IfNotNow is promising, but not without its problems. Here’s how it can improve.

US Politics
on 27 Comments

The recent AIPAC annual conference brought with it the largest ever Jewish presence in protest. A group of more than a thousand young Jewish protesters were led by IfNotNow, an anti-occupation group that garnered attention last year when one of its members, Simone Zimmerman, was fired by the Sanders presidential campaign. Since then, IfNotNow has remained active in the Israel-Palestine scene, gathering more support from young Jews with each action. The latest protest at AIPAC was the culmination of its efforts.

A great deal of the attention IfNotNow has been gaining has to do with two interrelated issues: its ability to mobilize Jewish youth against the occupation; and its approach to the usual questions pertaining to Israel-Palestine. The formulation with which IfNotNow addresses those two concerns is straightforward. It is against the American Jewish establishment’s support of the occupation. All other matters that relate to Israel-Palestine (the Palestinian right of return, for example) are explicitly beyond its consideration, and garner neither praise nor condemnation on its part.

This extremely flexible arrangement is the source of IfNotNow’s large membership. It allocates space for both liberal Zionists who find their place in J Street, non-Zionists who are best represented by Jewish Voice for Peace, and anyone else in-between. Unlike other groups, participation in IfNotNow does not depend on whether one sees the occupation as a perversion of an otherwise ideal Israel, or as another iteration of Israel’s colonial nature. Disliking the occupation is all that matters. This is how IfNotNow made possible the largest ever Jewish presence against AIPAC.

Nevertheless, IfNotNow’s versatility lends itself only to matters of ideology. While it advocates for an end of the Israeli occupation from which Palestinians mainly suffer, Palestinian involvement is minor, and formal relationship and coordination between IfNotNow and Palestinian groups is virtually non-existent. This doesn’t preclude that IfNotNow members may individually engage with Palestinians. But IfNotNow itself, as a whole, has not made a substantial effort on that front.

The reasons behind this are understandable. The American Jewish establishment has so far tended to treat its support for the occupation as an item for internal discussion within the community. It is far easier for IfNotNow’s members to approach other Jews on those grounds than it would be to talk to them as one part of a conglomerate of Palestinian rights advocates who, mostly, are outsiders to the community.

So far this has proven true. IfNotNow’s relatively large size denies the American Jewish establishment the chance to dismiss it as a fringe group of the Jewish community, as it does with Jewish Voice for Peace. And the fact that it is made up only of members of the Jewish community makes it difficult for the same establishment to ignore IfNotNow’s demands as outside pressure. IfNotNow’s target audience has no option but to acknowledge their presence as a result.

However, it is precisely the lack of association with Palestinians that makes me and many other Palestinian organizers in North America feel uneasy about IfNotNow. It is simply disingenuous to push for the well-being of Palestinians without formally including them in some way.

IfNotNow’s leaders are involved enough for them to be aware of this issue. It is easy to see why they would want to continue adopting their current approach given how cautious their target audience is with external pressure. But IfNotNow must soon realize that challenging the American Jewish establishment’s apprehensive attitude towards Palestinians is, in fact, part of its overall objective of challenging their support for the occupation. Not doing so will risk alienating the very people for whom IfNotNow advocates, and undermining its effect in the long run. As I write this, and to its credit, IfNotNow seems to be recognizing this hurdle.

But there are other concerns. IfNotNow’s flexibility on matters other than the occupation invokes similar caution. It dices up the elements of Palestinian liberation as most Palestinians tend to identify them: an end to the occupation; an implementation of the right of return; and equality between Israelis and Palestinians. Most advocates of Palestinian rights have so far taken these goals as one package. IfNotNow treats these them as separate conversations to be had later. In doing so, it grants validity to the idea that they are more minor, a view with which most Palestinians would not agree.

