Trending Topics:

No room for Zionism in any movement for justice

on 41 Comments

A necessary and productive debate has been going on in US feminist circles following the International Women’s Strike on March 8, with its openly anti-colonial, pro-Palestine platform.  In an Op-Ed, writer Emily Shire questioned whether there was room for Zionists in the feminist movement, to which Linda Sarsour responded, in another OpEd, with a well-argued and highly-persuasive “No.”  This exchange is the latest chapter in a long conversation in activist circles around Palestine as a feminist issue.

Some of us recall how US feminist icon Betty Friedan attempted to silence one of the Arab World’s foremost feminists, Nawal el-Saadawi, at the 1985 UN conference on the status of women in Nairobi, Kenya, patronizingly telling her not to bring up Palestine in her talk, because “this is a women’s conference, not a political conference.”  Saadawi included that exchange in the preface to an article, “The Forgotten ‘Ism,’” published in 2001 by the Arab Women’s Solidarity Association, which documents Zionist muzzling of Western feminist solidarity with Arab women.  The debate—or more correctly arguments—flared again with the publication, in 2002, of the anthology This Bridge We Call Home, when Zionist contributors accused the Arab American contributors, who include stellar feminists Nadine Naber, Rabab Abdulhadi, Lisa Suhair Majaj, (and myself), of such vile anti-Semitism that we belong with the KKK, (yes, really!) rather than in this volume.  The radical, grassroots feminist organization INCITE! Women and Trans People of Color Against Violence early on included support for Palestine amongst its Points of Unity, and endorsed BDS in 2010.   Multiple articles have been written about support for Palestine being a feminist issue, with special issues of academic journals devoted to that question.  The National Women’s Studies Association, the largest mainstream feminist academic women’s association voted in favor of BDS in 2015, and there seems to be consensus amongst activists for various causes (except Israel advocacy) that Zionism, an ideology that hinges on privilege and inequality, is irreconcilable with progressive feminism.

I say “progressive feminism” intentionally, to distinguish between it and neo-liberal feminism as espoused by, say Hillary Clinton, who clearly cared, genuinely, about some “feminist” issues, such as the right to abortion, or gay marriage, but failed utterly at addressing most intersectional issues, such as the impact of her social policies on poor women of color in the US, or the impact of war on women in the countries her foreign policy devastated.  And of course, “feminist” Clinton’s record on Palestine is atrocious, as is obvious from her unwavering support for Israel, coupled with her deeply racist views about Palestinians.  Layali Awwad, a young Palestinian feminist, called Clinton upon her double-standards in a 2015 Open Letter when she reminded her that, as “First Lady, you famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” However, Awwad points out to Clinton, “when you chose to speak about my homeland, not once did you mention Israel’s human rights violations against Palestinian women and children. Even worse, you described us as lurking terrorists motivated only by ‘incitement,’ as if the Israeli military occupation does not exist.”

But even beyond feminism, (as that term is generally understood, meaning in its restricted sense as concerned with gender issues, rather than in its more encompassing vision for a just world for everyone), one needs to understand that Sarsour’s resounding “No” applies to all movements for justice.  In other words, there is no room for Zionism in any of the struggles anyone wages to end oppression of any sort.

As Zionism, once viewed by naïve but also basically racist Westerners as a “redemptive” vision, strips off its mask to reveal its true nature as a violent colonial system, it is no longer tenable for anyone to maintain any allegiance to that ideology, and work on anti-racism, anti-war, anti-colonialism, etc.

For example, Zionists cannot logically reconcile supporting Black Lives Matter, because Zionism does not question (or worse, it embraces) Israel’s racism, directed at Africans as well as Palestinians.  Additionally, the impunity of Israeli soldiers executing Palestinian civilians makes the US criminal (in)justice system seem quasi-flawless.

Zionists do not belong in prison abolition work, when Israel notoriously abuses administrative detention to the point where going to Israeli jail is a rite of passage for Palestinian men and boys. Over 70 percent of the prison population in Israel are non-Jewish, and over 80 percent of Palestinian prisoners are not “serving time,” since they are not even accused of having committed a crime, they are merely in jail for unnamed “security reasons.”

Zionists do not belong in immigrant rights organizing, when Israel has been deporting immigrants for over a decade.  They do not belong in anti-wall, anti-ban coalitions, when Israel has its own apartheid wall, and of course has banned Palestinian refugees since 1948, in violation of international law and United Nations Resolution 194, passed in 1948.

