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.
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?
??? 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.
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?
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!
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.