Canadians With A Conscience Denounce Zionist "McCarthyism"

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,326
487
83
Meanwhile Across The Pond in the UK..


To understand Israel-Palestine, first understand the history of racism and antisemitism
Rachel Shabi
Rachel Shabi


Anti-Jewish hate is rarely seen as part of a European racism that encompassed colonialism and slavery, with each distinct prejudice influencing the other
Mon 13 Nov 2023 16.20 GMT

On Saturday, hundreds of thousands took part in a history-making march for Gaza, while the hate mobs imagined by the now former home secretary Suella Braverman turned out to be the far right, who clashed with police. It’s true that the Palestine solidarity march did contain a fringe of hateful messages, but to portray these as characteristic of the whole is absurd. Protesters called for a halt to the death, catastrophe and terror being inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza. Demands for a ceasefire are accelerating globally, as about 11,000 people have been killed in the sealed Gaza Strip, including over 4,000 children – and with thousands more injured or orphaned. The Palestinian cause is close to the hearts of leftists, but polling shows it goes wider than that: most of the British public support a ceasefire.
Saturday’s demonstration contained a sizeable Jewish bloc, who marched despite alarmist warnings across our politics and media that the protests were hotbeds of antisemitism. Jewish people (me included) attend Gaza solidarity marches for many reasons. But I would bet that none include giving free passes on antisemitism to leftists – and neither should a Jewish presence be used to discount the existence of any such prejudice at these protests. More likely, we understand that while this ancient hatred can appear anywhere, it is not the fault of Palestinians that Christian Europe has a long, lingering and largely unacknowledged problem with antisemitism.

To even begin to address this in the midst of a gut-wrenching assault on Gaza means first to acknowledge that the role of progressive movements is currently complicated. We need two parallel conversations. One is in redress of the longstanding double standard exposed by global leaders greenlighting Israel’s intolerable pounding of Gaza. After the Hamas atrocities of 7 October, during which 1,200 were killed in a violent rampage and over 200, among them children, taken hostage, we rightly saw an outpouring of sympathy for the horrors unleashed in Israel. But western leaders are mostly muted in the face of unimaginable suffering in Gaza, bankrolling Israel’s battering of buildings and people, or calling only for humanitarian “pauses”, which despairing aid agencies have described as useless. There is a dismally familiar hypocrisy over whose lives count – all the more so in the context of this decades-long, asymmetric conflict, with Palestinians living under a violent Israeli occupation and a system several human rights groups have described as apartheid.
Aftermath of an Israeli strike in Deir al-Balah, Gaza, 7 November 2023.

‘Western leaders are mostly muted in the face of unimaginable suffering in Gaza, bankrolling Israel’s battering of buildings.’ Aftermath of an Israeli strike in Deir al-Balah, Gaza, 7 November 2023. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Anadolu/Getty Images

But a second conversation is needed within progressive movements from which many Jews are now – often reluctantly – absent. Those gruesome Hamas attacks left Jewish people reeling in pain and fearful over an alarming, global spike in antisemitism. To make matters worse, the Israeli government points to Jewish trauma over those Hamas crimes as justification for its assault on Gaza, while the British right corrals the pain into its own culture-war agenda. Progressives are justifiably concentrating on Gaza now, but in doing so are often not speaking to the agony of a shaken Jewish minority that may not be able to focus only on this urgent bigger picture. Fear and trauma generate many different responses. Absent any acknowledgment of that, or a space in which to share it, many Jewish stalwarts of the Palestinian cause, never mind recent supporters, are simply not showing up.
All of which taps into deeper issues with the left’s conception of the Israel-Palestine conflict and antiracism more generally. With antisemitism too often viewed as historic, its abiding contours are barely examined – not even in Britain, which invented the blood libel conspiracy against Jews that fuelled centuries of Europe-wide persecution. Antisemitism is rarely placed within a catalogue of European racism that encompassed colonialism and slavery, with each distinct and particular racism influencing the other. We have lost the lens of intellectuals in the postwar period, who excavated the connections between racism, colonialism and antisemitism. The political theorist Hannah Arendt, among others, argued that the racist violence of European colonialism in Africa both shaped and paved the way for the hateful Nazi antisemitism, premised on racial hierarchy, that led to the unique horrors of the Holocaust. After visiting the Warsaw ghetto in 1949, the African-American civil rights giant WEB Du Bois wrote that the experience gave him “a broader conception of what the fight against race segregation, religious discrimination and the oppression by wealth had to become if civilisation was going to triumph and broaden in the world”.
Meanwhile, the common leftist view of Israel’s origins as colonial is borne out by the nation’s founding fathers describing it in these terms, while the Palestinians already living in that land experienced it as such in forced expulsions and dispossession. That same expansionist logic, one that violently displaces Palestinians, continues to this day in the illegal Jewish settlements network beyond Israel’s internationally recognised borders and into the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
But this obscures the thing that propelled so many European Jews into Palestine in the first place: centuries of endless European antisemitism culminating in the Holocaust. There would be no Jewish national project in Israel had there been no deadly antisemitism racing across Europe at that time. The Palestinian intellectual Edward Said expressed this duality in Israel’s formation by describing Palestinians as “victims of victims, the refugees of the refugees”.

We can add to that the experiences of Jews who had lived in Arab countries for millennia, with no reason to leave, yet ended up as the socioeconomically disadvantaged majority Jewish population in Israel. Mostly free of the pogroms that were a feature of Christian Europe, these communities were uprooted by a pincer of competing forces: Jewish nationalism in Israel and the Arab nationalisms of countries such as Iraq, trying to shake off the yoke of British imperialism.
None of this justifies the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians, or cancels their right to the same freedoms all humans deserve. Instead, it introduces a universalist understanding of antiracism, to complement the analysis of this conflict as a relentless power imbalance between oppressor and oppressed. It means we can view the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe), the Holocaust and the exodus of Jews from Arab lands as a tangle of communities caught in the expanse of European colonialism and extreme racial thinking. It opens up the possibility of a morally and politically coherent view of different racialised minorities, even while our experiences take distinct paths. It enables a rejection of any zero-sum competition over suffering and a rejection of the idea that the safety of one people can ever come at the expense of another. It allows us, in other words, to imagine a shared, equal future, in which everyone is free.
Rachel Shabi is the author of Not the Enemy: Israel’s Jews from Arab Lands. Her new book on how progressives can reclaim the fight against antisemitism will be out in 2024

And in Atlanta...



As Jews we know, this is not a war. It’s a genocide.
Understanding our own history as Jews leads us to speak out against Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people. We stand for the liberation of the Palestinian people because we have known what it is to not be free.
BY SASHA FRIEDMAN, SIG GIORDANO AND ARI BEE NOVEMBER 11, 2023 23
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Graffiti on building at Bradley St and Decatur St in Atlanta, GA, artist unknown, photo taken on October 28, 2023 (Photo: Sasha Friedman)
GRAFFITI ON BUILDING AT BRADLEY ST AND DECATUR ST IN ATLANTA, GA, ARTIST UNKNOWN, PHOTO TAKEN ON OCTOBER 28, 2023 (PHOTO: SASHA FRIEDMAN)
On October 18, 2023, the Fulton County Commission passed a proclamation for a “Stand with Israel” day. At the meeting, Dov Wilker, Atlanta regional director for the American Jewish Committee stated that “This is not a war against the Palestinian people. This is a war against a terrorist group that slaughters their own.”
At the time of Mr. Wilker’s statement, over 4,200 Palestinians had been killed by Israel’s incessant bombing. That number is now over 11,000, thousands of whom are children.
Residents in Gaza had already gone several days without food, water, or electricity as Israel had cut off access to water, shut off their electricity, and blocked the entrance of any aid from Egypt. Over 1 million Palestinians were being displaced from their homes as Israel warned them to evacuate Northern Gaza.
And yet, Mr. Wilker stated that this was not a war against the Palestinian people. With so many dead, so many displaced, and so many dying, he may be right, that this is not a war. It is a genocide of the Palestinian people.
We need only look at our own history as Jews to understand this.
Protest for cease fire in Gaza, outside of the Israeli Consulate in Atlanta, Georgia, October 22, 2023. (Photo: Sasha Friedman)
PROTEST FOR CEASE FIRE IN GAZA, OUTSIDE OF THE ISRAELI CONSULATE IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA, OCTOBER 22, 2023. (PHOTO: SASHA FRIEDMAN)
Many of us have grown up with personal accounts passed down from our ancestors. Our own great grandparents fled Ukraine shortly after World War I with only what they could fit in two suitcases. And they were part of the resistance in the camps in the former Czechoslovakia to prevent being deported to Auschwitz. They are fighting to regain citizenship to Spain on behalf of our families who faced the choice to convert or leave during the Inquisition. It is in our bones that our safety is not guaranteed and we carry that with us.
Our Jewish ancestors were persecuted as a means of protecting nation-states and their power. We were an existential threat subject to different laws from our neighbors, killed for challenging those laws, and told we had brought this treatment upon ourselves. The world repeatedly witnessed as we were displaced, targeted for violence, and subjected to horrific genocides. We were told we were untrustworthy, and so we were deserving of all this inhumane treatment.
Reflecting on this history, we see we have so much in common with the Palestinian people. A people whose land was seized from them over 75 years ago. A people who have been subjected to a different set of laws based on their ethnicity. A people who are told that any form of resistance against this treatment is unjustified and will be met with even greater violence and destruction. This has included the Israeli military targeting unarmed protestors, journalists, and medics with live ammunition and barring leaders of pro-Palestinian movements from travel.
Protest for cease fire in Gaza, outside of the Georgia Capitol, October 28, 2023 (Photo: Sasha Friedman)
PROTEST FOR CEASE FIRE IN GAZA, OUTSIDE OF THE GEORGIA CAPITOL, OCTOBER 28, 2023 (PHOTO: SASHA FRIEDMAN)
On our screens, from our beds and couches, we are watching bombs drop and tanks move into Gaza, and the faces of devastating loss. This cannot be called a war; it is more aptly described as an ongoing genocide. One that the U.S. provides financial, political, and military support to, and one with no sign of abating, even for a humanitarian ceasefire to allow sufficient water, food, and medical assistance into Gaza.
In understanding our own history, we must speak out against this state-sponsored violence, which has been ongoing for the last 75 years. We stand for the liberation of Palestinian people because we have known what it is to not be free. We join with one another to demand “free Palestine” because we hold to the tenets of Tikkun Olam that we are called to the work of “repairing the world.” We take to the streets and talk to our family and post on social media that Palestinian liberation is central to our Judaism because we were told “never again.”
The phrase “never again” lives in our bones and echoes in our ears over and over because never again will we be complicit in the genocide of any people. Never again will we allow the world to ignore the attempted erasure of human dignity and human lives. Never again means not now. Not ever. For anyone.
Sig, Ari, and Sasha are all part of a Jewish Atlanta collective working to end the occupation in Palestine.
 

