WORTH REPEATING: Those who call themselves “pro-Palestinian” are enemies of Palestinians. That’s why I use scoff quotes around the term, and you should too!
It's worth noting, if not writing a piece, on the unpleasant similarities between Nazis, IslamoLeftists, progressives, and/or however you prefer to refer to the red-green anchluss.
Here is a list for your consideration:
- Obsession with race and identity
- Obsession with conformity
- Obsession with purity and moral absolutism
- Obsession with perceived enemies
- Obsession with power or 'will to power'
- Obsession with Jews
- Obsession with uniformity and collectivism
- Obsession with utopianism
- Obsession with ideology and metatruth
- Obsession with slogans
- Obsession with uniforms and appearances
- Moral relativism
- Collectivism and lack of originality
- Elitism and obedience to authority
- Intolerance of non-conformity and dissent
- Libel and slander of non-conformists
- Selective aggression and violence
- Propaganda and weaponization of language
- Use of gaslighting and inversion tactics
- Subordination of rationalism to ideology
- Anti-liberalism and anti-occidentalism
- Anti-democracy
- Justification of barbarism
- Anti-intellectualism
And I believe it's important to differentiate between liberals/ liberalism and progressives/ progressivism--now two distinct evolutionary species. Actual liberals believe in the exact opposite of all of the above, and should not allow progressives to 'hijack' or 'kidnap' our belief systems.
cool beans. thank you for being you. one more addendum to contemplate: people are losing a connection to the value of liberalism (or 'civilizational values' if we prefer not to call them 'western'), from the two critical perspectives of rationalism and ethics. And it shows in the way people have allowed themselves to be manipulated and convinced (by the likes of intersectionality, poststructuralism, and stupidity) into believing that progressivism is just the next evolutionary step or 'revelation' of liberalism the way Islam is the next and final revelation for Abrahamic monotheism--when of course it's dark, regressive, and destructive. Tolerance is one of many great things we produce in the west (or 'civilization'). But the progressive notion of tolerating, and now celebrating, the intolerable, is suicidal and has nothing to do with liberalism.
At the moment, we have the 2025 edition of the Gaza flotilla, stuck at sea as even states like Malta that have been very supportive of Palestine, has made assisting the damaged boat conditional on allowing the vessel to be inspected to ensure it's actually carrying aid, and not just transporting IHH thugs from Turkey as was the case in 2010.
Yesterday, May 8, the CBC's flagship weekday current affairs program, The Current included an interview (through a translator) with the Gazan lawyer who has helped to spearhead the anti-Hamas protests in Gaza, and host Matt Galloway introduced the segment by actually describing Hamas as "tyrannical" and not "militant" or "resistance". Presumably CBC News and Current Affairs producers didn't want to be seen to be left out after the Washington Post published an op-ed by said Gazan lawyer. It's far too soon to see if the tide is going to finally turn on the coverage of the conflict, as this interview was preceded by an interview with U BC professor Michael Byers talking about the current Israeli embargo on aid deliveries to Gaza, which of course DID NOT include any discussion of previous famine warnings being found by the UN's own review body to be flawed as it didn't account for the numerous NGOs operating inside Gaza that were provisioners in addition to UNRWA.
Here's a link to the op-ed by Israeli political scientist Shany Mor published in the Jewish Chronicle which speaks to Byers's "interpretations" of "international law":
"It is a World Cup of martyrdom in which the side with the most dead wins."
YES! This, exactly! Hamas is many things (Evil. Cynical. Fascist. Hate-centered. Murderous. Etc., etc.), but stupid is not one of them. It knows full well that the more Palestinians die, the "better" things get for it. In perpetrating this despicable position, it is aided by western media, which is only too happy to portray Israelis as modern-day heirs to the Nazis.
The whole Palestine movement is an anti semetic, anti western initiative of the brotherhood. There was no sovereign entity called Palestine in history, nor should there be now, given their cults objectives.
Why would they stop when their activism is so lucrative? It’s not helping Gazans in the least, but the clicks and on camera appearances, the donations to cynical NGOs? Those are incredibly beneficial to the supposed pro-Palestinian movement. It’s a cynical 80-year antisemitic grift.
