Where do we go from here? Our thoughts & yours on the US election

Features

Dear Mondoweiss community:

Like many of you we are dealing with the shock, grief and anger that so many across the U.S. are experiencing following the election of Donald Trump. Today we are asking for your reactions and insights, so that we as a community can share both our feelings–outrage, grief, fatalism–and our thoughts as to next steps. Please tell us your reaction to the election and your suggestions for how Palestinian justice work in general, and Mondoweiss’s journalism in particular, should regroup and move forward. You can share your perspective either in the comments at the bottom of this post or by emailing [email protected]. Selected comments will be highlighted in the images attached to this post and through social media.

Like many other organizations working for change, we must think hard about how last week’s events affect our plans. Even though the implications for US foreign policy are not yet clear, the immediate outpouring of racist and Islamophobic rage across the country would seem to confirm our worst fears. We are entering a new era of American politics where an explicitly racist, nativist, misogynist, and homophobic constituency has been empowered with a spokesman in the highest office in the land. The results of this will be felt for years.

Here at Mondoweiss we are starting to understand what this will mean for our work and how we must change accordingly. As always our focus will be on documenting, analyzing and challenging the ongoing Israeli dispossession of the Palestinian people. This is our focus and will continue to be so. But we have always recognized that this is not just a story taking place in Palestine. It is also unfolding in Washington DC, and in communities across the United States.

Since the beginning of this site in 2006 we have covered the poisonous ideology of a “war on terror” which has targeted communities in the US as well as countries and people around the globe. Under a Trump administration it seems that the war at home will only intensify, and the Islamophobia that allows DC policy makers to dehumanize Palestinians in the occupied territories, will also be used to divide, ostracize and criminalize neighbors, friends, and activists.  It’s already started.

For this reason one immediate change following the election is that we plan to expand our coverage of the racism and violence here in the U.S. that is finding political expression and power through the Trump victory. It is central to our mission and our values as a news outlet dedicated to full human equality and fundamental human rights.

As always, we are grateful to be part of a community of thinkers, seekers, fighters, builders and growers. None of us is alone, and by working together we can and will make change.

P.S. In the face of the Islamophobia and Zionist-coddling we can expect to soar, we do ask you to contribute financially. There will be new costs for our work, financial as well as political, and we will come to you for help as they arise. We know that many other organizations working for change will be facing new challenges as well. Many of our allies such as Hate Hurts, Palestine Legal and Students for Justice in Palestine among others will be on the front lines as our new political reality continues to unfold and we urge you to give where the work best reflects your own goals and vision.

Wherever you donate, please do. The entire movement for freedom and equality will need your support.

About Adam Horowitz, Scott Roth and Philip Weiss

Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss are Co-Editors, and Scott Roth is Publisher, of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

96 Responses

  1. AddictionMyth
    November 14, 2016, 2:11 pm

    I am not so pessimistic. I think people are fundamentally ‘good’, and that when they see Trump’s movement using tactics of threats, intimidation, bullying, instigation and incitement, they will realize that Israel does the same thing – thus creating a cycle of violence. So things might get worse before they get better, but they will get better. We must speak out against these things where ever they occur. For example, death threats are unacceptable – from either side. The key is to avoid the ‘tipping point’ where people can no longer speak freely. The advantage today is that we can communicate with relative security – we don’t have to go out in the street and be subjected to ‘cracking skulls’.

    It remains a disappointment to me that none will defend me or others when death threats are issued, or even worse, will discount them. This must change.

    • silamcuz
      November 14, 2016, 10:29 pm

      Good people living in an evil society can do evil things without even realizing it.

  2. echinococcus
    November 14, 2016, 2:58 pm

    What’s really started full force right now seems to be a “color revolution”, State Department-style, of people so indoctrinated by propaganda that they really fear Trump coming into their friends’ homes to drag them before shooting squads and fill the country with a Russian occupation army. They are even getting to the extreme of absurdity with slogans like “against Trump and against TTP” –yeah, some logic there.

    Of course there is some increase in hooliganism but to the extent that the past 16 years have been one uninterrupted progression of demonization of people of Middle Eastern origin under the ridiculous pretext of opposition to some singled-out religion and practice, complete with continual race baiting and total impunity and incitement of a new military police force that includes murder, not much is changing right now.

    As for Palestine, one can imagine something worse than the supine servility to Zionism of a totally Zionist-owned Obama administration, and that is a reneging on the agreement with Iran. On the plus side, we have consistent campaigning by Trump for disengagement from the Syrian aggression and possibly from NATO. So the end result is unclear.

    All in all, what with the fact that most of what is heard about the next administration consists of “leaks” and rumors getting out over the usual propaganda grapevine and the crowned head is ditsy and unpredictable, you seem to be getting your panties in a bunch a bit too early.

  3. John O
    November 14, 2016, 3:10 pm

    Keep a sharp eye out for anything that threatens the First Amendment – it will be a major target of the new regime.

    I know that Trump is an inveterate liar, but occasionally he does make visible some of the things you just know he’d love to use his newfound power to effect. One of these is to make the US libel laws more like those in the UK, where rich villains can all too easily destroy the lives of those who expose their villainy.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 14, 2016, 3:28 pm

      Keep a sharp eye out for anything that threatens the First Amendment

      all those states passing anti bds legislation. capitulating right to free speech for israel.

      • Citizen
        November 14, 2016, 9:48 pm

        13 states, so far.

      • edwin
        November 15, 2016, 7:07 am

        Don’t forget France and Canada.

  4. Felice Gelman
    November 14, 2016, 3:29 pm

    We know the Trump strategy — we’ve seen it in action. It won’t change. Fear and loathing will be the bywords. The racists, anti-Semites and xenophobes won’t win by convincing the majority. They will win because most people don’t want to engage with them. We have to go head to head . To me that means we need push back at every opportunity, we need to define a positive vision of the future, we need to support each others’ work, and we need to act locally to draw people into political activity. On the issue of Palestine, we must be relentless on the issues that speak to Americans — the billions going to support Israel’s military occupation, the colonization of American police forces by Israel, and the export of Israel’s surveillance state to the U.S.

  5. Kay24
    November 14, 2016, 5:26 pm

    It is ironic that Trump has already walked back some of his policies, which we heard loud and clear and in ugly terms, and it seem Obamacare is not so bad and does not deserve to be gutted.
    It will be interesting to know just how excited his supporters are, for they voted for what they saw and heard, and now within hours and days to see your candidate going back on his word must be disappointing. In fact it must be highly unusual for any candidate to admit within days that he is not going to be doing this or that after all. Trump was a liar anyway, so those who did not vote for him will not be surprised.

    Anyone who is well informed will be afraid that he has surrounded himself with such frightening characters. To start with a well known bigot and demagogue, Steve Bannon, will be playing an important part in the new administration, and Jews and Muslims are already protesting that pick. CNN just announced that Laura Ingraham, another right wing big mouth, is considered for Press Secretary. We all know just how Ben Carson thinks, and those thoughts are frightening.
    If one looks at those surrounding the next President, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize one filled with inexperienced elements, racists and hating the liberals, will not bode well for this nation.

    As for the role of MDW, I think we should have a separate and new section for articles on the Trump administration, and for MDW commenters to make their observations and comments.
    The Trump administration will make us feel we are watching a train wreck.

    • RoHa
      November 14, 2016, 8:21 pm

      So was pre-election Trump evil because of what he said he was going to do, or is it post-election Trump who is evil because he might not do what he said he was going to do?

  6. bevkrell
    November 14, 2016, 6:05 pm

    The outcome of the election has given America the President it deserves. A bold statement indeed, but the country which professes to be the model of democracy is nothing more than a sham when an oligarch determine the candidates and the agenda. The said agenda is always detrimental to the well being of the citizens. It’s foreign policy agenda is malign and has been so for decades when this purported democracy supports terrorism and tyrannical countries.

    With a morally corrupt DNC, Clinton’s agenda was pro war and favoured Israel without any thought of the suffering of the oppressed Palestinian population. Her backers were pro Israel and didn’t give a damn about the extremist shift driven by Netanyahu and his cabal.

