how wise to map the stages of grief to israel. peter, you often refer to "israel - palestine." i'm wondering if you would consider shifting this to "palestine - israel" and, if not, what you want to convey with the former? thanks.
I certainly agree with your description and analysis of the talk. By saying that this is the bargaining stage of grief, perhaps you’re opening the door to thinking about the difficulty of large groups of people giving up their dreams of power over, or their claims of injustice, this doesn’t happen easily . the evidence from history from reconstruction, as well as from the German reckoning with the holocaust suggests that some kind of power is needed to have groups of people face the facts of their history!!
It’s very painful to do so !!
It’s obviously terrible not to do so and to continue killing and dying!
I’m just saying that the speech we heard is a bargaining speech!
I've often thought that Palestinians could up-end the default narrative by calling for security guarantees for the Palestinian people.
The default narrative is that Israelis are (over)reacting to threats against them and their country, notwithstanding then fact that most of the violence being committed is by Israelis against Palestinians and not vice versa. As a result, we constantly hear phrases like 'Israel has the right to defend itself’, ‘Israeli's need for security guarantees' and ‘Gaza must be demilitarised’. You never hear the same phrases from the other perspective. And as a consequence, the violence being perpetuated by Israel is, by default, presented as an over reaction to a real threat. Therefore, it is generally accepted that any solution must involve the Palestinians submitting to the concept that their freedom can only advance so far when pitted against Israeli security fears.
Whereas, if the narrative changes so that we start to hear phrases like ‘Palestine has the right to defend itself' and ‘Palestinian’s need for security guarantees', ‘Israel must be demilitarised’ then a lot of people will start to think differently about it.
I have often thought that the most straightforward way to end this conflict would be for some entity (NATO, US, UN, EU, all of the above) to guarantee the security of all Palestinians. It would prevent Israel from their ‘peace-time’ attacks (mowing the lawn, settler violence etc) and it would make Hamas redundant, leading to their gradual decline into obsolescence. And if Israel was opposed to this it would reveal their true intentions.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that we know their true intentions - changing the narrative would force them to admit it. I was always intrigued by a comment Trump made while he was out of office - recalling Abbas and Netanyahu, he reflected that Abbas was open to the idea of making a peace deal but Netanyahu kept saying 'not yet'. Why would any prime minister of Israel be opposed to entering into peace negotiations unless their true intent was settler colonialism? In truth they maintain the fiction of 'conflict' and 'security measures' as a fig leaf to cover up their true intent. Unfortunately Hamas is a willing partner in the fiction, and don't appear to realise that the scariest thing a Zionist will ever encounter is a Palestinian who doesn't want to kill them.
And the IDF and/or the settler terrorists rather than the Hamas and/or the Hezbollah terrorists. A change in the narrative would be very helpful in shifting the public perception and seems to be starting to happen.
French Revolution 2.0, 21st Century American Style
WE the People have the chance to take back our country and demand the wealthy pay their fair share. As Thom points out in every revolution, the People rise up and protest the inequalities within the societal system in which they participate. Whether it's the inequality with $$ or it's about taxation without representation/vote, the script boils down to what WE the People expect of the governance they entrust to representatives they elect.
The current governance that was elected lied to stay out of jail and now the lies are obvious as well as the morally bankrupt, misogynistic, lawless, and racist characteristics that make WE the People nauseated and intolerant of such governance.
With the known past tax codes that properly taxed the wealthy, WE the People are fed up with the bloated arrogance of such scum, wishing to control their financial destinies and want them to help pay off our financial national debt, lest WE fall into a debt trap WE face. This November WE the People have a choice and it's not a difficult one....WE just have to be angry.
1) Most former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators acknowledge now that the Palestinians rejected the Clinton parameters in 2001, Olmert’s offer in 2008 and the Kerry/Obama principles in 2014, including Ahmed Qurei, Hussein Agha, Akram Haniyeh and Diana Buttu.
2) In "The Crisis of Zionism" you wrote a great deal about Israel’s reservations to the Clinton parameters, but you fail to mention that Israel dropped ALL of these reservations on December 29, 2000 (including an Israeli permanent presence on the Jordan Valley). What is more, Shlomo Ben-Ami went beyond the Clinton parameters by offering the equivalent of 100% of the WB to the Palestinians (instead of 97%), and exclusive sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary (Clinton called for a vertical division of this site, with the Palestinians getting the surface and Israel the remains of the Jewish temples underneath).