They do not belong in Standing Rock, when Israel expropriates Palestinian natural resources,  regularly demolishes Palestinian homes, uproots orchards, and desecrates indigenous mosques, churches, cemeteries, and other sacred spaces

The list is long.

Zionism, like white nationalism, is racism, and as the similarities between the US and Israel become more pronounced by the day, with two current leaders who have taken the masks off their administration’s policies, Zionists need to stop their mental gymnastics, that would somehow allow them to support apartheid in Israel, while fighting oppression in the rest of the world.

The question Shire should have asked is “Is there room for Zionists in any justice movement?”

The answer is No.

About Nada Elia

Nada Elia is a Palestinian scholar-activist, writer, and grassroots organizer, currently completing a book on Palestinian Diaspora activism.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

41 Responses

  1. Keith
    March 20, 2017, 4:20 pm

    NADA ELIA- “I say “progressive feminism” intentionally, to distinguish between it and neo-liberal feminism as espoused by, say Hillary Clinton….”

    Bravo! The feminism of Hillary Clinton and Betty Friedan is the “feminism” of privilege, little more than a self-serving assault on the glass ceiling by those women who wish to serve as leaders of empire. And imperialists, like Zionists, are not progressive, merely seekers of power.

    BETTY FRIEDAN- “this is a women’s conference, not a political conference.”

    Rubbish! Any feminism worthy of the name is inherently political. A truly progressive feminism seeks to radically transform the political economy away from war and militarism towards a wholesome and sustainable community. Militarism inherently degrades the role of women and community as it promotes a “warrior” society which defunds social spending in favor of military spending even as the doctrinal system promotes fear and violence.

    • Mooser
      March 22, 2017, 4:59 pm

      “Keith” I remember a girl telling me (granted it was the 70’s): ‘You aren’t man enough to tell me what feminism is’.
      She was right, too.

      • Keith
        March 22, 2017, 6:28 pm

        MOOSER- “Keith” I remember a girl telling me (granted it was the 70’s): ‘You aren’t man enough to tell me what feminism is’.

        Perhaps if she now saw you in your pink pussy hat she would recant.

  2. MHughes976
    March 20, 2017, 6:24 pm

    If people who are Zionists wish to support a good cause I would not wish to stop them, partly because they might help the cause to succeed, partly because their minds, if opened to valid moral thinking, might see that Z is morally wrong. If they ask, in return for their support, some acceptance or validation of Z that should be refused and if their support for the cause is then withdrawn that has to be endured because support for a good cause cannot be a valid motive for supporting a bad one.

  3. yonah fredman
    March 20, 2017, 8:14 pm

    No supporter of assad’s syria has any right to participate in a progressive movement. How does that sound? Kind of stupid in fact.

    I’m not about to join any march or any movement, so it’s really not my battle. Attacking trump specifically is a priority now, specifically because of his Republican agenda, specifically because of his xenophobia and specifically because of his dangerous personality, a personality that will test our Constitution and our democracy.

    Rip down all hate. I hear you. But you only have to read the comments section here to appreciate that the bds movement (or at least many of its advocates) do not ground their thinking in respect of history and human nature. Israel did not pop up out of a desire for raw materials but out of the human need for security and self respect. Yes there was/is an almost inevitable clash between the mobilization of a conscious group of jews in the period between the wars, 1918 to 1939, and the indigenous and the clash continues until today and seeking or demanding a fair solution to that clash is reasonable. But please to pretend that the conflict between the Zionists and the indigenous can be resolved while ignoring the core history that led to the creation of israel sounds ignorant and these blanket condemnations and categorizations regarding zionism strike me as ignorant. Strident, absolutist and ignorant.

    • YoniFalic
      March 21, 2017, 3:56 am

      Picking sides between Assadists and Islamist rebels is hardly analogous to supporting Zionism.

      After Auschwitz (and especially after the Nuremberberg IMT — terminus a quo for International Antigenocide Law) it was simply vile and criminal to found a state in post-Asuchwitz genocide.

      German Nazism was evil because it brought racist genocidal colonialism to E. Europe and the European USSR. Zionism brought racist genocidal colonialism to the Levant.

      A person that supports the continued existence of Israel definitely implicitly (and often explicitly) tells the world it’s okay to do to darker non-European non-Christians what it’s evil to do to whiter European Christians.

      • YoniFalic
        March 21, 2017, 12:33 pm

        I phrased the last paragraph badly. I meant the following.

