Palestine and the Left

Editor’s Note: Jacobin magazine, which calls itself “a leading voice of the American left” and the New York Times regards as “an improbable hit“, has devoted a special section of its new issue to “Palestine and the Left.” Below is the introduction to the section. For the rest of the issue see here.

The Left has a checkered history when it comes to Palestine. For at least the first two decades of Israel’s existence, due in part to the attempted extermination of European Jewry, in part to the distorting effects of Soviet foreign policy, and in part to sympathy for a purportedly socialist movement, almost the entire Western left lived with illusions about Zionism.

jacobin

Ideologically, Zionism was a broad and heterogeneous nationalist movement, with many competing currents of the Right and Left, each with different degrees of moral awareness vis-à-vis the non-Jewish world. But as it manifested itself concretely, Zionism meant the creation of a colonial sovereignty in historic Palestine, and all that went with it: the calamitous replacement of a complex Palestinian society with vibrant urban and agricultural communities, deeply embedded within the surrounding Arab world, with a European nation-state.

Building a European state outside of Europe meant the destruction, expulsion, or assimilation of indigenous people, what the historian Patrick Wolfe has called the “logic of elimination.” That logic was then rationalized as a reparation for the horrors inflicted on European Jews — even as it was brought to bear against Palestinians who were not responsible for those horrors.

That’s why the shotgun marriage of Zionism and the Left has been so troubled. Socialist Zionism, even in theory, meant socialism for Zionists. Ultimately, it meant socialism for no one: Israel today is the second most unequal developed economy in the world.

Meanwhile, some recurring tropes within the pro-Palestine community have also blurred the issue. What is essentially a classic struggle for national liberation has been obscured by a tendency to exceptionalize Israeli crimes, distracted by a barren fixation on international law, and lost in a hopelessly abstract analytical idealism. A corollary of these analytical faults has been the so-called Israel lobby thesis, which argues that were it not for a handful of pro-Israel lobbying institutions, America might not support the occupation or continue its “special relationship” with Israel.

This special section of Jacobin takes on these themes. It lays out materialist analyses of the links between Israel and the United States, and the role of the Israel lobby. It delineates the contemporary social bases of the two-state solution and the Palestinian Authority. It analyzes the waxing power of Palestinian capitalists in the West Bank, and also discusses the solidarity movement itself.

Why now? Because almost without anyone noticing, the movement in solidarity with Palestinian rights — with all its solipsisms and ultra-leftist foibles, its quarrels and magnetic attraction for eccentrics, opportunists, and, yes, the occasional antisemite — has grown to become one of the most important, inspiring, and fast-growing social movements in the country.

Palestine is no longer a dirty word on college campuses. The last Students for Justice in Palestine national conference attracted well over 300 delegates from more than 140 colleges and universities across the country, converging on Ann Arbor to discuss capitalist state formation in Israel, solidarity among prisoners, colonialism, the persistence of the occupation, refugee rights, and remarkably, with a minimum of rancor and sectarianism, the Syrian conflict.

Much of the energy that in the past would have found its home in student antiwar movements has migrated to the cause of Palestine. That is not without its problems: after all, children are gunned down by helicopter gunships in Afghanistan as surely as they are gunned down by snipers in the Gaza Strip. But the bloom of student interest in this old and bloody colonial conflict is something the Left ought to take interest in, because the Left is not just an idea but also the masses in motion, and scarcely anywhere — except for the environmental movement — are young people in motion with such a mix of revolutionary élan and disciplined militancy as they are in the case of Palestine.

But radical action has outpaced radical understanding. In part, that is because young people have gotten involved just at the moment when the Palestine question is in unprecedented political and ideological flux. Some activists are unaware, for example, that support for a two-state solution was not always the hollow alibi it now represents. It was the pragmatic position of the Palestinian capital­-
ist class and its cadres, along with a large portion of the Palestinian people, and many communists. That position therefore often became the default position of the American solidarity movement in the defeated days of Oslo and then the brutal destruction of the Second Intifada, even as it receded beyond the horizon of possibility. The number of settlers rose to surpass four hundred thousand, each settler a “fact on the ground,” in the argot of Israeli planners; each one making it more difficult for Palestinians to gain sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

In those days, simply telling the truth acquired a radical edge. To denounce Israeli war crimes and to call unambiguously for the end of the occupation was to expose oneself to death threats. All the more so when figures like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, who defended Palestine in the American public sphere, still traced their ideas for resolution of the conflict to the old Matzpen position of the 1960s and 1970s: a regional revolution, the evaporation of state borders, and socialism in the Middle East.

