In groundbreaking resolution, California Democratic Party decries US support for Israeli occupation

US Politics
on 69 Comments

News reports from the state party convention in Sacramento over the weekend were dominated by the likely (pending a painstaking review) close victory of machine guy Eric Bauman over insurgent Kimberly Ellis for state party chair. Overshadowed by those fireworks, though, Palestinian rights supporters steered to passage a groundbreaking resolution that puts California Democrats far ahead of the national and other state parties.

The resolution starts by decrying the fact that despite occasional criticism of Israel’s ongoing occupation, successive U.S. administrations have failed to take “actual steps to change the status quo and bring about a real peace process.” It warns about inflammatory moves by the Trump administration and notes that they are encouraging even more illegal settlement building and anti-democratic measures by Israel’s government.

Notably, the resolution does not pay lip service to the “two-state solution” mantra. Nor does it set a tone of symmetry in the existing relationship between Israel and Palestine, or prescribe better behavior by both sides equally.

Passage from Resolution No. 17.05.05, “Opposing Trump’s dangerous provocations; supporting peace, justice and equality for Israelis and Palestinians – and robust discourse in California”

Instead, it puts California Democrats on record as favoring “a U.S. policy that would work through the United Nations and other international bodies as well as with Israel and the representatives of the Palestinian people for a just peace based on full equality and security for Israeli Jews and Palestinians alike, human rights and international law.” And it quotes from Bernie Sanders’ 2016 message to AIPAC: “Peace also means security for every Palestinian. It means achieving self-determination, civil rights and economic well-being for the Palestinian people.”

Finally, the resolution tackles the spate of campus crackdowns on Palestine rights advocates and federal and state legislative measures aimed at stigmatizing and suppressing criticism of Israel, especially through demonization of boycott and divestment campaigns: The party now “rejects any effort to restrict or discourage open public discourse on issues surrounding Israel and Palestine; disavows conflation of criticism of a country’s policies with hatred of its people; but also opposes anti-Semitic or Islamophobic language brought into the debate and opposes any attempt to restrict or penalize those who exercise their right to express their views through nonviolent action to effect change.”

The clunky construction with inclusion of the italicized phrase exemplifies the outcome of hasty negotiation during the party Resolutions Committee meeting at the convention. Israel-aligned forces easily recognized the reference to BDS and objected to the entire clause, arguing that boycotts are all about anti-Semitism. We pushed back, noting that when occasional anti-Semitic incidents occur on campuses, Palestinian students are invariably the first to condemn them, while pro-Israel students and especially outside groups reflexively – and without evidence – blame them on proponents of divestment resolutions. In the end, we agreed to condemn anti-Semitic language, insisting that Islamophobic be included too – and the rest of the original paragraph remained, virtually unchanged.

Time will tell whether the new resolution can become a model for other Democratic Party institutions, and more importantly, whether it will help accelerate a shift in the party’s stance on Israel-Palestine. Evidence of change has occasionally bubbled up in recent years, notably with the infamous voice vote (Not!) recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital at the 2012 national party convention; the boycott of Netanyahu’s 2015 appearance in Congress; defiance of AIPAC on the Iran nuclear agreement; Bernie Sanders’ sometimes excellent (though other times terrible) statements; the public platform fight in Philadelphia; and a near 50-50 split over this year’s congressional declaration condemning President Obama’s failure to veto a UN Security Council resolution critical of illegal settlements.

Of course Democrats still come up with embarrassing klunkers, like the recent unanimous Senate letter to the UN bemoaning how it picks on Israel. But 100 to 0 utterances are not nearly as common or as automatic as they have been in the recent past.

These spurts of feistiness among Democrats are likely a function of the passing of older generations that aligned the party and mainstream U.S. labor from 1948 on with Israeli government policies, invoking a potent combination of Holocaust guilt and perceived moral and political affinity. In fact, willful blindness about ethnic cleansing, discrimination and renewed colonization after 1967 was not all that cognitively dissonant for a party that embraced the Cold War, brought us Vietnam, has backed bloody despots around the globe and mostly gone along with the so-called “war on terror.”

Though focused more on fighting Wall Street, racism, sexism and chauvinism at home, younger Democrats (with some of us veteran progressives), are increasingly recognizing the links to U.S. policies of domination abroad and taking seriously the idea that all peoples deserve freedom and equality. Sanders was able to take a markedly, if limited, progressive turn on foreign policy thanks to the backing of his mostly young minions, and to the extent he went out on that limb, its support grew stronger.

A similar phenomenon occurred last weekend. The convention swarmed with California “Berniecrats,” many of them newly active and most elected in a January sweep of local caucuses held to choose about a third of the delegates. (Another third come from county party committees, a mixed bag politically; and the rest are mostly more conservative elected officials and their generous quotas of appointees, a sore point for the progressives. Votes are not secret, so appointees mostly vote as the officials who chose them dictate.)

