Open Letter: Against the blacklisting of activists and writers

Activism
on 91 Comments

The cancellation of a lecture by journalist Rania Khalek, who was invited to speak on the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill campus by Students for Justice in Palestine on February 27, 2017, raises important issues of tactics and strategy within movements for social change.

The whole statement, posted on Facebook the night before, reads:

“After receiving much feedback and after careful consideration, we have decided to cancel tomorrow’s event with Rania Khalek. We do not endorse nor reject her views on the Syrian civil war as they remain relatively unclear according to our members’ diverse opinions of Rania’s analyses. Although Rania was not going to speak about Syria, we understand the Syrian conflict is a contentious issue and the invitation was met with a lot of anger. We appreciate the concerns of those who have reached out to us, especially our Syrian supporters and believe her invitation would mistakenly imply SJP to hold such views. SJP supports liberation movements for all oppressed people and recognizes their right to self-determination.”

We note: the UNC-SJP event organizers cancelled the event (which was to be on the intersection of Palestinian rights organizing and the Black Lives Matter movement) based on the speaker’s views on Syria, a topic the speaker was “not going to speak about”, that “remain relatively unclear” to them, out of concern that “her invitation would mistakenly imply SJP to hold such views”. This means that:

  • No one was prepared to state what disqualified Khalek from speaking.
  • The event was canceled based on assertions about her views made by others.
  • The cancellation was based on the notion that there is a political litmus test of views on Syria that are requisites to have a public voice in the Palestinian rights movement.

We also note that some of those who lobbied UNC-SJP to cancel the event have stated publicly that they want to destroy Khalek’s reputation and livelihood. This is a coordinated smear campaign, using many of the same tactics that Palestine solidarity activists have faced from pro-Israel organizations, and with many of the same targets.

The signers of this statement hold a range of views on Syria. Some agree with Khalek; others disagree – in some cases quite vehemently. But we feel that when a group seeking justice in Palestine subjects speakers or members to a political litmus test related to their views on Syria, it inevitably leads to splits, silencing, confusion, and a serious erosion of trust. It runs contrary to the possibility of people learning from one another, changing their minds, and educating one another through their activism. Disagreements about political issues exist inside every movement coalition. They must not be made fodder for targeted vilification of activists in the movement.

Signed,

Nahla Abdo

Rabab Abdulhadi

As`ad AbuKhalil

Ali Abunimah

Suzanne Adely

Max Ajl

Sami AlBanna

Michael Albert

Louis Allday

Mark Ames

Said Arikat

Reza Aslan

Carl Beijer

Medea Benjamin

Keane Bhatt

Max Blumenthal

Audrey Bomse

James W. Carden

Joe Catron

Noam Chomsky

George Ciccariello-Maher

Helena Cobban

Andrew Cockburn

Dan Cohen

Elliot Colla

Jonathan Cook

David Cromwell

Omar Dahi

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

David Edwards

Karim Eid-Sabbagh

Rami El-Amine

Zein El-Amine

Joe Emersberger

Lee Fang

Nina Farnia

Liza Featherstone

Glen Ford

Drew Franklin

Peter Gose

Kevin Gosztola

Greg Grandin

Glenn Greenwald

Bassam Haddad

David Heap

Doug Henwood

Edward Herman

Brad Hoff

Adam Horowitz

Abdeen Jabara

Bruno Jännti

Rula Jebreal

Zaid Jilani

Adam Johnson

Charlotte Kates

Sameera Khan

Jerome Klassen

Ken Klippenstein

Kyle Kulinski

Paul Larudee

Carlos Latuff

Daniel Lazare

Michael Levin

Antony Loewenstein

Mairead Maguire

Abby Martin

Mario Martone

Rania Masri

Todd Miller

Amina Mire

David Mizner

Mnar A. Muhawesh

Corinna Mullin

Elizabeth Murray

Robert Naiman

Jana Nakhal

Jim Naureckas

Ayman Nijim

Ben Norton

Anya Parampil

John Pilger

Adrienne Pine

Justin Podur

Gareth Porter

Vijay Prashad

Syksy Räsänen

Afshin Rattansi

Corey Robin

Brahim Rouabah

Al Awda SF

Gregory Shupak

Bill Skidmore

Norman Solomon

Rick Sterling

David Swanson

Linda Tabar

Dahlia Wasfi

Mark Weisbrot

Asa Winstanley

Col. Ann Wright

For more information, visit here or email [email protected]

About Open Letter

Other posts by .


Posted In:

91 Responses

  1. AddictionMyth
    March 6, 2017, 5:17 pm

    Having been blacklisted on Alternet (some of whose contributors signed here, e.g. Max Blumenthal) I have little sympathy for this plea. I find Khalek’s views as a Soviet/Assad apologist reprehensible and I think they did the right thing to disinvite her. And I say that as an advocate for free speech – I personally would have loved to hear her speak but I think a group has every right to decide whom to invite as they are engaged in a noble quest for justice. Similarly, Alternet has every right to ban me, but then don’t come whimpering for me to defend you. That is hypocrisy.

    And before you respond, let me state up front:

    Khalek and Blumenthal have done great reporting exposing US support for the rebels that has not to my knowledge been discredited. I think both sides are evil – the goal is to create a refugee flow to exploit for labor and outrage.

    I think the root of the problem is lack of free speech in Russia – which prevents people from speaking out – and which Khalek and Blumenthal have never acknowledged. (In their defense, few have.)

    I think that being right on 99% of the issues but wrong on 1% can be entirely disqualifying – e.g. “Progressive Except Palestine.”

    I would have loved to hear her speak but I defend any groups’ right to choose.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 6, 2017, 5:47 pm

      I find Khalek’s views as a Soviet/Assad apologist reprehensible

      your choice of “apologist” framing tells us more about you than it tells us about khalek.

      I think the root of the problem is lack of free speech in Russia

      hmm. the root of what problem?

      I would have loved to hear her speak but I defend any groups’ right to choose.

      it’s a little late for that. the time to defend SJP right to choose their speaker would have been before they canceled that choice (likely) due to whining, whimpering and bullying they found to be insurmountable.