Still, it cannot be denied that, as things stand, IfNotNow carries an overwhelmingly positive affect on the conversation surrounding Palestinian rights within the Jewish community, and that it is doing so because of its narrow focus. Yet, for IfNotNow to remain true to its ideal of Palestinian liberation, and to continue salvaging the greatest value from its effort, it has to constantly adapt to the changing level of support the American Jewish establishment harbors for Israel’s occupation. As this support hopefully wanes and the occupation becomes less and less of a taboo subject, IfNotNow must be ready to raise other issues pertaining to Palestinian rights into the conversation.

The first step in that process is to not guide members away from discussing other elements of Palestinian liberation amongst themselves, but to encourage them to do so and to create the space for those questions. The hope is that the individuals within IfNotNow – be they Liberal Zionists, anti-Zionists, or anything else in between – would be able to reach some sort of consensus on those elements and how to approach them. For these discussions to break new ground, they will have to happen with some degree of meaningful Palestinian input.

IfNotNow is a very effective group. It has managed to ignite a stagnant conversation within the American Jewish community. For myself and many other Palestinians, their work is a cause for refreshing optimism. But it would be wrong to assume that they are without blemish. To succeed, and to succeed well, IfNotNow should begin talking to Palestinians, not in a way that takes away from their potency as an anti-occupation group working within the Jewish community, but in a manner that guides it.

About Yazan Khader

Yazan Khader is a Palestinian organizer based in Canada.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

27 Responses

  1. JeffB
    April 7, 2017, 3:19 pm

    @Yazan

    Your article is pretty similar to another recent article from a JVPer: https://972mag.com/aipac-protests-showed-american-jewish-activism-at-a-crossroads/126318/

    I think you are misunderstanding INN. INN is not about Palestinian liberation first and foremost. It is about Jewish morality first and foremost. Palestinian oppression is just the particular sin that Jews are collectively engaging in now. If it were excessive gambling and the Jewish community were institutionally corrupted by gambling interest and showing indifference to the negative effects of gambling on people’s lives little about INN other than the particulars of the moral call would need to change. Judaism doesn’t have the concept of a revival exactly. Baalei Teshuvah is the closest concept and it really means a call to observance not a call to repentance. But these kids are American and thus picked up American norms even religiously. So IMHO you should think of INN as primarily a Jewish revival movement not primarily as a Palestinian liberation movement. This is going to sound harsher than I mean it too: INN is not about you, you are the object of the conversation not the subject.

    There is a funny video that captures this dynamic when it happens accidentally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm_93h4GJhY In the case of INN I think it is more intentional than accidental though they wouldn’t phrase it quite as bluntly as I’m doing here.

    That’s very different than JVP where the political oppression and unifying Jews with the oppressed not the oppressors. JVP does want to be in solidarity with Palestinians unlike INN. It is not because of INN’s narrow focus that it is effective, rather it is because of its internal focus that it is effective.

    The Palestinian diaspora is angry. There is a huge difference in tone between:
    Palestinian Solidarity: “You are evil and wicked invaders”
    INN: “You are too good a person to countenance these evil and wicked acts”.

    They can’t be in solidarity and be totally off message to that extent. It isn’t about policy differences.

    — American Jewish establishment’s apprehensive attitude towards Palestinians

    Now we are moving further to the right. Were INN to be coordinating with Palestinians institutionally they would be seen as traitors by mainstream organizations. Part of the reason they are seen as legitimate is that they keep the debate internal to the Jewish community. I may object to the Bush / Obama war on terror and am free to lobby other Americans regarding my objections. If I coordinate those objections with Al Qaeda that moves from being dissent to possibly criminal. And I don’t mean that just in terms of terrorism, same logic would apply to say coordinating antiwar activity with the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.

    I think you may be misunderstanding the mainstream Jewish community. It isn’t apprehension it is seeing you are the opponent if not the enemy. The Jewish mainstream isn’t apprehensive at all with regard to engage with Palestinians but the see you as proxies for the Israel Arabs, West Bankers and Gazans while they are proxies for the Israelis. They have no interest in engaging with you from a place of solidarity. They might have interest in engaging from a place of negotiating conflicting interests and seeing what sorts of win-win deals can emerge.

