Neocon fantasy: Palestine has nothing to do with Arab uprisings

on 33 Comments

As mass uprisings in Arab states continue, the Israeli government and its neoconservative supporters in the U.S. have tried to convince the world that Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians has nothing to do with the revolts. While it would be disingenuous to claim that Palestine drives the revolts, it’s equally disingenuous to claim that Palestine doesn’t factor at all in to the uprisings, or that Palestine is not a chief concern for Arabs all over.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman made the claim today. Speaking at a press conference in Brussels, Lieberman said: “The Israel-Palestinian conflict is not the main issue, not the main problem…I don’t see linkage between Israel-Palestine and unrest in Egypt, Bahrain or Egypt and Libya.”

Lieberman joins the likes of Jeffrey Goldberg, Jennifer Rubin and others in making that claim. Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy also makes the case:

With the world focused on the political earthquake reverberating from Egypt and Tunisia to Libya, Yemen, and even to Iran, it is only fitting that the UN Security Council is scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss a topic that appears in virtually none of the protest banners waving over Middle East capitals — Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. In light of current events, the mere convening of a Security Council meeting on this topic underscores the psychological, let alone geographic, distance between Turtle Bay and the Middle East.

The facts, though, don’t fit that narrative. Egypt’s uprising is the obvious case to examine, given its major role in Israel/Palestine.

The roots of the Egyptian uprising can be found, in part, in the activism that arose in Egypt during the Second Intifada in Palestine, according to Egyptian blogger and activist Hossam el-Hamalawy. And during the Egyptian revolution, the fact of Hosni Mubarak’s collaboration with Israel was blasted by activists. Defaced pictures of Mubarak, with a Star of David around his head, emerged. Signs and chants urging Mubarak to “go to Tel Aviv” where “they like him” were seen and heard. Last Friday, millions of Egyptians chanted, “To Jerusalem we are heading, Martyrs in the millions.” To top it all off, activists in both Gaza and Egypt are organizing for a joint march to the Rafah border to call for an end to the blockade.

The relevance of Palestine to the uprisings in Yemen, Bahrain and Libya is harder to measure. Still, popular sentiment in these countries is squarely against Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Polling data on the Middle East confirms this.

Yousef Munayyer of the Palestine Center makes the case that Palestine matters deeply in an intriguing article that concludes that “there is no issue which has the resonance or the potential to create uproar across Arab borders at the same time as the Palestine issue”:

So, perhaps it doesn’t matter that Tunisia isn’t Egypt, or Yemen, or Bahrain. They are, after all, all Arab. And, something in that common denominator was significant enough to tie very different states together, even in their responses to domestic opposition over time. What could that possibly be?

Michael Hudson, in a seminal book on Arab politics which discusses the question of regime legitimacy may lend us a clue. He writes that “the single most delegitimizing factor” for some Arab regimes “has been their consistent failure to match words with deeds on the Palestine issue.”

It has long been known that opposition groups in Arab states have often criticized their regimes for the inability to deliver on the pan-Arab cause of Palestine. This criticism takes different forms and sometimes targets regimes for their direct cooperation with Israel or for their cooperation with Israel’s biggest ally, the United States.

So it should come as no surprise that protestors in Cairo were chanting “La li Mubarak La li Suleiman hadol ‘omala il Amrikaan” (No to Mubarak and No to Suleiman, these are traitors for the Americans) or “Al Quds Raheen, Shuhada bil Malayeen” (To Jerusalem we will go, Martyrs in the Millions). See the video here. In turn, regimes have also tightened security and targeted opposition preemptively when the Israel-Palestine conflict incurs extraordinarily violent episodes.

This is not to say that Palestine is the only pan-Arab issue – certainly there is great angst about the American-led war and the ongoing occupation of Iraq – but Iraq is often viewed through a sectarian lens in the Arab world, whereas Arabs across borders, regardless of sect or background, feel a national and emotional commitment to Palestine…

Certainly, I would not go so far as to say that the revolution in Tunisia or Egypt or the uprisings taking place across the Arab world were immediate reactions to anything going on in Palestine. Each of these different revolutions had their ignition moments. Rather, Palestine is a central Arab issue often adopted by opposition groups across the Arab world, whether for self-interested or altruistic purposes, and has been for the better part of a century. The dynamics between states and opposition groups over time, which often ebbed and flowed in response to the dynamics in Palestine, played a significant role in revealing the true nature of regimes as police states, ultimately turning the people against them.