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,326
487
83
Is This The Return of McCarthyism? Had McCarthyism Ever Left Us?



Palestine is the single most urgent free speech crisis in the U.S. today
Similar to attacks on LGBTQ books and works of “Critical Race Theory,” the pro-Israel crusade to suppress Palestinian voices is a systematic campaign of political targeting.
BY WHITNEY STRUB NOVEMBER 12, 2023 4
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Protest against the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, 2019. (Photo via ACLU)
PROTEST AGAINST THE ISRAEL ANTI-BOYCOTT ACT, 2019. (PHOTO VIA ACLU)
The repression of Palestinian rights claims is the single most urgent crisis of free speech in the United States today. How we narrate this crisis, and the frameworks we use to analyze organized efforts to silence pro-Palestine speech, shape the strategies through which we resist them. As Gaza burns, the hegemony of anti-Palestine, pro-apartheid zealots seems suffocating – and that’s the point. The history of McCarthyism, as Alex Kane recently noted in Jewish Currents, offers one useful lens: doxxing trucks, rescinded job offers, law-firm blacklists, and the ignominious House censure of Rashida Tlaib all carry the eerie chill of the 1950s Cold War era.
As a historian of censorship, I believe a complementary framework for analyzing the intensifying repression of pro-Palestinian voices can be found in recent censorship campaigns that have resulted in banning LGBTQ books and works of so-called “Critical Race Theory.” It’s firmly established that efforts to ban these texts are motivated by anti-gay sentiment and racism. But rarely is the suppression of Palestinian voices linked to such efforts – yet Islamophobia animates the pro-Israel crusade in strikingly parallel ways; these are deeply interrelated campaigns of political targeting. The only serious difference is that the recent censorship campaigns are aligned with the U.S. political right, whereas anti-Palestinian censorship is a joint project of the Republican and Democratic parties.

A thorough new report released by the Rutgers Law School Center for Security, Race and Rights maps out the role Islamophobia plays in structuring the national discussion of Palestinian rights. In Presumptively Antisemitic: Islamophobic Tropes in the Palestine-Israel Discourse, authors Mitchell Plitnick and Sahar Aziz identify how Palestinian rights claims are laundered by the Israel Lobby and others, through Islamophobic lenses. Self-styled experts imbue such claims – calls for Palestinian human rights, for the consistent application of international law, and the like – with the presumption they are antisemitic to preemptively nullify them. It’s essentially the same “folk devil” basis for moral panic that drives the book bans, with such organizations as AIPAC playing the parallel role to explicitly far-right groups like Moms for Liberty.
When right-wing dark-money groups come for Jonathan Evison’s Lawn Boy or Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer, they’re extending a legacy dating back to the 1873 Comstock Act, which first put teeth in federal obscenity law. “Obscenity” was always a tool for enforcing sexual normativity. The anti-queer aspects of obscenity were on display when the Supreme Court affirmed the law in the 1957 Roth v. U.S. decision, pinning the legal definition of obscenity to “prurient interest,” defined by the “average person, applying contemporary community standards.” Sex was not inherently obscene, declared the court—but male physique magazines, lesbian pulp novels, queer avant-garde cinema, however, were all targets for obscenity charges. This has been replayed every subsequent decade; a generation ago, it was Heather Has Two Mommies under fire.

Signup for the Daily Headlines newsletter. You'll get new stories delivered directly to your inbox every morning at 8am EST.

Subscribe
The accompanying assault on “Critical Race Theory” is a patently bad-faith effort whose architect, Christopher Rufo, publicly acknowledged that he was devising a new dog whistle the right could use to win political campaigns. Of course, CRT is actually a small body of legal theory rarely assigned to high school or elementary school students, but under Rufo’s guidance, it came to mean anything critical of white supremacy – particularly when penned by Black authors. Rufo’s efforts are worth taking seriously only because their social power forces us to do so – his intellectually-bankrupt campaign simply repackaged previous anti-Black talking points: “welfare queens,” “forced busing,” etc. Yet, it has achieved a number of official bans.
Similar dynamics shape U.S. political discourse around Palestine.

The report takes stock of “Racist tropes that Muslims and Arabs innately hate Jews.” These tropes serve the same foundational role as heteronormative standards for obscenity: setting up foregone conclusions – here, “discrediting the Palestinian people from realizing their full civil, political, national, and human rights” by foreclosing free and open debate on Israel’s well-documented violations of international law that human rights organizations now consider apartheid. Instead, the House of Representatives diverts attention toward Tlaib for sharing the universalist human rights chant, “From the river to the sea…” and reading antisemitism into the terse rhyme where none exists. The message is clear: a Palestinian calling for a one-state solution where people of all faiths and ethnicities have equal rights is anathema that must be falsely depicted as antisemitic. Because the call comes from a prominent Arab and Muslim woman, the media gladly plays along – knowing full well the accusation is baseless.
In the report, the authors carefully define how Islamophobic tropes operate, in ways both heavy-handed (the post-9/11 knee-jerk Islamophobic backlash) and subtle (eugenics concerns over Palestinian birth rates that have seeped into even liberal senator Elizabeth Warren’s public comments). The report also charts an institutional nexus that shapes American Islamophobia, ranging from outright nativist groups like Christians United for Israel to the Democratic Majority for Israel, formed in 2019 to bolster flagging Zionist sentiment among the U.S. electorate and to bolster centrist politics more broadly within the Democratic Party. The money trails often converge; billionaire oil heiress Stacy Schusterman has funded both DMFI and AIPAC, and, through her family’s charity, the Islamophobic Middle East Media Research Institute. This “Islamophobia Network” helps blur the lines, ensuring pervasive anti-Muslim sentiment often bleeds into anti-Palestinian attitudes as well.
Support Mondoweiss with a donation today.
Ritualized attacks on representatives Ilhan Omar and Tlaib, repeatedly deemed terrorists and antisemites for challenging U.S. aid to Israel, exemplify the analysis. Muslims are rendered presumptively antisemitic. This scurrilous charge is then carried into discrediting Palestinian rights claims on the same basis: “The fallacy that all Muslims are presumptively antisemitic is increasingly deployed by Zionist groups to eliminate critical debate inclusive of Palestinian experiences. Muslims or Arabs criticizing Israel’s state practices are presumed to be motivated by antisemitism, not a commitment to universal human rights or social justice principles.” It’s a well-oiled (and well-funded) demonology machine.
While much of this process hinges on media complicity and the propagandistic forging of consensus, risks to free speech emerge when anti–Palestine speech efforts are blessed with formal state power, which occurs with alarming regularity. The nearly three dozen state-level anti-BDS laws are the most striking example (their chilling effect never acknowledged by the self-professed anti-“woke” reactionaries who bemoan “cancel culture”).
Recurring state and municipal efforts to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism would put criticism of Israel at legal risk by marking it as hate speech. And in the days before Presumptively Antisemitic was published, Florida’s State University System new ban on Students for Justice in Palestine groups shows another use of state power to censor and silence oppositional voices, again through the Islamophobic rhetoric of “terrorism.”
Plitnick and Aziz, in their landmark report, methodically connect the component parts that make Islamophobic/anti-Palestinian politics systematic; being able to name and identify this system provides us better tools to chip away at its power. As a scholar of history and censorship, I would counsel that those who oppose the racism and homophobia of Moms for Liberty and its ilk recognize that the struggle for Palestinian liberation is not just parallel but precisely aligned with the fights for queer and racial justice, and that the forces of oppression follow the same strategies of demonization, stigmatization, and silencing.

Before you go – we need your support
 

Vera.Reis

Mediterranean Paramour
Jan 20, 2020
823
911
113
Toronto
The letter below was drawn up in response to pervasive repression of speech and scholarship on Palestinian liberation. Law students and lawyers are being threatened with academic sanctions and job loss for advocating against Israel’s atrocities in Palestine.



We are deeply concerned by the growing chorus of statements from lawyers, law firms and law schools that are conflating expressions of solidarity with Palestinians and criticism of the State of Israel as antisemitic and conduct unworthy of learning or practicing law. In particular:



  • Lawyers are openly advocating on social media to blacklist law students and lawyers who have voiced support for Palestine;


  • Lawyers are contacting the employers of lawyers and encouraging they be fired for their pro-Palestinian advocacy. Law firms (many of which issued unprecedented, political statements in support of Israel) are rescinding interview offers to students who sign open letters condemning Israel. Law schools are threatening those students with expulsion; and


  • Lawyers are bullying and defaming others who have voiced support for Palestine or attended demonstrations in support of Palestine, calling them terrorists, antisemites, and other pejoratives. A disproportionate number of these lawyers who are being bullied, in potential violation of the rules of professional conduct, are junior members of the bar, racialized, and/or Muslim.


We reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to contextualize the October 7th, 2023 attack. Similarly, we reject the notion that it is antisemitic, hateful, or illegitimate to express support for Palestinians in the face of ongoing Israeli apartheid and genocide.



This is legitimate Charter-protected political expression. This speech echoes the United Nation’s Secretary General (the October 7th attack “did not happen in a vacuum”), the Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (“The Israeli government has lost any semblance of humanity as they wage a genocide against the people living in Gaza”), and numerous UN General Assembly resolutions affirming the right of the Palestinians to resist their demise (UNGA Resolution 45/130 (1990); Resolution 37/43 (1982); Resolution 3314 (1974)).