    The occupation is not a taboo subject. Rather the occupation in theory (I’m over simplifying a bit since I happen to think this isn’t really an occupation but that’s another topic) is often strongly supported by the Jewish mainstream, until recently more than it was by mainstream Israelis. What is a somewhat taboo subject is the inhumanity required to maintain the occupation.

    INN could be really valuable in raising the issue of the inhumanity of the occupation. Where Palestinians could be really valuable is negotiating a believable alternative vision acceptable to Israelis and mainstream Jews.

    • AddictionMyth
      April 7, 2017, 3:48 pm

      LOL – what sophistry and condescension. Of course it’s about Palestinians. But hey, keep denying the facts right in front of your face. It’s immensely entertaining!

    • JLWarner
      April 8, 2017, 7:10 pm

      Yazan

      I agree completely. INN is about Jews, not Palestinians.

      As an example, a pro-Israel American recently asked me why I fight the occupation? After all he said, Palestine has been occupied for thousands of years including Jordanian & Egypt, the U.K., The Ottoman Empire, Crusaders, etc. My response is that my objection to the occupation is not about Palestinians being occupied, it is about Jews doing the occupation and doing it IN MY NAME.

      And in response to Addiction Myth, not all Palestinians merge ending theo ccupation, ending discrimination in Israel, and Palestinian right of return into a single demand. The most effective Palestinian leader – Yasser Arafat focused on ending the occupation.

  2. AddictionMyth
    April 7, 2017, 3:42 pm

    Oh I agree completely. There’s an interview with an IfNotNow leader where they keep asking her what about the Jewish State, and finally, “Do you believe in a Jewish State”. It’s a valid question after she bashes the occupation for several minutes – and she answers, “Yes I believe in a Jewish State.” It’s actually pretty funny, because you can’t have it both ways. It can’t be Jewish. So again, you’re exactly right to question INN’s true agenda, even though as you point out – the movement is VERY good for restoring Palestinian rights. It’s a case of “careful what you wish for” – for both sides. (INN is basically a socialist front group, but fine haha.) I’m enjoying this all immensely!

  3. CarolMoore1776
    April 7, 2017, 4:00 pm

    Just a reminder there also are tens of millions of gentile Americans, many of them pro-peace, who are opposed to Israeli influence in our political system, it’s threatening and driving from office politicians who oppose it, and its machinations to drive us into wars, in Iraq, now in Syria, and of course against Iran. These are wars that already have cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and could lead to nuclear war.

    Were all glad to see that nonviolent action by groups like If Not Now are informing Jews of a different perspective on the occupation and sowing necessary division in the Jewish community that provides room for new power centers. (Though it is a bit troubling one long video of the event showed that many INN participants stated they were “not supposed” to talk to media and only media people should be interviewed; other Jews obviously ignored that mandate and freely opined.)

    So let us make it clear Americans of many stripes, left, right and libertarian, do intend to keep strongly criticizing Israel’s undue influence in United States foreign policy. And we do intend investigate historical and political issues that may make INN and other groups uncomfortable. We may come up with new strategies that anger some Jewish activists, as even our local DC peace group faced opposition for supporting the right of return during our first regular AIPAC conference in 2005. Happily most Jews, left, right and libertarian, are strong and brave enough to handle this and support our efforts.

    • JeffB
      April 7, 2017, 6:45 pm

      @Carol

      Are you the libertarian Carol Moore? And if so I’m going to hijack this thread for a second for a question…

      I completely agree with you on the libertarian party being non-interventionists and desiring neutrality. What I don’t understand is why you believe the party should care at all one way or the other regarding Israel. In other words why the anti-Israel position rather than the indifferent to Israel position? For example you mention here supporting right of return. Given this is all outside USA borders why do you have any position on it?

      If you aren’t the Libertarian feel free to ignore the question.

