for example "Stop arming Israel", based on the contemporaneous killing in Gaza and other places.
But I think it is better to also spin another more far-reaching campaign around that, based on the understanding that Israel is an aggressive settler state that must change its ways completely, like Apartheid South Africa. There was no contradiction between these two "legs" in the campaign against the US warfare in Vietnam, for example. Just that they were organized by different sets of people.
There is a long-time understanding that radical and reformist groups can co-exist, provided they understand that themselves (and not treat eachother as mortal enemies). The radicals then makes the reformist look reasonable and middle-of-the-way, while the reformists make the radicals looking less radical. During my 55 years in social movements I noticed that in the 70s-80s there was a coherent chain of people and groups from the most extreme fringes to mainstream groups close to government, and that each of them had near contacts with those most close to themselves. There were thus only a few steps between them.
This kind of chain doesn't exist anymore, which is a pity. Partly the reason is that "government" today is extremist and completely shut off from reality. But it should be possible to build up chains from the revolutionary fringe to reasonably mainstream civil society (and leave government people to rot alone).
Now, this election was terribly long ago, and there have been no elections since. There was one certain Duvalier who won an election in Haiti in 1957 and then hold on to power with terrorist means until hs death in 1971.
Of course this is not for anybody except the Gazans to decide about.
I subscribed a few months ago as I believe it important to read the opinions of people I disagree with who are, nonetheless, capable of making a cogent argument. While certainly the former, this article confirms that you are not the latter. I've read enough of your work.
Your main claim to our attention is that, unlike all those other charlatans, you will provide us with objective analysis based on your experiences working within the power structure. Yet your practical "example" turned out to be nothing more than a laundry list of the same fatuous, self-serving assumptions spouted by middle class people everywhere, foremost of which is the belief that the status quo will go on forever. You've revealed yourself to be just an ex-apparatchik with delusions of grandeur.
For someone who attempts to put on an air of realpolitik, it strikes me that you miss the key feature of the global power structure of our era. We are living through the end of the Age of Nation States. The middle class has dropped the ball by forgetting the existential importance of, when combined with the lower classes, maintaining a balance of power against the ruling class. This dynamic is the basis for the power-sharing arrangements we call parliaments/congress.
By allowing the ruling class to enact policies which concentrated more than half the wealth into their hands, we have given away the balance of power. The middle class, and hence nation states, are no longer necessary - the ruling class can return to the position they never ceased desiring: rentier feudalism. Except this time they've got drones and AI surveillance, hence the term technofeudalism.
So, to answer your question as to why the pro-Palestinian protests are ineffective in shifting government behaviour - the ruling class obviously no longer has to care about the opinions of the lower classes. No strategy used by protesters will change the actions of the oligarchs in trying to control the middle east, the centre of the global energy economy.
Palestine will, I believe, become more useful as an example, a global symbol of resistance, a call to arms for the lower classes. That is, "Defend Palestine or we're next," a selfish motive being more plausibly effective than an altruistic one in our alienated society. At this point, only widespread insurrection is sufficient to address the power imbalance.
You were willing to admit that your knowledge of South East Asia is obsolete - perhaps it's time to admit that your entire world view is getting past its use by date?
We're in no way living through the end of the Age of Nation states. We live in a world dominated by a nation-state system completely and utterly defined by the 1648 treaties of Westphalia. Learn a little history before asserting something so silly.
"So it’s obligatory, apparently, to refer to Russia’s “full-scale invasion” of Ukraine in 2022 if you are to avoid attracting criticism by one side, although for the life of me I cannot understand why, since it was obviously not the case. And all references to the period 2014-22 are excluded because mentioning them would be an unfriendly act. Many articles I come across on the Internet actually seem nervously defensive rather than informative: trying above all to persuade readers of their ideological purity, lest they be suspected of a sneaking sympathy for the other side. And when you don’t do this, readers become nervous and uneasy. So I have written articles saying that a Russian victory in Ukraine is inevitable and the consequences for the West will be severe, which apparently code me as “pro-Russian.” But I have also written articles saying that Russia will find the end of the war very problematic, and will probably not get the pan-European security treaty it wants. That is coded as “anti-Russian.” So whose side am I on?"
The point is not to provide a reasoned and rational analysis but to provide a narrative in support of a given political position, in this case a direct and active WWIII against Russia.
Hence, anything short of full-on Josef Goebbels 1943 Sportspalast Total War is treated as craven defeatism, especially since we are at the same time assured that Victory Is Around The Corner, just one more aid package, one more wuenderwaffe, one small expeditionary force, one more show of resolve and surely we will win utterly, so anyone wanting to quit now while victory is at hand is obviously a traitor!
