Earlier today Felson wrote, in a post titled Israeli Arabs Should Reenact Selma: "How Israel's Arabs express their anger is crucial to reversing public opinion in the U.S. It needs to be non-violent, modeled after the civil rights campaign in the South." The post stirred a bunch of comment. Below are two comments from regulars, Mohammad of Vancouver, and by Felson himself.
Mohammad:
Mr. Felson should not preach Americanism to Palestinians. I laugh really hard when I hear arrogant words like "need to model after the Civil rights movement".
Of course in spirit, every movement for equal rights shares its essence with the Civil Rights movement in USA. But the Civil rights movement belonged to a certain time and place. How can day to day actions of a different people in a different time and place be copied out of a movement from another dimension? Let's compare just one note and, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember blacks being threatened with a loyalty oath or expulsion from the USA back to Africa.
Before seeking to copy a strategy, one needs to look at the longevity and the effectivity of the source of one's emulation. Let's start with some blunt and simple questions.
To be fair, I agree with Mr Felson that the best strategy for Arab Israelis is first of all unity among themselves, so that rather than being represented by three or four parties in the Knesset, they are represented by one united Arab party. Next step, as Mr. Felson recommends, would be to unite with non Zionist political progressives from Israel to form a united Party aiming at bringing down Zionist policies.
My last word on this topic is, when we talk about the civil rights movement, it is very easy to forget the Back Panthers Party and the Malcom X contributions. Are they also good models?
And here is Felson's followup to his earlier post:
The parallel to South Africa is important. Yes, there was violence on the ANC's side -- violence that almost defined the anti-apartheid movement for a time. But it was when the movement became fundamentally nonviolent in nature that it caught on with the American masses. They could understand it easily. It was clear who the good guys and bad guys were. The same thing needs to happen with I/P.
Indeed, once the palestinians dedicate themselves to a non-violent campaign, a peace treaty will be quickly signed, the vast majority of Palestinians will live in their very own state as well as the palestinian state of Jordan, and israel will be free of this mess.
Right, Chris– Im sure that's precisely what Netanyahu and Lieberman are thinking right now.
I'm not sure that nonviolent resistance can work under a media blackout. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
I've admired Mohammed's from Iran's comments before, but in this case FEF is clearly right. Re MLK– his movement from the beginning had a big Jewish component, so it was natural to defer on a question that was of very little importance to him. For a long time he supported the Vietnam war too. The I-P question looked different before '68 when he died–to an overwhelming number of Americans it was just Israel v. the Arab states. By the seventies, or eighties, regular people became conscious of the Palestinians. But that one pro-Zionist phrase, repeated ad nauseam by the Israel lobby echo chamber, shouldn't be allowed to define him or his tactics for the purpose of this debate. It was probably written out for him by a major donor and he didn't see much harm in repeating it. (I've probably offended everyone here.)
One question though– for non-violence to work, you need to have somewhat moral opponents–US segregationists, British in India, Boers. It wouldn't work against Nazis. I think most Israelis would fall on the former side of this divide, but I'm not completely sure and I fear it may be shifting.
Felson. What happens when an Israeli tank enters a West Bank village and some teen age boy throws a rock at it. It will happen. Does this act of violence by the Arabs constitute a violation of your rules? I recall the first intifada that was mostly rock-throwing youth and Israel's defenders denouncing the violence and thereby justifying israeli us of live ammo.
I agree that a non-violent movement would crush the West Bank settlements, but you are asking for a discipline that not even the American civil rights movement achieved. There was a lot of violence at that time, and much of it was carried out by blacks. It was just that MLK was able to keep the cameras focused on him. Israel would never cooperate with such a Palestinian non-violent movement.
There are non-violent protests going on weekly in various locations in the West Bank and they have been going on for years. They include Palestinians and Israeli Jews protesting and working together and also include some internationals. No one in the mainstream is covering them. They only cover the violence.
Chris, just a question, How do you feel about the violence used by zionists from the beginning to now? From the Stern Gang to the armed settlers? is jewish violence eternally divine? or is it that jews have more right than others to violence? Chris also neglects to remember that we are talking about Arab Israelis. The right to use violence against occupiers is enshrined in the geneva Conventions. The way Israel treats its Arab Citizens has nothing to do with the peace treaty with the Palestinians. Zionism as the state ideology of israel has to be dismantled from inside srael, whether or not a peace treaty is signed with the West Bank Gaza and outside refugees Palestinians.