    • JoeSmack
      March 6, 2017, 6:49 pm

      Have to say I agree with this. A number of these names have been involved in assisting in silencing other voices, including at SJP. Last year around this time, an SJP in California cancelled a talk featuring a Nakba survivor and another Palestinian refugee after caving to pressure from their administration, and they sought to save face by claiming it had something to do with “anti-Semitism” (Alison Weir, who has been accused of anti-Semitism, was in the audience handing out flyers). Some of these same people did not seem to mind shutting down a Nakba survivor because Alison Weir was handing out flyers, including Rania Khalek and Ali Abunimah who tweeted his support of the cancellation. And now she wants to complain that a group rescinded their discretionary invite over her views on Syria?

      I also don’t know how anyone can deny that Rania is an Assad apologetic, if she were to voice the same views about Israel as she has regarding the Syria situation I wonder if there would be any doubt that she would be an “Israel apologetic”. Frankly Palestine is enough of a minefield, there is no need to start spewing clickbait in defense of Bashar Al-Assad and other cartoon villains.

      • AddictionMyth
        March 6, 2017, 8:10 pm

        Also Asa Winstanley blocked me on twitter for pointing out his hypocrisy on Jo Cox. I mean seriously these people.

      • freespeechlover
        March 6, 2017, 10:00 pm

        I agree with you re: the tactics of “vetting” that sometimes go on within support for Palestinian rights.

        I also think the kind of “vetting” that goes on re: Syria smacks of a fascist will to power in which anyone who, for example, defends the right of Khalek to speak is subject to interrogation on grounds that they have no say in-the above comment being a good example of this. It’s a deflection from the signers and what is at stake for them to argue over whether Khalek is an “apologist,” for Assad.

        Khalek wasn’t going to speak about Syria. Those who wanted to disinvite her could have gone to her talk and then ask questions (even hostile ones) about Syria. They could have grilled her, but instead they chose to act like they were incapable of that and were being victimized by the invitation.

        That’s infantile. And I’m glad some political adults have stepped up to not simply let these kind of tactics exist without acknowledging their effects.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2017, 11:05 pm

        it’s a deflection from the signers and what is at stake for them to argue over whether Khalek is an “apologist,” for Assad.

        i generally ignore ad hominem accusations from people who offer no argument (example/citing/quoting the accused). it’s a waste of time.

      • Lillian Rosengarten
        March 7, 2017, 9:19 am

        How long until all the pointing fingers, the judgments the hypocricy will end?? Have you forgotten Joe Smack it is the US that decimated, destroyed , ravaged and took out leaders we labelled as dictators , terrorists, i.e. Saddam and Quadaffi who were our allies when we needed them? Do you know the US is bombing the hell out of Yemen? Why?? Who are the terrorists. We had no business going into Syria but now you can see the results.Who are the assassins and the true terrorists? We certainly are no longer a Democracy and but instead we follow a very dangerous path by shutting down dialogue, by ludicrous judgments . We should all know by now that US neoliberalism has brought us the monster in the White House.

  2. AddictionMyth
    March 6, 2017, 5:37 pm

    “using many of the same tactics that Palestine solidarity activists have faced from pro-Israel organizations”

    True and this is a GOOD thing – it forces people to take sides when their brothers are getting killed. A few months ago Oz Katerji was begging Khalek to defend the rebels and refugees. It was pathetic! If not for splits like this he’d probably still be doing it.

    • AddictionMyth
      March 6, 2017, 8:03 pm

      (Having said that I want to be clear that Katerji’s tactics can be unacceptable – which I criticize with a tweet like “Jihad much?”)

      • echinococcus
        March 7, 2017, 2:28 am

        Any goddam nonsense of “begging …. to defend the rebels and refugees” at the cost of international law and on behalf of US intervention is unacceptable.

    • freespeechlover
      March 6, 2017, 10:00 pm

      “Oz Katerji was begging Khalek to defend the rebels and refugees.” Oz Katerji is a psychopath.

      • freespeechlover
        March 6, 2017, 10:18 pm

        Let me correct myself. Oz’s tactics are psycho-pathological.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2017, 10:40 pm

        agreed

  3. MHughes976
    March 6, 2017, 6:12 pm

    No one has a duty to listen to any opinion. That is not silencing the person you choose not to hear. But disinvitation is silencing – and indeed insulting – the disinvited person. It should happen only if something really unexpected comes to light after the invitation has been issued and rarely even then. It is particularly important not to back down just because news of the invitation rouses people who disagree with the speaker to protest. That is equivalent to shouting down by a mob.

  4. Isaiah.Silver
    March 6, 2017, 6:22 pm

    Very disappointed in Mondoweiss’s decision to publish this tract. First, as Mondoweiss should know, being blacklisted is what happens to academics and students who speak out on Palestine and are then denied jobs. This is *not* the same as having an SJP group cancel your talk after learning that the speaker has violated core solidarity principle through her anti-refugee, anti-Muslim, pro-“War on Terror,” and pro-Assad rhetoric. Second, it is disgraceful that you’ve chosen to side with an Islamophobic Assadist over and above showing support for the students of SJP being attacked in this letter. Third, as a matter of accountability, does this mean you’ll be retracting your statement on Gilad Atzmon from 2012? After all, this too was — in the parlance of this letter – a case of “blacklisting” someone who violated core solidarity principles. Presumably, you now feel that Atzmon and Alison Weir, among others, deserve a platform, since their anti-Semitism is surely also a “political litmus test” that the authors presumably so despise. We look forward to seeing your defense of these other speakers. Otherwise, we would like an explanation as to why you think Islamophobia should be tolerated but not anti-Semitism. Shameful.

    • JoeSmack
      March 6, 2017, 7:12 pm

      MondoWeiss was one of the few publications to post a defense of Alison Weir (although it was paired with a condemnation of her), as well as a longer letter demanding an end to “divisive attacks” that defended Alison Weir as well as Miko Peled and others. Judging by the comments here and the statements by many of the people who work with and have published at MondoWeiss I think very few people at MW think Alison Weir was treated fairly, but that’s just a guess.

      Gilad Atzmon is another story, I think that guy made an effort to discredit himself.

    • freespeechlover
      March 6, 2017, 10:12 pm

      As someone in academia, it is not true that blacklisting is limited to firings or denials of being hired. Only a student group could “dis-invite” a speaker, because at every university I’ve taught at, you don’t “dis-invite” speakers without serious concern for physical safety of your students, faculty, staff, etc. That is you don’t do it unless you’re concerned that the speaker will “incite” an immediate threat. And the standard of “incitement,” as any campus attorney will tell you, is very high per the US Constitution.