Lawyers and law students are not the only people who have faced harassment, workplace retribution, or job loss for speaking out for Palestine. Ontario MPP Sarah Jama’s censure and the York University's attempt to decertify student unions are but two high-profile examples. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has noted that this clampdown has led to “escalating levels of Islamophobia, harassment, racial profiling, and surveillance akin to that seen post-9/11.” It is intensifying the anti-Palestinian racism in Canadian society, as described by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association.



This chilling effect on freedom of expression and academic freedom has the hallmarks of a new McCarthyism. A failure of those of us in the legal profession to voice our opposition to this conduct will only accelerate the erosion of the very protections that make dissent – and therefore democracy – possible. It is vital that the space for scholarship, speech and activism in defence of basic human rights be preserved.



We, the undersigned lawyers, legal institutions, legal workers and academics commit not to discriminate against anyone for speaking out for justice and freedom for Palestinians.



We will mentor you. We will support you. We are proud to call you colleagues.



The following alphabetical list will be periodically updated.



Organizations



Arab Canadian Lawyers Association

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

No More Silence

Scholar Strike Canada

South Asian Legal Clinic of BC

Toronto Metropolitan Faculty Association Equity Committee



Individuals and Law Firms



  1. Aashish Kohli
  2. Aaina Grover
  3. Abigail Bakan, Professor, OISE, University of Toronto
  4. Adam Lee, LLM candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School
  5. Adam Veenendaal
  6. Aditi Iyer
  7. Adrian Carranza
  8. Adrian Smith, York University
  9. Afifa Hashimi
  10. Ahmad Barzak
  11. Ahmed Labib
  12. Ahsan Mirza, McMillan LLP (views are my own)
  13. Aidan "Connie" Campbell, Lawyer
  14. Aishah Nofal
  15. Aislin M. Jackson
  16. Ajay Parasram
  17. Alan Sears, Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University
  18. Aleks Ivovic
  19. Alex Hunsberger
  20. Alex Kermer
  21. Alex Medley, University of Ottawa
  22. Alex Neve, Adjunct Professor of International Human Rights Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
  23. Alexa Powell
  24. Alexandra Hobson
  25. Alexandra T. Da Dalt
  26. Alexandra Youssef
  27. Alexandria Bonney
  28. Ali Naraghi
  29. Ali Hammoudi, Windsor Law
  30. Aliah El-houni
  31. Allison MacIntosh
  32. Amanda Venner
  33. Amani Rauff
  34. Amir Hage
  35. Amina Jamal
  36. Amjad Khadhair
  37. Amy Brubacher
  38. Amy Kishek
  39. Ana Mihajlovic
  40. Anchal Bhatia
  41. Andrea MacNevin
  42. Andrea Sobko
  43. Andrea Vitopoulos
  44. Andrew Mindszenthy
  45. Anna Cooper, Pivot Legal Society
  46. Anne-Marie Singh, TMU
  47. Anver Emon, Faculty of Law University of Toronto
  48. Arash Ghiassi
  49. Ariana Agouridis
  50. Armaan Kassam, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association - BC Branch, Executive Committee Member
  51. Asad Kiyani, Associate Professor, University of Victoria Faculty of Law
  52. Asaf Rashid, Asaf Rashid Law
  53. Ashley Wilson
  54. Astrid Mrkich
  55. Athena Law
  56. Ava Armand
  57. Avineet Kaur Cheema
  58. Aylin Manduric
  59. Baneet Hans
  60. Benjamin Hognestad
  61. Bessma Kassim
  62. Beverly Bain, Scholar Strike Canada
  63. Brenna Bhandar, Associate Professor, Allard Law Faculty, UBC
  64. Brendan Jowett
  65. Breshna Durrani
  66. Brett Hughes
  67. Brittany Scott
  68. Bruce Ryder, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
  69. Caitlin Meggs
  70. Camelia Alikashani
  71. Carol Drumm
  72. Carol Liao, Allard Law, UBC
  73. Caroline Grady
  74. Carranza LLP
  75. Catherine Lafferty
  76. Catherine Sadler
  77. Cheryl Gaster, Human Rights Lawyer, Retired
  78. Chimwemwe Undi
  79. Chris Rudnicki
  80. Christa Croos
  81. Christina Shiwsankar
  82. Christina Vira
  83. Claire Mummé, University of Windsor
  84. Cody O’Neil
  85. Cynthia Khoo
  86. Dahlia Aeta
  87. Damey Lee
  88. Dania Majid, Arab Canadian Lawyers Association
  89. Daniel Tucker-Simmons, Avant Law
  90. Danielle Bisnar
  91. Danielle Sabelli
  92. Danielle Sandhu
  93. Danika So, West Toronto Community Legal Services
  94. Darcy Lindberg, University of Victoria
  95. David Arruda
  96. David Shellnutt
  97. David W. Cass
  98. David Wiseman, uOttawa
  99. Davina Bhandar Athabasca University
  100. Dayeon Min
  101. Debbie Rachlis, Debbie Rachlis Law
  102. Deborah Cowen, Professor, University of Toronto
  103. Deborah Guterman, Cavalluzzo LLP, LLB/BCL McGill University
  104. Devon Paul
  105. Diana Abuseedou
  106. Diann Chea
  107. Dimitri Lascaris
  108. Dustin Fox
  109. E. Ascencio
  110. E. Bala
  111. Elise Mercier
  112. Ella Bedard
  113. Ella Henry
  114. Ellen Campbell, University of Victoria
  115. Emma Conlon
  116. Emmaline English
  117. Emily Beggs
  118. Emily Denomme
  119. Emily Dixon Law
  120. Emily Lewsen
  121. Emily O’Keefe
  122. Emma Landy
  123. Emma Sitland, McGill University (Alumni)
  124. Enid Gibney
  125. Erica Cartwright
  126. Erika Anttila
  127. Erika Chan
  128. Erika Richards, Woodward and Company Lawyers LLP
  129. Erin Sobat
  130. Esther Song
  131. Eugenia Cappellaro Zavaleta
  132. Eva Jewell, Toronto Metropolitan University
  133. Evaleen Hellinga
  134. Evan Szczucinski
  135. F. Lam
  136. F. Zeenath Zeath
  137. Fahad Ahmad, Toronto Metropolitan University
  138. Faisal Bhabha, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
  139. Fasiha Khan
  140. Fathima Cader
  141. Fatima Anwar, WITNESS
  142. Fatima Husain
  143. Fedora Mathieu, Immigration and Refugee Lawyer
  144. Flora Yu
  145. Francesca Ghossein
  146. Fred Wu
  147. Ga Grant
  148. Gabrielle Aquino
  149. Gachi Issa
  150. Gaelle Groux
  151. Gail Super, University of Toronto
  152. Garrett Zehr
  153. Gary Kinsman
  154. Geetha Philipupillai
  155. Gökbörü Sarp Tanyildiz, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Brock University
  156. Golta Vahid Shahidi
  157. Grace Shin
  158. Grayson Alabiso-Cahill
  159. Gwendolyn Muir
  160. Hamna Anwar
  161. Hana Awwad Eidda
  162. Hani Al-Dajane, Emerge Law
  163. Hania Jahangir
  164. Hannah Bing
  165. Harpreet Grewal
  166. Harsha Walia
  167. Heath Soave
  168. Heidi Matthews, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School
  169. Henry Goddard Rebstein
  170. Henry Off
  171. Hina Ansari
  172. Hodan Ahmed, CAMWL
  173. Humera Jabir
  174. Hussain Bukhari, Barrister and Solicitor
  175. Ike Birk
  176. Iler Campbell LLP
  177. Imalka Nilmalgoda
  178. Imtenan Abd-El-Razik
  179. Ioana Dragalin-Reeves, Furgiuele Law
  180. Irina Ceric, University of Windsor
  181. Isabel Davila Pereira
  182. Isabelle Busby
  183. Iqra Azhar
  184. Iqra Rafique
  185. Jackie Esmonde
  186. Jack Jones
  187. Jaclyn Salter
  188. Jacqueline Louie
  189. Jacqueline Ohayon, University of Victoria
  190. James Yap
  191. Jamie Liew, University of Ottawa
  192. Jamie Shilton
  193. Jamie Magnusson, Scholar Strike Canada
  194. Janet Mosher, Osgoode Hall Law School
  195. Jason Birring
  196. Jasleen Kaur
  197. Jeff Carolin
  198. Jenna Meguid
  199. Jennifer Nedelsky, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
  200. Jeremy Greenberg (University of Toronto, J.D. 2019)
  201. Jerico Espinas
  202. Jessica Asch
  203. Jessica Chandrashekar
  204. Jessica Frappier
  205. Jessica Gadea Hawkins, Lincoln Alexander School of Law
  206. Jesse Gutman, lawyer
  207. Jia Wang
  208. Jillian Rogin, University of Windsor
  209. Jillian Toonders
  210. Joanna Berry
  211. Joanna Chan
  212. John No
  213. Jordyn Gooden
  214. Joshua Sealy-Harrington, Assistant Professor at Lincoln Alexander School of Law at Toronto Metropolitan University
  215. Joy Wahba
  216. Juan Carranza
  217. Judy Haiven, Retired Professor, Saint Mary's University Halifax NS
  218. Julia Fyfe
  219. Juliana Saxberg
  220. Julian Riddell
  221. Kally Ho
  222. Kareem Ibrahim Law
  223. Karen Segal
  224. Karenna Williams
  225. Karla Carranza
  226. Kas Pavanantharajah
  227. Kat Snukal
  228. Katie Douglas
  229. Katie Lay
  230. Katie Mysak
  231. Katrina Sriranpong
  232. Kelty McKerracher
  233. Kendall Yamagishi
  234. Kendra Strauss
  235. Kerry McGladdery Dent, Partner, Spero Law
  236. Khalid Janmohamed, Lincoln Alexander School of Law
  237. Khalil Jessa
  238. Kim Veller
  239. Kiran Kang
  240. Kiran Fatima, University of Calgary
  241. Krisna Saravanamuttu
  242. Krista Rodriguez Paralegal & RCIC
  243. Kristen Lloyd
  244. Kristen Thomasen
  245. Kristina Cooke
  246. Kulvinder Deol
  247. Kyle Thompson
  248. Kylie Sier
  249. Laith Sarhan
  250. Dr. Layal Shuman, Toronto Metropolitan University
  251. Leena Halees
  252. Leigh Salsberg
  253. Leila Gaind
  254. Leilani Farha
  255. Lily Hassall, Labour Lawyer (Vancouver, BC)
  256. Dr. Lila Pine, RTA School of Media, Toronto Metropolitan University
  257. Lindsay Bailey
  258. Lindsay Holder
  259. Lindsay Stidwill
  260. Lindsey Tulk
  261. Lisa Kelly, Queen’s University, Faculty of Law
  262. Lisa H
  263. Liz Adeseha
  264. Liza Hughes, BC Civil Liberties Association
  265. Lorraine Chuen
  266. Lyndsay Watson, Pivot Legal Society
  267. Macdonald Scott, Carranza LLP
  268. Maia Rotman
  269. Makda Yohannes
  270. Malian Levi
  271. Mara Selanders
  272. Mark Phillips, lawyer
  273. Marianne Salih
  274. Dr Marusya Bociurkiw, Professor, TMU
  275. Mathieu Bélanger
  276. Matthew Campbell-Williams, MCW Law
  277. Matthew Tran
  278. Mediators Beyond Borders International, Toronto Metropolitan University
  279. Meena Dhillon
  280. Meghan McDermott
  281. Megan Phyper
  282. Melanie Anderson
  283. Melanie Snow
  284. Melissa Crawford
  285. Meryam Miftah-Idrissi
  286. Michael Blazer
  287. Michaelin Scott
  288. Michelle Adormaa Owusu
  289. Mike Leitold, sole practitioner
  290. Ming Cheng
  291. Mohamad Jamal Bsat
  292. Monica Chohan, Chohan Law
  293. Mustafa Jilani
  294. Mustafa Koc, TMU
  295. N Gitanjali Lena, Lena Legal Services
  296. Nabila Khan
  297. Nada Moumtaz, University of Toronto
  298. Nana Yanful
  299. Natasha Bakht, Professor, Shirley Greenberg Chair for Women and the Legal Profession, University of Ottawa
  300. Navjot Jassar
  301. Nazanin Khodarahmi, Law Society of British Columbia
  302. Nicole Freeman
  303. Nick Kennedy
  304. Noah Escandor
  305. Nofil Nadeem
  306. Nora Fathalipour
  307. Nusra Khan
  308. Oliver Backman
  309. Orlagh O’Kelly
  310. Padraigin Murphy
  311. Paniz Khosroshahy
  312. Parmbir Gill
  313. Penni Stewart, Professor Emerita, York University
  314. Perrie Law
  315. Poeme Manigat
  316. Pooja Parmar, University of Victoria
  317. Pri S, Osgoode Hall Law School alum
  318. Priyanka Vittal
  319. Rabia Malik
  320. Rachel Zellars, Saint Mary's University
  321. Ramna Safeer
  322. Randa Farah, University of Western Ontario
  323. Randall K. Cohn
  324. Ranya El-Sharkawi
  325. Rashedul Amin, Rashed Amin Law
  326. Rathika Vasavithasan, Parkdale Community Legal Services
  327. Rebecca Glass
  328. Rebecca Meharchand
  329. Rebecca Ward
  330. Rebecca Watson, TMU
  331. Rebekah Smith
  332. Riaz Sayani
  333. Richa Sandill
  334. Rick Frank
  335. Robert Richardson, R Richardson Law
  336. Rosel Kim
  337. Rosemary Hu
  338. Roxana Parsa
  339. Ruth Wellen
  340. Ryan Deshpande
  341. Rye Dutton
  342. S. Praud, JFK Law LLP
  343. Sabrina Sukhdeo
  344. Sadaf Kashfi
  345. Saeed Teebi
  346. Safiyah H
  347. Sahar Rizvi
  348. Sakshi Chadha
  349. Salematou Camara
  350. Sam Misra
  351. Samuel Geisterfer
  352. Sandra Ka Hon Chu
  353. Sandy L.
  354. Sara Ageorlo
  355. Dr. Sara Ghebremusse, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario
  356. Sarah L. Boyd
  357. Sarah Mikhaiel
  358. Sarah Pringle
  359. Sarah Riley Case
  360. Sedef Arat-Koc, Associate Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University
  361. Seema Shafei
  362. Serena Cheong
  363. Sepideh Khazei
  364. Sevda Mansour
  365. Shabnam Sukhdev, York University
  366. Shafaq Ahmad
  367. Shahed Rifai
  368. Shailaja Nadarajah
  369. Shama Ansari
  370. Shane Martinez
  371. Sharifa N. Khan, Lawyer
  372. Sharry Aiken, Queen's University
  373. Shawn Abrahim
  374. Shawn Smith
  375. Sherif Foda
  376. Sherifa Hadi
  377. Shermaine Chua
  378. Sherry Ghaly
  379. Sheru Abdulhusein
  380. Sheryl Nestel, Affiliated Scholar, New College, U of Toronto
  381. Shiri Pasternak, Toronto Metropolitan University
  382. Sima Atri
  383. Simona Petti
  384. Sonali Sharma
  385. Sonya Sabet-Rasekh
  386. Sophie Chase
  387. Sophie Chen
  388. Sophie Chiasson
  389. Soumia Allalou
  390. Stephanie Tadeo, J.D., University of Ottawa
  391. Stephen Ellis
  392. Steve Daniels, Associate Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University
  393. Subuhi Siddiqui, Paths Law
  394. Suha Abu-Jazar
  395. Sukhpreet Sangha
  396. Sujith Xavier, Associate Professor, University of Windsor
  397. Summer Ibrahim
  398. Sumrana Taher
  399. Sunia Hassan
  400. Susan Dhaliwal
  401. Susan Toth, Spero Law
  402. Susanna Allevato Quail, Partner, Allevato Quail & Roy
  403. Swathi Sekhar, Sekhar Law Office, Director of Protection Initiatives, Rainbow Railroad, Adjunct Professor, Queens University Faculty of Law
  404. Talia J
  405. Talukder Law
  406. Tamara Ramusovic
  407. Tamir Israel
  408. Tanya Thakur
  409. Tara Williamson, Indigenous Law Research Unit
  410. Taraneh Ashrafi
  411. Tariq Amin Khan, Toronto Metropolitan University
  412. Taryn Hamilton
  413. Tasha Donnelly, Donnelly Criminal Law
  414. Tasha Manoranjan
  415. Tess Sheldon, Assistant Professor, Windsor Law
  416. Theresa Donkor
  417. Thy Phu, University of Toronto
  418. Tina Gougoushvili
  419. Tina Yang
  420. Ummni Khan, Carleton University
  421. Val Lem
  422. Valantina Amalraj
  423. Varda Anwar
  424. Vasanthi Venkatesh, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor
  425. Veromi Arsiradam
  426. Veronica Martisius, BC Civil Liberties Association
  427. Vic Natola
  428. Victoria Peter
  429. Vincent Wong, University of Windsor
  430. Vinh Nguyen, University of Waterloo
  431. Vinidhra Vaitheeswaran
  432. Vyas Saran
  433. Yavar Hameed
  434. Yomna Khatib
  435. Yumna Siddiqi
  436. Zachary Al-Khatib, Liberty Law LLP
  437. Zahir Kolia, Assistant Professor, Department of Criminology
  438. Zainab Asadullah
  439. Zeeshan Baig, PropertyLegal.ca
  440. Zosia Hortsing
I was so happy to see so many name of professors at my school that I admire, as well as the names of many academics I admire as well.