Pat, I think we should stop the usage of the word "Palestinian" in any context other than to describe the name Romans gave the land that is now roughly Israel after the first Jewish-Roman war, which was almost 600 years before the first Arab even showed up there.
The fact that Arafat usurped it in the 1960s does not make it a legitimate use.
Einat Wilf was in Vancouver recently and was asked this question from the audience. I'll share her response shortly. I understand your point. But I think I disagree from practical and principled grounds. Quite simply, I believe that we should call people what they prefer to be called. This has major implications on all fronts, including gender and one-on-one relationships. Plus, that's what everyone knows them as. But also ... I just think we have bigger battles to fight than nomenclature -- though I absolutely agree that words matter (obviously!) so I am open to the discussion.
I'd like to hear her answer very much. On your points, a couple of reactions:
1. fully agree on respecting the people by calling them what they prefer to be called. However, respect is a two-way street, and there is none coming the other way that I can see.
2. However, emotional reactions aside, the misuse of the name "Palestine" or "Palestinian" has strong and important political and ideological meaning. Therefore, IMO, the most important reason is to ensure the politics and ideology of the use are set straight.
There could be an interesting historical discussion on what the term Palestine means today and whether it has a geographical relevance. I think, however, the term - as used by those seeking the annihilation of Israel as an entity - has a very specific meaning in this context, by imputing rights where they do not necessarily exist. Or do not exist in the same form in which they are being imputed by the use of the term.
It is never useful to engage in the "who was there first" arguments to settle disputes, especially land disputes. However, if Arabs insist on doing that without any desire to truly seek ways to coexist, then they lose. Because the historical timeline is what it is.
As an aside, I remember witnessing another "who was there first" discussion at a student conference in Hull, QC in 1994 between the anglos and the francos (without any indigenous context) - that was curious in its own right. At that time I was an immigrant in Canada who was less than a year in. I had a distinct feeling that I was there last. This has no significant bearing on the Israel discussion, but couldn't help to recall the conversation.
Only today, I wrote a letter to a New York Times journalist who wrote an article about a protest at Brooklyn College. I questioned the author as to why, in the first three paragraphs, he referred to the protestors three times as "Pro-Palestinian." In my letter, I questioned that characterization for the very reasons you cite in your article (although not as thoroughly and articulately as you did here).
If you want to follow an actual "Pro-Palestinian" activist, I suggest you check out Ahem Fouad Alkhatib's Facebook page. Here is a link to one entry from today. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1FJ1ZcsHcB/
He was born in Gaza and now works for a think tank in D.C. He lost a lot of relatives in the war and is harshly critical of Hamas (he is also critical of the Israeli government).
Why don’t you come out and just say you’re a fucking deranged nazi zionist pig instead of this long piece of numbskull bullshit?! Defending IsraHell is so difficult for you fucking pigs that you concoct these really poor opinion pieces that just confirms your fucking stupidity, so
You seem nice. And what a good use you seem to be making of your time on earth. Real profound contributions to the world. Nice job freeing Palestine. I think you just made my point for me.
Maybe we've been reading this group all wrong. Maybe "pro-Palestinian" doesn't mean they want the best for Palestinians. Maybe it means "pro-" as in "professional". That they're cosplay Palestinians with the commitment of professionals. Maybe to them, "Palestinians" are abstractions, permanent victims, lovable for their passion for killing Jews. Anyone can relate to that. Permanent victim? Check. Passion for killing Jews? Check. Committed? Check. They're pros.
It’s high time that we stopped using the term pro-Palestinian, even in sarcasm quotes, and called them what they really are: pro-Hamas or pro-terror. One could even argue that calling them pro-Palestinian is whitewashing their true nature.
By definition, they are anti-Israel, anti-Zionist - both of them the modern iteration of antisemitism - or just plain good old fashioned Jew haters.
It's worth noting, if not writing a piece, on the unpleasant similarities between Nazis, IslamoLeftists, progressives, and/or however you prefer to refer to the red-green anchluss.