But times changed sometime between the brutal Israeli assault on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the siege of the Gaza Strip from 2007 to 2010, and the 2008–2009 Cast Lead massacre — when one of the world’s most powerful armies, desperate to destroy a subject people’s capacity to resist, laid waste to a tiny strip of land filled with refugee camps and children on live television.

In Europe, consistently ahead of the American left in mobilizational capacity, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in protest. The US reaction was more subdued, but even here the shockwave of Israeli bombs broke the Zionist hegemony over the American psyche. Watching white phosphorus fall on children will do that.

And so the level of struggle in solidarity work took massive leaps — but not without problems and misunderstandings. The essays we present in this section aim to illuminate some of the critical issues with which the movement is grappling.

As Mezna Qato and Kareem Rabie, along with Sobhi Samour and Omar Jabary Salamanca, have pointed out, “scholarly production accurately mirrors the dynamics of incoherent contemporary Palestinian politics.” Indeed, it takes its cue from them. The result is that a rights-based campaign has fundamentally accommodated an often far too liberal Palestine solidarity discourse. As Qato and Rabie discuss in this section, such liberalism is manifest everywhere: a centering of the American state as the key leverage point for all American activists, Palestinian or otherwise; a palsied internationalism, repeating the same old slogans but without the links to struggling communities in Palestine and the Arab world which gave them meaning; and a focus on individuals as opposed to collective organizing, and in turn a diminished focus on substantive and self-critical political practice.

Using a different lens, Chris Toensing reviews Rashid Khalidi’s new book on the peace process and uses it as an occasion to analyze the basis of this liberal and lobby-centric turn, one which both miscasts the American structure that gives succor to Israeli colonialism and that also displaces the struggle from a global North-South arena to one between various varieties of American imperialism, some more melioristic and aggressive than others.

Finally, Adam Hanieh offers a class analysis of the turn to the “peace process.” Hanieh explains exactly who composes the peace-process bloc in Ramallah, and how that Palestinian elite has created a vested interest not in freedom but in endless wrangling about freedom. What he shows is that this elite has in effect dominated discussion of the “national” question, and that this domination has been bound to a deflection of the internal class question among Palestinians. The result is the division of struggles and the weakening and oppression of Palestinians on the planes of both class and nation. He argues that this must be reversed and in turn linked to a regional perspective, focused on freedom for all Arab peoples not merely from the dictators who oppress them but the economic shackles that those dictators play a crucial part in producing.

Finally, our own perspective. Taking our cue from the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions movement, we believe the fundamental demand that guides our actions must be that Jews and Arabs live as equals, even though we know of no easy way to reach that goal. That is why we support Palestinian self-determination and decolonization without reservations, and believe the movement’s job is to support those goals, and not to impose its own standards on the means by which Palestinians free themselves. Thus, far more important than meaningless efforts to draw red lines about “one state” or “two states” — both now empty chimeras, so far from substantive realization as to make the entire debate unreal — is to recognize that the precondition for progressive social change is self-determination.

At the same time, we understand that Israeli Jews — especially those from North Africa and the Middle East — can also be an oppressed class in historical Palestine. We ignore them at our peril, for any change that doesn’t also pass through the prism of the minds of the Jewish working class would be a revolution from above: an imposed decolonization, which, along with continued economic stratification, would remain politically fragile and ripe for further injustice. But this gets very complicated in today’s Israel, where today only a tiny fragment of the Jewish population supports ending the occupation. Many prefer to deny its bleak existence, or to simply shrug and say that Israel has no constituency for peace — as though this settles the question of how exactly the colonization of Palestine will stop.

This does not leave us in a very clear place. The political force that can forge a clear national liberation strategy does not exist, and it is Palestinians and Palestinians alone who can forge such a force. Rather than issuing useless and inappropriate manifestoes about how that project ought to progress, our touchstone should be clear solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

But not as an idiosyncratic fetish divorced from the broader politics of the Left. Rather, we should return it to what it has always been: a focal point of anti-imperialist struggle, where peasants and slum-dwellers are now fighting a desperate struggle against tanks and F-16s, and where their best weapon at the moment may be to starve themselves to death in the hope of fracturing ideological support for Israeli militarism.

The question of Palestine is a question of justice. That is why we do not hesitate to take sides.