To say that this letter in any way calls for harm to Jewish people is absurd. All it says is that adding context to the conflict, supporting Palestine and criticizing Israel are all legitimate forms of expression. Going a step further and calling ANY of these things support for Hamas or any civilian deaths, is just people reaching.

We need to contextualize what is going on right now globally. The first context is that Jewish, Arab and Muslim people all have good reasons to be scared right now as all groups are experiencing heighten threats and actual violence globally. The second context is that Jewish and Palestinian people both have generational trauma running through their veins, and the actions of both right now need to be viewed in that light, and it should afford them some grace. But like any other contextualization it has its limits as to what it excuses (see where I'm going?). Contextualization can excuse some slightly hateful posts on either side, maybe some verbal bickering on the streets, unwillingness to listen and sharing misinformation on impulse because it feeds into your heightened need to feed a confirmation bias because of your panicked state. Context does not excuse or justify what Hamas did, and it does not excuse or justify what Israel is still doing. So automatically saying that any contextualization is excusing or justifying is erroneous and a bad faith argument. This is what the above legal academics and professionals are pushing back against.
 

Vera.Reis

Mediterranean Paramour
Jan 20, 2020
823
911
113
Toronto
All contextualizing does is give you the information you need to form a nuanced opinion. I hear the context of what Hamas did and go "Hamas should not have target civilians", then I hear the context of what Israel is doing and I go "Israel should not be targeting civilians". I do not think the context justifies any of this, but it allows me to understand better what I am forming an opinion about.

Now, there are definitely people that receive that exact same context and come to different conclusions, on both situations, because the context itself does not give an opinion. So yes, contextualizing does not justify, but you might use the context to justify or not, however, that is absolutely independent of the contextualization itself. As the letter says, contextualizing is a legitimate form of expression. What you do with that context might not me.

But I'm aware TERB is not the place for nuance, just nuisances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kautilya

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
9,798
9,548
113
All contextualizing does is
It helps to push the narrative that October 7 was a little bit justified because what else could oppressed indigenous people do other than kill and rape kids at an EDM festival and take 200 hostages including babies and elderly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeffeye99

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,326
487
83
I was so happy to see so many name of professors at my school that I admire, as well as the names of many academics I admire as well.

To say that this letter in any way calls for harm to Jewish people is absurd. All it says is that adding context to the conflict, supporting Palestine and criticizing Israel are all legitimate forms of expression. Going a step further and calling ANY of these things support for Hamas or any civilian deaths, is just people reaching.