Now, if you reject the Clinton parameters, say it clearly. But you can’t have it both ways: blaming Israel for the occupation and blaming Israel again for existing.
If the occupation is the problem, a peace plan based on the Clinton parameters must be imposed both on Israel and the Palestinians, as both sides now reject Clinton’s framework.
I happened to be among those who denied Palestinian rejectionism until 2017 (when Amir Tibon revealed that Abbas said no to Kerry/Obama in 2014). I could make excuses to justify Palestinian rejectionism twice (in 2001 and 2008) but not thrice.
Palestinian rejectionism does not justify Israeli expansionism and the destruction of Gaza, but Rahm Emanuel is right to argue that both sides must be held accountable for the current stalemate.
"Palestinian rejectionism does not justify Israeli expansionism and the destruction of Gaza, but Rahm Emanuel is right to argue that both sides must be held accountable for the current stalemate."
Palestinians have been "held accountable" for decades. DECADES. Hundreds of thousands of deads, tens of thousands of children, millions of lives destroyed, the consequences of it are going to be baked into Palestinian DNA for generations to come, even if this sh*tshow ends today, Palestinians will still be "held accountable" for this in 50 years, by the simple fact of being born Palestinians : that is what epigenetics do.
I'd say, let's try something else.
And by the way, as many Americans, you seem to care more about "who is being held accountable" aka "who is to blame for this" than about "how to stop this".
"How to stop this" has an extremely simple solution :
A : have Israel declare it's borders, provided that they are continuous, everyone living inside is an equal citizen with strictly equal rights, and don't grab all the ressources, (and no enclaves, of course).
B : evacuate all Israeli assets from what is now not Israel : no more IDF, border police, officials, airplanes, administrations, whatever : no more NOTHING representing the Israeli state, bar the regular diplomatic embassy, if Palestinians decide to have regular diplomatic relations with Israel (which does mean a Palestinian embassy in West jerusalem, of course).
C : that's it, peace.
Israeli individuals and private stuff are welcome to stay in Palestine if Palestine will have them, and they behave according to Palestine laws. My guess is they will run, but well, their choice.
I suggest Palestine is pressured into forming a democracy with equal rights, with the incentive of big western and israeli economic and social aid, which means jews can live in their on the basis of one person one vote, and no big guns only for jews, of course. Alternatively, Palestine could form any sort of deal with Jordan. : a federation with Jordan is certainly much easier to set than with Israel.
C2 : it's probably safer to put in the middle of those two news countries, , for a few years at least, someone with big guns, willing to shoot on anyone from any side trying to invade or send rockets or missiles on the other side. That will be America's penance for the decades of screwing Palestinians. But they have to be willing to shoot on the wackos of both sides, and yes, that means shooting on the settlers. Those ones need to learn a few things about consequences.
In 2006, Olmert was elected on a program calling for a unilateral pullout of nearly all the West Bank (without asking for a peace agreement in exchange).
This is really when my hard left Pavlovian anti-Israel bias began to fade. All of a sudden, this fascist State was willing to pullout of almost everything for free. Unfortunately, Olmert was forced to shelve his "Convergence Plan" thanks to Hezbollah’s attack on Israel in July 2006 (and Israel’s failure to defeat this organization) as well as Hamas’ rocket firing onto Israel.
I’m all for a unilateral pullout but I fear that it might no longer be possible - although Yair Golan’s plan implicitly calls on Israel to relinquish the bulk of the West Bank with or without a peace agreement.
It was more than 90% without a peace agreement. Ultimately, in 2008, Olmert offered the Palestinians the equivalent of 100% of the West Bank (with land swaps) in exchange for a final status agreement.
I know you believe that. "Everyone" (among the people who currently control Palestinian land and lives) told you that was the case, and that Abbas was just selfish and stupid and unreasonable.
There's much more to it. I can't write a whole essay right now to explain why. Here's a bit of it (AI summary):
Olmert presented a map outlining border swaps and demanded an immediate agreement. Abbas refused to sign without studying the map with his experts, and negotiations soon collapsed as Olmert resigned over corruption charges.
The breakdown of the proposal involved several intersecting factors:
The "Blank Check" Dispute: Olmert showed Abbas a map of proposed land swaps and a divided Jerusalem but physically took it back at the end of the meeting. Abbas argued he could not commit to an agreement without taking the map to his advisors to properly review the details.
