I mean, he didn't seem to have public qualms about arms transfers to the Saudis in their war with Yemen where they did much worse, often intentionally against peaceful protestors. I get that his...
I mean, he didn't seem to have public qualms about arms transfers to the Saudis in their war with Yemen where they did much worse, often intentionally against peaceful protestors.
I get that his academic background is Israel/Palestine so he's maybe just more sensitive to the nuances, but I really feel like the progressive side on the Israel/Palestine conflict has certain blind-spots when it comes to barbarities perpetrated by American allied Muslim powers, like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. I don't even think it's a favoritism thing so much as a consequence of racistly low expectations.
[edit: this is essentially the same kind of "whataboutism" that has become popular among climate change denialists where one says "this is bad" and they say "well what about this thing instead"]...
[edit: this is essentially the same kind of "whataboutism" that has become popular among climate change denialists where one says "this is bad" and they say "well what about this thing instead"]
The "progressive side" has also repeatedly condemned the Saudi war in Yemen, called for an end to arms shipments to Saudi Arabia, and protested their brutal suppression of political dissidents.
I wouldn't call Pakistan US-allied (more a warm-weather friend), but would be interested to know why you think this? Progressives have also condemned corruption in Pakistani politics, and the overbearing nature of the military.
I think you aren't aware of this because progressives don't really have much media representation, and progressive views on foreign policy are mostly reported on in the context of Israel. Even there they are usually charicatured or the media finds someone with very whack views and pretends that they share a mainstream progressive view (imagine if we reported on the KKK as though their views were representative of the centre right).
[edit] It's not really the fault of progressive activists if you willingly ignore everything they say, selectively quote and twist their words. Of course it's necessary to oppose the right when they do this, but that requires targeted effort towards media organisations and the financial to correct the media landscape which the left unfortunately lacks.
They weren't resigning in public protest though were they? It wasn't dominating the discourse for weeks on end. Pakistan has been a US ally since the Cold War. They're propped up by large sums of...
The "progressive side" has also repeatedly condemned the Saudi war in Yemen, called for an end to arms shipments to Saudi Arabia, and protested their brutal suppression of political dissidents.
They weren't resigning in public protest though were they? It wasn't dominating the discourse for weeks on end.
I wouldn't call Pakistan US-aligned, but would be interested to know why you think this?
Pakistan has been a US ally since the Cold War. They're propped up by large sums of US money and military aid, as well as multiple interventions by the US to protect or advance Pakistani national interests at the expense of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and India. Nixon literally sent a nuclear armed fleet to India in 1972 to deter India's involvement in the Bangladesh war for Independence.
There's a marked skew in where the focus, attention, and energy gets put by international organizations and progressive activists. They might make some noise here and there about other things but it amounts to very little and largely does not set the foreign policy or legislative agenda.
The Republican talking points you espouse sound good as soundbites but they don't stand up when you consider the evidence. Here are a number of examples of US progressives campaigning against...
The Republican talking points you espouse sound good as soundbites but they don't stand up when you consider the evidence.
Here are anumberofexamples of US progressives campaigning against weapons deliveries to Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships. I don't want to be unnecessarily harsh but I think you are blindly ignoring all the evidence against your position.
Why does this not "dominate the discourse"? Because the New York Times aren't interested in running weeks and weeks of coverage on "progressives oppose Saudi arms sales". They are interested in running weeks and weeks of coverage on "progressives don't support Israel".
They weren't resigning in public protest though were they?
Because progressive people tend not to go into arms deliveries? It's not really the profession that someone who wants to improve the world and protect human rights would choose. I suspect this official is not very left-leaning but even he recognises that depriving 2 million people of water and food is so morally egregious and beyond the pale that his conscience prevents him from continuing in his role.
As for other progressives, why would progressives in other roles e.g. elected members of legislatures resign rather than continue to advocate against wrongdoing? I imagine the right would love this but it seems so fallacious that, like, it's obviously a non-starter.
Pakistan has been a US ally since the Cold War. They're propped up by large sums of US money and military aid, as well as multiple interventions by the US to protect or advance Pakistani national interests at the expense of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and India.
