You write: "The movement by supporters of a Gaza ceasefire and Palestinian rights to send uncommitted delegates to the Democratic convention came out strongly against Shapiro." This is PROBLEMATIC in 3 ways. (1) It's necessary to distinguish those who support "a ceasefire and Palestinian right" from those insisting Israel has no right to exist at all; many uncommitted activists are the latter. (2) Since Shapiro most certainly supports Palestinian rights and opposes Netanyahu's regime and policies, you have deliberately, unfairly miscast him. (3) Given his positions on Gaza war align with those of the other VP choices, it suggests the disturbing conclusion that the "uncommitted activists" nixed him because he is Jewish. Stigmatizing and marginalizing Jews is a serious problem that should be confronted and challenged openly.
Thanks for your comment, Jennifer. I haven't seen evidence that many in the uncommitted movement opposes Israel's right to exist. Perhaps I've missed it. I'm among those who voted uncommitted in a Democratic primary to send a message that the Biden Administration needs to take action to end the genocide.in Gaza. Those young people involved in the pro-Palestinian encampments, many of them Jewish, were acting out of their concern for the deaths of civilians in Gaza. As a Jewish person working for 50 some years to support Palestinian rights, I've seen Israel again and again defy United Nations resolutions, continue its illegal occupation, sponsor or permit more and more Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. I agree with the idea that both peoples have a right to self-determination, but Israel has undermined Palestinian rights for decades. Apartheid ended in South Africa due in part to the boycott movement. Shapiro has strongly opposed the movement to boycott Israel. Of course, the United States has provided the arms and the diplomatic support for Israel's actions. The genocidal campaign in Gaza has made the U.S. public more aware of the long-standing injustice against Palestinians. Our government needs to stop providing arms and use its diplomatic influence to change Israeli policy. That is what the uncommitted movement is all about. Jewish Voices for Peace opposed the selection of Shapiro, noting among other things: "Shapiro has taken a uniquely aggressive stance against organizers and activists who oppose the Israeli government’s genocide against Palestinians. He has compared peaceful, anti-war student protesters to violent white supremacists, including the KKK." See https://x.com/JvpAction/status/1819364430590689554?t=1jNh5FaHJmcywU-olwxYdQ. An article by Abe Asher in Jacobin provides additional criticism of Shapiro's actions on Palestinian issues and why he would be a poor choice for vp. https://jacobin.com/2024/08/josh-shapiro-harris-vice-president. I've read Shapiro's comment that his views have evolved. If you're right that he supports Palestinian rights, perhaps he will evolved further into finding better ways to expres that support than he has so far.
I am perfectly well aware of all of this. I agree with what you are saying about Palestine, Israel, and Palestinians. I think your response is extraneous to my specific point. I said nothing about any of the points you elaborate above; in fact, I absolutely agree the US should flat-out cut off military aid to Israel. Please do not try to cast me as a right-wing or blind Israel defender. Nor did I support Shapiro's selection. However, I obviously know many people who voted uncommitted; nonetheless I think it's disingenuous to suggest that all "uncommitted activists" have exactly the same position--your position. Further,
I teach on a university campus. I have been in direct conversation with those who explicitly claim Israel should not exist and have actively sought to re-invent the history of "1948." I've seen very directly the negation of Jewish speakers, faculty, and students as "having the right to speak" --without knowing what their actual positions are on Israel, Palestine, or Gaza. (Indeed, because they are boycotted or excluded, they never had the opportunity to speak.). Even now you have put me in the position of having to display my ideological correctness--to pledge my fundamental opposition to Israel's brutal and inhumane policies and actions. Although that is what I believe, I must do so, regrettably, in order to make the specific point that Jewish marginalization is being normalized.
I’m gonna come right out and say it and I don’t care how it is construed.
The likelihood of a politician succeeding on a national level is directly related to his or her support of Israel.
A politician who is Jewish is far more likely going to be inclined to at the very least give Israel the benefit of the doubt, which in the current context means almost unconditional support.