    Trump’s win has shown us once again to ignore the polls and mainstream news. His victory and its aftermath of hate parallel Brexit. As far as Israel and Palestine are concerned, his statements are contradictory. However, with the both House members bought by AIPAC, he has little leeway to push for any resolution. Israel has already made clear that peace is off the table, annexation of more land is planned along with further repressive measures.

    No President in recent times has stood steadfast against Israel when they could have easily severed all funds and military hardware and until this happens and a US move of sanctions at the UN, the situation will worsen.

  7. Keith
    November 14, 2016, 6:20 pm

    PHIL, ADAM, SCOTT- “Like many of you we are dealing with the shock, grief and anger that so many across the U.S. are experiencing following the election of Donald Trump.”

    Jeez, guys, get a grip! Wall Street, the corporations, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc., still more-or-less run the political economy. You are both whitewashing what the Democrats have done and overemphasizing Trump’s potential for harm. At least we won’t have to worry about Michele Flournoy as Secretary of Defense or Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State. Not having a full blown neocon war administration should be seen as a positive aspect to all of this. Also, a Trump administration will likely contain fewer Zionists.

    AS for your comment that “Under a Trump administration it seems that the war at home will only intensify, and the Islamophobia that allows DC policy makers to dehumanize Palestinians in the occupied territories, will also be used to divide, ostracize and criminalize neighbors, friends, and activists.”, the major source of organized divisiveness is coming from these orchestrated anti-Trump demonstrations which will likely prove both divisive and counterproductive. John Stauber notes:

    “The massive, continuing protests against President Trump, #NotMyPresident, are not a movement and will only benefit Trump. They are an emotional tactic devoid of strategy, and one that has made Trump stronger and stronger since it was first unleashed during the Republican primaries at the beginning of 2016.” http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/14/why-the-trump-protests-like-the-wisconsin-uprising-will-fail/

    These types of activities are funded by fat-cat “progressives” like George Soros. And yes, there is a certain color revolution aspect to this. Divide and rule, gang. If nothing else, there is a certain entertainment value to seeing “the Left” pissing on the proletariat. It is primarily the liberals who have brought us to where we are now, Democrats like Obama and the Clintons who have betrayed the American workers again and again, not to mention the greatest spurt of warmongering in our nation’s history.

    The way forward? Don’t make any significant changes and please don’t contribute to this orchestrated campaign to create divisiveness by over-emphasizing this aspect of the situation. The Deep State continues to call the shots. We may be seeing an internal power struggle. You need to be able to see the forest, not just the trees.

    • irishmoses
      November 14, 2016, 10:15 pm

      +10

    • RoHa
      November 14, 2016, 11:46 pm

      “Jeez, guys, get a grip!”

      I can’t decide whether it is amusing or depressing to watch so many people flapping around like a bunch of girls who’ve been told their old noses will grow back.

      Need a few more adults in the place.

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2016, 11:10 am

        “like a bunch of girls who’ve been told their old noses will grow back.”

        Banning Starbucks? Old noses growing back? “RoHa” are you trying to spread panic? There’s enough already!

      • Keith
        November 15, 2016, 11:35 am

        ROHA- “I can’t decide whether it is amusing or depressing to watch so many people flapping around like a bunch of girls who’ve been told their old noses will grow back.”

        Funny. I have decided for sanity’s sake to go with gallows humor and laugh at this outlandish situation. The Seattle Times reports that a couple thousand students cut classes to protest Trump. Unbelievable! He promised to build a wall! Hey gang, we already have one which we call a fence. Bill Clinton started construction to deal with the ANTICIPATED influx of illegal aliens following passage of NAFTA. Trump has threatened to deport illegal aliens! Obama has already deported about 2.5 million, so why begin protests now? If you follow the link in my original comment you will see George Soros fingerprints over this orchestrated manipulation. Yes, yes, forget about the corporations, Wall Street and George Soros, focus on protesting Trump!

        “Since coming to office in 2009, Obama’s government has deported more than 2.5 million people—up 23% from the George W. Bush years. More shockingly, Obama is now on pace to deport more people than the sum of all 19 presidents who governed the United States from 1892-2000, according to government data.” https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=number%20of%20illegal%20aliens%20deported%20under%20obama

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2016, 12:17 pm

        “Funny. I have decided for sanity’s sake to go with gallows humor”

        Might as well, we drank up all the gallows whine.

      • Philemon
        November 15, 2016, 9:18 pm

        Keith: “The Seattle Times reports that a couple thousand students cut classes…”

        Oh, my Gawd! It’s the end of civilization as we know it!

        Seriously? Students cut classes? And this is news?

        The Seattle Times is really reaching there.

      • calisson
        November 18, 2016, 6:05 pm

        “A bunch of girls”, RoHa? Why use gender to hurl insults?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 18, 2016, 7:39 pm

        i agree. bunch of flapping girls — insult.

      • RoHa
        November 18, 2016, 11:58 pm

        “A bunch of girls”

        1. I didn’t say “a bunch of girls”. I said “a bunch of girls who’ve been told their old noses will grow back.”

        That is a reference to a specific group, namely, those who have had nose-jobs, and as far as I know, not many boys have nose jobs. It isn’t a reference to girls in general. It’s the nose-job that counts, not the sex.

        2. “Why use gender to hurl insults?”

        Why not? If the sexes are supposed to be treated equally, we should not worry about it.

        3. Ask yourself (you needn’t report back) how much of your complaint is just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing girls in the comparison. Would you have reacted if I had made a denigratory comparison with a bunch of schoolboys?

      • gamal
        November 19, 2016, 4:22 am

        flapper: young woman intent on enjoying herself and flouting conventional standards of behaviour,

        preferable to a band of pissed okers. in my humble.

      • Mooser
        November 19, 2016, 10:57 am

        “not many boys have nose jobs.”

        Speak for yourself! It just may be that women are unwilling to do the maintenance (with a Sur-Form plane, wood rasp or random-orbital grinder) A couple of strokes across the bridge keeps it just the way the surgeon (a brocha on the man!) left it.

      • Mooser
        November 19, 2016, 11:16 am

        “A bunch of girls… a bunch of schoolboys?”

        Wow, dude, I gotta hand it to you. You are a Philosopher! Such sophisticated reasoning.

      • RoHa
        November 19, 2016, 9:41 pm

        Hmmn. Maybe, when referring to a bunch of drama …er … monarchs. I should have said “like middle-aged white men who have just been told their old noses will grow back”. It isn’t as compelling an image (it lacks the implied shrillness) but it’s probably doubleplusgood politically correct.

        Naaa. I’m not going to capitulate to Newspeak. Let the Minitrue unperson me .

      • Mooser
        November 19, 2016, 11:20 pm

        “. I should have said “like middle-aged white men who have just been told their old noses will grow back”

        “RoHa” as far as I know, when anything ‘grows back’ on a middle-aged man, it’s a good thing.

  8. Bandolero
    November 14, 2016, 6:35 pm

    If I’ld be Mondo Weiss editor I’ld primarily stick to the Palestinian rights/oppression/occupation issue.

    With regard to America I’ld try to see two competing movements, both with good intentions, but both with major flaws:

    1st Trump movement: Good intention: take on the corrupt establishment aka the neocons and the liberal Israel lobby, Wall Street, special interests, etc. Major flaws: some components of that movement have issues like all kinds of racism, islamophobia, anti-semitism, misogynism and so on.

    2nd Liberal movement: Good intention: take on all kinds of social injustice, racism, islamophobia, anti-semitism, misogynism and so on. Major flaws: some components of that movement have issues like a blind eye for Israeli human rights violations, a penchant for humanitarian wars of aggression, russophobia and so on.

    So, if I would be Mondo Weiss editor, I would do journalism measuring both movements for their supposed-to-be good intentions, lauding them where appropriate, but criticise them both where their major flaws can be seen. I think to get these tensions between these both two basically good, but both seriously flawed movements enlightened could result in very good journalism on what’s happening in America.