A bit off topic, but with reference to your WW3 comments. Karl Sanchez has just posted the public transcript from the Russian Security Meeting this week discussing the US nuclear testing and plans in progress for updating their nuclear weaponry. Clearly Trump spoke out of turn about the testing, they had started this exercise several months if not years ago. Presumably Putin's announcements of Russian weapons were designed to try to warn that two can play these games.
The odds of the planet becoming a burnt cinder have been raised considerably. It's very difficult to understand the motives of madmen.
Live in peace. Nothing has changed today. Putin made statements about the new weapons in order to stop the supply of Tomahawks to Ukraine. If they're not there (and they won't be), then nothing will happen.
The rulers of the West are not madmen, exactly, but rather, sociopaths. They are confident that nuclear war is survivable for themselves, and besides Russia doesn't have the stones.
“Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops.”
I suppose they are not actually sick, they are just living inside a bubble. All upper classes are, to a certain extent. I guess they believe sincerely that they do a good job and can't understand why people don't love them. And I don't doubt they have decent family lives and like their spouses and children and care for them
But. They live in a bubble and can't see the effects of their cumulated actions on the world and on other people. Probably they can't even se the cumulation of the actions. They think it is just fate, or the natural order of things, or even the bad things they try to meddle through. But they can't see that they are part of the problem, not the solution. I suppose it is impossible for anyone to do that.
ohh I think that our overlords do know the real strength of Russian 'stones' (NATO drone was allowed to monitor burevesnink test), but feel safe in their underground bunkers to continue poker bluff games.
What's missing from your analysis here are the politics.
For the past 30 years there has been little political downside to supporting Israel in the US, or Europe, and plenty of upside. Israeli/Zionist organization provided political support, funding and could be relied upon to help suppress the left (as we saw with both Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone). This was one of the easiest political calculations an ambitious politician could make.
What has changed as a result of the past 3 years, and the genocide rhetoric is certainly part of this, is that Israel has become politically toxic. If you're a politician, support for Israel costs serious political capital and votes, while criticism will lose you the support of powerful people (and their checkbooks). It's also become a generational cause, where support for Israel will die as people over 60 age out. It also crosses ideological boundaries. For the 'young' right in the US, Israel is toxic (with, alarmingly, a rise in antisemitic speech and thought). That's a huge ideological shift.
Stopping Israel was never a plausible outcome for fairly obvious structural reasons. A European state in the middle east was always going to be favored by the US and Europe, particularly given the investments made by pro-Israeli Americans in both political parties. But much like the Iraq protests failed to stop the Iraq war, but helped make a future war politically toxic - these protests (and the overreaction) make future support of Israel very difficult for politicians. And may, in time (just like it did with South Africa) result in some kind of sanctions.
For future politicians, the cost of supporting Israel will result in them having to abandon other political goals. And inevitably this will mean weaker support. For future politicians accepting money, or support, from Israeli linked organizations/people, will carry electoral costs. And again, this will weaken support for Israel.
I value your technocratic approach to analysis, but I think you often miss the sociological aspects of politics.
I don't know about the other readers here. But I thought owning up to doing daily Tarot readings and actually taking them seriously (or semi-seriously) was, for someone seeking to present himself as rational and logical above all else, an unforced error. You might indeed say that it was the best true example he gave in this essay of handing your opponent a victory.
I have been calling Israel's actions in Gaza genocide for two years. Not being a lawyer I take a long time to recognize lawyerly quibbles and hair splitting over the meaning of a word. The very word genocide was coined in 1943, I believe. It is a portmanteau. I read a short article in a magazine the other day that discussed this. At the Nuremberg trials in 1946 the fourth charge was, in part, crimes against humanity, defined, in part, as, "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations before and during the war." That definition, in part, if not yet in whole describes what has and is taking place in Gaza. I am quite willing to withdraw genocide in favor of "crimes against humanity" although genocide is pithier.
If the world at large actually gave a damn about the people of Gaza, this atrocity would have been ended, forcibly if necessary, almost immediately. Since Israel is dependent on US support, the president had and has the power to do so with a snap of the fingers. I have not heard that snap. I have heard the attempts to silence voices that protest the "crimes against humanity" in the US and across Europe. The conclusion that governing class approve "crimes against humanity" is, to me, inescapable. Now those governing classes would phrase their reasons quite differently to wrap themselves in a cloak, if not of righteousness, then one of having information best kept from the unstable masses. I believe that falls under the cloak of "national security", another portmanteau term. Then again, perhaps their stance falls somewhere within that marvelous justification for mayhem from Mario Puzo's The Godfather. It was nothing personal, only business. Some business.