Israel and its neoconservative friends don’t want to hear this. Erasing the Palestine question out of the picture deflects attention away from Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine. But it seems that, to understand the Arab uprisings, one must also understand the staying power of the Palestinian question.

Alex Kane is a blogger and journalist based in New York City.  He blogs on Israel/Palestine at, where this post originally appeared.  Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

33 Responses

  1. Taxi
    February 22, 2011, 8:13 pm

    The problem is that the west views the mid east through the lens of the map lines drawn by the Brits and the French in the 19th century. But the fact is that these line that were drawn to ‘divide and rule’ never actually divided the Arab ‘people’ themselves, as evidenced by the collective cry of mutual support across the many Arab nations, all calling out loudly, peacefully for the same thing: freedom.

    When the dust settles in the near future , thereon pushing time a further twenty years, we will be seeing a future where the Arab countries and their people are united under one democratic banner akin to our beloved states union.

  2. annie
    February 22, 2011, 9:51 pm

    speaking of lieberman’s press conference in brussel’s today check out this video Brussels: Journalist attempts citizen’s arrest of Avigdor Lieberman

  3. yourstruly
    February 22, 2011, 9:56 pm

    during the ’82 u.s.-backed israeli war on lebanon

    in the streets of west beirut

    “where are our arab brothers?

    “where are our arab brothers?


    they were being held down by the despots who oppressed them

    no longer so

    compliments the children of the nile

    liberation square

    those magical eighteen days

    yet they know that until the last chain is broken

    none of us will be free

    • fuster
      February 22, 2011, 10:10 pm

      The PLO wasn’t that concerned for their Arab brothers in Lebanon when they were trying to impose their own sovereignty on parts of their brother’s territory.

      and the Palestinians in Lebanon today get a really raw deal.

      brother, brother, brother hasn’t usually triumphed in the history of this big bad old world.

      • Avi
        February 23, 2011, 1:04 am

        brother, brother, brother hasn’t usually triumphed in the history of this big bad old world.

        That’s a flat out lie.

        Of course you and your gang still refer to Jews around the world as “my people”. But, your loyalty is not to any people, your loyalty is to the state of Israel, to one Zionist entity.

        I think the moderators keep you around because you’re a good caricature of Zionism: hypocritical, detached from reality, and a habitual spinner.

  4. fuster
    February 22, 2011, 10:03 pm

    there’s no way to gauge it at this point. there’s no even rough way to determine why different people in different groups in different countries are doing what they’re doing.
    the betting is that they’re motivated mostly by things pressing and close to home.

    • Avi
      February 23, 2011, 1:12 am

      fuster February 22, 2011 at 10:03 pm

      there’s no way to gauge it at this point. there’s no even rough way to determine why different people in different groups in different countries are doing what they’re doing.

      Fascinating stuff. Thanks for all that analysis, Toady. I suppose “We know where they are. … Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

  5. yonira
    February 22, 2011, 10:10 pm

    Beloved country to muse upon
    from ancient days of old.
    And those who gave their lives to thee,
    brave and ever bold.

    We possess this ancient land.
    Its breath we hold so dear.
    We are the very soul of it.
    It is what we revere.

    And when we wander far from it,
    we see it in our dreams.
    And mark the place where scholars stood,
    holy and serene.

    That holy place, that G-dly face.
    It is both yours and mine.
    Where the honor of our people stand
    for now and the rest of time.

  6. Bill in Maryland
    February 22, 2011, 10:21 pm

    Thank you Alex.
    If the neocons don’t get it, Chris Matthews does. He just needs to come out of the closet. Listen to his Let Me Finish segment tonight, and tell me he doesn’t get it:

    “Let me finish tonight with some handy American rules for overseas revolution.
    >>>Rule 1. Always side with nationalism. Always, always back the people fighting against oppression by another country….However, in 1957, Senator Jack Kennedy spoke out on behalf of the Algerians fighting the French. It was a daring move that singled him out, and our country out, on the right side….

