Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 549 (since 2016-04-17 08:46:07)

Showing comments 100 - 1

  • The Making of Israel: Zionist settler colonialism in historic Palestine
    • Eljay

      What there is to do is justice, accountability and equality. That’s going up, not down. No need to fight it.

      Are "justice, accountability and equality" only expected of Israelis, and not Canadians or Americans? Is denying white privilege part of aspiring up towards "justice, accountability and equality"?

  • Resolution 242 does not mean what you may think it means
    • A better future is Israel dismantled wholly without a trace, simple as that. Two states would be a merely stepping stone to that future, because Israel won't be able to maintain its original lie when there is a legitimate Palestinian nation just next door it for everyone to see. Zionism depends on there not being a Palestine for it to be legitimate. Why would Israelis stay in a place and pay fealty to a government that is obviously illegitimate and has no reason in existing?

      "Two nations exist in Palestine, and there is no possible political process which can make either disappear. The two nations have distinct identities, one as a mainly Jewish state, and the other as a mainly Arab and Islamic state. The only possible peaceful future is one in which the two peoples share the land as good neighbors"

      I'm sorry but you are maddeningly ignorant on global politics and the current status of IP conflict. So what if two nations have distinct identities? National identities are fluid and dynamic and can easily change under transformative circumstances.

      And there are definitely political processes that will result in a unified Palestine.
      First we promote BDS to financially restrict the Zionists and uncloak their inferiority, then we empower the Palestinians by political support in the UN through electing pro-Palestine candidates. It's not that hard. Countless countries do not recognize Israel as we speak, so it's not really that impossible for the US to do the same.

    • David

      "I am an outsider with very little knowledge of the geography and demography of Israel/Palestine. Am I right in thinking that a Palestinian state or national area of around 9 million inhabitants in the West Bank and Gaza would not be viable? And if so, why has the PLO apparently been willing to accept this concept? I will reply to all comments"

      The majority of Palestinians reject the international laws that gifted Israel territories that it had no right whatsoever to take, and this include all of the land within 1948 and 1967 borders. Palestinians do not want their homeland split, be given free of charge, to a bunch of fascist European settlers who essentially committed armed robbery when they arrived on Palestine.

      Any individual who commits armed robbery would rightfully be jailed for a really long time, but when a bunch of ideological fanatics do it, they get to keep their loot and be protected by the law too? Israel has no right to exist in any form on Palestine, and this will never change regardless which superpower gets to define "international law".

      Israelis need to decide whether to be in the side of justice, and live equally with respect and dignity alongside humanity, or remain wallowing in their filthy delusions of European supremacism, disgraced and detested.

  • 'Either Assad or we'll burn the country' - An excerpt from 'Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War' (Update)
    • Danaa,

      If the writers of the article were generously compensated, good for them as it was a genuinely well-written, informative article that deserves financial recognition.

      People here are throwing fits without even specifying what's in the article that is factually incorrect, misinformed, or biased. Most comments don't even address the content of the article, but are rehashing unverified conspiracy theories, making irrelevant comparisons with Libya, asserting Phil is anti-Assad etc.

      I think some moderation of comments must take place in order for us to have a fruitful discussion on the subject. Otherwise we are just drifting from one topic to the other without coming to any sort of informed consensus on anything.

    • Eric,

      The "rebels" ranges from murderous terrorists basking in the chaos to educated activists with loving families. We need to listen to the latter in order to get a clearer picture of the conflict. I support the Syrian government by the way, but I am always open to having my stance challenged with hard facts and information.

      Also in YouTube, you can find any sort of videos that confirm or challenge your prejudices so not really sure how is that a viable argument against this article.

    • The comments in here are terribly disrespectful and reeks of arrogance towards the authors of the article and the site editors who published it. Feel free to argue against any of the points or facts as presented in the article, but there is no need to be dismissive of it without any verifiable references to back you up. And please don't derail away from the subject matter presented in the article as well.

      I am personally biased in supporting Syria's government as opposed to the rebels, but I do acknowledge that my choice is largely due to the fact that Assad is a devil I know, while I have no idea who the rebels are and their capacity for undue violence and injustice. Articles like this helps shed some light onto the conflict and allow for people to shed their bias for informed choices.

      Thank you Leila and Robin for providing us with this enlightening insight on the conflict. I enjoyed the article and appreciated its thought provoking content.

  • Calling Israel a 'modern day miracle' and 'vibrant bloom in desert,' Clinton says BDS is anti-Semitic
    • “Racist white folks threatening Palestinians are white activists problem to solve. Zionist Jews supporting the occupation of Palestine are Jewish activists problem to solve. Why intrude into the internal spaces reserved for Palestinians (their extermination? That’s the “internal spaces”?Ed.) when the problems are so far away in your own backyards? How about just listening to Palestinians, which can be easily done from a safe distance?” – See more at: link to

      And it always adds up to leave Israel aloone. There’s always some reason why this is never the right time, and of course, we are never the right people.

      First of all, the above is a malicious conflation. The context in which the quoted text in your comment was written has absolutely little do with the subject of our current conservation. (Leave Israel aloone? Is this how you talk in the real world?)

      For those who are interested, the context was about the intrusion of privileged white people into the activism space of marginalized groups, such as the Palestinians. Spaces that are designated for Palestinians and their compatriots in the diaspora to come together and discuss their liberation strategy without holding anything back, without having to worry about microaggressions, educating outsiders, and just to escape back to a world that is just for them.

      It's like a person yearning to go back to his own home after a rough day at work. Would like random strangers coming into your home after a work asking how can they help with life while you are having a deep convo with your family about your rough day? You'd be absolutely pissed, especially if it happens each and every day. It is the same thing non-white people feel when white people force their presence in safe spaces in order to help, to reach out in solidarity. And this is not a Palestinian-activist specific phenomenon either. Many other POC groups have lamented on the same exact issue, and the source of their frustrations are always the same: good intentioned white people not knowing their place.

    • Mooser, you cannot deny that Zionism strongly mirrors white supremacism in ideology, practice and historical roots in Europe. America was founded as a white supremacist nation with almost the exact same creation myth as Israel, and many of the legal and political systems in these two countries share many similarities that promotes them to be natural allies.

      Please read the article written by the MW editors on the spirit of sumud to understand my point. Zionism is absolutely vile and criminal, and thus must be actively fought and Zionists must be brought to justice. But you can't fight Zionism while complying with the system of white supremacy that gives Zionists their destructive powers in the first place. First it was the British, and now its America who is bankrolling Israeli crimes through monetary and political support. America isn't being allies with Israel because it has a soft spot for Jews and their myths, but because it shares the same ideology of white European supremacism.

    • I disagree, she is not hateful nor is she a Zionist. She is a politician playing the game as it has been laid out for her. As the saying goes, "don't hate the player" .

      Zionism is deeply tied to Americanism or nationalistic white supremacism so it makes sense for any politician working within the American political system to harbor bias towards Israel, else they wouldn't be there in the first place.

    • Stop labelling people with terms you have no idea what their meanings are.

  • Reebok backtracks on Israel Independence Day-inspired sneaker (Updated)
    • Nothing you have said shows that I am not part of the country, and do not belong here.

      That's probably because I am saying completely different things. You being part of the country of Australia, which is a political establishment none different from Israel, means that you are complicit in the illegal occupation of the Australian landmass through violent means. You are an illegal occupier of a land that does not belong to you is what I am saying.

      You may not like it, just as many progressives in Israel loathe that they are part of a unlawful, violent and racist settler-colonial project, but you have to be accountable for your complicity as an Australian citizen in the continued appropriation of the land and all resources within it by a group of white Europeans originating from the UK.

      We often mock Israel for claiming God gave them the land as a basis of their nation-state, but how is it any more ridiculous than Australia's government claim to the their territorial land?

    • I’m not claiming private ownership of the entire country. That is not what “my country” means.

      Firstly, when I said the landmass called Australia does not belong to you, it would be more than obvious I didn't mean it in literal terms. Unless you principly object to owning private property, and politically opposed to any form of government that view the country as a sovereign territory with violently enforced borders, you are complicit in the private ownership of the Australian landmass.

      The question of ancestry should not matter here, as all Australians, including aborigines are complicit in the unlawful occupation of the land that does not belong to them, through their allegiance to the Government of Australia. You may use platitudes such as "this is the home I choose for myself" or "this is where I was brought up".

      But the reality is, Australia is being occupied by a violent military force that militantly guard its borders from Non-Australian citizens seeking to live on the landmass. You say you don't own Australia, but the government representing you is sure acting like it owns it; jailing people who overstay their visas, deporting people it doesn't like, detaining refugees in cruel and depressing offshore camps.

    • "On that principle, then, Australia, the country in which I was brought up, in which I have my home, my family, my cat, and my citizenship, is not my country."

      But Australia is not your country though. I wouldn't say it belong to the aborigines, because they do not recognize the concept of private ownership of bits of the Earth, but it certainly does not and will never belong to you. You just happen to live in, by pure accident of birth, the landmass known as Australia.

  • A new proposal for confederated states (without any idea of how to get Israel to comply)
    • Diaspora,

      I read through your comment, and would like you to know that many of us within the activist sphere feel the exact same way as you. We are fed-up with how supposed allies to the cause are so eager to acknowledge Israel and its 67 borders as some sort of equal stakeholder in this conflict, when it is anything but.

      The Zionists went into Palestine believing in their heart that the backwards Arabs were savages with no political consciousness nor a any sort of identity that ties them to the land, unlike "Jews" and their "promised land". This is the starting point of the conflict, that set in motion all the evil acts perpetrated in Palestine by Zionists throughout the oncoming century. This belief underlies everything they did, and are doing, and it is recorded in written history as fact for everyone judge. We know now that these "Arabs" had extremely sophisticated culture and political system and identities that connect them to the land stretching back thousands of years.

