B (16:36)
No, that. It's a. Kelly Booker Gallagher. You have, you have, you have a dramatic, you have some, some are really dramatic, like Ro Khanna, who was like only five years ago, gun ho pro Israel, signing letters for apac. And today it's a mistake. And this is very. He's not just, you know, military aid. No, he's straight, straight out anti Zionist. So. And this is happening everywhere. I mean, the. About the circle analogy. Yes, we've seen. Of course, every time has its own specificity. Also, I think America is very specific. So I don't want the darkness of the analogies, especially the first one, make people forget that this is also. This is the United States of America. We're not Europe. We're very unique in a lot of ways. And maybe I'll talk about this, but yes, in the interwar years. So you had exceptions from the story that I told and the story I told that basically you had steadily rising antisemitism, antisemitic populism in the interwar years, especially after World War I. Now, at the base of the socialist parties, this is a left wing story, specifically at the base of the socialist parties, which is basically the workers. The distinction between really left wing and right wing is not really clear. Right, socialism and nationalism really blur into each other and so on and so forth. So that the nationals, the radical nationalism that was very anti Semitic, that was rising at the time, especially in Germany and Austria and France, to some extent, it really could influence the base of the socialist parties as much as the rest of the countries. So you had a decision, a conscious decision. There were mainly two exceptions to the SPD in Germany, which is the Social Democrat, and that actually ruined them, that they didn't make that concession. They really did get destroyed. And the Austrian, also their Austrian counterpart, the Social Democrats, but the rest of the socialists in the communists actually decided, especially with the guidance of Moscow, that the Jewish question is very costly politically. You should just concede on it. That is, you marginalize or remove Jews from the leadership Entirely. And this often did happen and really leave antisemitism, the anti Semitic question, and focus on basically trying to get to parliamentary quotas and try to get to power. And that ultimately did not really allow them to reach power, but as a matter of fact made them lose power. And they basically allowed the radical anti Semitic nationalist factions to really steamroll through their political systems. That's the first. Now with Corbynism or what happened with the British, labor is similar, I think America basically we're having a condensed version of that, which is labor historically was actually sympathetic to Israel and it was sympathetic to Israel for very important, you know, and clear reason. Remember Israel, you know, 50s, 60s, 70s was mostly a socialist lift leaning state. It had a European socialist character. That was a major reason for sympathy. And also you have the moral weight of the Holocaust and the building, the institutionalization at the time of Holocaust memory and so on and so forth. So labor and the Jewish vote in England was mostly Labor. Zionism was really at home. Labor in the UK then gradually starting late 70s, but then 80s and 90s and the story picks up really post colonial activists as well as new kinds of radical leftist activism, the intergenerations, these start to promote anti Zionist, pro Palestinian decolonial framework that the party gradually, same thing piecemeal, adopts resolutions, adopts positions, condemns Israel here and there. And there's a story that gradually moves until it really culminates in Corbynism straight out, anti Zionism, sympathy with Hamas, Hezbollah, relationships with terrorist, anti Semitic terrorist organization. And even as that became a crisis in labor that ultimately led to the removal of Corbyn and the rise of Keir Starmer and so on. The party has not recovered. As a matter of fact, the change that happened in the party now seeped into all of its institutional network all over the uk. We're talking about unions, we're talking about activist base, we're talking about NGOs. That's how you hear the news today, especially from British Jews, about how deep this, even after Corbyn, how deep this is now in the institutional infrastructure of the British left. And it's clear that there is no going back from this. Now the Algerian analogy is very important. It's different in a lot of ways, but it's actually mostly relevant because that's actually the origin story of all of this. It was actually the Algerian war that actually produced Fanon, the primary decolonial. He's the primary justification, by the way, of the left for the acts of Hamas of October 7th. That's why murdering Jews in this way is a heroic act. It's actually because Franz Fanon and that came out of the French Algerian war. So what I want from that analogy is even the assumption, which I'm not going to give the anti Zionist a flank. But if the decision, if the position was right on merit, that is opposing France and Algeria was actually morally right on merit, the concession and the adoption of the leftist radicalism around that position did not end with the war. It actually produced an entire radical worldview that radicalized many components of the French left. It completely, by the way, it destroyed the popularity of the Communist Party. The Communist Party was over after this. The French left got radicalized before. There was a major pushback in the late 70s against that and a return of French conservatism in a way. But basically the legacy left actually completely got marginalized with this new radical left and he created a whole new radical worldview that ultimately got global. And now, by the way, what's happening here is related to it. So you have the story, the first story is much more explicit, specifically about Jews. This is something that really does repeat itself in modern times. And conceding on this never ends there. And also about Corbyn, the Algerian example, specifically about the attempt to manage radicalism that also fails. I think these are instructive analogies because I think that what's happening today is quite delusional. I understand the strategic calculus of the democrats of doing this. I just think it's a catastrophe. They are basically feeding themselves. They think they are feeding Israel to that tiger that they want to ride, but they are actually ultimately feeding themselves to it as well.