The civl rights movement held pacifist workshops before civil disobedience events. Organized education allowed the civil rights movement to achieve non-violenct demonstrations. Palestinians will have to go through a similar educational process, and could use Americans' help. Like the Northerners who went to the South to help with with the CRM, the Americans who would go to Palestine to help with their conflict will also be subject to murder. These murders must attain the same status as the ones in Mississippi or they will not help the cause. Rachel Corrie's name must resonate as loudly as Chaney's, Goodman's and Schwerner's, otherwise pacifism will die along with the Palestinians.
Dear Scott:
thanks for your compliment. The MLK syndrome (Zionists=Jews) is very prevalent among the various black communities even today. Most of my black friends follow MLK's example and conflate israel with "Jews". The problem is not only MLK's misunderstanding, but the continuation of this misunderstanding by people like congressman Lewis. Also there is a fear attached to criticizing MLK whose words are treated like the words of a prophet. Before one can adopt Civil Rights strategies, the wrong assumptions by the leaders of the Civil rights needs to be addressed.
It doesn't matter if Zionists like ADL helped or didn't help the Civil Rights movement. Maybe the reason why the Civil Rights movement has been limited in safeguarding its legacy is the flaw that in order to win, they had to require alyes who were supporting Apartheid and occupation elsewhere at the same time that they were supporting equal rights in America? One has to go one step deeper and ask, how can an organization like ADL support the Civil Rights movement and to what end?
Search for liberating truth and practical solutions require questioning old bonds and suggesting new paradigms all the time.
Felsen, you are part of the opinion shapers. It's not only the lazy masses, the oh so deplorable state of mass opinion. On many issues we need to trust media. We do not have time to question everything. What makes the I/P topic especially hard to deal with are the huge defensive walls that have been erected around it post WWII. It surely is more comfortable to stay carefully among the uninformed. The moment you step out of the circle of consent you are immediately categorized. I did it, others did it to me. I learned.
Could you afford to become visible in this context under your real name?
But concerning your job, what would be stories that possibly could pass the filters, that carefully try to make people think? What media are read by the lazy masses? Could the issue be smuggled into e.g. human interest stories. Carefully subversively? Test your talent. Americans of Muslim descent, portraits. Interviews? 911/8 years later. Start of the Iraq war mirrored in people. Then and now. You can invent a pen name. How open are your publishers in the age of Obama? Maybe there is a window of opportunity. Richard Witty can advise you to keep it positive. ;)
The spiral of silence is only broken when a relevant group of people realize that others feel the same.
Rachel Corrie's name must resonate loudly as an idiot who managed to get run over by a slow moving bulldozer.
I guess after an evening of burning American flags she was too exhausted to get out of the way.
Mohammmad, I think Hamas idea to break down the walls of the prison was a brilliant. It visualized the whole situation. I understand you insist the activities have to be developed from a the context on the ground, I don't like the idea of simply copying either. But what is important I think is to carefully bypass the ideological traps of the opposite camp (neocons …ideologues) Their arguments have to be studied diligently and maybe visualized.
Do you know this project: Face2Face
I know, I know. But I like it anyway.
I would have to lean with Mohammad simply because no one but the Palestinians themselves can really know what to do in this situation and what they forsee as a pliant resistance movement that could effectively end the occupation. This insistence on "non-violence" is really romanticised by many who aren't under the direct result of the oppression of the colonial state or have really underplayed the effectiveness of a violent reprisal to those who occupy. With Gandhi, MLK and South Africa always held up as the epitome of what the Palestinians should copy, they always leave out the decentralised violence that was very horrendous and really made many second guess why they kept funding a state that continues to mete out excess aggression against it. The point being that violence does work; it worked in most liberation movements, it even worked for the Zionists.
Felson also misses the many examples of Palestinian marches against Israel and its wall and etc. etc. Rachel Corrie even got bulldozed, an American, and still no Tiananmen Square calls for a boycott. How many Palestinians are being tortured in jails, how many were liquidated, how many are scared to speak out now, how many are in exile?
We miss out the numbers game to this: Apartheid, the civil rights movement, India, those had a vast amount of people behind it, and in two cases (India and South Africa), the indigenous outnumbered the occupiers by a great deal (90% to 10%). The Palestinians, along with their cousins in the occupied territories, only match Israel's population and with little to no resources to help their cause. The fear of a massive revolt had a picture of millions rising up against the few.