      An analogy from my POV :

      The Zionists tried to engineer a skyscraper with flawed understanding of the math. As a result their building is inherently unstable and is constantly under threat of failure. How long will they be able to plaster the cracks 24/7 until the money runs out? In engineering we know very well what's going to happen to this building eventually. It will either disastrously collapse on its own, or the owners will be forced to demolish it by the authorities.

      Right now the Zionists are in denial of their erroneous design calculations and are trying to blame everything from the wind to the soil to the ocean breeze for threatening the integrity of their prized skyscraper. Won't be long until circumstances force them to move past the denial stage and admit they screwed up.

      People who believe Israel has right to exist in some form (like those who acknowledge 67 borders) on Palestine are saying the building can be salvaged despite the fact that it was doomed to fail even before construction started. They are not being responsible nor are they being smart, and should be rightfully shunned and their opinions disregarded.

    • The Zionist project must fail, and we should be working to make failure desirable to the Israelis. Only then we can effectively move forward in establishing a liberated Palestine for all of its inhabitants. There cannot be any provision for two states, else we are actively participating in the colonial carving up of sovereign Palestine. When we are afflicted with cancer, we strive to remove all of the cancer while keeping our bodies whole. This is what our goal should be when it comes to rhe IP conflict.

  • US Jews adopted 'deferential' relationship to Israel, and tabooed dissent so as to preserve US gov't support
    • David

      "You did have a good discussion on Mondoweiss about this once. But Alison Weir, her group, If Americans Knew, and her book “Against Our Better Judgment” should be cited, along with Walt and Mearshimer, as legitimate voices from the larger American community, rather than let them continue to be tarred and feathered by McCarthy-like guilt by association claptrap, which in my opinion non-mention in your post perpetuates."

      Alison Weir is her own person, she is free to associate with anyone she likes and seek allies where she sees fit to fulfil her goals.

      Her abject failure in everything she does however should be a clear indicator for you, and everyone else, that she is not a valuable member in the movement for anyone to feel obligated to partner with. Phil Weiss is a distinguished writer and lifelong activist, he shouldn't have to be told who to associate himself with.

    • No, not leave Israel alone. Lets fight against oppression wherever we can, and let's focus on the oppression that we are most complicit in. I hate seeing privileged Americans so combatant towards Israel, but are okay with the continued occupation and colonisation of North America by the white supremacist regime, and the continued dismissal of paying reparations to blacks and Natives.

    • Bumblebye, that sounds more logical and it is the core ademand of the Occupy movement that is fundamentally shifting the societal attitudes in the West. Whether its the aid money to Israel, the subsidides to Wall St, money to the Military Industrial Complex, or money laundered overseas, these are all happening because the ruling class are part of a huge criminal conspiracy, who do not serve the public nor have it best interests at heart. Calling for stopping the aid in order to help those at home first is missing the big picture.

    • So the costs of providing healthcare and welfare to those uncovered is merely 6 billions annually and America can't afford it? This makes no sense, I object to money being given to Israel but what makes you think that the government will use the 6 billion to help the poor in the case if the aid is stopped?

    • It's becoming clear that Zionists have no friends and love no one but themselves. Jews were simply a means to an end for them to establish a fascist regime in Palestine. They obviously never did it for the genuine welfare of Jews, they did it for themselves and manipulated Jews to be unwitting accomplices to their crimes.

      I don't believe that all Jews who support Israel are good folks who just got duped, because I know many who support Israel because they savour the privilege of being racists and the power to oppress entire civilizations. However, these type of folks will always exist in the world across all societies, and their Jewishness is irrelevant in their politics.

      Also, please keep in mind that many Israeli Jews are also victims of Zionism, where the state nurtures them to be hateful of Palestinians, Islam, Arabic culture etc and manipulates them from birth to be complicit in the evils of the state. It's another form of oppression, but an oppression non the less and we should be sympathetic to their circumstances too.

    • I'm not sure I agree fully with your assessment that the poor folks in Alabama are suffering from lack of healthcare or general gov welfare because of Israel. In fact I think it's a rather ridiculous suggestion, that totally ignores the state and fed governments incompetence along with apathy towards the working class.

  • Democratic Party is now split over Israel, and Clinton and Sanders represent opposing camps, says Pew
    • As nice as this news may sound, we must not forget the Democratic party is a political entity borne out of settler colonialism, theft of native land and slavery. It represents the interests of the colonialists first and foremost, despite it's facade of being the progressive party. We can't overthrow the system and dismantle the white supremacist regime by coopting with the colonialists, just as Palestinians can't achieve liberation through voting for Labour.

  • Donald Trump has one proposal to unite a fractured Republican party -- Islamophobia
    • Gamal, are you saying you are against Sharia, after explaining how it was designed to prevent unlawful punishments to those unfortunate enough to have sex outside marriage?

      My understanding of the sharia is it was the legal system of historical progressives in Arabia, as opposed to the harsh traditional law of the conservative Arab society where stoning and decapitations were the norm.

    • So Gamal, would I be correct to assume that the early Muslim lawmakers sought to basically draw a legal system that actively rejected all the social norms of the society at large at that time, by introducing such a convoluted systems of trial and punishment?

      As if they knew things like sex outside marriage and drinking etc were all perfectly natural human acts not worthy of any undue attention, let alone punishment by the state. Yet they were wise enough to understand the dynamics of the society they lived in; ruthless, rigid and laborious. Instead of forcing liberal ideas on a hardened, conservative society, they created the sharia which recognizes local customs and beliefs but at the same time, sought to eliminate the ill-effects of such beliefs on individuals victimized by the social norms.

    • Exactly, and the funny thing is that his dirty attacks on Khan only served to hurt his campaign, unmasking his bigotry and racism towards Muslims.

      What I found rather disturbing though is him being able to engage in such nasty attacks on a person character in public without any real repercussions. To associate someone, anyone with terrorist links is one of the more grave accusations one can make, and that was pretty much the core strategy of the Tory candidate. He should've been disqualified from holding any public office, face the prospect of jail time in addition to publicly apologizing to Khan for his criminal slanders.

    • I have a hard time trying to see the author's point here. Trump is running on a white supremacist angle which naturally would entail stoking all sort of anti-non white sentiments, including Islamophobia. However, how could one disregard the genocidal vitriol he spewed towards the Latinos and Hispanics early on his campaign, which strongly enabled him to rise as a contender in the first place? Or his insistence that America during which a racial hierarchy were strictly enforced, where the top spot were reserved for whites while blacks were forced to stay at the bottom, is qualitatively greater than the current America?

  • US and Russia talk peace, make war, in Syria
    • Actually, US support of ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq has been soundly established, hence their 7000+ sorties bizarrely ending up helping the terrorists instead of neutralizing them.

      America demands a compliant, subservient regime in Syria that will put its interest ahead of Syria's own, which is the root cause of the destabilization of Assad's government. Syria has been traditionally the most anti-imperialist and pro-socialist government in Middle East and always have stood up for itself. If you know one thing about bullies, they absolutely hate it when people they feel they can bully stand up and resist them. Realizing they have lost the fear factor to directly engage the smaller nation, they are now cowardly funding sociopathic groups within Syria to do their bidding.

      There is no way Russia or Syria would ever accept the US as their ally, it would be like inviting a mass murdering sociopath into your family home.

    • I can't believe the author would place equal blame in the Syrian war on Russia along with the US. Russia has been exemplary in dealing with the mess in Syria that US devilishly started and promoted for its geopolitical goals, together with its bunch of unsavory allies in the region, namely Israel, Saudi and Turkey.

      Russia for those who don't know, is strongly allied with the government of Syria, a democratically elected sovereign entity that is responsible for the interests of all Syrians. This is not a war between two equal forces, but between a legitimate elected government and enemies of the state whose ultimate interests are very much as foreign as their backers.

      I'm disappointed MW would publish an illustration that conveys blatant anti-Russian sentiments and false representation of the events in Syria.

  • Elor Azarya, King of Israel
    • "Hmmmmm, now, where have I seen this particular distribution of sympathy before? One Palestinian is dead, one Israeli, well, not, and he’s “just as much of a victim”"

      This is a bigger issue that it appears to be. Elor merely pulled the trigger, but he cannot be held responsible for the institutional oppression that was put into place by the leadership of Israel, who are ideologically driven to hate Arabs due to their European colonial mindset.

    • You are talking about peaceful immigration, which is not what Zionism is. Does the aliyah require hostile displacement of native non-Jews and establishment of a government and legal system that strongly mirrors European systems, and that which holds all form of local political and cultural traditions in absolute contempt?

    • Elor Azarya is a Mizrahim Jew who is racially an Arab, or more accurately, Middle Eastern. The same race as the person he shot. His Jewish religion had little to do with his actions, which was wholly due to the life-long indoctrination and conditioning he went through as part of the Zionist doctrine to divide and rule.

    • Indeed, Mizrahim are the most vocal supporters of Azarya, and that’s because it is Mizrahim who are likely to find themselves the same role Azarya found himself in: tasked with using deadly force to control a civilian population, while Ashkenazim (Eastern European Jews) primarily enlist into the revered air force

      I never knew about that Air Force bit, but it not surprising at all. Zionism is an ideology concocted by Europeans, for Europeans. The rest were just cannon-fodder for the establishment. Mizrahim Jews often face racism from their fellow countrymen, and their ancestral cultures are openly mocked and derided to the extent that many go to great lengths to hide their traditions and roots. Worst still are the rarely discussed Ethiopian Jews (the Beta Israel) who are even harshly discriminated within Israeli society. They are more and less treated like blacks in the South. Makes you think why would these folks even stay here in the first place, instead of accepting they've been duped by Zionism and move on.

      The racial hierarchy in the army is not unique to Israel, however. I know that in the US Army, it is often the first gen Latinos who occupy the lowest rank and sent for the most high-risk missions where high casualties are expected, especially during the Afghan and Iraq War. Blacks are pretty low in the hierarchy too, while whites overwhelmingly occupy the more prestige positions within the army.

