Hundreds of New Yorkers come out to denounce Israeli aggression on Gaza

ActivismIsrael/Palestine
on 72 Comments
IMG 6997
Hundreds of New Yorkers protested the Israeli assault on Gaza outside the Israeli Consulate (Photo: Alex Kane)

Close to 1,000 New Yorkers came out in the cold earlier tonight to denounce Israel’s escalation against the Gaza Strip. The emergency rally, organized in one day, was put together by a host of Palestine solidarity groups including Adalah-NY, Al-Awda NY, American Muslims for Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine chapters and more. 

The rally was held across the street from the Israeli Consulate in Midtown Manhattan.

IMG 6992
The rally area kept filling with people as the night went on. (Photo: Alex Kane)

Protesters chanted slogans like, “Netanyahu you will learn, refugees will return,” and “Not another nickel, not another dime, no more money for Israel’s crimes.”

Meanwhile, across the street a much smaller demonstration in support of Israel’s assault was held. As I passed by, they sang songs in Hebrew, and chanted “Am Yisrael Chai” (the people of Israel live). 

IMG 7005
Counter-protesters set up shop across the street from the Palestine solidarity protest
(Photo: Alex Kane)

Dima Abi Saab, an organizer with Al Awda, denounced Israel’s actions against Gaza and pointed out that while the U.S. sent billions in military aid to Israel, people in New York continue to suffer the effects of Hurricane Sandy. 

IMG 7011
Some Israeli residents of New York City came out to show solidarity with Gaza. On the right is Maya Wind, an Israeli who refused to serve in the military. She spent a few weeks in detention and forty days in military prison for her refusal. (Photo: Alex Kane)

The New York rally was one of many held today around the world in opposition to the Israeli military’s bombardment of Gaza.

IMG 7013
Sarah Wellington of the Artist Response Team walks near the rally with a strong message.
(Photo: Alex Kane)

72 Responses

  1. Kathleen
    November 15, 2012, 9:10 pm

    Great signs. Humanitarian folks

  2. jimmy
    November 15, 2012, 9:32 pm

    I am willing to bet that none of this will show up on US MSM.

    • Kathleen
      November 15, 2012, 10:08 pm

      Jimmy you win. Not a whisper. Chris Matthews is still talking about Romney and making up for his asinine comment about Sandy and its consequences. Doing a good job making up but if only he would have done the same for the aftermath of Katrina. Doubt if he mentions the Israeli strikes on the Gaza. And if he did he would begin the report the way NPR does where Israel wants them to start reporting. The only chance this has of making it on MSM cable is Chris Hayes Up program. He has stepped out of the box a couple of times about this issue. But not for awhile. Will see this weekend if he covers the issue if at all and if he does whether he will put the Israeli spin on it

      • Donald
        November 15, 2012, 11:28 pm

        I think there’s a chance Chris Hayes might say something about this–he has been critical of Israel before. The rest of MSNBC is worthless. They really are almost as bad as Faux News in some ways. Not quite as bad, but being better than the worst isn’t much of a distinction.

      • German Lefty
        November 16, 2012, 5:16 am

        The only chance this has of making it on MSM cable is Chris Hayes Up program. He has stepped out of the box a couple of times about this issue.

        I agree, Kathleen. I am looking forward to his show. I am pretty sure he will cover it.

      • Kathleen
        November 16, 2012, 1:51 pm

        Many of us have been over at the Up site since their birth politely hammering them on covering this issue. Not that that necessarily does any good. But know it has on some other MSM outlets. But clearly Chris Hayes leans towards being fair and accurate on this issue. He has stepped out of the envelope a few times on the issue (even during coverage of the debates on a MSNBC panel where Al Sharpton tried to slap him down) on his program but it has been a while. Dylan Ratigan was the first to step out of line on this issue when he and Glenn Greenwald beat (symbolically) the living daylights out of Cliff May on the Dylan Ratigan show when they were all talking about middle east issues. It was quite the public hammering. Loved it. Never heard Dylan go out of line again on the issue. But again he and Glenn did quite the job on Cliff May’s spin. Chris Hayes came up next and went out of the box talking about the I/P issue accurately. This weekend will be telling. Especially where he starts the attacks stories. My peasant take on all of this is Netanyahu hit three birds with one stone.
        1. Kicked the Obama administration in the cajones again for not falling into line on a pre-emptive and unnecessary attack on Iran

        2. Provoking the Palestinians into violently responding just before the vote at the UN on their potential upgrade to a status where they could take Israel’s crimes against them to the International Criminal Court.

        3. Continue to try to distract from their ongoing theft of internationally recognized Palestinian land in the West Bank and E Jerusalem. Look over there.

        Let’s hope Chris Hayes covers this story accurately. One of the issues that came up during an interview over at Democracy Now is that Jabiri had just received a draft of a permanent solution with Israel two hours before he was killed. Anyone know anything about this?

      • Donald
        November 16, 2012, 4:36 pm

        Chris Hayes on Twitter says Gaza will be one of the issues covered on “Up” this weekend. That should be good. I’m guessing he will have at least one person giving the Israeli POV, but I suspect that two or three of his guests will be sympathetic to the Palestinians, and Chris himself is fair.

        link to Chris Hayes on twitter

        Isn’t it pathetic, though, that we have to go searching for someone somewhere on TV who might be fair to the Palestinians?

      • Abdul-Rahman
        November 16, 2012, 9:36 am

        With the lies of the Zionist controlled “mainstream” corporate media specifically in the Western print media right now and your comment in mind; I clearly remembered yet again Rick Sanchez revealing the truth back in 2008-2009 (during “cast lead”) even on CNN! link to youtube.com

        But of course Sanchez was then fired not too much later on, within one day of making a comment saying that Jewish people have disproportionate representation in American media and then from this general comment (debate it if you like) he made a clear statement that Jewish people in America are NOT a discriminated against minority like Hispanic Americans or African-Americans. And on what Sanchez said regarding media in general, the hypocrisy that led to Sanchez getting fired in a day is quite striking.

        link to latimes.com

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Chu
        November 16, 2012, 11:51 am

        and check this latest link to pathetic Sanchez sucking up to the ADL!