The progressives were galvanized primarily around the Ellis campaign for party chair, in alliance with the powerful nurses and several other unions that broke last year for Sanders. Around 500 Berniecrats gathered for a dinner on opening night, and their presence in the convention hall was loud, accented visually with the nurses’ red and Ellis’ pink T-shirts, and festooned with thousands of signs, banners, buttons and stickers.

The progressive wave wasn’t quite strong enough to outvote the old guard candidates, but its presence was very much felt in the room when the Resolutions Committee met. Several groups of activists had been collecting endorsements through Berniecrat and other progressive networks, preparing to force their resolutions to the floor if necessary by collecting at least 300 delegate signatures in a 20-hour window.

Other resolutions among the few the committee passed and sent to the floor that were pushed by progressive forces, mostly in mutual alliance with each others’ causes, included ones for rent control and curbs on evictions; for single payer healthcare; for abolition of money bail; and against corporate rights and the money/speech equation. Numerous others approved by the committee but not fast tracked will be considered by the party Executive Board in August.

Proponents of the Israel-Palestine resolution organized for weeks before the convention to line up delegate endorsements – around 220 by opening day – and let it be known that they fully intended to force it to the floor via petition.

There was hostile opposition, to be sure. A two-page flier, dripping with sarcasm and hasbara mythology, was aimed at persuading the Resolutions Committee to dump the proposal, or at least not send it to the floor. And an activist with Democrats for Israel, Los Angeles, submitted eight separate resolutions condemning – with heavy doses of anti-Arab, racist and Islamophobic buzzwords – every human rights violation he could think of in an atlas of Middle East/North African countries – except Israel, of course.

The committee pushed the Dems for Israel author to combine his resolutions into one, then withstood heavy pressure to include it among those going to the floor. Along the way, we were able to call attention to the fact that it would be religiously and/or culturally offensive to many delegates present.

The Israel-Palestine resolution’s initially recommended disposition by the committee was to “substitute” alternative language. Minutes before it came up on the agenda, we were handed two proposed replacements, one saying very much the opposite of ours, as a committee member noted, getting it cast aside. To our great surprise, though, the other, while it deleted some of the factual details we had included and eliminated an unambiguous call for ending U.S. aid to Israel, maintained the main principles and most of the language of our original.

After a quick huddle of co-authors and other supporters, punctuated by some testy, stressful negotiating, we decided it was best to accept a compromise resolution based on the substitute, with some of the points from the original added back in. These included “occupation of Palestinian lands” and “occupied territories” instead of “West Bank,” and “illegal” instead of “controversial” settlements.

In exchange for the amendments, we achieved not only approval but also a lot of good will from members of the staid, mainstream Resolutions Committee, along with a commitment that it would include the resolution among those sent to the floor and recommended for passage. Reverberating from that development, lots of other progressives in our Democratic circles, with whom we work on other issues but who had been hesitant to speak out on Palestine, agreed to support the resolution if it went to a floor vote. We continue to distribute copies of the original resolution, for educational purposes.

At the Sunday morning plenary we still expected someone to oppose the amended resolution, which would have triggered a floor debate and vote. We were prepared to deliver our three minutes of speeches in favor. But no one did. In a way, that was disappointing – we were relishing the opportunity to say our piece before 3,000 delegates, confident the resolution would have passed overwhelmingly.

Apparently, the Democrats for Israel crowd was resigned to this outcome and preferred to have the resolution proceed instead as part of the “consent calendar,” without debate, under the radar.

But Resolution No. 17.05.05, “Opposing Trump’s dangerous provocations; supporting peace, justice and equality for Israelis and Palestinians – and robust discourse in California,” is now the official position of the California Democratic Party. We’ll do our best to get it known … and prepare for the next round, where we can take that debate to the next level.

RESOLUTION 17-05.05  (PDF)

Opposing Trump’s Dangerous Provocations; Supporting Peace, Justice and Equality for Israelis and Palestinians — and Robust Discourse in California

WHEREAS for decades some members of both parties and Congress have expressed criticism of Israel’s now nearly 50-year occupation of Palestinian lands, while failing to back up that criticism with actual steps to change the status quo and bring about a real peace process; and

WHEREAS the new administration has indicated that it is likely to adopt an even more one-sided policy, threatening to provoke havoc and further instability by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and appointing an ambassador (opposed for confirmation by all but two Democratic senators) who is an avid supporter of illegal settlements and opponent of Palestinian statehood; and

WHEREAS empowered by the new administration’s policy, the government of Israel has accelerated its construction of illegal settlements in the occupied territories and has adopted new anti-Democratic measures internally, denied entry into the country of representatives of mainstream human rights organizations and passed a law that would bar many visitors with critical views;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party favors a U.S. policy that would work through the United Nations and other international bodies as well as with Israel and the representatives of the Palestinian people for a just peace based on full equality and security for Israeli Jews and Palestinians alike, human rights and international law, in line with the words of Sen. Bernie Sanders in his 2016 message to AIPAC: “Peace also means security for every Palestinian. It means achieving self-determination, civil rights and economic well-being for the Palestinian people”;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CDP rejects any effort to restrict or discourage open public discourse on issues surrounding Israel and Palestine; disavows conflation of criticism of a country’s policies with hatred of its people; but also opposes anti-Semitic or Islamophobic language brought into the debate and opposes any attempt to restrict or penalize those who exercise their right to express their views through nonviolent action to effect change.