Olmert's Impending Resignation: Facing multiple police investigations for corruption, Olmert announced in mid-2008 that he would step down once his party held primaries. The Palestinians were hesitant to make sweeping, irreversible concessions to an Israeli leader who was politically dying and about to leave office.
Right of Return and Refugees: Abbas felt Olmert’s proposal did not offer a sufficient solution for Palestinian refugees. Olmert's plan only allowed a symbolic number of refugees to return to Israel, and no Palestinian leader could simply sign millions of people's rights away unilaterally without bringing it to the Palestinian people for discussion, which Olmert was not willing or able to allow.
Gaza War: Time ran out on the negotiations. Just three months after their September 2008 meeting, the Gaza War erupted, freezing bilateral peace processes.
I never said that the Palestinians were the main culprit. On the contrary, I always said that as the strongest actor in this conflict, the onus is on Israel to make the first step toward achieving reconciliation. I merely responded to those who place the whole blame on Israel by saying that the Palestinians too are responsible for the failure of the peace process - and Rahm Emanuel was right to point this out.
I’m familiar with all these revisionist claims. The truth is that Abbas was supposed to meet Olmert again to discuss his peace plan but he never did. He had five months to do it.
As for the fact that Olmert was a lame-duck Prome Minister, it makes very little difference. Had the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement in principle, it would have turned the following election into a referendum on peace. No agreement can be adopted without consulting the population anyway.
Abbas also said no to the Kerry/Obama principles in 2014. It took me a long time to come to terms with Palestinian rejectionism. Needless to say, nothing justifies Israel’s oppressive policies. But as I said, both sides must be pressured, not only Israel.
Rahm Emanuel is right to give Israel an ultimatum without giving the Palestinians a pass.
Your comment is very illustrative of a tendancy of many commenters on this stuff who almost exclusively focus on "whose fault is it" and not on "what do we do now".
It appears to be, essentially, the hill most pro-Israel commenters choose to fight : whether, or not, most / a significant part / a large part / all of the blame can be shoved on Palestinians.
It's ok to try to sort the various actions of both sides to try to determine what went wrong and how changing this or that part of the stuff can lead to peace. But the objective HAS to be to go to peace, attributing blame is only a tool towards this.
But then, it seems like pro-Israel commenters never try to propose a way to peace. They seem to be only interesting on who is to blame, and never mention what has to change. Or, if they do, it's a laughable thing that won't change a thing, like for example "get rid of bibi".
All main Israeli parties support the colonization, so it is obvious Bibi out won't lead to peace.
What is your proposition to lead to peace ? let's say I accept your premice : most of it is Palestinians' fault. All right, it's their fault. Right. What do we do now ? Israel can keep persecuting them because Abbas something, Arafat something, 10 years ago, 20years ago ? Until when ? How do you envision a way towards a peace settlement ?
I always appreciate Peter's words and insight. However, I worry about the track record of the Representatives of Palestine. Their cause is diminished by the violence and corruption. On the other hand, my contempt for HAMAS is equaled by that for the West Bank Settlers! I wish Non-violent Protest would "break out" and maybe change hearts and minds!
You mean like the Great March of Return? Oh, right, the Israelis opened fire and had kneecapping contests. Ha'aretz got some audio from IDF snipers whooping and hollering about the kneecapping. It was truly horrifying.
and explain how exactly Palestinians are supposed to resist their obliteration before accusing them of being violent ?
explain. With details.
It's really extremely depressing to see, time and time again, American supporters of Israel instruct Palestinians to do stuff they already tried and were killed, beaten, kidnapped and disappeared for years when they tried.
Exactly. The US has never really considered Palestinians as parties with equal interests to be respected in the negotiations.
Refreshing commentary on Rahm Emanuel’s speech. Thank you.
how wise to map the stages of grief to israel. peter, you often refer to "israel - palestine." i'm wondering if you would consider shifting this to "palestine - israel" and, if not, what you want to convey with the former? thanks.
I certainly agree with your description and analysis of the talk. By saying that this is the bargaining stage of grief, perhaps you’re opening the door to thinking about the difficulty of large groups of people giving up their dreams of power over, or their claims of injustice, this doesn’t happen easily . the evidence from history from reconstruction, as well as from the German reckoning with the holocaust suggests that some kind of power is needed to have groups of people face the facts of their history!!