About Jacobin Magazine

Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture. The magazine is released quarterly and reaches over 3,000 subscribers, in addition to a web audience of 250,000 a month.
Posted in Activism, BDS, Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine, Israeli Government, Middle East, Occupation, One state/Two states, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 17 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. CitizenC says:

    This is yet another colonization of the left by Zionism. It never, ever stops.

    Meanwhile, some recurring tropes within the pro-Palestine community have also blurred the issue. What is essentially a classic struggle for national liberation has been obscured by a tendency to exceptionalize Israeli crimes, distracted by a barren fixation on international law, and lost in a hopelessly abstract analytical idealism. A corollary of these analytical faults has been the so-called Israel lobby thesis, which argues that were it not for a handful of pro-Israel lobbying institutions, America might not support the occupation or continue its “special relationship” with Israel.

    This is unsurprising from the usual suspects on the masthead.

    For a different look, see my Reboot the Left on Palestine (2100 words, written as notes for a discussion)

    link to questionofpalestine.net

    And also Notes on Universalism (2800 words, bibliographic essay)

    link to questionofpalestine.net

  2. Les says:

    Numerically, white Christians are the largest supporters by far of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Having said that, try to name one person who supports what Israel does who is not a racist.

    • Krauss says:

      Right, but most of those supporters, I’m talking those with a conviction, are right-wing Christian evangelicals. How many white gentile liberals actually support Israel with a conviction? The Jacobin piece is essentially a way to colonize the left, as CitizenC described. It’s also a way for Jacobin’s resident Zionists of the left, most of them eiuther Jewish or trying to curry favor with the New York media establishment(which is heavily Jewish/Zionist), to try to pry a way for Zionism to be included. It’s essentially Hasbara. It’s an age-old question: can you rise to the top of an American prestige publication without supporting Zionism of some kind? I’ve yet to become pursuaded that you can and this propaganda piece underlines that.

      I just hope Jacobin doesn’t end up like a more leftist version of the New Republic. Where we condemn all kinds of nationalisms, except the Jewish supremacism one that brutally occupies 4 million people. It’s the whole “shoot-and-cry” tactic all over again. Make a bunch of concern-trolling noises but ultimately you support the racism and the apartheid. That isn’t what a left-wing paper should do. But again, Zionism/tribalism is strong with this one.

  3. W.Jones says:

    “What is essentially a classic struggle for national liberation has been obscured by a tendency to exceptionalize Israeli crimes”
    I know, why do minorities keep doing this about their betters? As if Apartheid South Africa was such an exception globally. (joke)

    • W.Jones says:

      The paragraph “As Mezna Qato and Kareem Rabie” has criticisms, but I think they are not deep ones, although perhaps they are true. Couldn’t one say the same thing, for example, about Students for Darfur? This could more likely be a result of the movement’s political weakness, rather than the other way around. That is, they are not really things themselves that make the movement “relatively” weak. What causes that is more likely the much stronger political forces outbalancing it

  4. MHughes976 says:

    I think the same as these Jacobins, that this is question of justice, but differently in other ways.
    We face the proposition that Jewish people, and they only, have a share in sovereignty (over what some call the Holy Land, some Palestine) by pure right – now called birthright or heritage – others only by grace and generosity of the true heirs. (I’ve often offered approximately that definition of Zionism here. Others may use the term in other senses but it seems to me that if we are looking for an ideology justifying what has been done it cannot be defined too differently.)
    I say that this proposition is mistaken. Being so mistaken, its result is injustice and cruelty.
    I think it is rather obviously mistaken and that there is very little to be said for it. The mistake is not something that dawns on you only when you ascribe more general injustice of a capitalist or American-dominated world. It is not a mistake whose unjust results would scarcely matter were they not connected to injustice on a wider scale.
    My idea of seeking justice begins with saying where I think injustice exists and saying clearly that injustice is what it is, ie that it’s wrong. It’s wrong in itself, that’s why it deserves to be called injustice.
    It’s not ambivalent in itself and wrong only because of its association with something else, for instance American imperialism. We should not hesitate about denouncing an injustice until we can ascertain its place among all other injustices of the world.
    I don’t want to mute advocacy of liberation for Palestine until it can be subsumed into a wider campaign for the ideals of the Left.
    Still, different streams of analysis surely converge to show that for whatever reason a shift needs, from our point of view, to take place within American politics, one of the hearts of the problem. The other Western societies are worth some attention too. The question of the Real Interests of the West – where do they lie? – is worth more discussion than it gets.
    ‘Philosophers try to understand the world; the point is to change it’. But nobody knows a really practical way to effect change or bring about justice at the moment. Let’s go for understanding. The only glimmer of light, as I think the Jacobins themselves effectively admit, is argument and more argument within the Western world until there is no donkey from Berlin to Seattle with its hind leg still in place. And I don’t see how that argument can get anywhere without concentration on the point that the Zionist moral proposition, however it came to be believed by so many, is in truth mistaken.