    • Sad to see Arabs being exploited to hate their own kind, by the Zionists. I hope one day this kid would realize that he shares the same blood with those he possess so much hatred for and find peace with himself.

      I can't be angry with Azarya, I just can't. I view him as much of a victim to the Zionist as the dead Palestinian he shot. I honestly feel bad for anyone unfortunate enough to have undergone such a tragic conditioning that made them do the things that will haunt them later in life.

  • Saying Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is not anti-Semitic
    • "The difference with the US, also founded as a colonial venture, like most nations actually, over millenia, is that it has given full and equal rights as citizens to its indigenous people."

      Full and equal rights means little if you have no political or economic power to fulfil your rights. We should be working to pay reparations, enact land reforms, and grant more political autonomy to native groups.

      "Let us also not forget that American Indians were also colonisers, perhaps wiping out an earlier group when they crossed the land-bridge from Russia/Asia into North America."

      Citations needed.

      "And since all of us originally came from Africa, then, apart from a few Africans, if they could be identified given the colonising of Africa by Africans, over millenia, all of us are descended from colonisers."

      Irrelevant and irresponsible to use unverifiable historical myths from millions of years ago as political argument for issues at present time.

    • We in the movement for Palestinian liberation have always hold the opinion that Israel has no right to exist, not in the occupied territories, nor within its 67 borders. Palestine is the homeland of Palestinians and they don't zero obligations to split and give away a huge part of it to a bunch of fascist invaders from Europe who hold them in absolute contempt.

      But please don't get too smug with this realisation, because the USA also has no right to exist on Native American land.

  • Advice to British leftwingers on kicking racism out of their anti-Israel rhetoric
    • Mooser:

      "o what are you waiting for? Tell us who you are!, AFTER ALL, AS YOU SAY: "

      I would be happy to state my ethnicity, religious stance, gender identity and sexuality and my political leanings, so as long as everyone else are also required to do so in order to participate in the comment section. It is only fair then, when everyone's biases and interests are right there out in the open, for anyone to look at and refer to easily and readily, without the need for offensive questioning and interrogations.

      So I have to leave this out for the site admins discretion.

    • Mooser :

      "So you should be able to tell us, by your own standards, everything we need to know about you in one or two words. So what are you waiting for, tell us about your genetic make-up and DNA which will tell us everything! Like you know all about ours.

      So what are you waiting for “Silmacuz”? You really should, cause my Spidey-sense tells me you are on pretty thin ice, commenting-wise. They might put you back in the sock-drawer."

      I have to tell you? According to which rule?

      Look, I have no issues divulging my ethnic identity, gender and sexuality, religious leanings or political convictions but only under the term where every other commenters are obliged the same. These information must be easily and readily available for all participants of the site to be able to access and (cross) refer to.

      I honestly think it is a good idea for MW to implement in order to visualize commenter bias with relations to their identity and it's predispositions.

      For example, I have a strong feeling that among white, male commenters, there is a predominant stance that America is not a white supremacist, settler-colonial regime that mirrors Israel, or there is no white privilege in the same manner as there is (European) Jewish privilege in Israel.

      However, among POC and white women it's totally different. We are more open in agreeing with the illegality of the American state institutions, the white supremacist social order that serves as the foundation the nation, the status of indigenous Natives as the rightful owners as the land etc.

      Another important difference I have observed is, among POC we do not pay too much attention to the Jewish vs Muslim/Arab aspect of IP conflict, and we tend to focus on the conflict as secular and politically rooted in European imperialism and anti-black, anti-Orient cultural racism that were ubiquitous in Europe when Zionism was took form as a complete ideology.

      There are many such differences in opinion and outlook that strongly correlate with a person's larger identity, and if we can effectively show that such correlation exist, people would not be so offended and angry at individuals (like myself) for possessing opinions that are fundamentally different from theirs.

    • Sibiriak :

      "No, nothing personal: it is precisely your stance that is objectionable– a fake, deceptive Zionism-serving “intersectional whataboutery” and faux-racialized- ludicrously -PC- progressivism."

      This is quite a serious charge to throw at someone, without a lick of evidence to back you up. Fake, deceptive, surely threw all you got in that vicious indictment, didn't you.

      I wonder what you think of Phil Weiss' stance on the IP conflict, or JVP, or SJP or any other leading progressive voice in the nation, as I happen to derive a huge portion of my ideals and political stance directly from these fine folks.

      Silamcuz writes:

      I reserve all my love and energy to my people, and my people only.

      That’s quite an ideological stance. Bravo!!

      What is the name of your people?

      Why do you love ONLY them, and give your energy ONLY to them?

      So you admit that you do not know who I am referring to when I stated that I reserve my love, ultimately to my own people.

      Yet, you are so quick to judge and antagonize me for saying so, as if I am not allowed to have agency when it comes to choosing who I love. Or are you one of those people who believe that by loving a certain group you identify the most with, you automatically hate everyone outside of that group?

    • Sibiriak:

      "No, I’m merely suggesting that you, as a white Jewish Zionist playing a deceptive “intersectional whataboutery” game, who says he reserves all his love and energy to his people, and his people only , yet spends tons of energy pretending to fight for other peoples–you have a huge credibility– or should I say laughability– problem. Huge!"

      So it boils down to you having problem with me, as a person and not my political or ideological stance. Fortunately I really don't care about what random strangers think of me, not in real life and definitely not online.

      However, I do think you should refrain from launching personal attacks and ad hominem arguments without evidence of wrongdoing or any basis really.

    • Mooser, get over yourself. Palestinian are more than capable of helping themselves. This is not about who gets to help who, its about assigning responsibility for the current predicament of Palestinians and holding these those who are responsible accountable.

      Jewish, especially white American Jews are responsible for the power and influence of Zionism, simply because they are Jews. Hence many millenial Jews take on this responsibility and hold themselves accountable by rejecting Zionism overtly. Many of them despise Israel and everything it stands for, and want to make it right for the Palestinians.

      You seem to be obsessed in proving me wrong, to the point of malice. Always conflating, deflecting and denying. It's a shame there are no moderators to monitor and call out these sort of unproductive, unethical and deviant behavior in the comments.

    • Eljay:

      I am an average Canadian with no more privilege than any other average Canadian

      Except you are totally wrong. As an average white Canadian, living in Canada you enjoy all the benefits of white privilege that are not shared by your fellow average black or First Nation Canadians.

      White privilege is not exclusive to the USA, just so you know. It's prevalent in all white majority settler colonial establishments, from Canada all the way to New Zealand.

    • Sibiriak

      "“fighting Zionism in the name of POC"

      Why wouldn't this be the case when the victims of Zionism are almost exclusively POC (namely the Palestinians, the non-white Jewish Israelis, Arabs as the major ones) ?

      Are you implying the fight against Zionism should be a white-centric movement?

    • Sibiriak

      "fighting Zionism in the name of POC, anti-White Supremacy, and a racialized version of progressive politics–not in the name of his own beloved People. "

      Zionism is closely related to White Supremacy, and as such, you cannot oppose one without doing likewise with the other. Same way you can't be anti-racism but pro-religious supremacism.

      Actually, I know many people who actively engage in anti-Zionism, but maintain a neutral or positive stance towards white supremacy. We in the activist field try to stay away from these folks the best we can, just as JVP, SJP, MW etc stay away from Alison Weir and countless other anti-Israel white supremacist / white nationalist groups existing today.

      What does "racialized version of progressive politics" even mean? Where in the world is race (by its many definitions) not an integral part of politics?

      Are you suggesting we be colorblind and deliberately refrain from discussing racially-sensitive matters (such as school-to-prison pipeline, environmental racism in Flint, Eurocentric national curriculum, black-white wage gap and unemployment rates etc etc etc) in politics?

    • Eljay

      "Privileged silamcuz actually lying because Eljay never say he actually believe that white privilege do not exist."

      Hmmm, OK. Could you explain what you mean when you said you are no more privileged than any other Canadian, as below, in response to me claiming that you as a white Canadian benefit from white privilege?

      "But I’m not privileged – no more so than any other Canadian – so what you’re actually hearing is the sound of your anti-white racism screaming hatred at me"

      So you don't deny white privilege exist, but it's just happen to not apply to you personally?

    • Eljay,

      What you are doing is labelled as derailing. The contentious issue here is not the individual behavior of Azealia Banks, yet that's where you are continuously diverting the discussion towards so you can present yourself in opposition of her bad behavior, and me as a supporter of her bad-behavior.

      I neither support or object to her tweets, because none of them interests me. The issue I am pushing is the discriminatory fashion she is being treated by the mainstream media, and by Twitter for her decision to those offensive material. I think it's pretty clear, but I know you deliberately are missing the point, so I won't bother arguing any further. There a lot of ways to wake a person who is sleeping, but what can you do to person who is faking sleep?

    • Mooser

      "“silamcuz” uses so much circular logic, he’s always running headlong into himself coming the other way."

      No circular reasoning here. It's fairly straightforward, POC and progressives are sick of white supremacy dictating the terms of what are punishable offenses and what falls under free speech.

      We are sick of seeing white people be afforded one standard of conduct, and POC and especially black women be afforded a completely different set in a discriminatory fashion.

      In the end of the day, Azaelia Banks got banned from Twitter. But we progressives kinda expected that, no way a black woman would get away saying the things she said in public. What we demand now is the same standard be applied across the board, where ALL of those engaging in verbal abuse and inflammatory, hurtful rhetorics be banned from using Twitter. This must include powerful figures such as Trump , and regular people such as his many bigoted, racist supporters.

      Here's some excerpts from a really well-written article for your enlightenment on this issue

      "While I celebrate that festivals have dropped Banks as a headliner and Twitter promptly suspended her account for her actions, I find it absolutely disgusting that I can pull up my mentions right now and point out several white people who have tweeted to me that I am a worthless nigger with no future and looking for a handout—and no matter how many times I report them, the response is the usual, “this is not a violation of policy.” Oh-ho really? Raise your hand if you have ever been personally victimized by white privilege on social platforms. Everybody who isn’t a straight white male better have both hands waving in the air, lemme tell you, but Twitter and Facebook won’t see you. They’re too busy vigilantly protecting our rights!

