i’ve been called an antisemite and payed the price. because i’ve simply defended the palestinians against an apartheid state with a genocidal inclination. no rational being on the planet could possible defend Israel’s now 60 year violent subjection of Palestine. Israel, in fact, has no historical legitimacy to it’s land; than does the US after it’s slaughter of at least 80 million native americans. some figures put the slaughter at far higher numbers: 150 million. but of course to raise property ownership in such terms is anathema. but just because it’s anathema, doen’t make it any the less historical factual.

so, to recall the cliche about speaking truth to power, let’s have at it, not only in the name of truth, but in the name of academic freedom and the general civic right to speak truth, period.

as my first witness in this debate against the absurd alliance between US so called democracy and so called democracy of the Israel, i cite the following:

Weisman even posits that recent racial policies by the Netanyahu government have made Israel a “model” for the alt-right on how to construct an “ethno-state”.

the model which Trump is attempting, down to the T, to implement, including his building of the wall between the US and Mexico, and then sending US military troops there, incarcerating children by the 4 thousands, separating families and children, and literally mouthing Israeli militaristic strategies: ‘throwing stones will be interpreted as using lethal weapons”…

whatever the propaganda, there is no doubt about the colonial histories of either the US or Israel. both have been aligned since the 1960s in order to defend themselves against the undoubted accusations of genocide. i’ve provided evidence of this claim below. but one look no further than Israel’s internment of the citizens of Gaza; or, no further than the Trump and Republican Party treatments of Latin American asylum seekers and latin american immigrants in general, not least of which, is the Trump admin’s family separation policy.

so, just to finally receive a bit of vindication of my so called antisemetic and extremist, historically well researched, beliefs, i can site the following:

“On the right,” writes Weisman, “anti-Semitism and militant Zionism can co-exist quite comfortably.” Spencer calls his movement a “sort of white Zionism”. In a New York Times podcast, Weisman even posits that recent racial policies by the Netanyahu government have made Israel a “model” for the alt-right on how to construct an “ethno-state”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/14/american-jewish-community-divisions-trump-pittsburgh

Weisman knows well about the use of the internet as a way of spreading anti-semitism. His book (which opens with the scene beneath the Lincoln Memorial) is intriguingly entitled (((Semitism))) Being Jewish in America in the Age of Trump.

There’s a story behind those brackets.

Weisman, deputy Washington editor of the New York Times, thought little of retweeting a column by conservative historian and commentator Robert Kagan in the Washington Post. But he had “an intuition” when a strange response from someone called ‘CyberTrump’ arrived: “Hello (((Weisman)))”.

“Care to explain?” Weisman replied.

“It’s dog whistle, fool,” the anonymous person answered.

so, in that historical spirit, in defense of their prescient take, there could be no greater lawyer than

harvard’s gabriella blum,

who helped to create the law international law in support of extrajudicial assassinations. and who seems, now, to be somewhat apologetic about it.

[The Israeli government] didn’t want to call their conflict with the Palestinians a “war” since that would recognize the inevitability of a Palestinian state and trigger a number of requirements under the laws of war. But they also didn’t want call it an “occupation,” since then they would be subject to the laws that govern occupiers. Among other things, occupation law would mandate them to use policing powers instead of offensive military tactics like targeted killing. So to avoid doing either, they simply created a new and unprecedented legal category that is, in effect, a new law for colonial dominance.