    >>> Rule 2. Always take the side of expanded popular rule. We backed Batista’s dictatorial rule in Cuba and paid for it when Fidel Castro espoused his loyalty to the Soviet Union…..This month we rooted for the people in Tahrir Square in Egypt, and that will hold us in good stead as the new government emerges. So there is a way to do it: back the people, oppose colonialism, support popular rule.”

    • Citizen
      February 23, 2011, 3:16 am

      The PTB fear people power. The most striking thing about the Gaddafi clan’s response to the revolt is that they have played the Islamist card. They have accused Islamists of ‘sparking unrest’ with an eye for establishing an ‘Islamic Emirate’. In this, they echo, almost word for word, Tony Blair (who said Egypt should not ‘rush towards elections’ in case Islamists win power) and numerous Western observers (who claim the Arab world is not ready for democracy because it’s full of people with ‘Islamist ideas’). This is the take of American cable TV news pundits, most especially Murdoch’s FOX News, and of the Obama regime, which sought to prevent the fall of Murabak’s men even as it sought the fall of Murabak, and a day late and dollar short, when Obama declared solidarity with the Egyptian Street while Hillary undercut it, warning of impending chaos–all directly or indirectly pushing fear of the MB, just not foaming at the mouth about it like Glen Beck. A reviled Arab dictator and respectable Westerners play the exact same game: they express their profound fear of mass agitation through fantasising that these rowdy Arab revolts will inevitably lead to ‘another Iran’. Arab dictators and many Western leaders share this reactionary development in common: an irrepressible instinct for control, if not a willingness to rule, so that even a much-loathed strongman – Mubarak in Egypt, now even Gaddafi in Libya – implicitly comes to be seen as preferable to people power. To the US and Britain and to Israel, the Axis regime hardly around the corner is Iran, HAMAS, and Hezbullah–THAT’s the linkeage, written in the stone PNAC tablets in the ancient 1990s, Frum’s Axis of Evil, Now, why would that possibly have anything to do with fear of a pan-Arab popular uprising? And, what’s love got to do with it, the old pop song refrain? Why, that’s Muslim, isn’t it?

  7. Avi
    February 23, 2011, 12:48 am

    Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman made the claim today. Speaking at a press conference in Brussels, Lieberman said: “The Israel-Palestinian conflict is not the main issue, not the main problem…I don’t see linkage between Israel-Palestine and unrest in Egypt, Bahrain or Egypt and Libya.”

    Zionists in the US, especially Jewish Zionists don’t see a linkage between the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and the problems the United States faces in Iraq, Afghanistan and much of the region.

    Needless to say, they don’t see that linkage because seeing it and acknowledging it would force the Zionist Lobby and many Jewish Americans to admit that their support of Israel’s policies conflicts with the national interests of the United States.

    And while Israel and its defenders pretend as though up is down, a revolutionary wave of smart and courageous citizens is sweeping the Middle East. Israel will be left out as the last standing fortress of persecution and oppression. Indeed, the only ________ in the Middle East.

  8. rachelgolem
    February 23, 2011, 1:05 am

    One day, the great people of Egypt will rise up,

    And march across the Sinai Peninsula in the final quest to liberate Palestine from the Zionists.

    And the Israeli Air Force will drop cluster bombs on them. THE END.

    • Antidote
      February 23, 2011, 9:09 am

      “And the Israeli Air Force will drop cluster bombs on them”

      … and Gaddafi will scream: “Why was it UNACCEPTABLE when I did it? Hypocrites! (throwing around UN charters etc)”

    • Taxi
      February 23, 2011, 9:28 am

      Yeah the end of zionist israel.


      Because you forget rachel that there now exists a balance of terror: there are ‘Arab’ and ‘Iranian’ and very likely ‘Turkish’ missiles vigilantly pointing at tel aviv and the demona.

      You really need to wake up from your drunken warmongering delusions.

      This is the 21st century, not 1976.

  9. piotr
    February 23, 2011, 1:58 am

    Whatever the reasons for the revolutions in Tunesia, Egypt and Libya, and unfolding evet in Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan, the implications on Israel can be profound.

    Number one, democratic Egypt seems a real possibility, and with that, gone will be the days of unusual servility of Egyptian regime that Israel and USA could rely upon. This will have a cascade of consequences.

    End of the siege of Gaza.

    The influence of democratic change in Egypt can foster democratic change in PA+Gaza. Nonviolent resistance will have backing of a democratic axis from Istambul to Tunis (and perhaps beyond). Cumulative moral and economic influence of that axis on Europe, and even USA will be considerably larger than easy to dismiss and half-hearted slogans of widely despised dictators.

    Whatever the immediate causes of revolutions, which include ineptitude and cleptocracy, one natural expression of national feelings is solidarity, another, more consistent pursuit of national interests. Like: Egypt has no conflict with Iran, other than personal paranoia of Saudis and former dictators.

    Israel will see also other shoes falling, like marginalization of American role in Iraq.

  10. stevelaudig
    February 23, 2011, 5:37 am

    Neocons [short for Neo Convicts?]: You see what you want to see.

  11. eGuard
    February 23, 2011, 5:40 am

    What was Lieberman doing in Brussels in the first place? Giving instructions?

  12. Richard Witty
    February 23, 2011, 5:55 am

    Throughout the last month, I reflected on the similarities between the neo-left and the neo-conservative agendas, in advocating for electoral democracy as the recommended form of government for Arab states.

    One by external central force (invasion), one by popular force (uprising).

    The irony is that even if the means to get to democracy by external force is hated and botched, it still got to democracy. Currently, the danger is that the Arab uprising will not get to democracy.

    Hopefully Egypt will, given the numbers committed to it. To the extent that the movements distract from their own liberation and shift to demonization and scapegoating, the chances of corrupt replacements of power increase.

    Only those who think that better that Israel just not exist prefer a state of war with Israel to a state of peace (even if cool). The expenditure of 20% of Egypt’s GDP on military is a drain on the community’s wealth.

    As Israel IS a democracy of its people (very imperfect, but MUCH more of a democracy than Egypt has ever been, than any state of its neighbors), the threat of its attack is an affront on democratic principles, NOT an application of them.

    To the extent that you personally advocate for the elimination of Israel, even the cultural and economic isolation of Israel, then you are working for its demise, acting in opposition to democracy, direct opposition to the electoral will of its people.

    I think I know better often too. I share that intellectual vanity.

    The anti-Zionist view, the view that desires the elimination of Israel (and MANY express it, here that I’ve seen close up), is a fascist and racist movement, NOT a democratic one.

    You may find ways to rationalize to yourself that you are advocating for democracy, but in fact you are denying democracy in favor of the urge to enforced conformity.

    What conformity:

    1. Pan-Islamic – The land is part of the undifferentiated umma. Israel is usurper on Muslim land. (A heart valve just like Israeli neo-religious assertions. One way, expansion only)

    2. Pan-Arab – The land is part of the Arab nation. All on the land are Arabs (not European, not anything new). The land is permanently Arab (a representative substitute the word “historically”. It was “historically”, therefore no change will be accepted, conformity.)

    3. Palestinian – The land is Palestine, regardless of the choice of the populations on how they desire to self-govern. Again, using the term “the land is historically” Palestine – though that is as new a national concept as Zionism.

    All seeking conformity and “solidarity” of those willing to participate in the enforcement of “the way things have always been” rather than something new.

    The urge for reform of Zionism is not racist or anti-democratic. The urge for the elimination of Israel is.

    • eljay
      February 23, 2011, 10:15 am

      >> 3. Palestinian – The land is Palestine, regardless of the choice of the populations on how they desire to self-govern. Again, using the term “the land is historically” Palestine – though that is as new a national concept as Zionism.

      What was Mandate Palestine is no more, but its passing does not entitle Zio-supremacists to turn the region into “the Promised Land” of Greater Israel. Zio-supremacists within and without Israel need to get that through their thick, racist, religion-supremacist heads.

      Additionally, the passing of Mandate Palestine in no way excuses Israel’s:
      – insatiable theft of land;
      – ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, no matter how hard hateful and immoral supremacists argue that it was “necessary”;
      – consistent refusal to negotiate a sincere and equitable solution to the conflict; and
      – refusal to halt ON-GOING aggression, oppression, land theft, colonization, destruction and murder, something that is within its power to do immediately and completely.