      This is why when they do create roadblocks for groups wanting to bring speakers to campus, requiring that they pay for “extra security,” etc., that it always smacks of political pressure coming from someone to which administrators think they have to accede. Typically, when administrators instrumentalize the security of the campus when they want to keep some political pressure group happy.

      That use of campus security is almost always met with protest, leaks re: the political pressure and backlash.

      In general, universities are not places that like to even appear as though they’re censoring speakers, because they receive federal and state funds and don’t want to end up in a court on constitutional issues and they’re sometimes smart enough to know that their efforts to stop a speaker almost always become the story itself. Administrators hate being exposed.

      They tend to leave student groups alone, however, because students are assets rather than debits from the point of view of administration. However, in this case, the campus attorney at UNC should have advised SJP against this withdrawal of an invite, simply because Khalek in theory could have gotten a lawyer and sued.

      • Isaiah.Silver
        March 6, 2017, 11:34 pm

        @Freespeechlover lol at lecturing a phd student/visiting asst prof and past/current SJP members about how campuses work.

    • Sibiriak
      March 7, 2017, 6:07 am

      Isaiah.Silver:This is *not* the same as having an SJP group cancel your talk after learning that the speaker has violated core solidarity principle through her anti-refugee, anti-Muslim, pro-“War on Terror,” and pro-Assad rhetoric
      ————–

      But the SJP explicitly stated that they learned no such thing:

      [SJP]: We do not endorse nor reject her views on the Syrian civil war as they remain relatively unclear according to our members’ diverse opinions of Rania’s analyses.

      They did not reject her views. They cancelled the event because it was “met with a lot of anger ” from one faction out to silence opposing views on a “contentious issue.”

      So, your assertion regarding SJP is false.

      Worse: you slander Rania personally. You claim her rhetoric is “anti-refugee, anti-Muslim, pro-“War on Terror,” and pro-Assad”. That is utterly false as well.

      Cf. Rania Khalek:

      How U.S. Support for Syrian Rebels Drove the Refugee Crisis That Trump Has Capitalized On

      https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/us-support-syrian-rebels-drove-refugee-crisis

      America’s love affair with Salafi jihadists”

      https://raniakhalek.com/

    • Sibiriak
      March 7, 2017, 6:38 am

      Rania Khalek:

      Criticism of Wahhabism and Salafism is NOT Islamophobia. These ideologies are ultra-conservative, bigoted, misogynist and even genocidal. They have inspired an incredible amount of violence and hatred in the Middle East that has wiped out minorities and destroyed rich and vibrant cultures. And they have the blessing and support of U.S. empire.
      I have zero sympathy for the sensitivities of privileged westerners, especially those who identify as progressive, defending such ideologies.

      Also these are not organic movements. The idea that they represent the natural tendencies of Arabs and Muslims in the region is orientalist itself and frankly racist. These groups used to be minor and uninfluential. It’s because of decades of Western and gulf state support that they even have traction in the first place.

      I’ve seen the damage and destruction these ideologies have caused with my own eyes. I refuse to whitewash them.

      https://twitter.com/RaniaKhalek

      • Keith
        March 7, 2017, 10:56 am

        SIBIRIAK- (Rania Khalek Quote)- “Also these are not organic movements. The idea that they represent the natural tendencies of Arabs and Muslims in the region is orientalist itself and frankly racist. These groups used to be minor and uninfluential. It’s because of decades of Western and gulf state support that they even have traction in the first place.”

        This point cannot be emphasized enough! Folks who criticize the lack of democracy or other conditions in the Middle East are being more than a little dishonest in view of the fact that much (most?) of the problems in the Middle East are a consequence of Western imperialism and Western intervention in that area. Uncle Sam is the primary culprit in Syria, not Assad.

        Likewise, the American led global empire is the driving force behind climate change/global warming and the headlong rush to nuclear confrontation and possible nuclear war. The West is ruled (yes, ruled) by psychopaths and we are all in extreme danger. It never should have come to this point.

    • Muslimah
      March 7, 2017, 1:20 pm

      Took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you :)

  5. JWalters
    March 6, 2017, 8:20 pm

    It seems to me the solution to these controversial talk predicaments is to have speakers from both sides on the same platform together, debating. This is what the debate format is for. The people who don’t want to share a platform with their opponents are trying to hide something and mislead their audience. The debate format gives the audience the best opportunity to compare the two positions, side by side, and approximately simultaneous.

    • freespeechlover
      March 6, 2017, 10:17 pm

      No. The solution is to have Khalek speak without prophylactics. If those who find her views beyond the pale, then should follow up by having SJP invite another speaker to counter. The “debate” format can be seen as a form of censorship in and of itself, because unless every speaker is required to debate, it’s an extra burden on certain speakers. That’s why the tactic of insisting on debate is only ever used against “pro-Palestinian” speakers. It’s an effort to apply a different standard to a speaker based on content of his or her expression and it is always a product of political pressure.

    • Lillian Rosengarten
      March 8, 2017, 11:17 am

      This is what they do on cable news for BALANCE. I find it intolerable that every progressive comment has to be countered with someone like Jeffrey Lord or a Republican pundit. There is little tolerance for progressive analysis.

  6. aloeste
    March 6, 2017, 11:09 pm

    wow a veritable who’s who of virulent antizionists .
    there’s nothing better than my enemies eating each other alive, like in the old college days when the trotskyists and maoists broke out in fights with each other, instead of their opponents.

    in any case , you have no problem with banning those who disagree with you , if they are pro-zionist entity; so you don’t believe in freedom of speech and free exchange of ideas anyways.

    keep fighting with each other, we’ll see you in 50 years for the 100th anniversary of the liberation of the Holy sites…

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2017, 12:09 pm

      “like in the old college days when the trotskyists and maoists broke out in fights with each other, instead of their opponents.”

      When California tumbles into the sea; that’ll be the day you go back to Annandale

    • Talkback
      March 11, 2017, 3:49 am

      aloeste: “so you don’t believe in freedom of speech and free exchange of ideas anyways.”

      Says aloeste, who supports JSIL which arrests Nonjewish poets …

  7. Sibiriak
    March 7, 2017, 12:30 am

    https://shadowproof.com/2017/03/05/unauthorized-disclosure-podcast-campaign-against-rania/

    Hosts Rania Khalek and Kevin Gosztola discuss the campaign against Khalek, which led to the cancellation of her speaking event at the University of North Carolina.