      • just
        April 7, 2017, 7:15 pm

        Nothing about Israel is “outside USA borders”! Israel doesn’t even have “borders”! It continues to steal Palestine from the Palestinians along with their resources and their lives. Many Israelis (including illegal settlers) are US citizens. US taxpayers fund the violent apartheid state where Israeli Jews have universal healthcare, nuclear weapons, an endless stockpile of US supplied weapons, and the ultimate coup of the grotesque and hypocritical US veto. Every true “libertarian” should be outraged by the intervention of the US on Israel’s behalf and as the US’ biggest recipient of welfare.

        d’oh.

      • inbound39
        April 8, 2017, 6:23 am

        The Special Relationship with Israel can no longer be defended by American Politicians nor the level of Aid and Weaponry it recieves from America given it is used primarily to kill and maim Palestinian Men Women and Children……something apparently upsetting to Mr Trump. The Relationship is now unsustainable since Trump made his statement so emotionally as to why he launched cruise missiles against Syria. In the interest of consistency one should expect Trump to launch at least 59 MISSILES at Tel Aviv to show consistency.

      • Misterioso
        April 8, 2017, 10:44 am

        America’s Double Standard, i.e., Israel vs. Syria:

        Regarding Israel’s Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW):
        Israel signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), but didn’t ratify it. It never signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Its policy is CBW ambiguity.

        In 1993, the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment included Israel as a nation having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities. In 1998, former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Bill Richardson said:  “I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time. There’s no doubt they’ve had stuff for years.”

        To cite one of many examples:
        During its 2008/09 “Operation Cast Lead” assault on the Gaza Strip, Israel illegally used white phosphorous, which burns flesh to the bone, in attacks against civilians along with flechettes, i.e., 4-cm metal darts fired from missiles, planes or tanks “that penetrate straight through human bone and can cause serious, often fatal, injuries.” (It has also used cluster bombs during its attacks against and invasions of Lebanon.)

        In response to Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead,”  the United Nations Goldstone Report charged Israel with using phosphorous incendiary shells on a UN compound sheltering more than 600 civilians, using phosphorous and high explosive artillery shells on Al-Quds hospital and it rejected Israel’s assertion that Hamas or other militants were using the hospital. Israel was also accused of attacking a crowded mosque during evening prayers (the panel rejected the contention that armed militants were inside), using flechettes and of using Palestinians as human shields during house searches, a “war crime under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.” No evidence was found that Hamas had used Palestinians as human shields.

        In a report issued on 2 July 2009, Amnesty International states that “more than 3,000 homes were destroyed and some 20,000 damaged in Israeli attacks which reduced entire neighborhoods of Gaza to rubble and left an already dire economic situation in ruins. Much of the destruction was wanton and could not be justified on grounds of ‘military necessity.’” Amnesty also noted that “During Operation ‘Cast Lead’ Israeli forces made extensive use of white phosphorus, often launched from 155mm artillery shells, in residential areas, causing death and injuries to civilians. Homes, schools, medical facilities and UN buildings – all civilian objects – took direct hits.” Neither Amnesty nor Human Rights Watch accused Hamas of using “human shields.” Amnesty, however, accused Israel.

        To quote eminent Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy, “[Israel] has already used weapons prohibited by international law – white phosphorous and flechette rounds against a civilian population in Gaza, and cluster munitions in Lebanon – and the world did not raise a finger.” ( “‘Moral superpower’? Give me a break,” Haaretz, Sept. 1, 2013)

        In response to these and countless other horrors it has inflicted on Palestinians and other Arabs, Israel receives over $10 million dollars per day in aid courtesy of American taxpayers and Netanyahu is received with open arms in Washington.

  4. yonah fredman
    April 8, 2017, 9:36 am

    I am a fellow traveler of “if not now” and this plea for alliance and or specificity is precisely what I hope INN ignores in order to maintain a big tent of Jews. The very evocation of the hillel the elder triad from mishne Avot in the name of the organization indicates their seriousness and focus and the organization should not get more specific, it should focus on the occupation exclusively. Building alliances like you are suggesting are of a logic designed to change their focus and make them a smaller splinter group. Exactly wrong.