I think you misunderstand US-Pakistani relations which are very up and down, partially due to the volatility of Pakistani and American politics. I think it's tough to argue that Pakistan is "propped up" by US foreign aid – it has never amounted to more than 3% of Pakistan's government spending. Of course 3% is significant, but it's not a literal "propping up" as with e.g. Afghanistan where ~80% of government spending was financed by western powers. More recently Pakistan has sought a closer relationship with China who are a more natural ally due to their shared enimity with India.
The fact that the example of US-Pakistani alliance you could chose comes from 1972 is also telling, given that 9/11 dramatically altered relations for the worse.
Also come on, the Americans don't run their military interventions out of some altruistic want to help the Pakistanis. They run their military interventions because they think it's a useful way for them to project their power.
If your only response to someone criticizing progressives and their priority settings is to imply that it's just Republican brainwashing that communicates to me that you haven't really considered...
The Republican talking points you espouse sound good as soundbites but they don't stand up when you consider the evidence.
If your only response to someone criticizing progressives and their priority settings is to imply that it's just Republican brainwashing that communicates to me that you haven't really considered all sides of an issue and are operating from a position of reflexively sorting people into "camps."
Here are a number of examples of US progressives campaigning against weapons deliveries to Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships. I don't want to be unnecessarily harsh but I think you are blindly ignoring all the evidence against your position.
You have a very narrow definition of "progressive" to only count the furthest edge of Lefties in the US government rather than the entire nexus of NGOs and think tanks and activist groups. I'm not talking about left/right on an American axis. I specifically said the progressive side of the Israel/Palestine debate internationally.
But even within that milieu, where were the large marches in the streets? The campus student groups rushing to publish denunciations? You can always point to specific cases, but you're not going to find the full-court press you get when Israel does anything.
Why does this not "dominate the discourse"? Because the New York Times aren't interested in running weeks and weeks of coverage on "progressives oppose Saudi arms sales". They are interested in running weeks and weeks of coverage on "progressives don't support Israel".
No it's because the New York Times can embed and have regular contact with journalists in Israel that can report from the ground and provide visibility. This is generally good and is the purpose of a free press. But, since they have much less penetration into countries without a free press they will preferentially cover and give attention to issues in democratic countries and not put nearly the same focus or energy towards anyone else. The result ends up being a general lack of perspective, holistic context, or even care given to issues in other countries or when drawing comparisons between different ones.
I suspect this official is not very left-leaning but even he recognises that depriving 2 million people of water and food is so morally egregious and beyond the pale that his conscience prevents him from continuing in his role.
And I just illustrated that Saudi activities in Yemen were far worse, by a significant margin. He also avoided giving arms to Nigeria when they needed them to fight back against Boko Haram militants, which is another matter over which there is barely any attention paid.
I think it's tough to argue that Pakistan is "propped up" by US foreign aid – it has never amounted to more than 3% of Pakistan's government spending.
You're playing weird semantics here. 3% is a significant margin, especially when almost all of it is military. Consider that perhaps the reason the Pakistani military has such an outsized influence in Pakistani politics to the point where it's basically a garrison state is precisely because they're inundated with money and can consequently be better resourced than every other sector of society.
The fact that the example of US-Pakistani alliance you could chose comes from 1972 is also telling, given that 9/11 dramatically altered relations for the worse.
After 9/11 Pakistan was the staging area for the US to run its Afghanistan campaign with the Northern Alliance. It didn't alter relations for the worse, the whole reason for the US keeping Pakistan on a leash was specifically to have that access into Central Asia. The only thing that has changed the calculus here has been China's expanding influence over the past couple of decades.
Essentially you are engaging in a big whataboutism – it's like how climate change denialists will say "well what about this thing" when one argues with them about the the risk. Where did I say it...
Essentially you are engaging in a big whataboutism – it's like how climate change denialists will say "well what about this thing" when one argues with them about the the risk.
If your only response to someone criticizing progressives and their priority settings is to imply that it's just Republican brainwashing that communicates to me that you haven't really considered all sides of an issue and are operating from a position of reflexively sorting people into "camps."