      That is, they’re protecting the rights of every of every male user who threatened to rape and murder women during the infamous Gamergate. That’s “freedom of speech,” but heaven forbid a woman posts a picture of her breastfeeding to Facebook. That’s like porn or something! They’re protecting the rights of that one white female user I reported to Facebook, who called me a hateful nigger bitch and let me know in no uncertain terms that she had a Glock next to her with my name on it. Alrighty then, that’s free speech? But heaven forbid someone type “Black Lives Matter.” Facebook was so vigilant on censoring these words that Mark Zuckerberg actually sent a letter to his employees to tell them to chill out.

      Yet, for their commitment to free speech, they are equally committed to getting rid of hate speech. That’s why all those Pro-Black Facebook pages are erased and the Black Panther party is referred to as a terrorist group. Never fear though, those white power and pro-men’s-rights-to-rape groups are still going strong. YAY FREEDOM! DOWN WITH PC CULTURE! We must protect the Ku Klux Klan (who, unlike the Black Panthers, have started no community projects beyond a bloody history of torturing and lynching). They’re simply a group with an unpopular opinion, am I right or am I right?"

      Source : Azealia Banks’ Twitter Ban Reminds Us Freedom Of Speech Is For Whites Only by Carol Hood, written forThe Establishment

    • The above is a clear example of why white people, especially white men have no place in the field of activism for social justice and liberation of oppressed.

      If you honestly do not see anything wrong with a black woman being banned from Twitter for using offensive language, while millions of white people are allowed to do the same without similar repercussions, why do even bother inserting yourself in progressive forums and engaging in liberation politics?

      But seriously, Eljay actually believe that white privilege do not exist, so it's not surprising for him to be blind to the systemic discrimination against blacks, especially black women.

      In closing of this rather sad set of comment chain, I want to ask Phil Weiss one question:

      Is denying white privilege an offense in the same manner on your site, as denying the Holocaust or the Nakba? Please clarify, thank you.

    • Eljay

      "– He strips her of her intelligence, her will and her privilege by reducing her to a “black woman” / “troubled black woman” who “tweets some stupid shit”. "

      The issue is whether it was right for Twitter to ban her, and if she had the right to tweet those words without expecting personal attacks on her by the mainstream media and fellow Twitter-users. What does her "intelligence, her will and her privilege" has anything to do with it? Please explain your reasoning to mention these words here.

      "He compares her to Trump, as though Trump’s atrocious behaviour – which deserves to be condemned – justifies her own. Whataboutism – the ol’ “murders exist, so it’s OK to rape” "

      I am not comparing Azaliea Banks to Trump per se. I am comparing the treatment by the mainstream media and Twitter towards a black woman,Banks and white people like Trump for publishing offensive, harmful tweets. Note the difference.

      I am not justifying Banks remarks towards Zayn because it does not need to be justified. It was a personal attack, that's between her and Zayn (and South Asians by extension). She is not an elected official, or a public figure that is obligated to conform to a set code of conduct due to her position. So why ban her and deny her the freedom of speech? If South Asians hated her tweets, they can ignore her, boycott her concerts, stop buying her albums etc. But on what basis did the neutral party, Twitter ban her?

      Now Trump, he is vying for an elected position that will give him institutional powers to commit violence on Muslims, such as banning them from travelling (a fundamental human right btw), legalize spying on their community, bomb their homelands etc. He is as harmful as any individual can be, to a major sector of American demographic. As in his words, or tweets translate to real-world violence on Muslims, and Mexicans and other POC. Yet, he is able to keep his Twitter account and continue publishing offensive tweets that serves as a means for him to reach his Islamophobic, racist and xenophobic goals.

      This is what I am talking about...this whole drama is just white supremacy trying to pit POC against POC, while it quietly sit back and revel in the spectacle. I honestly don't care about neither Banks or Zayn, I'm just focused on dismantling white supremacy.

    • Eljay

      Alezia Banks beauty, intelligence or success is irrelevent because we are talking about how the media and system discriminate against the collective POC when claiming to check bad behavior. This is not much about her personally but more about black or POC women in general who are constantly being painted as the villains just because they dare to challenge the status quo. What happened to Banks had happened to countless POC or black women before, and we as social justice activists should be cognizant of this.

      Banks got banned from Twitter despite her right to free speech, despite many other users tweet even more harmful material, especially white men in power such as Trump, despite Zayn not expressing any grievances over the whole debacle. She got banned frankly because she is a black woman, and she got all the intense media scrutiny because she is a black woman.

      You are missing the point when you claim Banks cause of offense is because she said bad things when she had the privilege to do so. This is not the case at all. Her words were meant to trigger a reaction from South Asians from the systemic oppression they have faced and are facing due to white supremacism, colonialism and imperialism. So when she calls Zayn a refugee, smells like curry etc, it reminds South Asians of the common stigma and oppression they face in the West due to Western destabilization of governments, bombings of civilians under the guise of fighting terror, profilling all brown folks as potential terrorists and sharing on big monolithic brown (curry eating) culture etc. If her words are harmful, it is only because they are underlied with immense systemic violence by the white countries towards South Asia and Pakistan specifically. Instead of focusing on these systemic violence that afflict the South Asian community that produced the social stigma against their culture (such as "curry" smelling bad) and their political aspirations in the first place, the media is disgustingly jumping on her personally as some sick modern witch hunt.

    • Mooser

      Well just look at the millions of white people tweeting even worse stuff about Muslims, blacks and Mexicans, they never get banned from Twitter on the basis of protecting free speech.

      Why is Trump, a person who has publicly threatened to enact institutional ban against 1.6 billion Muslims (many of these are South Asians, including Zayn and his family) travelling into the country, advocated torture and killing non-combatants in war against terror, allowed to keep his Twitter, but not Azealia Banks? How does this work, calling someone names is worse than institutional oppression and state sanctioned murder?

      When a black woman tweets some stupid shit, she immediately gets banned by Twitter (note that Zayn didn't even ask her to be banned) and articles after articles are pumped out by the media covering her rather inane tweets. As if her dumb tweets serve to hurt Zayn or South Asians any more badly than living in a white supremacist western nation does.

      It's bizarre how frenzied the media becomes when it sees a troubled black woman trip and make a mistake, ruthless jumping on her as if she is the devil. What makes it worse if that they don't even bother to ask why would her tweet offend Zayn or any South Asian?

      If Zayn is genuinely hurt by her tweets, it will be only because he is reminded of the institution oppression he and his people face living in a white supremacist society. Her tweets serves to remind South Asians of the systemic violence they are subject to, not by her, but by the police, by the education system, by the government, by Hollywood, by every structure of American society. Hence, if the media is feeling so self-righteous, they should be demonizing the actual system that harms South Asians, not gang up on a black woman who has no institutional power beyond herself to hurt Zayn and his fellow brown folks.

    • Annie

      i am a huge malik fan (literally) and intercepted this early on. wow. anyway, today she got banned from twitter so she’s took to instagram and “says she’ll be publishing an essay titled “Whiteness is a mental illness.”

      Do you find anti-whiteness to be problematic? Just curious, because anti-whiteness is not synonymous with anti-white FYI, and many distinguished writers and thinkers can be argued to hold beliefs aligning with anti-whiteness and these folks are often white themselves.

      Anyways, I found the media's response to Banks distasteful and unfair. She is obviously posing herself as a troll, and deliberately using inflammatory language to vent and cry for attention at the same time. The outrage is overblown I think, especially when you consider the fact that we have a guy who openly advocates racial violence towards Muslims and Mexicans and he gets to run for the presidency because of it.

      Also, please be aware that the media is always looking for the opportunity to pit POC groups with each other, whether its brown folks vs black, Asian vs brown etc hence they amp up stuff like this. Was Banks wrong to tweet those nonsense? Well I suppose but the reactions from the mainstream are uncalled for.

      Not to mention that anti-blackness is rife within the South Asian community, as a result of centuries of European colonialism and internalization of white supremacy. Banks through her ill-worded tweets, brought some much needed awareness of this issue to the wider audience. She did the community a favor albeit in a twisted, offensive way.

    • Eljay (a white male)

      "But I’m not privileged – no more so than any other Canadian – so what you’re actually hearing is the sound of your anti-white racism screaming hatred at me"

      Sigh. Please read these and try again.

      - Why White People Downplay Their Individual Racial Privileges -

      Research shows that white (Americans), when faced with evidence of racial privilege, deny that they have benefited personally.

      "But in a new study, Stanford researchers found that on an individual level, whites do not think that the privileges extend to them.

      The research by L. Taylor Phillips, a PhD student at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Brian Lowery, the Walter Kenneth Kilpatrick Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford GSB, found that whites exposed to evidence of racial privilege responded by claiming their own personal hardships. Those surveyed didn’t deny the existence of racial privileges held by whites as a group, they just came up with other reasons — namely, personal obstacles — why they should be considered differently from that overall group."

      "Despite this reality, policy makers and power brokers continue to debate whether racial privilege even exists and whether to address such inequity,” the researchers noted. “One reason for this inaction might be an unwillingness among Whites to acknowledge racial privilege — acknowledgment that may be difficult given that Whites are motivated to believe that meritocratic systems and personal virtues determine life outcomes."

      Extracted from Stanford Graduate School of Business Insights, author Kerry A. Dolan

      I thought this statement described you to a t, Eljay :

      "White privilege is the other side of racism," author Paula Rothenberg wrote in her book White Privilege. "It is often easier to deplore racism and its effects than to take responsibility for the privileges some of us receive as a result of it."

      Extracted from MIC - This New Study Explains Why White People Deny Their Privilege

      Here are Canada-specific articles to further assist in your education on white privilege

      - Why We Must Talk About White Privilege -

      The idea that systemic racism has victims but no beneficiaries is a lie we must confront and destroy.

      It is because of white privilege that some white people are skeptical of or offended by equity programs that assume racialized residents may face greater challenges than their white counterparts. Their presumption is that all races are equal, because that is their real experience as the invisible but dominant racial group. As a result, those who object to these programs argue that phenomena like the racial imbalance among government employees is the result of picking the “most qualified person for the job”—as if qualified people of colour are simply the losers in an unbiased hiring environment.

      "Let us also work to destroy the deadly myth that our unequal society is a reflection of merit. Black and brown people experience disproportionately high rates of poverty, underemployment, and poorer health outcomes. It is the height of privilege to defend a social system that produces such skewed outcomes as “fair.” We need aggressive employment equity targets and an explicit commitment to anti-racism in our public and private workplaces, we need zoning strategies to ensure grocery stores and not just fast food outlets are within walking distance of every Torontonian—we need to remake every social system to provide equal access and opportunity, instead of assuming that merit will win out of its own accord."

      Here's more reading material just in case you are still confused on what is white privilege :

      - What is white privilege? -

      Sonia Ellis-Seguin of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Toronto led a session for educators on recognizing that white people are given opportunities that aren't offered as easily to others.

      The lesson is that white privilege can be an invisible but insidious form of racism.

      "White people will have benefit or have advantages within society purely because they are white," she said.

      Extracted from CBC News Toronto

      Are you still going to deny your white privilege now, Eljay?

    • "So are other non-natives. Stop hating on me just because I happen to be white."

      Of course, every time people call white people out on their privilege, they scream oppression. You are too predictable and boring, frankly speaking.

    • Eljay

      "Thanks for telling me what I should and should not be discussing. Do you also tell blacks and natives what they should and should not be discussing, or do you save all of your disdain only for “whitey”? "

      Yes, I am telling you that you shouldn't be discussing internal affairs of people that does not pertain to you or yours especially in a forum that were designated for non-white, marginalized voices. Shouldn't be that hard, considering your voice and opinions as a white cis-male are welcome just about everywhere else, unlike those of blacks, natives or Palestinians. Recognize your privilege.

      This is good news! Since I had nothing to do with the state of the natives today, I have absolutely no obligations to anyone but myself. Thanks, silamcuz, you’re the best! :-)

      You are still being privileged from the oppression of natives, due to the present system of white supremacy. You enjoy all the benefits of the oppressive system, yet you claim you have nothing to do with it. It is through your complicity and tacit support, the white supremacist system is still standing.

      Genocide of natives and theft of their land are not merely minor black spots in American/Canadian history.

      These were the fundamental events that laid the foundation of the country, and shaped the future of blacks, natives and white people, and their relationship with each other. The repercussions of these founding events are still strongly affecting blacks and native groups today, and only a revolution...a complete dismantling of the white supremacist entity can liberate these folks from perpetual oppression.

    • Eljay

      No, what I did was correctly state that I had no choice in my coming to North America. I am here because of the actions of others.

      You do realize that applies to every single individual in the world right? Why not go a bit further since we are being philosophical. You look the way you do because you received all of the genes for your hair, eye and skin color, nose shape etc etc from your parents, who brought you into existence by having sex with non of your help. People treat you the way they do because of your appearance and behaviors, that are purely because of the action of others. And you react to their treatment of you in accordance to your environment and your hard-wired behavior. No choice in any of these.

      You behave the way you do because your mom gave birth to you in a country that prerequisites a certain set of values and behavioral attitudes, along with the genes that are responsible for the way your brain reacts external stimuli such as interaction with family, friends and colleagues as well as random strangers in your life. You also had no choice in neither the fact that you were born and raised where you were, or the specific DNA set that formed the basis of your personality and behavioral traits you inherited from your parents when you were conceived in your mother's uterus.

      You will have no choice on the circumstances that may affect you in the future, nor would you be able to choose your response to the circumstances considering you have been hard-wired to react to every event major or minor in a certain way due to your specific genetic makeup. In a nutshell, you had no choice in existing and will have no choice while you exist. Your statement is indeed correct, I suppose.

    • Eljay

      "Hmmm…I was unwillingly brought onto this (North American) land by Europeans, and citizenship was forced upon me. With that, I was made to obey the laws of the regime and pledge allegiance to its oppressive institutions I had no hand in creating"

      Your equating your existence due to your ancestors coming to America by their own choice, starting a family by choice and procreating you by choice to those whose existence in America is due to their ancestors being kidnapped and transported onto the continent in chains, bred like cattle, raped and impregnated by their owners?

      Also, if you are in any way oppressed by the institutions of the state it would be more logical for you to focus your energy in bringing awareness onto the oppressive practices and fight for your rights, instead of discussing Middle Eastern politics with strangers on the internet.

      "While black people are entitled to fight against the white man’s oppression, IMO they must show the same deference as the white man to North America’s indigenous population."

      Nah. Black people have absolutely no obligations to defer to anyone but themselves considering they had nothing to do with the state of the natives today. It's white people who started all of the mess, and its white people who are benefiting from the genocide of natives, theft of their land and slavery of the blacks.

    • Eljay

      "I very clearly referred to comments made on a different thread"

      Yeah, you clearly referred to the comments by not even bothering to quote them in your reply.

    • Eljay

      "You previously wrote: ” … you should also acknowledge that as a Canadian with no ancestry to the First Nation peoples, you are as much of a settler-colonist as the Jewish settlers in the West Bank … “

      You defined the terms of the discussion, I followed them…and that makes me a colonialist sympathizer who employs “infantile rhetorics”."

      My original claim was that these establishments are settler-colonialist regimes with no historical links to the land they occupy.

      To that, you responded with this :

      "To within which borders of the U.S/Canada. should the U.S./Canada withdraw?"

      If the US was established as a settler-colonial regime, it would mean the government started as an illegal occupation of land belonging to others, and did not exist as a political entity prior to the occupation that it can retreat to. The origins of both government are in Western Europe, specifically the UK, but even then, it doesn't really count as their legitimate borders.

      This shouldn't be hard to understand, especially considering your interests in the IP conflict. The only reason the Zionist regime is afforded the 67 borders to itself is because it managed to secure agreement with the Palestinian leadership through various peace deals. Even then, there are still considerable voices within Palestine that strongly disagree with the agreement and lay claim to the entirety of the land of Israel/Palestine with completely valid reasoning. Therefore, you should not be so assertive in stating that Israel's legitimacy is within its 67' borders especially considering you are not even a Palestinian.

      In the US, there are no political entities that specifically represent the interests of Natives or Blacks in the same way as the PLO, PA or Hamas does for Palestinians. In addition, the power imbalance between these communities and that of the US government is far greater compared to that between Palestine and Israel, hence the state doesn't even bother trying to arrange any sort of agreements to define its legitimate borders.

      This is why the only way forward to achieve justice in the USA and Canada is empowering these communities so that they can fight for themselves and secure their liberation on their own terms. Your obligations as a privileged settler-colonialist is to actively support them in every stage of their empowerment until justice is served.

      || … The only solution to the current colonisation is political empowerment of the colonized, namely the natives, blacks and their allies. … ||

      Surely you mean that only the “blacks and their allies” who have ancestry to the First Nations peoples should be empowered, yes? Because, according to you, those “with no ancestry to the First Nation peoples … are as much of a settler-colonist as the Jewish settlers in the West Bank … “

      No, you are wrong. Black people are just as colonized as the natives of North America, since they were unwillingly transplanted en masse onto the land by Europeans, and citizenship were forced on their descendants. With that, they were made to obey the laws of the regime and pledge allegiance to its oppressive institutions they had absolutely no hand in creating. Settler-colonialist refer to primarily those of European descent who formed the bulk of the political base for the US and Canadian government.

      TL:DR ~ People of European descent are not legitimate inhabitants of North America, and are part of a massive settler-colonialist project that dwarf Zionism. These settlers owe justice to the natives just as much as European Jews does to the Palestinians.

    • Eljay

      "In response to a similar post of yours, I asked you:
      – To within which borders of the U.S. should the U.S. withdraw?
      – To within which borders of Canada should Canada withdraw?

      You have yet to reply. Please do."

      You have shown your dishonesty and complete disinterest in helping liberate those under colonisation by the US and Canadian government through your infantile rhetorics.

      First of all, for the US or Canada to withdraw to a set border would mean that there was a precursor to the current arrangement that gave the government(s) legitimacy it has since lost. This is totally not true. There was no legitimate government representing itself as the USA or Canada in any point of time within history and there were no rightful borders in the first place. The question is fundamentally flawed and disingenuous.

      The only solution to the current colonisation is political empowerment of the colonized, namely the natives, blacks and their allies. Beyond that, it's up to them to set the terms of their liberation, whether it's to draw new borders for themselves or force reform onto the political system of the state(s). One form of empowerment would be the financial reparations and land reforms which have been long demanded by the victims of US and Canadian colonisation, but have been consistently ignored by the governments. Secondly is the provision of education system that caters specifically to the interests of the colonized, which would produce a politically conscious generation that will be more assertive and organized in demanding for their rights.

    • Either all settler colonial establishments are wrong or none of them are. I honestly don't see how is International Law relevant in this convo considering the it has consistently failed in delivering any form of justice to the oppressed. Israel is a settler colonial state but it is far from the only one at this given time. So is the North American states in addition to Australia and New zealand. Focus on Israel's settler colonialism all you want but you must atleast acknowledge that these other states are also similarly illegitimate and illegally founded. Israel has Gaza, the US has its reservations and inner city ghettos and Australia has desert slums for its natives and a Guantanamo inspired detention camp in Nauru for women and children for seeking refuge from the country.