Authors: David L. Mandel, AD 7; Murad Surama, AD 7; Karen Bernal AD 7

About David L. Mandel

David L. Mandel is a human rights attorney in Sacramento, active with Jewish Voice for Peace and with the National Lawyers Guild International Committee’s Palestine subcommittee. He was an elected delegate to the California Democrat Party convention from Assembly District 7.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

69 Responses

  1. eljay
    May 26, 2017, 11:11 am

    … THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party favors a U.S. policy that would work through the United Nations and other international bodies as well as with Israel and the representatives of the Palestinian people for a just peace based on full equality and security for Israeli Jews and Palestinians alike …

    The use of the term “Israeli Jews and Palestinians” instead of “Israelis and Palestinians” strikes me as an attempt to secure Israel’s status as a “Jewish State”.

    • festus
      May 26, 2017, 11:57 am

      Or maybe it will be interpreted as Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinians, limited to only those Palestinians living is Israel and to Hell with the vastly greater number living in Occupied Palestine and in the diaspora

    • dudu440
      May 26, 2017, 3:14 pm

      You misquote the language. It says “representatives of the Palestinian people,” not “Palestinians.” This too was a late addition amid negotiation, in which the other side didn’t like that the resolution said the quest for a solution should go through “the UN and other international bodies,” as opposed to the usual disingenuous insistence on “direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians,” period.
      As for Festus’ speculation that it could mean only Israeli Palestinians and not those under ’67 occupation or in diaspora, well of course that was not intended. Finding the right formulation is tricky, given the interplay among nationality, peoplehood, ethnicity and religion. But I often deliberately say “Israeli Jews” and not “Israelis” both out of recognition that at least 20 percent of those with Israeli citizenship are not Jews, and to underline that Palestinian citizens are also a part of the Palestinian people whose demands must be part of the equation.

      • eljay
        May 26, 2017, 4:06 pm

        || dudu440: You misquote the language. It says “representatives of the Palestinian people,” not “Palestinians.” … ||

        Not sure if this was directed at me, but I didn’t misquote anything. It clearly says “a just peace based on full equality and security for Israeli Jews and Palestinians alike … ” (and not “for Israelis and Palestinians alike”).

        || … But I often deliberately say “Israeli Jews” and not “Israelis” both out of recognition that at least 20 percent of those with Israeli citizenship are not Jews … ||

        But they are Israelis and, as such, they are entitled to full and equal rights and security in and as Israelis.

      • dudu440
        May 26, 2017, 6:05 pm

        Sorry for not realizing that I must have previously adopted that weird moniker for comments here. I’ll try to figure out how to change it to my real name, which I really think should be the policy. So for now, dudu440 = David L. Mandel, author of the original post.

      • dudu440
        May 26, 2017, 6:11 pm

        And sorry, eljay, for looking at a different part of the quotation. Yeah, we can trip over ourselves no matter how careful we try to be with the terminology. In any event, the intent of our resolution was to support a process that addresses and includes all portions of the Palestinian people. See my previous post for explanation of use of the term “Israeli Jews” instead of “Israelis” in this context.
        David

      • eljay
        May 26, 2017, 8:21 pm

        No worries and thanks for the clarification, Mr. Mandel. :-)

    • eljay
      May 27, 2017, 8:07 pm

      || catalan: … Throughout my life I have always tried to not do or even care what the majority does. … ||

      But when it comes to gloating like a Zionist, you seem unable to resist.

  2. JosephA
    May 26, 2017, 11:24 am

    Compromise isn’t that bad when the outcome is still just. I applaud Mr. Manuel and his colleagues for this groundbreaking resolution.

    What’s amazing about US foreign policy and our politics is that this type of logical resolution / policy ISN’T the status quo.

    The Palestine debate has devolved to the point where if you say “I believe Palestinians under Israeli control deserve basic human rights” you are branded as an Anti-Semite.

    Tragically, the modern state of Israel is more anti-Semitic than Run-of-the-mill white supremacist racists because it encourages animosity towards Jews by the policies it enforces.

    • catalan
      May 26, 2017, 1:17 pm

      “Tragically, the modern state of Israel is more anti-Semitic than Run-of-the-mill white supremacist racists because it encourages animosity towards Jews by the policies it enforces.” –
      I have to admit I kind of enjoy this animosity towards Jews. Living in America and observing our enemies suffocate in helpless anger, righteous rage and anxious insecurity is kind of fun. Keep on hating – it makes it all the better. Oh, and watch the label on that Feta…

      • eljay
        May 26, 2017, 2:01 pm

        || catalan: … I have to admit I kind of enjoy this animosity towards Jews. … Keep on hating … ||

        You say you’re not a Zionist, but the thought of non-Zionist Jewish cannon-fodder makes you gloat like one. Weird.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 26, 2017, 2:50 pm

        I have to admit I kind of enjoy this animosity towards Jews.

        my memory is a little rusty, but there’s some zionist leaders who thrive on anti semitism as a sort of glue that binds jews together. i can’t recall if it was ben gurion or jabotinsky who said it, and i’m sure there are others around here who know the quote i am thinking about, but it’s not altogether unusual for pro israel actors to cultivate animosity towards Jews.

