Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 33 (since 2014-01-02 04:56:01)

Showing comments 33 - 1
Page:

  • A Response to Ben Norton on silence over war in Yemen
  • 'Protest in the form of a prayer': Dream Defenders demonstration in Nazareth makes connections from Ferguson to Palestine
    • @ American

      your argument is similar to the argument that it's all really about class not about race...that argument has been recycled over and over again and its been proven false over and over again. Blacks at all economic strata except perhaps at the very very top have it worse than white people...its not all about class. and you know a lot of non-people of color love to complain that Black people are to sensitive when it comes to racism. Maybe they could learn to be less sensitive to the concept of white supremacy...maybe they could stop acting like its their own personal sense of morality and perceived goodness and integrity that's being attacked. they love to complain about bleeding hearts...perhaps they could try to make their hearts bleed a little less when white supremacy is brought up in a conversation about race. why can't Black people be permitted to describe their own oppression using their own terms. white supremacy can't even allow them that...everything must be tempered...every demand must be "reasonable"...don't you realize that these were the same arguments which racists were making back in the 60's.this is why MLK broke his alliance with the Democrats in the late 60's before his death..... respectability is an elite ideology that serves the interest of elites...it restricts social movements and while reforms are permitted one is never allowed to go as far as suggesting systemic change lest one want to be perceived as a radical....

    • I suggest you read the New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. I suggest you read the writings of Atlantic Magazine columnist Ta Nehisi Coates....people who use evidence to back up their arguments rather than you who uses nothing but recycled talking points from the far right that I could easily disprove one by one if I wanted to. Then come back and tell me that white supremacy doesn't exist in this country. In fact white supremacy exists all over the world...it exists in the case of Israel too...Mizrahi Jews are discriminated against by Ashkenazis. African refugees are kept in internment camps and are prevented from getting asylum.the ideology of Zionism is a white supremacist ideology...Israel is a state built on the foundation of white supremacy. do some reading for God's sake rather then considering yourself a self--proclaimed expert on racism in America. the idea that Black people are favored in getting employment is absolutely laughable. you live in an alternate universe if you honestly believe that or else you've been so effectively brainwashed by right-wing propaganda. try to take some responsibility for the things you write and say. its well-known that African-American students need to complete two more levels of education to have the same probability of getting a job as their white peers. this is based on data from the bureau of labor statistics and the census. African-American millenial unemployment rate is 10 points higher than for their white counterparts. this is due to hiring discrimination, high incarceration rates, and lack of inherited wealth from past generations due to discrimination...if you read Alexanders' book you'll realize that the great majority in prison are non-violent offenders, casualties of the War on Drugs which disproportionately targets Black people for no good reason. no Black people do not do drugs more than white people despite what the media tries to make you believe. no the use of crack cocaine was not pervasive in poor Black communites when Reagan launched the war on drugs despite sensationalism by his adminstration and the media to make white America believe that there was a problem. the U.S. currently imprisons a larger percentage of its Black population than South Africa did at the height of Apartheid. and no this fact cannot be explained by rates of drug crime despite what you people want us to think. discrimination doesn't end once prison is over. how are former Black prisoners supposed to begin their lives anew when their status as former nonviolent drug offenders prevents them acquiring a job? oh I guess they're just supposed to pull themselves up by those proverbial bootstraps you people love to reference but in reality don't exist. I could go on and on and on with facts (and sources if you want) that will challenge your ignorant view of the world...but I strongly suspect that facts which challenge your conceptions of how the world operates go in one ear and out the other. you're so sure about what happened in the the Michael Brown case? how about the fact that the key witness lied about what she saw and had a history of overt racism. other minority groups have not experienced the level of deprivation and discrimination that Black people have faced in this country and continue to face in this country. come up with something more original than that. Billions of dollars poured into poor Black communities since the 1960's.? where in the world do you get your information? Read http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/the-racist-housing-policies-that-built-ferguson/381595/ read http://www.epi.org/publication/making-ferguson/...ever heard of redlining? read about it in Crabgrass frontier by Kenneth Jackson..you can read about how the Federal Housing Administration and the Home Owner's Loan Corporation subsidized segregation..or we can just go with your inevitable explanation...the majority of Black people are so lazy that they just haven't cared about improving the quality of their lives better for decades. everything can be explained by laziness and a lack of initiative. if it stays the same for a hundred more years then its still laziness and lack of initiative. simplicity is so nice right? it means you never have to exercise your critical thinking skills...or challenge yourself to consider ideas you may find uncomfortable... read http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-american-history/371723/ and don' respond until you have.

