Why not apply the #BundyRanch precedent to resistance against US imperialism?

Well, now that the American right-wing has taken on the cause of armed resistance against the US government, how about we globalize that sentiment?

After all, the US government previously decided it had the right to unilaterally invade and occupy the sovereign nation Iraq without just cause, causing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths in the process. So why should Iraqis have refrained from taking up arms and shooting at the jackbooted thugs who served as agents of imperialist aggression? If the right-wing wants to be consistent about this, it should also champion the cause of armed resistance to Israel’s US-funded colonization of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank as well. It has been proven that much of the property Israel is confiscating is privately owned by individual Palestinians. Why the hell shouldn’t Palestinians take up the Bundy doctrine and start shooting at the often armed colonists who illegally occupy it?

So, what do you say American conservatives? How about we internationalize the revolutionary doctrine of Bundyism-Third Worldism and use it against the US empire and US-backed Zionist expansionism?

US Congressmen tour al-Aqsa Mosque compound alongside group founded by Baruch Goldstein supporter

Photo shows Rabbi Chaim Richman of the Temple Institute guiding Representatives Johnson and McKinley on the Temple Mount in February
Photo shows Rabbi Chaim Richman of the Temple Institute guiding Representatives Johnson and McKinley on the Temple Mount in February

Ma’an News Agency, 10 April 2014:

Two members of the US Congress on Thursday joined right-wing Jews who toured the al-Aqsa Mosque compound escorted by Israeli police officers, a Jerusalem-based Fatah official said. Dimitri Daliani told Ma’an that Republicans Bill Johnson of Ohio and David McKinley of Virginia entered the compound with the “extremist” Chaim Richman, director of the rightist Temple Institute.

The Temple Institute was founded by Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, an avid Kahanist and enthusiastic supporter of settler terrorist Baruch Goldstein after he massacred dozens of Palestinians in Hebron.

From Yedioth Ahronoth, 28 February 2014 (translated by Media Matters):

Eulogies were made for a long time in the Shamgar funeral home. Eulogies as a cover for political sermons. Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, who was the Rabbi of Yamit, compared Goldstein to Judah Maccabee and Samson, who killed 30 Philistines. “He was a martyr. And martyrs are above saints and righteous men. Not everyone can stand with them.”

“Baruch Goldstein,” said Rabbi Ariel, “will be our advocate in heaven.” The Rabbi added: “This was not the act of an individual.” According to the Rabbi, Goldstein “heard the cry of the land being stolen every day by the Ishmaelites and acted to quell that cry.” In conclusion, said the Rabbi: “Our land will not be acquired by peace agreements but by blood.”

Perhaps someone should try contacting either of these Congressmen and ask them if terrorist mass murder is something they would like to be associated with:


I make comments

I made a comment in response to the National Review‘s “Paul Ryan is right” editorial:

This article is just the same old “get married; problem solved” bootstraps stuff conservatives have been pushing for the past half-century. Plus “systematic discrimination against black people isn’t the problem because we have a black president,” or something.

It fails to take into account the creation of the inner-city ghetto was a direct result of widespread discrimination in housing and subsidized home loans as well as a failure on the part of the feds to combat such discrimination. It also ignores studies like this one showing that employers are more willing to hire white felons than blacks with a clean record.

There is a legitimate issue with means-tested welfare programs providing a perverse incentive to refrain from working or making more money. The solution is to either ease the means-testing part (which conservatives proposed in the first place anyways) or scrap all cash transfer programs and replace it with one Universal Basic Income program. This way people will be able to afford the basic necessities of life but won’t be penalized for getting a job.

I see some comments here citing MLK as if he were a conservative. They should probably read this 1965 interview with him, wherein he endorses a program that would likely be condemned here as “reparations.”

Just felt like sharing.

New calls to prosecute JDL terrorist assassins being sheltered by Israel

According to the Guardian (15 October 2013), there is a renewed effort on the part of civil rights activists and members of US Congress to pressure the Justice Department to further investigate the 11 October 1985 murder of Palestinian-American activist Alex Odeh by likely members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL). The article neglects to mention the inexcusable role the Israeli government has played in preventing the murderers from being brought to justice.

In November 1987, the Village Voice disclosed the existence of an FBI memo that accused Israeli authorities of hindering the US investigation into a series of domestic bombings allegedly committed by the JDL, including the one that killed Odeh.

The memo said that the Israeli government’s responses to repeated FBI requests for information about JDL suspects now residing in Israel ”have been untimely, incomplete and in certain cases no response was rendered,” the Voice said. [...] According to the Voice, the document it obtained said ”numerous leads have been forwarded through FBI (headquarters) to the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service in Washington. Response to these leads is crucial for the solution of the 25 terrorist incidents and other criminal activity perpetrated by the JDL. ”Lead requests were for telephone subscriber information, criminal background information, arrest records, prison contacts, associates, residence status, and travel documentations.” Although there have been discussions between the Israelis and the Americans, ”no sustained improvement in the flow of information has been released,” the document said. The document said the FBI ”has developed several key suspects, many of whom have fled the United States and sought asylum in Kiryat Arba,” a large Jewish settlement on the West Bank (Associated Press, 18 November 1987; See also: Los Angeles Times, 19 November 1987).

There is also much indication that Israel refuses to extradite the suspected bombers due to widespread support for their terrorist deeds among the Israeli right-wing. According to a Los Angeles Times expose (13 May 1990), the prime suspects have been known to US authorities soon after Odeh was killed:  Keith Fuchs, Andy Green and Robert Manning. All three had a history of terrorist violence in the name of far-right Zionism. Robert Manning was eventually convicted in 1993 for a 1980 mail bombing that killed a secretary at a computer company (Los Angeles Times, 15 October 1993), but was never tried for his alleged involvement in the Odeh assassination.  Keith Fuchs and Andy Green are still believed to be living freely in a West Bank settlement (Los Angeles Times, 11 October 2007).

As Robert I. Friedman, the author of a book about Rabbi Meir Kahane, once put it:

Any attempt to extradite the suspects, the [US] officials fear, would be met in Israel by a firestorm of protest from right-wing legislators. [...] Justice Department sources assert that Israel is still obstructing its investigation. While liberal Israeli politicians familiar with the case concede as much, they hasten to add that this is not out of love for the JDL trio, but because many Israelis view those who slay Arab-American supporters of the Palestine Liberation Organization or alleged Nazis as heroes. That makes Israel’s compliance with an extradition request very difficult (Los Angeles Times, 13 May 1990).

BuzzFeed/Fox News myth of Mexicans getting easy asylum by using “keywords” debunked

Associated Press:

Between Aug. 1 and Aug. 15, the agency said, an average of 30 people per day have arrived at San Diego ports asking for asylum, compared with roughly 170,000 travelers who cross the border there legally each day.

Critics of current immigration reform efforts in Washington have claimed would-be immigrants are using the credible fear claim seeking asylum as a loophole to gain legal entry into the U.S., citing fear of drug cartel violence in Mexico. Immigration experts say the concerns are overstated.
The issue gained new attention last month after a group of nine immigration rights activists presented themselves at the Arizona border in Mexico seeking asylum. After spending several weeks in detention, they have since been released into the U.S. pending hearings before an immigration judge who will make a final decision on whether to grant their requests.

DHS is quick to point out that such requests from Mexican citizens are rarely granted, noting that on average, 91 percent are denied.
In order to win asylum in the United States, an immigrant must to prove he or she is being persecuted because of race, religion, political view, nationality or membership in a particular social group. They also must prove that their government is either part of the persecution or unable or unwilling to protect them.

Immigration lawyers also point out that the bar is extremely high for being granted asylum in the U.S.

“Most people who get these credible fear interviews, even if they pass, it doesn’t mean they’re going to be released,” said David Leopold, an Ohio immigration attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “You could be sitting in detention for months and months until you get your asylum hearing, and then you’re denied and sent back.”

This whole kerfuffle started when a local Fox affiliate reported breathlessly that:

A loophole is allowing hundreds of immigrants across the Mexico border in to the United States. Immigrants are being taught to use “key words and phrases” to be allowed to enter and stay in the country.

The story was then picked up by Buzzfeed (which helpfully included a scary image of brown people carrying personal belongings and walking somewhere) and given further viral exposure:

Unstated in either of these pieces is the incredibly low-rate of successful asylum claims for Mexicans claiming persecution. In most cases, they will rot in immigration detention for a couple of weeks or months and be sent back to Mexico.

Of course, it’s far too late to debunk this lie now. The damage is already done thanks to the right-wing rage peddlers at Fox News and Buzzfeed. We will be hearing about this “story” for years now from easily-outraged, anti-immigration right-wingers who already believe our current president (the one who deported 1.5 million immigrants) is an open borders advocate.

Random thought on the “grievance industry”

In addition to the vile “race hustler” epithet, conservatives have also termed those seeking to undo racial injustice as a “grievance industry.”