        Living in America and observing our enemies suffocate in helpless anger, righteous rage and anxious insecurity is kind of fun.

        spoken like a true sadist.

      • catalan
        May 26, 2017, 3:28 pm

        “spoken like a true sadist.” Annie
        Karma is sadistic not me. The good and gentle people thrive. The haters of Jews suffer in their helplessness to harm them. Don’t hate and you will be fine. Hatred destroys the soul. Just look at all the raging people everywhere on the internet.
        As to animosity, what’s the harm. If you are successful you are bound to step on a few toes. Only a fool and a failure is liked by everyone. Be happy, not liked. But it does help when my enemies die off from heart failure caused by anger.

      • Mooser
        May 26, 2017, 4:13 pm

        “catalan” we all realize your extreme need to believe there is a perfect Israel which will take you in for free under any circumstances, (and with no advance preparation) and has no extradition treaty with the US. (At least not for fiduciary lapses.)

        And yeah, we get it, anybody saying anything to contradict that deserves a coronary.

        But I gotta tell you, picking Mondo as the place on the web to get that fantasy validated was a poor choice, unless you are a true masochist.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 26, 2017, 5:02 pm

        Karma is sadistic not me.

        karma doesn’t “enjoy” animosity. “karma” doesn’t think it’s kinda fun when others rage and suffocate.

        Keep on hating – it makes it all the better….Hatred destroys the soul.

        this is you catalan, your caustic inflammatory rhetoric. take the last word, i think everyone here can see where you’re coming from.

      • Maghlawatan
        May 26, 2017, 6:24 pm

        I don’t hate Jews. It is impossible to travel in Eastern Europe without a sense of loss.
        It is impossible to hear an Israeli talking about Gaza without thinking how completely Hitler won. Hitler knocked Judaism unconscious . Zionism will kill it off. The mitzvot are pointless when Jews are indoctrinated to hate. And they don’t have enemies. Other than their leaders.

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2017, 10:20 pm

        Maghlawatan: Hitler knocked Judaism unconscious . Zionism will kill it off.
        ———————————–

        I doubt it. “Judaism” (i.e. large strands of it) may end up reverting to non-Zionism or anti-Zionism or simply re-define what the term “Zionism” means (as eljay has implied might be possible).

      • Misterioso
        May 27, 2017, 11:46 am

        @Annie

        “my memory is a little rusty, but there’s some zionist leaders who thrive on anti semitism as a sort of glue that binds jews together. ”

        Perhaps you’re thinking of this:

        Theodor Herzl was the first to realize how useful anti-Semitism could be to Zionism: “Anti-Semitism has grown and continues to grow – and so do I.” (Herzl, The Complete Diaries, Vol. 1, p. 7 )

      • Annie Robbins
        May 27, 2017, 12:41 pm

        thank you misterioso, perhaps it was herzl but i’m not sure if it was from that particular (catholic conversion) segment . reading through some of his diary musing i came upon this curious passage, curious in how it relates to another recent conversation in the wizard of lies thread about contrast: https://archive.org/stream/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzl_201606/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzlEngVolume1_OCR_djvu.txt

        In its first draft the novel was entitled Samuel Kohn, and among my loose notes there must be many which have reference to it. I wanted in particular to contrast the suffering, despised, and decent mass of poor Jews with the rich ones. The latter experience nothing of anti-Semitism which they are actually and mainly responsible for. The milieu in which Kana lived was to be set off against that of his rich relatives.

      • eljay
        May 27, 2017, 12:02 pm

        || Sibiriak: … “Judaism” (i.e. large strands of it) may end up reverting to non-Zionism or anti-Zionism or simply re-define what the term “Zionism” means (as eljay has implied might be possible). ||

        I honestly don’t recall saying (or implying) that Judaism may re-define Zionism. I’m pretty sure, however, that Zionism has done and continues to do its best to re-define Judaism.

      • Sulphurdunn
        May 29, 2017, 1:30 pm

        He who laughs last laughs best, and the party ain’t over.

    • catalan
      May 26, 2017, 5:39 pm

      “This is you catalan, your caustic inflammatory rhetoric. “-
      I have come to the conclusion that peace is not possible in the Middle East; either things will stay more or less the same, or one side will physically annihilate the other (through killing and expulsion). I obviously would not prefer if Israel was annihilated because I suspect that Jews abroad would be the next target if that happened. I think that Israel provides a useful distraction for the people who dislike Jews; if it goes, nothing would stop them from coming after those like me who don’t live there. Since the conflict will be resolved only through violence, I would rather not be on the losing side. It’s a zero sum game in which there cannot be compromise. So I have come to accept it that this is a war and it’s either me or my enemy.