PS If people really wanted to know about what really is going on, it's not hard to find the proper information.
PPS Mohammad, I have reservations about MLK's "Zionist" sympathies. It's rather expressed over at The Hasbara Buster. There really is no evidence that can corroborate what MLK really said.
I must agree with Mohammad here regarding the effectiveness of transplanting movements across time, demographics and geography. Oftentimes it is all too true that we have only a few historical examples to draw on so we are tempted to borrow language, tactics and strategy where they really don't apply.
As someone who is [originally] from israel, I can assure FE that merely resorting to non-violent means of resistance will not work against the israeli mentality as it is today. Perhaps it could have worked once, before hearts got harder and minds closed up, but not any longer. I can write a long and boring post about the differences between the US and the israeli cultural models, despite some superficial similarities. maybe another day. But here's one issue to consider:
The US was founded on the concept of assimilation of people from wide backgrounds, classes and origins. In a way, so was israel, with one caveat: such assimilation was a desired outcome only for the jews. No one, even in zionism's heyday (that supposedly illustrious, glorious past before '67) remotedly considered the possibility of integrating WITH (rather than OUTSIDE) the Arab community. This would have been a heresy (as in "proposterous") in any circle – even those of the most open-minded socialist zionist founders. The reason is obvious: a key component of the jewish existence (cultural, religious, what not) is a desire to maintain its "purity' (in parenthesis here because that "purity" is highly suspect and has long ago been compromised). Furthermore, Judaism was never an evangelizing religion (except for a brief period of time in history) unlike most christian and moslem denomination who actively sought new members. Judaism never sought to assimilate others to its world views, customs or traditions, and the halacha makes it quite an ordeal to convert – by design. The opposite is also true – Judaism relied from its very beginning on exceptionalism – virtually by definition (cf the Covenant – singling jews out of all others).
What that means in this context is that the ones who consider themselves jewish in Israel (a consideration that is far from clear, at least to me) do not regard the Arabs as fundamentally integratable with themselves. And if integration is precluded, that means associations are fundamentally limited. One can be colleague and/or collegial with an Arab. But one cannot (or should not, on pain of being ostracized) marry them, date them or otherwise bring them home for dinner. What that leads to unfortunately is a hard separation which so far, only a party like hadash has dared cross (and even that under the guise of "communism", which it has of course ditched long ago). And where there's hard separation, there's no respect, and basically no real empathy (though one can still have sympathy). And where there's no respect, all resistance – whether violent or non-violent – will be regarded with the utmost suspicion, and be reacted to accordingly. Anyone who doesn't believe this should consider the recently concluded escapade in gaza and compare the callousness with which civilians were treated there (the excuse of hamas using all gaza civilians as "human shields" notwithtanding). Then think of the horrified reaction in the US to say, kent state shootings, or the murder of the civil right workers from the South. Would the reaction to such "excesses" be similarly horrifed in israel? or would they find thousand and one ways to rationalize them away – and then proceed to commit some more of the same (a la "show them who's boss")?
I once suggested that palestinians – as a new tactic could declare themselves as really Jewish (why not – many of them probably descend from the original jews anyways) who just happen to have adopted certain customs – christian or moslem or samaritan, etc. They can then demand their right to be absorbed in israel proper under the right of return laws, just as any descendent of jewish refugees could. After all, if one were to look at their customs as compared with, eg, the falashi, there may be many palestinian communities who are more similar to the jews of old (if not the more recent European version) than Israelis would care to admit. Interestingly, the reaction to this [admittedly tongue-in-cheek] exercise in gendankenspiel was far more gut-level angry from israelis (and certain jewish-americans) than from Arabs. Something I found kind of telling. Anyone who doesn't believe it can try this on their own (at your own risk, of course…).
OOps – I just realized this became a long and boring note anyways. Sorry about that (call it collateral damage, if you will).
Mohammed writes:
"One has to go one step deeper and ask, how can an organization like ADL support the Civil Rights movement and to what end?"
This is a very interesting question. There is of course a white nationalist answer, which some visitors to this blog might be inclined to give. A truer interpretation I think can be found in some of Nathan Glazer's work, various books on ethnicity in America published in the 70's and 80's. I recommend him highly as a guide to understanding America. To some extent both were groups oppressed by reigning WASP establishment, though they differed remarkably in their collective strengths , weaknesses, and ways in which they were oppressed. Glazer argues, with a great deal of subtlety, that the anti-personal discimination paradigm that Jews helped inject into the civil rights movement was actually more useful to Jews and their difficulties than it was for blacks.