    * * *

    […]It all relates to the smears Khalek has had to confront because a faction of people—pro-regime change in Syria—have committed themselves to silencing her voice.

  8. echinococcus
    March 7, 2017, 1:10 am

    The last occurrence of censorship by an SJP, that time invoking “antisemitism”, should have been enough to write them off as a reliable resistance support organization. This time they are playing the same despicable trick by invoking the overarching principle of compulsory support to Zionist-instigated US imperialist “regime change” hysteria.

    That was to be expected. Support to Palestinian resistance (or any other goal) is not gaining much by including shady organizations that value support to its very enemy more than the declared objective.

    Also, it’s not clear that anything is to be gained by working with an organization that is obviously not in any way committed to free speech.

  9. Kay24
    March 7, 2017, 6:20 am

    BDS activists barred from entering zio land:

    “http://www.timesofisrael.com/knesset-passes-law-barring-boycott-supporters-from-israel/

    Time for the world to boycott Israel.

  10. StanleyHeller
    March 7, 2017, 8:17 am

    I stand with the Palestinian students who cancelled Khalek’s talk and not with the signers of the letter.

    The students have the right to reconsider whom they invite to give talks. How does what they’re doing compare to the blacklist of the ‘40’s and ‘50’s when corporate America systematically got Communists and socialist fired from their jobs?

    As for Khalek herself she’s become a political disgrace.

    She slanders the wonderful White Helmets as a propaganda tool of the U.S. She speaks often on the propaganda channel Russia Today, giving credibility to a Putin regime that systematically blows up Syrian medical facilities. If you look on her twitter feed you see she supports arch-Zionist Tulsi Gabbard’s so-called “Stop Arming Terrorists” bill. The bill would stop the U.S. from funding al-Qaeda and ISIS (which it doesn’t do) and groups “associated with, cooperating” with those groups. The Assad line adopted by Gabbard is that all opposition to Assad is al-Qaeda. The practical effect of the bill would be to ban U.S. government support for the people who dig out victims of Assad and Russian bombs.

    In her latest article “How U.S. Support for Syrian Rebels Drove the Refugee Crisis That Trump Has Capitalized On” she wrote that the “American public is largely unaware that their government effectively outsourced a war on Syria to a franchise of the international organization that claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks, and to its allies in the field.” That’s the Assad line and it’s bullshit. For her Syria was just another American war of regime change like Iraq. That tens or hundreds of thousands of Syrians went into the streets to protest Assad at the risk of their lives just doesn’t matter.

    Syria is not an issue separate from Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are refugees in Syria, refugees from Palestine and now refugees from Assad and ISIS. Palestine won’t be freed without solidarity from neighboring countries, not the hostility they get now from Al-Sissi, Assad, etc.

    I don’t know any of the students, but I assume some of them know the terrible record of Assad with regard to Palestine, his undermining of support for Palestinian fighters during Black September in Jordan, the support of the Lebanese Right against Palestinians in Lebanon during the civil war, the massacre of thousands at Tel Al Zaatar, the years of starvation of Palestinians in Lebanese refugee camps in the mid ‘80’s during the “War of the Camps”, and his banning of any demonstrations or resistance to Israel along the Golan ceasefire line.

    Students for Justice in Palestine is wise in dis-inviting someone who is doing so much harm to the cause of Arab liberation and would only confuse and mislead about key aspects of the Palestinian situation.

    • echinococcus
      March 7, 2017, 9:27 am

      OK, Heller, now we know that you’re an unconditional supporter of war of aggression by US imperialists against (at least) Syria. That nice and good but it does not take us very far, as your opinion is not a valid criterion for screwing the absolute right to free speech. If you are so hot about it, get the JVPs or SJPs to organize a talk by yourself. You know it won’t be controversial –only the opposition gets problems.

    • Lillian Rosengarten
      March 7, 2017, 10:58 am

      I completely disagree Stanley and you surprise me.

      • StanleyHeller
        March 7, 2017, 3:41 pm

        watch this interview I did with a Syrian supporter of the revolution a couple weeks ago. He incidentally has done 4 solidarity visits to Palestine including one through a Gaza tunnel. He neatly sums up the necessary connections between Palestinian and Syrian struggles https://youtu.be/SeBb8aHkZ04

    • Muslimah
      March 7, 2017, 1:23 pm

      Great comment. I cannot believe how many so-called activists against injustice are rushing to defend the woman who was disinvited despite her support for injustice in Syria. Selective outrage at injustice is even worse when the injustice they’re ignoring or even supporting is far worse than the injustice Israel has meted out. And that’s saying something.

  11. arihalli
    March 7, 2017, 9:20 am

    Stifling speech seems to be like a disease that is gaining greater currency. Apparently, no one has the anti-toxin.

    Milos attempted to speak at Berkely. Did we all defend his right?

    Free speech is a lot more important then ANY of these topics that Khalek or Milos wanted to talk about. It IS the anti-toxin to the disease.

    I would love to have heard Khalek speak – and would not have listened to Milos. But realize that its 2 sides of the same coin.

    • echinococcus
      March 7, 2017, 9:58 am

      Arihalli,

      Thanks. That is the only important point here. Maybe we can gauge from the comments how much or how little the principle is recognized by the readers –or maybe not. Depressing.

  12. Jon66
    March 7, 2017, 9:58 am

    Why does it surprise or offend you that groups that support boycotts of academia and oppose a free exchange of ideas on the grounds of “normalization” would be opposed to other aspects of free speech?

    • echinococcus
      March 7, 2017, 6:24 pm

      What exactly has academic or media boycott with free speech? Not only is Zionist speech free, as opposed to the fierce repression of any antizionist expression, it is the only type of expression sponsored by the Zionist entity government.
      Free speech doesn’t mean that you can force people to buy your stuff.

      • parvulesco
        March 7, 2017, 9:05 pm

        So then why is Khalek complaining?

      • Jon66
        March 8, 2017, 9:02 am
      • amigo
        March 8, 2017, 10:54 am

        “Trinity College Dublin event involving Israeli ambassador cancelled ” Jon 66

        So what, he is a member/rep of the criminal GOI and Apartheid regime.He should be put on a plane and sent back to whence he came before he gets an opportunity to spread his hasbara and poison the minds of young Irish students.