      • Maghlawatan
        May 26, 2017, 7:00 pm

        Peace will happen when the Israeli economy collapses and the Mizrahi realise they are on the same side as the Palestinians. American Jews have nothing to say if they don’t want to live in Shangri-la. And who would, honestly?

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2017, 10:25 pm

        Maghlawatan: Peace will happen when the Israeli economy collapses and the Mizrahi realise they are on the same side as the Palestinians.
        —————–

        Little hope for peace then, if those are the prerequisites. (I don’t think they are)

      • Mooser
        May 26, 2017, 10:28 pm

        “So I have come to accept it that this is a war and it’s either me or my enemy.”

        So, what’s the score, “catalan”?
        How many anti-semites and Hamas have your comments on Mondo “annihilated”?

        “Jews abroad will be the next target”

        Then why, why, why, does your support of Israel consist only of sniping at the Mondo comment section?

      • Sibiriak
        May 26, 2017, 11:16 pm

        catalan: I obviously would not prefer if Israel was annihilated…
        —————–

        Of course, Israel’s evident moral and spiritual annihilation is of no concern to you, as a Jew.

      • Mooser
        May 26, 2017, 11:21 pm

        “I have come to the conclusion…/…me or my enemy”

        ‘And that’s why I stole all the money and took it on the lam to Israel’

      • talknic
        May 26, 2017, 11:42 pm

        @ catalan May 26, 2017, 5:39 pm

        “I have come to the conclusion that peace is not possible in the Middle East; either things will stay more or less the same, or one side will physically annihilate the other (through killing and expulsion).”

        Uh huh While one side refuses to adhere to International Law and the UN Charter, there will be no peace.

        ” I obviously would not prefer if Israel was annihilated because I suspect that Jews abroad would be the next target if that happened”

        Best start lobbying for Israel to adhere to its legal obligations

        ” I think t …”

        No you don’t. You spout sh*te. A thinking person would realize that theft of territory will bring war. A thinking person would realize that an organization like the Zionist Federation, who purposefully sets up a bank to issue loans to specifically poor Jews specifically at interest on condition they settle specifically on the front lines in the Zionist war on Palestine puts money above life. A thinking person would realize that any government who encourages its citizens to illegally settle in territories outside of the state they govern, is criminal.

      • echinococcus
        May 27, 2017, 8:14 am

        Talknic,

        Congratulations for formulating so well the problem with the Zionist entity. It’s worth repeating over and over again::

        While one side refuses to adhere to International Law and the UN Charter, there will be no peace.
        …A thinking person would realize that theft of territory will bring war. … that any government who encourages its citizens to illegally settle in territories outside of the state they govern, is criminal.

        That fully applies not only to the present-day Zionist entity but also to the Partition itself and to the very existence of the Zionist entity.

        Best start lobbying for Israel to adhere to its legal obligations

        Sure, that’s so likely to work. No one thought about doing that in the last 70 years.
        Your own undefeatable logic as quoted above necessarily indicates that the first/main legal obligation of what you call “Israel” is to undo itself. Its birth certificate is fake.

        There is no human logic by which one can justify any existence of the Zionist entity while at the same time denying the legality of its further conquests.

      • catalan
        May 27, 2017, 9:22 am

        Of course, Israel’s evident moral and spiritual annihilation is of no concern to you, as a Jew. – Sibiriak
        Not of any concern. I just live my life – I am not an Israeli citizen. There are all sort of Jews – some great, some not so. However, for many people, my being born Jewish is the problem and they want my death because of it. Israel with its many Jews provides a useful distraction for them for the time being. I have no doubt that I am next in line once they are done with Israel.

      • talknic
        May 27, 2017, 10:04 am

        catalan May 27, 2017, 9:22 am

        ” I have no doubt that I am next in line once they are done with Israel.”

        See a shrink. Paranoia can be cured

      • Misterioso
        May 27, 2017, 11:58 am

        @catalan

        Inevitably, in pursuit of its own best geopolitical and economic interests, the United States will set Israel adrift. Israel is America’s number one foreign liability, a millstone around its neck, an international pariah, a useless “ally” and the root cause of so many of its problems. The history of colonialism has many precedents.

      • eljay
        May 27, 2017, 11:59 am

        || catalan: … I am not an Israeli citizen. … ||

        But you are Jewish so you’re part of the “Jewish people” and, as such, Israel is your “ancient homeland”, your “eternal homeland” and your “one true homeland”. According to your fellow Zionists, anyway.

      • Mooser
        May 27, 2017, 1:00 pm

        “. I have no doubt that I am next in line once they are done with Israel.”

        Yeah, that’s what Bernie Madoff said, too.

      • catalan
        May 27, 2017, 4:06 pm

        “Inevitably, in pursuit of its own best geopolitical and economic interests, the United States will set Israel adrift. -” misterioso
        Beyond death and taxes, nobody knows anything. But since you know that Israel will collapse (and its stock market with it) you can make a ton of money just based on that prediction alone. Then start an organization to help the Palestinians. They need it- Israel is number 8 in life expectancy, Palestine 110 (interestingly, ahead of Russia and Ukraine). Well maybe you can help Russia first. Putin looks great naked but his people die young.

      • Mooser
        May 27, 2017, 5:44 pm

        “Not of any concern. I just live my life – I am not an Israeli citizen.”

        But just a few comments ago you said:

        “So I have come to accept it that this is a war and it’s either me or my enemy.”

        No “hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines” for “catalan”. Foolish or otherwise, he ain’t having it.

      • Misterioso
        May 27, 2017, 8:32 pm

        @catalan

        Feeble response. Unworthy of further comment.

      • echinococcus
        May 27, 2017, 8:57 pm

        Misterioso,

        Inevitably, in pursuit of its own best geopolitical and economic interests, the United States will set Israel adrift.

        The exhaustion of the sun and the end of all life on earth is inevitable, too. That should happen at about the same time the US will pursue “its own” interest, which in turn will be much earlier than the day the US can shake off Zionist control.

        If we only rely on inevitability, that is, instead of getting to work PDQ to on informing every American in hisher own terms, not just liberaloids and committed tribals.

      • Mooser
        May 29, 2017, 2:38 pm

        “I have come to the conclusion that peace is not possible in the Middle East; either things will stay more or less the same, or one side will physically annihilate the other (through killing and expulsion).”

        Wow, “catalan”, are you at the wrong website, or what? You really think you can convince people of that, or get that opinion validated here? I very much doubt it.

      • MHughes976
        May 29, 2017, 5:27 pm

        We ought not to come to the sad (mild word) conclusion that peace is not possible without putting the idea to the test by calling on everyone, particularly those with the most power, to say what they would consider to be fair terms for final status. Israel is the most powerful party. There can certainly be no agreement – and in that sense no peace – while the most powerful party to the dispute will not say what agreement it would now think fit to make. The Liberal Zionists could yet do the world a service by pressing for this situation to change.

      • echinococcus
        May 29, 2017, 5:49 pm

        Hughes,

        Ain’t that the truth. Nothing is more important than avoiding or delaying massacres.

        As Mr Clinton might say, it all depends on what you mean by “say”.
        The Zionists, liberal and not, have never confirmed any statement by a corresponding act, except their unerring will to eat all Palestine.

        As for “what agreement it would now think fit to make”, we have a consistent answer from both wings when we bother to analyze everything they “say” that checks with their action: the cavemen faction currently in power is not settling for anything less than total possession of Palestine and the disappearance of the Palestinian people, on its own schedule. The liberal faction requests negotiations to continue as a camouflage until see above.

        If you have been able to see any other message in what they’ve been “saying” since 1947, please share it with us.

      • echinococcus
        May 29, 2017, 6:01 pm

        Mooser,

        What’s your beef with Catalan? After all, he’s just repeating the official Zionist position.

      • Mooser
        May 29, 2017, 7:35 pm

        “What’s your beef with Catalan. After all, he’s just repeating the official Zionist position.”

        He could go to a website where doing that would make him a hero.

        Gee, he could even go to a website where he could chat with a real live Israeli, or make arrangements to sub-let an apartment in Tel-Aviv, or be directed towards investments in Israel.

        But he comes here instead, because “catalan” knows he can depend on Mondo!
        Yes, he can depend on Mondo to never ask him to do anything for Zionism or give any money to Zionism.
        When it comes to Zionism, Mondo is “catalan’s” ‘safe place’.

      • MHughes976
        May 30, 2017, 4:43 am

        Well, echino, I think that never saying what a fair settlement would be like, whilst endlessly claiming to have made reasonable offers in the past, has been a very powerful weapon for Israel. Of course we must suspect that the real plan is ‘Palestinians out’ – no real problem since they aren’t a nation and don’t exist.
        I assume that the Liberal Zionists, the sincere ones anyway, believe in good faith that there is a better way. They are a very important part of the situation in the West. I think that they should be asked not to resign themselves to the status quo without giving peace its proverbial chance by pressing for a ‘peace offer’ (those are degraded words, I know) from Israel. They could yet do some good.
        In fact I think that the real plan, yet to show its face quite openly (though near enough, God knows), is not so much that all Palestinians
        should leave as that a remnant should remain, since Zionism has always been conceived, even as it metes out dispossession and despair, as for the good of all. Only they must remain as grateful beneficiaries – existent at last! – not as entitled heirs.