We need to contextualize what is going on right now globally. The first context is that Jewish, Arab and Muslim people all have good reasons to be scared right now as all groups are experiencing heighten threats and actual violence globally. The second context is that Jewish and Palestinian people both have generational trauma running through their veins, and the actions of both right now need to be viewed in that light, and it should afford them some grace. But like any other contextualization it has its limits as to what it excuses (see where I'm going?). Contextualization can excuse some slightly hateful posts on either side, maybe some verbal bickering on the streets, unwillingness to listen and sharing misinformation on impulse because it feeds into your heightened need to feed a confirmation bias because of your panicked state. Context does not excuse or justify what Hamas did, and it does not excuse or justify what Israel is still doing. So automatically saying that any contextualization is excusing or justifying is erroneous and a bad faith argument. This is what the above legal academics and professionals are pushing back against.

It is an aspirational cry of a National Liberation Movement. In my ears it has a haunting kinship with its cognate: Next Year In Jerusalem. Yet the phrase From The River To The Sea seems to have panicked university leaders, who bring out their favourite cudgel to crush it: Anti-Semitism. Let there be no doubt, the panic is real when a hedge fund manager or a billionaire menaces your cherished Endowment and all those hollow liberal pronouncements of University Values fade away.


From the River to the Sea: The undying promise of Palestinian liberation in the face of genocide
“From the River to the Sea” is not merely a slogan—it is an undying promise and demand for national liberation. Attempts to vilify it are only meant to undermine the movement against Zionism and silence calls for Palestinian freedom.
BY PALESTINIAN YOUTH MOVEMENT NOVEMBER 13, 2023 0
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Palestinian Youth Movement activists holding the banner that lead the march of 300,000 pro-Palestine supporters in Washington, D.C., on November 4, 2023. (Photo courtesy of the Palestinian Youth Movement)
PALESTINIAN YOUTH MOVEMENT ACTIVISTS HOLDING THE BANNER THAT LEAD THE MARCH OF 300,000 PRO-PALESTINE SUPPORTERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ON NOVEMBER 4, 2023. (PHOTO COURTESY OF THE PALESTINIAN YOUTH MOVEMENT)
Over the past five weeks, we have seen millions, if not billions, of people around the world mobilizing for Palestine. On November 4, history was made in the heart of the United States empire with the largest Palestine march in U.S. history. On November 11, over a million people took to the streets of London in another record-breaking march. We have also seen protests regularly organized across the globe. These demonstrations are protesting the Zionist entity’s genocide which this month alone has claimed over 11,000 Palestinian lives, over half of them children. Amidst this genocide, and the building of a historic global movement in support of the Palestinian people, Zionist institutions and the Western nations that finance Israel’s savagery have earnestly attacked a central slogan and chant heard at these historic actions: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free.”
Through this attack, the forces of Zionism and imperialism are attempting to delegitimize the movement for Palestinian national liberation and distract from Israel’s genocide. The attempts to vilify and criminalize this chant are part of a broader effort to undermine the movement against Zionism and to silence the calls for Palestinian freedom, which can be heard in every corner of the world. The thousands of people joining the movement each day are living proof that efforts to undermine our calls for freedom are failing and that we, and our supporters, will remain steadfast in our vision for Palestinian liberation from the river to the sea.
This chant for freedom is currently being smeared as hate speech or incitement to violence. U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib was censured for saying it. Harvard’s President condemned the use of the phrase by student organizers, announcing the creation of an antisemitism advisory group in response. A Palestinian organizer in Calgary, Canada was charged by police for leading the chant during a protest. In Britain, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman penned a letter to the Metropolitan Police encouraging them to “consider whether chants such as ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire” and even insinuated the criminalization of the chant. The mainstream media has painted the slogan in a similar light, either suggesting it calls for the genocide of Jewish people or attempting to both-sides it by painting the history of the call for Palestinian liberation as “complex.” In response, some have defended the phrase by decontextualizing it from its ties to a struggle for national liberation, suggesting that it is “a call for Israel to extend citizenship and legal and political equality to every single human being residing within its current borders.” What this kind of analysis fails to grasp is that Palestinians do not chant this phrase in a plea for citizenship within a nation built on our genocide, but rather as a demand for national liberation and freedom.
Of course, for Zionism, Palestinian freedom is an existential threat to the project of creating a colonial ethno-state on top of Palestine. This is a state that has no official borders and, over the past 75 years, has occupied Egyptian, Syrian, and Lebanese land (and continues to violate Syria and Lebanon’s sovereignty). Netanyahu, two months ago in the United Nations General Assembly, held up a map of “the New Middle East.” This Zionist geographical imaginary eliminated Palestine from the region and absorbed the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, reflecting the Likud party’s charter, which steals our call for freedom and demands that “between the Sea and Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”
The reality is that Zionism’s brutal violence against the Palestinian people extends across all of historic Palestine: from the West Bank’s Jordan River to Gaza’s sea. No Palestinian life is sacred amidst its genocidal blockade, in the presence of its settlements and checkpoints, nor within its prison walls where thousands of Palestinians are held and tortured, and 2.3 million Gazans are held hostage. Palestinian freedom necessitates total liberation: not only from the river to the sea, but beyond the borders of historic Palestine, where millions of Palestinians await return. Palestinian liberation necessitates liberation from Zionism.
But why is there now a heightened attempt to equate Palestinian calls for liberation with genocidal hate speech? There is an actual genocide that the Israeli regime and its Western backers are undertaking between the river and the sea. This smear campaign is a strategy that works to keep the Palestinian movement on the defensive as we attempt to stop a genocide that Western governments are greenlighting and funding. It aims to distract from the genocide unfolding and promote doubt and fear among the increasing numbers of people who are growing conscious of their institutions’ and governments’ complicity in it. It intends to obfuscate the question of violence: simultaneously painting violence as the words of the occupied and detracting from the violence of the occupier’s genocide.
In response to these claims, Palestinians in Western countries and those who stand with them are having to (at best) spend their time explaining the meaning of “From the River to the Sea,” or (at worst) defend themselves against backlash, suspensions, and repression for using the phrase. The fixation on discourse and the scrutinization of our chants aims to sow uncertainty into the hearts and minds of those new to the movement while providing institutions such as universities, the media, and workplaces with new tools to continue justifying their repression.
Such strategies make invisible what is happening in Palestine, that is: over 11,000 Palestinians have been killed by bombs funded by imperialist powers like the U.S., Canada, and Britain; patients in the ICU of Al Shifa hospital have died due to power outages; children are collecting water pooled up in the streets to drink; people are dying from lack of food, medical care, and water; hospitals are collapsing; 10,000 Palestinians are held hostage in Israeli prisons, being tortured to death; hundreds of Palestinians have been murdered in the West Bank; and hundreds of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have been arrested in the 1948 territories since October 7. Israel’s horrific crimes cannot even be fully documented because they have cut off Gaza’s communications infrastructure and killed more than 40 Palestinian journalists and media workers. Alongside this, there is clear discursive evidence of Israel’s ambitions in Gaza: politicians, officials, and media personalities have repeatedly called for genocide in Gaza and even Israeli doctors, those who have taken the Hippocratic oath of ethics, have greenlighted the bombing of Gaza’s hospitals. These are the material facts of genocide happening on the ground.
How is anyone to believe, amidst a genocide that has taken over 11,000 Palestinian lives, that a chant for freedom is what incites violence? How dare anyone fear the call for liberation recited by the masses instead of the bombs raining down on Gaza? This is precisely what this focus on discourse aims to achieve: a vehicle through which to further the projects of Zionism and Western imperialism. It is true, however, that Zionists know very well that Zionism is incompatible with Palestinian life and that its foundation is premised on the expulsion, exploitation, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. This is precisely why a chant for Palestinian freedom and national liberation is met with such hysteria and repression. This is particularly evident in a moment where this march for Palestinian freedom grows stronger, with millions across the globe joining our struggle. All over North America and Europe, people are waking up to the role of their governments in this genocide. From protests to blocking the transport of weapons to shutting down media outlets and political offices, the masses are calling not only for a ceasefire but for an end to the siege on Gaza and the halting of aid and weapons to the Zionist state.
For over 75 years, the Zionist project has aimed to destroy and eliminate the Palestinian people. And for 75 years, the Palestinian people have continued to maintain their presence and struggle to stay on and return to their lands.
“From the River to the Sea” is not merely a slogan—it is an undying promise. Each day, the Palestinian revolution grows stronger, the calls for freedom are louder, and we are one day closer to total liberation: from the river to the sea.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the sea to the river, Palestine will live forever.
Before you go – we need your sup
 

Vera.Reis

Mediterranean Paramour
Jan 20, 2020
823
911
113
Toronto
It helps to push the narrative that October 7 was a little bit justified because what else could oppressed indigenous people do other than kill and rape kids at an EDM festival and take 200 hostages including babies and elderly.
Really, is this what you felt when you either heard the context after the attack, or if you already up to date when the attack happened, is this how you felt when it happened, knowing the context?

As someone very sympathetic to Palestine, who wrote about the conflict extensively before law school in my poli sci degree, that's not how I felt. I felt so sad for those people and their loved ones, and also felt terrible and scared for the Palestinians because I knew exactly what was about to happen. I was also scared for all Jewish, Muslim and arab people because I knew all about the rise in violence against all them that happens when conflict intensifies in Palestine.

So no, context isn't inherently justification.
 

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
9,798
9,548
113
Really, is this what you felt when you either heard the context after the attack, or if you already up to date when the attack happened, is this how you felt when it happened, knowing the context?

As someone very sympathetic to Palestine, who wrote about the conflict extensively before law school in my poli sci degree, that's not how I felt. I felt so sad for those people and their loved ones, and also felt terrible and scared for the Palestinians because I knew exactly what was about to happen. I was also scared for all Jewish, Muslim and arab people because I knew all about the rise in violence against all them that happens when conflict intensifies in Palestine.

So no, context isn't inherently justification.
Well israel did not need “context” on October 7. It had dead bodies and hostages taken.

Hamas did need “context” to justify what they did.