It’s very painful to do so !!
It’s obviously terrible not to do so and to continue killing and dying!
I’m just saying that the speech we heard is a bargaining speech!
I love your writing
Thank you for your thoughtful words of support for mutual recognition and healing 💜.
Thank you, Peter. Bottom line, Zionists don't believe in the equality of human beings, particularly Palestinians.
I've often thought that Palestinians could up-end the default narrative by calling for security guarantees for the Palestinian people.
The default narrative is that Israelis are (over)reacting to threats against them and their country, notwithstanding then fact that most of the violence being committed is by Israelis against Palestinians and not vice versa. As a result, we constantly hear phrases like 'Israel has the right to defend itself’, ‘Israeli's need for security guarantees' and ‘Gaza must be demilitarised’. You never hear the same phrases from the other perspective. And as a consequence, the violence being perpetuated by Israel is, by default, presented as an over reaction to a real threat. Therefore, it is generally accepted that any solution must involve the Palestinians submitting to the concept that their freedom can only advance so far when pitted against Israeli security fears.
Whereas, if the narrative changes so that we start to hear phrases like ‘Palestine has the right to defend itself' and ‘Palestinian’s need for security guarantees', ‘Israel must be demilitarised’ then a lot of people will start to think differently about it.
I have often thought that the most straightforward way to end this conflict would be for some entity (NATO, US, UN, EU, all of the above) to guarantee the security of all Palestinians. It would prevent Israel from their ‘peace-time’ attacks (mowing the lawn, settler violence etc) and it would make Hamas redundant, leading to their gradual decline into obsolescence. And if Israel was opposed to this it would reveal their true intentions.
"And if Israel was opposed to this it would reveal their true intentions."
Bingo.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that we know their true intentions - changing the narrative would force them to admit it. I was always intrigued by a comment Trump made while he was out of office - recalling Abbas and Netanyahu, he reflected that Abbas was open to the idea of making a peace deal but Netanyahu kept saying 'not yet'. Why would any prime minister of Israel be opposed to entering into peace negotiations unless their true intent was settler colonialism? In truth they maintain the fiction of 'conflict' and 'security measures' as a fig leaf to cover up their true intent. Unfortunately Hamas is a willing partner in the fiction, and don't appear to realise that the scariest thing a Zionist will ever encounter is a Palestinian who doesn't want to kill them.
And the IDF and/or the settler terrorists rather than the Hamas and/or the Hezbollah terrorists. A change in the narrative would be very helpful in shifting the public perception and seems to be starting to happen.
Thanks Peter for calling him out. His framing is total BS!
Peter, you have such a moral clarity. It is such a good thing for the Palestinians that you have come round.
French Revolution 2.0, 21st Century American Style
WE the People have the chance to take back our country and demand the wealthy pay their fair share. As Thom points out in every revolution, the People rise up and protest the inequalities within the societal system in which they participate. Whether it's the inequality with $$ or it's about taxation without representation/vote, the script boils down to what WE the People expect of the governance they entrust to representatives they elect.
The current governance that was elected lied to stay out of jail and now the lies are obvious as well as the morally bankrupt, misogynistic, lawless, and racist characteristics that make WE the People nauseated and intolerant of such governance.
With the known past tax codes that properly taxed the wealthy, WE the People are fed up with the bloated arrogance of such scum, wishing to control their financial destinies and want them to help pay off our financial national debt, lest WE fall into a debt trap WE face. This November WE the People have a choice and it's not a difficult one....WE just have to be angry.
Thank you, Peter, for this nuanced dissection of Emmanuel’s speech. You nailed it.
You seem to be the one in denial here, big time:
1) Most former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators acknowledge now that the Palestinians rejected the Clinton parameters in 2001, Olmert’s offer in 2008 and the Kerry/Obama principles in 2014, including Ahmed Qurei, Hussein Agha, Akram Haniyeh and Diana Buttu.
2) In "The Crisis of Zionism" you wrote a great deal about Israel’s reservations to the Clinton parameters, but you fail to mention that Israel dropped ALL of these reservations on December 29, 2000 (including an Israeli permanent presence on the Jordan Valley). What is more, Shlomo Ben-Ami went beyond the Clinton parameters by offering the equivalent of 100% of the WB to the Palestinians (instead of 97%), and exclusive sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary (Clinton called for a vertical division of this site, with the Palestinians getting the surface and Israel the remains of the Jewish temples underneath).