    • pjdude
      February 23, 2011, 10:45 pm

      I’ll have to say you got balls. to support a bigoted enterprise that denies people rights is ok in your mind. but to recognize and enforce the rights of your victims is in your mind bigoted. I mean to call other people out as bigotry for non bigoted actions while you yourself support bigoted policies I mean that takes a pair. I know I would be audacious enough to try that.

      • Richard Witty
        February 24, 2011, 3:57 am

        I am for A state for Jews, not your imagination of zio-supremicism. That is someone else you are talking about.

      • eljay
        February 24, 2011, 8:28 am

        >> I am for A state for Jews

        “A state for Jews” is a supremacist state, not an egalitarian, democratic state. You are a supremacist.

        And a particularly immoral one at that, given your approval of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as “necessary” (as though such an immoral act could ever be considered necessary).

      • Donald
        February 24, 2011, 10:53 am

        “The irony is that even if the means to get to democracy by external force is hated and botched, it still got to democracy. Currently, the danger is that the Arab uprising will not get to democracy.”

        Richard is talking about Iraq, which has experienced torture, ethnic cleansing, death squads, millions of refugees and no accountability for any of it. What sort of “democracy” does one get out of this? Iraq is still experiencing violent turmoil. Well, it’s fine for Richard, because he likes the sort of democracy that can be obtained from ethnic cleansing, so long as it isn’t his own group being cleansed.

        Contrast this with Egypt, which still hasn’t reached democracy. But it’s got a damn sight better chance of it than Iraq after 8 years of horrific bloodletting. But again, Witty thinks Iraq is a success story. For him, there’s no significant difference between supporting a popular relatively nonviolent uprising by people against a dictatorial regime, and a war launched on false premises that leads to one of the great humanitarian catastrophes of our time.

  13. pabelmont
    February 23, 2011, 6:11 am

    Meanwhile, Israel teeters between three possible views of the legal status of land and sovereignty in what was once Mandatory Palestine.

    First is the clear view of those Israelis who see themselves as proprietor of the one-state, Israel-Palestine, never divided since Jordan was split off in 1921, ruled by Britain until mid-1948 or earlier, the British government then becoming replaced, after Jewish anti-British terrorism and civil war, by Palestinian Jews’ own government, portions of the land then occupied by Egypt and Jordan. On this view, the war of 1967 reacquired land of the One State from military occupation and did not constitute occupation of foreign land, because a country (Israel-Palestine) cannot (on this view at least) occupy or even re-occupy its own land. This view seems to be the view of those Israelis who say the law of military occupation does not apply in the so-called (as they would say) occupied Palestinian territories. “We always owned it and therefore cannot occupy or re-occupy it.”

    A second view holds that Israel was not the same as Palestine, that Palestine was extinguished in 1948 and became a no-man’s land, up for grabs, and grabbed in part by Israel (a newly created state), and in part by Jordan and by Egypt. None of these was a military occupier, whatever they or anyone else may have said, because the entire land was (very briefly!) a no-man’s land, a terra nullius, owned by whoever took it. On this view, Israel became an occupier when it captured West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Israel seems to dispute this view, arguing that Jordan and Egypt did not “own” the land they occupied. Does this mean that Israel also does not own the land it seized in 1947-50? What made Israel’s land-grab different in legal character from Jordan’s?

    A third view is that Palestine did not become a terra nullius but was preserved, from 1921 until today, the land of the Palestinian people, and that Israel, by civil war, seized part of it, separated that part into a new (and smaller) country, a new state, Israel. The remainder of Palestine became occupied, first by Egypt and Jordan in 1948, then by Israel in 1967. This view requires the international community to ignore the apparent rule of the UN’s charter that land cannot be acquired by threat or use of war, because that is exactly how Israel was formed. Perhaps the international community believed that the Israelis already lived in and upon the land they seized and so were not “acquiring” territory by war, but, rather, confirming ownership. Hard to say. But, definitely, upon this view, Palestine existed in 1921, exists today (albeit smaller by the loss of pre-1967 Israel), and is occupied entirely by Israel as a “belligerent occupier”.

