I'm curious as to why the writer doesn't refer to the equally red-flag terminology used by the Palestinian cause -- "genocide", "decolonization", "From the River to the Sea". For that matter, in this essay, it sounds like he is referring to the existence of Israel as "the occupation." Does he distinguish between illegal settlements and the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East?
More people need to realize that Hamas set all of this up in advance. They perpetrated unspeakable atrocities against Israeli citizens. They knew that Israel would retaliate. They planned to use innocent Palestinians as human shields. They didn't care how many innocent Palestinians died. They even wanted it to be a very large number. This way, they knew the world would turn against Israel and Israel would have to ultimately agree to a ceasefire before Hamas could be destroyed.
Just like religious right wingers won't deeply investigate whether the religious views they espouse are true or not, anti-Israel left wingers won't subject their knee-jerk siding with those who would destroy Israel to a more thorough analysis.
While I certainly agree with the author's general prescription as to how to have a successful political movement, his bias creeps through in his language, such as every time he uses the term "occupation." As a result, the article smacks of "how to dupe people on the right into supporting a cause that's bad for Israel." Frantz Fanon would be proud.
The thing is, most of the Turtle Island morons *don't* actually care about Palestinians, it is just the cause du jour that best expresses their hatred of the US, whites, men, etc, and they use it to signal their purity to each other.
Not sure why the FP gives this space to someone who wants to exploit and subvert the American conscience. This guy supports terrorists. He is a danger to Americans. Have the courage to say so.
A change of tack can't come any too soon, but what may be required is a sea change out of something rich and strange.
Many readers of The New York Times were recently startled (judging from the comments) by Charles M. Blow's report of an interview with Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Awad was in Michigan to urge a Democratic primary revolt against President Biden for continuing to support Israel despite its intense bombing of Gaza. His conversation with Blow produced this:
"Awad said he doesn't like Trump and doesn't welcome a second Trump term, but he's prepared to accept that outcome for the sake of punishing Biden. ‘I'm going to live under Trump, because I survived under Trump, because he's my enemy,' he says. ‘I cannot live under someone who pretends to be my friend.'"
This man's compulsion to punish at any cost and his Bronze Age patter about "my enemy" and "my friend" belong to the Mideast, not the Midwest. In view of that example, it's difficult to think of getting anyone with standing as a spokesman for the Palestinian cause to enter into the collaborative effort you propose. The only alternative may be to hire whoever it was that brushed up the English version of Hamas's charter.
Call for "an end to the occupation that began in 1967" and the "Palestinian solidarity movement" will excommunicate you. They claim the occupation began in 1948, when the state of Israel gained its independence. They don't care about improving Palestinians' situation; they just want to destroy Israel.
If this movement grows up we are all in trouble. Adding savvy to their ludicrous long term aims means mobilizing the extreme right and war on the streets.
Their claims and languishing should be met with outright condemnation. For Palestinians to talk about Turtle Island reflects their true state of stagnated civilization. They are locked in a utopian past they now wish to re-create. Even worse barbarism than we see in the Taliban today.
I'm curious as to why the writer doesn't refer to the equally red-flag terminology used by the Palestinian cause -- "genocide", "decolonization", "From the River to the Sea". For that matter, in this essay, it sounds like he is referring to the existence of Israel as "the occupation." Does he distinguish between illegal settlements and the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East?
More people need to realize that Hamas set all of this up in advance. They perpetrated unspeakable atrocities against Israeli citizens. They knew that Israel would retaliate. They planned to use innocent Palestinians as human shields. They didn't care how many innocent Palestinians died. They even wanted it to be a very large number. This way, they knew the world would turn against Israel and Israel would have to ultimately agree to a ceasefire before Hamas could be destroyed.
Just like religious right wingers won't deeply investigate whether the religious views they espouse are true or not, anti-Israel left wingers won't subject their knee-jerk siding with those who would destroy Israel to a more thorough analysis.
While I certainly agree with the author's general prescription as to how to have a successful political movement, his bias creeps through in his language, such as every time he uses the term "occupation." As a result, the article smacks of "how to dupe people on the right into supporting a cause that's bad for Israel." Frantz Fanon would be proud.
The thing is, most of the Turtle Island morons *don't* actually care about Palestinians, it is just the cause du jour that best expresses their hatred of the US, whites, men, etc, and they use it to signal their purity to each other.
So, Mr. Jilani, cards on the table. What's your position on a two-state solution?
Palestinian support has an uphill fight against truth and morality, not a political lobby.
Not sure why the FP gives this space to someone who wants to exploit and subvert the American conscience. This guy supports terrorists. He is a danger to Americans. Have the courage to say so.
Wait, Zaid Jilani is tone policing people about a cause for which he's never done a single material thing in his life? What a shock!
A change of tack can't come any too soon, but what may be required is a sea change out of something rich and strange.
Many readers of The New York Times were recently startled (judging from the comments) by Charles M. Blow's report of an interview with Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Awad was in Michigan to urge a Democratic primary revolt against President Biden for continuing to support Israel despite its intense bombing of Gaza. His conversation with Blow produced this:
"Awad said he doesn't like Trump and doesn't welcome a second Trump term, but he's prepared to accept that outcome for the sake of punishing Biden. ‘I'm going to live under Trump, because I survived under Trump, because he's my enemy,' he says. ‘I cannot live under someone who pretends to be my friend.'"
This man's compulsion to punish at any cost and his Bronze Age patter about "my enemy" and "my friend" belong to the Mideast, not the Midwest. In view of that example, it's difficult to think of getting anyone with standing as a spokesman for the Palestinian cause to enter into the collaborative effort you propose. The only alternative may be to hire whoever it was that brushed up the English version of Hamas's charter.
https://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.com/2024/03/entrification.html
Call for "an end to the occupation that began in 1967" and the "Palestinian solidarity movement" will excommunicate you. They claim the occupation began in 1948, when the state of Israel gained its independence. They don't care about improving Palestinians' situation; they just want to destroy Israel.
Figures. Jilani criticizes the pro-Palestinian movement, but he doesn't use the proper pro-Israel language, so he gets attacked for that!
If this movement grows up we are all in trouble. Adding savvy to their ludicrous long term aims means mobilizing the extreme right and war on the streets.
Their claims and languishing should be met with outright condemnation. For Palestinians to talk about Turtle Island reflects their true state of stagnated civilization. They are locked in a utopian past they now wish to re-create. Even worse barbarism than we see in the Taliban today.