No I haven't. I do know that Netanyahu has in the past tried to get "information" on the USA as leverage... it is why I have long questioned just how good an ally that Israel really is, at least under certain leadership. When you consider the amount of money, effort and time spent on Israel - the USA could have picked another nation and given them similar support and would have a more obedient ally.
The son of the founder of Hamas gets paid a lot of money to do what he does. Beyond that - Hamas is terrible.
Yup. Hamas is terrible but if you actually listen to a lot of his rhetoric it is abject dehumanization of Palestinians at large. He has no issue calling Palestinians as a totality as barbaric. He is a very simple minded individual also. And that simple mindedness makes him prone to being direct with his hate speech like calling Palestinian culture barbaric when someone not as simple minded would be able to express this general thought of Palestinians being "lesser" but with more plausible deniability that is what they actually mean.
There is nothing in this that should be controversial or inaccurate. He isn't saying he doesn't want a free state Palestine, indeed he said he has fought for 40 years for a free Palestine. What he said, is that right now, if a free state Palestine were to emerge, it would be lead by Hamas. He doesn't get into WHY Hamas is the ruling party in Gaza. He doesn't get into the fact that Hamas stopped elections, etc. He simply points out that the default ruling party is Hamas, and that is objectively true. He also supports protests over Palestine, but he believes that some that are protesting support antisemitism and even some support Hamas. The vast majority of those that support Palestinians rights do not agree with Hamas and are not anti-semetic. I would recommend anyone that really wants to understand Islamic extremism read and listen to Rushdie - as to this day they are trying to kill him, and recently made another attempt to kill him.
It's not like this guy is not prone to holes in his ideology and opinions of Islamic extremism. Has he considered that the lack of freedom of Palestinians is the radicalizing force? It's the chicken or the egg question right? Are Palestinians inherently radical or was radicalism forced upon them? Does he address things like early childhood development? Conditions on the ground in Gaza that make youth prone to nihilism which creates a open wound that is filled with radical religion the promises something after their miserable existence? Does he address that? He is a victim of Islamic extremism manifested into it's worst form with direct violence. This often can make someone remove themselves as a objective arbiter. Just like a female rape victim might suddenly be more easily radicalized to "hate all men". Or a victim of a Hamas terror attack will be more prone to "hate all Palestinians" or a victim of IDF terror attack being more prone to "hate all Israelis". What happened to him is horrible but he no longer is an objective arbiter.
The Iranian regime is an extremist Isn’t their head leader called the supreme leader ? They fund all the terrorists groups that want to destroy Israel Their president took an L on the choppa
Rushdie isn't perfect, and has changed his opinions with time. What he does well is explain to English speakers how extreme Islam views the world, in a way that is palatable and understandable for Westerners. To me that has value. Does that make him the only voice on the topic? No, but he is pretty fair in his assessments in general terms. He doesn't believe that the Palestinians are inherently radical, same with Iranians. He believes that a small group of religious people have exploited poverty, poor policy decisions by the West and many other causes - which has resulted in radicalization. He has said that something similar could happen elsewhere. I guess the most controversial thing he has said is that he believes that the history and some of the rituals of Islam has made it easier to control groups of people. Even on this point he says that Islam is just a means to an end for leadership in the Middle East. To him it isn't. He doesn't think that Palestinians are born radical. He also doesn't agree with how Israel has historically treated Palestinians. He does - especially nihilism and a lack of opportunities. He has before - yes. Yes he is - he has repeatedly been targeted for death. He has overall been fairly objective IMO. At least what I have read and heard him say. I have been to a few of his talks. He is very critical of religion as it is practiced in places like Iran and Palestine - but he also is quick to point out that does not mean that the majority of Arabs are bad people, or even believe in what the state sanctioned religious rulers say. He wants a call for secularization across societies - and has pointed out that in the past he would be murdered by religious zealots in Europe and elsewhere.
He has before in the past. You don't think his experiences with direct violence has made him abandon these ideas? Ironically this a radicalization moment for him. Experience with violence and oppression is what causes radicalization in most instances. Other instances where radicalization forms is when you attach your identity to things like settler colonialism because you benefit from it today. This is often how bourgeoisie get radicalized into supremacy views. The constant defense of prior transgressions in history that benefit them today can cause supremacist views. So it isn't always oppression and poverty that can radicalize. It can merely be just constantly defending history that creates a comfortable life style for you that can lead to radicalization.
@Nook do you think I'm on to something with this logic I have in my head? Many miliqoust liberal suburbanites often refuse to understand the connection between nihilism and things like supporting Hamas as in why many liberals will often try to defend Palestinians not by acknowledging why a large portion of them might support Hamas but rather by stating that Hamas is not democratic(it isn't but many Palestinians do naturally support Hamas) because they can't acknowledge that the cure to Hamas isn't ordinance drops but rather economic solutions that provide basic dignity? That's why many liberals will be like "this is horrible for the civilian population of Gaza but how else do you remove Hamas?". It's like a fake showing of empathy. You see this with the Biden admin abstaining or vetoing Palestinian statehood via the PLO which would delegitimize Hamas support. Because the liberal establishment believes that violence is what removes Hamas, not dignity and opportunities.