    I think that would be quite close to what Sanders said after the Trump win: he will work with him where he does good for the common people, infrastructure projects and whatever, but vigorosly oppose him, where he deploys racism etc.

    • Mooser
      November 14, 2016, 9:04 pm

      “1st Trump movement: Good intention: take on the corrupt establishment”

      Yup, cause if there is one thing Trump’s entire life demonstrates, it’s that Trump don’t stand no corruption! Everything above-board, and by-the-book. He will bring the same transparency and ethical standards to governing, dontcha think?

      I can understand why we might pour our hopes into an empty suit, but Trump’s is already pretty full.

      • Bandolero
        November 14, 2016, 10:25 pm

        Mooser

        To get the benefit of taking on a corrupt doesn’t mean the guys doing that are not corrupt. I don’t think many of his followers do think Trump is not corrupt. For example, I do think he’s very corrupt. But I do think he nevertheless may break up the entrenched corrupt establishment which is currently ruling. And I do think many of his voters expect nothing less.

        For the sake of this comment not being suppressed, I won’t go further now to say what I think the mission of the Trump campaign is all about. But if you may read between the lines you may read that my support for what I think is Trump’s agenda is quite limited.

        I hope this Orwellian comment clarifies things.

  9. Sally Parker
    November 14, 2016, 7:13 pm

    I’m relieved that Clinton and her New World Order Neocons lost. I did not look forward to Clinton and Robert Kagan ordering the military to shoot down Russian planes in Syria to enforce a no-fly zone. I did not wish to see where this game of nuclear chicken with Russia would end. I feared the graveyard Syria would become and the what the Cons would do to Iran after they finished murdering Syrians.
    If Trump insults Muslims, Clinton produces dead Muslim bodies– by the hundreds of thousands. Despite these deaths, the left calls Trump the fascist.
    Go for the best of the Trump’s possibilities. Mondoweiss and all the Progressives need to take advantage of this opportunity to pressure Trump to distance himself from the Neocon movement and expose and contain George Soros. Make certain that as few Neocons as possible are in the next administration.
    Soros, by funding Black Lives Matter, is not interested in saving Black lives; he wants to encourage violence to Federalize the police into a single unit that his billionaire friends can more easily control. This is like an American color revolution. The father of Patrick Zamarripa is suing Soros for his son’s death at Ferguson. Soros and his planned New World Order need to be exposed and stopped.
    This may not be the best time for Palestinians, but it is an excellent time to save the lives of Syrians and Iranians. Thank goodness that Our Lady of Perpetual Invasions doesn’t rule the White House.

    • RoHa
      November 14, 2016, 8:23 pm

      Good sense, Sally.

    • Citizen
      November 14, 2016, 10:16 pm

      I agree with you, Sally.

    • silamcuz
      November 14, 2016, 10:23 pm

      Your comment is nothing but alt-right conspiracy nonsense. Soros backing BLM? How laughably stupid, as if the black mothers who had their children killed by the police need some shady billionaire to guide them in seeking justice.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 7:20 pm

        silamcuz,
        Putting aside the question of BLM, that Soros is backing J Street and the “grassroots” Left organization Avaaz with major capital is something that can be learnt from the tax returns and from open statements by J Street.

    • W.Jones
      November 15, 2016, 5:37 pm

      Sarah,
      I remember reading about Soros backing up J Street, and now I see that he funds JVP’s partner Avaaz.

      Is Soros pumping up JVP?

      JVP has been growing by leaps and bounds, with their 2011 form 990 showing an income from contributions and grants of $871,250. This is very big money for an organization whose membership appears to be mostly students and young people, and there is reason to believe that they have recently started to receive much more.

      Someone is pumping JVP up, and I think we can get a clue about who from the partnership with Avaaz. Avaaz is not (yet) big in the US, so you may not have heard of it. But let me quote from NGO Monitor’s analysis:

      ((“Res Publica describes Avaaz.org as its “primary current project.” According to a 2007 ABC News report on Avaaz.org’s call for the firing of Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank, Avaaz.org is a “global advocacy group funded by philanthropist and financier George Soros, ….” According to the 2009 Form 990 (page 87) filed by the Open Society Foundations, OSF gave $600,000 to Avaaz.org via New York-based Res Publica; $300,000 for “general support to Avaaz.org” and $300,000 for “Avaaz.org’s work on climate change.”))

      Soros also funds J Street, the phony “pro-Israel” lobby, although J Street’s director, Jeremy Ben Ami lied in an attempt to keep it secret.

      http://fresnozionism.org/2013/03/is-soros-pumping-up-jvp

      SEE ALSO:
      Avaaz: Empire Propaganda Mill Masquerading as Grassroots Activism
      http://empirestrikesblack.com/2012/06/avaaz-empire-propaganda-mill-masquerading-as-grassroots-activism/

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 6:01 pm

        Sorry, I meant Sally, not Sarah.

      • echinococcus
        November 15, 2016, 6:35 pm

        This, now, is extremely important information, what with the urgent need to confirm accusations found on a Zionist site and, if reliable, to widely share the data.

        How come it hasn’t been heard around? This should have been huge news.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 7:13 pm

        echinococcus,

        Here you talk about the “urgent need to confirm accusations found on a Zionist site -“.

        But FresnoZionism is a Zionist websiteby its own name, but I believe that http://empirestrikesblack.com is not one.

        I am sure that there are lots of things that you have not heard that should be “huge news”.

        About J Street getting funded by Soros, this is something I already heard. See eg.

        J Street’s Half-Truths and Non-Truths About Its Funding – The Atlantic
        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/j-streets-half-truths-and-non-truths-about-its-funding/63541/
        Sep 24, 2010
        “J Street called me up this morning and disclosed that it had successfully grown its fundraising since forming in 2007 and that Soros…”

      • echinococcus
        November 15, 2016, 11:32 pm

        Jones,

        Thanks for the ref. All they have is on Avaaz, which was already known, not on JVP. Also, doesn’t seem to be a reliable outlet by itself, but I am sure the JVP connection should not be too hard to follow up to the sources.

    • Scott
      November 17, 2016, 7:50 am

      Agree with Sally. There’s a real chance for a better American foreign policy–not for IP, but for the region. Battle for Trump’s ear is intense right now. A little sad to see so much of Mondoweiss has bought into a Clintonesque narrative as Trump as some kind of Nazi brute. Get a grip guys, he’s a NY real estate guy, and for all the obvious vulgarity, you don’t rise in that world being that kind of person. I think you all probably know that.

      • (((James North)))
        November 17, 2016, 8:03 am

        Trump could reassure us by withdrawing Stephen Bannon as his top adviser. Reagan was a detached president, to put it kindly, and his top White House advisers, like James Baker, were at times the de facto president. Visit the Breitbart website and you will not be sanguine. Breitbart is not another version of The American Conservative, (a publication I admire even if I don’t share many of its views).

      • Keith
        November 17, 2016, 1:06 pm

        JAMES NORTH- “Trump could reassure us by withdrawing Stephen Bannon as his top adviser.”

        Why would Trump want to reassure you? Have you ever considered that Bannon as an “adviser” is a sop to the far right? What better way to co-op this guy and his movement?

        JAMES NORTH- “…top White House advisers, like James Baker, were at times the de facto president.”

        First of all, James Baker was Reagan’s Chief of Staff, not merely an “adviser.” So, you really think than Trump is a laid back kind of guy who will eat jelly beans and let Stephen Bannon act as de facto President? Get real. And why are you not troubled that Hillary solicited advise from Henry Kissinger and Elliot Abrams? Better Stephen Bannon than John Negroponte says I.

      • Mooser
        November 17, 2016, 7:35 pm

        “Trump could reassure us…”

        Wait a minute, you’re confusing me. Now, who is (((us)))? And why do we merit reassurance.

        (Maybe they can promise they won’t beat on us as bad as the Muslims and Mexicans.)

      • Philemon
        November 17, 2016, 8:59 pm

        C’mon, Reagan made a point of shaking hands with David Rockefeller. He was bought and paid for.