  3. Kathleen
    November 15, 2012, 10:47 pm

    The latest I/P conflict took front and center at Huff Po for about two hours. To hold that spot over there it has to say something about Romney and the 47% ..that way it holds the spot for days on end.

  4. mcohen
    November 16, 2012, 2:59 am

    time to choose which side you are on

    “American Jewish groups are closely following events unfolding in Gaza, and there is some concern that terror organizations will seek to retaliate against Israel through a strike at Jewish targets in the US and around the world, The Times of Israel has learned.”

    • pabelmont
      November 16, 2012, 9:46 am

      The Palestinians (as a whole) gave up “terror” a long time ago, especially outside The Land. In a way this is good, it is ethical, and so forth, but it is also unavailing. When they didn’t do terrorism (1948-50), “infiltrators” returning to their own lands to harvest their crops were called “terrorists” and shot. When they became “terrorists”, they were still called “terrorists’ and shot. Now that they are trying negotiation and BDS and other peaceable means, they are called “terrorists” and shot.

      I do not hope that they will attack Jewish targets outside Israel, or even deliberately target civilians (even as Israel seems to do so), but to be quiescent under Israel’s devastating attack would be to curl up and die.

      When they shoot rockets at Tel Aviv, surely they would prefer to hit military targets there, and surely there exist military targets there. Can they be blamed if they have lo-tek weapons and insufficient information that their rockets cannot be aimed accurately at military targets? Would someone, please, supply the Gazans with hi-tek guidance, targeting, and weapons delivery systems? I really don’t like rockets falling in civilian neighborhoods when perfectly good military targets exist and are available to be targeted.

      I finally got through on the presidential comment line (202-456-1111) at 9:30 AM this morning. Told the president that decent people want him to STOP THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON GAZA and want him to tell the world that Israel’s SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL, that I am Jewish and have lost all sympathy with Israel and had donated money to his campaign in the (slim) hopes that he would do something decent about Israel/Palestine.

      • Kathleen
        November 16, 2012, 2:35 pm

        What do you do if the money behind the scenes partially comes from American Jewish sources?

    • Mooser
      November 16, 2012, 12:25 pm

      “American Jewish groups are closely following events unfolding in Gaza, and there is some concern that terror organizations will seek to retaliate against Israel through a strike at Jewish targets in the US and around the world, The Times of Israel has learned.”

      First of all “mcohen”, you’ve got a serious oxymoron going there, using “Times of Israel” and “learned” in the same sentence.

      And please, please, don’t go around with that “which side are you on” bullcrap, cause I’m very tempted to answer that the elimination of Zionism and its works will be the best thing that ever happened to Jews, world-wide (except that some Israelis might end up in America, raising the Jewish incarceration rate to alarming levels)

      Butr what’s hysterical “mcohen” is this: WHat did you envision when you posted that BS from the “Times of Israel”? I bet you could here the sound of Mondoweiss windows snapping shut as Jewish readers of Mondo click over to the IDF enlistment site, and saying “I know where my duty to me pipples is!”

      C’mon, mcohen, we gotta keep that +15 thing going. Don’t ruin things for us.
      (BTW your name, “mcohen” Spelchek informs me, is a mispelling. Who are you trying to fool?)

      • Rusty Pipes
        November 16, 2012, 4:33 pm

        Well, I think the Irish spelling of Owen is Eoin, as in Eoin Colfer. Do you think Ohen might be a Scottish spelling?

    • eljay
      November 16, 2012, 12:39 pm

      >> time to choose which side you are on

      If the choices of sides are…

      oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”

      vs.

      equality, democracy, justice and accountability for everyone in the former Mandate Palestine

      …I choose the latter.

      • Kathleen
        November 16, 2012, 2:36 pm

        clear choice

  5. Tex Tradd
    November 16, 2012, 4:54 am

    Are these protestors also protesting Hamas firing rockets at population centers?

    I oppose what the IDF is doing to non-combatants, and for the same reason oppose what Hamas is doing.

    I suspect Hamas is deliberately targeting civilians, and fear the IDF is being dangerously reckless or worse. Yet people of conscience should all oppose attacks against all civilians, whether in Gaza, Tel Aviv, Afghanistan, or anywhere.

    “War is always a failure for humanity”-John Paul II

    • Cliff
      November 16, 2012, 9:56 am

      Tex Tradd,

      Human beings (I suspect you are one as well) are emotional creatures. We do not have to be one-man Amnesty Internationals or United Nations.

      In fact, your lip-service condemnation of the far greater Israeli bombardment/violence reveals you to be the Zio-troll that you are.

      If you’re phoning in your 2 cents now, as if this latest batch of violence exists in a vacuum disconnected from the colonial conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians as a whole – kindly **** off.

      The inane ‘both sides are wrong’ argument is rife among Zionist agent provocateurs and shallow, uneducated, ignorant ‘masses’ (mediocre, unthinking, bland).

      Here’s the simple answer: No one can say for sure. If you really care (you don’t) – then email the activists in question. I’m sure they will answer you.

      After you get your answer, will your delicate sensibilities cease jostling in the wind?

      This isn’t an isolated incident. The violence is always disproportionately inflicted BY THE ISRAELIS against PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS.

      You call Hamas rockets ‘deliberate’ and you call Israeli actions ‘reckless’.

      Reckless, but with good intentions? Reckless but with borne out of necessity (‘war on terror’)?

      Please shut the **** up.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 16, 2012, 3:08 pm

        Would a zio-troll oppose what the IDF is doing to civilians and fear the IDF is being dangerously reckless, or worse?

        Actually, I am not a Zionist, but a critic of Zionism. I just try to be consistent. It should be possible for justice-seekers to affirm the dignity and humanity of all non-combatants who are victims, full stop.

        I am well aware of the disproportionate violence towards Palestinians in this unfolding tragedy. I know there is a pattern here, rooted in who has power and who does not. But civilians are civilians.

        Calling out Hamas for targeting civilians does not undermine my desire for long-denied justice for Palestinians.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 16, 2012, 4:11 pm

        “It should be possible for justice-seekers to affirm the dignity and humanity of all non-combatants who are victims, full stop.

        “I am well aware of the disproportionate violence towards Palestinians in this unfolding tragedy.”

        If the violence is disproportionate, then so must the affirmation you speak of. If 10 Palestinians are being killed for each Israeli, then 1o affirmations of the crimes of israel should be made before Hamas is criticized.

      • Shingo
        November 17, 2012, 8:06 am

        Would a zio-troll oppose what the IDF is doing to civilians and fear the IDF is being dangerously reckless, or worse?

        Yes, because a zio-troll is precisely who would use weazle words like “dangerously reckles” as opposed to saying like it is – which is criminal.

        Actually, I am not a Zionist, but a critic of Zionism. I just try to be consistent.

        You’re not consistent. You give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt and accuse Hamas of the very worst crime.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 19, 2012, 12:15 am

        If the violence is disproportionate, then so must the affirmation you speak of.

        I think that is right. Disproportionate violence is disproportionately a violation of human dignity.

        However, there is a major difference between intentional violence against civilians and accidental violence against civilians, such as that which occurs when a policeman confronted with a hostage situation kills a hostage along with a hostage-taking gunman.

        Is what the IDF is doing in Gaza, where innocents are destroyed, in the same category?

        Zionist-activist assure us that it is, and too often make accusations of dark motives if this is questioned . Anti-zionist activists are quite convinced that the IDF is deliberately killing innocents.

        I don’t claim to know the real truth here. At the very least it seems to me the IDF is being dangerously reckless. I find it baffling that they might consider it in Israel’s interest to deliberately kill innocents. I do recall the sickening t-shirts from a few years back that said “one shot two kills”, which makes me wonder if soldiers currently in the IDF are indeed worse than dangerously reckless and are committing war crimes.

        Yet it seems to me that the higher-ups in Israel and the IDF must realize that deliberately killing civilians would make Israel look terrible and evil, so why would they do it? Maybe I have a blind spot here, but it seems a simpler explanation is that they are dangerously reckless in their use of force, as is the US with our drone strikes.

        Of course, for a family trying to live, hearing bombs falling and fearing a horrible death, these distinctions are of no use. Yet it is the role of the peace and antiwar movements to try to get at the truth. I don’t agree with the US Government’s policy in Afghanistan or Israel’s policy in Gaza, and while I hope in both cases there is a sincere effort to truly minimize civilian death, I fear this is not the case.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 19, 2012, 12:50 am

        Yes, because a zio-troll is precisely who would use weazle words like “dangerously reckles” as opposed to saying like it is – which is criminal.

        “Dangerously reckless” is weasel-words? Wow. I think of such wording as pretty harsh, actually.

        Has any zionist, anywhere, tried to defend Israel that way? I doubt it.

        I remain unconvinced the IDF and political higher-ups in Israel think it is in their self interest to kill innocents deliberately. Rather, I think what is going on is more like what the US is doing in Afghanistan with drone strikes. Maybe killing innocents through reckless use of violence constitutes war crimes, I don’t know. As an American and Christian, I truly hate the thought that innocent families are dying in Afghanistan and Gaza, and my tax dollars are involved in both. This is one of the many reasons I am a Ron Paul supporter.

      • Shingo
        November 19, 2012, 7:47 am

        Yet it seems to me that the higher-ups in Israel and the IDF must realize that deliberately killing civilians would make Israel look terrible and evil, so why would they do it?

        1. Ethnic cleansing
        2. home demolitions
        3. evictions
        4. Destroying olive groves
        5. attacking flotillas and mudering 9 passengers
        6. going crazy and bombing infrastructure all over Southern in front of foreign media

        And the list goes on. All of these make Israel look terrible and evil, so why do they do it and continue to do it? Israel’s reputation on the world stage ranks alongside North Korea.

        So yes you have a blind spot.

      • Shingo
        November 19, 2012, 7:51 am

        I remain unconvinced the IDF and political higher-ups in Israel think it is in their self interest to kill innocents deliberately

        Then you are idealogically blind.

        Israeli leader have openly admitted that their strategy all along was to punish the population to such an extent that they would pressure their leaders into surrendering to Israel’s dictates.

        “The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets.”
        Mordecai Gur(Israeli politician and the 10th Chief of Staff of the IDF)

        and

        “There was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities, satisfying Israel’s goals.”
        Abba Eban

        What more proof do you need?

      • Shmuel
        November 19, 2012, 7:55 am

        So yes you have a blind spot.

        More importantly, Israeli leaders (and followers) have a blind spot, whereby the world is divided in two: the ignorant and the anti-Semitic. One need only “explain” (the lit. meaning of hasbara) things to the ignorant until they see things our way (how could they possibly disagree once they have all the “facts”?), and the anti-Semites will hate us no matter what we do, so there’s no point in worrying about them.

        The slightly more sophisticated (and cynical) fervently believe in the power of spin and propaganda — an immoral position to be sure, but not a stupid one.

    • Donald
      November 16, 2012, 11:59 am

      Tex–I agree that in an ideal world protestors would be 100 percent consistent on everything, and it might be better if they say they condemn all attacks on civilians, but I’d cut pro-Palestinian protestors some slack, because the press is full of the usual “Israel is just defending itself” blather. As Cliff says below (or above maybe), people aren’t one man Amnesty Internationals. We’re emotional. It outrages me that rocket fire on Israel gets far more condemnation from the American political mainstream than Israel’s blockade, its occupation, and its brutality. The rocket attacks are indiscriminate and immoral, but it’s infuriating that their immorality is the only immorality that many Westerners condemn. The NYT yesterday was not supportive of Israel’s attack, but they didn’t say one word about its immorality, only how it might backfire on Israel.

      Incidentally, I looked at your self-description. I’m lefty, but have some of the same interests. Started MacIntyre’s “After Virtue” some months back, put it aside, but intend to get back to it eventually.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 16, 2012, 3:41 pm

        I’d cut pro-Palestinian protestors some slack, because the press is full of the usual “Israel is just defending itself” blather.

        The uncritical acceptance of the Israeli government’s stated rationale by people in the MSM is precisely why protestors should be clear and unambiguous about condemnimg Hamas also. That way, a clear and consistent pro-peace and anti-violence message is less likely to be distorted or ignored.

        We can’t be less concerned about innocent people on one side or the other. We have to oppose all violence against non-combatants, full stop.

        I am heartened if the people in Jewish Voice for Peace are making that clear, it’s alot harder to take pro-peace messages out of context or distort them as being pro-Hamas that way. JVP people include some peace-movement veterans who have learned from experience about messaging.

        Look, those of us in the peace movement have to be extra-vigilant here, because there is alot of bias towards depicting us as useful idiots for the evil intentions of Hamas. We can be pro-peace and anti-Hamas, but we have to take the extra step and make it clear Israeli civilians are of equal worth as Palestinian civilians (and all civilians everywhere).

        ***

        Alasdair MacIntyre is pretty fascinating, and in my opinion one of the thinkers who has truly transcended the left vs. right dualism. He seems to have synthesized elements of Marxism and Aristotelianism to make a pro-worker, pro-cooperative association ethos that I can only hope catches on: link to prospectmagazine.co.uk

        ‘If MacIntyre’s ethics of finance raises more questions than it settles, he still beguiles with his illustrations from history. For example, he entertained his listeners with the story of the founding of a diesel engine factory in which an investor and engineer came together to create an ideal small-scale business for their mutual benefit and that of the local community. Later, demonstrating the ways in which globalised “bad character” can be resisted by “virtuous risk taking,” he cited four narratives: the 18th-century Guaraní Indians (depicted in the film The Mission) who chose a collectivised future under “proto-Leninist” Jesuits rather than slavery; the early founders of the kibbutzim at odds with competing visions of collectivisation; the Kerala leaders of the Marxist Communist party of India in 1957, who placated landowners and government while helping the poor; and the small farmers of Donegal in the 1960s who chose to establish a co-operative that sustained their Gaelic-speaking community rather than emigrate.

        Apologists for globalisation, he argues, treat it as a source of benefits, and only accidentally and incidentally a source of harms. Hence, the view that “to be for or against globalisation is in some ways like being for or against the weather.” ‘

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 16, 2012, 4:14 pm

        I think you are misguided. The issue here is not merely the use of violence, but the oppression by the israelis of all Palestininans, every day, nonstop for 70 years.

        “We can be pro-peace and anti-Hamas, but we have to take the extra step and make it clear Israeli civilians are of equal worth as Palestinian civilians (and all civilians everywhere).”

        You can be pro-peace and anti-Hamas, but above all, you must be anti-Israel. That is the key. If you are not, then all of your efforts will fail and, more likely, will be detrimental to the cause of Palestinian rights.

      • Donald
        November 16, 2012, 4:15 pm

        Tex–

        I don’t really disagree with what you say here–I think it’s great that JVP is being morally consistent. I’m just suggesting not being too judgmental of people who don’t quite live up to those standards in the current circumstances.

        Thanks for the MacIntyre link. I have to read more of him, but what I saw in “After Virtue” made sense to me.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 16, 2012, 6:33 pm

        I don’t really disagree with what you say here–I think it’s great that JVP is being morally consistent. I’m just suggesting not being too judgmental of people who don’t quite live up to those standards in the current circumstances.

        Think about why so many people are blind to the dispossesion of the Palestinians, and so quick to dismiss the criticism of Zionism by social-justice and peace movement people. They think we don’t believe the lives of Israelis matter, or worse.

        Their accusation is “you’re not pro justice or pro peace, your real motivation is that you hate Israel and single it out for criticism and want to destroy it.”

        By making sure we don’t accept what Hamas is doing as just, but in fact condemn it as unjust and reprehensible, we counteract that effectively. They can’t paint us as inconsistent in our desire for justice and peace. We take away the argument they use over and over again.

        True, they can always distort what pro-peace/antiwar people are saying, but when we state plainly that we are against Hamas targeting of civilians, we are against the IDF’s killing of civilians, we are against all killing of civilians, we take away the argument they depend on the most.

        Jewish Voice for Peace has this figured out. Their can’t be dismissed as Israel-haters now. Their statement that JVP opposes all attacks on civilians, and urges the end of rocket attacks from Gaza into civilian communities in Israel is clear and totally necessary. Let the rest of the pro-peace/antiwar community follow their lead.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 16, 2012, 6:49 pm

        I think you are misguided. The issue here is not merely the use of violence, but the oppression by the israelis of all Palestininans, every day, nonstop for 70 years.

        Fair point. The underlying context is however very complex, while the current situation where civilians are dying demands a clear outcry.

        Not all pro-peace and antiwar people think the same way about the meaing of what has happened in the region over the last several generations. There is ongoing injustice and dispossesion, but this does not admit a simple explanation where only the Zionists are unjust. Rather the unjust situation for the Palestinians is rooted in a cluster of historical actions and decisions, claims about justice and counterclaims, violence and reprisals, with a lot of blame to go around for the Western powers as well as the principals. I don’t accept the arguments of people like Netanyahu and Liberman about the meaning of Zionism and the origins of the Palestinian situation any more than the idea that European settlers fleeing from religious persecution in England had a right to take Native American’s land. Nor do I accept what Hamas says. Maximalist narratives are part of the problem, not the solution.

        You can be pro-peace and anti-Hamas, but above all, you must be anti-Israel.

        Nope, I am pro Israel (even though I don’t accept much of the Zionist historiography) and pro Palestinian. I want peace for all, and an end to the imperialism of the Western powers. I want a just solution for everyone, with either a fair two state solution or a workable one-state (I don’t know how that would actually work, and the violence of recent days makes me doubt the viability of it all the more, but I had a Palestinian-American activist explain the logic behind the one-state solution to me in person the other day and I admit I am having more doubts about the two-state solution than ever. But I still think the Zionists are not going to vote themselves into a minority status, nor should they).

        My analysis is pretty much like Peter Beinart’s on what the practical implications are at this point, given what has happened. I also take seriously what Jimmy Carter and Norman Finkelstein say about what the most practical and just solution is likely to be. I don’t think that makes me anti-Israel and anti-Palestinian, but pro both.

      • Shlomo
        November 17, 2012, 5:40 am

        Do those who condemn Palestinian “terrorism” condemn IDF atrocities equally?

        Do Israeli-Firsters “balance” their criticisms of Arabs with equal critiques of Jews?

        When mass media say the Israel-Arab conflict is “complicated,” do they realize antisemites said the same thing to quash efforts to stop pogroms, forced evacuations, etc.?

        Why did Holocaust survivors demand the “right of return” of their stolen property?

        Germans felt they, too, were ridding an existential threat from God-blessed Deutshland in the 1930s-40s. They, too, thought using overwhelming force to “crush” juden was kosher. They, too, counted on the world’s inertia.

        If Germans had just starved Jews, would that have been okay?

        If Germans had continued using bullets instead of Zyklon-B (a pesticide!), would that have been okay?

        Was gassing Jews quickly more compassionate than Israelis slowly killing Palestinians for 6 decades?

      • Shingo
        November 17, 2012, 8:09 am

        The uncritical acceptance of the Israeli government’s stated rationale by people in the MSM is precisely why protestors should be clear and unambiguous about condemnimg Hamas also. That way, a clear and consistent pro-peace and anti-violence message is less likely to be distorted or ignored.

        It’s being ignored anyway.

        We can’t be less concerned about innocent people on one side or the other.

        But nor can we pretend that the suffering is the same on both sides.

      • seafoid
        November 17, 2012, 9:19 am

        What do you understand by the term “peace”? Do you think the status quo without rockets, where nobody dies, constitutes “peace”?

        The US will not tolerate a Palestinian state. What sort of “peace” is possible given this fact?

      • eljay
        November 17, 2012, 9:38 am

        >> Nope, I am pro Israel …

        Curious: Are you…
        – pro-Israel (a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Israelis, equally); or
        – pro-“‘Jewish State’ of Israel” (a supremacist “democracy” essentially and primarily of and for Jews)?

      • Cliff
        November 17, 2012, 9:40 am

        Tex Tradd said:

        The underlying context is however very complex, while the current situation where civilians are dying demands a clear outcry.

        No, the context is not complex. The ‘civilians’ who are dying are mostly Palestinian.

        That is because the relationship – the LOGISTICAL/PHYSICAL/TANGIBLE relationship – between Israeli and Palestinian is that of master and slave.

        This is a colonial conflict and that intellectual and physical framework should be the first f-ing thing an honest person acknowledges.

        You are writing a whole wall-of-text full of contrite claptrap b.s. when you should stick to the standard Zionist one-liner equivocations (‘both sides are suffering’). It’s much more expedient and demonstrates your intentions just as clearly.

        An easy thought experiment would be for you to stop appearing when these intense rounds of violence pop up (around US election time).

        Instead, post here every f-ing day when Israel is doing something horrible.

        Often trolls like you say we (anti-Zionists) put Israel on a pedestal while other conflicts are more bloody.

        Pure deaths per whatever is not the issue. You can inflict suffering and destruction in more methodically and sinister ways.

        And that is what Israel does – under the radar destruction. Slow but CONSTANT and with TOTAL IMPUNITY.

        Every day Israel is doing something criminal to the Palestinians.

        And it is only because we’re dealing with the avatar of Jewish identity that SO MUCH mental and psychic acrobatics are spent to cover up the simplicity of this conflict.

        It is not a conflict between parties with equal claims to the land. The Jewish majority is perpetuated through a concerted effort to marginalize and dispossess the FORMER MAJORITY – the Palestinian Arabs, the indigenous population.

        This is oppression – not war, although war is a part of it. That should guide your activism. Not some academic, disconnected and transparently partisan (Peter Beinhart is a Zionist Jew and Norman Finkelstein is anti-BDS and pro-going-nowhere).

      • Shingo
        November 17, 2012, 6:24 pm

        Absolutely brilliant post Cliff.

        I can”t thinkof a better way to reveal that the likes of Tex Tradd are part of the problem, because their ultimate goal is to set the terms of the narrative. The Tex Tradds of this world are the ultimate enablers.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 17, 2012, 7:37 pm

        Not all pro-peace and antiwar people think the same way about the meaing of what has happened in the region over the last several generations.

        yep, they’re called PEPs

      • Shingo
        November 17, 2012, 8:53 pm

        My analysis is pretty much like Peter Beinart’s on what the practical implications are at this point, given what has happened.

        That would be the same Beinart who admitted that when it comes to Israel, he is willing to check his liberal values at the door right?

      • Mooser
        November 18, 2012, 1:36 am

        Your first clue: Notice, we can’t just be critical of Hamas, we can’t just feel the rockets are, in spite of the right to resist, a mistaken tactic. No we must “condemn” Hamas.

        Oh, and Israel, we just criticise, but we never, ever “condemn” Israel or, God Forbid, Zionism in principle.

        And the rest will show up, soon enough, it always does,

      • Shingo
        November 18, 2012, 5:17 pm

        Oh, and Israel, we just criticise, but we never, ever “condemn” Israel or, God Forbid, Zionism in principle.

        Anyone get the impression that Tex Tradd is a J Street Stooge?

      • Tex Tradd
        November 19, 2012, 12:27 am

        What I mean by the peace I advocate is certainly not a status quo where the Palestinians are denied self-determination and basic human rights. So merely stopping the current round of fighting is not peace. People must have the opportunity for flourishing and lives of dignity and justice for there to be real peace.

        The US will not tolerate a Palestinian state. What sort of “peace” is possible given this fact?

        I actually believe the US will tolerate a Palestinian state, but whether the most the US will accept is less than the least the Palestinians will accept on the status of East Jerusalem/Al Quds, water, and right of return remains to be determined. At some point the realpolitik may change, whee the cost the US is paying may prove to great for the US to thwart a viable Palestinian state.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 19, 2012, 1:03 am

        Curious: Are you…
        – pro-Israel (a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Israelis, equally); or
        – pro-”‘Jewish State’ of Israel” (a supremacist “democracy” essentially and primarily of and for Jews)?

        The former.

        As an American, the tragic and evil history of racism in this country makes me wish no country every repeats our mistakes, and privileges one ethnic or racial group over another. I can only hope humanity expunges this poison with as little accompanying trauma and violence as possible.

        But look, America still has quite a ways to go in this regard, do we not? I may judge the Israelis harshly for the lack of equality for all their citizens, but those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Having said that, noone who openly espouses racial or ethnic superiority can be elected to a national office in this country, not sure that is true of Israel.

        I could be naive, but I persist in thinking that Zionism can reform itself, and that Jewish tikkun ideals can help overcome the marked tendencies towards ethnocentrism.

        Could Israel evolve to grant de facto and de jure equal rights to it’s Arab citizens, while still remaining a Zionist state in some fashion and still retaining a Jewish majority? Maybe. Israel’s Declaration of Independence states that Israel “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture”.

