gregorybrown.bsky.social
Social history of ideas, democratic political culture, knowledge transfer. Dept of History, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Voltaire Foundation, Unviersity of Oxford.
38 posts
166 followers
155 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
As for a stronger footing for peace, do you have any response to the chair of the Hamas politburo giving a speech today promising another attack on Israel or the crowds in Gaza City as we speak chanting "death to the Jews"?
comment in response to
post
Your consistent ability to overlook saying anything about the hostages or the security of Israelis is a failure. And no this will not allow a surge in humanitarian support of, as they are, the terrorist entity that illegally governs Gaza continues to confiscate the aid.
comment in response to
post
Conversation spirituelle entre Navarre et Ricoeur.
comment in response to
post
Nothing whatsoever to do with Israel. But they have no concern with opposing antisemitism, only opposing the response to it. Now is their chance to show any basis to accept them on good faith as a Jewish advocacy organization. Waiting....
comment in response to
post
Organizations like JVP have developed whole campaigns to make the whole idea of antisemitism awareness and response seem like merely a "weaponization" to "suppress criticism of israel." And when a synagogue is firebombed, JVP says nothing.
comment in response to
post
@livunipress.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
"Him" = Chris Brooke? Hashing on historians now?
comment in response to
post
On this point, though, Begin always assumed the Arab population would be a minority within Israel, however configured. His idea of Arabs who would become Arab citizens did not include a right of return or anticipate the demographic spike in WB / Gaza.
comment in response to
post
Shot?
comment in response to
post
mosaicunited.org/wp-content/u...
comment in response to
post
Of the responses, the "yes" is heavily boosted by respondents <16 yrs old, those with "low" Jewish identification and those born in US. Fewer than 10% of respondents above age 17, either "high" Jewish identification or born outside US said yes.
comment in response to
post
So on the "sympathetic with Hamas" question, it's asked as the last of of 3 statements with which respondents are asked if they agree. There is no "yes" "somewhat" "no" or "don't know" option. So already a badly designed question. 1/2
comment in response to
post
I'm skeptical. I'm going to try to find the actual survey.
comment in response to
post
Your semi-autobiographical screenplay is going to be a hot property. If you get Tiffany Haddish to star....
comment in response to
post
The only consolation may be in a Leninist version of Bitecofer. Once power is won, it should be used not to solve problems with policy but to change the political environment ...through consolidation of the gains of negative partisanship.
comment in response to
post
I think this is the right question to ask, and once again I am drawn to the position laid out by @rachelbitecofer.bluesky.social
that this is an era of "negative partisanship" and the Democratic campaign necessarily ought to have been overwhelmingly a demonization of Maga republicanism. 1/2
comment in response to
post
Very well done.
comment in response to
post
Some day the Democratic Party will have leadership as sensible, thoughtful and committed as @rachelbitecofer.bsky.social
That day better come soon.
comment in response to
post
Lastly the long paen to Qatari "soft power" is hard to square with its atrocious record on human rights for immigrant workers, educational policies that promote Muslim Brotherhood ideology, sponsorship of AJ. "Enormous wealth" feels like a tell. As a liberal I don't buy that Qatar is an ally.
comment in response to
post
No medical visits. Very limited signs of life. Nothing to suggest Qatar is in any way a broker between the utter inhumanity and indecency of Hamas and the rest of the world. I'm not inclined to agree with the right on anything but this does seem like primarily an argument against Netanyahu.
comment in response to
post
Sure there is a case that the Israeli govt has been inflexible. But seriously Hamas is still holding Kfir. Would not an "honest broker" have gotten at least the release of an infant? Does your logic not presume that Hama (and Qatar) need to be rewarded for their vilest and most evil actions?
comment in response to
post
But Qatar has NOT achieved any mediation at all. I don't follow this logic. I'm not defending BN in any way but what is the basis for believing Qatar has in any way been an effective broker. 1/2
comment in response to
post
There are three Israeli antimissile systems plus airborne interdiction. It's not just iron dome and that's why "offensive weapons" is a deliberate obsfucation.
comment in response to
post
First they didn't call for US to stop sending weapons. It's in the headline. "Offensive weapons" meaning heavy bombs. Which are not in use in northern Gaza. Secondly that there is a "hostage deal" available is refuted by all mediators. I'm so tired of arguing against moralistic oversimplifications
comment in response to
post
Actually no. Only among Arab-Americans in Dearborn where local Dem electeds pointedly did not support the ticket. Slotkine nevertheless won there. Harris won Black Muslims in Detroit handily.
AOC is upset about Bowman and Bush who were both deeply flawed candidates
comment in response to
post
In Michigan, Slotkine won. Here in NV, Rosen won. Harris lost both states. There's an empirical case that Harris lagged because she was seen by many Jewish voters as too weak in response to anti-Israel campus and urban unrest.
comment in response to
post
And as @AOC never tires of pointing out, AIPAC also supports Republicans. There's no logic to the idea Harris lost because of excessive support for Israel, let alone AIPAC lobbying.
comment in response to
post
There's a great deal of doubt about that. 4% of voters said they were motivated by f/p and >60% of voters said US support for Israel is "about right" or "not enough." Of those who said "too much," Harris won 2/3. Where's the "significant tranche" who voted Trump because AIPAC pushed Dems on Israel?
comment in response to
post
This is poor analysis. There IS exit poll evidence Trump voters did NOT reject Harris because she was "too pro Israel." If you want to blame anyone for Harris losing Dearborn, it's clearly Tlaib and Hammoud who campaigned against her.
comment in response to
post
That's bonkers. Why would "pro-Israel lobbying" lead Muslims to vote for Trump? As opposed to Dem electeds (Tlaib, Hammoud) telling them to do so?
comment in response to
post
Functionalist thesis