In the real world, governments and politicians and pundits and ordinary people who support Israel deny both the genocide and the claim that Israel is slaughtering civilians— they blame it on Hamas using human shields. Most people don’t get into the fine legal distinction between slaughter and genocide. I understand the difference and it matters in court, but that isn’t the problem. The Biden Administration, for instance, couldn’t even admit the notion that the IDF they armed was committing warcrimes because if they did the Leahy Law would kick in.
The rest of the world recognizes that the human shield argument doesn’t explain all the killing. The idea that bad slogans on the Palestinian side largely explain the success of the pro- Israel movement is frankly absurd. It is true that the minority which praises Hamas provides ammunition to the other side, but that is completely unavoidable, You will always have such people. One would think that someone committed to understanding the world would know this.
Protest movements are generally a mix of groups saying and doing different things— you have MLK , Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and rioters in the streets.
Also, note that the argument about needing expertise has almost nothing to do with attitudes about Gaza, except that you get people like Hillary Clinton complaining that student protestors are ignorant and get all their info from TikTok. But in the real world there are many scholars and genocide experts who do know the details (and people like me who know many of them ) on the side of the allegedly ignorant students ( many probably are) — furthermore Aurelian’s own position , that people should focus on “ stop the slaughter” , is exactly the position that has filtered down to most people and requires no knowledge of Arabic or Hebrew. The group I protest with spent two years carrying signs urging a ceasefire and as we see, that has been subverted by a ceasefire where Israel keeps firing and continues to block aid. Btw, as far as I know, few if any of us speak both Arabic and Hebrew or have advanced degrees in Mideast studies but we do know a slaughter when we see or read about one and we do read people with either expertise or first hand experience. The case against Israel is based on evidence that nowadays is largely available on social media, including IDF videos showing some of their own war crimes. The experts are using the very same evidence lay people know about to varying degrees.
Just as a sidenote the globalist Hillary that today says “that student protestors are ignorant and get all their info from TikTok” is the same globalist that tomorrow says that “Serbian students (protests) are fighting for their freedom and defending democracy”.
I was criticising the Protestant Work Ethic, and its associated Ethic about trying to do better.
With a Catholic background - I recommend the Catholic ethic of sin and forgiveness - means one can relax and accept that one can't get it right for long - just have to accept the mess and feel oneself to be forgiven - a more relaxing way of life.
Great post! No matter how pessimistic the content, your posts always make me feel better. Maybe because there is humanity and wit in them, and in a sea of inhumanity and stupidity, this gives one hope. Be well!
The placard I've been sticking on walls for months say "stop genocide in Gaza", "Liban, Palestine, immediate ceasefire" and similar slogans. Not empty calls to "Free Palestine". You should have stayed in bed.
A historian named Michael P Young wrote a book about the evangelical awakening in the US in the early 1800s called Bearing witness against sin. This is, ruefully, the way too many people look at the world today, 200 years after. Perhaps a result of too much American influence in the Atlantic world the last 80 years.
Before that, we had more of what I have called "the republican tradition", the one that had its apogee in the French revolution or in the Labour movement. A tradition where interests were in focus, and where reality was important.
Get well soon, sir! A question prompted by your article -- Who & what determines which international problems are going to become "hot topics"?
An obvious example is why the situation facing the Tibetans gets ignored while every punter knows about the Palestinians? After all China invaded and occupied Tibet at around the same post-WWII time that Israel was established, and China's historical claim to Tibet is patently much weaker than the Jewish claim to Israel.
Then there was a little flurry of concern about the treatment of Muslims in China's far-Western Xinjiang region, but that quickly got forgotten. And all the horrible doings in Africa which come close to the definition of genocide don't get any attention at all from the kind of people who demonstrate for the Ukraine or Gaza.
Is the Western public's astonishingly narrow focus on only certain far-off countries simply a matter of fashion, where anything which is unfashionable can simply be ignored? Or does something else explain the selective focus?
Some interesting points raised, indeed there probably are Palestinians happy with the slaughter as see it as the only way to raise the volume.
However I somewhat doubt governments continue supporting the murderers in Israel as the opposition has used the incorrect synonym or didn't hire a decent marketing company. They do so as they are owned. How else could anyone claiming membership with humanity look at these horrors and then help to further enable them?
I think you should have left the Palestine section on the drafting board.
