Yay, a small win. Time to punch left.
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
538 readers
202 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
is he an actual leftist or a succdem?
i don’t expect him to get on tv and say hamas did nothing wrong but to come out swinging with “october 7th was a war crime and israel has a right to exist as any state does” already shows capitulation or at the very least lack of actual leftist politics. wouldnt most leftists agree no state “has a right to exist”? ESPECIALLY when that “state” is literally an ethnonationalist military occupation? why did he need to say that? i could even excuse calling oct 7th a war crime, which i dont agree with personally and i can even see how someone running for office could say something like that just to appease the cameras. but they have a right to exist? why say that?
i know absolutely nothing about him. for all i know he could be the most well read marxist on earth who has written books my stupid ass could never understand. but that just rubbed me wrong
October 7th was a war crime though. Perpetrated by Israel.
Mamdani has been very explicit and consistent in saying Israel has "the right to exist" as "a state with equal rights" (which he currently does not view it as being). That's why he keeps getting badgered about the "Jewish state" question and he has never said it has "the right to exist as a Jewish state".
Obviously, he does not believe what we do, but the logical implication of his beliefs are functionally the replacement of the existing Israeli government with one that is not apartheid.
Also there were many warcrimes committed on Oct 7th by Hamas, though in all likelihood Israel committed more in pursuit of the Hannibal Doctrine and so on. I don't think it's a great point to dwell on, and Hamas is still obviously the superior side, but he is correct.
someone consistently saying something bad doesnt make it good lol
as for the war crimes claim, i wont comment on supposed war crimes being committed by individual members of hamas because we don’t know what’s true or not about that day. what we do know is the act its self was not a war crime, it was an act of resistance. to reduce it down to the actions of the individuals is not something i want to get into because as someone who was born in america in lived here most their life i cant say i can really put myself in their shoes.
He has consistently denied Israel's "right to exist" as an ethnostate, that's my point. If you believe that means opposing the Israeli government completely, I agree with you and he probably does too. He recognizes, as should you, that supporting an apartheid state's hypothetical right to exist if it didn't have apartheid is immaterial in terms of supporting it with apartheid and is a reasonable tool for reorienting the conversation toward who is supporting apartheid and who isn't.
There were several prongs to the attack, some of which were on military bases and those were not war crimes that we know of. Other prongs amounted to just attacking normal families and killing people, men, women, and children alike. We do not know the true extent to which this happened because Israel has systematically made this information impossible to determine. But saying they committed war crimes is not a condemnation of the broader movement. The Haitian Revolution involved some pretty severe war crimes, and it is still better for it to have happened than for it to have not happened because it still repelled France and freed countless people from slavery.
the entire idea that we’re supposed to discuss war crimes supposedly committed by a population of people who live in a concentration camp is absurd to me so im just gonna drop out of this convo
nothin but respect for my fellow worm tho
You mention marxism earlier, but this is a very moralizing framing. Yes, the Palestinian people, including the membership of Hamas, has been brutally victimized past most living memory. There is no contradiction in being both a victim and -- to a lesser extent that we should not allow to eclipse our view of the former -- a perpetrator. If there was a breakout from Dachau and the people breaking out deliberately executed children in the later stages of their short-lived freedom, they have committed a crime. That doesn't mean we condemn even that specific group as people who should be left in the camps, or even that the project they were engaging in was a bad thing overall, it just means that there were also misdeeds involved.
The opposition to the idea that people need to be perfect victims to deserve support does not need to produce the inverted extreme in which we must take victims as being perfect by merit of being victims. No, they don't deserve their victimhood and they should be supported in their fight, but that doesn't mean they get some kind of blank check that every individual action in that process is to be regarded as justified. You're seriously going to talk yourself into Gonzalo-style terrorism with this set of assumptions.
i think he's an actual democratic socialist, not just a succdem. i know it's weird but there is a difference, even if a demsoc is basically just a market socialist with direct democratic characteristics
ive got little issue with democratic socialists but i do have a big issue with succdems (liberals) so let’s just hope he’s the former. i did see that quote where he advocates for worker ownership over the means of production which is promising
yeah i think that's what sets him apart.
instead of "workers share the means of production with capitalists in a slightly more equitable way that we promise we won't roll back as soon as possible, pinkie swear" of the succdem
I don't think calling some actions on Oct 7 a war crime is reactionary, early in the war Hamas offered to prosecute and/or deliver to the Hague any of their fighters found breaking the Geneva Conventions if Israel agreed to the same. (Israel did not agree to do the same). But the whole "right to exist" thing is also a slimy question with no answer that makes you look normal, either you are a liberal dog and believe that nation-states have more rights than people or you're a third worldist-maoist-anarchist that thinks the very concept of a border is fascism (in the eyes of the media/voters), it's like 'abolish the police (and divest their functions to other more suited organisations)' getting twisted by reactionaries to mean 'abolish all policing, everything is legal, murder is good now'.
to be clear i didnt say it was reactionary to say that oct 7th was a war crime, it was the “right to exist” part i had an issue with. i dont believe oct 7th to have been a war crime but i understand why someone running for mayor would say that and i understand how they could even interpret international law to come to that conclusion, if their analysis was lacking a lot of material and historical context (ie, if you occupy a people for 80yrs and ethnically cleanse them then lock them all in a concentration camp, and hold a music festival right next to that concentration camp, i dont really see how in that context you can call what happened a war crime)
but again the actual issue i had was, he could have said that and not said israel has a right to exist, even if he claims “as a secular state”, which even that is a liberal delusion. the entire point of israel is contradictory to any claim that it could ever be secular
a secular "israel" without genocide or apartheid would be a completely different country so maybe that's the politically correct to say the modern state of israel doesn't have the right to exist
saying israel can exist as a secular state with equal rights is like saying water can exist as a dry liquid. i think your reading of it being a politically correct way of saying it has no right to exist is a lot more charitable than i'm willing to be as someone who knows nothing about this dude and can only look at his words.
it would just be Palestine. maybe some nagano accords will happen and it'll still be called israel by some losers idk.