  • It is time to stop celebrating Jewish dissent in the Palestine solidarity movement
    • Annie, I understand what you're saying, and I think we are not as far apart as it may appear. Groups that are specifically targetted for solidarity purposes by Palestinians are none of my concern. It's the ones who haven't been selected but still went in to meddle in the issues of IP are the people I am calling out. There are so many of these groups who are involving themselves in the activism space for Palestinian liberation for self serving purposes, worst still for goals that are in direct opposition to the desires of Palestinians. Examples are pro-American nationalists who exploits the Palestinian struggles to push a protectionist agenda, even though we all know that pro-Americanism is simply Zionism practiced in a different location.

      As for the subject of white racism, I disagree with you that everyone is responsible for it. Black people cannot be held responsible for the misdeeds of others, likewise for any group of people really. Saying its a responsibility of everyone to solve, when one side is the victim and one side is the aggressor makes no sense. If a woman gets raped, will you also blame the victim by claiming everyone is responsible in preventing the tragic crime?

    • Good comment, Diaspora. Again, there is the deeply-seated, widespread problem within Western society that demands them to feel superior over others. It is a symptom of a civilisation that has completely lost bearing on humanity and lost all form of spiritual link between themselves and the Earth that sustain them. This of course is an issue that goes far beyond Israel. The entirety of the Western civilisational framework stretching from America to Germany to Israel is corrupt and rotten, and in dire need of enlightenment, to be revived from their long psychosis which ironically can only be done through the help of the very people they despise and feel superior towards.

    • You are hopelessly mistaken, Mooser. I am saying that Jewish people are ultimately the ones responsible for reigning in the Zionist who specifically utilize Jewish identity as a basis to their aspirations and a means to gather support for whatever they are doing in Palestine. Its Jewish support that ultimately enables the existence of the state in practical terms, is this not correct? The money and political support for Israeli misdeeds in Palestine are not being fished out of the Dead Sea.

      If a bunch of angry white people went and lynch a black person in public to assert white dominance over blacks, is it really a black person's responsibility to figure out why the hell are they doing this, and how to make them stop? Of course not, white people's racism is white people's problem to deal with. Why would a black person be burdened with the ridiculous responsibility to defend himself and his kin from murderous racists, on top of the various other responsiblities already on his shoulders just as any other individual?

    • "Jewish critics recognize and are willing to own their privilege, as it were, just as some white solidarity activists with #BLM are."

      Owning their privilege would mean to start policing their own communities and keeping themselves, their families, their friends and their colleagues accountable to the values which would ensure the liberation of Palestinians, among others. Examples are anti-Zionism, anti-racism, pro-feminism, pro-blackness etc. These are all pretty heavy tasks to undertake so it is not fair for those seeking solidarity to expect Palestinians to spearhead these efforts and educating folks they have absolutely no obligations to educate.

      Racist white folks threatening Palestinians are white activists problem to solve. Zionist Jews supporting the occupation of Palestine are Jewish activists problem to solve. Why intrude into the internal spaces reserved for Palestinians when the problems are so far away in your own backyards? How about just listening to Palestinians, which can be easily done from a safe distance?

    • Nada, what you wrote in this article accurately summarized the feelings of many within the Palestinian Liberation movement, and I for one, applaud the honesty and frankness of your writings.

      However, we in the movement have also long lamented the continued intrusion of privileged white, pro-Western, pro-Americanism activists into the space meant for the liberation of oppressed. I imagine anyone who would publish an article on this subject would incite a far uglier tantrum from the readers here.

  • Norman Finkelstein on Sanders, the first intifada, BDS, and ten years of unemployment
    • BDS is pragmatic in the sense that it puts the ball firmly in the Israeli and its allies (USA and Western Europe) court to practice what it preaches. Force them to cash the extraordinary cheques their mouth writes across the mainstream media.

      Every day they object and fight BDS, they are undressing themselves to the let's assume neutral world. The more they fight, the more they themselves convince the neutrals and Israel's allies of the real face of the state. With its facade broken, Israel will wither away without putting up a fight. The goal of BDS is first and foremost, destroy this illusion of Israeli exceptionalism in the god-forsaken desert of Middle East.

      An Israel without its myth is just a pathetic bunch of unloved, unbalanced individuals with bombs and guns.

  • Donna Edwards ends insurgent campaign by taking on Democratic Party orthodoxy, and supporters vow to continue the fight
    • The Democratic Party is a white supremacist take on liberal politics. It does not represent the enlightened values of the progressives at all, because it is the other face of the more visibly white supremacist entity, the Republican Party.

      Donna Edwards is from the older generation, whose political consciousness were limited to the narrow scope of the two party system. She has yet to come to the realization that there can be no end game favourable to her playing in this rigged system, built on top on genocide and slavery.

      The entire establishment need to be dismantled and all remnants of the white supremacist entity must be destroyed. Come on Ms. Edwards, please wake up and realize the are bigger things we need to work for in order to secure our collective liberation. We do not achieve liberation by co-signing with the very systems that oppresses us and our children. Those who threaten the wellbeing of our children, i.e the government of the USA, must be fought with the utmost fierceness and without rest. We need to resist them, and win Donna. Not sit and hold hands with them while they drag us all towards our demise.

  • Chabon calls occupation 'the most grievous injustice I have ever seen in my life' and says he is 'culpable'
    • Zionist is fundamentally anti-black, but I would never equate it to be in the same level of evil as the chattel slavery of blacks in the New World.

      People who draw parallels between Zionism or the Israeli regime treatment of Palestinians with the white landowners treatment of black slaves are intellectually dishonest. Zionism is not an "other" ideology relative to the West. I think those who are quick to compare Zionism with chattel slavery are those trying to draw attention away from the fact that Western society post the expulsion of the Islamic Moors from Europe have always been festering in dysfunction. "You think we were bad, look at what those Israelis are doing to the Arabs. See, we are not worst civilization after all".

      I truly believe even the Palestinians wouldn't equate their treatment by Israel as comparable to the treatment blacks got from their white masters during slavery.

    • If you truly believe what is happening to the Palestinians is comparable to what happened to the blacks in the New World during slavery, I have to assume that you are either deliberately trying to offend black people by downplaying the level of trauma they have collectively suffered or you are a white supremacist trying to whitewash the crime of white slavers and revise history to be more favourable to your own race.

    • I have to side with Hopmi in this one. Trying to equate the chattel slavery of the blacks with the colonisation of Palestinians by Zionist is so offensive and frankly, idiotic even if the author meant well.

      Strong parallels with black slavery? Okay, first of all, who is the author to make this comparison? Is he a black person, descendant of a enslaved black ancestor, or have any biological or social ties to the black community?

  • Donna Edwards's campaign unsettles the Israel lobby inside the Democratic Party
    • Eljay

      "Israeli colonists should withdraw to within the Partition / borders of their Israeli state"

      How convenient! Steal the most valuable land, use the stolen land as a base to organize even more appropriation of valuable land, and when something goes wrong, well at least they have set up a sweet base for themselves.

      Though I actually don't really oppose this. They (Israelis) can keep it if they want it so bad. My wish is for them to just stay put and act out their supremacist delusions among themselves, in their own little corner of the world. Like North Korea perhaps.

    • Eljay

      I believe that my obligation is to support the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality. If that happens to coincide with “whatever the Palestinian [or any other] democratic society believe in”, great.

      Good, then I suggest start with the Canadian government collusion with Zionist in all aspect of governance. In addition, you should also acknowledge that as a Canadian with no ancestry to the First Nation peoples, you are as much of a settler-colonist as the Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and the rightful owners of the land are the indigenous pre-Columbian nations.

      Like Israel, USA, Australia and New Zealand, Canada is also an illegally founded, settler-colonialist regime that occupies indigenous land through the threat of violence. It is no less illegitimate than Israel, so please do not try to present yourself as some sort of enlightened being trying to help Palestinians while you yourself work along with the Canadian government in the continued theft of native land and oppression of the Native people.

      It is impossible for [the colonizer] not to be aware of the constant illegitimacy of his status. . . . A foreigner, having come to a land by the accidents of history, he has succeeded not merely in creating a place for himself but also in taking away that of the inhabitant, granting himself astounding privileges to the detriment of those rightfully entitled to them. . . . He is a privileged being and an illegitimately privileged one; that is, a usurper. Furthermore, this is so, not only in the eyes of the colonized, but in his own as well.

      The Contemporary Reality of Canadian Imperialism: Settler Colonialism and the Hybrid Colonial State

      Written by Adam J. Barker for the The American Indian Quarterly

    • Eljay

      "I believe that Israel...

      Are you a Palestinian? What you believe about Israel is irrelevant if that is not the case. Your obligations as are simply to support whatever the Palestinian democratic society believe in, or not.

    • I’m saying black Americans and white Americans and all other Americans are part of a single complex, multicultural, multi-ethnic American people

      Yes, a single complex, multicultural, multiethnic people. Sounds to me you are describing the human population of Earth.

    • What American people? To be part of a people would mean to be part of a big family where everyone love and support each other. Are you saying black Americans are more of a family to white Americans compared to their comrades in Brazil, Cuba, Jamaica.

      Nah. We are woke, and we won't be buying this fake American identity anymore. I reserve all my love and energy to my people, and my people only. Not Americans, Koreans, Japanese or the millions of groups existing across the globe.

      The US government btw, is an illegal settler-colonial entity occupying stolen land. We all should be calling for its complete dismantlement with the same vigour as we want Israel to cease sovereignty over Palestine.

    • Miss Edwards should know that the USA is as much of an enemy to her people as Israel is.

  • Trump, Sanders and the battle of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn for blue collar Arabs and whites
    • No, lets not irresponsibly assign a mental illness to someone in order to explain their horrible decisions in life. Sociopaths are often victims of a traumatic childhood or abnormal circumstances growing up, leading to stereotypical antisocial traits such as compulsive lying, anxiety, introvertness etc. Most importantly, sociopaths exhibit these tendencies out of a genuine need for self preservation. Hillary is not a sociopath, she is just a bad human being.