  10. nada
    November 14, 2016, 7:26 pm

    The difference between a Clinton and a Trump presidency is that, with the latter, the far right is emboldened, (and will likely be unchecked by the incoming administration). As a result, significantly more people are protesting, than would have under Clinton–even though Clinton’s warmongering and neoliberal policies were also lethal. Organizers and activists must then ensure that the energy of the angry masses is harnessed to achieve real change. One thing Mondoweiss could do is archive resources for activists, as well as for targeted communities? And link to them with every report of a hate crime? Be intentional about foregrounding these resources?

    • echinococcus
      November 15, 2016, 1:01 am

      Nada,

      If you think there is anything further to the right of the Democratic party, i.e. the party owned and operated for imperialist monopoly capital (and in charge right now), wonder what your definitions are. Things don’t get “far right” just depending on the kind of language one is using.
      The very deeply reactionary nature of Trumps’ allies is of course worrying but I’d like to have one significant political sector in which the Democrats are not already doing what Trump promised.

      One thing Mondoweiss could do is archive resources for activists, as well as for targeted communities? And link to them with every report of a hate crime?

      Of course the owners will decide. What if they want to live up to their shingle and be a discussion site for anyone opposing the Zionist occupation, Democrat or not, right or left, or “right” or “left” according to your special classification system.

      Do you realize that it’s not only so-called liberals who are, or would like to be, involved with Palestinian resistance solidarity?

  11. John Smithson
    November 14, 2016, 9:11 pm

    Proceed as you have – provide clear eyed, perspicacious, thoughtful reporting on things related to the ‘War of Ideas in the Middle East’. You provide something that I treasure and support and promote as best I can.

    You guys are the best and I’ve been following since it was a Yahoo group (I think) anyways ever since I would Google ‘Mearshiemer and Walt’ regularly and see what came up.

    Don’t change. Keep your eye on the horizon and don’t be pulled of course by a squall that will pass quickly. Stick to your principles, keep a cool head, and tell the story as you always have.

    • Mooser
      November 14, 2016, 9:55 pm

      “You guys are the best and I’ve been following since it was a Yahoo group”

      Oh, gosh, it’s hard to think about those dear old days when Mondo was on Yahoo without a slight moistening of the eyes, and it brings back many piquant memories.

    • wfleitz
      November 15, 2016, 1:16 pm

      “Proceed as you have – provide clear eyed, perspicacious, thoughtful reporting on things related to the ‘War of Ideas in the Middle East’. You provide something that I treasure and support and promote as best I can.”

      I couldn’t agree more. We need more of what you do. Thanks.

  12. pabelmont
    November 14, 2016, 9:24 pm

    WIth Sally Parker, I’m relieved the neoliberals and neocons associated with Clinton are gone (as I suppose). I fear Trump mostly on GWCC (global warming climate change), supreme court nominations, and miscellaneous craziness and shoot-downs of human rights and civil rights. Voting rights may take a long while to recover.

    My big gripe and real hot anger is with the DEMs who refused to realize there was one if not two “camps” of really-really-dissatisfieds in USA, Trump appealing to some, Sanders appealing to some, and the dissatisfieds outnumbering those willing to vote for more-oligarchy (which is what Clinton was offering). I think some dissatisfieds who voted for Trump would have voted for Sanders had he been nominated. And some didn’t vote at all. (I voted for Stein.)

    My hope now is that a new party will be established along “progressive” lines, I hope funded without money from the BIGs (BIG OIL, BIG BANKs, BIG DEFENSE, etc., the oligarchy), I hope willing to declare for a full-scale mobilization (on a war footing as after Pearl Harbor) to combat GWCC, and I expect this new party to be called the Democratic Party. (Even if the Green Party espouses all the right positions, it is too small to do the job.) Perhaps the leaders of the Republican Party entertain a similar but reciprocal hope. Those presently calling themselves DEMs need a leader and I shudder to think that it will be Schumer and hope it may be Ellison/Sanders/Warren in troika.

    • silamcuz
      November 14, 2016, 10:19 pm

      Nada,

      Ellison alone is not enough. We need more pro-Islam grassroots in US politics in order to sustain a measurable shift in domestic and global policy making. Whilst this is feasible in the coastal regions as well in states with significant Muslim minorities like Minnesota, it is completely unrealistic in traditional red states. Thus, it appears to me that we are on a path towards greater schism as a country, with little hope of reconciliation and unity.

      I suspect the union will not last the coming decades, and it’s imperative that whatever happens, we have a strong political force based on justice and perhaps, Islamic values, that will guide us through the tumultuous times.

    • Keith
      November 15, 2016, 12:46 am

      PABELMONT- “My hope now is that a new party will be established along “progressive” lines….”

      Your hope for a new “progressive” Democratic party is illusory. A new Democratic party without significant fat-cat funding is another Third Party like the Greens. Reality is what it is. Go with what you have and make the most of it.

  13. Qualtrough
    November 14, 2016, 10:55 pm

    He’s a huckster and a charlatan, but he wasn’t the AIPAC/Zionist favorite. So that’s progress.

    • Maghlawatan
      November 16, 2016, 11:25 am

      It’s not progress. He is intent on bringing fascism to the US. No decent conservative would travel with the likes of Bannon. Which is worse? Cancer or a feminist daughter?
      For the first time in my life I feel sorry for Jeffrey Goldberg.

      the endgame will be an alliance of liberal Jews and Palestinians to defeat the settlers, the Likud and the Nazis

  14. Pretext
    November 14, 2016, 11:10 pm

    Every mainstream news outlet in the country is primed to report on whatever anti-Arab, anti-Muslim thing the Trump administration does or says. There’s no value in MW using its limited budget to add one small voice to a large choir. That’s not why I donate to MW.

    MW is at its best when it reports truths that the mainstream outlets won’t touch – the honest to goodness grievances going on in Israel / Palestine and shining a light on lesser known Islamaphobes like Geller and Foxman, etc.

  15. Kathleen
    November 15, 2016, 12:40 am

    One thing for sure we should all be hitting Trump’s fb page, air waves, petitions on a no to John Bolton for Secretary of Defense, Trump bad, Bannon worse, Bolton worst?

    Trump kept repeating Clinton’s war record during campaign, I liked that because Maddow, Hayes, Reid, CNN’s talking heads did not, However what is he going after thinking about Bolton as Secretary of Defense? More death and destruction in middle east?

    • Citizen
      November 15, 2016, 8:37 am

      Yep. I was truly amazed when Bolton’s name came up as possible Secretary of State, of all open slots, especially!

  16. Kathleen
    November 15, 2016, 1:09 am

    “For this reason one immediate change following the election is that we plan to expand our coverage of the racism and violence here in the U.S. that is finding political expression and power through the Trump victory. It is central to our mission and our values as a news outlet dedicated to full human equality and fundamental human rights. “-

    “where do we go from here?” Continue to stay right in the middle of the injustice storm, There is a calm right in the center due to the deep level of commitment to human rights and social justice

    Mondoweiss and the team have demonstrated their commitment to these core beliefs “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” Most of the folks who come here to share opinions, information are also committed to human rights and social justice,

    Think it is important to keep your focus on Israel/Palestine while you are expanding however being more inclusive of injustice issues increasing as a direct consequence of Trump’s inflammatory words, ideas seems responsible and worthwhile,

    Since Sanders, Warren, Ellison (I think Senator Brown will be among that team) are clearly the progressive leaders I do think there should be a collective effort to focus on them when it comes to middle east issues and any legislative actions that may surface,

    Wondering if the Palestinian rights issue could be somehow merged with the Million Woman march for Trump’s inauguration,

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/11/14/womens-march-on-washington-planning-for-big-crowds-on-inauguration-weekend/

    Some advertising at this march? “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”

    More audio or video interviews with activist, experts on the I/P issue, at this site,

    Lobbying efforts during the Aipac conference?