Let's just summarize your points:
* Free Palestine is a bad slogan, and that's why the U.S has sent over $30 billion dollars over the past two years to Israel, why the UK has sent weapons and provided spy flights, why numerous European and South American countries have provided diplomatic support to Israel, why Turkey continues to sell gas and trade with Israel, and why China continues to invest in Israel. If people sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people simply revamped their messaging, they would upend decades of entrenched establishment support for Israel. I have to ask though, if Free Palestine is bad messaging, how does mass murder and starvation play in your workshop?
* Although there are Crimes against Humanity actively taking place, the technical term genocide confuses the matter and lets nefarious lawyers stroke their chins and magically keep all of the support I mentioned above flowing to Israel. Meanwhile, the IDF intentionally targets children with sniper fire, blocks critical food and medical supplies, mass bombs the entire enclave, arbitrarily imprisons and tortures Palestinians, and arms and enables the Islamist gangs you seem to dislike. It's like a horrified onlooker appealing to a crowd as a serial killer stabs a person to death "Help!! He is murdering him!!" - "No sir, we do not know yet if he's murdered him, it's unclear if those stab wounds are really fatal, and anyway, that guy is still kicking and screaming so he certainly isn't murdered yet".
* Because there are some people who have learned about Palestine before October 7th, who know what Nakba means, who have watched Israel continue to annex the west bank while mowing the lawn in Gaza over the past (checks notes) 70 years - they are actually performative leftists who consider Palestinians...pets??? They want to pet and cuddle up next to a dismembered Palestinian child?
* Millions of people have immigrated from Europe to Israel and violently displaced the local population (and continue to do so, with outputs expanding in the West Bank), while implementing a system of apartheid against the indigenous Arabs and non-jews in Palestine. But calling that a settler colony is...offensive I guess?
I think there are so many strawmen there, it would be a lot easier for all of us if you just burned the whole article. But let me know if my summary is not fair.
By the way, you might find this article informative: https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/islam-vs-the-west-the-four-biggest?publication_id=476450&post_id=177885861
I agree completely. This 'essay' is just an exercise in reactionary spleen-venting. Straw men and unsubstantiated statements proliferate. One could be charitable and put it down to illness, but my impression is that this blimpish and defensive pro-English establishment etc. undercurrent has always been here.
For example: "Of course, this appeals to a certain edgy, transgressive tendency in the West that likes to talk abut Israel as a “colony” or its army as an “occupation force” and its citizens as “settlers.”
This is 'edgy and transgressive'? It is just a simple statement of fact. It is either by definition true, or else all current English dictionaries will have to be radically re-written. Israel is a state planted by force into the 'Middle' east, colonised by people who have been 'European' (whatever that means) for many hundreds of years (or more [relatively] recently US citizens), it's so called 'army' is legally an occupying force in the West Bank and Gaza (eliding it's presence by annexation in much of the rest of Palestine), and the people (again) forcibly occupying Palestinian land in the west bank are clearly settling there. Or at least they show no signs currently of knocking down the homes they have built, or stopping their farming activities.
This sort of garbage discourse really tries the patience of these readers who expected 'Aurelian' to live up to his own billing, and provide some fresh and interesting light on current affairs - instead what we get is often only a re-iteration of tired old prejudices, with the odd bit of real insight thrown in as some sort of click-bait.
I understyand what you're saying but the trick is to force people who you KNOW don't support you into having to accept the undeniable. A frontal assault with this group will be resisted. Having said that, there are lots of levels to this conflict and there is room for them all. But with my local MP I just ask him to do what he can to stop the slaughter, and when he passes that message onto Mr Starmer the real fight begins because Starmer is actually a die-hard pro-Israel supporter for very practical diplomatic reasons. And this opens up the debate, doesn't it?
Aurelien explained that there a lots of pundits that talk with less understanding and more audience than himself and he's angry about it. Then he gives an example: Western governments do nothing to stop the slaughter because we, the public, are so influenced by these know-nothings that we use the wrong language to make demands of our governments and that answers the question "why has the international campaign been so totally ineffective in changing the behaviour of the government of Israel, and even its western supporters?"
Aurelien's tendency in this way of thinking has been evident all along. There's usually some of it there and it's why I seldom share his articles. It's just not normally as concentrated as this.
I also concur. The argument that the protests against the genocide were not effective because "genocide" is a technical term is simply disappointing. Replacing "genocide" with "slaughter" would not preclude the interlocutor of asking for proof: there is ample evidence of an intent of racial erasure by Israeli government. I do grant that the evidence is not as ubiquitous as the mediatization of genocide, but it's still very easily found. AND: "Race" still very much exists in the social imaginary in both emic and etic sense and it is used in the Israeli rhetoric of slaughter with intent against Palestinians.
