Klein is a disingenuous Zionist
What? Because she's Jewish?
LMAO. Coming out of the gate a bit strong there chief! Have you actually read any of her prior statements about Palestine?
No, I haven't, which is why I asked. I was an avid reader of her early work, but haven't paid attention to her in a long time. But from the article she's clearly a supporter of BDS, so I was confused.
Hold on I've got to run to the doctor but she totally buys into the lib Zionist framing of Netanyahu being the main issue and Hamas' brutality and all that
Now that they're running into difficulties and losing control of areas they "captured" suddenly negotiating a ceasefire becomes acceptable to libs
I really don't like the whole "why can't we all just be friends I condemn violence on both sides" shit even when it comes in the form of appealing to nonexistent Zionist compassion
I have strongly condemned Hamas's targeting of civilians as war crimes, in my own writing and in org statements.
October 28
https://nitter.net/NaomiAKlein/status/1718320141539418619#m
Disingenuous bullshitting. The shock doctrine also sucks people just recommend it because she appears on podcasts (who know her from Occupy Wall St. and aren't reading types, prone to complaining about having to speak into a mic two hours a month)
Cite sources.
Show me how anything she is saying from liberal zionism. Only approves of bds as a way of applying political pressure. Backs up their narrative just objects to obvious cruelty
As I pointed out in the previous comment she is embracing a variety of tactics from direct action to BDS. What exactly would you like her to say? What position should she take in your opinion?
"Backs up their narrative just objects to obvious cruelty"
As for this last sentence of yours I have no idea what you're trying to say
Well, I'm willing to expound on it. A few points off the top of my head.
we will need to talk about the difference between Occupy Wall St. direct action and BDS direct action and actual Vietcong-esque resistance against the occupation
playing resistance olympics, portraying al aqsa flood as being disorganized and fruitless, hezbollah & iran inaction as a betrayal, while simultaneously criticizing iranian funding of ansarallah. calling ansarallah "houthis". implying they are just attacking shipping instead of targeting Eilat & have triggered a capital strike in response
acts like Israeli tactics are a military response to Hamas war crimes rather than war crimes in response to resistance against military occupation
again, does not put too fine a point on the deliberate targeting of civilians and military ineffectiveness. the unsustainability of massive US aid which has even resulted in Ukraine pullback
acts like those military responses are effectively rooting out hamas by not pointing out they are an attempt at genocide & are taking heavy losses
treats israeli settlers as blameless civilians who don't deserve to be pelted with rockets (false, go look at videos of them cheering on bombing of Gaza, they deserve to die)
supports evidence-free zionist claims of atrocities
actual Vietcong-esque resistance against the occupation
If you are advocating for a war between Israel and Iran, you have lost the plot.
I have tried several times to read your writing but I can't do it. I guess it's great if you're trying for some stream of conscious thing, but I have no idea what you're trying to say and I don't know what your point is. If you can organize your thoughts into some kind of coherency I'd be willing to try again.
You just ignore anything that gives you cognitive dissonance. You have no idea what I mean by "narrative framing that supports genocide" because that narrative is your entire reality as a liberal zionist yourself.
Israel is going to lose the same way "South Vietnam" and SA apartheid did.
We're not talking about war with Iran lmao, but about their ties to PFLP, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ansarallah. Hamas is not losing to Israel yet. Hezbollah will heat things up more depending on how endangered they are.
"direct action and bds" to do what mfer? to make them tone down the currently unsustainable militarism of the occupation. not bds and direct action to END ISRAEL. which is what is coming next if they don't tone it down. she's trying to save israel, just like bernie. they're all monsters. god damn the liberals to hell
You are delusional if you think Israel is going to end.
The best possible outcome is a one state solution with equal rights and citizenship for all citizens. The two state solution is no longer viable.
Half a million settlers already disagreed with you like two weeks in. All I gotta do is point out the internal inconsistencies. Klein can't even do that. She's a fucking hack who writes entire books based off wordplay.
Haha, you didn't want to admit you think that, did you? Just wait around and see.
Behind the rhetorical flourishes she is capable of as a writer, only boycotting and moral appeals are acceptable resistance to Klein. We have to appeal to the Israeli conscience. Doesn't even approach the issue of US aid properly!
Still waiting for you to cite sources outside your own opinion.
In the meantime, let's begin here, "boycotting and moral appeals are acceptable resistance to Klein".
Yes for reasons that she makes clear in the article, but she also writes "So many people have been doing more than ever before: blocking arms shipments, occupying seats of government demanding a ceasefire, joining mass protests, telling the truth, however difficult. The combination of these actions may well have contributed to the most significant development in the history of BDS: South Africa’s application to the international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague accusing Israel of committing genocide and calling for provisional measures to stop its attack on Gaza."
So obviously she is not opposed to direct action because she rights that it may have contributed to South Africa's application at the ICJ. If you have instances of her opposing direct action I'd like to see them.
What exactly do you mean by "approaching the issue of US aid properly"
She writes "It still wasn’t enough to strip Israel of its impunity, which continued to be protected by the US’s reliable UN veto, plus the steady flow of arms. More corrosive than the lack of international sanctions have been the rewards: in recent years, alongside all of this lawlessness, Washington has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and then moved its embassy there. It also brokered the so-called Abraham accords, which ushered in lucrative normalization agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. It was Donald Trump who began showering Israel with these latest, long-sought-after gifts, but the process carried on seamlessly under Joe Biden."
What more would you like her to say on the subject? What do you think she should have included that would have convinced US lawmakers to end the special relationship with Israel?
What do you think she should have included that would have convinced US lawmakers to end the special relationship with Israel?
???? The insanity of acting like we all just have to make the right statements to solve this. I'm talking about the way she frames the genocide and how people who take up this framing lack a solution.
Literally cursory mention of steady flow of arms is enough for you?? That could mean guns and vests lmao. This article would have been lame in October. It may as well be 20 years old.
Sure I'll write a full length response this evening since you clearly see no problem with someone decrying actual military responses to this horror as war crimes of their own and not putting too fine a point on the babies Israel is disintegrating daily.
Anyone treating this as a normal war is useless. You've all done less than nothing, you've tried to delegitimize the only actual direct action which has harmed Israel's economy.
"The insanity of acting like we all just have to make the right statements to solve this."
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. She has advocated for direct action and she has advocated for BDS. What other nonviolent tactics would you have her list?
"Literally cursory mention of steady flow of arms is enough for you?"
Everyone even moderately familiar with this issue understands that Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid and that the US has always provided political cover internationally.
Do you think she should have to mention that in every single article in order to pass your purity test?
Nonviolent protests and just boycotting is extremely anemic when you also continue to support the narrative framing abt Hamas atrocities that is used to continue the genocide & support the existence of the rogue nuclear state that perpetrates them.
Saying "yes you're right but please be merciful" impresses you because you love rhetoric. Screw you!
Everyone even moderately familiar with this issue understands that Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid and that the US has always provided political cover internationally.
You skipped over everything else about the content of that aid and how it is used. So did she. She just acknowledges it and moves on as if it's barely important.
Okay keep doing this bazinga shit if you want I will just come back tonight with an essay
Purity test lmao. Not even. I'm just clarifying what she means to you.
The sole purpose of this community is to discuss Israeli and Palestinian issues. It is not the place for hurling insults, rehashing grudges, or making up history. Any conversation that veers into the "if only your people had" realm will be deleted or locked right away. I started this community in the potentially fruitless hope that we may have a civil conversation about this issue.
Rules: