[Orwn Acra]

If this was about Alareer, you would have talked about his poems or his Shakespeare scholarship. You could have posted one of the wonderful essays by his students about how he bridged Western and Eastern literary cultures.

Instead you post a tweet, bait us with an incendiary question, and then ask us if we agree regarding as aspect of US policy.

[Duncan Gillies MacLaurin]

Start your own thread then, Orwn. I'm sure I won't ask to have it shut down.

Duncan

[Jim Moonan]

.
I watched the Grayzone interview and found it troubling. There was little context. Not one word about the horrific actions of Hamas, et al. that precipitated the horrific response by Israel. Not one ounce of effort put into "where we go from here" discussion. No sign of knowing how political “sausage” is made nor any mention that there is blame to spread on all sides. They both struck me as amateur journalists with an ax to grind. Of course, I'm not saying that Jake Tapper is any better… I don’t know Refaat Alareer’s poetry but admire his tenacity. He is absolutely right when he says in his interview clip that the toughest thing to do is provide shelter/protection to family members (see webinar below). It just baffles me that he chose to be a pawn in the war. He could have accomplished so much more; his loss is the loss of a poet/spirit guide to healing the psyche of the region.


I attended a presentation/Q&A by Martin Fletcher, a 32 yearveteran journalist/reporter for NBC news and PBS whose area of expertise is the Middle East and specifically Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Following the presentation those interested in continuing the conversation gathered in the basement hall of the Anglican Church where he spoke (this was in San Miguel Mexico of all places) and the discussion continued on in pockets for another hour or so. When the crowd finally thinned out, there was Martin Fletcher: still talking, still giving insight into what has kept the hatred at the boiling point for so many generations, still saying that there is sober hope that a solution will be found, likely through negotiation. I hardly slept that night.

The next day as I researched a book he recommended by Irish writer/journalist Colm McCann entitled, Apeirogon (a polygon with an infinite yet countable number of sides). I came across a remarkable interchange of ideas and perspectives in a webinar hosted recently (after 10/7) by Parents Circle, Families Forum. The participants in the webinar are Colm McCann, a Palestinian father living in Gaza, and an Israeli father — both fathers have lost family members in the fighting. Most impressive is the discussion around solutions and the grassroots peaceful reconciliation movement that is gaining traction even as the bodies continue to pile up. Here it is: Voices of Apeirogon, with Colum McCann and Bereaved Fathers
It is a compelling hour that I’d urge everyone to give a watch/listen.



(The presentation by Martin Fletcher is also available on Youtube: https://youtu.be/gL_3tZuiYLE?si=BpAMBXi9XuRLrqS4



.

[W T Clark]

I see no real difference between Roger Slater and Walter here. Both seem focused on only defending one side: only hating another.
I keep seeing stories of anti-semitism in the country I live in: so no, I'm not going to pretend like it is all one way violence, no matter how it seems to me like Israel is bent on committing genocide.

I believe this; and yet, when Walter attempts to deflate accusations against "Hamas" by saying only 700 were killed, then my reaction is: "Oh, well, that's alright then!" Why must we insist on the complete humanity of all involved on one side and the inhumanity of the other? Does picking sides really mean that we cannot mourn 700 Jewish deaths beside the genocide of Palestinians: even if it is "only" 700 and not over a thousand (and what does that matter actually? does that make "Hamas" more moral assassins?)

[Orwn Acra]

It's not that it is "only" 700, it's that we actually have no idea how many were actually killed by Hamas and not the IDF, since the source is Israel. My comments are to this point exactly.

Israel's insistence on being an ethnostate in which citizenship for non-Jews is extremely difficult if not impossible means that any attack on it will seem like an attack on Jewish people for being Jewish and not because it's an occupying power that refuses Palestinian statehood. Of course there is antisemitism, but look how muddied the waters become when this term is used to label any criticism of Israel. This is another reason why Zionism is antisemitic.

Must I really come out and say I am not in support of Hamas or that I think those killed on October 7th deserved to be mourned? This is always expected of us. But if the people mourning the killed Israelis really wanted there to be an end to bloodshed, they'd realize the Zionist project cannot continue and that so long as it continues there will be attacks on citizens. I don't think the government of Israel even cares about those citizens (it is on record that Israel has funded Hamas in the past) beyond PR optics--it's just the necessary price someone else pays so Israel can continue its settlements.

[Orwn Acra]

(But you are right, Cameron, that Roger and I share a view. It's just not the one you think. The view, expressed implicitly in his comments and explicitly in mine, is that Israel is utterly insane. But he thinks it's foolish of Hamas to not realize Israel would use what is sometimes called the "Samson option" in response to the attack, and I think it's foolish, actually oblivious and stupid, of Israelis to not expect such attacks so long as they deny Palestinians full rights and land.)