Seth Rosenblatt @sethr

הייתי בהקרנת הבכורה של הסרט נז״א בארה״ב. השקה בלב מנהטן, בלינקולן סנטר, מול קהל אמריקאי בפסטיבל הסרטים של ניו יורק. רציתי לצפות בעצמי, ואני מרגישה שפוספסו כאן בדיונים כמה נקודות מהותיות, ושחלק מעמיתיי גם עשו הנחות ליובל אברהם. דיסקליימר: אני כותבת את זה מנקודת מבט של עיתונאית בארה״ב כבר מספר שנים, מכירה היטב את השיח הקיצוני בשמאל ובימין האמריקאי, ורואה גם מהעיניים האלה את הסרט, שמתוזמן בהשקה בארה״ב רגע לפני אירועי הזיכרון של 7 באוקטובר. כמו שחלק מעמיתיי כבר אמרו, ברמה העיתונאית גם אני ראיתי בעיות מקצועיות של תיאורי אווירה והערכות כלליות שהמרואיינים נותנים, ללא דרך אמיתית לאמת, לבחון או למסמך אותן. יובל אברהם הציג את עצמו על הבמה הערב כעיתונאי חוקר – כלומר הוא אמור לקבל על עצמו סטנדרטים עיתונאיים, אלא שהסרט במקרים רבים לא עומד בהם על המסך. כישראלית בקהל חשוב לציין גם שיש גם תקלות תרגום בכתוביות שהופכות אמירות של חיילים שהופכות אמירות של חיילים לקשות יותר. אבל אני רוצה לדבר על נקודה רחבה יותר שחומקת לה בתוך הדיון הפנים-ישראלי, ולדעתי יש לה השלכות מרחיקות לכת – וזה החיבור המטריד שהסרט עושה בין המלחמה בעזה, לבין עצם הלגיטימיות של קיומה של מדינת ישראל בכלל. באופן מהותי המסר של הסרט נוגע למשהו הרבה יותר גדול מהמלחמה הנוכחית – בעיניי הסרט מייצר נראטיב שקרי ומשוואות שגויות שמנתצות את לגיטימיות המפעל הציוני מראשיתו, מקעקעות את הישראלים באשר הם בהתבסס על סיפורים שרובם המוחלט לא זוכים לתאריך או מידע קונקרטי, וכוללים הרבה מאוד הערכות של מרואיינים שמדברים באופן לא ספציפי. הסרט פונה לפרוגרס השמאלני האנטישמי בשפה ובמונחים שלהם, וכך גם לימין הקיצוני. נז״א מציג עדויות קשות, יש ערך אמיתי בלחקור ולבקר, ורצוי שנדע לעשות את זה. אלא שבסרט הזה, במבחן התוצאה, ניתנת באופן מניפולטיבי במה ולגיטימציה לטיעונים נגד קיומה של מדינת ישראל וחיים ישראלים בארץ ישראל. הסרט מאשים דה-פקטו את הישראלים כולם, וכמעט את עצם קיומם במקום מושבם. יוצרי הסרט מסבירים שהמקרים שמתוארים נעשים בידי האליטה הישראלית: ״השמאלנים״ במודיעין הם אלה שנוהגים כך – מעין אמירה שהצופה הרגיל מבין ממנה: אם אפילו הם מדברים ככה על רצח עזתים ולקחו בכך חלק, אז רק תדמיינו מה אחרים אומרים ועושים. זה גם משתקף מהצילום על גגות תל אביב. ניסיון לקעקע את העיר היחידה שעוד איכשהו נתפסת מחוץ לגבולות ישראל כעיר ליברלית דמוקרטית. ישראלים בתל אביב (ומחוצה לה) נאבקו על קיומה של ישראל כדמוקרטיה, פיזית, במחאות, וספגו אלימות, כולל במחאות להפסקת אש בעזה. יובל אברהם מסמן בדרך לא מאוד עקלקלה את התל אביבים השמאלנים האלטיסטים כפעילים של ג׳נוסייד, רצח עם. כלומר, המסר הוא: אפילו האליטה, זו שהייתם חושבים שהיא ביקורתית ושיש לה עמוד שדרה מוסרי – אפילו הם – בהמוניהם – בני זונות רוצחים. ומכאן זה משליך כמובן על כל השאר. המסקנות של הצופים הן לא על אחריות היוצר, אבל העריכה מאוד ברורה ומכוונת למסקנה אחת. בעולם של דימויים ותמונות הסרט עושה עריכה מניפולטיבית להקמת העיר העברית הראשונה – ומייצר קו ישיר בין הקמת תל אביב ל׳ג׳נוסייד׳ כלשון הסרט. הסרט קופץ ומערבב בין תמונות של הקמת העיר תל אביב, תוך ניתוץ בתים ערבים באותם ימים, ואז, בקרוס, קאט ל: השטחת עזה, ׳ג׳נוסייד׳. החיבור הזה מוחק בתוכו כל דבר טוב וחיובי, ממאמצי שלום, ועד תרבות וקיום חברתי בישראל, באבחה אחת. כשרואים את הסצינה הזאת וקושרים אותה לקונטקסט של הסרט, דבר אחד ברור – הג׳נוסייד שאתם רואים שמתרחש בעזה – בדרך זו קמה ומתקיימת מדינת ישראל, באופן לא לגיטימי. כלומר, הסרט עושה שימוש בכלים קולנועיים אפקטיביים ובסיפורים שחולקים חיילי צה״ל, באופן שמקעקע את כל אירוע הקמת המדינה וקיומה כאירוע ג׳נוסיידי. המסקנה של הצופה היא: החטא הוא קדמון וכל העץ מורעל. אני מכירה היטב את התפיסה האנטישמית והאנטי ישראלית בקרב קיצונים בשמאל ובימין האמריקאי והבינלאומי. אני חיה בתוך האקלים הזה, אני מדברת עם האנשים האלה (שהולכים ומתרבים) יום יום. הקטע הזה בסרט הוא במקרה הטוב היתממות, ובמקרה הרע האשמה שכל כולה שיתוף פעולה והתכתבות עם הטענה לפיה אין מקום לישות ציונית בארץ ישראל, ומתחברת ישר לקריאות ששמעתי במו אוזניי בהפגנות שסיקרתי: ״מהנהר ועד הים״ ו-״לבנה אחר לבנה, חומה אחר חומה, ישראל תיפול״. יובל אברהם חוזר ואומר שהסרט הזה נועד לישראלים, אבל בפועל זה בדיוק הרגעים שהרגשתי שהישראלים היו גם תפאורה למען נראטיבים נוספים. הסרט חסר בקונטקסט. אין מספיק על 7 באוקטובר. אין קונטקסט על מי הם פעילי חמאס. ואני יכולה להרחיב עוד ועוד >>>