  17. rhkroell
    November 15, 2016, 1:49 am

    It is difficult at this point to predict with any specificity exactly what course Trump will chart. He may simply chart an aggressive neoliberal economic course — combined with militant neocon foreign policy objectives along the way — as he steers the Ship of State forward (teetering on the edge of the abyss). We may see, in other words, more of the same: a continuation of the horrific farce of U.S. Manifest Destiny — disguised as the “American dream” — played out with virtually no opposition from the multitude.

    Of course, his ethno-nationalist pilots and crew may advise him to steer the Ship of State radically toward the alt-Right with a vengeance, taking no dissenting prisoners as they proceed toward their white nationalist republic. As horrible as things are presently, they could get much worse posthaste. So we should not, it seems to me, remain passive/inactive.

    Either way, resistance seems the only reasonable strategy for us to adopt at this point. Mutinies do not always entail throwing the captain and crew overboard. We could shackle them with manacles and chains and fasten them to stays in the Ship’s hold, using them as ballast as we steer the Ship of State towards a social democratic stronghold.

    • Citizen
      November 15, 2016, 8:42 am

      Obama recently pointed out, when asked about Trump’s Beibart selection, that when he met with Trump he did try to show him he will be steering, not a speed boat, but a slow turning ocean liner.

  18. iResistDe4iAm
    November 15, 2016, 9:45 am

    I See Dead People

    Under Obama’s rule, I see too many dead people.
    (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Ukraine)

    Under Clinton’s rule, there would have been even more dead people.
    (as above, plus Iran, and Russians in Syria & Ukraine)

    If under Trump’s rule, I see less dead people than Obama’s grisly legacy, then the world will be a slightly better place.
    (no more regime change, no more nation building [other nations after destroying them])

    • Philemon
      November 15, 2016, 10:01 pm

      “Where do we go from here?” What??!!

      “Why is the path unclear?” Phil, Adam, and Scotty, “finish your group sing; get your kumbayayas out.” I’m pretty much with Keith, Sibiriak, Roha, Sally, and to some extent, Mooser. Well, Mooser seems to think antisemitism is a real concern, which I just can’t see. But there you go.

      Less dead people is good.

      • Mooser
        November 16, 2016, 11:32 am

        “Well, Mooser seems to think antisemitism is a real concern, which I just can’t see”

        Like I said, nobody’s place near the top of the social hierarchy is guaranteed.

  19. Eva Smagacz
    November 15, 2016, 1:07 pm

    I keep an open mind about the Trump – Netanyahu relationship.

    Remember this from Slate 2012?:

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has never worried much about what foreign dignitaries think of him. Barack Obama is certainly not the first American president to find him a tough customer. In 1996, Bill Clinton remarked privately after his first meeting with Bibi, “Who the fuck does he think he is? Who’s the fucking superpower here?”

    Trump, like all narcissist is acutely tuned in into any perceived slight or luck of respect ( Now, that he is a most important person on earth, is far removed from before, from when meetings in Israel could help him with his wheeling and dealing). Netanyahu, on the other hand, is full of disdain towards America, carries his supremacist prejudice just below the surface and may not be able to hide it.

    I hope for real, long term loathing, and Trump spilling his feelings on twitter

  20. HarryLaw
    November 15, 2016, 1:11 pm

    Many people thought Trumps foreign policy was correct, this is what he said just before the election…Donald Trump repeated his call to “drain the swamp,” knocking the “failed elites in Washington” for being wrong about everything from foreign policy to health care.

    “The people opposing us are the same people — and think of this — who’ve wasted $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East — we could have rebuilt our country twice — that have produced only more terrorism, more death, and more suffering – imagine if that money had been spent at home,” Trump said at a Oct. 26 rally in Charlotte, N.C.

    “We’ve spent $6 trillion, lost thousands of lives,” Trump said. “You could say hundreds of thousands of lives, because look at the other side also.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/27/donald-trump/did-us-spend-6-trillion-middle-east-wars/
    Linda Bilmes in her study of the Afghan and Iraq wars at the Kennedy Law School [Harvard University] agrees with that figure].
    He also wants Russia and the US to team up to destroy Islamic State, and to friendly relations with both Russia and China. What could be better?
    Hillary wanted to confront both whilst trying to regime change Syria by backing the head choppers, and no fly zones. Such a disastrous policy could only end with WW3.
    I for one am glad Clinton has not won, she of the status quo, more war and more corruption. Will Trump be worse, who knows?

  21. W.Jones
    November 15, 2016, 4:35 pm

    My question to Mondoweiss’s Editors and Commentors is:
    Why should Trump’s electoral victory cause more ” shock, grief and anger” than the way that the DNC and Hillary Clinton undemocratically worked together to sideline Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries against the DNC’s rules?

    Trump made sexually offensive comments about women (like grabbing one), but Clinton had questionable affairs with women and then probably perjured himself about it.

    Contrast that with undermining democracy in order to repress one of the largest, most progressive primary campaigns we have seen since… when? The 1930’s? And on top of that, Clinton was shown in leaks working with the supposedly “free” mass media to
    The “conflict of interest” was so egregious that Wasserman-Schultz stepped down from the DNC leadership and Donna Brazile stepped down from her anchoring position.

    Where were the liberal Democratic national protests against the warhawk Clinton when she got the nomination instead of Sanders as a result of this inner-party collaboration?

    As soon as Clinton won the nomination, you knew that you were going to get either the hawkish Clinton as president or the casino businessman Trump as president, so isn’t that the moment when you should be experiencing “shock and grief”?

    You asked about Next Steps.

    Personally, I doubt that a Trump presidency is going to be more conservative or “worse” than Bush/Cheney’s because of the brutal way Bush attacked Iraq and passed the anti-liberal “Patriot Act.” So the Left in America has long experience of how to deal politically with these kinds of forces.

    Further, I believe that it’s premature to conclude that Trump will be a Likudnik, since often Republican politicians themselves in the past have been more “pro-Palestinian” than Israeli Likudniks, and in some cases they had politicians who wanted peace and human rights. I would recommend talking with the Council for the National Interest because they have familiarity with past officials from both parties.

    The truth is, if you actually want to make the biggest difference possible helping Palestinians, it means finding allies among people with whose actions you have disagreements with, like staff in a Trump administration, or Republican politicians, or CNI’s Alison Weir, whom JVP banned for giving several interviews to offensive radio hosts.

    • echinococcus
      November 15, 2016, 5:10 pm

      As soon as Clinton won the nomination, you knew that you were going to get either the hawkish Clinton as president or the casino businessman Trump as president, so isn’t that the moment when you should be experiencing “shock and grief”?

      Thanks for asking the exactly right question.

    • edwin
      November 15, 2016, 5:22 pm

      @W.Jones

      Trump made sexually offensive comments about women (like grabbing one), but Clinton had questionable affairs with women and then probably perjured himself about it.
      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/11/where-thoughts-election/#comments

      On this particular topic, I consider that it is none of my business whom Hillery sleeps with, as long as it is consensual. I, like you believe there is great fault in the episode of not being public about what she may or may not be doing in bed, and with whom. The difference is that I place the blame on a different party, namely the party inquiring.

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2016, 6:05 pm

        “I, like you believe there is great fault in the episode of not being public about what she may or may not be doing in bed, and with whom”

        Hilary wouldn’t publicly detail her sex life, and people got mad at Trump for not showing his tax returns? What a crazy country we are! And “not being public about what she may or may not be doing in bed, and with whom” can be a Federal Offense, not just a broken precedent!

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 6:08 pm

        Edwin,

        It was Bill’s Lewinsky and Flowers scandals, not Hillary’s.

        Further, the issue is not only the inquiry itself of what Clinton’s relations were, but the perjuious answer he gave under oath on the question.

        Typically what many politically nonconformist”skeptics” have said on these kinds of things is that whether the President has perjury under oath about sex (probably Clinton), or has illicit sex (Clinton), or makes an offhand offensive comment about sex (Trump), is not nearly as important as major issues affecting the country like whether we are going to bomb Yugoslavia and kill many civilians (Clinton), invade Iraq (under Bush), or intervene in Syria (maybe under Hillary Clinton).