        A person that supports the continued existence of Israel definitely implicitly (and often explicitly) tells the world it’s okay to do to darker non-European Christians and Muslims what it’s evil to do to whiter European Christians and Jews.

    • eljay
      March 21, 2017, 7:59 am

      || yonah fredman: … Israel did not pop up out of a desire for raw materials but out of the human need for security and self respect. Yes there was/is an almost inevitable clash between the mobilization of a conscious group of jews in the period between the wars, 1918 to 1939, and the indigenous and the clash continues until today and seeking or demanding a fair solution to that clash is reasonable. … ||

      “[A] conscious group of Jews” seems like a sanitized way of saying “a group of Zionist Jews who felt they were entitled to establish in Palestine and at the expense of its indigenous population a religion-supremacist state primarily of and for people with the religion-based identity of Jewish”. It’s no surprise that a clash between the two groups was “almost” inevitable.

      • yonah fredman
        March 21, 2017, 9:09 am

        The price paid by the Palestinians until this very day reveals the cruelty involved in the thrust of the Zionist vector. Given the crisis facing jews under the rule of the czar and facing jews in middle European societies that were traditionally anti Jewish and awakening to the nationalist movements which almost always viewed the jew as other, facing such a crisis without flinching, even over a century after the fact, I feel the crisis and see no single answer. The overwhelming flow was to America and a type of restart. But this was not an answer that paid off for everyone. Eventually the US went through an anti immigrant phase and this solution shriveled to a pittance. The existence of zionism, with its admittedly singular focus, was what provided refuge for hundreds of thousands. Consciousness of the needs of the wider group is good. Oblivious ness to the “other” is evil. To ignore the history of 1881 to 1945 is also a form of oblivious ness.

      • eljay
        March 21, 2017, 10:07 am

        || yonah fredman: … Consciousness of the needs of the wider group is good. Oblivious ness to the “other” is evil. … ||

        The starving man and his friends can be forgiven for stealing bread from the local bakery today to save their lives – even more so if later they strive to make amends for the theft.

        Your argument always seem to be that the hunger of the starving man and his friends justifies:
        – their eternal claim to and theft of the bakery;
        – their expulsion of its owners and staff (to be replaced by acquaintances of the new proprietors); and
        – absolution of responsibility and accountability for their actions.

        To justify evil is evil.

        Or perhaps I have misunderstood you and you think Zionists should be held to account and to make amends for their past and on-going theft of Palestine from its indigenous population.

      • Mooser
        March 21, 2017, 12:34 pm

        “Given the crisis facing jews under the rule of the czar”

        Gee, wasn’t the Czar, and the entire Romanov family, killed a good quarter century and another word war before the establishment of Israel?
        Were Jews in Russia afraid he would come back?

      • RoHa
        March 21, 2017, 7:42 pm

        There are still a few Romanovs around, Mooser. They might stage a comeback.

      • RoHa
        March 21, 2017, 7:52 pm

        Eljay has done most of the heavy lifting here, so I will just summarise the key points.
        Neither the historical background to Zionism nor the alleged Jewish “need for security and self-respect” justifies Zionism.
        Sometimes circumstances give an excuse, a reason for forgiveness and mercy, but the behaviour of the Zionists is inexcusable.

        Only by clinging to the idea that Jews are more important than other people can you maintain your support for the creation and conduct of Israel. Do you really want to hold that position?

      • Donald Johnson
        March 21, 2017, 8:36 pm

        Yonah, I agree that we have to remember the murderous ( and later genocidal) antisemitism that was one of the motivating forces behind Zionism. ( This, btw, is why I think Sandy Tolan’s The Lemon Tree is one of the best introductions to the issue for Americans. You see both sides, the Holocaust and the Nakba.)

        The problem in America and in most Western governments is that the Palestinian side of the story still isn’t known. Or that is my impression. I bet most Americans still don’t know about the Nakba or have some distorted hatefilled version of it in their heads, like the friend of mine who repeated the old story that the Palestinians left so the Arab armies could drive the Jews into the sea and then they could come back and steal their belongings. Even liberals who know better largely ignore the issue because it can’t be blamed on Republicans — for the same reason they ignored Obama’s support for the Saudi’s barbaric war in Yemen.

        The BDS movement calls for equal rights for everyone. I wouldn’t judge it by the words of a few commenters here.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2017, 11:34 am

        “They might stage a comeback.”

        I’m ready for it. Rah, rah, Rasputin!

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2017, 2:08 pm
    • Misterioso
      March 21, 2017, 11:18 am

      Let’s be clear. The Zionist master plan for the dispossession and expulsion of Palestine’s indigenous inhabitants was well laid out decades before WWII and the Holocaust.

      To be brief:
      “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border….Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” (Theodor Herzl, diary entry, 12 June 1895)

      In May 1911, Arthur Ruppin, one of early Zionism’s leading figures proposed to the Executive of the Zionist Organization, “a limited population transfer” of the Arab peasants from Palestine.

      In 1905, Israel Zangwill, an influential Anglo-Jewish essayist and leading Zionist, declared that Palestine was “already twice as thickly populated as the United States…. [W]e must be prepared to either drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population….”

      In the February 1919 issue of the League of Nations Journal, Zangwill proposed that the Palestinians “should be gradually transplanted” in Arab countries and at a public meeting in the same year he remarked that “many [Palestinians] are semi-nomad, they have given nothing to Palestine and are not entitled to the rules of democracy.” (Jewish Chronicle, Dec. 12, 1919)

      In 1920, Zangwill proposed in The Voice of Jerusalem, that there should be an “‘Arab exodus’…based on ‘race redistribution’ or a ‘trek like that of the Boers from Cape Colony,’ which he advocated was ‘literally the only way out of the difficulty of creating a Jewish State in Palestine.'” He continued: “We cannot allow the Arabs to block so valuable a piece of historic reconstruction …. To fold their tents and silently steal away is their proverbial habit: let them exemplify it now.”

      Although Herzl, Zangwill and other early Zionists planted Plan Dalet’s seed, it began to take concrete form in 1937, when the Jewish Agency’s Transfer Committee was established by Yosef Weitz and others. The committee’s purpose was to devise a plan that would lead to the “transfer” of the Arab population out of Palestine so that Jews would become a large majority. This would be accomplished by “promoting measures designed to encourage the Arab flight.” Weitz did not mince his words: “…there is no room for both people together in this country…. The only solution is a Palestine…without Arabs. And there is no way than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left.” (Yosef Weitz, My Diary and Letters to the Children).

      During a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive on 12 June 1938, Ben-Gurion again advocated expulsion of the Palestinians: “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral.” (Benny Morris, “Refabricating 1948”)

    • Mooser
      March 21, 2017, 12:27 pm

      “Israel did not pop up out of a desire for raw materials but out of the human need for security and self respect.”

      Right you are, “Yonah”, that indeed was the need for many of the Jews of Europe and Russia.
      But just because that was the need, and Zionism was the answer, doesn’t make Zionism anything but a bad answer, fished from the same sewer that antisemitism comes from.

      And whether Zionism was a good or bad answer, it could not deliver . And looks less and less likely to do so. Why can’t Zionism change to meet new conditions?

      (Oh BTW, “Yonah” the “raw material” we were seeking was the land itself, remember? And simply ‘redeeming that land for the Jews’ would solve all the problems, remember?

      • MHughes976
        March 21, 2017, 3:32 pm

        The sequence of the slow emergence of Zionism was, I think –
        1. British (and maybe other) Protestants around 1600 begin to interpret Biblicsl promises of the Restoration of the Jews literally.
        2. East European Jews become increasingly disturbed, resentment at their ‘arendator’ role in economic life playing a part, and receive a response from Ottoman Jewry, coming to a head in the Sabatian mystical, messianic, somewhat Jewish supremacist, movement of the 1660s.
        3. The forces released by 1 and 2 continue to have their effect. Jewish emancipation gathers pace but is often seen as inadequate.
        4. The idea of a land without a people for a people without a land gains traction in the 1840s. The idea that Jewish immigration would revitalise Palestine gets expression in books like Daniel Deronda. There are proto-Zionist proclamations like the Blackstone Memorial of 1891. For the first time important elements of Western Jewry become interested.
        5. Various manifestations of anti-Semitism occur and gain huge publicity: Lueger’s election as Mayor of Vienna, Dreyfus (with the Dreyfusards eventually winning), the Protocols, the Kishinev Massacre of 1903.
        6. The fateful Zionist Congress of 1905 sets the project in motion with a momentum no one could stop, though this is against a background of increasing Jewish participation in all aspects of Western life.
        I can see how Z looked like the answer to several prayers, gave Jews a sense of nationalist purpose in a nationalist time, offered them protection from future Luegers and pogromists, seemed like a project for the good of humanity. But this was a false view. It was moral smoke and mirrors. The moral and theological ideas behind it were all mistaken. It was true that Jewish presence and investment in Palestine could do good but this stood no chance of compensating for what Yonah rightly calls the cruel vector which Z stood no chance of avoiding.