Rachel Corrie had more courage than the bulldozer driver. She hoped that the driver would act in a civilized manner, but that was not the case.
Peaceful protest in Palestine can get you maimed or killed just as easily as being suspected of being in the vicinity of alleged rocket fire.
Absolutely not boring, Dana. May I ask, even if it may feel not quite PC: originally from Israel means?
Israeli Arab or Israeli Jew?
@ Chris Berel
Mohandas K. Gandhi
The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.
The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.
Since you inquired so nicely, I'll reply – from the side generally considered Jewish. Just what that means ina secular israeli context is something I've obviously come to question, having realized just how little we – of the secular background – learnt about Judaism, Jewish values and the evolution of different denominations over time in all our years of schooling. Much less about any other religion, naturally – other than a through a jewish history perspective (which in itself was kind of slanted towards the European version). But then, my school attendance days were prior to the days of cable and internet, so things may have change some for todays schools (or so I'd like to think…on a good day).
Thank you, Dana, for your insightful post. It helps me to understand what is needed for non-violent protest to succeed: a basic recognition of our shared humanity, which the more powerful group is forced to acknowledge as a result of the action. Reminds me of that protest in the South where black men wore signs that said "I AM A MAN." Some racist whites were forced to confront their racism because they knew in their hearts that what the signs said was true. It's depressing to hear you say that this connection is lacking in Israel but it explains why the non-violent protests against the wall that take place in the village of Bil'n every week, frequently end with the IDF shooting at peaceful protesters. What is the way out if non-violent protests won't work?
Julian: "Rachel Corrie's name must resonate loudly as an idiot who managed to get run over by a slow moving bulldozer.
I guess after an evening of burning American flags she was too exhausted to get out of the way."
Corrie made the mistake of thinking that an Israeli bulldozer driver wouldn't deliberately run her over. Seeing how the IDF shelled schools in Gaza no future Rachel Corries would make that mistake again.
"Then think of the horrified reaction in the US to say, kent state shootings, or the murder of the civil right workers from the South. Would the reaction to such "excesses" be similarly horrifed in israel? or would they find thousand and one ways to rationalize them away – and then proceed to commit some more of the same (a la "show them who's boss")?"
A closer analogy would be the Aztlan movement in Mexico to take back parts of the US. In fact, they consider themselves "America's Palestinians."
If they started lobbing rockets or coming over with suicide belts, few Americans (except the Iranian lovers here) would oppose invading and crushing the attackers.
And…if they hid out in border villages…those villages
would be attacked. That's how it works. Always has, always will.
George Orwell said in "Reflections on Gandhi" that the only reason non-violent resistance worked in India was that British were too civilized, unlike some modern governments, to make Gandhi simply "disappear."As Dana says, it's hard to imagine some Gandhi-like figure succeeding in the Mid-East. An F-16 would drop a 500 pound laser guided bomb on his bedroom in the middle of the night.
Thank you dana (and everyone :)
Duscany, I haven't read Orwell's "Reflections", but I am certainly not agreeing with the assessment that the "British were too civilized". Personally, there are many indications to the British that the policies vis-a-vis India were counterproductive, were too expensive and had too much of a toll to its own people. "Civilised" would mean that they took into account the feelings of the Indians, which many some did, but EVERYONE takes into account their own kin more.
There was a major change in world dynamics over resources also. India was used for cotton exchange; Britain saw this of lesser importance than that of petroleum, which was on the rise for demand, hence Britain's attempt to keep a stronghold on the petro-states, which we also see other superpowers continue to hold on to despite their "civilised" nature. I don't consider the British more attentive in the past than the US is or was back then.
The point being that the British saw no use in keeping up its stronghold over cotton. I would much rather do it over oil.
On a related note: Israel has no need for the Palestinians over resources of labour. They just need to expel them. Hence the biggest difference over the colonisations of years past.
Thanks, for the reply Dana. I am questioning myself, if it means anything. Or what would be the difference, if an Arab Israeli had asked herself the same question?
Religion can be practiced as ultimately empty ritual without implications for life other than giving you the feeling to do things right. Lately slightly puzzled by connections between history, religion, politics and maybe even more puzzled by what the pride of of belonging to a group's long line of survival as "religious tribes" means for the life of the special member of the group. …?