I therefore, until Israel acknowledges its own crimes over the last 75 years, starting with the Nakba, negotiates in good faith (which imho it has never done), offers reparations and makes genuine peace based on justice, I am opposed to anyone of Jewish background - unless they are Ilan Pappe or Norman Finkelstein - in the executive branch.
I watched Shapiro’s Philadelphia speech. It was terrific. Too bad that he had a Palestine Problem.
For decades, israel has sanctified victimhood in order to get its way, no matter how egregious the crime. U.S. support for this stance has now led directly to full-bore genocide as the path to ethnic cleansing in preparation for annexation of both Gaza and the West Bank.
Your first statement, that you don't care how what you say is construed, to me means you don't care about communicating in a way that you will produce common ground. This is the opposite of my approach. I want to find common ground with others as a way to build coalitions for peace and justice.
Later in your comments, you contradict yourself. You say politicians can succeed at the national level only by supporting Israel. You exaggerate a bit here. But more importantly, you go from making a statement about all politicians to saying almost all individuals of Jewish background should be disqualified from service in the executive branch. It's obviously antisemitic to exclude only those of us of Jewish background, especially when your initial point was that all politicians were suspect. Certainly, pro-Israeli sentiment among politicians (and indeed in much of the country) is widespread and lobbying by pro-Israeli groups is influential. On the other hand, a significant movement exists for a permanent ceasefire and ending the genocide in Gaza. Many Jewish individuals are active in that movement..Your deliberately provocative comment includes no statement that helps move us to achieving those goals. Fortunately, a new understanding is gradually developing in the country in favor of Palestinian rights. We need to listen to one another as we work for peace and justice.
And by the way, I subscribe to Jacobin, so I have all those magazines and articles sitting here in my home. I receive the list serve. I also think that Jacobin writers, along with others on the left (which I count myself aspart of) have routinely distorted and misused concepts of "settler colonialism" and "indigeneity" in this context, many without knowing any actual, centuries-long history of the Middle East.
You write: "The movement by supporters of a Gaza ceasefire and Palestinian rights to send uncommitted delegates to the Democratic convention came out strongly against Shapiro." This is PROBLEMATIC in 3 ways. (1) It's necessary to distinguish those who support "a ceasefire and Palestinian right" from those insisting Israel has no right to exist at all; many uncommitted activists are the latter. (2) Since Shapiro most certainly supports Palestinian rights and opposes Netanyahu's regime and policies, you have deliberately, unfairly miscast him. (3) Given his positions on Gaza war align with those of the other VP choices, it suggests the disturbing conclusion that the "uncommitted activists" nixed him because he is Jewish. Stigmatizing and marginalizing Jews is a serious problem that should be confronted and challenged openly.
Thanks for your comment, Jennifer. I haven't seen evidence that many in the uncommitted movement opposes Israel's right to exist. Perhaps I've missed it. I'm among those who voted uncommitted in a Democratic primary to send a message that the Biden Administration needs to take action to end the genocide.in Gaza. Those young people involved in the pro-Palestinian encampments, many of them Jewish, were acting out of their concern for the deaths of civilians in Gaza. As a Jewish person working for 50 some years to support Palestinian rights, I've seen Israel again and again defy United Nations resolutions, continue its illegal occupation, sponsor or permit more and more Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. I agree with the idea that both peoples have a right to self-determination, but Israel has undermined Palestinian rights for decades. Apartheid ended in South Africa due in part to the boycott movement. Shapiro has strongly opposed the movement to boycott Israel. Of course, the United States has provided the arms and the diplomatic support for Israel's actions. The genocidal campaign in Gaza has made the U.S. public more aware of the long-standing injustice against Palestinians. Our government needs to stop providing arms and use its diplomatic influence to change Israeli policy. That is what the uncommitted movement is all about. Jewish Voices for Peace opposed the selection of Shapiro, noting among other things: "Shapiro has taken a uniquely aggressive stance against organizers and activists who oppose the Israeli government’s genocide against Palestinians. He has compared peaceful, anti-war student protesters to violent white supremacists, including the KKK." See https://x.com/JvpAction/status/1819364430590689554?t=1jNh5FaHJmcywU-olwxYdQ. An article by Abe Asher in Jacobin provides additional criticism of Shapiro's actions on Palestinian issues and why he would be a poor choice for vp. https://jacobin.com/2024/08/josh-shapiro-harris-vice-president. I've read Shapiro's comment that his views have evolved. If you're right that he supports Palestinian rights, perhaps he will evolved further into finding better ways to expres that support than he has so far.