I do appreciate the argument reiterated from a few months ago that the efficacy of protests depends on ideological and organizational strength; and I do agree that in many, many respects both organization and ideology could be vastly improved. However, protests continue to happen on a mass scale and there are also very clearly articulated demands: "BDS", stop the funding, arm sales, cooperation, etc. Failing to notice these demands by Aurelien is indeed a giant straw-man: as if "free palestine" was all that was ever said?? There are so many examples; from BDS campaigns and public letters to university occupations last year that had clearly defined goals: ie. end co-op projects with Israeli universities, funding, collaboration, etc.
The irony is that a reasonable goal of the author to "try to understand the world" without choosing sides succeeds in the later but fails in the former: sadly, the reasons why governments choose not to listen to the protestors/public seem to me much more convoluted and reducing them to "it's the protestors' fault for not choosing their slogans more carefully" seems disingenuous and quite banal. It is, however, a question of utmost importance and seeing it reduced to this is disheartening.
When I read Aurelien's question "why has the international campaign been so totally ineffective in changing the behaviour of the government of Israel, and even its western supporters?" I paused to formulate my own answer. It didn't take very long and it's easy to set out. I won't do that here because I resumed reading and learned that I was wrong. It's because we are so influenced by influencers that we're using the wrong language to make our demands known to our governments.
It took a long time before the world turned against the US warfare in Vietnam. But in the end it did, and it was necessary for the US to draw out of the country to cut the losses.
I guess it will take some time before Israel's behaviour makes enough people sick to get their governments to stop their support for it.
Because of their history. I sympathize with resisting but you can’t move forward with them in power. They are corrupt. Everyone I know in Gaza doesn’t like them. You couldn’t even hold an election at this point, there is too much corruption. My opinion, I just want people I know to get out of there and be safe.
I have found that many people who have taken up the Palestinian cause just want to feel something. They have no desire to actually make anything better. Because if you wanted to help people in Gaza, you wouldn’t spend all your time on anti-Israel, anti-Western rhetoric. I’m just speaking about people in general. I’ve never understood the Free Palestine slogan. Immediately, Israel should adhere to the ceasefire and open the border. You need achievable aims for the present moment so you can save lives. Also, Hamas should not be governing in Gaza, let’s be real here.
Beedot wrote: > "I have found that many people who have taken up the Palestinian cause just want to feel something."
I have found the converse. People feel something as a result of evidence in front of them and take up the cause.
That’s good but people seem very misguided on what can help. Maybe it’s a slow process but I can’t help but feel cringe at how many have made Pro Palestine their brand, encapsulate the bombing of Gaza into a larger colonial narrative which actually I do as well but it’s not going to win over a lot of people who you need on your side. It’s hypocritical especially when you live in the US and ultimately many people do come across as antisemitic while also ignoring the facts on the ground. Ultimately you need to bring everyone together to save lives and somehow enable everyone to live together in a single state while giving Palestinians dignity and yes, justice in some way. The fantasy of erasing Israel is just not possible or even desirable. Israel and the US has won for now so we need to move on from here. Ultimately will they lose? Probably but the constant clueless rhetoric is tiring. No one wants to solve problems and work together. What I would like to happen first? Open the border and allow some people to leave without having to pay off Egypt or any other neighboring government. Stop the gangs from stealing aid and jacking up prices. Send an international force in.
There are certainly people who only want to get even with somebody and use this campaign as a tool for that. But this is so in any campaign. You can't get around to ask people for their motives, that would clog up the management of the campaign completely.
Of course the ones who lead a campaign must take care to avoid making enemies among people one need as support. For example, it is suicidal to fly Hamas flags in a manifestation. But it is impossible to sift everything beforehand.
Yes and there should be a somewhat achievable goals in your demands other than “Israel is a white colonialist and should never have existed and shouldn’t exist now.” Mind you, I know no actual Palestinians who say this at least openly but plenty of other people. That’s not a goal, the goal in my opinion is to stop the killing in Gaza, open the prison of Gaza and stop settlements in the West Bank.
One thing is a campaign for an achievable goal, for example "Stop arming Israel", based on the contemporaneous killing in Gaza and other places.
But I think it is better to also spin another more far-reaching campaign around that, based on the understanding that Israel is an aggressive settler state that must change its ways completely, like Apartheid South Africa. There was no contradiction between these two "legs" in the campaign against the US warfare in Vietnam, for example. Just that they were organized by different sets of people.
There is a long-time understanding that radical and reformist groups can co-exist, provided they understand that themselves (and not treat eachother as mortal enemies). The radicals then makes the reformist look reasonable and middle-of-the-way, while the reformists make the radicals looking less radical. During my 55 years in social movements I noticed that in the 70s-80s there was a coherent chain of people and groups from the most extreme fringes to mainstream groups close to government, and that each of them had near contacts with those most close to themselves. There were thus only a few steps between them.