    • I don't engage in stupid and inane back and forth nonsense. If you wanna make a serious argument then make it, otherwise you just sound purposefully ignorant and frankly its rather insulting for the other person when they're trying to engage in a real conversation and all you do is spout nonsense like "maybe you should invite the KKK to your next meeting". No white power is a problem....because white supremacy is deeply embedded in the American political and economic system and it functions via a power differential...that's why calls for mere "racial understanding" by white people and some Black people are absurd and don't get to the root of the problem....the issue is not white people....its white supremacy.....how does one expect to solve a problem unless one gets to the root of the problem...white supremacy doesn't derive from a dearth of understanding between the races just as the conflict in Israel/Palestine doesn't derive from a dearth of understanding between Israelis and Palestinians or Jews and Muslims ....it derives from a system which white people built to maintain their political and economic privilege..tell me exactly how one makes kumbaya with a system which is oppressing you....the responsibility of Black people is to resist.....the responsibility of white people is to stand in solidarity and resist as well...because while the system was built by white people.....it can only be dismantled by both Black and white people...Black power, at least in the context it means for Ferguson activists and Blacklivesmatter activists across the country means resistance to white supremacy...if you think that's a bad thing then you must think white supremacy is a good thing and should continue to exist for eternity. If you are arguing that Ferguson activists are Black nationalists who think we should live in a society in which Black people have supremacy over white people, then you are being purposefully dishonest. Power takes many different forms. power is not just "power over" or "power to dominate" one of those forms is the power to self-determine. in other words the exact same thing that Palestinians are fighting for.

    • you've obviously never heard of the concept of intersectionality in terms of movement-building. its about seeing and recognizing common bonds across struggles while still acknowleding the differences...the theme of last years SJP National Conference which I attended was Ferguson to Palestine, intersectionality. Palestinian activists asked groups like Dream Defenders to come and share their struggles and organize in solidarity. why is there such an issue with the concept of Black power I will never understand. somehow white people have it in their heads that Black power means that something has to be taken away from white people. and this is not just among conservatives but among liberals and people who love to just malign the "far left" as effectively and maliciously as conservatives...get a clue...go look up the politics of respectability and see why that type of racist mentality hinders social movements. Frankly I don't understand the obsession that white liberals have with maligning the "far left"...especially since the Palestinian struggle is a far left struggle and any one of those college students will tell you that because it is a struggle against colonialism and oppression and ghettoization and everything that stems from that. it is not just simply about the occupation. Palestinians didn't need your permission or approval to stand in solidarity with Black activists here so do them a favor and stop acting like they care about being "respectable" or "presentable". It was Palestinians who gave protesters in Ferguson advice on how to deal with tear gas and vicious riot police. They recognize the connection...It doesn't matter if you don't.

  • Chomsky supports portions of BDS agenda, but faults others, citing realism and int'l consensus
    • "The pursuit of (1) in the above list makes good sense: it has a clear objective and is readily understood by its target audience in the West, which is why the many initiatives guided by (1) have been quite successful—not only in “punishing” Israel, but also in stimulating other forms of opposition to the occupation and US support for it."

      In this quote when he says "initiatives guided by (1) is he referring to the campaigns against Caterpillar and G4S among other companies which profit off Israeli occupation? I fail to see how these campaigns have had any tangible "punishing"effect on Israel as of yet. Not saying they won't but they haven't yet.

  • When you watch football, you are complicit in violent assault
    • first of all...what the heck do you need to curse for? second of all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to talk about the violence of football. what now I need an advanced degree to be able to judge whether or not football is violent? honestly people who defend against football's detractors act like they're part of some exclusive club in which only they can understand the enigma that is......football. seriously get over yourself. it ain't politics. and i'll admit even that's not hard to understand.

      the science says its violent and it leaves these guys with lower quality of life and pain for the rest of their lives. all you talk about here is intent. intent doesn't matter. the entire mechanism by which the game functions is slamming bodies, yeah I would call that violent..anyone thinking logically would call that violent. The game is violent. baseball is not violent except in one instance (sliding into a base). soccer is not violent except in certain instances. Basketball yes to a certain degree but not even close to the degree that football is violent. hockey...yes very violent and those fights are just so embarrassing... in football you're slamming bodies all the time. If you're not slamming bodies at high speed on every single play, then you're not playing football. it's just an inherent part of the game

      one definition of "violent"- Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force

      by that definition football is violent...you're like a million other football fans in this country...someone who consciously refuses to think rationally when it comes to the game he or she loves.