Where did I say it was Republican brainwashing? I just said that the rhetoric fits quite well with that of the Republican party – ostensibly plausible but ultimately specious soundbites that fall down when one considers the evidence.
It's quite challenging when your position is "progressives hate Israel" and your justification for believing this is "this is how it's reported in the media" and when I say "the media is quite anti-progressive" you say "well when the Saudis do something wrong the progressive view doesn't end up in the media".
I'm not talking about left/right on an American axis. I specifically said the progressive side of the Israel/Palestine debate internationally.
Did you not think that the articles I linked to represented the most prominent Israel critics in the US? If you feel that I have missed any out, please let me know.
But you are trying to shift the goalposts; if you know of any right-wing groups who support the Palestinians, please let me know. Support for Israeli behaviour vis-a-vis oppressing the Palestinians and now attempting to engineer a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is an issue which is very split on
left/right axes.
No it's because the New York Times can embed and have regular contact with journalists in Israel that can report from the ground and provide visibility. This is generally good and is the purpose of a free press. But, since they have much less penetration into countries without a free press they will preferentially cover and give attention to issues in democratic countries and not put nearly the same focus or energy towards anyone else. The result ends up being a general lack of perspective, holistic context, or even care given to issues in other countries or when drawing comparisons between different ones.
This is very clearly not true – look at Reuters' coverage of non-democratic states and you will see that it is very in-depth and of excellent quality. If you look at China, it dominates the headlines at the moment in spite of the fact that it has a decidedly non-free press. Just because a state is non-democractic doesn't mean that it doesn't get reported on.
For example Russia is non-democractic but per your hypothesis nobody would really have any incentive to report on it because it doesn't have a free press.
It's more complex in Pakistan. Initially it was a foothold into central Asia to contest Soviet influence there. Nowadays it's more about maintaining influence to project power towards Iran or...
It's more complex in Pakistan. Initially it was a foothold into central Asia to contest Soviet influence there. Nowadays it's more about maintaining influence to project power towards Iran or China. India is neurotically committed to independence and self-determination, so they are not a reliable enough ally for the US to count on. Pakistan will self-deal and misallocate American support but they will only do it in sneaky ways they won't thumb their nose at American demands the way India will.
There is a moral concern, but there's also the major concern that this operation will be a strategic failure. It's not clear at all how Israel plans to destroy a highly ideologically-driven terror...
There is a moral concern, but there's also the major concern that this operation will be a strategic failure. It's not clear at all how Israel plans to destroy a highly ideologically-driven terror group through warfare. Creating more chaos and death will likely only motivate more recruitment. The notion of waging a war that will necessarily fracture Arab-Israeli relations in response to an attack that was designed to fracture Arab-Israeli relations is also pretty questionable. The US can choose to voice its support for Israel without involving itself with a very sketchy operation that may hurt its long-term strategic interests.
The strategic failure is a big issue, but I view that as more of a realist/strategic argument than a strictly moral one the way this resignation is being framed. I think even within Israel the...
The strategic failure is a big issue, but I view that as more of a realist/strategic argument than a strictly moral one the way this resignation is being framed.
I think even within Israel the balance of opinion feels that Bibi is botching the response badly.
Gift Link Josh Paul is an eleven year veteran of the State Department's office responsible for international arms transfers. While he has witnessed many ethically concerning transfers in the past...
Gift Link
Josh Paul is an eleven year veteran of the State Department's office responsible for international arms transfers. While he has witnessed many ethically concerning transfers in the past he knew that the American system of checks and balances would always raise the alarm but in the case of Israel, he sees a government without protest willing to stand side-by-side in a fight that will largely bring the US no benefit.
Paul's concerns bring up good questions about the USA's blind devotion to our ally and the haste with which we commit ourselves to their fight. At the very least his warning call should be a chance for the US to slow down and reflect on what it is about to embark on when it unequivocally supports Israeli action in Gaza.
I mean, he didn't seem to have public qualms about arms transfers to the Saudis in their war with Yemen where they did much worse, often intentionally against peaceful protestors.
I get that his academic background is Israel/Palestine so he's maybe just more sensitive to the nuances, but I really feel like the progressive side on the Israel/Palestine conflict has certain blind-spots when it comes to barbarities perpetrated by American allied Muslim powers, like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. I don't even think it's a favoritism thing so much as a consequence of racistly low expectations.