    • diasp0ra
      April 10, 2017, 6:32 am

      @Yonah

      Like it or not, the Palestinians are an integral part of the equation. You can’t have a discussion about the occupation while excluding them. It doesn’t work. It’s condescending orientalism.

      This is not about how oppression effects the morals of the Jewish people, it’s about the oppressed.

      If, as you put it, the “big tent of Jews” is threatened by including Palestinians in something about their OWN FATE, then honestly this movement was destined to fail from day one.

      • yonah fredman
        April 10, 2017, 10:54 am

        family x has a dispute with family y. subset of family x feels that family x has treated family y unfairly. they call a family meeting and voice their objections.

        family y says, why weren’t we invited to the family meeting.

        end of analogy.

        if the phrase orientalism doesn’t come to mind in describing the above analogy, why would the phrase come into this at all.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 10, 2017, 11:49 am

        why would the phrase come into this at all.

        maybe because your analogy ignores the issue, or is otherwise incomplete or lacking in some way. ie, “family x” is men, “family y” is women. if the phrase misogyny doesn’t come to mind why would the phrase come into this at all? maybe, because some people in “family y” felt their opinions were best represented by themselves?

        also, your analogy is about one meeting. this is about a movement, an ongoing process that (hopefully) involves an evolving process. if successful it’s not a stagnant situation but (hopefully) one that brings about a resolution or several resolutions. if the 2 families in your analogy had a long term problem they hoped to overcome then eventually it would make sense to include either the participation of both the families, or close communication with representatives of the families.

        also, if one of the core issues between the families (in your analogy) was inequality, not listening, not being represented equally, and one groups superiority over the other etc, then wouldn’t a process of reconciliation and/or resolution require those very issues not being replicated in the reconciliation/resolution process?

      • yonah fredman
        April 10, 2017, 10:56 am

        diaspora- you have a specific cure in mind for the conflict. maybe half of if not now agrees with your cure and another half doesn’t. why would an organization in its infancy seek to splinter itself? and those who agree with your cure already have groups designed to express their vision, why would they need a new group if there are already groups designed to your vision.

      • Mooser
        April 10, 2017, 11:52 am

        “diasp0ra”, here is our buddy “Yonah” on the “big tent of Jews”:

        which puts critics of judaism or those alienated from the strict observance of their parents wishing to water down judaism in the boat of being slightly antisemitic. this is reflected in the woody allen joke regarding his reform rabbi, “he was very reform. he was so reform he was nazi.” “yonah fredman” http://mondoweiss.net/profile/wondering-jew/?keyword=antisemitic#sthash.oK359pkE.dpuf

        That “big tent” seems to change size as needed. You are a fine one to talk about “splintering”.

      • eljay
        April 10, 2017, 12:04 pm

        || yonah fredman: family x has a dispute with family y. subset of family x feels that family x has treated family y unfairly. they call a family meeting and voice their objections. family y says, why weren’t we invited to the family meeting. end of analogy. … ||

        “family x” is Israel, 20% of whose population is non-Jewish. Israel is not “the Jews” unless you’re a “Jewish State” supremacist and/or you’re anti-Semitically conflating Israel with all Jews and all Jews with Israel.

      • diasp0ra
        April 12, 2017, 5:25 am

        @Yonah

        I’m sorry but that analogy is not comparable.

        I believe Annie pointed out the main points. Also, it is Orientalism because it seeks to find a solution -a half hearted one at that- to an issue without involving those most affected by it. It’s like the world powers deciding the fate of colonized countries without involving any of them in the decision.