Here is a list for your consideration:
- Obsession with race and identity
- Obsession with conformity
- Obsession with purity and moral absolutism
- Obsession with perceived enemies
- Obsession with power or 'will to power'
- Obsession with Jews
- Obsession with uniformity and collectivism
- Obsession with utopianism
- Obsession with ideology and metatruth
- Obsession with slogans
- Obsession with uniforms and appearances
- Moral relativism
- Collectivism and lack of originality
- Elitism and obedience to authority
- Intolerance of non-conformity and dissent
- Libel and slander of non-conformists
- Selective aggression and violence
- Propaganda and weaponization of language
- Use of gaslighting and inversion tactics
- Subordination of rationalism to ideology
- Anti-liberalism and anti-occidentalism
- Anti-democracy
- Justification of barbarism
- Anti-intellectualism
And I believe it's important to differentiate between liberals/ liberalism and progressives/ progressivism--now two distinct evolutionary species. Actual liberals believe in the exact opposite of all of the above, and should not allow progressives to 'hijack' or 'kidnap' our belief systems.
BAM! I’ll be using this in a future post. Thanks.
cool beans. thank you for being you. one more addendum to contemplate: people are losing a connection to the value of liberalism (or 'civilizational values' if we prefer not to call them 'western'), from the two critical perspectives of rationalism and ethics. And it shows in the way people have allowed themselves to be manipulated and convinced (by the likes of intersectionality, poststructuralism, and stupidity) into believing that progressivism is just the next evolutionary step or 'revelation' of liberalism the way Islam is the next and final revelation for Abrahamic monotheism--when of course it's dark, regressive, and destructive. Tolerance is one of many great things we produce in the west (or 'civilization'). But the progressive notion of tolerating, and now celebrating, the intolerable, is suicidal and has nothing to do with liberalism.
At the moment, we have the 2025 edition of the Gaza flotilla, stuck at sea as even states like Malta that have been very supportive of Palestine, has made assisting the damaged boat conditional on allowing the vessel to be inspected to ensure it's actually carrying aid, and not just transporting IHH thugs from Turkey as was the case in 2010.
Yesterday, May 8, the CBC's flagship weekday current affairs program, The Current included an interview (through a translator) with the Gazan lawyer who has helped to spearhead the anti-Hamas protests in Gaza, and host Matt Galloway introduced the segment by actually describing Hamas as "tyrannical" and not "militant" or "resistance". Presumably CBC News and Current Affairs producers didn't want to be seen to be left out after the Washington Post published an op-ed by said Gazan lawyer. It's far too soon to see if the tide is going to finally turn on the coverage of the conflict, as this interview was preceded by an interview with U BC professor Michael Byers talking about the current Israeli embargo on aid deliveries to Gaza, which of course DID NOT include any discussion of previous famine warnings being found by the UN's own review body to be flawed as it didn't account for the numerous NGOs operating inside Gaza that were provisioners in addition to UNRWA.
Transcript to the Current's May 8th program can be found here: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/thursday-may-8-2025-episode-transcript-1.7530412
Here's a link to the op-ed by Israeli political scientist Shany Mor published in the Jewish Chronicle which speaks to Byers's "interpretations" of "international law":
https://www.thejc.com/opinion/the-wests-two-tier-international-law-doesnt-harm-just-israel-rn074p4m
Great comment. Thank you.
Well worth re-posting!
"It is a World Cup of martyrdom in which the side with the most dead wins."
YES! This, exactly! Hamas is many things (Evil. Cynical. Fascist. Hate-centered. Murderous. Etc., etc.), but stupid is not one of them. It knows full well that the more Palestinians die, the "better" things get for it. In perpetrating this despicable position, it is aided by western media, which is only too happy to portray Israelis as modern-day heirs to the Nazis.
The whole Palestine movement is an anti semetic, anti western initiative of the brotherhood. There was no sovereign entity called Palestine in history, nor should there be now, given their cults objectives.
Why would they stop when their activism is so lucrative? It’s not helping Gazans in the least, but the clicks and on camera appearances, the donations to cynical NGOs? Those are incredibly beneficial to the supposed pro-Palestinian movement. It’s a cynical 80-year antisemitic grift.
Pat, I think we should stop the usage of the word "Palestinian" in any context other than to describe the name Romans gave the land that is now roughly Israel after the first Jewish-Roman war, which was almost 600 years before the first Arab even showed up there.
The fact that Arafat usurped it in the 1960s does not make it a legitimate use.