        You might find the following report from “The Journal ” , more informative.I am told the editor at the Irish times likes to dine with the Israeli ambassador.The Shelbourne is equidistant from their respective offices.

        “Students for Justice in Palestine objected to the planned appearance arguing that there was no opposing view being put forward.

        The group objected the terms of the event, claiming that “the terms, security and topic” were set by the Israeli Embassy.”

        http://www.thejournal.ie/tcd-israeli-ambassador-protest-3250146-Feb2017/

        Incidentally , I was unable to find any record of the group SOFIA having invited a spokeperson from the Palestinian side.God knows , if it had happened . the zionistas would have been all over the place like flies on s–t complaining there was no opposing view.

      • amigo
        March 8, 2017, 12:15 pm

        Correction to my post at 10.54.

        Should read !. “I was unable to find any record of the group SOFIA having “ever ” invited a Palestinian spokesperson.”

      • oldgeezer
        March 8, 2017, 1:33 pm

        @jon66

        I have to say I agree with amigo on this. I do believe in free speech but that is different than giving criminals a lecturn to propagandize from.

        Had it been someone supporting Israel giving the talk I would have supported it. If the institution insists and pro Palestinian event must have the oppossing view presented for balance then so should any pro Israeli event.

        The individual presenter in this question was an official of a government which is in violation of dozens of UN security council resolutions and which is actively involved on violations of international law, IHL and the GC. Giving them the platform is ludicrous. It is involved in a brutal and cruel oppression of millions of people. To quote Pappe, the “most cruel and criminal occupation in the world”.

        If we replay the 50’s I can the leader of North Korea being permitted to send reps to institutions to announce how wonderful they are. Not.
        And no doubt you would support Hamas being given the lecturn along with the GoI rep. Not.

      • amigo
        March 8, 2017, 3:01 pm

        “The individual presenter in this question was an official of a government which is in violation of dozens of UN security council resolutions and which is actively involved on violations of international law, IHL and the GC “OG

        The same rogue state that uses proxies to shut down any debate that seeks to discuss Israel,s violations of intl law.

        Case in point!.

        ” Security plan required for academic conference on Israel in UCC
        Plans to hold similar conference at UK university were cancelled over ‘safety concerns’.

        Attempts to make contact with one of the organisers, Prof James Bowen proved unsuccessful but earlier this week a group of Irish academics wrote to The Irish Times to express concern at reports that the Israeli Embassy was seeking to prevent the conference going ahead.

        The academics pointed out “the conference is being jointly organised by Palestinian and Israeli academics and offers a vital examination of how Israel operates, particularly in relation to international law.”

        They further pointed out that ”the conference was scheduled to be held in the UK in 2015 but was thwarted following a high-profile campaign by the pro-Israel lobby that branded the event as ‘legitimising anti-Semitism’ and was pulled by Southampton University citing security reasons”

        http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/security-plan-required-for-academic-conference-on-israel-in-ucc-1.2944559

        Jon 66 won,t be sharing this event with us.Talk about balance, eh.

        Incidentally , the conference is due to proceed as a new venue has been agreed.Needless to say , “Irish4Israel” will show up and attempt to disrupt the proceedings as is par for the course with this small group of pro Israel trouble maker,s who receive funding from the GOI.

      • Jon66
        March 8, 2017, 9:18 pm

        Amigo and OG,
        “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Aristotle

        None of us know what this man would have said. That is the whole point of free speech. After hearing him you may have thought it all crap or not. But not allowing him to present his viewpoint is an injustice to the listeners.

        Free speech except for Zionists is not really free speech. The antidote to speech you disagree with is more potent speech.

      • amigo
        March 9, 2017, 5:19 am

        ““It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Aristotle -” Jon 66

        It is the mark of an educated mind to know when they are being hoodwinked, (fed the same Hasbara repeatedly).

        Jon 66 , we know what this guy is going to say.He is an apologist for the criminal state of Israel –sans frontier , we have heard it all before.

        Not quite verbatim but you get the idea.

        Israel desperately wants peace–Israel has no partner in peace–the Palestinians want to throw all Jews into the sea–BDS is trying to destroy Israel–the settlements are not the problem–Israel is the only democracy in the ME –The IDF is the most moral army in the world–The Palestinians rejected all of Israel,s offers–blah blah blah blah.

        “It is the mark of an un-inquiring mind to continue to entertain this repetitious nonsense. Amigo.”

      • echinococcus
        March 9, 2017, 1:15 pm

        Parvulescu,

        Khalek was censored by, and/or under duress exerted by, a variety of the human species like yourself, in a stark exhibition of raw, forcible disruption of free speech. Khalek did not compel the organization to invite her at the point of a gun.

        No use pretending to be more stupid yet than your true self. It’s not convincing at all.

      • Jon66
        March 9, 2017, 6:35 pm

        Amigo,
        I envy your ability to see the future. It must be both a gift and a curse.

    • oldgeezer
      March 9, 2017, 5:19 am

      @jon66

      Nice try but no cigar jon.

      Who said free speech except for zionists. Not me. You.

      I said i support free speech and would fully support an Israeli supporting speaker making such a presentation.

      This isn’t just a supporter. This is a person actively involved in and directly responsible for crimes against humanity and flagrant violations of the geneva conventions.

      The only reason he should be allowed in the country is to arrest him and try him for war crimes.

      The only thing we should be wondering about what he will say is guilty or not guilty.

      You support them all you want. The reality is that they are no better than the terrorists they decry. Surely they can spend their time better by abusing some kid.

      • Jon66
        March 9, 2017, 6:42 pm

        OG,

        This is the ambassador. of course he has a perspective, but he has the right to speak. Has he been convicted of these crimes you describe? If not, then he is innocent. This selective defense of free speech is no defense at all. The only restrictions should be an immediate threat to incite violence. I would defend the rights of the Palestinian ambassador, the Israeli ambassador, and the North Korean ambassador to speak. Suppression of free speech anywhere is a suppression of free speech everywhere.

      • amigo
        March 9, 2017, 7:56 pm

        “This is the ambassador. of course he has a perspective, but he has the right to speak “.Jon 66

        That, really funny coming from a supporter of the state that is in violation of multiple UNSCR,S and a perpetrator of countless crimes against Humanity.The Ambassador is an integral part of these crimes.He should be tried and locked away for the rest of his miserable life.He was given this post because he will tow the line and carry out any act necessary to further the goals of the criminals who sent him.He is not welcome in my country,He can go back to Israel and get all the free speech he desires, unlike the millions of Palestinians who have their right to free speech trampled on every day.