Now, if you reject the Clinton parameters, say it clearly. But you can’t have it both ways: blaming Israel for the occupation and blaming Israel again for existing.
If the occupation is the problem, a peace plan based on the Clinton parameters must be imposed both on Israel and the Palestinians, as both sides now reject Clinton’s framework.
I happened to be among those who denied Palestinian rejectionism until 2017 (when Amir Tibon revealed that Abbas said no to Kerry/Obama in 2014). I could make excuses to justify Palestinian rejectionism twice (in 2001 and 2008) but not thrice.
Palestinian rejectionism does not justify Israeli expansionism and the destruction of Gaza, but Rahm Emanuel is right to argue that both sides must be held accountable for the current stalemate.
"Palestinian rejectionism does not justify Israeli expansionism and the destruction of Gaza, but Rahm Emanuel is right to argue that both sides must be held accountable for the current stalemate."
Palestinians have been "held accountable" for decades. DECADES. Hundreds of thousands of deads, tens of thousands of children, millions of lives destroyed, the consequences of it are going to be baked into Palestinian DNA for generations to come, even if this sh*tshow ends today, Palestinians will still be "held accountable" for this in 50 years, by the simple fact of being born Palestinians : that is what epigenetics do.
I'd say, let's try something else.
And by the way, as many Americans, you seem to care more about "who is being held accountable" aka "who is to blame for this" than about "how to stop this".
"How to stop this" has an extremely simple solution :
A : have Israel declare it's borders, provided that they are continuous, everyone living inside is an equal citizen with strictly equal rights, and don't grab all the ressources, (and no enclaves, of course).
B : evacuate all Israeli assets from what is now not Israel : no more IDF, border police, officials, airplanes, administrations, whatever : no more NOTHING representing the Israeli state, bar the regular diplomatic embassy, if Palestinians decide to have regular diplomatic relations with Israel (which does mean a Palestinian embassy in West jerusalem, of course).
C : that's it, peace.
Israeli individuals and private stuff are welcome to stay in Palestine if Palestine will have them, and they behave according to Palestine laws. My guess is they will run, but well, their choice.
I suggest Palestine is pressured into forming a democracy with equal rights, with the incentive of big western and israeli economic and social aid, which means jews can live in their on the basis of one person one vote, and no big guns only for jews, of course. Alternatively, Palestine could form any sort of deal with Jordan. : a federation with Jordan is certainly much easier to set than with Israel.
C2 : it's probably safer to put in the middle of those two news countries, , for a few years at least, someone with big guns, willing to shoot on anyone from any side trying to invade or send rockets or missiles on the other side. That will be America's penance for the decades of screwing Palestinians. But they have to be willing to shoot on the wackos of both sides, and yes, that means shooting on the settlers. Those ones need to learn a few things about consequences.
In 2006, Olmert was elected on a program calling for a unilateral pullout of nearly all the West Bank (without asking for a peace agreement in exchange).
This is really when my hard left Pavlovian anti-Israel bias began to fade. All of a sudden, this fascist State was willing to pullout of almost everything for free. Unfortunately, Olmert was forced to shelve his "Convergence Plan" thanks to Hezbollah’s attack on Israel in July 2006 (and Israel’s failure to defeat this organization) as well as Hamas’ rocket firing onto Israel.
I’m all for a unilateral pullout but I fear that it might no longer be possible - although Yair Golan’s plan implicitly calls on Israel to relinquish the bulk of the West Bank with or without a peace agreement.
It wasn't anything close to "almost everything," and it wasn't anything close to "free."
It was more than 90% without a peace agreement. Ultimately, in 2008, Olmert offered the Palestinians the equivalent of 100% of the West Bank (with land swaps) in exchange for a final status agreement.
I know you believe that. "Everyone" (among the people who currently control Palestinian land and lives) told you that was the case, and that Abbas was just selfish and stupid and unreasonable.
There's much more to it. I can't write a whole essay right now to explain why. Here's a bit of it (AI summary):
Olmert presented a map outlining border swaps and demanded an immediate agreement. Abbas refused to sign without studying the map with his experts, and negotiations soon collapsed as Olmert resigned over corruption charges.
The breakdown of the proposal involved several intersecting factors:
The "Blank Check" Dispute: Olmert showed Abbas a map of proposed land swaps and a divided Jerusalem but physically took it back at the end of the meeting. Abbas argued he could not commit to an agreement without taking the map to his advisors to properly review the details.