@VladSF @kalthiria D4 politics is hilariously absurd

Motaz Azaiza is forcing a reckoning the “pro‑Palestine” movement never anticipated. Because he’s celebrated by activists, politicians, and journalists and can’t be smeared as a “Zionist shill,” his admission carries weight: Gaza’s journalism space functioned under Hamas’s control, and any reporter who deviated from the group’s narrative risked “disappearing behind the sun.” That single truth reshapes how we understand the stories pushed out of Gaza since October 7 and explains why dissent against Hamas’s rule never surfaced publicly. Western journalists and outsiders, unaware of this coercive ecosystem, ended up amplifying Hamas’s information warfare rather than scrutinizing it.

I have written eleven opinion pieces for The New York Times across 35 years. I still read it. I write what follows with no joy: while I have watched it become increasingly partisan in its news coverage over the decades, no topic has made its loss of balance clearer to me than its handling of Israel since October 7. This week the Times published a sentence suggesting that Israeli victimhood over the 2023 Hamas terror attack was not a fact, but a "matter of perception." It only added an Editors' Note after furious backlash, much of it here on X. I have written corrections myself. A sentence like that doesn't slip past a reporter, an editor, and a copy desk by accident. The underlying problem is that it did not set off an alarm until readers outside the building made noise. And that was simply the latest example. In May, the paper's Opinion section ran a column alleging Israeli forces used dogs to rape Palestinian detainees, built on sourcing no other serious outlet had corroborated. The Times's own executive editor later said the newsroom "wouldn't have done that exact piece." Now there's data behind the pattern. A peer-reviewed Yale study of 1,559 Times articles on the war found the word "Israel" appeared more than three times as often as "Hamas," and that 1,423 of those articles mentioned neither Israeli casualties after Oct. 7 nor Hamas combatants killed in the war. "Paper of record" was never a hereditary title. It was a claim about earned trust. I am not sure anyone still believes it. My full article at Just the Facts: justthefacts.media/p/the-paper-i-…

The insufferable Hasan Piker, who has campaigned with NYC mayor Mamdani, Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El‑Sayed, and several other Democratic candidates, claims that Jewish Americans who feel any affinity for Israel or support the Jewish state somehow invite violence onto themselves. He presents this as normal and even sensible. Many immediately condemned the remark as incitement and as an ignorant portrayal of Jews as responsible for the violence directed at them at a time when hate crimes are at historic highs. Others rushed to defend him, insisting he was not antisemitic and was merely criticizing “the Zionists,” even though the framing clearly targeted Jewish Americans as an entire group. What stands out is the double standard applied only to Jews. Do Palestinian Americans or Muslim Americans who support Hamas, a Jihadist and fascist organization, invite violence upon themselves? Do Muslims who advocate for Sharia Law, including interpretations used to justify beheadings, mass rape, and other crimes against humanity, invite violence upon themselves? Do Chinese Americans who do not speak out against Beijing’s treatment of Uyghurs or Tibetans invite violence upon themselves? Do leftists or Iranians who support the Islamic Republic, the Cuban regime, or Maduro’s Venezuela invite violence upon themselves? Do Lebanese Americans in Dearborn, Michigan, who support Hezbollah invite violence upon themselves? Do Yemeni Americans who support the Houthis and their brutal, regressive ideology invite violence upon themselves? The list can continue, yet one truth is unmistakable. There is a fixation on treating diaspora and American Jews as uniquely deserving of violence or hate crimes because of their perceived or actual views on a foreign policy issue. No other community is subjected to this logic. Never allow anyone to convince you that this has anything to do with the Palestinian people, their cause, or genuine pro‑Palestine advocacy.

Jews aren’t looking for a daddy to protect them. American Jews are citizens of a free country, protected by its laws. Israeli Jews are citizens of a free country who govern and protect themselves. The time when Jews needed benevolent paternalistic rulers has long passed.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed @AbdulElSayed

2 months ago

To all of my Jewish sisters and brothers, my commitment to your safety, to everyone’s safety, is the same commitment that I have to the safety of my own daughters.

6K 2K 10K 1.1M 259

Gestapo in Norway? At the urging of several "pro‑Palestine" activists who recognized me and didn't like my presence, including individuals who openly supported Hamas at the Arendal Week political festival in Norway, Norwegian secret police stopped me and my friends, including three prominent Jewish advocates, and questioned us as if we were a threat. They took my ID and pressed me on "why I was well known," what my political affiliations were, and why I was attending the festival. I explained that I was a speaker with a fully booked event the day before, here to talk about a new book about Gaza and Hamas I had just put out, and provided clear information that should have dispelled any "suspicion." Despite our cooperation, the interrogation continued with increasingly inappropriate questions. I became frustrated, offended, alarmed, and demanded my ID back and an end to the detention. The Norwegians I was with described how they've never seen or experienced anything like that in their country before and were shocked by the questions they were asked by the secret police, presuming that they were criminals. Shortly afterward, some of the same "pro-Palestine" activists, or Hamas agents, appeared on my social media to leave hostile comments about my presence at the festival, making it obvious that they had filed the false report that triggered the police action. If Norwegian authorities are willing to behave like political enforcers toward a Gazan American and three Scandinavian Jews who are simply trying to engage with diverse audiences, all because pro‑resistance agitators want to sabotage my efforts to speak and share my work, it reveals a bleak reality about the current discourse on Israel and Palestine. It shows how deeply troubling and undemocratic influences are shaping perceptions and policy, driven by actors who reject pluralism and seek enforced conformity. Norway spends billions of its taxpayer money promoting democracy, freedom, and liberal values abroad. It should start by respecting genuine freedom of speech at home rather than becoming a tool for supporters of a foreign extremist movement. If this is how Norway wants to treat political dissenters and its Jewish community, then shame on it 💔

@VladSF Not gonna hold my breath waiting for his support of concrete bollards on sidewalks...

Last year I had the idea to scan San Francisco's famous Grace Cathedral in very high quality, both inside and out, and build an interactive experience that anyone can use. I'm excited to finally be able to share it with all of you!

@VladSF I've been going to Green Apple for new and used books since I was a teenager! I didn't even realize there were any big box bookstores left in the city.

Some of the messaging coming out of the College Democrats of America @CollegeDems convention in Washington, DC (the college arm of the Democratic National Committee) reflects a party drifting toward far‑left positions while advancing increasingly incoherent core platforms. Economic populism dominated the event, but so did some troubling personalities elevated to center stage to promote hate‑filled, anti‑American, divisive, and destructive agendas, the kind of figures one would expect Democratic leadership would want to avoid showcasing at a premier gathering for young voters. One such figure is Hasan Piker, a pro‑Hamas, pro‑Houthi, pro-Hezbollah, anti‑American, self‑described communist and rage‑bait provocateur who has incited hate, misinformation, and violence against me personally and many other Americans. He has repeatedly expressed support for acts of international terrorism, whether the attacks of 9/11, Hamas’s massacre on October 7, or other violence targeting the United States and its allies. As the Democratic Party scrambles to reinvent itself amid shifting voter dynamics, surrendering the party’s direction to extremist leftism is the worst possible move. Allowing DSA‑aligned activists and their recent political wins to hijack the narrative, the platform, and the trajectory of the party, heading into the midterms and the 2028 presidential cycle, will only deepen the crisis. Nothing good comes from indulging college students who have abandoned learning in favor of emotionalism, who staged ineffective encampments that divided the country, or who champion radical policies that are unachievable at scale and rooted in a sustained effort to delegitimize the United States, Western civilization, and basic democratic norms. It is a profound irony that Democrats are embracing the very people who helped produce the party’s 2024 electoral losses, and that some Democratic officials treat me as an “outlier” simply because I refuse to adopt increasingly popular extreme and ideologically driven positions. I say all of this as a concerned Democrat who wants the party to succeed, not self‑destruct.

Hamas is a genocidal cult: Recently uncovered documents from slain Hamas leader and October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar reveal the depth of his depravity and the extent to which he knowingly steered Gaza toward catastrophe. Handwritten notes drafted a year before the attack show Sinwar anticipated a ferocious Israeli counter‑offensive, even speculating, in his own words, about the possibility of an Israeli nuclear retaliation on Gaza. Despite uncertainty over whether Iran or Hezbollah would join the fight, he outlined a plan to deploy up to ten thousand fighters from Gaza to seize Israeli towns, expel civilians, hold hostages, and wage what he described as a life‑or‑death battle. These notes align with earlier documents from Sinwar’s archive detailing his intent to use extreme brutality to maximize terror, fear, and psychological trauma among Israelis. The implications are stark. Hamas’s crimes against humanity were not only committed against Israelis but also against the Palestinian people. The fascist organization employed ISIS‑grade tactics, fully aware that the attack went far beyond any military objective and could provoke overwhelming Israeli retaliation. Sinwar’s delusions were matched only by his ignorance: Israel does not need nuclear weapons to inflict devastating harm on Gaza. Yet Hamas deliberately launched an intentionally genocidal assault, predicting, and banking on, an Israeli survival response that would devastate Gaza and then be weaponized for global sympathy. In doing so, Hamas sacrificed 2.3 million Palestinians for a propaganda strategy. This alone should compel the immediate, unconditional, and unequivocal rejection of Hamas by anyone claiming to support Palestinian rights. It should erase any doubt that Islamist extremists pose an existential threat to Palestinian survival, freedom, and the possibility of building a society not dragged into wars its rulers knowingly design to be catastrophic. When you are the weaker party facing the most far‑right government in Israel’s history, your obligation is to safeguard your people, not gamble their lives on apocalyptic fantasies. Hamas’s failure to do so is a betrayal worthy of absolute condemnation. It forfeits any Hamas claim to political relevance and demands that those responsible for October 7 be treated as traitors and murderers of their own people.

A lot of people wonder how the pro-Palestine/Anti-Israel protests started within hours of the Hamas terror attack and often included preprinted posters and ready made "genocide" chants. How was it so organized and "spontaneous"? I, and other journalists, are chasing the 'follow the money' story behind the movement that appeared "out of nowhere" on October 8. This past week, an @NGOmonitor report provided the data inside the UK experience. It maps 40 major post-October 7 protest and mobilization campaigns in the UK — and it undercuts the "spontaneous grassroots reaction" narrative that took hold right after Hamas's October 7 massacre. The findings: At least 11 of the 40 organizations mapped have links to extremist actors — the Iranian regime and IRGC, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP, or the Muslim Brotherhood — either directly or through officials who met or cooperated with them. Leadership overlaps heavily across the six primary coordinating groups. Jeremy Corbyn—the antisemitism former Labour Party leader— alone holds posts in three of them simultaneously. The funding for Corbyn's own group, the People's Forum UK, is undisclosed. Youth recruitment is a high priority — Amnesty International UK is cited for running an activism-training program aimed at UK youth; Friends of Al-Aqsa for youth-mobilization messaging. —Of the 40 groups, only 10 are registered charities. —Thirteen operate completely outside any formal UK regulatory framework — while still soliciting public donations. —Nineteen receive UK government funding via the FCDO or Gift Aid. At least 11 draw taxpayer money from other governments too, including the US and several EU states. —Funding also flows from major US progressive foundations — Open Society, Rockefeller Brothers Fund among them — plus, per the report, cryptocurrency channels used by CAGE and Palestine Action, the latter now a proscribed organization under UK law as of a June 2026 Court of Appeal ruling. What the NGO Monitor report shows is a well-funded, coordinated infrastructure that existed before October 7 and moved fast because it was already built — organizationally, financially, and rhetorically — around "genocide" messaging with no space made for Israeli victims. Here is the full report: ngo-monitor.org/pdf/Imported_I…

Albert @AlbertinGlasgow

3 months ago

@trishaposner It will never cease to trouble me deeply that on Oct 7th & 8th, without the total amount dead or taken hostage known, they were all there; posters, placards, chants and the deliberate libel of genocide, all ready to go. How could they have done it all so quickly? Something off.

16 76 359 99K 32

The ceaseless headlines about Hamas “ending its government” in Gaza and “preparing to give up control” are yet another ruse and a nothing‑burger dressed up as a concession by the terror group, which has zero intention of relinquishing real power or disarming. Similar announcements like this have happened frequently in the past. The resignation of the head of the so‑called “Emergency Committee,” or Hamas’s post–October 7 governing façade, is simply the removal of a figurehead. His duties have already been quietly assumed by another “temporary” Hamas administrator while everyone pretends to wait for NCAG, the incoming Technocratic Committee, to take over. Hamas has already announced that its administrative and technical staff will continue working until NCAG arrives, fully aware that the new transitional governing body will lack the capacity, personnel, or infrastructure to run Gaza. This is Hamas’s plan: recycle its current/existing apparatus into the new administration expected to emerge from the Trump Administration’s transitional process overseen by the Board of Peace. What we’re seeing is the sloppy rollout of a long‑predicted strategy: Hamas shifting from direct control to indirectly reigning, Hezbollah‑style. It’s cheaper, it shields the group from accountability, and it allows new civilian faces to absorb public anger while Hamas retains decisive control over every meaningful lever of power in the Gaza Strip. None of this resembles disarmament. Hamas’s al‑Qassam Brigades are working nonstop to repair tunnel networks and rebuild munitions stockpiles using unexploded ordnance and Israeli bombs from two years of war. Yet the media coverage of this non‑event has already reframed Hamas as cooperative, reasonable, even constructive; a narrative shift that obscures Hamas’s role as the primary obstacle to Gaza’s recovery. And this is landing successfully and working well for Hamas; not only with outlets, voices, and platforms who are typically softer on the terror group, but even in some mainstream political discourse, where some are treating this as tantamount to the initiation of disarmament or the start of Phase II of the ceasefire. The timing is no coincidence: this move by Hamas comes one week after the Board of Peace met in Cyprus and agreed to pursue “Plan B,” the approach I’ve long advocated: moving Gaza’s civilian population across the “Yellow Line” and draining Hamas of access to resources and human shields it relies on. Ultimately, Hamas “dissolving its government” will be judged by simple metrics like whether Gazans can share posts on Facebook without being tortured, beaten, or dragged into hospital interrogation rooms, abuses that continued from October 7 until just last week. Until that changes, the headlines are theater, and Hamas’s grip in Gaza remains intact.

@VladSF To be Paris of the West, you need a mayor like Hidalgo.

Learning from Jewish Diversity: Over the past few weeks, the fractures within Jewish, Israeli, Zionist, and pro‑Israel circles have been impossible to miss. Religious, political, ideological, organizational, and strategic divides have erupted into open accusations: some are “too extreme,” others “too soft on Israel’s critics,” “reckless,” “undiplomatic,” “not pro‑Israel enough,” “sabotaging the cause,” or even “endangering Jewish safety.” Whatever one thinks of these claims, the reality is clear: Jewish communities and Israeli society contain a wide spectrum of socio‑religious and political diversity. Across that spectrum, there is space, sometimes narrow, sometimes wide, for people to express their unique identities, their Judaism, and their individual politics. The communal infrastructure is vast and enviable: JCCs, Federations, JCRCs, Hillel, Atid, AIPAC, Israel Policy Forum, J‑Street, JVP, the World Zionist Organization, ZOA, ICC, AJC, ADL, Birthright, and dozens more. Add to that the Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox movements, plus the full range of political organizations in both the U.S. and Israel. This is not a monolith; it is a sprawling ecosystem. That is precisely why simplistic labels like “Zionist” obscure far more than they reveal. And it is why I often find myself wishing that Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim Americans had anything comparable. Instead, there are fewer than a handful of national organizations, political and student alike, that enforce near‑total conformity on the Israel and Palestine discourse, despite the fact that Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim Americans hold a wide range of views on Hamas, Gaza, Israel, peace, pragmatism, the U.S., and belonging. One of my deepest frustrations with certain Jewish groups of a particular political orientation is the role they expect me to play as someone from Gaza. Consciously or not, some want me to perform the part of the Palestinian victim who reinforces their own narratives. They recoil when I speak about Palestinian failures, Hamas’s catastrophic impact on Gaza, or my efforts to build bridges with center‑right Jewish and Israeli audiences. To them, these points “distract” from the larger story of Israeli wrongdoing. And if my words are cited by conservative pro‑Israel voices, that becomes the ultimate offense: “tokenization,” even though anti‑Israel activists routinely cite these same groups when convenient. The result has been predictable: invitations withdrawn, doors quietly closed, and participation discouraged. I failed to play the role they had scripted for me; a victim to be wielded in their internal communal battles. And for that, I was sidelined.

Your issue with Jews started 80 years ago? So, in other words, one year after they stopped being mass murdered at a rate of thousands per day. You were cool with the Jewish people as they were carted off to extermination camps, yet take umbrage now they have sovereignty and the capacity for self defence. Dara Horn’s thesis (‘People Love Dead Jews’) continues to be vindicated.

The Israel Collapse Industrial Complex: Since Hamas’s October 7th attack, a new genre of pseudo “political analysis” entertainment has flooded social media and YouTube in particular, about Israel’s “impending collapse,” or its inevitable destruction, doom, and the end of the Jewish state. YouTube serves me daily suggestions of highly produced videos, with ads, of various content creators, including those in Qatar who, during the Iranian bombardment of Doha just a few weeks ago, made a slick video about Israel’s imminent collapse, which is now a prolific theme across the “pro-Palestine” activist communities. Journalists, academics, advocates, politicians, humanitarians, students, social media influencers, aspiring figures, and vast numbers of diaspora Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians, and “allied” communities consume this content and use it to form their opinions and worldviews on how to think and speak about this issue. What’s incredibly disturbing is that this is the third iteration of this fantasy and the associated imaginative hopes, all of which have been at the core of the Palestinian people’s destruction and perpetual suffering for 80 years. It began with the pan-Arabists and nationalists who failed miserably, then with the Islamists of the past thirty years, and now, with a new mutation that’s made up of the intersectionality left, elements of the right, “wokesters,” ignorant Arabs and Muslims, clueless Westerners, malevolent grifters, and opportunists. I grew up in Gaza with Hamas’s prophecies, including those of the group’s founder, Ahmed Yassin, that Israel would collapse by 2020 or 2028, and listening to Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood figure Tareq Al-Suwaidan saying that prophecies predicted “Jews having a state for 80 years” after which it’ll collapse. The Palestinian people have been sold fiction time and again, by different ideologies, death merchants, failed nationalists, and others who used this cause to grift and achieve personal gain and glory. The last thing Palestinians need is another iteration of this delusional fantasy to keep the next generation trapped in radicalization, Jihad, violence, and hatred. It should be clear to everyone by now. Israel is here to stay. Israel is not going anywhere. There will be no erasure of the Jewish State. There will be no mass killing, deportation, conversion, or forced subjugation of millions of Jewish Israelis. Instead, what is needed is a radically pragmatic understanding of how both Palestinians and Jewish Israelis can be part of this land, make peace, achieve mutually beneficial arrangements, and reject the notion that either one is going to destroy the other. Do not be a participant in or consumer of the Israel destruction industrial complex if you actually care about the Palestinian people – be a builder and champion a future defined by what you stand for and want to see, not just by what you are opposed to and stand against.

VANISHING CULTURE is out now! From Internet Archive, this book looks at what is disappearing online. 🌐 Websites vanish 🗞️ News archives go offline 🎮 Games become unplayable 📼 Personal media breaks & becomes unreadable It asks what it means when the record of ourselves starts to disappear 🕳️ 📖 Download & read: archive.org/details/vanish… 🛒 Purchase in print: betterworldbooks.com/product/detail… #VanishingCulture #DigitalMemory #InternetArchive #BookTwitter

Absolutely brilliant from @HusseinAboubak. “The first error is the assumption that anti-Zionism is a position, a policy preference, a discrete item on a list of demands that can be granted in exchange for quiet on the remaining items. No, no, no. This is a major category error. Anti-Zionism is not a position. It is a worldview, and a worldview does not function the way individual policy preferences do. A policy preference can be traded: you give me this, I give you that, and we both go home. A worldview is the structure within which all positions are generated, the logic that determines which sentences can be spoken and which cannot, and when you concede the worldview, you have not bought peace on the other questions. You have conceded the very logic by which all the other questions will be decided.” “The second error is that the liberal establishment treats the decolonial left as though it were a moral movement; a coalition of idealists whose passion on this one subject must be accommodated because the passion is about something real and the moral claim has traction. This is the view from the outside, from the surface, and it is wrong. What is at work inside the American left on the Israel question is not, or not primarily, some moral awakening. It is an inter-elite ruthless competition for institutional position, and anti-Zionism is the instrument through which that war of position is being waged.” “Thus, what makes the establishment’s concession so ruinous, so foolish, and so unforgivable is that it misidentifies the recipient. The Democratic leadership believes it is making a concession to some moral constituency, but it is, in fact, making it to a rival power formation within the party’s own institutional base. This is surrender. When the establishment concedes [on] Israel, it does not purchase peace with idealists but ratifies the victory of a competing elite fraction whose interests and ambitions extend to every institution the party touches, and whose appetite will not be diminished by having been fed the Jews.” Keep reading for historical examples that put this moment in the Democratic Party into crystal-clear perspective.

Hussein Aboubakr Mansour @HusseinAboubak

5 months ago

The establishment’s reasoning is basic strategic calculation: the left will not relent on Israel; a civil war inside the party over the Jewish state would destroy the coalition; therefore, the rational move is to concede this issue, preserve party unity, and proceed with the

149 533 2K 248K 697