But I may be a bit torn between two rather different family traditions. On one hand the secular humanitarian tradition of my mother on the other the outwardly religious of my father. One can easily argue, as has been done by at least one German philosopher that comes to mind, that the humanitarian tradition suffered a huge defeat in Germany under the Nazis. But if you look closer religion was no guarantee to act according to the core principles of believe either. I am assuming the only recently studied group of unknown helpers contains a mixed set as to religion and secular.
But what would this mean?
Maybe I should read Sloterdijk's the God's Zeal. The battle of the Tree Monotheisms. But at the moment my piles get higher and higher.
Ana Sanchez; thanks for the good words. Alas, you ask a good question – just what can – or should – the Palestinians do to advance their cause in the face of a hardened foe?
Not being a palestinian myself, I always feel it'd be presumptuous on my part to make potentially life-threatenning suggestions for others from the comfort of an armchair far far away from the maddening crowds. But I can't help but think strategically (which is not the same, of course, as devising tactics), and so I tend to look at just what could shake the israeli front – enough to make a difference. Of all the possibilities, the one action that Israelis dread the most is that the palestinians – on mass – start agitating for inclusion in the country of Israel. That's because they've become (wrongly, IMHO) wedded to the notion of a "Jewish state" – a funny devotion if we look at the endless hand-wringing among the factions perpetually trying to define "what is a jew". Frankly, for most citizens of Israel, being jewish does not mean much more than celebrating hannukah, dressing up for purim, having a bar-Mitzvah and to those few who are so inclined – boning up on Jewish history enough to feel pepetually persecuted (and hence justified in whatever one does in the name of "never again"). For the secular person in Israel (and perhaps for many in the diaspora), being Jewish in Israel means being – at the root of it – a member of a 'special" tribe, defined more by whom it excludes than what it stands for. Therefore, it always seemed to me that challenging the tribal boundaries is by far more threatening than any physical violence or an agitation for a separate state for Arabs could ever be.
So there's a possible scenario that might be worth considering – say the palestinians wake up one day and decide that, come to think of it, they'd like to be part of the greater israel, much as say, the Russian immigrants are, or the extant christian community in israel, or the ba-hai. Thus turning the struggle into a civil rights battle, waged in courts and newspapers, rather than a physical struggle waged on battelefields. To me, that would take the shape of agitating for equal voting rights, etc. maybe the palestinian leadership could even offer to learn some jewish history and dress up for purim or whatever it takes to convince Israel that they could be perfectly loyal citizens (at least as loyal, as say, some of the ultra-orthodox Jews). To be sure, a civil rights struggle has been suggested by many others, I know, but my interest is more in what the israeli reaction is likely to be. And this is where we don't need too much imagination to conjure up the utter rage that would greet such a change in aspiration.
Actually, I believe that most Israelis would regard such a challenge to the tribal boundaries as so threatening that over-night there'd be some major clamoring for some 2-state solution, including the earnest offer of compromises never seen before. After all, that 2-state scenario has been used by official israel as a fig leaf to cover up a colonial enterprise. But two can play at that game – all it takes is will, no? upshot is,when confronted by a powerful and all-too-clever adversary, it may be good to act on a common turf (which is not the case now, again IMHO). Besides, I doubt the palestinians would actually have to start a mad scramble for purim costumes….or recipes for hanukah sufganiot…or bone up on Rashi, etc (the russians sure haven't, BTW).
Ok, so this looks like an intellectual exercise, but still – take the recent elections in Israel and check the numbers in Jerusalem. Now supposing the Arabs in east jerusalem could – and/or would – vote en mass. And suppose they chose to vote for some mixed Jewish-Arab party such as hadash, as opposed to a pure Arab one. That alone could have garnered Hadash another 2-3 representatives. Enough to be viewed as a potentially disruptive electoral block? sort of an anti-lieberman, anti-ethnic purity movement?
You'll just have to trust me when I say that the reaction in israel would be something to behold. Even if this is just an intellectual exercise (which I realize it is) it's enough to give one goose-bumps.
And yes, I guess this means that personally, I hold little hope – at least in the short run – that appeals to common humanity will make much difference to most israelis, given their remarkable ability to see the ghosts of past persecution in every action – or reaction – by tribal outsiders. That's just the way it is.
PS here we go, now I got carried away (again). Hope the above apology still applies. But you shouldn't have inspired me with a good question. Better argue like Suzanne above (see far shorter response below).