        Maybe after all these years of suffering and violence, Arab and Jewish Israelis will look to that document, aspire to the fulfillment of those words, and forge a new dispensation. I’m not giving up hope yet.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 19, 2012, 1:22 am

        That would be the same Beinart who admitted that when it comes to Israel, he is willing to check his liberal values at the door right?

        Where did he say that? Was he referring to how he used to think, not how he thinks now?

      • tree
        November 19, 2012, 2:10 am

        Where did he say that? Was he referring to how he used to think, not how he thinks now?

        He was referring to how he thinks now (circa 2010, after his critique of Zionism in the NY Review of Books, which later led to his book).

        Beinart:

        I’m not asking Israel to be Utopian. I’m not asking it to allow Palestinians who were forced out (or fled) in 1948 to return to their homes. I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I’m actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel’s security and for its status as a Jewish state. What I am asking is that Israel not do things that foreclose the possibility of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, because if it is does that it will become–and I’m quoting Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak here–an “apartheid state.”

        From Beinart’s May 2010 interview by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, quoted by Phil Weiss here:
        link to mondoweiss.net

      • Tex Tradd
        November 19, 2012, 4:25 am

        I’m not affiliated with J Street. My beliefs are my own. At first I was pretty encouraged by them, and I still have hopes for them, but lately they seem too mainstream-Zionist compared to my views. Nonetheless, I think they have opened up space for criticism of Zionism.

        While I think their type of positioning is more likely to result in the kind of grand compromise that might result in actual progress on the ground for the Palestinians, I worry that they are operating from a framework that when push comes to shove will relegate Palestinian rights to a secondary consideration.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 19, 2012, 4:26 am

        This is a big letdown for me. I have to think about what this means. I am hoping he moved past this, but it was only a couple years ago. Big disappointment.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 19, 2012, 4:53 am

        No, the context is not complex.

        What I am trying to say by context being complex is the whole history of the region in the modern period, and not starting with Zionism, particularly. Palestinian national consciousness relative to Arab national consciousness co-develop over the Ottoman period, influenced by ideas coming from various places. The fellahin as well as the elites had varying understandings of their identity as Palestinian Arabs responding to Ottomans. Then they are forced to respond to Zionism, and there are competing nascent nationalisms: “Arab” with the possibility of a regional or even pan-Arab national dispensation, or “Palestinian”. These processes, to me anyway, are anything but simple. Then Zionists of varying stripes come and pose a challenge and to some extent goad the inchoate Palestinian Arab national consciousness into a more defined form via an oppositional dialectic. My sense of all this is that it involves very complex contingent and context-sensitive historical processes. Because I have a largely non-deterministic read on history (that nonetheless allows for some determinacy) to me all this could have very well gone some other way, and the Palestinians could have a had a state in 1948, or some other national arrangement could and should have occurred that would have expressed their national consciousness and self-determination.

        That is because the relationship – the LOGISTICAL/PHYSICAL/TANGIBLE relationship – between Israeli and Palestinian is that of master and slave.

        I wouldn’t characterize it that way, though there are elements of a chattel/lord system of domination in place, and lots of Palestinians are just in survival-mode, even before this latest violence. Certainly there is an unequal power arrangement. Maybe this is the difference between looking at things like an activist vs, looking at things like an academic (which I am). As a professor I am sort of trained to emphasize nuance and contradiction.

        This is a colonial conflict

        Yes, I agree.

        For what it’s worth, I am an avowed opponent of colonialism and imperialism, having a very recent family history involving terrible suffering at the hands of the British Empire.

        You are writing a whole wall-of-text full of contrite claptrap b.s. when you should stick to the standard Zionist one-liner equivocations

        ?

        I’m not a Zionist. Zionists consider me a naive, tofu-smoking peace bear who doesn’t understand the threat of Islamo-fascism etc. (I am actually pretty close to the libertarians who are anti-war, but I really dislike Ayn Rand).

        Often trolls like you say we (anti-Zionists) put Israel on a pedestal while other conflicts are more bloody.

        I haven’t written anything like this as I don’t think like that at all. There are more categories in the world than “pro-zionist” and “anti”. I’m not trolling, I am sincerely trying to understand this stuff, but think differently, OK?

        This is oppression – not war, although war is a part of it. That should guide your activism. Not some academic, disconnected and transparently partisan (Peter Beinhart is a Zionist Jew and Norman Finkelstein is anti-BDS and pro-going-nowhere).

        To me, the type of compromise that can still hopefully take place will reflect much more the type of thinking of those gentlemen. I heard Finkelstein talk not long ago and thought he was pretty persuasive on the limits of what the Zionists are going to accept.

        But you smoked me out. I am an academic, I have a PhD, I read from as many different perspectives as I have time for, and thus emphasize nuance, complexity, paradox, and epistemological uncertainty. I tend to rub true believers the wrong way. I do show up at the anti-death penalty or anti-war marches and do my part, but even there I make a serious effort to treat my opponents as fellow citizens with whom I disagree on an issue, but who might have insights and with whom I might stand to listen to, as I know I have blind spots.

        You might consider trying out that way of thinking sometime.

        I can’t see that I am transparently partisan though, there is not much of a side to be on when you think like I do. I just seek out truth, brother. I don’t claim to possess it, particularly, but am willing to hear people out.

        Through my readings and through listening to people on as many sides as possible, I have come to the opinion that the Palestinians are the victims of a massive historical injustice, but I don’t believe that killing Israeli civilians is the answer.

      • German Lefty
        November 19, 2012, 5:25 am

        I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis […] it will become […] an “apartheid state.”

        WOW! WHAT? Beinart is totally contradicting himself. A country that doesn’t give full, equal citizenship to a certain group of citizens already is an apartheid state.

      • eljay
        November 19, 2012, 8:26 am

        >> Tex Tradd @ November 19, 2012 at 1:03 am

        Thanks for your reply, Tex Tradd.

        >> But look, America still has quite a ways to go in this regard, do we not? I may judge the Israelis harshly for the lack of equality for all their citizens, but those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

        There is no hypocrisy in calling for better behaviour from both American and Israeli governments.