    • Truly, if the entire world has the chance to vote, almost everyone apart from right-wing Americans would nonchalantly vote for Sanders, because at this point, it's not even about political ideology anymore. It's about what sounds about right ( Sander's campaign) and what is definitely wrong (all of Republican and most of Democratic politics). The results would be like 99% Sanders, 1% whoever else.

      Why would the Arabs or Latinos or blacks not vote for Sanders? It's not like they have the privilege to be undoubtedly wrong politically and still go about their lives in peace and comfort. They don't, and when people have to hustle everyday for what they have, they simply would not put up with the utter BS that is American politics, whether from the Republicans or the Democrats.

      The establishment have long dependent on the white vote to sustain itself and not by earning it through merit either. Instead, it used a combination of (1) steady stream of indoctrination along with (2) domestication of white voters by granting immense level of privileges over other voting blocs.

      Unfortunately for the establishment, the money is drying up and people, especially the white voters they have long exploited for votes, are starting to feel the pinch of unsubsidized living. Now they are increasingly exposed to the consequences of bad political decisions on their part. It's all downhill from here for establishment but I'm sure they (both the Repubs and Democrats) won't be losing much sleep, fondly reminiscing of the good run they had.

  • The end of apartheid in Israel will not destroy the country, it can only improve it
  • We Stand with Palestine in the Spirit of 'Sumud': Statement from the U.S. prisoner, labor and academic solidarity delegation to Palestine
    • You need to direct that question to yourself. Not everyone will have the same political motivations in life. Would a Thai, a Kenyan or an Israeli Jew care about the need to dismantle the Israeli regime as much as a Palestinian? No, because these distinct group of people have vastly different experiences when it comes to the existence of Israel in the Middle East.

      I would argue that it is the same way for the various distinct ethnic groups in America. White or those with European roots, especially those from Western Europe, will not have the same distaste for the American nation-state, as compared to the native Indians or African-Americans. White people in general do not have any historical grievances that adversely affect their communities at present, due to the formation of the United States. Hence, I would not expect them ( or you, assuming you are white) to align politically with those whose existence are threatened by the very country that demand their allegiance.

      Hope that clarifies things a bit.

    • "Like Israel, the United States is a settler colony—built on the genocide and denial of Indigenous peoples’ rights; the kidnapping and enslavement of Africans; the colonization of Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii and Guam; the exclusion of Chinese people; the incarceration of Japanese people in concentration camps; and the rising vilification and criminalization of immigrants from Latin America and of Arabs, Muslims and Mediterranean and South and Central Asian people. Like Israel, the United States suppresses resistance using the cover of law. The United States continues to engage in imperialist wars and interventions in the Third World, while 2.3 million people are incarcerated in U.S. prisons, young Black, Latina/o, and Indigenous people are executed and targeted while educational institutions become increasingly privatized and corporatized. The 99% are getting more impoverished while the 1% is getting richer. Significantly, the United States funds Israel to the tune of $4 billion annually and supports the distorted ideology of Zionism."

      This is an extremely significant point to make, and one that must be understood and acknowledged by anyone who is interested in contributing to the movement for justice in Palestine. There are so many similarities between America and Israel, to the extent that sociologically, the dominant group in both nations exhibit the same cultural idiosyncrasies that closely mirrors each other. Just as the Jew as a nationality, as an ethnic group, as a cultural identity was deceptively fabricated for Zionism, we have multiple identities here that owes their existence for the same exact reasonings.

      Perhaps more importantly, only by acknowledging that America as an ongoing settler-colonial project that is occupying the land of the native Americans, along with the other countries mentioned; Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii and Guam and has done so for the entirety of its existence, we can accurately assess the vast scale of work needed to be done in order to liberate the oppressed.

      The return of Palestinian land and sovereignty to Palestinians should be the beginning of the decolonisation process in America. Regardless, we must be aware that Palestine is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ongoing occupation of indigenous land and the slow genocide of the natives, and prepare ourselves for the lifetime of work needed to be done to liberate us all from the evils of Zionism, capitalism, Americanism, white supremacy, Euro-supremacy and oppressive Christianity.

  • 'Anti-Zionism = anti-semitism' is a formal logical fallacy
    • Annie Robbins :

      "it may come as a surprise to you but everyone here already knows all about this. we had a thread with over a 1000 comments on it and it was discussed thoroughly all over the internet for months"

      Annie, I did have a look at that thread you mentioned, and the consensus among the MW site editors appear to be in support of SJP.

      Ms. Weir's white nationalist organisation, If Americans Knew, however, is still sharing articles published in Mondoweiss in their official Facebook page, which I am assuming is being done without consent of Phil Weiss. In my opinion, this serves to present a scenario whereby IAR is someway affiliated with MW, when it is clearly not. I just thought this should be brought onto light here, in case people, especially the editors are not aware of it.

    • Annie Robbins :

      "maybe you missed this part"

      Actually I did miss that part, thank you for point that out! However, the full statement does indicate that the uninvited person, Allison Weir has links to white supremacist groups even though she claims to be an anti-Zionist :

      These remarks were in fact made by notorious white supremacist Clay Douglas to Ms. Weir during the times she appeared on his radio show, “The Free American Hour”. However, it is important to note that Ms. Weir did nothing to challenge these assertions by Mr. Douglas and has in fact repeatedly stated her belief that Mr. Douglas is not racist, violent, or anti-Semitic.

      I also researched upon SJP's rather strong allegations upon the purported anti-Zionist activist, and to my surprise, found that their stance towards her and her organisation is supported by a wide group of well-known activists and pro-Palestinian organisations. Some of the major ones include Rebecca Pierce (, Ali Abunimah (, Jewish Voice for Peace (, Ben Norton ( among many others.

      In addition, one of Ms. Weir's main supporters against SJP is the co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement, Greta Berlin who also claims to be an anti-Zionist activist. However, Ms. Berlin has been widely discredited by those within the movement as harboring anti-semitic viewpoints and run a Facebook page that is filled with blatantly anti-Semitic rhetorics, which goes unmoderated. If that wasn't bad enough, she is also alleged to have made Islamophobic attacks towards those she disagrees with in the movement. (

      These prove that we are not short of people of significant influence and followings that are actively disseminating anti-semitic thoughts and ideas while cloaking themselves as anti-Zionists. In the end, the party that will bear the costs of these opportunistic,devious actions are the Palestinians and pro-Palestinian activists.

    • With regards to the statement by Ms. Elashkar, the invited speaker to the cancelled event, I believe what she said only serves to exonerate Stanford SJP for taking the correct step in not humoring her unnecessarily provocative stance towards Israel's right to exist.

      She comes off as severely arrogant and disrespectful to the organizers, in addition to being hopelessly inept in political discourse. How is boasting that Israel has no right to exist, in front of a diverse crowd of supporters and adversaries, be helpful to the movement especially considering the present political climate in Stanford.

      Right when the Stanford pro-Israel camp is pushing out the narratives connecting anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and stoking Islamophobia at the same time, for a visibly Muslim Palestinian to go on stage in a open event and passionately state Israel has no right to exist strikes me as too sabotaging to be an honest expression of resistance.

      It's as if Ms. Elashkar is deliberately trying to stir up trouble for the SJP organisation. Why not just focus on the letting the attendees know of your horrible experiences due to Israeli policies, and allow them to debate the right of existence among themselves based on your side of the story?

    • "that’s a lie. this sort of framing (inserting untruths to make your point) is really not helpful and can be construed as propaganda....sjp retracted their first explanation and posted a 2nd explanation. you could try quoting them directly. " - Annie Robbins

      You are correct in saying there were two distinct statements made, but I do not believe SJP claimed the latter statement to supersede the former. Each statement explained different issues that in combination lead to the cancellation of the event.

      Here is the first statement by SJP, regarding the unwelcome intrusion of white supremacists into the event which is still up in the group's official Face Book page.

      Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine decided to cancel our event “The Exiled Palestinians.” This was due to the presence of Alison Weir, who has openly expressed anti-Semitic sentiments. Although she was not invited, Ms. Weir came to our event with the purpose of selling copies of her book and distributing materials promoting her personal website. When asked to remove her materials, she eventually removed her books but left other materials advertising her website. We expressed our discomfort with her materials as well as her presence at our event given that she claimed to be associated with the event, but she refused to leave....

      Ms. Weir has also made derogatory remarks about Arabs, endorsed speech by a former head of the KKK, denied the impact of South African Apartheid, and referred to communism as a Jewish conspiracy. We find such speech to be unacceptable, and it has no place in our movement.

      The crux of the matter is, the movement for justice in Palestine is constantly under threat of being co-opted unwillingly, by undesirable groups or characters that can bring down the image of the movement as a whole. Anti-Zionism is indeed not anti-semitic, in fact I would argue Zionism is the fundamentally anti-semitic (anti-Jewish) however that doesn't mean there aren't people jumping for the chance to legitimize their hatred and bigotry by co-opting anti-Zionism.

    • Framing our criticism of Zionism in the correct manner is vital for attracting the good kind of support. When we vociferously condemn governmental policies of the Israeli state, and frame them as being exclusive to Israel is IMO a bit anti-semitic, and can be used against us by the Zionists.

      Recently, an event organised by the Stanford chapter of SJP had to be cancelled because it was being co-opted by American nationalists who tried to frame anti-Zionism as a pro-American ideology. This sort of framing is really not helpful and can be construed as a form of anti-semitism, especially considering Israel is merely acting as a partner of global imperialism, along with many other bigger nations, including of course, America. SJP had to release statements explaining their decision and apologize to those already committed to the event, because of the actions of supposed anti-Zionists who in reality are just white supremacist co-opting a progressive, secular movement for their own motives.

      I suppose this is why need to ensure our criticism of Israel is based on objective political analysis, not ideology or morality.

  • Sanders' unprecedented call for 'justice and peace' marks decline of lobby's power
    • Anyone find it interesting that the decline of the lobby's power greatly coincide with the growing irrelevance of the right-wing American political establishments, namely the GOP and the rise of true progressives from the traditional Democratic base?