Can I ask something? What political interest group in America today isn’t a grievance industry? Everyone has grievances. The so-called “job creators” are allowed to lobby Washington and submit their grievances about what they see as burdensome federal regulations. Anti-abortion activists have a grievance against federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The NRA claims that gun manufacturers and owners have a grievance against legislation Congress attempts to pass in the wake of mass shootings. I could go on forever.

What should matter is whether or not the grievances in question are legitimate. Black people in America face numerous forms of institutional discrimination in employment and housing, a criminal justice system that routinely gives them draconian sentences for relatively minor crimes, rampant police brutality and constant cuts to funding for programs they happen to benefit from. I personally think such grievances are far more legitimate than those from upper-bracket income earners crying about their tax burden.

The term “grievance industry” is an obvious a dog whistle for “black people need to stop complaining so much and suck it up.” The fact is that everybody complains a lot about public and private policies that impact them. It’s simply another rhetorical tool the over-privileged members of the American right use to single out the struggle for racial equality and attack them based on aspects almost all political movements have in common.

Collection of incitements to genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians

Swear to God, if they ever want a Gentile prime minister, my first order would be to deploy the IDF in a north-south line, facing east. My second order would be “forward march” and the order to halt would not be given until it was time for the troops to rinse their bayonets in the Jordan. After a brief rest halt, the order “about face” would be given, and the next halt would be at the Mediterranean coast.

That’s my “Middle East peace plan,” and until it’s carried out, there will be no peace.

Robert Stacy McCain

Honestly, I don’t find the Palestinian people to be the least bit sympathetic. They’re backwards, genocidal, hyper-violent, sad sack Nazi wannabes led by terrorists who would happily murder every Jew on the planet if they could get away with it. Then there are the Israelis. They’re a tiny Western democracy surrounded by backwards savages who want to murder them down to the last child because they’re Jews. Moreover, despite all the claims to the contrary, they’re the most restrained people on earth. If you don’t believe that, consider the fact that they could simply drive the Palestinians off their land and take it at any point, but instead, they’ve chosen to permanently live beside of millions of people who make the Manson family look sane. If the Israelis were somehow replaced by Americans, we’d drive the Palestinians off their land at gunpoint in six months tops — and we’d be perfectly justified in doing so.

John Hawkins

I’ve concluded that the only way this war can be “won” is if most of the Palestinians in Gaza–and the so-called “West Bank,” too, where HAMAS has a lot of support–are decimated, which the world will never allow Israel to do, and which Livni and Barak (and Olmert) don’t have the guts to do.

Debbie Schlussel

Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.

Ben Shapiro

It should now be clear that Israel cannot tolerate a huge Arab population within its borders, so a political decision must be made. [...] Israel should declare its intention to transfer large numbers of its Palestinian residents to Arab nations. [...] Eviction is a better avenue to stability. Will it happen? Probably not. Should it? Yes.

Cal Thomas

The Palestinians are Nazis. Every one of their elected officials are terrorists. [...] The Jews were attacked. They had every right to expel every Arab from both Israel and, when they were attacked in ‘67, from the West Bank.

David Horowitz

The simple answer, instead, would be to create a vast separation from Israel, resettling the Palestinians in Jordan, where 80% of the population already is Palestinian.

Emanuel A. Winston

I am starting to think that [expulsion] might be the best option. [...] When I say “the best option,” I don’t mean “best for the Palestinians”. I don’t think they have any good options. Being Arabs, they are incapable of constructing a rational polity, so their future is probably hopeless whatever happens. Their options are the ones I listed above: to be ruled by gangsters, or Israelis, or Jordanians, or welfare bureaucrats. Or to go live somewhere else, under the gentle rule of their brother Arabs. Would expulsion be hard on the Palestinians? I suppose it would. Would it be any harder than options 1 thru 4? I doubt it. Do I really give a flying falafel one way or the other? No, not really.

John Derbyshire

Dick Armey: I’m content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank. I’m also content to have the Palestinians have a homeland and even for that to be somewhere near Israel, but I’m not content to see Israel give up land for the purpose of peace to the Palestinians who will not accept it and would not honor it. It is time to…

Chris Matthews: Well, where do you put the Palestinian state, in Norway? Once the Israelis take back the West Bank permanently and annex it, there’s no place else for the Palestinians to have a state.

Dick Armey: No, no, that’s not–that’s not at all true. There are many Arab nations that have many hundreds of thousands of acres of land and–and soil and property and opportunity to create a Palestinian state.
Chris Matthews: Well, just to repeat, you believe that the Palestinians who are now living on the West Bank should get out of there?

Dick Armey: Yes.

MSNBC’s Hardball

The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That’s what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic. [...] There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs. Maybe the international community can come together and accommodate.

Mike Huckabee