"Context" helps hamas, and it also helps Iran and their friend Russia. Your "context" helps the evil in this world.

Simple.
 
Last edited:

Vera.Reis

Mediterranean Paramour
Jan 20, 2020
823
911
113
Toronto
Well israel did not need “context” on October 7. It had dead bodies and hostages taken.

Hamas did need “context” to justify what they did.

Simple.
.... October 7th is the context my guy lol 😆

And oct 7th doesn't justify the murder of 11k civilians.
 

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
9,798
9,548
113
.... October 7th is the context my guy lol 😆

And it doesn't justify the murder of 11k civilians.
couldn't give a shit about civilians who liked what happened on October 7.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,806
22,230
113
Is This The Return of McCarthyism? Had McCarthyism Ever Left Us?



Palestine is the single most urgent free speech crisis in the U.S. today
Similar to attacks on LGBTQ books and works of “Critical Race Theory,” the pro-Israel crusade to suppress Palestinian voices is a systematic campaign of political targeting.
BY WHITNEY STRUB NOVEMBER 12, 2023 4
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Protest against the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, 2019. (Photo via ACLU)
PROTEST AGAINST THE ISRAEL ANTI-BOYCOTT ACT, 2019. (PHOTO VIA ACLU)
The repression of Palestinian rights claims is the single most urgent crisis of free speech in the United States today. How we narrate this crisis, and the frameworks we use to analyze organized efforts to silence pro-Palestine speech, shape the strategies through which we resist them. As Gaza burns, the hegemony of anti-Palestine, pro-apartheid zealots seems suffocating – and that’s the point. The history of McCarthyism, as Alex Kane recently noted in Jewish Currents, offers one useful lens: doxxing trucks, rescinded job offers, law-firm blacklists, and the ignominious House censure of Rashida Tlaib all carry the eerie chill of the 1950s Cold War era.
As a historian of censorship, I believe a complementary framework for analyzing the intensifying repression of pro-Palestinian voices can be found in recent censorship campaigns that have resulted in banning LGBTQ books and works of so-called “Critical Race Theory.” It’s firmly established that efforts to ban these texts are motivated by anti-gay sentiment and racism. But rarely is the suppression of Palestinian voices linked to such efforts – yet Islamophobia animates the pro-Israel crusade in strikingly parallel ways; these are deeply interrelated campaigns of political targeting. The only serious difference is that the recent censorship campaigns are aligned with the U.S. political right, whereas anti-Palestinian censorship is a joint project of the Republican and Democratic parties.

A thorough new report released by the Rutgers Law School Center for Security, Race and Rights maps out the role Islamophobia plays in structuring the national discussion of Palestinian rights. In Presumptively Antisemitic: Islamophobic Tropes in the Palestine-Israel Discourse, authors Mitchell Plitnick and Sahar Aziz identify how Palestinian rights claims are laundered by the Israel Lobby and others, through Islamophobic lenses. Self-styled experts imbue such claims – calls for Palestinian human rights, for the consistent application of international law, and the like – with the presumption they are antisemitic to preemptively nullify them. It’s essentially the same “folk devil” basis for moral panic that drives the book bans, with such organizations as AIPAC playing the parallel role to explicitly far-right groups like Moms for Liberty.
When right-wing dark-money groups come for Jonathan Evison’s Lawn Boy or Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer, they’re extending a legacy dating back to the 1873 Comstock Act, which first put teeth in federal obscenity law. “Obscenity” was always a tool for enforcing sexual normativity. The anti-queer aspects of obscenity were on display when the Supreme Court affirmed the law in the 1957 Roth v. U.S. decision, pinning the legal definition of obscenity to “prurient interest,” defined by the “average person, applying contemporary community standards.” Sex was not inherently obscene, declared the court—but male physique magazines, lesbian pulp novels, queer avant-garde cinema, however, were all targets for obscenity charges. This has been replayed every subsequent decade; a generation ago, it was Heather Has Two Mommies under fire.

Signup for the Daily Headlines newsletter. You'll get new stories delivered directly to your inbox every morning at 8am EST.

Subscribe
The accompanying assault on “Critical Race Theory” is a patently bad-faith effort whose architect, Christopher Rufo, publicly acknowledged that he was devising a new dog whistle the right could use to win political campaigns. Of course, CRT is actually a small body of legal theory rarely assigned to high school or elementary school students, but under Rufo’s guidance, it came to mean anything critical of white supremacy – particularly when penned by Black authors. Rufo’s efforts are worth taking seriously only because their social power forces us to do so – his intellectually-bankrupt campaign simply repackaged previous anti-Black talking points: “welfare queens,” “forced busing,” etc. Yet, it has achieved a number of official bans.
Similar dynamics shape U.S. political discourse around Palestine.

The report takes stock of “Racist tropes that Muslims and Arabs innately hate Jews.” These tropes serve the same foundational role as heteronormative standards for obscenity: setting up foregone conclusions – here, “discrediting the Palestinian people from realizing their full civil, political, national, and human rights” by foreclosing free and open debate on Israel’s well-documented violations of international law that human rights organizations now consider apartheid. Instead, the House of Representatives diverts attention toward Tlaib for sharing the universalist human rights chant, “From the river to the sea…” and reading antisemitism into the terse rhyme where none exists. The message is clear: a Palestinian calling for a one-state solution where people of all faiths and ethnicities have equal rights is anathema that must be falsely depicted as antisemitic. Because the call comes from a prominent Arab and Muslim woman, the media gladly plays along – knowing full well the accusation is baseless.
In the report, the authors carefully define how Islamophobic tropes operate, in ways both heavy-handed (the post-9/11 knee-jerk Islamophobic backlash) and subtle (eugenics concerns over Palestinian birth rates that have seeped into even liberal senator Elizabeth Warren’s public comments). The report also charts an institutional nexus that shapes American Islamophobia, ranging from outright nativist groups like Christians United for Israel to the Democratic Majority for Israel, formed in 2019 to bolster flagging Zionist sentiment among the U.S. electorate and to bolster centrist politics more broadly within the Democratic Party. The money trails often converge; billionaire oil heiress Stacy Schusterman has funded both DMFI and AIPAC, and, through her family’s charity, the Islamophobic Middle East Media Research Institute. This “Islamophobia Network” helps blur the lines, ensuring pervasive anti-Muslim sentiment often bleeds into anti-Palestinian attitudes as well.
Support Mondoweiss with a donation today.
Ritualized attacks on representatives Ilhan Omar and Tlaib, repeatedly deemed terrorists and antisemites for challenging U.S. aid to Israel, exemplify the analysis. Muslims are rendered presumptively antisemitic. This scurrilous charge is then carried into discrediting Palestinian rights claims on the same basis: “The fallacy that all Muslims are presumptively antisemitic is increasingly deployed by Zionist groups to eliminate critical debate inclusive of Palestinian experiences. Muslims or Arabs criticizing Israel’s state practices are presumed to be motivated by antisemitism, not a commitment to universal human rights or social justice principles.” It’s a well-oiled (and well-funded) demonology machine.
While much of this process hinges on media complicity and the propagandistic forging of consensus, risks to free speech emerge when anti–Palestine speech efforts are blessed with formal state power, which occurs with alarming regularity. The nearly three dozen state-level anti-BDS laws are the most striking example (their chilling effect never acknowledged by the self-professed anti-“woke” reactionaries who bemoan “cancel culture”).
Recurring state and municipal efforts to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism would put criticism of Israel at legal risk by marking it as hate speech. And in the days before Presumptively Antisemitic was published, Florida’s State University System new ban on Students for Justice in Palestine groups shows another use of state power to censor and silence oppositional voices, again through the Islamophobic rhetoric of “terrorism.”
Plitnick and Aziz, in their landmark report, methodically connect the component parts that make Islamophobic/anti-Palestinian politics systematic; being able to name and identify this system provides us better tools to chip away at its power. As a scholar of history and censorship, I would counsel that those who oppose the racism and homophobia of Moms for Liberty and its ilk recognize that the struggle for Palestinian liberation is not just parallel but precisely aligned with the fights for queer and racial justice, and that the forces of oppression follow the same strategies of demonization, stigmatization, and silencing.

Before you go – we need your support
There is so much systematic racism against Palestinians right now its shocking.
Instagram was 'accidentally' auto translating Arabic from Palestinians into calls that they were 'terrorists'.
If instagram did this to the Jewish people there would be so much outrage but with Palestinians it didn't even merit a headline in the MSM.

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,806
22,230
113
It helps to push the narrative that October 7 was a little bit justified because what else could oppressed indigenous people do other than kill and rape kids at an EDM festival and take 200 hostages including babies and elderly.
Your narrative includes blatant falsehoods like saying Hamas 'raped kids'.

Now you're looking for the context to justify murdering 11,000 people.
Why would you think that justifies killing 6,000 children?

Why would you think anything justifies murdering 6,000 children?
 

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
9,798
9,548
113
I'm out, I don't argue with racist Islamophobics who equate hamas with all Palestinians.
Just for the record I love people of all colours (particularly when they are tall skinny females with round asses and natural boobs.).
And I like Islam because it allows men to have four wives.

So I’m not sure where the allegations of racism or Islamophobia came from.
If it’s the race or Islam that makes certain “oppressed” people to vote for people who kidnap and kill civilians that’s not on me lol and I retain the right to not give a fuck about those people no matter what their reasons are
 

niniveh

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2009
1,326
487
83
It is an aspirational cry of a National Liberation Movement. In my ears it has a haunting kinship with its cognate: Next Year In Jerusalem. Yet the phrase From The River To The Sea seems to have panicked university leaders, who bring out their favourite cudgel to crush it: Anti-Semitism. Let there be no doubt, the panic is real when a hedge fund manager or a billionaire menaces your cherished Endowment and all those hollow liberal pronouncements of University Values fade away.