      "if you don’t like the game, don’t watch it. It will go on without you, long after we are all dead and gone."

      you seem not to understand that I don't dislike football like I dislike sayyyy...brussel sprouts or chicken liver.it's not a matter of personal taste. for me and for many commenters here it's a moral issue. that makes this comment essentially useless to your argument.

      "You’re judging them, you’re calling them violent, you are saying something about their character as people, and it is not right. "

      1)So now you're banning people from judging other people just because you may not like their judgments. Wow. Very whiny of you.
      2) Do I think football players are inherently violent? No, of course of not. Just like Zionist ideology makes Israel a violent society, football certainly inculcates in its fans and in its players certain violent tendencies...even in their speech...just go to the ESPN comment boards....criticize football...and next thing you know you'll have someone cursing you out and calling you a pansy and a pussy cause you're not man enough for this wonderful game.

      "To call it violent is an insult to these players and to all players of the sport, whether it be NFL players or little 8 year kids in the community house league."

      No I'd say an insult to an 8 year old is getting a concussion and violent head injury when he's eight years old. if you cared about the kid more then your precious game you would agree with me...but obviously your game is more important.

      You are complicit in violence. You say players choose to play the game. Well guess what genius. You choose to watch it. You choose to pay good money to buy tickets. You know the risks too. Professional sports can't survive without its fans. If there were no fans, it wouldn't matter how many guys were already coming through the pipelines to play in the NFL. It wouldn't matter how much NFL talent there was out there. You don't show up. You don't watch. The games don't happen. So yes you are complicit. Unless of course you don't believe in free will.

    • This is a message that just needs to be repeated over and over and over again. Imagine if this was posted on ESPN. I'd dread reading that comment section. The familiar BS refrain "They knew what they were getting into" blah blah blah. Yeah well you blathering idiots know what you're getting into as well which is reveling in the spectacle of young men cripple their bodies, destroy their minds, and guarantee themselves a life filled with immense pain and suffering all for a few years of glory and big money. The truth is the game wouldn't exist with you. You are the fans. You are responsible.

  • Rejecting collective punishment from Gaza to Syria
    • Correction...I did accuse someone here of being pro-Assad. I apologize for that.

    • Hey Keith...I'm gonna respond to your last comment to me here since the post since "While you were neutral about Yarmouk" is now apparently closed for comment,

      USHPHE- “Since that comment I’ve posted other comments trying to explore people’s views on this subject and test their veracity.”

      You ask probing questions of only one side while agreeing with the other. Your feigning of inquisitive neutrality is an insult to the intelligence.

      Most commenters oppose Israeli actions but do not dislike Israel per se. An Israel as a state of all of its citizens, separated from the American empire and living at peace with its neighbors would be welcomed by most.

      1. I welcome this as well. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

      2. I need to study both sides more closely as well as their sources. I now feel I must do that before responding with anything substantive either in opposition or agreement with you or perhaps somewhere in the middle. However, I do ask that the accusations against me as an imperialist added to every comment you post please stop. Just because I am not yet fully knowledgable about this specific case and expressed, yes I will admit, perhaps, premature doubts does not mean I am an imperialist. I've read nearly every Noam Chomsky book from cover to cover in sadness, horror, and amazement at the sheer audacity and arrogance of the American imperial venture. I never was an imperialist. I'm firmly anti-imperialist. But if I had been an imperialist before reading Chomsky I would be an absolute idiot if I still was and certainly then it would right to question my motives. You are correct that my questions and doubts were directed at commenters who are in agreement with your position. I guess I could chalk that up to reading arguments that initially seemed well-reasoned to me against your position and then just posting them to see what response these arguments elicit (I call that dialogue and trying to clarify in my own mind the validity of two sides, you can all it whatever you want), for example the video I posted with Max Blumenthal discussing Syria. Certainly he's not an imperialist right?...although you may believe he is inadvertently repeating imperialist talking points as you believe I am as well. I'm gonna reserve any further judgment about Syria until after I do some more research. I hope you can be satisfied with that. Or you can continue thinking I'm an imperialist troll. Your choice. Personally, I don't think a troll would use the language I have used here. For me all this is just an opportunity to learn and understand and come to an informed decision as I've already said. I have no interest in making accusations or placing labels or using inflammatory rhetoric. Unlike some others, that's why I choose not to put an accusation of " Evil Batthist" at the end of every comment I make. To me, this talk of you consciously consciously support evil Batthists or you consciously support American imperalism is just childish, because I think it's fair to say that the regular readers of Mondoweiss, which I have recently become, would not be either of these things.