      • Mooser
        March 21, 2017, 5:36 pm

        .” It was moral smoke and mirrors.”

        “MHughes” make some room for the British Mandate in Palestine in your list. Could the Zionists have gotten in without it?

      • yonah fredman
        March 21, 2017, 6:40 pm

        Mhughes- Because of the Balfour declaration and the British mandate granted by the league of nations, British Zionism is an important historical factor, but from a Jewish point of view, I do not think that “a nation without a land and a land without a nation” played a real role in the Zionism, only in the sale of Zionism to outsiders. Daniel Deronda and such is significant in British (nonJewish) Zionism, but not significant to the masses in Eastern Europe.

        I am not sure how large an influence he had, but Pinsker’s “Auto emancipation” of 1881 is cited by most Jewish historians and the earliest pioneers were called Hovevei Zion and came from Eastern Europe. The first Zionist Congress gathered in Basel in 1897 under the organizing eye of Herzl and inspired by Herzl’s writings.

        The great numbers (not as large as the numbers who headed to America, but greater than numbers of any other Zionist pioneers) of Zionists who headed to Palestine between 1881 and 1914 came from Eastern Europe. The history of the Jews under the realm of the Czar is far more relevant to the Jewish movement than a motto from the 1840’s.

      • RoHa
        March 21, 2017, 7:59 pm

        “1. British (and maybe other) Protestants around 1600 begin to interpret Biblicsl promises of the Restoration of the Jews literally. ”

        When dealing with holy books, prophets, gurus, and similar religious teachers, it is always a mistake to assume that they mean what they say. Or, indeed, that they say what they mean.

        (Are these the same thing? 2000 words, not including references. Use Times New Roman, 12 pt, double spaced. Due 5 p.m. 12 April. No extensions.)

  4. JustJessetr
    March 20, 2017, 11:00 pm

    Another case of BDS as Jew bashing.

    That only certain types of Jews are considered, by a non-Jew no less, to be OK in a movement for social justice is just as hateful as saying no Jews at all. Ms. Elia, you don’t get to say that any Jews are welcome or unwelcome, just like I wouldn’t get to say only certain types of Muslims are welcome or unwelcome. May Allah forgive you for your despicable hatred.

    • amigo
      March 21, 2017, 11:19 am

      “Ms. Elia, you don’t get to say that any Jews are welcome or unwelcome, just like I wouldn’t get to say only certain types of Muslims are welcome or unwelcome.” justjester

      I take it you vehemently oppose the Jews only illegal settlements where non Jews are not welcome.

    • chocopie
      March 21, 2017, 12:15 pm

      Let’s see the Jew bashing. Let’s see where she says only certain types of Jews are OK. Quote it.

    • Mooser
      March 21, 2017, 12:30 pm

      “That only certain types of Jews are considered, by a non-Jew no less, to be OK…”

      Sort of like the Zionist effort to convince non-Jews that all good Jews are Zionist?

      • eljay
        March 21, 2017, 2:09 pm

        || Mooser: … Sort of like the Zionist effort to convince non-Jews that all good Jews are Zionist? ||

        It’s funny how Zionists say it’s anti-Semitic to conflate Zionism with all Jews and all Jews with Zionism and then, without fail, they anti-Semitically conflate Zionism with all Jews and all Jews with Zionism.

  5. Qualtrough
    March 21, 2017, 1:56 am

    “Zionism, like white nationalism, is racism, …”

    Why the need for a qualifier before nationalism? Is nationalism a bad thing only when whites support it, but fine for other races?

    • RoHa
      March 21, 2017, 6:27 pm

      The “white” clarifies that it is a racial/ethnic “nationalism” that is being referred to. Civic nationalism (e.g. New Zealand nationalism) is a nationalism of all NZ citizens, regardless of race.

      • Qualtrough
        March 22, 2017, 3:25 am

        Wouldn’t a better clarification then just be to write ‘racial/ethnic nationalism’ instead of white nationalism? Why call out one race for something that is found in all the races?

      • RoHa
        March 22, 2017, 6:52 am

        Yes, unless we are supposed to pretend it isn’t.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2017, 12:08 pm

        “Why call out one race for something that is found in all the races?”