      • echinococcus
        May 30, 2017, 8:59 am

        Hughes,

        Your last statement is 100% correct: Zionism admits Palestinians as grateful survivors, at a ratio capped at 15%. This is the Weitz quota, from the name of a once boss of the Jewish Agency before 47, and still the objective. I don’t know who figured out that 15% is low enough to avoid their own Jabotinsky’s warning, viz that no people has ever offered definitive subjection in the absence of justice. I follow the Zioplanners in assuming that 15% either represents a level of sufficient genocide in their eyes, corresponding to our success with the Native Americans, or a maximum allowed for the unbreakable efficacy of the Iron Wall policy.

        I fully agree with you as to the necessity of continually pressing the Zios for a peace offer. My point was: 1. only if consistent with their behavior over the last 70 years is any “offer” believable, 2. the Liberal Zionists have consistently offered further talks ad infinitum about peace offers –and more about demands than offers, while at the same time performing the subversion of the Mandate, the Nakba and 4 major wars of aggression.

        I don’t doubt that the rank and file are sincere in a way in promoting the New Partition proposals. Good salesmen are those gullible enough to believe in what they are selling.

      • Misterioso
        May 30, 2017, 10:48 pm

        echinococcus

        Poor analogy.

        History and logic are on my side. As France set Algeria adrift, Belgium said “bye bye” to the Congo and Britain cut off Rhodesia, etc., so the U.S. will have no option other than to do the same regarding Israel. Israel is a parasite on America’s body and Zionism is beginning its death throes. The entity known as “Israel” must and will be abandoned by America.

  3. Annie Robbins
    May 26, 2017, 11:45 am

    thank you so much David Mandel, Murad Surama, Karen Bernal, and the many organizing supporters for all your diligence and persistence, this is excellent news. about the flyer:

    A two-page flier, dripping with sarcasm and hasbara mythology, was aimed at persuading the Resolutions Committee to dump the proposal

    anyway we could read it?

  4. Ossinev
    May 26, 2017, 12:38 pm

    Hot of the press an interesting (to put it mildly ) article in the Jerusalem Post of all papers on the status of the occupied territories:
    http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/50-years-of-law-versus-reality-493859

    A strange mixture of reality as in “Houston we have a problem” and the usual tortured Zionist gobshite specifically in the judgement that the Hague Conventions apply but the Geneva Conventions do not. For example the legal and scholarly minds quoted actually refer to injustices visited on the Palestinians in terms of illegal land grabs by settlers but suggest the need for “compensation” as opposed to the loony settlers being prosecuted , evicted for breaking the law and the rightful owners being allowed to return. In virtually the same breath there is also a reference to “state land “in the WB somehow being eligible for legal acquisition under a 1858 Ottoman Law ! as being “uncultivated”. There is no where a real recognition of the brutalities of the occupation being visited on the Palestinians on a daily basis by the IOF and the crazed settlers. So in that sense it is still business as usual with the so called “scholars” neatly turning a blind eye to reality.

    On the plus side there is no focus on any of the usual puke inducing Ziocrap about “ancient homeland” rights ,” Biblical entitlement” etc etc etc yawn yawn yawn.

    Could be that even in that bastion of “liberal” and “democratic” journalism the coffee aroma is being sensed and they are starting to think OMG we have allowed the settler initiative to box us into a corner and there is no exit other than into a single Apartheid State?

  5. One Persons opinion
    May 26, 2017, 9:56 pm

    Great to know. It becomes more and more clear that California is somewhere I don’t want to go.

    • Mooser
      May 27, 2017, 5:19 pm

      “Great to know. It becomes more and more clear that California is somewhere I don’t want to go.”

      Hey, California is the place you ought to be.
      So load up the truck and move to Beverly!
      Hills, that is. Swimming pools, movie stars…

    • echinococcus
      May 27, 2017, 8:28 pm

      Take it from a Californian: California is somewhere we don’t want you to go.

  6. RoHa
    May 27, 2017, 2:58 am

    Sanity among Californian Democrats!

    What hath wrought this miracle?

  7. inbound39
    May 27, 2017, 9:27 am

    I have to concur with talknic. Israel has to be made to comply with its obligations under International Law and the UN Charter and ALL of its previously signed agreements. From my view the only way to get that from Israel is to withdraw ALL aid until it does comply and withdraw to within its 1948 borders it declared. But of course the Dems scrubbed that from the Resolution making it neutered.

    • catalan
      May 27, 2017, 12:53 pm

      “According to your fellow Zionists, anyway.” Eljay
      Throughout my life I have always tried to not do or even care what the majority does. I like the company of dead philosophers best.

      • Mooser
        May 27, 2017, 5:49 pm

        “Throughout my life I have always tried to not do or even care what the majority does. I like the company of dead philosophers best.”

        Which dead philosopher did you get this from:

        “I think that Israel provides a useful distraction for the people who dislike Jews; if it goes, nothing would stop them from coming after those like me who don’t live there. Since the conflict will be resolved only through violence, I would rather not be on the losing side. It’s a zero sum game in which there cannot be compromise. So I have come to accept it that this is a war and it’s either me or my enemy.”

        Dead philosopher, or existential Jewish warrior? You decide, I can’t figure it out.