  • 'Palestinian liberation incomplete without the liberation of all'--a statement on the siege of Yarmouk
    • it's a statement condemning the siege...lighten up. this is a chapter of SJP and you're calling them zio-Saudi Sugar daddies???? do you think before you write? or is now every Palestinian activist who condemns the siege a Zio-Saudi Sugar Daddie and supporter of Western imperialism??

  • While you were neutral about Yarmouk
    • 1. I don't support the destruction of Syria or any people for that matter

      2. chill out...there's no conspiracy here....I just started reading Mondoweiss a few weeks ago because....well for the simple answer that I found Mondoweiss a few weeks ago as well as electronic intifada. I wanted to read a real, truthful, hardhitting, and genuine voice on the Palestinian situation. Probably the same reason everyone else here started reading mondoweiss

    • I'm not a propagandist....Since that comment I've posted other comments trying to explore people's views on this subject and test their veracity. I don't like Israel. I hate the American empire with all my fiber. I'm trying to learn and understand by asking probing questions and making probing comments. I'm sure if we were having this conversation face to face you'd be calling me a propagandist and imperialist right? No? Didn't think so. You wanna drive me away by calling me names. Fine then drive me away. You wanna make me understand your position. Fine make me understand it. I'm open to listen. Just don't expect me to be a convert instantaneously. So far I've read a little bit of both sides of this issue. And frankly I'm unsure. If me being unsure means I'm a propagandist, then I guess we're done.

    • in a previous comment you said the idea of a siege and shelling and bombing by Assad was misinformation...which is it?

    • I'm not supportive of any Western directed terrorists. I know what the U.S. has done in the past to countries all across the globe. I was not supportive of Obama's failed attempt to bomb Syria. all I did was question keith's links because I don't know enough about this situation and I want to know more before making a judgment one way or another or perhaps remaining uncertain. his links don't provide citations...all I see is a lot of vitriol and people claiming that if you express any skepticism that you must be supportive of Western imperialism. So suddenly Palestinian solidarity activists are called supporters of Western imperalism by some commenters here (taxi being one of them) I think that's incredibly stupid. there are people in Gaza expressing solidarity with people in Yarmouk. Are they supporters of Western imperialism too? I don't understand how the tactics that Assad has used literally destroying whole cities, shelling and bombing indiscriminately can be construed as a campaign solely against Western-backed terrorists and not also against the civilian population. Perhaps you could explain that to me...

    • what evidence do you have for this claim? your moonofalabama link provides no citations...your counterpunch link has one quote from a French foreign minister...are you holding that up as evidence of your assertions?

    • no one here who opposes Assad likes Western military intervention...get that through your head

    • how does any of this change the fact that a siege against civilians by Assad is unjustified.

    • "Fourth, terrorists try to prevent civilians from leaving the camp. Videos show terrorists from the camp shooting at people who try to flee the camp. The terrorists do so because the terrorists in the camp need civilians as human shields.

      Fifth, what is happening in Yarmouk is not a siege by the government. The government let’s food and medical aid in, but heavily armed terrorists inside the camp try to prevent aid going in and people fleeing. What is happening in the camp is a failed armed uprising that became a mass hostage taking by heavily armed and brutal terrorists, similar to the hostage situations in Deir Attiyah, Adra, Beit Sahem and other places in Syria."

      what's your source for this information? you make some pretty sweeping conclusions that in your mind obviously can not be questioned without calling the other person a propagandist against the Syrian regime. how do I know your sources aren't propaganda on the other side. I'm not asking this with any bias. I just want to know what your sources are and why you are so certain they are trustworthy.