        You keep on talking about “races”. I don’t know what you mean. (Yes, I know human beings have a variety of skin tones, and sizes and faces and hair.)

        What’;s a “race”? What distinguishes one “race” from another? How many ‘races’ are there? How did mankind come to be separated into “races”. What are the characteristics of the different ‘races’?

        Just so we can have a baseline to start from. Are humans all the same species, or not?

      • oldgeezer
        March 22, 2017, 1:28 pm

        This blog can be read around the world but at the same time in most western nations white nationalism/supremacism is both easily identified and accepted as a form of racism. I don’t think there is anything with the original comment using that as a reference due to that. Additionally both zionist and white racism infect many countries and can wield significant power.

        As a white person i certainly don’t take offence that white racists are highlighted.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2017, 4:03 pm

        “…i certainly don’t take offence that white racists are highlighted.”

        “oldgeezer”, I guess the perception of ‘offense’ depends on what and how much a person has invested in their whiteness.
        And what kind of return they expect on the investment.

      • oldgeezer
        March 22, 2017, 5:56 pm


        Lol well I guess I have zero investment in my skin colour. Yet another tribe I am not a member of. I kind of identify with Groucho on that issue.

        I confess I can be mistaken for an ultra nationalist during international sporting events such as the olympics or world hockey championship. But it is only a temporary condition.

        On a serious note for just a second there is no doubt I benefitted from white privilege without even trying. Not having to fight an uphill battle against racism and therefore being judged solely on my abilities is indeed a privilege many people don’t get.

      • oldgeezer
        March 22, 2017, 5:58 pm



        ‘Offence’ :)

    • RoHa
      March 21, 2017, 6:42 pm

      And it is by no means obvious that civic nationalism is as odious as racial nationalism. Although, of course, a NZ nationalism that demanded the total subjugation of Australia would be.

      • Qualtrough
        March 23, 2017, 2:07 am

        Dear Mooser. I merely asked why it was necessary for the author to specify one type of race-based nationalism. While race may or may not be a valid construct, the author obviously thinks it is. Otherwise nationalism alone would have sufficed to make the point.

  6. TGW
    March 22, 2017, 9:41 am

    Dear Ms. Elia,

    I am a native Lakota. I was raised by a lesbian mother and had to fight against discrimination against her all my young life. So I guess that makes me a feminist too. I am also a freshman at NYU. I am the first of my family to go to college. I am still finding my political voice so I don’t get involved with much. I watch and I listen and I make my own decisions.

    Having looked around your website here, I have decided this will be my one and only post. I will not respond to any questions or comments.

    Your article was forwarded to me. I read it carefully. Many of my family and friends were put in jail fighting the pipeline at Standing Rock. I saw people of all faiths and politics come to our aid and they were also arrested. The police didn’t ask for a manifesto before they put the handcuffs on.

    We welcome absolutely anyone who wants to fight this pipeline. Any political stripe. Any religion. Any race. Any combination thereof. I’ve heard no First People speak any differently as long as the help is genuine and without conditions.

    Ms. Elia, you do not speak for me or all the Lakota. I am greatly saddened by your call to discriminate when we need all the help we can get. Every single human body on the front line is and has been appreciated. We First People’s are not your symbol. We are not your backdrop. People claiming our fight is their fight has been a very familiar refrain of the colonizers here in America. If you want to help us, then help us without political games.

    I respectfully ask you to retract your article. It will only do damage to our people and the fight against the pipeline.

    • Keith
      March 22, 2017, 11:49 am

      TGW- “I respectfully ask you to retract your article. It will only do damage to our people and the fight against the pipeline.”

      There is a lot about this comment which doesn’t ring true. The notion that this fine article by Nada Elia, which I agree with, is somehow damaging to either the Lakota Sioux in general or the Standing Rock direct action resistance because of one reference to Standing Rock is dubious at best. The article was provided? Provided by who? It is one thing to question the Standing Rock reference, another to call for a retraction of the whole article claiming damage to the Lakota and to the pipeline resistance which, I might add, appears to have been crushed. The brief victory months ago inspiring, the current reality perhaps inevitable and not at all conditioned upon this article pointing out the long term incompatibility of Zionism with progressivism.

  7. Mooser
    March 23, 2017, 4:22 pm

    “Keith” a lot of things don’t ring true. Not even the phones at Jewish Centers.

    “JCC bomb threats: Teen suspect arrested in Israel”

Leave a Reply