        These kinds of things like the Lewisnky scandal and what went into it or Trump’s offhand comments could be used as political “hay” by their opponents instead of placing the main emphasis on life or death issues for hundreds of thousands or even millions of Middle Easterners.

        If there was a clear choice between a president who abused someone in a bar fight and then drunkenly nearly ran someone over in their car or a president who invaded Vietnam, Iraq, or Syria, leading to millions of deaths, what should the Left’s choice be?

      • edwin
        November 15, 2016, 7:53 pm

        Sorry – don’t know why I didn’t pick up on which Clinton. There have been accusations about Hilary being a lesbian for a while.

        I think that the comparison between Trump and Bill Clinton may be fair.

        In your comparison between Hillary Clinton and Trump I feel that your comparison is not fair. Domestically Hillary has been significantly better than Donald Trump – I think that Trump is moving the US towards apartheid. Foreign policy, I preferred at least some versions of what he was saying, but there was/is ample reason to not trust them at all. As well, his lack of experience combined with his ego, as well as the worlds strongest nuclear weapons stockpile makes me deeply afraid.On the other hand when Hilary Clinton indirectly said that she wanted a showdown with Russia, I believed her.

        I don’t blame people for voting for Trump. I understand that the democratic party has abandoned rural America to the Republicans. Economically they offered nothing to people who suffered terribly as a result of anti-union pro banks, pro multinational corporations. That the democratic party managed to lose to someone like Trump shows just how insular and out of touch they are.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 8:35 pm

        Dear Edwin,

        My main point in this thread is to say that the correct moment for “shock and grief” is when the DNC and Hillary un-democratically ruined the candidacy of the actual progressive, Sanders. That is the specific moment when an intelligent person should realize that (1) the two outcomes were the hawkish Hillary or the isolationist Republican, and (2) the liberal party institution shockingly undemocratically sidelined the most progressive popular primary candidate in a long time.

        Please tell me if you agree with my statement.

        You also right: “In your comparison between Hillary Clinton and Trump I feel that your comparison is not fair. ” Please highlight a quote by me that you disagree with in my previous conversation with you.

        Did I anywhere say that Trump is more progressive than Hillary domestically?
        No.

        Here is what you wrote yourself:
        * “Economically H.Clinton offered nothing to people”
        * “Domestically Hillary has been significantly better than Donald Trump ”
        * “Foreign policy, I preferred at least some versions of what he was saying”
        * “when Hilary Clinton indirectly said that she wanted a showdown with Russia, I believed her.”

        Based on what you wrote, I don’t find Clinton “shockingly” better than Trump.
        Exagerrated predictions of South African “Apartheid” domestically vs. Cold War Missle Crisis 2.0 and massive dead from an anti-Assad intervention in the Mideast?

        I like Mondoweiss because I can come here and get some independent perspectives, especially on the Middle East. So someone like J. Cook (his article is featured on the site) can write about the hawkishness of well known “liberal” politicians on the Mideast without going into a knee jerk hysteria about how she is definitely so much better than Trump.

        I understand that a lot of people don’t have that kind of critical independent thinking, finding it easier to tune themselves to whatever liberal/anti-conservative sound bites a party or news caster is hinting at or highlighting. The whole institutional ABB mentality is the reason why once Obama won, the antiwar protests melted away, even when interventions like in Libya started again, this time backed by the new party in power and “liberal” commentators.

      • edwin
        November 16, 2016, 10:07 am

        @W.Jones

        Yes, I agree – at the point that someone like Trump could get the nomination, along with the ultra hawk Hilary, alarm bells should have been ringing. Even if Trump had lost your point would have been equally valid.

        With some analysis though, Trump should not be surprising, but rather expected. Strong men (men is intentional) are to be expected as countries collapse. The US is no different than other countries where this process has occurred over and over. The first priorities of the Democratic party so far has been to preserve itself and the status quo, even at the risk of a fascist Republican take over. (I don’t see a democratic party take over.)

        I think that like a lot of the left, I still have problems with the trap that US politics places people in. When forced to choose between two very undesirable choices so far I consistently favour the Democratic party – strongly. I think that until Trump won, it was possible to be in denial and to pretend. From my privileged position it is easier to see the virtues of Clinton and minimize the problems who is admittedly much more like me than Trump is.

      • Mooser
        November 16, 2016, 11:07 am

        There have been accusations about Hilary being a lesbian for a while”. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments/#sthash.DB31WYcF.dpuf

        I’m sorry, I know very little about all this sex stuff. Is there something wrong, something criminal, in being a “lesbian”?
        Can you give me a reason why Hilary’s sexual orientation (and you can’t always assume that exists, either) should matter to us a lot?

        “accusations about Hilary being a lesbian”! Lemme give you a tip, Edwin. You can’t have sex in a comment section, but it is possible to expose yourself in a most unseemly way.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 16, 2016, 11:27 am

        mooser, i think you’re missing some context:

        I consider that it is none of my business whom Hillery sleeps with, as long as it is consensual. I, like you believe there is great fault in the episode of not being public about what she may or may not be doing in bed, and with whom. The difference is that I place the blame on a different party, namely the party inquiring.

      • Maghlawatan
        November 16, 2016, 11:28 am

        Mooser

      • Mooser
        November 16, 2016, 11:40 am

        I’m sorry. Any mention of sex scares all the context right out of me. I’m sorry, Edwin.

      • Mooser
        November 16, 2016, 12:08 pm

        Thanks very much “Maghlawatan”. I’m sure you mean well, but I don’t dare open the video.
        My context is shaky enough as it is.

      • W.Jones
        November 16, 2016, 1:39 pm

        Hello, Edwin,
        When you say ” When forced to choose between two very undesirable choices so far I consistently favour the Democratic party – strongly”, this is the kind of uncritical group think that very many Americans buy into on both sides of the aisles.

        So Trump’s policies are being prejudged as antiwomen far worse than if he is a democrat ( actually an ex Democrat; he was one), and then on this basis compared with the hawk hillary, who is seen as less prowar then she actually is because she is a democrat. And then, after you have already rigged the scales, even when the rigged scales look undesirable both ways, you, like very Americans , vote based on party, not on who is actually better. They just walk into the booth and vote a straight party ticket. And then after the booths, millions of Iraqis die, because millions of Americanvoters imagine that the democratic are not a party of family values, or secular Libya and secular syria get taken over by headchoppers because millions of Americans say
        ” When forced to choose between two very undesirable choices so far I consistently favour the Democratic party – strongly. – ”

        And you know what the antiwar institutional Democrat answer is to hillary’s hawkish ness or obama’s drones? ; They reply that they will hold them accountable and organize. And then in real life the antiwar protests melt aware because the president is a Democrat and many liberal antiwar activists answer ” I consistently favour the Democratic party – strongly.”

        I can tell you so many stories of this, like when I told my liberal professor I wanted to use fair trade products at the college bookstore, and his answer was to come to the dem. Party on campus, which I did.

        The partY institutions and candidates can be more about their own votes and power than about actual family values or liberal ones.

  22. W.Jones
    November 15, 2016, 4:44 pm

    Am I suggesting that Mondoweiss “Go Republican?” No.

    Rather, I have an unpleasant sense that if JVP and US CEIO had a choice between
    (A) sitting in the proverbial peanut gallery, complaining about the next “fireworks display” in Gaza in two years; and
    (B) working with Alison Weir and sympathetic conservative politicians to prevent it,

    they would choose (A), make some protests, and be less effective.

  23. edwin
    November 15, 2016, 6:28 pm

    On the issue of Palestinian oppression, Israel ranks first. The US, as the financial/political enabler ranks a very strong second. I feel that both of these are well covered, but I feel that perhaps more coverage of Europe, as well as Muslim nations would be useful as well.

    In the past Mondoweiss has drawn some sort of line between the narrow focus of the indigenous population of Israel and a broad over-arching world view. It definitely has had the world view, but has made sure that it has not overwhelmed the core issue of the site. Thinking back at things, my feeling is that I feel that they have gotten things correct. I feel that the US importance to this issue will increase with Trump, and with it, there will be more issues about the US and Trump. As long as the core issue is not lost, I think that this is good.

    —-

    If we are talking about the US, I think it is worth considering if the label democracy is misplaced.

    From the Jacobin magazine
    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democratic-labor-party-ackerman/

    According to data gathered by Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, in 1931 Illinois raised the petition requirement for third-party statewide candidates from one thousand signatures to twenty-five thousand. In California, the requirement was raised from 1 percent of the last total gubernatorial vote to 10 percent. In 1939, Pennsylvania suddenly decided it was important that the thousands of required signatures be gathered solely within a three-week period. In New York, according to one account, “minor-party petitions began to be challenged for hyper-technical defects.”

    “Although these statutes have been assailed on all sides,” a 1937 Columbia Law Review article reported, “their severity is constantly being increased, probably because the interests oppressed seldom have representation in the legislatures.” Indeed, when the Florida legislature found socialists and communists advancing at the polls, it responded in 1931 by banning any party from the ballot unless it had won 30 percent of the vote in two consecutive elections; naturally, when the Republican Party failed to meet that test, the state immediately lowered the threshold.

    Today, in almost every established democracy, getting on the ballot is at most a secondary concern for small or new parties; in many countries it involves little more than filling out some forms. In Canada, any party with 250 signed-up members can compete in all 338 House of Commons districts nationwide, with each candidate needing to submit one hundred voter signatures. In the United Kingdom, a parliamentary candidate needs to submit ten signatures, plus a £500 deposit which is refunded if the candidate wins at least 5 percent of the vote. In Australia, a party with five hundred members can run candidates in all House of Representatives districts, with a $770 deposit for each candidate, refundable if the candidate wins at least 4 percent of the vote.

  24. tommy
    November 15, 2016, 9:48 pm

    Surplus populations grow at the same rate as surplus capital accumulates. The US economy is awash in capital without any investment opportunities to either make things or provide services, and average household net worth has still not recovered to 2007 levels since the great recession. Surplus populations become class conscious, so they must be divided with nationalism and racism to avoid revolution. Trump has exploited Americans fear of their precarious situations caused by a neoliberal economy, and defended by Clinton. Whether caused by revolution, counterrevolution, nationalism, or racism, violence appears to be on America’s horizon.

  25. dbroncos
    November 15, 2016, 11:37 pm

    EI and MW provide unique and extensive coverage of I/P news from inside Israel and the OT’s as well as the politics of Zionism in the US and Europe. As such, EI and MW are the best and most reliable sources for news on the topic which is still the third rail of American politics. Even 10 years after MW was founded and even longer for EI there aren’t any comparable critiques of Israel and Zionism to be found anywhere in the media. MW has an extensive network of sources and journalists who are essential to the success of your unique coverage.

    Especially compelling and encouraging is your coverage of the contemporary controversy that Zionism has spurred among American Jews. I’m also impressed with your criticisms of the NYT coverage of I/P. Where else can we learn that the NYT employed a Jerusalem Bureau Chief who has/had a son serving in the IDF? Is there another website that scrutinizes NYT coverage of I/P and points out their blatant bias’ so thoroughly or so regularly? You’ve exposed the Times’ Zionist propaganda like no other news outlet and because of their blatant bias towards Israel, which you’ve so effectively exposed, I won’t subscirbe to their paper. The NYT has a reputation to think about in tough times for news papers and your coverage of their coverage is bad for business.

    I just really value your I/P focus and in my opinion this is where you should keep your focus. Giving space to Donald Trump’s wreckage will be redundant. There’ll be no shortage of criticism, opposition and hostility towards his administration and the Republican congress. If you add MW voice to this critique you’ll just be another face in the crowd. There are news outlets other than MW that are better positioned to scoop stories and to criticize Trump and perhaps put an early end to his Pesidency (think wikileaks).

    One more thought. American support for Zionism goes beyond ideology and the Israel Lobby. I think Israel’s appeal is also rooted in it’s fascist impulses such that when some American’s look at Israel they see a flattering mirror of themselves and their ideas of racial superiority and law and order in an America restored to it’s rightful owners. Your coverage of I/P and Zionism in America already contains a powerful critique of this kind of dangerous prejudice even if you don’t always say so explicitly. Giving more space to Trump’s plans for America won’t add anything significant to the valuable critique of American Imperialism you’re already providing.

  26. shakur420
    November 16, 2016, 12:29 am

    You guys don’t need to do anything different, or change anything – other than working harder and taking a deep breath, relaxing and remembering who you are. How rugged, tough and dedicated you are. Just as you have incorporated reporting and commentary on military and terrorism issues, hypocrisy and history, lobbying and personal connections into the context of the Palestinian issue, and even expanded that to social and justice issues in the US, you will do what you have always done, you will make sure to include the racist, extreme nationalist and ignorant attacks into the contet of issues you cover.

    If there is 1 thing you should change, it’s something that has nothing to do with Trump and has been a problem for a while. Stop ignoring the 2 state solution as a matter of binding international law, especially as you quote and lean on international law regularly. You can pretend, within your opinions, as much as you want that the 2 state solution is “dead”, unrealistic, unjust, unviable, unpopular, whatever. As an opinion, it’s harmless as long as the legal status of a 1 state solution (illegal) and the 2 state solution (demanded by binding international law) is made clear in your reporting.

    Your readers have a right to know that as moral and just as a 1 state position is, it is illegal and has zero political/legal support on the global stage (everyone from Iran to the Islamic Conference countries to the NAM countries vote every at the UNGA for the 2 state solution, not a single country supports 1 state).

    People should feel free to stroke their own egos and advocate the moral position, a 1 state solution, ignoring the fact that a legally binding solution, 2 states, has not only been demanded by international law and all countries on the planet for 40 years, but that it has escaped implementation due to a lack of enforcement, and nothing else.

    Your readers have a right to understand this dynamic, they can support a non-existent solution with zero political or legal support, or they can check their personal feelings and focus their efforts on enforcing an already existing solution grounded in international law. People should do what they want, but they should be informed on what they are actually doing.

    The recent litigation against US departments concerning the charitable status of groups that fund illegal settlements, US aid to Israel and the ICC war crimes complaints are perfect examples of how you have dropped the ball on this. You report on these favourably yet take a different approach to the 2 state solution. Why?

    Just because a moral appeal to end US military aid to Israel has borne no fruit over decades, does that mean we should ignore laws that are already on the books which outlaw this behaviour? Of course not. In fact, the scandal is why has it taken this long to file cases based on the “Leahy” law and others. Just because moral appeals and negotiations by puppet leaderships has produced zero results, does that mean that appealing to legal avenues is null and void, impractical and unviable? Apparently not, as international law is leaned on here heavily, on everything except the 2 state solution.

    Should the Palestinians not go to the ICC because Abunimah, Weiss and a few people associated with BDS have decided that a rights based approach is the way to go? You mention all the time that the settlements are illegal, many military acts against the Palestinians are illegal (all military assaults inside Occupied Territory are banned, not sure why you won’t go that far, but you can go to Geneva IV and the 2004 ICJ ruling for confirmation), but you reject international law in the case of your promotion of a single state.

    Israel’s defined borders on the Green Line are non-negotiable under international law, as are the borders of a Palestinian state. You are free to hold this position of a single state, and advocate it, as hypocritical as it is, but your readers have a right to understand that adopting this position means accepting the long fight to have international law changed, as well as the formal positions of nearly every country on the planet. In favour of rejecting an alternative that is already grounded in binding international law and supported by the entire world.