    • of course they hold responsibility for that incident, but when looks at the big picture and the entire war, the fact remains there is no moral equivalence between an army that has fighter jets and barrel bombs and an armed resistance group. and by releasing statements which denounce both sides equally, as this article argues against, one is in fact legitimating the violence used against the oppressed. does Mondoweiss or electronic intifada or any Palestinian Solidarity group call for Hamas to lay downs its arms or stop firing its rockets for the siege to end. No. Cause they recognize that overwhelming primary responsiblity lays with Israel and anything Hamas does is in response to Israel's provcations. Israel is the oppressor with fighter jets and artillery and superior weapons. The Assad regime has already made clear it does not care about the well-being of civilians in a time of war just as Israel could care less about the well-being of Gazan civilians. The Assad regime took UNRWA to that entrance knowing they would be fired upon. If they have an entrance that is much safer, why didn't they take UNRWA to that entrance? If UNRWA is asking that question, why shouldn't the previous commenter do the same? Again some here are suggesting that the Syrian regime has no other options but to use the current methods to root out these fighters. That idea is ludicrous. Dropping bombs and laying siege on an entire camp and imposing collective punishment on civilians who "asked for it"... is the only option available to a powerful army? these commenters may not actually consciously be pro-Assad....but the rhetoric they are using just like if they were to denounce Palestinian armed resistance against Israel or denounce Hezbollahs resistance against Israel any time it invades Southern Lebanon gives a measure of legitimation to Assad actions. the fact is there is no justification for what Assad is doing and the calls for Assad to stop the siege should be way louder and more forceful then calls against armed resistance fighters.

      Thaer Alsahli, another Palestinian from Yarmouk, agrees, “Instead of using its planes to drop boxes of food and medicine to the people under siege, it used them to drop barrel bombs to kill and injure those who have not yet died of hunger,” he continues, “it is worth mentioning that most of the opposition fighters from outside the camp withdrew a while ago, under the framework of a truce that was signed around two weeks ago but that hasn’t been implemented, due to obstruction by the regime and the factions Fatah Al-Intifada and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command. There are now just dozens of Palestinian fighters left inside the camp, who agreed with the terms of the truce. This proves the vengeful intentions of the regime and these two factions towards the camp and the people under siege inside it.”

      What does this statement mean to you? Apparently all it represents to Bandeloro is Syrian government Propaganda. so now anything said against the Syrian government is propaganda just because the West wanted a military strike against Syria...that is not only absurd but to a limited degree, like I already said, it legitimizes Assad and the fact is people in the West should not be in the business of legitimating Assad's actions to any degree.

    • I’m confused…isn’t this the sentiment the article is referring to and criticizing? by blaming both sides equally….by putting forth the idea of moral equivalence these groups are effectively excusing what the Assad regime is doing…that’s what I meant by pro-Assad…I didn’t mean that they actually consciously believe laying siege on Yarmouk is justifiable, although some have used the words "asking for it". I mean how cruel is it to say the people of Yarmouk are "Asking for it? I mean just look at some of the comments here. People are blaming the presence of a few fighters inside the camp for a vicious aerial bombardment and siege by the Assad Regime instead of placing sole blame with Assad. I don't understand how one can remain logically consistent especially when these same people certainly don't blame the presence of Hamas inside Gaza for the vicious Israeli siege. I'm a firm believer in the concept that you don't blame the oppressed for their oppression, and that also applies to resistance fighters.

    • I'm confused...isn't this the sentiment the article is referring to and criticizing? by blaming both sides equally....by putting forth the idea of moral equivalence these groups are effectively excusing what the Assad regime is doing...that's what I meant by pro-Assad...I didn't mean that they actually consciously believe laying siege on Yarmouk is justifiable.

    • furthermore your "asked for it" argument presupposes the notion that the Syrian army has no other options but to inflict a massive siege on Yarmouk to root out a few fighters, an argument that you know to be absurd on its face. to say that the Syrian army is in a tough position.....seriously how did you come to delude yourself so effectively?

    • I wonder what your views are then on the collective punishment inflicted on Gazan civilians by Israel. Surely you must remain consistent and support that...or else you're being illogical

    • at one point you say " Palestinians more or less asked for it" and at another point you say "doesn't justify Assad destroying the camp" which is it? you can't have both. if it's the former you're effectively justifying the use of collective punishment which is an extremely immoral position. are you saying all the innocent Palestinians in Yarmouk "asked for it"? So Palestinians joined the rebel side...is it not just to fight against an oppressor? does it it invite the wholesale slaughter of innocents? Think carefully. Tread lightly. what you are doing right now is whitewashing the crimes of the oppressor, even if you may not be intending to do that. it is the logical endpoint of your argument.