From the River to the Sea: The undying promise of Palestinian liberation in the face of genocide
“From the River to the Sea” is not merely a slogan—it is an undying promise and demand for national liberation. Attempts to vilify it are only meant to undermine the movement against Zionism and silence calls for Palestinian freedom.
BY PALESTINIAN YOUTH MOVEMENT NOVEMBER 13, 2023 0
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Palestinian Youth Movement activists holding the banner that lead the march of 300,000 pro-Palestine supporters in Washington, D.C., on November 4, 2023. (Photo courtesy of the Palestinian Youth Movement)
PALESTINIAN YOUTH MOVEMENT ACTIVISTS HOLDING THE BANNER THAT LEAD THE MARCH OF 300,000 PRO-PALESTINE SUPPORTERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ON NOVEMBER 4, 2023. (PHOTO COURTESY OF THE PALESTINIAN YOUTH MOVEMENT)
Over the past five weeks, we have seen millions, if not billions, of people around the world mobilizing for Palestine. On November 4, history was made in the heart of the United States empire with the largest Palestine march in U.S. history. On November 11, over a million people took to the streets of London in another record-breaking march. We have also seen protests regularly organized across the globe. These demonstrations are protesting the Zionist entity’s genocide which this month alone has claimed over 11,000 Palestinian lives, over half of them children. Amidst this genocide, and the building of a historic global movement in support of the Palestinian people, Zionist institutions and the Western nations that finance Israel’s savagery have earnestly attacked a central slogan and chant heard at these historic actions: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free.”
Through this attack, the forces of Zionism and imperialism are attempting to delegitimize the movement for Palestinian national liberation and distract from Israel’s genocide. The attempts to vilify and criminalize this chant are part of a broader effort to undermine the movement against Zionism and to silence the calls for Palestinian freedom, which can be heard in every corner of the world. The thousands of people joining the movement each day are living proof that efforts to undermine our calls for freedom are failing and that we, and our supporters, will remain steadfast in our vision for Palestinian liberation from the river to the sea.
This chant for freedom is currently being smeared as hate speech or incitement to violence. U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib was censured for saying it. Harvard’s President condemned the use of the phrase by student organizers, announcing the creation of an antisemitism advisory group in response. A Palestinian organizer in Calgary, Canada was charged by police for leading the chant during a protest. In Britain, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman penned a letter to the Metropolitan Police encouraging them to “consider whether chants such as ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire” and even insinuated the criminalization of the chant. The mainstream media has painted the slogan in a similar light, either suggesting it calls for the genocide of Jewish people or attempting to both-sides it by painting the history of the call for Palestinian liberation as “complex.” In response, some have defended the phrase by decontextualizing it from its ties to a struggle for national liberation, suggesting that it is “a call for Israel to extend citizenship and legal and political equality to every single human being residing within its current borders.” What this kind of analysis fails to grasp is that Palestinians do not chant this phrase in a plea for citizenship within a nation built on our genocide, but rather as a demand for national liberation and freedom.
Of course, for Zionism, Palestinian freedom is an existential threat to the project of creating a colonial ethno-state on top of Palestine. This is a state that has no official borders and, over the past 75 years, has occupied Egyptian, Syrian, and Lebanese land (and continues to violate Syria and Lebanon’s sovereignty). Netanyahu, two months ago in the United Nations General Assembly, held up a map of “the New Middle East.” This Zionist geographical imaginary eliminated Palestine from the region and absorbed the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, reflecting the Likud party’s charter, which steals our call for freedom and demands that “between the Sea and Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”
The reality is that Zionism’s brutal violence against the Palestinian people extends across all of historic Palestine: from the West Bank’s Jordan River to Gaza’s sea. No Palestinian life is sacred amidst its genocidal blockade, in the presence of its settlements and checkpoints, nor within its prison walls where thousands of Palestinians are held and tortured, and 2.3 million Gazans are held hostage. Palestinian freedom necessitates total liberation: not only from the river to the sea, but beyond the borders of historic Palestine, where millions of Palestinians await return. Palestinian liberation necessitates liberation from Zionism.
But why is there now a heightened attempt to equate Palestinian calls for liberation with genocidal hate speech? There is an actual genocide that the Israeli regime and its Western backers are undertaking between the river and the sea. This smear campaign is a strategy that works to keep the Palestinian movement on the defensive as we attempt to stop a genocide that Western governments are greenlighting and funding. It aims to distract from the genocide unfolding and promote doubt and fear among the increasing numbers of people who are growing conscious of their institutions’ and governments’ complicity in it. It intends to obfuscate the question of violence: simultaneously painting violence as the words of the occupied and detracting from the violence of the occupier’s genocide.
In response to these claims, Palestinians in Western countries and those who stand with them are having to (at best) spend their time explaining the meaning of “From the River to the Sea,” or (at worst) defend themselves against backlash, suspensions, and repression for using the phrase. The fixation on discourse and the scrutinization of our chants aims to sow uncertainty into the hearts and minds of those new to the movement while providing institutions such as universities, the media, and workplaces with new tools to continue justifying their repression.
Such strategies make invisible what is happening in Palestine, that is: over 11,000 Palestinians have been killed by bombs funded by imperialist powers like the U.S., Canada, and Britain; patients in the ICU of Al Shifa hospital have died due to power outages; children are collecting water pooled up in the streets to drink; people are dying from lack of food, medical care, and water; hospitals are collapsing; 10,000 Palestinians are held hostage in Israeli prisons, being tortured to death; hundreds of Palestinians have been murdered in the West Bank; and hundreds of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have been arrested in the 1948 territories since October 7. Israel’s horrific crimes cannot even be fully documented because they have cut off Gaza’s communications infrastructure and killed more than 40 Palestinian journalists and media workers. Alongside this, there is clear discursive evidence of Israel’s ambitions in Gaza: politicians, officials, and media personalities have repeatedly called for genocide in Gaza and even Israeli doctors, those who have taken the Hippocratic oath of ethics, have greenlighted the bombing of Gaza’s hospitals. These are the material facts of genocide happening on the ground.
How is anyone to believe, amidst a genocide that has taken over 11,000 Palestinian lives, that a chant for freedom is what incites violence? How dare anyone fear the call for liberation recited by the masses instead of the bombs raining down on Gaza? This is precisely what this focus on discourse aims to achieve: a vehicle through which to further the projects of Zionism and Western imperialism. It is true, however, that Zionists know very well that Zionism is incompatible with Palestinian life and that its foundation is premised on the expulsion, exploitation, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. This is precisely why a chant for Palestinian freedom and national liberation is met with such hysteria and repression. This is particularly evident in a moment where this march for Palestinian freedom grows stronger, with millions across the globe joining our struggle. All over North America and Europe, people are waking up to the role of their governments in this genocide. From protests to blocking the transport of weapons to shutting down media outlets and political offices, the masses are calling not only for a ceasefire but for an end to the siege on Gaza and the halting of aid and weapons to the Zionist state.
For over 75 years, the Zionist project has aimed to destroy and eliminate the Palestinian people. And for 75 years, the Palestinian people have continued to maintain their presence and struggle to stay on and return to their lands.
“From the River to the Sea” is not merely a slogan—it is an undying promise. Each day, the Palestinian revolution grows stronger, the calls for freedom are louder, and we are one day closer to total liberation: from the river to the sea.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the sea to the river, Palestine will live forever.
Before you go – we need your sup
President Biden's unconditional support of a mono-maniacal Netenyahu is just not working...


More Than 400 U.S. Officials Sign Letter Protesting Biden’s Israel Policy
The signers, representing some 40 government agencies, reflect growing internal dissent over the administration’s support of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

  • Share full article


  • 1.1K

President Biden and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken stand next to each other with their hands folded in front of Israeli flags.

Hundreds of signatories from across the U.S. government have now dissented from President Biden and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken in their support for Israel’s war in Gaza.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

President Biden and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken stand next to each other with their hands folded in front of Israeli flags.

Maria Abi-HabibMichael CrowleyEdward Wong
By Maria Abi-Habib, Michael Crowley and Edward Wong
Maria Abi-Habib reported from London, and Michael Crowley and Edward Wong from Washington.
Nov. 14, 2023, 4:00 a.m. ET
Sign up for the Israel-Hamas War Briefing. The latest news about the conflict. Get it sent to your inbox.

More than 400 political appointees and staff members representing some 40 government agencies sent a letter to President Biden on Tuesday protesting his support of Israel in its war in Gaza.
The letter, part of growing internal dissent over the administration’s support of the war, calls on the president to seek an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and to push Israel to allow humanitarian aid into the territory. It is the latest of several protest letters from officials throughout the Biden administration, including three internal memos to Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken signed by dozens of State Department employees as well as an open letter signed by more than 1,000 employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The signatories of the letter submitted on Tuesday and the one circulating among USAID employees are anonymous, the USAID letter explains, out of “concern for our personal safety and risk of potentially losing our jobs.” The signatories of the State Department dissent cables must disclose their names, but those cables have not been released publicly.
Although the Biden administration has recently started voicing concern over the high numbers of Palestinian civilians killed while urging Israel to show restraint, that budding criticism does not appear to be placating many in the U.S. government.
The letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times, began by denouncing the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, then urged Mr. Biden to stop the bloodshed caused by Israel’s retaliatory military campaign in Gaza.
“We call on President Biden to urgently demand a cease-fire; and to call for de-escalation of the current conflict by securing the immediate release of the Israeli hostages and arbitrarily detained Palestinians; the restoration of water, fuel, electricity and other basic services; and the passage of adequate humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip,” the letter states.
Two political appointees who helped organize the letter to Mr. Biden said the majority of the signatories are political appointees of various faiths who work throughout government, from the National Security Council to the F.B.I. and the Justice Department.

Some of the signatories helped Mr. Biden get elected in 2020 and said in interviews they were concerned that the administration’s support of Israel’s war in Gaza clashed with Democratic voters’ stance on the issue.
“The overwhelming majority of Americans support a cease-fire,” the letter states, linking to a poll from October that shows that 66 percent of Americans, including 80 percent of Democrats, believe the United States should put pressure on Israel for a cease-fire.
Israel-Hamas War: Live Updates
Updated
Nov. 14, 2023, 1:12 p.m. ET45 minutes ago
45 minutes ago

“Furthermore, Americans do not want the U.S. military to be drawn into another costly and senseless war in the Middle East.”
Israel launched a ground invasion last month in Gaza in response to bloody attacks by Hamas on Oct. 7 that killed about 1,200 people, according to the Israeli government. So far, more than 11,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s military offensive according to Gaza’s health ministry.

Image
A crowd of thousands of people, many with Palestinian flags, in the streets of Washington, with buildings to the left and a police van amid the crowds.

A rally in support of Gaza in Washington earlier this month. “The overwhelming majority of Americans support a cease-fire,” a letter addressed to President Biden states.Credit...Amir Hamja/The New York Times

A crowd of thousands of people, many with Palestinian flags, in the streets of Washington, with buildings to the left and a police van amid the crowds.

Mr. Biden and Mr. Blinken, like Israel’s leadership, say they oppose a cease-fire — a long-term halt in fighting, typically accompanied by political negotiations — on the grounds that it would spare Hamas and allow it to reconstitute for future attacks. They have instead called for “pauses,” short interruptions in the fighting lasting perhaps a few hours, to allow for clearly defined humanitarian missions like aid delivery into Gaza and the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. U.S. officials say they have done more than any other nation to ensure that at least some aid enters Gaza.
The two people who helped organize the letter to Mr. Biden said they had agreed to serve the administration because the president stressed that he wanted a government that was more representative of American voters. But, they said, their concerns and those of other political appointees have largely been dismissed.
Some U.S. officials said privately that while senior officials welcome disagreement, government workers must understand and accept that they will not always agree with U.S. policy. The dissent over Gaza reflects a generational divide and comes mostly from employees in their 20s and 30s, the officials said — though many older people have also signed dissenting documents, according to people who have collected signatures.
The letters of protest come after a contentious meeting on Oct. 23 at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where 70 Muslim and Arab political appointees gathered with senior Biden administration officials, including Jeffrey D. Zients, the chief of staff, and Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris.
The meeting started with a general question: How many of the appointees have faced pressure from family or friends to resign over the Biden administration’s support of Israel in the conflict? Dozens of hands shot up, according to one attendee and another who was briefed about the meeting.
Senior administration officials opened the floor to take questions and comments. Some attendees cried as they demanded that the administration call for a cease-fire, curb weapons shipments to the Israeli military and stop disregarding Palestinian civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip.
The State Department memos to Mr. Blinken were cables sent internally, through what is known as the dissent channel. The channel was created during the Vietnam War to encourage department employees to share disagreements with official policy. Under State Department rules, dissenters are protected from retaliation.
On Monday, Mr. Blinken responded to the internal dissent in a message emailed to department employees. “I know that for many of you, the suffering caused by this crisis is taking a profound personal toll,” he wrote, adding that he was aware that “some people in the department may disagree with approaches we are taking or have views on what we can do better.”
He added: “We’re listening: What you share is informing our policy and our messages.”
Maria Abi-Habib is an investigative correspondent based in Mexico City, covering Latin America. She previously reported from Afghanistan, across the Middle East and in India, where she covered South Asia. More about Maria Abi-Habib
Michael Crowley covers the State Department and U.S. foreign policy for The Times. He has reported from nearly three dozen countries and often travels with the secretary of state. More about Michael Crowley
Edward Wong is a diplomatic correspondent who has reported for The Times for more than 24 years from New York, Baghdad, Beijing and Washington. He was on a team of Pulitzer Prize finalists for Iraq War coverage. More about Edward Wong
READ 1113 COMMENTS
 

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
9,798
9,548
113
President Biden's unconditional support of a mono-maniacal Netenyahu is just not working...


More Than 400 U.S. Officials Sign Letter Protesting Biden’s Israel Policy
The signers, representing some 40 government agencies, reflect growing internal dissent over the administration’s support of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

  • Share full article


  • 1.1K

President Biden and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken stand next to each other with their hands folded in front of Israeli flags.

Hundreds of signatories from across the U.S. government have now dissented from President Biden and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken in their support for Israel’s war in Gaza.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

President Biden and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken stand next to each other with their hands folded in front of Israeli flags.

Maria Abi-HabibMichael CrowleyEdward Wong
By Maria Abi-Habib, Michael Crowley and Edward Wong
Maria Abi-Habib reported from London, and Michael Crowley and Edward Wong from Washington.
Nov. 14, 2023, 4:00 a.m. ET
Sign up for the Israel-Hamas War Briefing. The latest news about the conflict. Get it sent to your inbox.

More than 400 political appointees and staff members representing some 40 government agencies sent a letter to President Biden on Tuesday protesting his support of Israel in its war in Gaza.
The letter, part of growing internal dissent over the administration’s support of the war, calls on the president to seek an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and to push Israel to allow humanitarian aid into the territory. It is the latest of several protest letters from officials throughout the Biden administration, including three internal memos to Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken signed by dozens of State Department employees as well as an open letter signed by more than 1,000 employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The signatories of the letter submitted on Tuesday and the one circulating among USAID employees are anonymous, the USAID letter explains, out of “concern for our personal safety and risk of potentially losing our jobs.” The signatories of the State Department dissent cables must disclose their names, but those cables have not been released publicly.
Although the Biden administration has recently started voicing concern over the high numbers of Palestinian civilians killed while urging Israel to show restraint, that budding criticism does not appear to be placating many in the U.S. government.
The letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times, began by denouncing the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, then urged Mr. Biden to stop the bloodshed caused by Israel’s retaliatory military campaign in Gaza.
“We call on President Biden to urgently demand a cease-fire; and to call for de-escalation of the current conflict by securing the immediate release of the Israeli hostages and arbitrarily detained Palestinians; the restoration of water, fuel, electricity and other basic services; and the passage of adequate humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip,” the letter states.
Two political appointees who helped organize the letter to Mr. Biden said the majority of the signatories are political appointees of various faiths who work throughout government, from the National Security Council to the F.B.I. and the Justice Department.

Some of the signatories helped Mr. Biden get elected in 2020 and said in interviews they were concerned that the administration’s support of Israel’s war in Gaza clashed with Democratic voters’ stance on the issue.
“The overwhelming majority of Americans support a cease-fire,” the letter states, linking to a poll from October that shows that 66 percent of Americans, including 80 percent of Democrats, believe the United States should put pressure on Israel for a cease-fire.
Israel-Hamas War: Live Updates
Updated
Nov. 14, 2023, 1:12 p.m. ET45 minutes ago
45 minutes ago

“Furthermore, Americans do not want the U.S. military to be drawn into another costly and senseless war in the Middle East.”
Israel launched a ground invasion last month in Gaza in response to bloody attacks by Hamas on Oct. 7 that killed about 1,200 people, according to the Israeli government. So far, more than 11,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s military offensive according to Gaza’s health ministry.

Image
A crowd of thousands of people, many with Palestinian flags, in the streets of Washington, with buildings to the left and a police van amid the crowds.

A rally in support of Gaza in Washington earlier this month. “The overwhelming majority of Americans support a cease-fire,” a letter addressed to President Biden states.Credit...Amir Hamja/The New York Times

A crowd of thousands of people, many with Palestinian flags, in the streets of Washington, with buildings to the left and a police van amid the crowds.

Mr. Biden and Mr. Blinken, like Israel’s leadership, say they oppose a cease-fire — a long-term halt in fighting, typically accompanied by political negotiations — on the grounds that it would spare Hamas and allow it to reconstitute for future attacks. They have instead called for “pauses,” short interruptions in the fighting lasting perhaps a few hours, to allow for clearly defined humanitarian missions like aid delivery into Gaza and the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. U.S. officials say they have done more than any other nation to ensure that at least some aid enters Gaza.
The two people who helped organize the letter to Mr. Biden said they had agreed to serve the administration because the president stressed that he wanted a government that was more representative of American voters. But, they said, their concerns and those of other political appointees have largely been dismissed.
Some U.S. officials said privately that while senior officials welcome disagreement, government workers must understand and accept that they will not always agree with U.S. policy. The dissent over Gaza reflects a generational divide and comes mostly from employees in their 20s and 30s, the officials said — though many older people have also signed dissenting documents, according to people who have collected signatures.
The letters of protest come after a contentious meeting on Oct. 23 at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where 70 Muslim and Arab political appointees gathered with senior Biden administration officials, including Jeffrey D. Zients, the chief of staff, and Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris.
The meeting started with a general question: How many of the appointees have faced pressure from family or friends to resign over the Biden administration’s support of Israel in the conflict? Dozens of hands shot up, according to one attendee and another who was briefed about the meeting.
Senior administration officials opened the floor to take questions and comments. Some attendees cried as they demanded that the administration call for a cease-fire, curb weapons shipments to the Israeli military and stop disregarding Palestinian civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip.
The State Department memos to Mr. Blinken were cables sent internally, through what is known as the dissent channel. The channel was created during the Vietnam War to encourage department employees to share disagreements with official policy. Under State Department rules, dissenters are protected from retaliation.
On Monday, Mr. Blinken responded to the internal dissent in a message emailed to department employees. “I know that for many of you, the suffering caused by this crisis is taking a profound personal toll,” he wrote, adding that he was aware that “some people in the department may disagree with approaches we are taking or have views on what we can do better.”
He added: “We’re listening: What you share is informing our policy and our messages.”
Maria Abi-Habib is an investigative correspondent based in Mexico City, covering Latin America. She previously reported from Afghanistan, across the Middle East and in India, where she covered South Asia. More about Maria Abi-Habib
Michael Crowley covers the State Department and U.S. foreign policy for The Times. He has reported from nearly three dozen countries and often travels with the secretary of state. More about Michael Crowley
Edward Wong is a diplomatic correspondent who has reported for The Times for more than 24 years from New York, Baghdad, Beijing and Washington. He was on a team of Pulitzer Prize finalists for Iraq War coverage. More about Edward Wong
READ 1113 COMMENTS
Tell your oppressed friends to return the hostages
 
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
9,798
9,548
113
There has been a standing offer since day 1 for release of hostages.
Oh really? Sorry I didn’t know that.
Since you seem to be so well informed, can I ask a question? Will the civilians who die in Gaza get their 72 virgins or is it only for those who died with weapons in their hands?
 
Toronto Escorts