I am perfectly well aware of all of this. I agree with what you are saying about Palestine, Israel, and Palestinians. I think your response is extraneous to my specific point. I said nothing about any of the points you elaborate above; in fact, I absolutely agree the US should flat-out cut off military aid to Israel. Please do not try to cast me as a right-wing or blind Israel defender. Nor did I support Shapiro's selection. However, I obviously know many people who voted uncommitted; nonetheless I think it's disingenuous to suggest that all "uncommitted activists" have exactly the same position--your position. Further,
I teach on a university campus. I have been in direct conversation with those who explicitly claim Israel should not exist and have actively sought to re-invent the history of "1948." I've seen very directly the negation of Jewish speakers, faculty, and students as "having the right to speak" --without knowing what their actual positions are on Israel, Palestine, or Gaza. (Indeed, because they are boycotted or excluded, they never had the opportunity to speak.). Even now you have put me in the position of having to display my ideological correctness--to pledge my fundamental opposition to Israel's brutal and inhumane policies and actions. Although that is what I believe, I must do so, regrettably, in order to make the specific point that Jewish marginalization is being normalized.
I’m gonna come right out and say it and I don’t care how it is construed.
The likelihood of a politician succeeding on a national level is directly related to his or her support of Israel.
A politician who is Jewish is far more likely going to be inclined to at the very least give Israel the benefit of the doubt, which in the current context means almost unconditional support.
I therefore, until Israel acknowledges its own crimes over the last 75 years, starting with the Nakba, negotiates in good faith (which imho it has never done), offers reparations and makes genuine peace based on justice, I am opposed to anyone of Jewish background - unless they are Ilan Pappe or Norman Finkelstein - in the executive branch.
I watched Shapiro’s Philadelphia speech. It was terrific. Too bad that he had a Palestine Problem.
For decades, israel has sanctified victimhood in order to get its way, no matter how egregious the crime. U.S. support for this stance has now led directly to full-bore genocide as the path to ethnic cleansing in preparation for annexation of both Gaza and the West Bank.
It. Must. Stop. !!!!!
Your first statement, that you don't care how what you say is construed, to me means you don't care about communicating in a way that you will produce common ground. This is the opposite of my approach. I want to find common ground with others as a way to build coalitions for peace and justice.
Later in your comments, you contradict yourself. You say politicians can succeed at the national level only by supporting Israel. You exaggerate a bit here. But more importantly, you go from making a statement about all politicians to saying almost all individuals of Jewish background should be disqualified from service in the executive branch. It's obviously antisemitic to exclude only those of us of Jewish background, especially when your initial point was that all politicians were suspect. Certainly, pro-Israeli sentiment among politicians (and indeed in much of the country) is widespread and lobbying by pro-Israeli groups is influential. On the other hand, a significant movement exists for a permanent ceasefire and ending the genocide in Gaza. Many Jewish individuals are active in that movement..Your deliberately provocative comment includes no statement that helps move us to achieving those goals. Fortunately, a new understanding is gradually developing in the country in favor of Palestinian rights. We need to listen to one another as we work for peace and justice.
And by the way, I subscribe to Jacobin, so I have all those magazines and articles sitting here in my home. I receive the list serve. I also think that Jacobin writers, along with others on the left (which I count myself aspart of) have routinely distorted and misused concepts of "settler colonialism" and "indigeneity" in this context, many without knowing any actual, centuries-long history of the Middle East.