[edit: this is essentially the same kind of "whataboutism" that has become popular among climate change denialists where one says "this is bad" and they say "well what about this thing instead"]
The "progressive side" has also repeatedly condemned the Saudi war in Yemen, called for an end to arms shipments to Saudi Arabia, and protested their brutal suppression of political dissidents.
I wouldn't call Pakistan US-allied (more a warm-weather friend), but would be interested to know why you think this? Progressives have also condemned corruption in Pakistani politics, and the overbearing nature of the military.
I think you aren't aware of this because progressives don't really have much media representation, and progressive views on foreign policy are mostly reported on in the context of Israel. Even there they are usually charicatured or the media finds someone with very whack views and pretends that they share a mainstream progressive view (imagine if we reported on the KKK as though their views were representative of the centre right).
[edit] It's not really the fault of progressive activists if you willingly ignore everything they say, selectively quote and twist their words. Of course it's necessary to oppose the right when they do this, but that requires targeted effort towards media organisations and the financial to correct the media landscape which the left unfortunately lacks.
They weren't resigning in public protest though were they? It wasn't dominating the discourse for weeks on end.
Pakistan has been a US ally since the Cold War. They're propped up by large sums of US money and military aid, as well as multiple interventions by the US to protect or advance Pakistani national interests at the expense of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and India. Nixon literally sent a nuclear armed fleet to India in 1972 to deter India's involvement in the Bangladesh war for Independence.
There's a marked skew in where the focus, attention, and energy gets put by international organizations and progressive activists. They might make some noise here and there about other things but it amounts to very little and largely does not set the foreign policy or legislative agenda.
The Republican talking points you espouse sound good as soundbites but they don't stand up when you consider the evidence.
Here are a number of examples of US progressives campaigning against weapons deliveries to Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships. I don't want to be unnecessarily harsh but I think you are blindly ignoring all the evidence against your position.
Why does this not "dominate the discourse"? Because the New York Times aren't interested in running weeks and weeks of coverage on "progressives oppose Saudi arms sales". They are interested in running weeks and weeks of coverage on "progressives don't support Israel".
Because progressive people tend not to go into arms deliveries? It's not really the profession that someone who wants to improve the world and protect human rights would choose. I suspect this official is not very left-leaning but even he recognises that depriving 2 million people of water and food is so morally egregious and beyond the pale that his conscience prevents him from continuing in his role.
As for other progressives, why would progressives in other roles e.g. elected members of legislatures resign rather than continue to advocate against wrongdoing? I imagine the right would love this but it seems so fallacious that, like, it's obviously a non-starter.
I think you misunderstand US-Pakistani relations which are very up and down, partially due to the volatility of Pakistani and American politics. I think it's tough to argue that Pakistan is "propped up" by US foreign aid – it has never amounted to more than 3% of Pakistan's government spending. Of course 3% is significant, but it's not a literal "propping up" as with e.g. Afghanistan where ~80% of government spending was financed by western powers. More recently Pakistan has sought a closer relationship with China who are a more natural ally due to their shared enimity with India.
The fact that the example of US-Pakistani alliance you could chose comes from 1972 is also telling, given that 9/11 dramatically altered relations for the worse.
Also come on, the Americans don't run their military interventions out of some altruistic want to help the Pakistanis. They run their military interventions because they think it's a useful way for them to project their power.
If your only response to someone criticizing progressives and their priority settings is to imply that it's just Republican brainwashing that communicates to me that you haven't really considered all sides of an issue and are operating from a position of reflexively sorting people into "camps."
You have a very narrow definition of "progressive" to only count the furthest edge of Lefties in the US government rather than the entire nexus of NGOs and think tanks and activist groups. I'm not talking about left/right on an American axis. I specifically said the progressive side of the Israel/Palestine debate internationally.
But even within that milieu, where were the large marches in the streets? The campus student groups rushing to publish denunciations? You can always point to specific cases, but you're not going to find the full-court press you get when Israel does anything.