    • HarryLaw
      November 16, 2016, 9:56 am

      shakur420, Excellent comment, Professor Finkelstein has the same opinion, he said in Dublin recently, people who advocate a one state solution make no sense, they are insane and live in another time warp..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS4eBHz2wEU In the one state argument’s defence they are only articulating a rapidly approaching scenario whereby facts on the ground and the ‘Wests’ indifference to them [and to a large extent the GCC countries plus Egypt and Turkey making overtures to Israel regardless it seems of what they do] encourages Israel to press on with their crimes. Unfortunately the one state solution envisaged by Israel involves a greater Israel including the West Bank and Golan Heights with as few Palestinians as possible, hence decades more violence and oppression. Professor Finkelstein in that Dublin talk said Apartheid in South Africa was only brought to an end by the combined forces of the whole continent of Africa with significant support of world opinion. In that case black South Africans outnumbered whites 10 to 1 how much more difficult will it be when in the proposed one state scenario envisaged by a number of Israeli one state zealots, people of Jewish origin will actually outnumber Palestinians [for a time at least] not forgetting the right of return and the almost 2 million Palestinians in Gaza [which Israel does not want] throws more confusion into one state solution.

  27. HarryLaw
    November 16, 2016, 10:44 am

    According to a rough demographic count there are 1.5 million and 2.8 million Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank respectively, as against approx 6 million people of Jewish origin in Israel, not sure if that includes the settlers in the West Bank including East Jerusalem. A Jewish majority of approx 1.7 million. That is the most benign scenario one state solution Zionists envisage, of course Palestinians would have to be second class citizens. Another Israeli solution could be self governing Bantustans with no sovereignty [it is the “land of Israel” after all] surrounded by Israel settlements and barbed wire. A “Gaza solution” for Palestinians in the West Bank. Maybe they think they can get away with it?

    • Maghlawatan
      November 16, 2016, 12:41 pm

      you forgot Gaza

      It’s 52:48 now

      Israel is in very dangerous territory.
      Bannon may be pro YESHA and on the same page as Bennett but Trump is only the first iteration of US fascism. When he fails what will replace it? Probably even more intense antisemitism. The Young Turks had a very interesting discussion on the phenomenon. The focus is always on Jewish bankers. Not white bankers like Dimon. Who are just as venal.

  28. Maghlawatan
    November 16, 2016, 11:44 am

    The US economy is on the verge of collapse. Trump is about securing as much cash for his rich special interest buddies as possible before it goes tits up.

    Every single world of his last campaign ad was a lie.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8

    The crisis demands an alliance of women, LGBT, Bluecollar, Middle classes, Muslims, Latinos, Liberal Jews, anyone who believes in climate change, anyone who wants a pension. The ADL will be in the trenches with Hamas. It is a funny old world.

    Trump is headed to Auschwitz 2.0

    The Dersh is very wrong. Trumpism is nihilism and it will do to people like him what the Nazis did to its Jewish loyalists.
    Rumkowski was beaten to death in Auschwitz after handing over the Jewish kids of Lodz to the fascists. Cos power works like that.

  29. Maghlawatan
    November 16, 2016, 11:59 am

    Mossad has taken out people like Imad Mughniyeh and Abu Nidal in the past. But the Palestinians and the Lebanese are not enemies of the Jews. There were no Palestinians in Auschwitz.

    Nazis are the enemy. Always have been.

    Will Mossad take out Bannon ? Or is all the martial stuff just for colonial policing ?

  30. lyn117
    November 16, 2016, 1:38 pm

    The pro-justice for Palestine movement should double down on its anti-racist, anti-antisemitic aspects. They should reach out to low-level Jewish organizations like local synagogues or Jewish centers (not the ADL, Hillel or national groups, which have been captured by Zionists and probably can’t be moved) and re-iterate their support in the fight against real anti-semitism. And slip in some real history.

    • Maghlawatan
      November 16, 2016, 4:17 pm

      The ADL has already left the Zionist fold over Bannon.

      The official Jewish model is broken. AIPAC and the ZOA are forced to support Trump because Trump is the Tsar. And the Tsar was put in power with the aid of Cossacks. So AIPAC must work with the Cossacks.

      Bannon wants zero Jews in the US which is why he loves Israel. Get them out of the jurisdiction . If there are zero Jews in the US there won’t be any $3bn for the IDF. there won’t be any F22s or whatever they are called now. There won’t be any standing ovations in Congress. Someone should tell Bennett. Someone should tell Netanyahu.

      • Mooser
        November 16, 2016, 4:51 pm

        “Bannon wants zero Jews in the US which is why he loves Israel”

        I am sure Bannon only dislikes the bad Jews who work to destroy America. Good Jews are always welcome.

  31. RobertHenryEller
    November 18, 2016, 5:07 pm

    Dear Mr. Horowitz:

    Unfortunately, because of recent events in my financial life, I can not contribute to Mondoweiss’ work, much as I think it is important work, much as I value knowing of your work.

    But I do have a recommendation for how you might be more effective. I will state that recommendation here, now, and I will try to follow up with why I make this recommendation. I tried to write something that was close on to my argument for a Mondoweiss shift in strategy, in a comment to a recent Mondoweiss piece about Sheldon Adelson, but when I clicked on submit, the piece disappeared. Unfortunately, I did not copy the piece before I submitted it, and I lost it. The piece had “flowed” from me, and I didn’t have the ability to re-create it.

    But my conclusion is this: While the plight of the Palestinians is indeed dire, and should be exposed, and the perpetrators exposed, I don’t think the Palestinians summon the sympathy of your intended audience, beyond the choir you’re unfortunately preaching to most of the time. Specifically, you don’t hit the Zionist establishment for the crimes that they are committing against “their own.”

    You are not articulating, at least not forcefully enough, not nearly focused enough, the destruction of Judaism, of Jews, and ultimately, of Israel, that Zionism’s “greatest champions” are perpetrating, through their destruction of the Palestinians, their takeover of “Greater Israel,” and now, their attacks on the First Amendment, and the U.S. Constitution, in their zeal to criminalize BDS.

    In short, go after the Zionists for destroying Judaism, Israel, and how they will ultimately and mortally endanger Jews themselves. Maybe that will wake up Jews, and whatever friends they might actually have. And make sure Jews are not comforted because Hillary won the popular vote.

    Zionist “champions” like Adelson are mimicking precisely the delusions of the rich German Jews of the 1930s. To say nothing of what “Orthodox Jews” Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are up to.

    At this point, Zionists are apparently banking on Ivanka being their modern Queen Esther, whispering in the King’s ear about the dangers of Haman (Bannon, Pence, etc.). Good luck with that, Zionists.

    Focus on how Zionists are working to effect the final solution that the Nazis could only dream of. Focus on the “brilliance” of a people successfully brutalized for millennia because they were herded into ghettos, where they would be a neat, easier target. And then what is the brilliant solution, from the brilliant Zionists (We’re Jews, aren’t we? We’re the smartest people on Earth! Look at our Nobel Prizes!), to the Holocaust? “Let’s build ourselves the biggest ghetto ever, in the Muslim Middle East! And further, let’s really piss off the neighbors, both inside and outside our giant fantastic ghetto, by emulating the Nazis! Brilliant!

    Go there, Mondoweiss, and stay there. You are trying to win by appealing to people’s better natures. Screw that. It doesn’t work as well as appealing to people’s fears about their own destruction. Help Jews to see who their real enemies are.

    More to come, even though I said more than I intended to.

    Regards,

    Robert

  32. Caruthers
    November 19, 2016, 7:48 am

    James Petras has an insightful article about what Trump is likely to do.
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/11/presidential-elections-myths-and-deceits/

    • Maghlawatan
      November 19, 2016, 8:26 am

      The richest 1% of Americans own 50% of everything.
      They earn 18% of all income .
      And between 1975 and 2007 they captured 58% of all income gains in the US. It must be higher now. Let’s say it’s 65%.
      Basically via debt. So their share of income continues to increase at the expense of the schmucks who voted for Trump.

      So if Trump wants to get interest rates up ordinary people need to get a bigger share of income. Because if they don’t revenues can’t grow.

      But Trump’s tax cuts will go 50% to the richest 0.1%
      So bluecollar voters will not see any improvement in their circumstances.
      And without any improvement on Main St the economy cannot grow.
      So it will crash

      It doesn’t matter what the WSJ or Wall St think. The system is doomed.

Leave a Reply