      It seems that we are on the verge of a great shift in the nation's political landscape, but I am still wary of being optimistic. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

  • Segregation of Palestinians and Jews in maternity wards becomes an issue in Israel
    • Sibiriak, you are being irrelevant asking these questions, which you wouldn't ask a person a real life, yet you feel entitled to be answered to here.

      A private individual has the absolute right to choose a service catering to him or herself, be that in the matter of health, education or entertainment, without having to explain their reasoning to anyone else. Do you understand and agree with this fundamental charge?

      I am not saying hospitals or medical practices, which are subject to federal law can discriminate towards who they choose to treat. I am saying patients, as individuals have the right to choose who they wanted to be treated by without constraint on factors such as race, ethnicity,gender, nationality, religion and the like. And most people, regardless of their race, do exercise this right either consciously or subconsciously, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

    • Sibiriak :

      "Because you originally wrote:

      I go out of my way to find physicians from the same ethnic/racial background … [emphasis added]

      Now you are trying to dial that back; now it’s not going out of your way in terms of race/ethnicity, it’s just considering race/ethnicity as “a factor “."

      When I go out of my way to choose a doctor from my own ethnic group, it means I definitely consider the race/ethnicity as factor for my choice, which I do.

      The reason I have to go out of my way is because the American medical sector along with the medical practitioners are overwhelmingly white, even in the more diverse cities. This is even more true for specialists which I am particularly fussy about. Unless I put in the effort to research and organize my appointments, chances are I would have to settle going to a white-run practice when I need to see a doctor which while is perfectly fine, still is not as rewarding as going to a doctor from my ethnicity/race.

      See, these are the nuances and intricacies that I didn't expect you to get in the first place, because you have never been in my shoes. I don't have the privilege of being able to see a doctor from the same ethnicity/race as easily as you do (assuming you are white).

    • Sibiriak

      "If there are racist doctors or administrators, the solution is to re-educate them or fire them, not create a racially/ethnically segregated health care system or encourage self-segregation"

      Feel free to start without me. I am more interested in self-preservation than bringing enlightenment onto random racist doctors, nurses, admins, teachers or whatever that I have no desire in interacting with. Again it's my money, my body, my choice.

      "It seems you are steeped in ethnic prejudice, trapped in a “tribal” mentality. I don’t know what “stage of life” you are in, but it’s never to late to open your mind and examine your prejudices."

      No thanks. I am actually very happy with the current "tribal mentality" state of my social and professional networks. They are well-integrated, high functioning and generally, make my life easier and more pleasant while causing no trouble for anyone else. You want to open up and be friends with everyone and everything, go right ahead. I say let us live and let live.

    • Eljay :

      I don’t believe that trying to find the best-qualified person rules out one’s own ethnic or racial group. Please explain why you seem to think it does.

      I think exactly the opposite of what you are implying I think.

      Read my initial comment again; I stated that I tend to choose physicians from the same race and ethnic background as mine because it gives me a sense of comfort, and help improve the bonds between me and members of my community. What I did not state was I didn't care about the doctor's qualification or capabilities, nor would I prioritize one(race) factor over the other(qualifications).

      In response to my comment, you along with others stated that you, as opposed to me, would choose the most qualified doctor instead. You, along with others, assumed that because I view race or ethnicity as a factor in my choice for medical treatment, I do not care about the quality of the treatment. How or why did you make this connection?

    • "Racism. And idiocy. To seek a doctor from one’s “own community” rather than seek the best doctor." - Sibiriak

      "When it comes to medical treatment – or home renovations or car repairs or just about anything else – my nod goes to the best-qualified person I can find." - Eljay

      "o, a patient should not be able to refuse treatment because of the identity of the staff member. Such considerations have no place in medical treatment," - Jon S

      "it would never occur to me to question the ethnic or sexual background of a medical professional if i was sick (especially a specialist who’s highly recommended" - Annie Robbins

      The above are all statements written from a privileged viewpoint and fail to include the nuance and intricacies of undergoing medical treatment as a minority or a non-white person, in a country where physicians and medical staff are overwhelmingly white.

      Also I find it funny these people assume that by choosing a doctor from a person's own ethnic or racial group, it automatically means that the choice would be inferior compared to choosing "the best doctor". Is this some sort of subtle racist way to say the best physicians are usually white so why bother going to a black or brown one? I would argue that we all, regardless of race or ethnicity, would seek a qualified doctor with proper education from medical schools. It is a moot point saying you will seek the best doctor instead of choosing a doctor from your own background. These are not mutually exclusive.

      Lastly, it simply doesn't matter how good a doctor is and how technologically advanced the facilities are, if the people running the practice hold racist, hateful opinions of yourself and your people which is definitely endemic within the American health sector. Until you have experienced a lifetime of bad experiences as a non-white patient in US hospitals, you should keep your opinions to yourselves.

    • Old Geezer

      "You fit the textbook definition of a racist. That this escapes you only shows how deep that racism is within you and how normative such behaviour is around you in your day to day environment"

      I am racist because I act within my rights as a patient to seek medical treatment according to my own wishes? Is it not my body I am treating, using my own money to pay for it?

      Anyways, choosing physicians based on race or ethnic group is perfectly natural and widespread according to research done by many medical universities. One report published by the US National Library of Medicine states that

      "When patients have a choice, they are likely to choose a doctor of the same race or ethnic background and they are more likely to be satisfied with their care". (

      So, please spare me of your malicious accusations and know that I will continue to favor going to a doctor and support medical practices from my own people. I would make sure my children does the same thing, and be happy with the thought that through healing ourselves, we will be empowering our own community.

    • It appears that many of you are arguing against my comment from a place of privilege, and missing the nuance of the issue at hand by conflating a personal decision with systematic discrimination in the health sector.

      "No. Segregated hospital wards lead inevitably to unequal provision of medical care"

      "I do not want to be treated by a Jewish nurse/doctor and I most definitely do not want to be in a ward with any patient who is Jewish"

      "Muslim man refusing to be treated by a female doctor or nurse, or take any orders from them?"

      In my view, a medical treatment is one of the most personal things someone have to go through and it is totally within the person's right to pursue a treatment environment that unconditionally cater to the person's standard, whatever it may be. When I seek to see a doctor or visit a medical facility, I go out of my way to find physicians from the same ethnic/racial background as I am because at this stage of my life, I really don't want to concede any form of discomfort or mistrust when undergoing such a private matter. Plus, it really makes me feel good to be treated by a person from my own community, and knowing me going to them help support us as a greater community, holistically. There is no way I view my choice as a racist or discriminatory.

      How is it racist if I decide to act on my own agency and seek medical treatment that I find most trustworthy for my own well being? As long as I'm not actively stopping someone else from doing the same thing, I see no issue in it.

      TLDR: I see nothing wrong with private individuals choosing doctors or treatments based on race, religion, gender, nationality etc as their selection criteria. It's their body and their health after all. Everyone should be entitled to the same privilege.

    • Actually, this can be argued to be perfectly reasonable and not racism at all. We are all entitled to a safe space when we are most vulnerable, and often, space space means being surrounded by people like us and those who share the same interests as us.

      On the other hand, it doesn't give us the right to demand others to forfeit their own right to the medical facility, which would be racism. If they requested respectfully and without infringing upon the rights of others, I see no problem in it.

  • Video: Israelis feel the love for Donald Trump
  • Note to Progressive Jews: The right of return is not the 'i'm-doing-you-a-favor' of return
    • Well, the thing is, we like to assume that the world leaders are somewhat better than the likes of Netanyahu and co, but the reality is, they're not. Well most of them are not. If they were any better, the last thing they want to be doing in participating directly within the political system of the country which attracts the worst of society. Just look at Clinton, who is a serial cheater and alleged sexual predator or his Republican counterparts who engage in all kind of criminal debaucheries extending to the abuse of children.

  • Can the US Congress bring justice for the Palestinians?: A response to Robert Naiman
    • So what Naiman says is about JVP’s current position is accurate. It is not a serious contender for power in Congress. It is a grassroots movement that is internally contradictory and that struggles to find itself within a climate of racism.

      I disagree, JVP in my view is perfectly placed in a position of strength within the climate of intense racism that has been the norm in America since its inception centuries ago. To start with, they actually acknowledge that America is a white-supremacist, settler-colonial regime that was founded through the violent dispossession of Native American land, the genocide of Natives, and the inhumane exploitation of black Africans as slaves. Just by recognizing the fact, they have placed themselves in the side of justice and on the winning side of future history.

    • They also purposely side-stepped the issue of Zionism which left them open to criticism when they went after Alison Weir

      Ms. Weir set herself up for breaking of professional relationships. She agreed to be interviewed by proven white supremacists, and engaged them in a friendly manner without calling out their problematic ideals and racism. JVP made the right move here. Anyone else who is serious about the fight for justice, which racial justice is an integral component of, would've done the same.

    • meanwhile jvp will keep skimming the cream of the kids from the jewish community. on campuses, it’s jvp or sjp

      This is an excellent point that demonstrates the wisdom of JVP's non-overt political activism in the current election season. As Hillary's win of the DNC nomination has proved, there is absolutely nothing that can be done at this moment to bring about a change in status quo short of an overthrow of the entire government. The political system is a rigged game, with predetermined results favoring a select group of people, while most of the elected representatives have little or no power to fight for the genuine interests of their voters.

      There is no point for participating in the system if we are looking for change. We need to focus on the new generation, while tolerating the current generation enough until they die. The new generation of leaders for a new generation of people, which is what JVP, along with SJP and many other activist groups are tirelessly working to nurture and stimulate into the path of peace and justice. Once we have well-balanced, intelligent and spiritually-fulfilled leaders pulling the strings, the system will inevitably self-correct itself, and amplify a positive change through all layers of society.

Showing comments 100 - 1