      • yonah fredman
        April 12, 2017, 10:24 am

        if you want a true discussion of if not now, on the level of rhetoric, then go to their web site and we’ll go through their “about us” paragraph by paragraph and word for word.

        it feels to me that there are already groups that fit your needs: as in jvp is kosher to you and if not now is elusive to you and you wish to pigeon hole it.

        i’m not an organization man, so i don’t know about subcommittees and intergroup dialogue, that’s not my thing and i can’t comment about how an organization evolves.

        the young zionists or nonzionists or antizionists, but seemingly quite conscious of jewish identity, that make up “if not now” i’m sure have a variety of opinions of what the future should look like or might possibly look like.

        larry derfner just wrote a book that describes a specific attitude towards the future, entailing a new attitude towards right of return that i’m sure does not satisfy the pro palestine community as represented in this web site. is he orientalist. i think trying to paint an organization like ifnotnow with the orientalist slur is really suffocating the baby in the cradle and makes me think of the dylan line (or paraphrase) everybody wants me to be just like them and i just get bored.

        ifnotnow is not jvp. its purpose is not to duplicate jvp. it has its own guidance system that somehow eludes you and you demand for it to be just like you want it to be.

      • diasp0ra
        April 12, 2017, 3:52 pm

        @Yonah

        I am not demanding anything. These are my criticisms of the group. I have read their about us page, and they really have no concrete end goal or image.

        I’m not sure why you keep picturing me as a person who wants to pigeonhole organizations into positions. It’s none of my business, they can do as they will. But I can criticize as I wish, as well. I’m not pushing anyone into anything.

        I do feel their work is counterproductive in some ways, but productive in others. I feel they have potential. But honestly, if they want to keep going this way, wanting to maintain a “big tent”, then they sacrifice effectiveness/purpose for that pursuit, because they’ll never actually be able to set an agenda past just demonstrating.

        I never brought up JVP, and I have criticisms of that group as well.

        As for Derfner, I wouldn’t know. I haven’t read his book yet, so I can’t comment. Not sure how that is relevant.

        Not going to even comment on boiling down the conflict only to the occupation, but if your sole goal of your organization, your whole reason for existence, is ending an occupation, not including the occupied people in some way is in this sense is orientalist. Because you’re campaigning for a situation that affects them primarily, while excluding them from the decision itself.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 10, 2017, 12:46 pm

      yonah, this plea for alliance and or specificity is precisely what I hope INN ignores in order to maintain a big tent of Jews. ….. seriousness and focus and the organization should not get more specific, it should focus on the occupation exclusively.

      as i understand it the goal of INN is not maintaining “a big tent of jews”. my understanding is INN thinks the goal of ending the occupation requires a big tent of jews.

      from Yazan Khader’s article:

      Still, it cannot be denied that, as things stand, IfNotNow carries an overwhelmingly positive affect on the conversation surrounding Palestinian rights within the Jewish community, and that it is doing so because of its narrow focus. Yet, for IfNotNow to remain true to its ideal of Palestinian liberation, and to continue salvaging the greatest value from its effort, it has to constantly adapt to the changing level of support the American Jewish establishment harbors for Israel’s occupation. As this support hopefully wanes and the occupation becomes less and less of a taboo subject, IfNotNow must be ready to raise other issues pertaining to Palestinian rights into the conversation.

      The first step in that process is to not guide members away from discussing other elements of Palestinian liberation amongst themselves, but to encourage them to do so and to create the space for those questions.

      as i understand it the point being, what happens when the occupation ends? it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. the process of liberation includes the after effects of an end to occupation. certainly it is a consideration on both sides, not just from palestinians. equality between Israelis and Palestinians isn’t just a palestinian or jewish issue, it’s integral to any resolution of the crises. because if, as a jew, one wants to end the occupation and keep jewish privilege (which i imagine is a core principle to the very people INN is trying to influence) then the topic shouldn’t be avoided.

      why would an organization in its infancy seek to splinter itself? and those who agree with your cure already have groups designed to express their vision, why would they need a new group if there are already groups designed to your vision.