        His predecessor oversaw an embassy that colluded in the theft of Irish Passports to be used to carry out extra judicial executions .This activity put the lives of Irish citizens at risk.

        Give it a rest Jon, Allow me to predict your future .If you live long enough to see Israel fold in on itself and watch these thugs in the dock at the Hague , that will be your curse.I on the other hand am on the right side of history–that is my gift.

        i don,t envy you Jon.I feel sorry for you.

      • Jon66
        March 9, 2017, 9:46 pm

        Amigo,
        “The Ambassador is an integral part of these crimes.He should be tried and locked away for the rest of his miserable life.- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/against-blacklisting-activists/#comment-175778

        What’s the point of the trial? You’ve already convicted him. Just go straight to punishment.

        Is the Irish version of free speech that much different from the American or is it just you?

      • amigo
        March 10, 2017, 10:24 am

        “What’s the point of the trial? You’ve already convicted him. Just go straight to punishment.” Jon 66

        The point of a trial is to confirm that he is guilty. Anyone in charge of their own brain is aware of his and his bosse,s guilt. The trial is for the record.

        Now tell me about Israel,s version of justice , whereby they carry out extra judicial executions without trials ,both in the Occupied Territories and on the territory of sovereign nations.

        To be honest with you Jon 66 , your attempts to defend these slime ,is truly contemptible and shameful , given that you never seek to highlight the crimes of your beloved zionist entity.No surprise there.Zionists demand balance but deny it to others.

        Do you think Livni /Barak/Olmert/Sharon/Nietanyahu are innocent of the crimes they are accused of. which include the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.Do you think the recent shoot to kill antics of the so called “most moral ” army under orders of Nietanyahu are
        acts of defence or just pure murder.

        I am all in favour of trying these murdering thugs , problem is getting our hands on them.

        They are a curse we both share.

      • Jon66
        March 10, 2017, 6:48 pm

        Amigo,
        In America the point of a trial is determine guilt or innocence. Here we assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty no matter how ‘obvious’ the person may appear. We don’t have a ‘in charge of your own brain’ standard. I assume from your comments it’s different where you live. Here we would call your version a ‘show’ trial or a ‘kangaroo’ court. I do like our system better, but we do at times let the guilty go free if the evidence is insufficient, OJ being perhaps the most well known, but there are many others.
        I am not defending the actions of anyone, just the right for them to be heard. Free speech and free action are very different.

      • oldgeezer
        March 11, 2017, 12:34 am

        @jon66

        Don’t give us this here in america crap. You support a country which denies millions of people their basic human rights. A country which steals their homes. Imprisons and tortures children. Does not have a truly free press. Denies entry to people based upon speech and political belief.

        You’re an absolute fake and no one but you is buying it. To your credit I don’t think you buy it either. You just think you’re being cute when you’re being a troll.

      • oldgeezer
        March 11, 2017, 1:24 am

        @jon66

        It is truly amazing how you will use the freedoms in America to justify the lack of basic rights and freedoms in the hellhole called Israel.

        It isn’t hypocrisy. Israel. At best an ethnocracy. More suitably called a tyranny or dictatorship.

        A country where words or cartoons will earn you a multie year jail sentence. Where children are tortured and jailed.

        You fool no o e jon except perhaps yourself. I give you more credit than that. I don’t believe you are that dimwitted. You do know the difference. You are just that twisted that you don’t care. Your end result justifies any means. No doubt the kings torah tells ypu that is moral

        Save it jon. No rational person will buy it. It’s like two week old fish. It isn’t going to pass the smell test.

      • Jon66
        March 11, 2017, 9:38 am

        OG,
        It’s not about support or opposition to Israel. It’s about the principle of free speech. I support free speech here, in Israel, and everywhere else. Whether or not I support Israel is irrelevant to the argument about free speech. I also support gay rights and I support America, even though America is becoming less supportive under this admin. Do you need to agree with every law in a country to support it? Would you have opposed WWII America because of Jim Crow, or viewed it as imperfect but better than the Nazis?

        Instead of focusing on where I stand on unrelated issues, feel free to agree or disagree on the issue at hand – free speech. You try to distract from the argument that truly free speech means listening to those we disagree with even if they represent organizations that we oppose. Present a rule we could follow that would disallow speeches from government officials that could be universally applied and I would still disagree but at least it would be consistent. If only Israeli representatives are disallowed, then it is not free speech.

      • amigo
        March 11, 2017, 10:33 am

        “It’s not about support or opposition to Israel. It’s about the principle of free speech. I support free speech here, in Israel, and everywhere else “Jon 66

        you might have some credibility if you had also posted a link to articles on Zionist inteference in the free speech of those who oppose the actions of the rogue apartheid zionist entity.
        Here is one of thousands of such .

        https://www.ft.com/content/b8f3e114-d581-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

        “Shai Masot, the Israeli embassy’s senior political officer, said he was disappointed that Sir Alan, an outspoken critic of settlement building in the occupied West Bank, had not been “neutralised”.

        Why do you not post your opposition to Israel,s extra Judicial murders —no trial for those people.

        You are so full of it Jon .

      • jon s
        March 11, 2017, 12:00 pm

        Jon66,
        Absolutely, excellent comment.

      • Jon66
        March 11, 2017, 12:26 pm

        Amigo,
        You are confusing the message and the messager. It’s not about my credibility. It’s about the positive value of free speech. The positive value of innocent until proven guilty. For everyone and everywhere. I believe in those values in Israel, Iran, Ireland, etc. The behavior of Israel or any other country is irrelevant to the principle. We should strive to make it a value everywhere.

        We obviously disagree and I believe that it is your right to put forth opposing views about the purpose of trials or anything else.

      • Maghlawatan
        March 11, 2017, 3:09 pm

        Jon

        Your belief in free speech might be credible if the internet wasn’t a store of your views on Gaza. I never met a Zionist who could speak calmly about Gaza.

      • Jon66
        March 11, 2017, 8:54 pm

        Mag,
        “I never met a Zionist who could speak calmly about Gaza. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/against-blacklisting-activists/#comment-175778

        I think you need to get out more. Maybe join some social clubs or charities. Many have perfectly calm and friendly Zionists as members.

      • Maghlawatan
        March 12, 2017, 4:55 am

        Jon
        I get out enough. I like asking Zionists questions. It is not a decent ideology. I can’t believe it represents the worldview of a majority of Jews.

      • amigo
        March 12, 2017, 9:10 am

        “Maybe join some social clubs or charities. Many have perfectly calm and friendly Zionists as members. ” Jon 66

        “Friendly Zionist ” a contradiction in terms.Zionism is racism .Zionists steal other peoples land or support those who do.I would not turn my back to Zionist –not for one second.Zionists are the scum of this earth.

      • Jon66
        March 12, 2017, 9:59 am

        Amigo,
        “I would not turn my back to Zionist –not for one second. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/against-blacklisting-activists/#comment-175778

        There might be undeclared Zionists anywhere. They are crafty and blend in with the general population. Better sit with your back to the wall when you go out for dinner, last row in the movie theater, etc.

      • Mooser
        March 12, 2017, 12:31 pm

        “There might be undeclared Zionists anywhere. They are crafty and blend in with the general population. Better sit with your back to the wall when you go out for dinner, last row in the movie theater, etc.” “Jon 66”

        “Jon 66” couldn’t we get rid of almost all the danger from Zionists by restricting the rights and movements of Jews? If they are going to start shooting people we need to do something.

        So you just keep threatening us with Jewish violence. That’s a smart way to go.

      • Mooser
        March 13, 2017, 1:03 pm

        “There might be undeclared Zionists anywhere. They are crafty and blend in with the general population.

        I guess nobody warned Folke Bernadotte about that.

  13. gamal
    March 7, 2017, 10:10 am

    I f you have a strong stomach Swedish Doctors asses WH footage:

    http://theindicter.com/swedish-doctors-for-human-rights-swedhr-denounce-white-helmets-video-macabre-manipulation-of-dead-children-and-staged-chemical-weapons-attack-to-facilitate-a-no-fly-zone-in-syria/

    and Stuarts work dismantling BBC propaganda:

    https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com

    and one of the signatories to the above letter explains the obvious to his grateful audience

    http://youtu.be/VZMDZJB30as

  14. Helena Cobban
    March 7, 2017, 12:01 pm

    Hi, all. Kudos to Mondoweiss for having published this important statement, which I was very happy to sign.

    All who have worked in the Palestinian-rights movement have seen, over the past few years, the degree to which very deep differences over Syria have split and weakened our movement. There can be, and indeed are, deep differences of (often deeply-held) opinion over Syria among people of good will; and we all need to find ways to discuss those differences in a calm, fact-based, and collegial way without having them fester and lead to a worsening and calcification of the splits that they have already caused. If people cannot discuss these differences calmly and collegially, then I believe that discussions concerning them should simply be set aside until this is possible. Liberating Palestine cannot be “placed on hold” while fellow activists yell and scream at each over Syria.

    Vilification, name-calling, and dehumanization of fellow activists who hold differing views (on Syria or any other topic) should have no place in the Palestinian-rights movement. And nor, absolutely, should the actual issuing of threats against people of who hold differing views on Syria– something that a small number of anti-Asad activists have done to Rania Khaliq, Max Blumenthal, and also, I believe, a number of other people.

    The statement published here represents an attempt to try to underscore these basic principles of movement collegiality, and to start to staunch the serious weakening of the Palestinian-rights movement by those who have used it as a shrill platform for propagating their own (often harsh) views about Syria. Enough!

    I’ll just note that since the statement was issued yesterday, a few other people have come forward to sign it and one person whose name was on it as a result of miscommunication has had their name taken off at their request. The definitive current list of signatories can always be found here.

    • Sibiriak
      March 7, 2017, 1:27 pm

      Cf. Comment by David Green — March 7, 2017 @ 3:32 pm

      @ Louis. I don’t know if the WH are linked to AQ. But if Khalek thinks that, and even if it’s not true, it doesn’t make her a supporter of Assad. I’ve listened to hours of her podcast, and she has never supported Assad. She does not deserve to be vilified by you, and she certainly does not deserve to be “de-platformed”–not that anyone does.

      Your hatred for those whom you claim support Assad takes precedence with you over a basic sense of decency and fairness in debate about these issues. Your monomania about this issue results in your perspectives being twisted beyond reason.

      https://louisproyect.org/2017/03/07/rania-khaleks-defenders/

    • Keith
      March 7, 2017, 6:27 pm

      LPROYECT

      Ah, the Unrepentant Imperialist comes to pay us another visit? One of the amazing features of capitalism is its ability to co-opt the opposition. Gosh knows, you have become a loyal imperialist, your foreign policy views in synch with the State Department. Since you provided us with a link, I will return the favor with a link to another of your favorites- Eva Bartlett. http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-on-syria-manufactured-revolution-and-fake-media-narrative/5577303

  15. Muslimah
    March 7, 2017, 1:12 pm

    “Khalek and Blumenthal have done great reporting exposing US support for the rebels that has not to my knowledge been discredited. I think both sides are evil – the goal is to create a refugee flow to exploit for labor and outrage.”

    “Exposing” – I hope you know that the rebels are the only ones, besides ISIS, the US has intentionally attacked in Syria. It has never once attacked Assad’s regime or its allies deliberately. Anyway, even if the US was supporting the rebels, why should that automatically mean the rebels are bad and evil?

    Both sides are not evil. Only one of the sides (Assad’s) has killed about 95% of all of the non-combatants killed in Syria, coming in at around 190,400 civilians.

    As for the rest of your comment, thank you. She was rightfully barred because her views on Syria make her views on Palestine worthless. As Malcolm X said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. She speaks from one side of her mouth protesting the oppression and tyranny Palestinians and blacks face, but from the other side, she defends Assad and defames his opponents even though Assad and his allies have been worse in 6 years than Israel has been since its creation. And I despise Israel fwiw.

    • AddictionMyth
      March 7, 2017, 1:47 pm

      Fine but calling someone ‘evil’ or ‘jihadi’ is not an excuse to bomb them. Quite the opposite: it’s a demand to stop bombing them! I think this points to a major flaw in Khalek’s thinking – she thinks that because someone is ‘radical’ they can be killed. Oh no, honey – that’s not how it works. (She can easily ‘get right’ by criticizing Putin.)