  5. douglasreed says:

    Let us call a spade, a spade, and the Israel Lobby a threat to democratic government
    in Washington, London and Brussels

    AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pretentious sounding name that implies a quasi-government department. In fact, it is an unelected, privately financed, lobbying group that promotes and sponsors pro-Israel policies to successive United States governments. These policies include huge, regular shipments of arms, loans, grants, gifts and financial concessions funded by the American tax payer but without his specific consent.

    AIPAC was founded in 1951 as a lobbying division of the American Zionist Council. It has been described as ‘one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Its critics have stated that it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a “stranglehold” on the United States Congress with its power and influence.’ It is assumed that the Israel lobby in London and Brussels, as well as elsewhere around the globe, is affiliated to the US Israel lobby.

    The Lobby receives support from both the Republican and Democratic parties and in that sense is non-partisan. However, it is reported that AIPAC vets every candidate for election or re-election to both the House of Representatives and the Senate and that any candidate unwilling to openly support the AIPAC agenda, is most unlikely to gain or retain his/her seat. It is not easy to prove or disprove this allegation but the substantial sums that the Israel Lobby awards to secure the election of its favoured candidates, is a matter of public record.

    The threat to democracy rests primarily in the alleged power of this unelected pressure group to influence or control American foreign policy – and given that the US has a voice in virtually every country in the free world as well as in many other states – that threat appears to be substantial.

    Given that the Israel lobby exists solely for the furtherance of the political and military agenda of a foreign state and has enormous influence upon Congress and, therefore, the Presidency, it would appear safe to assume that the above allegation has validity.

    It is certainly true to say that any government that acts in the interests not of its electorate but in the interest of a foreign state is anti-democratic, i.e. it fails to represent the majority of the electorate.

    One might contend that it would aid transparency if AIPAC to be automatically allocated maybe twenty statutory seats in the House and a proportional number in the Senate, by any incoming administration.

    Then, the Israel Lobby, (i.e. Israel), would have the power to determine the quantity and type of aircraft and weaponry, if any, that could be either sold or gifted by the US government to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, the GCC including Saudi Arabia and, of course, to its own client state.

    Furthermore, the Likud party under Binyamin Netanyahu could then proceed with its official charter to annex the West Bank and East Jerusalem into a new state to be known as Greater Israel in which all Muslims and Arabs would be permanently excluded.

    Israel could also be given a seat on the UN Security Council in order to represent its 7 million citizens whilst the 1.2 billion in India, plus the entire populations in Africa and South America would still have no voice.

    If you think that the above scenario is patently ridiculous – it most certainly is. However, it now appears to be not that far from reality.
    ________________________________________

  6. W.Jones says:

    “this liberal and lobby-centric turn, one which both miscasts the American structure that gives succor to Israeli colonialism and that also displaces the struggle from a global North-South arena to one between various varieties of American imperialism, some more melioristic and aggressive than others.”

    I took a class on Cuba in college and the class illustrated how US policy on Cuba is affected heavily by the Cuban immigrant community, especially since Florida is a key electoral state.

    The class pointed out that agricultural companies wanted to lift the US embargo, and very many Americans were in favor of allowing US citizens to visit Cuba(!) Contrast this with Americans being allowed to visit North Korea and other countries.

    Instead, the extreme US policy is controlled practically by the emigre community. If that’s true for US Cuba policy it’s certainly the case for policy on the West Bank and Gaza, since the lobby involved must be even stronger.

    Yes, in both instances there is an important factor of imperialism and North-South as this Jacobin article says. But my point is that the Lobby factor is also central.