      why would an organization with a goal to end the occupation not include working groups discussing their visions(s) of what happens after the occupation ends? it wouldn’t require splintering the group as a whole. but the short answer is you can’t be an effective activist group by ignoring key principles integral to palestinian liberation — like equality. there’s going to be core issues people on both sides of the aisle disagree on, like one state or two. lots of palestinians want their own state too. but there are people determined to not let that happen. so all thus stuff can’t be avoided. and it seems natural that at some point palestinians should be included in these working groups. afterall, if the activists can’t do it while trying to end the occupation, how do you expect people to work together when the occupation ends?

      diasp0ra, This is not about how oppression effects the morals of the Jewish people

      for the jewish people in INN, how israel’s oppression of palestinians effects their morals is very important. guilt is a great motivator. good morals make movements happen. the growth of their “big tent” to end the occupation is directly impacted by and linked to “the morals of the Jewish people”.

      You can’t have a discussion about the occupation while excluding them. It doesn’t work. It’s condescending orientalism.

      anyone can have that discussion, with or without palestinians. but you can’t get there (resolution) by excluding them. so to be effective, eventually they’ll have to take the plunge. if not now, then when?

      • diasp0ra
        April 12, 2017, 3:59 pm

        @Annie

        I understand your point. But if you’re a movement that aims to end an occupation, then the main purpose should be to support the occupied, no? How it makes the organizers feel should be secondary. Yes, I get it, it’s a side effect and good motivation, I’m not saying it’s something that should be removed or even discouraged. I just argue that it should not be the /primary/ focus, as it is now, from what I can see.

        As for the discussion, I didn’t mean a literal discussion. I meant it more in the sense of an organized movement/campaign. I should have been more clear, so I apologize for that.

  5. Ossinev
    April 9, 2017, 8:11 am

    “[Israel] has already used weapons prohibited by international law – white phosphorous and flechette rounds against a civilian population in Gaza, and cluster munitions in Lebanon – and the world did not raise a finger”.

    Gideon Levy pointing out the grotesque double standards when it comes to Zioland atrocities against civilians.

    The loathsome Zio bent and bought Hillary Clinton who has been responding to the killing of innocent Syrian children and the need to protect innocent children:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/clinton-trump-syria-refugees/

    She naturally had a completely different take on the issue when it came to the killing of hundreds of innocent children in Operation Cast Lead:
    “When Goldberg asked Clinton whom she held responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children, she demurred, saying, “[I]t’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war.”
    http://marjoriecohn.com/want-endless-war-love-the-u-s-empire-well-hillary-clintons-your-choice/

    So on the one hand it is imperative to protect “Syrian babies” and its all clear fogless skys but when it comes to Zioland ,the most moral and Gaza well oh vey what can be done its all about the fog of war.

  6. diasp0ra
    April 10, 2017, 6:27 am

    My issue with if not now, is that they really have no clear end goal in mind. Ending the occupation is all fine and dandy, but the occupation is a symptom of Zionist colonialism. It is not the root cause.

    Focusing exclusively on the occupation means millions of refugees get shafted, it means colonialism goes unaddressed, it means the tiered citizenship in Israel remains untouched.

    This is shallow and ultimately pointless.

    Ending the occupation will not end the conflict. They need to decide if they are interested in actual justice, or for Israel to stop making its supporters look bad.

    • Mooser
      April 12, 2017, 4:44 pm

      “Ending the occupation will not end the conflict.”

      I think it is reasonable to hope that it might. The occupation , at this point, is Israel, and Israel is the occupation. Ending the occupation (with other than complete Israeli “annexation”) may very well end Israel. It would be a defeat of Zionism’s manischewitz destiny.

      • diasp0ra
        April 13, 2017, 5:26 am

        @Mooser

        Israel, especially its current regime, is very heavily invested in the occupation. This is true. But if there was a 2 state solution, and an end to the occupation in the term recognized internationally, aka 67 borders, the conflict would imo still not be over.

  7. Mooser
    April 13, 2017, 4:26 pm

    “But if there was a 2 state solution, and an end to the occupation in the term recognized internationally, aka 67 borders, the conflict would imo still not be over.”

    I guess we differ on the resilience of the Zionist project.

Leave a Reply