        >> Could Israel evolve to grant de facto and de jure equal rights to it’s Arab citizens, while still remaining a Zionist state in some fashion and still retaining a Jewish majority?

        “Jewish State” is incompatible with full equality of all (Jewish and non- Jewish) Israeli citizens. “Jewish State” is fundamentally a religious (Jewish can only be acquired through religious conversion or descent from someone who has undergone a religious conversion) and supremacist (preferential laws for Jews only) construct.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 19, 2012, 10:08 am

        “This is a big letdown for me. I have to think about what this means. I am hoping he moved past this, but it was only a couple years ago. Big disappointment.”

        This is what I was talking about when I said that racism is inherent in zionism. Once you posit a goal of a state dominated by a certain ethno-religious background, illiberal and reaction policies must follow. One cannot be a liberal and a zionist in practice; only in fantasy.

    • Mooser
      November 16, 2012, 12:39 pm

      “War is always a failure for humanity”-John Paul II”

      Tex, you gotta understand that very few on the Israeli side, and not everyone on the Palestinian side, have received the ever-gruntling blessings of Christian baptism. I mean, you know, heathens, what are you gonna do?

    • Hostage
      November 16, 2012, 1:45 pm

      Are these protestors also protesting Hamas firing rockets at population centers?

      Yes, I believe Jewish Voice for Peace members participated in the demonstrations outside the Israeli consulates in New York and Philadelphia. We have always condemned any and all attacks against civilians. You can read the JVP statement about that right here at Mondoweiss: link to mondoweiss.net

      • Tex Tradd
        November 16, 2012, 3:50 pm

        The Jewish Voice for Peace statement reads: JVP opposes all attacks on civilians, and urges the end of rocket attacks from Gaza into civilian communities in Israel, which only serve to derail efforts for a just resolution to the conflict.

        Yes! JVP gets it. They are being quite clear here, and while I am sure there will be efforts to paint them as stooges for Hamas, anyone who looks at this statement will see they are pro-peace, not pro-Hamas.

      • Shingo
        November 17, 2012, 8:10 am

        …anyone who looks at this statement will see they are pro-peace, not pro-Hamas.

        So who’s looking at this statement or even paying attention?

      • Hostage
        November 17, 2012, 10:09 am

        So who’s looking at this statement or even paying attention?

        You can always count on Abe Foxman:
        ADL Identifies Top 10 Anti-Israel Groups In America
        link to adl.org

      • Shingo
        November 17, 2012, 6:26 pm

        You can always count on Abe Foxman:

        All that suggests to me Hostage, is that in spite of Tex Tradd’s claims to be being meticulously about not giving these people ammunition, they will make their accusations anyway.

        Which proves my point. Tex Tradd is talking to wall.

      • Mooser
        November 18, 2012, 1:38 am

        “not pro-Hamas.”

        Yes, but they do not “condemn” Hamas. Is that good enough? They simply “oppose” the rocket attacks. Hardly the condemnation you hope for.

      • Citizen
        November 18, 2012, 10:32 am

        MSNBC right now, debate over pros and cons of Israeli Op Cast Lead 2 in the making. Both sides ably defended in this debate. I can’t imagine Dick and Jane tuning in, and staying there. I think the way the US goes absolutely depends on this. It comes down to hasbara notion of “it’s complex.” US power structure goes with hasbara, a Goebbelsesque repeat of big lies re I-P devoid of context. Still, at this moment, both MSNBS and CNN have shown the objective issues in the last couple of days. This is not usual MSM. Go to MSNBC Melissa Harris-Perry show now.

        Question, what is the American Jewish community ethical duty now?
        Jane Eisner for the status quo stance. Says Obama is more for Israel than Mitt R. LOL.

      • Tex Tradd
        November 19, 2012, 12:34 am

        Which proves my point. Tex Tradd is talking to wall.

        Abe Foxman may not notice. But people like Peter Beinart, Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, maybe even Jeff Goldberg and Tom Friedman may. If so, this heightens the contradictions between influential liberal Zionists and liberal critics of Zionism with right-wing Zionism.

        Look, I understand, people are dying right now, and these distinctions about something that might happen in the future don’t matter when your 1 year old is dead. But there is a big difference between Noam Chomsky making a point about the need for justice for Palestinians that 100,000 people read and Tom Friedman making a similar point that 10,000,000 people read.

  6. Citizen
    November 16, 2012, 7:20 am

    Meanwhile, Fox Business channel is telling viewers that Egypt is misguided because it’s neglecting to say rockets have been firing from Gaza on Israel for three weeks; that is, the Palestinians started this violent clash three weeks ago, a rocket hit Tel Aviv, and why don’t the Egyptians open their border with Gaza?

    • pabelmont
      November 16, 2012, 11:03 am

      Someone coined to useful spelling “Faux News” and I think that must become the preferred diction.

      As to “whostartedit”, we should all say that Israel’s (pre-state) decision to form a state and expel the British (and most Palestinians) (terrorist events 1945-5/48) (war events 5/1948 – present) “started it” and were unilateral and not forced on Israel by the Palestinians who would have preferred a single “Palestine” democratic, secular, multi-ethnic.

      • Donald
        November 16, 2012, 3:23 pm

        “Faux News”

        I used that upthread, but it’s old–I first saw it years ago somewhere online. And yes, it should be the norm.

        It’s harder to come up with a clever and accurate putdown of MSNBC, but (except for Chris Hayes) they deserve one.

  7. Kathleen
    November 16, 2012, 2:43 pm

    I come from an Irish Catholic betting family. You know those Catholics bringing up their young at Fish Fries with a whole lot of drinking and gambling going on. Anyway I bet Chris Hayes will not cover the issue accurately tomorrow or Sunday if at all. Hate to say it but that is what I think. Will put a drink on it (if Mondoweiss folks ever get together) and if you don’t drink what ever you want that cost under 10 bucks. Still helping pay off my youngest kids college loans so clearly not a big better but bet I will.

    I must say I sure as hell hope I lose a bet

  8. Woody Tanaka
    November 17, 2012, 8:23 am

    “Nope, I am pro Israel (even though I don’t accept much of the Zionist historiography) and pro Palestinian. I want peace for all, and an end to the imperialism of the Western powers. I want a just solution for everyone, with either a fair two state solution or a workable one-state”

    Then you are anti-war and pro-fantasy. There is simply no way to harmonize being pro-israel and wanting peace “for all”, an end of western imperialism, and just solution for “everyone” (which, by definition includes the Palestinians), especially one where the Palestinians actually (in fact, not in rhetoric about the future) have their own real state.