    • I believe “neutrality” was the wrong term of focus for this article. What these outside Palestinian organizations are doing is in effect taking a side by not taking a side. They are effectively taking the side of the regime by promoting this false equivalency of parties to the conflict as the author states.
      “Al Awda, an organization dedicated to the Palestinian Right of Return, released a statement mourning Yarmouk. The culprit, however, was left obscured. “We call upon all parties, the Syrian government and the armed opposition, to take responsibility for any actions on their part.”
      I would call this a statement on the side of the regime given that it ignores the fact that in this extremely unequal conflict Assad is to blame for the siege. It would be like a statement from the United States calling for an end to a bombardment of Gaza by saying all parties to the conflict must cease hostilities when in fact it is Israel that must unilaterally cease its bombardment before any armed groups inside Gaza could contemplate laying down their meager arms. Just because there are some insurgents hiding in a camp, does not mean you unleash the full might of your air force indiscriminately against civilians. I believe that’s called collective punishment.
      “Most heinous of all, a recent statement released by SJP Cornell, in which they “ask” that the Assad regime “coordinate with the United Nations” to let food in and then “demand” that armed groups leave. In the 18-paragraph statement, comprised mostly of diatribes against “Western-armed gangs” and “Saudi and Qatari-armed insurgents”, the SJP chapter mildly faults the government exactly 4 times. The oppositional militants, on the other hand, absorb the larger majority of the scorn. SJP Cornell goes as far as to say, “armed bands must have known full well that the government had been adopting a scorched-earth counter-insurgency technique. So they, too, are responsible for what is occurring in Yarmouk.”
      This statement by SJP Cornell especially does not make any sense. What are these rebels supposed to do? End their uprising? Stop fighting against a brutal regime? Come out with white flags only to be mowed down by Syrian forces? These are not options. It is Assad’s responsibility to stop the “scorched earth counter-insurgency technique.” Did people who opposed the Vietnam War on moral grounds fault the Vietcong for having the support of the large majority of the civilian population and thereby “causing” the vicious American aerial bombardment that was unleashed upon that civilian support base? Of course not. They realized that the U.S. bore full moral responsibility for the awesome tragedy that was the Vietnam War. That decimation of the civilian support base was a premeditated counterinsurgency tactic on the part of the United States. You don’t fault the resistance for resisting a far greater power because it whitewashes the crimes of the oppressor

    • It's amazing to me how irrational people are when it comes to Syria...they feel like they have to take sides....they feel like that just because they opposed a Western military strike on Syria that they automatically have to be pro-Assad and play down any atrocities committed by the Syrian government against its own people... give me a break...use your heads people...Assad is a monster. And it's not propaganda to assert that fact.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyUP1TYyK2M

      Max Blumenthal on this absurd phenomenon

    • "When Syrian authorities gave UNRWA clearance to proceed to deliver assistance to Yarmouk, they required UNRWA to use the southern entrance to Yarmouk. This meant the convoy had to drive some 20 kilometres through an area of intense and frequent armed conflict, in which numerous armed opposition groups, including some of the most extreme jihadist groups, have a strong and active presence.

      Citing security concerns, Syrian authorities did not give UNRWA permission to use the northern entrance to Yarmouk which is under government control, and which is generally regarded as more likely to be accessible with relatively less risk."

      Did you not notice this part of the article? Or did it not filter through your pro-Syrian government blinders? There doesn't need to be any propaganda against the Syrian government. It supplies all the ammunition.

  • Haaretz op-ed cuts to the chase: 'Israel does have a solution: do nothing'
    • ok but couldn't strongly advocating and pushing for the end of military aid to Israel be framed as an issue to attract other leftist and social justice organizations in America to the cause of Palestinian solidarity by saying Let's bring back this money and use it for.....for example working to make higher education in the U.S. free and any other number of issues that these groups are working towards. I'm just brainstorming but, since the Palestine solidarity movement exists primarily on college campuses, couldn't that be a good way to gain members? I frequently hear the analysis that the left in America is fragmented and each organization is focused on its own issue when really all these issues are intertwined and intermingled and it would behoove these different movements to band together in order to gain a critical mass and confront Washington with their demands.

    • I'm curious....what do commenters think would happen inside Israel if U.S. stopped all aid? Would it be significant or non-significant? would Israel still continue down its destructive path with no change. with some of the comments here, I get the feeling that most here think it wouldn't matter. I'm not 100% sure one way or the other.

  • Low turnout for Palestinian prisoner release as negotiations slump
    • And when I said "left Gaza" I meant the settlers...I understand that Israel controls effectively controls Gaza.

    • I'm not as educated on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as most here...so I apologize if this question may sound stupid. Why is it that the two state solution is dead? Israel ordered settlements to be dismantled in Gaza before it left in 2005. Why is it impossible for the same to be done in the West Bank? I understand that the motives for forcing the settlers to leave were not at all altruistic, obviously. But why can the same thing not be done in the West Bank, obviously under different circumstances wherein Israel is forced to do so?

Showing comments 33 - 1
Page: