An "earthquake" happened in Congress, Mondoweiss reported last month, as a bill initially proposed by Democratic leaders to condemn anti-semitism was significantly modified, within a matter of hours, after intense organising and activism that denounced it as inappropriate.
It is amazing how easily some in Congress are so easily persuaded to blame all on Palestinians, and all on Muslim people and nations The Balfour agreement said that the native people living there should not lose their rights and land.
When so many in Congress want to diss our own 1st Amendment—that is very frightening.
It often seems that there is more respect towards Netanyahu than to our own Constitution. And yet, when a Jewish group has its American temple attacked ----I wonder if this is happening because more and more people see Netanyahu as a negative —that people are mixing up Judaism with zionism------so that concern about Jewish Americans is lost.
But then, if Israel was not ruled by zionism, then the world would be a more peaceful place for everyone, and especially for the Palestinians-----who are the Davids to Israels’ Goliath.
I have met a lot of PEPs in my time, going all the back to the anti-Vietnam war days, through the anti-contra period, to the present. Somehow, I don’t think I have ever come across a POOP. Where have they been hiding? Is this a straw man argument? But if so, why and what kind of numbers could there possibly be to warrant such? Call me confused. What is the point of this?
Like 4thefuture, I’m inclined to pooh-pooh this broadside against POOP. Perhaps I’m lucky, but I can’t think of a single proponent of Palestinian rights who doesn’t embrace a wide spectrum of social and environmental causes. As 4thefuture asks, is this a straw argument? What is its purpose?
The author’s casual lumping of the brutal Guatemalan regime with the admittedly conflicted but decidedly more savory Nicaraguan government (“Nicaragua’s and Guatemala’s military attacks on their impoverished indigenous populations”) makes me wish that the writer’s politics went beyond poop.
(Those interested in Sandinista treatment of indigenous people are advised to read Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz’s book Blood on the Border, not exoneration but explanation of that complicated relationship in the aftermath of the revolution’s triumph.)