    There is nothing in the makeup of the israeli state, government, politicians or ideology whereby these things are valued. Indeed, the fascist Lieberman — who is about to be reelected as part of the winning party — recently said that if the choice is between being democratic and being Jewish, the state must be Jewish. You think any state where someone like that isn’t booted from the stage and rejected as a monster is going to give two shits about civil rights about the people they target as their race enemies????

    You can’t separate israel from its judeo-supremacist ideology because 70 years have demonstrated that it is, in fact, nothing other than that hateful ideology. There is no solution, in my mind, other than being pro-peace, anti-israel, and pro-a replacement state in which the civil, political and human rights of all respected on a basis of freedom, justice, compensation & reconciliation for past wrongs and absolute equality.

    • Tex Tradd
      November 19, 2012, 12:45 am

      Then you are anti-war and pro-fantasy. There is simply no way to harmonize being pro-israel and wanting peace “for all”, an end of western imperialism, and just solution for “everyone” (which, by definition includes the Palestinians), especially one where the Palestinians actually (in fact, not in rhetoric about the future) have their own real state.

      It is possible you are correct.

      I remain clinging on to a two-state solution. A Palestinian-American explained to me the other day why I am wrong, and I admit I might be hoping for the impossible at this point.

      You can’t separate israel from its judeo-supremacist ideology because 70 years have demonstrated that it is, in fact, nothing other than that hateful ideology.

      That is too reductionistic to be accurate. Israel should not be reduced to it’s worst elements, that is not fair. There is more to Israel than it’s militarism and the belief among some, I hope a minority, that Arabs are inferior or in any event undeserving of equal rights. There are scientific, artistic, industrial, medical and humanitarian energies at work in Israel that have to be recognized as well.

      There is no solution, in my mind, other than being pro-peace, anti-israel, and pro-a replacement state in which the civil, political and human rights of all respected on a basis of freedom, justice, compensation & reconciliation for past wrongs and absolute equality.

      I guess I am with Norman Finkelstein and Peter Beinart on this one. I just don’t see that the Zionists are going to vote themselves into a minority and/or let the state of Israel be dissolved. I persist in thinking there must be a way to carve out a viable Palestine with part of Jerusalem/Al Quds as the capital, and for equal rights under the law for Arab Israelis. Maybe I’m wrong, but I still think that is the most practical arrangement.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 19, 2012, 11:37 am

        “I remain clinging on to a two-state solution.”

        The problem with that is that it is apparent that the israelis never saw it as a “solution” but, rather, as a delaying tactic to advance their occupation “solution.”

        “There is more to Israel than it’s militarism and the belief among some, I hope a minority, that Arabs are inferior or in any event undeserving of equal rights.”

        Such as what? And the bigotry among israelis is the clear majority, not some minority. It is driving all of this, at this point.

        “There are scientific, artistic, industrial, medical and humanitarian energies at work in Israel that have to be recognized as well.”

        They are the work of individual people. You could say that even at the height of Nazi Germany, Germans demonstrated “scientific, artistic, industrial, medical and humanitarian energies” — that did not change the essence of their state. The same here. While individual israels demonstrate these things to a greater or lesser degree as people in every other state, the essence of their state, however, is the hateful ideology of zionism.

        “I guess I am with Norman Finkelstein and Peter Beinart on this one.”

        Well, I don’t know about Finkelstein, but Beinart’s on record saying that he’d rather ditch his alleged liberal principles than see the zionist government turned into one in which the Jews didn’t dominate over the Palestinians.

        “I persist in thinking there must be a way to carve out a viable Palestine with part of Jerusalem/Al Quds as the capital, and for equal rights under the law for Arab Israelis. Maybe I’m wrong, but I still think that is the most practical arrangement.”

        You’re wrong only because you fail to recognize that the israelis (certainly among the leadership of the state) have no intention or interest in carving out a viable Palestine. They want the land without the people and are simply trying to figure out a way to make them all disappear. That’s it.

      • Hostage
        November 19, 2012, 1:57 pm

        The problem with that is that it is apparent that the israelis never saw it as a “solution” but, rather, as a delaying tactic to advance their occupation “solution.”

        Everyone will grow old looking for a single “solution”. The two state tactic is much more equitable for the Palestinians, in the meantime, than the current no state solution. If there wasn’t a very real possibility that Israeli officials will have to stay one step ahead of arrest warrants in the near future, they wouldn’t be shaking in their boots and wasting so much political capital campaigning against an otherwise symbolic recognition of Palestine’s legal status in the UN.

  9. Cliff
    November 17, 2012, 9:26 am

    link to mondoweiss.net

    Look at the expressions on the faces of the pro-Israel demonstrators.

    Always smirking and grinning or outright laughing for the camera.

    Then look at the Palestinian solidarity activists. Solemn.

    The Israelis suffer a minuscule fraction of what the Palestinians endure. And it shows on the faces of these yuppie tourists.

    Then we learn that in Israel itself, Israelis are cheering on the murder of civilians and saying things like, ‘[…]delete Gaza.’

    They line up to watch the ‘festivities’ as if it were another Sunday afternoon football match.

    When you suffer little, and exact great levels of destruction, this is the result. Cruelty and bizarre fanatical nationalism.

  10. Nevada Ned
    November 18, 2012, 1:55 pm

    Alex Kane reports that the demonstrators criticizing Israel’s assault on Gaza greatly outnumber the demonstrators supporting it. And that’s IN NEW YORK CITY!!!
    During Operation Cast Lead (2008), M. J. Rosenberg reported that “there was little show of support for the war. In New York, a city where crowds of 250,000 came out for ‘solidarity’ rallies in the past, only 8,000 came to Manhattan for a community demonstration on a sunny Sunday”.
    M. J. Rosenberg, “Post-Gaza Sea Change”, Israel Policy Forum (30 Jan 2009; link to tinyurl.com), quoted in Norman Finkelstein, ‘This Time We Went Too Far’, p. 123. (revised edition, OR books, 2011).

Leave a Reply