From Suzanne: "A closer analogy would be the Aztlan movement in Mexico to take back parts of the US. In fact, they consider themselves "America's Palestinians."
If they started lobbing rockets or coming over with suicide belts, few Americans (except the Iranian lovers here) would oppose invading and crushing the attackers.
And…if they hid out in border villages…those villages
would be attacked. That's how it works. Always has, always will."
Now that's perfect nonsense and you know it. For one thing even were America to be subjected to a few rockets, chances are the response would be considerably more restrained – maybe because mexico is actually a country one can negotiate with?. For another, the Aztlan indians have no need for suicide bombing or rockets. They can just come in as illegal immigrants, and worse come to worst, if caught they may get deported (OK, maybe some get mishandled, in which case they can sue later – and i sure hope they would). Yes, some people in parts of the US (Texas, california, arizona…) are getting all bent out of shape by the prospect of changing demographics (couched as fear for jobs…), but even they still view the mexicans as humans with understandable aspirations – they just don't wish to accommodate them any time soon. That's a normal conflict between bordering countries with vastly disparate levels of prosperity. It's natural that over time there'll be some evening out. I doubt anyone I know of would advocate turning the mexico border region into a toxic waste damp or go on killing spree just to "show them who's boss" – even were there some provocations.
Sorry Suzanne – this hasbara line just doesn't fly – try another bird? or something that crawls?
Lipset wrote in his essay "The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews & Israel" about a "dinner" for Dr. King he attended. When one black student made "some remark against the Zionists," Dr. King "snapped" back, "'When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism'."
Congressman Lewis claims Dr. King made this comment "shortly before his death" during "an appearance at Harvard." Lipset states it was "shortly before he was assassinated" at a "dinnergiven for him in Cambridge."
According to the Harvard Crimson, "The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago–April 23, 1967" ("While You Were Away" 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Lipset stated he was in the area for a "fund-raising mission," which would seem to imply a high profile visit. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University's Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston.
link to asiantribune.com
So both the letter and the alleged King comment made at the dinner party were just two more examples of old-time hasbara. Besides,
King had no credentials on the Middle East at all in the first place.
I'm glad Dana cleared up the white supremacist/leftwing fringe notion that Israel is a theocracy and was created on the notion of locking people of other religions out. Jewish identity is waaaay more complicated than that.
Yet Dana, you just offered up this easy going justification for population growth via immigration as a way to excuse both the Arab and Mexican encroaching demographic. And yet, Israeli Jews are colonialists?
Such double standards!
Between that and your smug righteous superiority towards "most Israelis," you are hardly objective.
I think it's more likely you have settled for your personal path of least resistance–and you find it easier to fight/reason with Westerners than what you deem as inferior peoples. Shame on you!
PS the Aztlan movement is real and they do consider themselves American Palestinians, although you make a valid point that Mexico would likely cooperate than undermine relations with the US
PPS…I have no feckin idea what Hasbara is but I do know there are some people who live in the world of idealism with a very skewed sense of reality. They are a bit rigid in their belief system, in fact.
Flag burning is, of course, a form of passive civil disobedience. Burn flags, they are ancient symbols of conflict still used today.
Thanks, this was highly interesting, Dana. I we could rate comments, and I am strictly not a fan of ratings, I would at least give it a try to push your contributions here up to the top.
…and now I am really gone.
Mexican Americans are full citizens of the USA in every way. Since 1965 they are a favored immigrant group, favored over immigrants from
Western Europe for example. That has been the result of the 1965 Immigration Act. Illegal aliens, Mexicans among them, are simply illegal aliens. Suzanne compares not apples and oranges, but apples and peas.
Rachael Corrie was true to her country's highest values & ideals of responsible citizenship in every way. She would've helped the White Rose.
Thanks you all for your contributions. Special thanks to dana–we really appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us.
wow! For real? You folks haven't heard of Aztlan? They embrace A LOT of your beliefs–especially hatred of Jews and Western civilization.
Perhaps you should invite them here! link to mayorno.com
oye chingado! Texas is really Aztlan!
Tejas was stolen from Mexico by a Nineteenth Century equivalent of al Qaeda. Austin, Crokett, et al. equal bin Laden and Zawahiri, except they wanted to bring slavery to Tejas so they could become Simon Legre's and rape slave children. Tejas should be returned to Mexico for this reason.
lol! Maybe Phil will donate his blog money to the Aztlan right of return cause?