    • gamal
      March 7, 2017, 1:50 pm

      “As Malcolm X said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”

      Malcolm Luther King?

      https://youtu.be/KjlX7esSFII

      • Muslimah
        March 8, 2017, 1:03 am

        omG, how embarrassing. I was thinking of another quote (no one is free when others are oppressed) but even that one isn’t by Malcolm. Got it mixed up bc I wrote something once and included 2 quotes in it. The aforementioned one in this post and Malcolm X’s “The truth is on the side of the oppressed” quote. Thanks for the correction.

    • parvulesco
      March 7, 2017, 7:32 pm

      Completely agree Muslimah. “She was rightfully barred because her views on Syria make her views on Palestine worthless “. For Khalek, there is no problem if an Islamist party like Hamas rules Gaza, but the presence of Islamist factions among the rebels automatically disqualifies them – which is the exact same logic that Zionists apply to Hamas… Why such double standards and why fall for them?

    • Lillian Rosengarten
      March 8, 2017, 11:32 am

      You spread distorted information and that is not surprising. US actions createhate and confusion. We are told lies that suit the US agenda of imperialism. It is easy to be confused since the US has long had the goal of bringing Assad down. That way we can have another Iraq or Libya, countries we have destroyed. In addition we are complicit with the crimes of Zionism and refuse to speak the truth.These are shameful neo liberal actions that have given us now an administration of racist white supremacists and a dismantling our civil rights to create a third world dictatorship.

  16. parvulesco
    March 7, 2017, 4:07 pm

    What a shame Mondoweiss publishes this. “Disagreements about political issues exist inside every movement coalition. They must not be made fodder for targeted vilification of activists in the movement”.

    This is not a disagreement about a political issue. We are talking about crimes against humanity. There is no possible disagreement over crimes against humanity. These are perpetrated in Syria by Assad and Putin at a much larger scale than Israel in Gaza and have been completely whitewashed by Khalek. Wkat kind of moral coherence is hers? Are Palestinians lives worthier than Syrians? If Khalek’s horrible reporting on Syria logically angers some Syrians, she should at least have some dignity and humbly face that criticism instead of dishonestly smearing them as she has consistently been doing.

    It is Khalek’s fault that in her amateurishness she also decided to report on Syria and decided to deny the oppression and humanity of most Syrians with the same bile that Zionists devote to Palestinians. She is the one dividing the pro-Palestine community.

    All struggles against despotism are connected.

    • echinococcus
      March 7, 2017, 5:57 pm

      Parvulescu,

      There are any number of outlets available for US war propaganda –why do it here? You can do it anywhere from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times to the World Series games. You’d make more money writing there, too. Why pick on a Palestine-oriented marginal site, when you know for a fact that the same US imperialism you support is the most mortal enemy of Palestinian resistance?

      • parvulesco
        March 7, 2017, 7:22 pm

        The poor intelligence and easiness to smear of “anti-imperialist” faux leftists is revealed once more. If I denounce the crimes of Assad and Putin it is because I support US imperialism. Yeah, obviously: this is the binary logic of a five-year-old, which unfortunately seems to be the mental age of the average Western leftist. You are unable to think someone may oppose imperialism regardless of who is doing it because you lack a proper theory of imperialism, have not read enough, and your moral principles went through the gut long time ago.

      • echinococcus
        March 7, 2017, 9:08 pm

        Of course, Parvulescu, like any self-respecting propaganda interventionists you guys are immune to the first law of all action that governs us lowly mortals, viz. that supporting US warmongering and international supreme crime does support US warmongering and international aggression, no matter the pretext invoked.

        For you exalted humanitarian spirits, crime of aggression and war crimes are kosher as long as you make a nice-sounding sentence. I’m sure shysters will be found to justify it based on your subjective and expressed intentions, instead of the measure for common mortals, i.e. that only results count.

      • Keith
        March 7, 2017, 10:13 pm

        PARVULESCO- “If I denounce the crimes of Assad and Putin it is because I support US imperialism.”

        When you join the chorus to demonize the target of an imperial destabilization campaign, you most certainly are supporting imperialism. The empire is on a rampage and you obviously support it all. Even though imperial militarism could end in nuclear war, you support it all. You are a loyal cadre, nothing more. The evidence for the imperial use of these Islamist terrorists as a proxy force is massive and overwhelming. The evidence for the imperial use of force to smash all opposition to empire in a drive for global hegemony is massive and overwhelming. And you support it all.

    • Talkback
      March 11, 2017, 4:49 am

      parvuleco: “We are talking about crimes against humanity. There is no possible disagreement over crimes against humanity.”

      Please list some crimes against humanity perpetrated by the US and Israel in the last 10 years so we can make sure that you are not a hyopcrite propaganda bot.

  17. YoniFalic
    March 8, 2017, 7:05 am

    This discussion is somewhat reminiscent of the Mondoweiss debate about Kulturzionismus/Cultural Zionism.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/zionism-blocking-peace/#comment-812229

    I understand the difference between culture and Kultur, but my Arabic is nowhere near good enough to understand the issues that divide or unite Islamists, political salafists, globalist jihadists, Deobandists, and Iraqi Sunni irredentists.

    There are also subtexts that are not addressed. Some anti-Assad groups have been (opportunistically) close to Zionists and Neocons.

    @parvulesco states:

    For Khalek, there is no problem if an Islamist party like Hamas rules Gaza, but the presence of Islamist factions among the rebels automatically disqualifies them – which is the exact same logic that Zionists apply to Hamas… Why such double standards and why fall for them?

    Failing to distinguish between moderate Islamists like Hamas-supporters, who primarily resist Zionism in Islamic terms, and globalist Jihad-supporters like al-Qaeda-spinoffs is rather like claiming Zionists & Judeoboslsheviks formed one overarching anti-gentile conspiracy.

    The Palestinian religious leader Abdullah Azzam broke with Hamas to work with the Egyptian religious leader Kamel al-Sananiri and with Muhammad bin-Ladin to create al-Qa`ida.

    Discussing the issues in terms of ibn Wahhab’s and ibn Taymiyya’s philosophies (as Khalaq seems to do) is rather like discussing N. Irish politics by references to Martin Luther and Ignatius Loyola.

    No one seems to have a complete understanding of all the players in Syria or of their motivations. At this point keeping the discussion as open as possible seems to be the best approach.

  18. talknic
    March 11, 2017, 7:09 pm

    Judaism itself is against free speech when it consists of lies and false accusations such as those the Zionist Movement thrives on and are essential to its message and purpose

Leave a Reply