This kind of chain doesn't exist anymore, which is a pity. Partly the reason is that "government" today is extremist and completely shut off from reality. But it should be possible to build up chains from the revolutionary fringe to reasonably mainstream civil society (and leave government people to rot alone).
Why should Hamas not be governing in Gaza?
Indeed! They won the election. (The US backed them because Obama/Clinton didn't want the PLO to run Gaza.)
Now, this election was terribly long ago, and there have been no elections since. There was one certain Duvalier who won an election in Haiti in 1957 and then hold on to power with terrorist means until hs death in 1971.
Of course this is not for anybody except the Gazans to decide about.
Damn straight.
I subscribed a few months ago as I believe it important to read the opinions of people I disagree with who are, nonetheless, capable of making a cogent argument. While certainly the former, this article confirms that you are not the latter. I've read enough of your work.
Your main claim to our attention is that, unlike all those other charlatans, you will provide us with objective analysis based on your experiences working within the power structure. Yet your practical "example" turned out to be nothing more than a laundry list of the same fatuous, self-serving assumptions spouted by middle class people everywhere, foremost of which is the belief that the status quo will go on forever. You've revealed yourself to be just an ex-apparatchik with delusions of grandeur.
For someone who attempts to put on an air of realpolitik, it strikes me that you miss the key feature of the global power structure of our era. We are living through the end of the Age of Nation States. The middle class has dropped the ball by forgetting the existential importance of, when combined with the lower classes, maintaining a balance of power against the ruling class. This dynamic is the basis for the power-sharing arrangements we call parliaments/congress.
By allowing the ruling class to enact policies which concentrated more than half the wealth into their hands, we have given away the balance of power. The middle class, and hence nation states, are no longer necessary - the ruling class can return to the position they never ceased desiring: rentier feudalism. Except this time they've got drones and AI surveillance, hence the term technofeudalism.
So, to answer your question as to why the pro-Palestinian protests are ineffective in shifting government behaviour - the ruling class obviously no longer has to care about the opinions of the lower classes. No strategy used by protesters will change the actions of the oligarchs in trying to control the middle east, the centre of the global energy economy.
Palestine will, I believe, become more useful as an example, a global symbol of resistance, a call to arms for the lower classes. That is, "Defend Palestine or we're next," a selfish motive being more plausibly effective than an altruistic one in our alienated society. At this point, only widespread insurrection is sufficient to address the power imbalance.
You were willing to admit that your knowledge of South East Asia is obsolete - perhaps it's time to admit that your entire world view is getting past its use by date?
Goodbye.
You have been listening too much varoufakis.
Goodbye.
We're in no way living through the end of the Age of Nation states. We live in a world dominated by a nation-state system completely and utterly defined by the 1648 treaties of Westphalia. Learn a little history before asserting something so silly.
"So it’s obligatory, apparently, to refer to Russia’s “full-scale invasion” of Ukraine in 2022 if you are to avoid attracting criticism by one side, although for the life of me I cannot understand why, since it was obviously not the case. And all references to the period 2014-22 are excluded because mentioning them would be an unfriendly act. Many articles I come across on the Internet actually seem nervously defensive rather than informative: trying above all to persuade readers of their ideological purity, lest they be suspected of a sneaking sympathy for the other side. And when you don’t do this, readers become nervous and uneasy. So I have written articles saying that a Russian victory in Ukraine is inevitable and the consequences for the West will be severe, which apparently code me as “pro-Russian.” But I have also written articles saying that Russia will find the end of the war very problematic, and will probably not get the pan-European security treaty it wants. That is coded as “anti-Russian.” So whose side am I on?"
The point is not to provide a reasoned and rational analysis but to provide a narrative in support of a given political position, in this case a direct and active WWIII against Russia.
Hence, anything short of full-on Josef Goebbels 1943 Sportspalast Total War is treated as craven defeatism, especially since we are at the same time assured that Victory Is Around The Corner, just one more aid package, one more wuenderwaffe, one small expeditionary force, one more show of resolve and surely we will win utterly, so anyone wanting to quit now while victory is at hand is obviously a traitor!
A bit off topic, but with reference to your WW3 comments. Karl Sanchez has just posted the public transcript from the Russian Security Meeting this week discussing the US nuclear testing and plans in progress for updating their nuclear weaponry. Clearly Trump spoke out of turn about the testing, they had started this exercise several months if not years ago. Presumably Putin's announcements of Russian weapons were designed to try to warn that two can play these games.