Einat Wilf was in Vancouver recently and was asked this question from the audience. I'll share her response shortly. I understand your point. But I think I disagree from practical and principled grounds. Quite simply, I believe that we should call people what they prefer to be called. This has major implications on all fronts, including gender and one-on-one relationships. Plus, that's what everyone knows them as. But also ... I just think we have bigger battles to fight than nomenclature -- though I absolutely agree that words matter (obviously!) so I am open to the discussion.
I'd like to hear her answer very much. On your points, a couple of reactions:
1. fully agree on respecting the people by calling them what they prefer to be called. However, respect is a two-way street, and there is none coming the other way that I can see.
2. However, emotional reactions aside, the misuse of the name "Palestine" or "Palestinian" has strong and important political and ideological meaning. Therefore, IMO, the most important reason is to ensure the politics and ideology of the use are set straight.
There could be an interesting historical discussion on what the term Palestine means today and whether it has a geographical relevance. I think, however, the term - as used by those seeking the annihilation of Israel as an entity - has a very specific meaning in this context, by imputing rights where they do not necessarily exist. Or do not exist in the same form in which they are being imputed by the use of the term.
It is never useful to engage in the "who was there first" arguments to settle disputes, especially land disputes. However, if Arabs insist on doing that without any desire to truly seek ways to coexist, then they lose. Because the historical timeline is what it is.
As an aside, I remember witnessing another "who was there first" discussion at a student conference in Hull, QC in 1994 between the anglos and the francos (without any indigenous context) - that was curious in its own right. At that time I was an immigrant in Canada who was less than a year in. I had a distinct feeling that I was there last. This has no significant bearing on the Israel discussion, but couldn't help to recall the conversation.
Thanks for entertaining *this* conversation.
You make very good points. I will ponder and draft something ... maybe I could run it by you?
Happy to help. An important topic to discuss.
You're right. "Palestine" is *always* used to negate the Zionist Entity. There's nothing innocent about the term.
Only today, I wrote a letter to a New York Times journalist who wrote an article about a protest at Brooklyn College. I questioned the author as to why, in the first three paragraphs, he referred to the protestors three times as "Pro-Palestinian." In my letter, I questioned that characterization for the very reasons you cite in your article (although not as thoroughly and articulately as you did here).
If you want to follow an actual "Pro-Palestinian" activist, I suggest you check out Ahem Fouad Alkhatib's Facebook page. Here is a link to one entry from today. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1FJ1ZcsHcB/
He was born in Gaza and now works for a think tank in D.C. He lost a lot of relatives in the war and is harshly critical of Hamas (he is also critical of the Israeli government).
Why don’t you come out and just say you’re a fucking deranged nazi zionist pig instead of this long piece of numbskull bullshit?! Defending IsraHell is so difficult for you fucking pigs that you concoct these really poor opinion pieces that just confirms your fucking stupidity, so
GO FUCK YOURSELF, PIG
🐖🐖🇮🇱🐖🐖🇮🇱🐖🐖🇮🇱🐖🐖🇮🇱🐖🐖🇮🇱🐖🐖🇮🇱🐖🐖🇮🇱🐖🐖🇮🇱🐖🐖🇮🇱🐖🐖🇮🇱
You seem nice. And what a good use you seem to be making of your time on earth. Real profound contributions to the world. Nice job freeing Palestine. I think you just made my point for me.
Maybe we've been reading this group all wrong. Maybe "pro-Palestinian" doesn't mean they want the best for Palestinians. Maybe it means "pro-" as in "professional". That they're cosplay Palestinians with the commitment of professionals. Maybe to them, "Palestinians" are abstractions, permanent victims, lovable for their passion for killing Jews. Anyone can relate to that. Permanent victim? Check. Passion for killing Jews? Check. Committed? Check. They're pros.
It’s high time that we stopped using the term pro-Palestinian, even in sarcasm quotes, and called them what they really are: pro-Hamas or pro-terror. One could even argue that calling them pro-Palestinian is whitewashing their true nature.
By definition, they are anti-Israel, anti-Zionist - both of them the modern iteration of antisemitism - or just plain good old fashioned Jew haters.
“Pro Palestinian” is code. It means kill the Jews