    • American says:

      Goolge CANF, the exile cuban lobby…they’ve changed their name now but you can get an idea of what a political and actually terrorist group they were…..a mini AIPAC but just as effective on cuba.
      Like the Zios in congress, the Cubans in congress operate mainly for their own personal interest in reclaiming Cuba for exiled former elites during Batista that fled Castro.

      link to thehill.com
      Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) were the only two senators who showed up for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subpanel hearing on freedom in Cuba. They called the administration’s relaxing of travel restrictions to Cuba “naive” and bashed the State Department’s decision to grant visas to high-profile Cuban officials, including President Raul Castro’s daughter Mariela.
      link to www2.pslweb.org

      The Miami Cubans who came to the U.S. in the 1960s after the Cuban Revolution left Cuba largely because they were wealthy owners of land and property. Around 125,000 Cubans—almost all from the ruling class—left Cuba in 1960. Most supported or collaborated with the military dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, which was overthrown by the Cuban people, led by Fidel Castro, in 1959.

      Once in Miami, many of these right-wingers, including the fathers of Diaz-Balart and Ros-Lehtinen, worked for the CIA in terrorist organizations aimed at bringing down the Cuban Revolution.

      Non-ruling class Cubans who came to the U.S. in the 1960s and early 70s enjoyed special privileges beyond what other immigrants received, such as education loans from the U.S. government.

      These Cubans, who came to the U.S. in the early years of the Revolution and have no family in Cuba, disproportionately make up the support for the Bush measures.

      Cubans who left the island from 1980 onward did so mainly for economic and personal reasons, not for political or ideological ones. In his speech on July 26 of this year, Cuban President Fidel Castro confirmed this fact: “Over 90 percent of those who have emigrated from Cuba since the triumph of the Revolution have done so … for economic reasons. … ”

      According to the 2000 U.S. census, of the 600,000 Cubans in Miami, almost 49 percent left Cuba after 1980, most of whom still have family on the island. Contrary to the claims of the exiled elite, many remain poor and if they find work at all, it is in low paying service industry jobs in and around Miami.

      Another 32 percent of Miami Cubans were born in the U.S. of Cuban parents. The newer, younger immigrants represent a different generation that does not share the old guard’s extremist views on key U.S.-Cuba policy issues like travel.

      A 2000 poll by Florida International University shows that 53 percent of Cubans in Miami favor unrestricted travel to Cuba, including 74 percent of those who arrived after 1984. Additionally, some Cubans in the U.S. who previously thought the U.S. government spoke for their interests, now feel betrayed and are fighting to overturn the new restrictions.

  7. HarryLaw says:

    douglasreed, “Israel could also be given a seat on the UN Security Council in order to represent its 7 million citizen” Israel already has a seat at the UNSC and with veto wielding powers, its called the USA, Peter Oborne UK journalist did a program for channel 4 Dispatches on the Israeli Lobby in the UK, very informative here…

  8. Keith says:

    “Building a European state outside of Europe meant the destruction, expulsion, or assimilation of indigenous people, what the historian Patrick Wolfe has called the “logic of elimination.”

    We need to keep reminding ourselves of the extent to which Israel is a European creation, dependent upon US/European imperialism to maintain its essentially antagonistic relationship with the indigenous inhabitants and cultures. This is indirectly acknowledged by its falling under EUROCOM jurisdiction, rather than CENTCOM, which is responsible for the rest of the Middle East.

    “Much of the energy that in the past would have found its home in student antiwar movements has migrated to the cause of Palestine. That is not without its problems: after all, children are gunned down by helicopter gunships in Afghanistan as surely as they are gunned down by snipers in the Gaza Strip.”

    I fear that the ultimate consequence of the pro-Palestine movement may turn out to be as a distraction from the extremely important events taking place elsewhere. We are in the final stages of the awesomely destructive global neoliberal project which is concentrating wealth, power and social control in the hands of the financial elite, along with the other corporate fat-cats. The degree and manner of control is extensive and unique, difficult to even conceive of 50 years ago. We are facing imminent environmental, financial and social collapse, perhaps leading to terminal war. While the Palestinians are truly worthy victims, it is best not to ignore the big picture and the extreme threats to species survival.

  9. dbroncos says:

    Billionaire Zionists, the Israeli government, Israeli society, the WH and Congress have the time, money and weapons to maintain the status quo in I/P for a long time to come. The convergence of these powerful partners in crime, their collective mendacity, is indeed exceptional in the world. I hardly hardly think that a “tendency to exceptionalize Israeli crimes” is out of bounds.` Naming and shaming bigots, racists and fascists is nothing to be ashamed of even if the list is narrowly focused on a specific geography and a specific political injustice. A Palestinian justice movement to eradicate bigotry and fascism not just in I/P but everywhere in the world, based on a “barren fixation on international law”, would be the very definition of “hopelessly abstract analytical idealism.”