The odds of the planet becoming a burnt cinder have been raised considerably. It's very difficult to understand the motives of madmen.
Live in peace. Nothing has changed today. Putin made statements about the new weapons in order to stop the supply of Tomahawks to Ukraine. If they're not there (and they won't be), then nothing will happen.
The rulers of the West are not madmen, exactly, but rather, sociopaths. They are confident that nuclear war is survivable for themselves, and besides Russia doesn't have the stones.
“Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcK6ad_t9ak
Ever seen "Don't Look Up!"?
"The truth is way more depressing. They’re not even smart enough to be as evil as you’re giving them credit for."
- Kate Dibiasky
I suppose they are not actually sick, they are just living inside a bubble. All upper classes are, to a certain extent. I guess they believe sincerely that they do a good job and can't understand why people don't love them. And I don't doubt they have decent family lives and like their spouses and children and care for them
But. They live in a bubble and can't see the effects of their cumulated actions on the world and on other people. Probably they can't even se the cumulation of the actions. They think it is just fate, or the natural order of things, or even the bad things they try to meddle through. But they can't see that they are part of the problem, not the solution. I suppose it is impossible for anyone to do that.
ohh I think that our overlords do know the real strength of Russian 'stones' (NATO drone was allowed to monitor burevesnink test), but feel safe in their underground bunkers to continue poker bluff games.
What's missing from your analysis here are the politics.
For the past 30 years there has been little political downside to supporting Israel in the US, or Europe, and plenty of upside. Israeli/Zionist organization provided political support, funding and could be relied upon to help suppress the left (as we saw with both Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone). This was one of the easiest political calculations an ambitious politician could make.
What has changed as a result of the past 3 years, and the genocide rhetoric is certainly part of this, is that Israel has become politically toxic. If you're a politician, support for Israel costs serious political capital and votes, while criticism will lose you the support of powerful people (and their checkbooks). It's also become a generational cause, where support for Israel will die as people over 60 age out. It also crosses ideological boundaries. For the 'young' right in the US, Israel is toxic (with, alarmingly, a rise in antisemitic speech and thought). That's a huge ideological shift.
Stopping Israel was never a plausible outcome for fairly obvious structural reasons. A European state in the middle east was always going to be favored by the US and Europe, particularly given the investments made by pro-Israeli Americans in both political parties. But much like the Iraq protests failed to stop the Iraq war, but helped make a future war politically toxic - these protests (and the overreaction) make future support of Israel very difficult for politicians. And may, in time (just like it did with South Africa) result in some kind of sanctions.
For future politicians, the cost of supporting Israel will result in them having to abandon other political goals. And inevitably this will mean weaker support. For future politicians accepting money, or support, from Israeli linked organizations/people, will carry electoral costs. And again, this will weaken support for Israel.
I value your technocratic approach to analysis, but I think you often miss the sociological aspects of politics.
I don't know about the other readers here. But I thought owning up to doing daily Tarot readings and actually taking them seriously (or semi-seriously) was, for someone seeking to present himself as rational and logical above all else, an unforced error. You might indeed say that it was the best true example he gave in this essay of handing your opponent a victory.
Charles - he is English. We call this 'taking the piss'....
I have been calling Israel's actions in Gaza genocide for two years. Not being a lawyer I take a long time to recognize lawyerly quibbles and hair splitting over the meaning of a word. The very word genocide was coined in 1943, I believe. It is a portmanteau. I read a short article in a magazine the other day that discussed this. At the Nuremberg trials in 1946 the fourth charge was, in part, crimes against humanity, defined, in part, as, "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations before and during the war." That definition, in part, if not yet in whole describes what has and is taking place in Gaza. I am quite willing to withdraw genocide in favor of "crimes against humanity" although genocide is pithier.
If the world at large actually gave a damn about the people of Gaza, this atrocity would have been ended, forcibly if necessary, almost immediately. Since Israel is dependent on US support, the president had and has the power to do so with a snap of the fingers. I have not heard that snap. I have heard the attempts to silence voices that protest the "crimes against humanity" in the US and across Europe. The conclusion that governing class approve "crimes against humanity" is, to me, inescapable. Now those governing classes would phrase their reasons quite differently to wrap themselves in a cloak, if not of righteousness, then one of having information best kept from the unstable masses. I believe that falls under the cloak of "national security", another portmanteau term. Then again, perhaps their stance falls somewhere within that marvelous justification for mayhem from Mario Puzo's The Godfather. It was nothing personal, only business. Some business.