Olmert's Impending Resignation: Facing multiple police investigations for corruption, Olmert announced in mid-2008 that he would step down once his party held primaries. The Palestinians were hesitant to make sweeping, irreversible concessions to an Israeli leader who was politically dying and about to leave office.
Right of Return and Refugees: Abbas felt Olmert’s proposal did not offer a sufficient solution for Palestinian refugees. Olmert's plan only allowed a symbolic number of refugees to return to Israel, and no Palestinian leader could simply sign millions of people's rights away unilaterally without bringing it to the Palestinian people for discussion, which Olmert was not willing or able to allow.
Gaza War: Time ran out on the negotiations. Just three months after their September 2008 meeting, the Gaza War erupted, freezing bilateral peace processes.
I never said that the Palestinians were the main culprit. On the contrary, I always said that as the strongest actor in this conflict, the onus is on Israel to make the first step toward achieving reconciliation. I merely responded to those who place the whole blame on Israel by saying that the Palestinians too are responsible for the failure of the peace process - and Rahm Emanuel was right to point this out.
I’m familiar with all these revisionist claims. The truth is that Abbas was supposed to meet Olmert again to discuss his peace plan but he never did. He had five months to do it.
As for the fact that Olmert was a lame-duck Prome Minister, it makes very little difference. Had the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement in principle, it would have turned the following election into a referendum on peace. No agreement can be adopted without consulting the population anyway.
Abbas also said no to the Kerry/Obama principles in 2014. It took me a long time to come to terms with Palestinian rejectionism. Needless to say, nothing justifies Israel’s oppressive policies. But as I said, both sides must be pressured, not only Israel.
Rahm Emanuel is right to give Israel an ultimatum without giving the Palestinians a pass.
Your comment is very illustrative of a tendancy of many commenters on this stuff who almost exclusively focus on "whose fault is it" and not on "what do we do now".
It appears to be, essentially, the hill most pro-Israel commenters choose to fight : whether, or not, most / a significant part / a large part / all of the blame can be shoved on Palestinians.
It's ok to try to sort the various actions of both sides to try to determine what went wrong and how changing this or that part of the stuff can lead to peace. But the objective HAS to be to go to peace, attributing blame is only a tool towards this.
But then, it seems like pro-Israel commenters never try to propose a way to peace. They seem to be only interesting on who is to blame, and never mention what has to change. Or, if they do, it's a laughable thing that won't change a thing, like for example "get rid of bibi".
All main Israeli parties support the colonization, so it is obvious Bibi out won't lead to peace.
What is your proposition to lead to peace ? let's say I accept your premice : most of it is Palestinians' fault. All right, it's their fault. Right. What do we do now ? Israel can keep persecuting them because Abbas something, Arafat something, 10 years ago, 20years ago ? Until when ? How do you envision a way towards a peace settlement ?
Explain.
I always appreciate Peter's words and insight. However, I worry about the track record of the Representatives of Palestine. Their cause is diminished by the violence and corruption. On the other hand, my contempt for HAMAS is equaled by that for the West Bank Settlers! I wish Non-violent Protest would "break out" and maybe change hearts and minds!
You mean like the Great March of Return? Oh, right, the Israelis opened fire and had kneecapping contests. Ha'aretz got some audio from IDF snipers whooping and hollering about the kneecapping. It was truly horrifying.
Seconding Elizabeth's point : seriously, can you google the Great March of Return : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests
and explain how exactly Palestinians are supposed to resist their obliteration before accusing them of being violent ?
explain. With details.
It's really extremely depressing to see, time and time again, American supporters of Israel instruct Palestinians to do stuff they already tried and were killed, beaten, kidnapped and disappeared for years when they tried.
As Americans it time we recognize a few signs that we are in an abusive relationship.
The abuser:
Gaslights you on what you see, hear and think.
Controls all you time
Controls your money and independence.
Cuts you off from others and controls all your relationships.
When we finally break away from this abuser, we as a nation are going to need years of therapy.
Israel delenda est.
And let's hope it doesn't end in a murder -suicide.
Israel delenda est.
This Incredible post deserves a thoughtful response, I’ll be back.
Thank you so much for your very thoughtful analysis of Rahm Emanuel’s talk. It totally changed my reaction to it.