      • echinococcus
        May 27, 2017, 8:40 pm

        Catalan:

        I like the company of dead philosophers best.

        No doubt your company is deadly –not only for philosophers.

      • catalan
        May 27, 2017, 10:33 pm

        “No doubt your company is deadly –not only for philosophers”. – Echi
        Why do you think so? I am an excellent listener and fun to hang with. The internet is a very binary environment. Everything is are you for or against…I function better dealing with human problems, you know, family, kids, work stuff. Nobody in real life talks the way people do here. Or maybe I should say, sociopaths do. Normal people accommodate, compromise, etc. People just accept the world and then try to get by. The whole thing is, you can’t function well in constant confrontation.

      • RoHa
        May 28, 2017, 2:32 am

        “I like the company of dead philosophers best.”

        Doesn’t everyone? They don’t complain, and they don’t answer back.

      • Mooser
        May 28, 2017, 12:37 pm

        “The whole thing is, you can’t function well in constant confrontation.” “catalan”

        But what about:

        “It’s a zero sum game in which there cannot be compromise. So I have come to accept it that this is a war and it’s either me or my enemy.” “catalan”

        “To everything,
        Spin, spin, spin,
        There is a season,
        Spin, spin, spin,

      • echinococcus
        May 28, 2017, 4:34 pm

        Catalan,

        Why do you think so? I am an excellent listener and fun to hang with.

        In your own eyes, of course you are. As for my –personal– opinion, it’s just been provided above.

      • Mooser
        May 28, 2017, 8:18 pm

        “Why do you think so? I am an excellent listener and fun to hang with.”

        I’m not sure we need to hang together. You do a good enough job of hanging yourself separately.

  8. Ossinev
    May 27, 2017, 12:35 pm

    @Catalan

    “I have no doubt that I am next in line once they are done with Israel”

  9. Maghlawatan
    May 31, 2017, 12:31 am

    1 in 5 Americans over age 65 have none of their teeth left. Yet it is deemed important to fund Israel unconditionally. Israel is a 1% issue that does not benefit the 99%. Great leverage potential. When it all collapses it will be a great day.

  10. German Lefty
    May 31, 2017, 3:48 pm

    I don’t know if someone has already posted this:
    The London Jewish Chronicle released its polling on how British Jews will vote in next week’s election: 77 percent of British Jews say they will vote for Theresa May’s Conservatives, with just 13 percent voting for the opposition Labour party. Apparently, British Jews believe the lie that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite or at least a supporter of anti-Semites.
    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/236063/why-just-13-percent-of-british-jews-say-they-will-vote-for-labour-in-the-general-election
    https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-support-just-13-per-cent-among-uk-jews-1.439325
    https://www.thejc.com/news/the-diary/jewish-chronicle-survey-results-may-2016-1.439363
    It seems like the USA is the only Western country where most Jews vote for a left-leaning party. From what I’ve heard about other Western countries, most Jews vote conservative.

    • Eva Smagacz
      May 31, 2017, 6:28 pm

      Jeremy Corbyn refuses to allocate elevated status to anti-semitism, and always says that he condemns “anti-seminism and all other forms of racism”.

      The idea that anti-semitism is no more and not less than racism does not lay well with people convinced that racism against Jews is more special than racism against other groups of people.

      He also does not believe that robust criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-semitic.

      The whole “Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic” smear campaign only got going in the media since Jeremy was elected to be a leader, and, scarily, was shown not to be a pushover.

      When Democratic Party in America will declare itself for Palestinian rights, it will be accused to be “institutionally anti-Semitic” as well. I guarantee that.

    • RoHa
      May 31, 2017, 11:25 pm

      There’s a left leaning party in the US?

    • catalan
      June 1, 2017, 10:35 am

      “From what I’ve heard about other Western countries, most Jews vote conservative. – ”
      This is just terrible. I am appalled that Jews vote conservative. How dare they? Nobody else does. Indeed, I think it has to do with our inherent selfishness. We are just too tribal. But I am still stunned that Jews don’t check with anonymous German “lefties?” before voting. Sounds criminal.

      • Mooser
        June 1, 2017, 5:50 pm

        “This is just terrible. I am appalled that Jews vote conservative. How dare they? Nobody else does. “

        Well, “catalan”, if you knew any Jews, you could ask them.

  11. Ossinev
    June 1, 2017, 7:59 am

    @Eva Smagacz
    “The whole “Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic” smear campaign only got going in the media since Jeremy was elected to be a leader, and, scarily, was shown not to be a pushover”

    Sorry to differ on this one Eva. IMO the prospect of a Leader of the Opposition and prospective British PM who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause did scare the UK Zionists and Ziocentral and thus we had the”endemic anti -semitism in the Labour Party” strategy. Instead of boldly calling this out for what it was ie a blatant attempt to conflate anti – Zionism with anti- Semitism he approved a meaningless enquiry. He was a pushover.

    Have a look at what Norman Finklestein had to say on the subject:
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda

Leave a Reply