In the real world, governments and politicians and pundits and ordinary people who support Israel deny both the genocide and the claim that Israel is slaughtering civilians— they blame it on Hamas using human shields. Most people don’t get into the fine legal distinction between slaughter and genocide. I understand the difference and it matters in court, but that isn’t the problem. The Biden Administration, for instance, couldn’t even admit the notion that the IDF they armed was committing warcrimes because if they did the Leahy Law would kick in.
The rest of the world recognizes that the human shield argument doesn’t explain all the killing. The idea that bad slogans on the Palestinian side largely explain the success of the pro- Israel movement is frankly absurd. It is true that the minority which praises Hamas provides ammunition to the other side, but that is completely unavoidable, You will always have such people. One would think that someone committed to understanding the world would know this.
Protest movements are generally a mix of groups saying and doing different things— you have MLK , Malcolm X, the Black Panthers and rioters in the streets.
Also, note that the argument about needing expertise has almost nothing to do with attitudes about Gaza, except that you get people like Hillary Clinton complaining that student protestors are ignorant and get all their info from TikTok. But in the real world there are many scholars and genocide experts who do know the details (and people like me who know many of them ) on the side of the allegedly ignorant students ( many probably are) — furthermore Aurelian’s own position , that people should focus on “ stop the slaughter” , is exactly the position that has filtered down to most people and requires no knowledge of Arabic or Hebrew. The group I protest with spent two years carrying signs urging a ceasefire and as we see, that has been subverted by a ceasefire where Israel keeps firing and continues to block aid. Btw, as far as I know, few if any of us speak both Arabic and Hebrew or have advanced degrees in Mideast studies but we do know a slaughter when we see or read about one and we do read people with either expertise or first hand experience. The case against Israel is based on evidence that nowadays is largely available on social media, including IDF videos showing some of their own war crimes. The experts are using the very same evidence lay people know about to varying degrees.
Just as a sidenote the globalist Hillary that today says “that student protestors are ignorant and get all their info from TikTok” is the same globalist that tomorrow says that “Serbian students (protests) are fighting for their freedom and defending democracy”.
From the Rules Based Order.
I started to comment, and it disappeared.
I was criticising the Protestant Work Ethic, and its associated Ethic about trying to do better.
With a Catholic background - I recommend the Catholic ethic of sin and forgiveness - means one can relax and accept that one can't get it right for long - just have to accept the mess and feel oneself to be forgiven - a more relaxing way of life.
Thank you, and get well as soon as possible.
I hope you're no on the way oot. Nothing personal. I just enjoy reading your articles.
Great post! No matter how pessimistic the content, your posts always make me feel better. Maybe because there is humanity and wit in them, and in a sea of inhumanity and stupidity, this gives one hope. Be well!
The placard I've been sticking on walls for months say "stop genocide in Gaza", "Liban, Palestine, immediate ceasefire" and similar slogans. Not empty calls to "Free Palestine". You should have stayed in bed.
A historian named Michael P Young wrote a book about the evangelical awakening in the US in the early 1800s called Bearing witness against sin. This is, ruefully, the way too many people look at the world today, 200 years after. Perhaps a result of too much American influence in the Atlantic world the last 80 years.
Before that, we had more of what I have called "the republican tradition", the one that had its apogee in the French revolution or in the Labour movement. A tradition where interests were in focus, and where reality was important.
Get well soon, sir! A question prompted by your article -- Who & what determines which international problems are going to become "hot topics"?
An obvious example is why the situation facing the Tibetans gets ignored while every punter knows about the Palestinians? After all China invaded and occupied Tibet at around the same post-WWII time that Israel was established, and China's historical claim to Tibet is patently much weaker than the Jewish claim to Israel.
Then there was a little flurry of concern about the treatment of Muslims in China's far-Western Xinjiang region, but that quickly got forgotten. And all the horrible doings in Africa which come close to the definition of genocide don't get any attention at all from the kind of people who demonstrate for the Ukraine or Gaza.
Is the Western public's astonishingly narrow focus on only certain far-off countries simply a matter of fashion, where anything which is unfashionable can simply be ignored? Or does something else explain the selective focus?
Here my usual italian translation:
"Delle scuse, un'apologia e un esempio concreto.
È tutto quello che posso fare questa settimana, mi dispiace."
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2025/11/delle-scuse-unapologia-e-un-esempio.html
Some interesting points raised, indeed there probably are Palestinians happy with the slaughter as see it as the only way to raise the volume.
However I somewhat doubt governments continue supporting the murderers in Israel as the opposition has used the incorrect synonym or didn't hire a decent marketing company. They do so as they are owned. How else could anyone claiming membership with humanity look at these horrors and then help to further enable them?