    • MHughes976 says:

      ‘Don’t exceptionalise Israel’ is, apart from inventing a new word, very much a familiar Zionist and anti-Palestinian demand. ‘Why pick on Israel when there is so much wrong in…?’ is something we have all heard often, quite often from the Zionist contributors on Mondoweiss.
      These Marxist pro-Palestinian ideas, which say that the oppressors are really in the West, not in Israel except when Israel is acting as an imperialist ally, don’t really exclude Zionism, only call on the Zionists to break their alliance with Western imperialism – Zionism partly grew up in Marxist circles, after all. I must say I think that this Marxist approach constitutes ‘abstract idealism’ and that Zionism is an exceptional, indeed unique force putting a serious and damaging mistake into effect. There should be more discussion about this.
      Our cause not only faces a nearly overwhelming counterforce from public opinion, mainstream journalism and academia, political structures and all that but this very deep split between pro-Palestinians who are approximately Marxist and those who find Marxist analysis often unhelpful. So often in so many contexts progressive forces have been unable to win either with the Marxists or without them. Frustrating, don’t you think?

  10. Newclench says:

    Everything about this article is excellent and a breath of fresh air. The willingness to critique and understand, the historical perspective, the openness to doubt, the sober and knowledgeable authors, the sheer intelligence.
    It stands in such contrast to much of the blathering that passes for left discourse. Jacobin is a serious effort, which doesn’t mean I agree with all of it. The seriousness is in tone, respect for one’s audience, intellectual roots. Regardless of one’s perspective, it’s a model for how to public, edit and write on difficult issues.

  11. mcohen says:

    Palestine and the Left
    by Jacobin Magazine on April 22, 2013 8 says

    “This does not leave us in a very clear place. The political force that can forge a clear national liberation strategy does not exist, and it is Palestinians and Palestinians alone who can forge such a force.”

    and

    “The question of Palestine is a question of justice. That is why we do not hesitate to take sides.”

    equals

    forge such a force to take sides…………………………

    Modern left-wing terrorist groups in the United States developed from remnants of the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers and extremist elements of the Students for a Democratic Society. During the 1980s both the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO) and the smaller United Freedom Front were active. After 1985, following the dismantling of both groups, there were no confirmed acts of left-wing terrorism by similar groups.[5]

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    so if i understand you correctly Bhaskar Sunkara (editor of jacobin) you are saying that in order to bring about justice for palestinians a force is needed to counter right wing terrorism and that this counter will forge a just solution for arabs in palestine

  12. mcohen says:

    Palestine and the Left
    by Jacobin Magazine on April 22, 2013 15 says

    “Much of the energy that in the past would have found its home in student antiwar movements has migrated to the cause of Palestine.”

    i agree with this statement and interesting enough there is a connection between the
    the left and marxism both in south africa and left support for palestine
    lets take the following examples
    1.link to en.wikipedia.org
    2.link to en.wikipedia.org

    The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. ——-The Weathermen disintegrated after the United States reached a peace accord in Vietnam in 1973, after which the New Left declined

    South African Communist Party (SACP) is a political party in South Africa. It was founded in 1921 as the Communist Party of South Africa by the joining together of the International Socialist League and others under the leadership of Willam H. Andrews.——-In exile the influence of the SACP grew as communist states provided the ANC with funds and arms. Patient work by the ANC slowly rebuilt the organisation inside South Africa and it was the ANC, with communists in prominent positions, who were able to capitalize on the wave of anger that swept young South Africans during and after the Soweto Uprising of 1976.

    is it possible that the boston bombers were connected to left wing communist groups in america who have taken up the fight of the palestinian cause in america much in the same way as the weather underground or sacp

    Russian folklore
    Three crows also refers to a tale of three crows (a father, mother and son crow) bothering the king.[3]
    link to en.wikipedia.org
    just some random 3 crows trivia -disregard

  13. CitizenC says:

    Here is a review of Shlomo Sand’s sequel to The Invention of the Jewish People, The Invention of the Land of Israel.

    link to guardian.co.uk

    This is a review of the Hebrew edition from last year, more informed

    link to 972mag.com

    Note this passage:

    This was no accident: Zionism and anti-Semitism were, and to a large extent still are, mirror images of each other, both accepting the axiom that Jews have no place in Europe and that they must be “returned to their homeland.”

    As Israeli critics overturn Zionism totally, equating it with anti-Semitism, the Jewish left, in its latest form, Jacobin, calls it “a classic struggle for national liberation”.

    American Jewish chauvinism is simply off the charts.