Abandon which ideas? He has been critical of all religions and ideas that will not allow for debate or criticism. I am sure that all of his experiences, especially his experiences post Fatiwa have shaped his opinions - but thus far it has not radicalized him as far as I can tell. There are a lot of quotes attributed to him that are false, and the extremists on the right have tried to paint him as a supporter of theirs and he has come out and said he isn't and doesn't like being used as a tool. I haven't really heard him say anything extreme since his injury - other than he was unhappy that false quotes were attributed to him. Agreed.
I mean I think of myself as critical of all religions also. The prophet of Islam was a glorified warlord who had a harem of women at his disposal. Abrahamic religions have a issue of propping up ancient cultures and "heros" who don't fit the modern application of morality. But his rhetoric that we are specifically referring to implies that dignity and freedom doesn't come first. The elimination of Hamas comes first and then dignity and freedom. Which to me goes against his older rhetoric about how nihilism causes radicalization.
Yes - I think there is a component of this, and I also think there is a "white savior" mentality that I see with some liberals. It is also a lot more difficult to acknowledge a complicated situation and sympathy is a lot easier to give than empathy. Also - our leaders are in constant fear or losing power/influence, so the idea of a long term relationship or building of change is just not feasible. Look at the situation in Palestine and Ukraine. In less than a year, our policy could be radically different. I have also noticed that some people get entertainment out of these types of serious issues - they take sides and feel "good" being on "the right side". I see a lot of modern conservatives do this, and I am seeing it often with less informed liberals.
I think you make a great point about sympathy vs empathy. For many surban white liberals it is easier to have sympathy for Palestinians in the sense that they are oppressed by Hamas rather than having empathy for WHY a Palestinian sincerely would support Hamas. It's far easier and more comfortable to do the former.
I didn't interpret what he said that way - I can see how you can reach that conclusion in hindsight though. I don't think he is saying that dignity and freedom don't come first. I think he is saying that the issue is more complicated than some liberals believe - that Hamas is a problem for a free Palestine, and he wants recognition by liberal that there is a problem with Hamas. He has been critical of the civilian fatalities in Palestine, and he has also said that Abrahamic religions play a part in that (both). If anything, I would say he is a w**** for secularism.... as he has said that he notes that religion in the PUBLIC sphere does not allow for criticism or difference of opinion.
Of course, and that goes for almost any movement.... but that makes the whole discussion more complicated and takes away the virtue dopamine hits people get. If I were to say that I can understand why an unemployed WWI veteran in 1930 Germany would be drawn to the NAZI party, I would be labeled a antisemite. If I were to say that I can get the appeal of communism in Russia to an 18 year old tenant farmer, I would be called a monster. Likewise - I can understand how a young male male born in Gaza or the West Bank could fixate on Israel being the cause of all of his problems and embrace "God" and support or even act as a Hamas member.
If I may chime in here... I think it's important to clarify that while some Palestinians support Hamas, many do so not out of ideological alignment but out of desperation and lack of alternatives. Hamas provides social services and a form of resistance against perceived oppression, which can appeal to those feeling abandoned or marginalized. We see this same theme repeated many times in history. Many of us here argued that political solutions, such as a two-state solution or any framework that provides economic opportunities and addresses basic dignity, are crucial. Improving living conditions, education, and job opportunities is essential. Military actions alone, without a political solution, tend to breed more support for Hamas or similar groups. Your frustration with what you see as a superficial display of empathy might reflect reality for some. What you see as the best way forward may be viewed by others as ineffective or even counterproductive. The differences in proposed solutions can be genuine, and true empathy doesn't necessarily prescribe a single set of solutions. U.S. foreign policy is complex. While you can disagree on the policy front, it's not always clear if the empathy is fake or real. It might seem insincere, but it could also be a different tactic or strategy aimed at achieving the same ultimate goal.
Agree with the general sentiment here. A great way to prevent fascism is understanding how normal people support fascist causes like Nazism. But the Overton window to discuss this is very narrow as you say. Many would assume this is rhetoric is support of the Nazi party. But the reality is many German males felt their masculinity stripped from them when they lost WW1 and many veterans who saw the worst of trench warfare saw how it was for nothing and that can create a easy opportunity for radicalism to enter by bad faith actors who scapegoated Jews and leftists as the reason why Germany lost WW1.
I think for many the empathy might not be superficial per say but rather the lifestyle they have lived as reasonably comfortable suburbanites since birth makes it hard to understand what true nihilism feels like. And it's hard for to believe there is a sincerity of empathy by the liberal political leaders like Biden, Pelosi etc when the establishment does things like deny Palestinian statehood with UN resolutions that have the PLO as the head of the Palestinian state. It shows me that they don't sincerely believe that Hamas can be removed through dignity and prosperity but rather old school ordinance drops. I can buy sincere misplaced empathy by your average suburban liberals. It's a harder sell for me to believe sincerity amongst the policy making establishment in the US.