    The third view seems to be the dominant view, in the world today. But the character of Israel’s occupation, especially its long duration, suggests that Israel wishes to violate the UN Charter by acquiring land by threat or use of force. After all, 43 years is a long time to conduct a temporary post-war occupation. And the settlements and land takings! Shocking. Illegal.

    Until today, the international community has been content to allow the UN Security Council to handle (or to refuse to handle) the legal problems (and the peace problems) presented by the Israeli 43-year occupation of the rump (remainder) of Palestine. After events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, etc., and the USA’s shameful veto of a very, very mild draft resolution condemning Israel’s settlements, perhaps we may hope to see the nations act outside the UNSC, in a place (the UNGA?) where the USA cannot continue to defeat the well-expressed desire of the entire rest of the world (Israel, of course, excepted) to declare and perhaps to enforce the very well-established law of “belligerent occupation.”

    • pjdude
      February 23, 2011, 7:24 pm

      I’m have to disagree with you saying most of the international community holds the third view. I’d say the hold the second view.

      I say this as someone who holds the third view I believe in international law.

  14. Theo
    February 23, 2011, 8:07 am

    CNN London reported this morning:

    “The US government cannot set up an airlift for americans in Libya, therefore they will be picked up by a ferry and taken to Malta.
    They must reemburse the government for the cost of the “boatride”.

    This report really made me angry and following two questions are important:

    1. France, GB, Germany, Italy, Korea even Turkey are sending planes since 2-3 days to pick up their citizens! Why the most mighty country, the only superpower that can bomb any city in the world back to the stone age, cannot set up an airlift? We have several air bases in southern Italy with enough transport planes, less than an hour flight!

    2. All courtries in the world help their distressed citizens without presenting a bill at a later date, why can this superpower, who gives Israel several billions every year and other despots hundreds of millions, not help its citizens? After all, they are all taxpayers and their money is spent on helping them.

    A zionist and israeli citizen, Rahm Emanuel was elected to be mayor of Chicago!! As the saying says, each nation gets leaders that it deserves, and to quote the Bible: “Father, please forgive them, because they don´t know what they do”.

  15. Theo
    February 23, 2011, 8:19 am

    Two days ago I made a comment that the egyptions did not achieve anything until blood starts flowing, as the same army is in power since the 1952 coup, the same secret police and they will not give up power without a fight!
    This morning the building of the State Department in Cairo and several other government buildings are burning. It seems our friends in Egypt got the message from Libya that a revolution means is to take back your rights by force, because waiting for a wonder may take a long time.

  16. wondering jew
    February 23, 2011, 8:24 am

    It’s not clear to me what Alex Kane is trying to prove, nor what Jeffrey Goldberg is trying to prove either.
    If you gather a council of those who represent the protesters from Tahrir Square do you think they would vote to increase expenditures for the army? I assume not. How seriously can one take the chant about freeing Al Quds if it is not backed up by budgetary priorities? Is there anyone here who thinks Egypt is not spending enough on their military? Speak up now.
    No, it is not in Egypt’s interest to do so.
    If Barak Obama had been busy getting Israeli Palestinian negotiations going after convincing Israel to freeze her settlement activity, maybe the timing of the uprising would have been deferred. But if a man in Tunisia could not make a living because of corruption and poor governance, then foreign policy was not the key to this earthquake.

  17. zafarz
    February 23, 2011, 8:29 am

    Sandheads, those who intentionally ignore the obvious, eternally pursue ‘consent manufacturing’ as per Noam Chomsky. Please read my post Why Arabs should thank Iran for bringing about democratic reform on

  18. Leper Colonialist
    February 23, 2011, 8:49 am

    Another neo-con fantasy: what Israel Lobby?

  19. Nevada Ned
    February 23, 2011, 9:09 am

    Why are the Israelis and neo-conservatives claiming that there is no connection between the Palestinian intifada and the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt (and still spreading…)? Because the world sympathizes with the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. The Israelis and their apologists in the US are trying to ward off popular support for the Palestinians and their uprising against Israeli oppression.
    Popular opinion in nearly the whole world sympathizes with the Palestinians. The sole exceptions are the US and Israel. And it’s hardly surprising to find the US neoconservatives singing from the same page as the Israelis.

    It’s not Israel’s “existence” that is at stake. It’s Israel’s racism that is at issue.

Leave a Reply