No it's because the New York Times can embed and have regular contact with journalists in Israel that can report from the ground and provide visibility. This is generally good and is the purpose of a free press. But, since they have much less penetration into countries without a free press they will preferentially cover and give attention to issues in democratic countries and not put nearly the same focus or energy towards anyone else. The result ends up being a general lack of perspective, holistic context, or even care given to issues in other countries or when drawing comparisons between different ones.
And I just illustrated that Saudi activities in Yemen were far worse, by a significant margin. He also avoided giving arms to Nigeria when they needed them to fight back against Boko Haram militants, which is another matter over which there is barely any attention paid.
You're playing weird semantics here. 3% is a significant margin, especially when almost all of it is military. Consider that perhaps the reason the Pakistani military has such an outsized influence in Pakistani politics to the point where it's basically a garrison state is precisely because they're inundated with money and can consequently be better resourced than every other sector of society.
After 9/11 Pakistan was the staging area for the US to run its Afghanistan campaign with the Northern Alliance. It didn't alter relations for the worse, the whole reason for the US keeping Pakistan on a leash was specifically to have that access into Central Asia. The only thing that has changed the calculus here has been China's expanding influence over the past couple of decades.
Essentially you are engaging in a big whataboutism – it's like how climate change denialists will say "well what about this thing" when one argues with them about the the risk.
Where did I say it was Republican brainwashing? I just said that the rhetoric fits quite well with that of the Republican party – ostensibly plausible but ultimately specious soundbites that fall down when one considers the evidence.
It's quite challenging when your position is "progressives hate Israel" and your justification for believing this is "this is how it's reported in the media" and when I say "the media is quite anti-progressive" you say "well when the Saudis do something wrong the progressive view doesn't end up in the media".
Did you not think that the articles I linked to represented the most prominent Israel critics in the US? If you feel that I have missed any out, please let me know.
But you are trying to shift the goalposts; if you know of any right-wing groups who support the Palestinians, please let me know. Support for Israeli behaviour vis-a-vis oppressing the Palestinians and now attempting to engineer a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is an issue which is very split on
left/right axes.
This is very clearly not true – look at Reuters' coverage of non-democratic states and you will see that it is very in-depth and of excellent quality. If you look at China, it dominates the headlines at the moment in spite of the fact that it has a decidedly non-free press. Just because a state is non-democractic doesn't mean that it doesn't get reported on.
For example Russia is non-democractic but per your hypothesis nobody would really have any incentive to report on it because it doesn't have a free press.
Re the Saudi monarchs, I am confident it's about oil.
I have no idea re Pakistan.
It's more complex in Pakistan. Initially it was a foothold into central Asia to contest Soviet influence there. Nowadays it's more about maintaining influence to project power towards Iran or China. India is neurotically committed to independence and self-determination, so they are not a reliable enough ally for the US to count on. Pakistan will self-deal and misallocate American support but they will only do it in sneaky ways they won't thumb their nose at American demands the way India will.
There is a moral concern, but there's also the major concern that this operation will be a strategic failure. It's not clear at all how Israel plans to destroy a highly ideologically-driven terror group through warfare. Creating more chaos and death will likely only motivate more recruitment. The notion of waging a war that will necessarily fracture Arab-Israeli relations in response to an attack that was designed to fracture Arab-Israeli relations is also pretty questionable. The US can choose to voice its support for Israel without involving itself with a very sketchy operation that may hurt its long-term strategic interests.
The strategic failure is a big issue, but I view that as more of a realist/strategic argument than a strictly moral one the way this resignation is being framed.
I think even within Israel the balance of opinion feels that Bibi is botching the response badly.
Gift Link
Josh Paul is an eleven year veteran of the State Department's office responsible for international arms transfers. While he has witnessed many ethically concerning transfers in the past he knew that the American system of checks and balances would always raise the alarm but in the case of Israel, he sees a government without protest willing to stand side-by-side in a fight that will largely bring the US no benefit.
Paul's concerns bring up good questions about the USA's blind devotion to our ally and the haste with which we commit ourselves to their fight. At the very least his warning call should be a chance for the US to slow down and reflect on what it is about to embark on when it unequivocally supports Israeli action in Gaza.