The Western countries dealt with 'the crime of apartheid' twice already. They didn't accept the 'no impunity' argument. Rather, they agreed to what they call 'truth and reconciliation'. Cops from the apartheid era weren't punished - they would have fought to the death if the ANC had adopted the hardline position.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23...

"James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."

Greenpeace explicitly denies the right to freedom of expression for 'climate change deniers': http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global...

I don't know if it's the greatest scientific fraud in history, but global warming is definitely a dangerous political movement. James Hansen is one of its leaders.

"Evict foreign criminals"... "Anyone who can prove non-participation in the ex-Israeli occupation apparatus... will probably obtain a chance to gain unrestricted Palestinian citizenship"...

Most adult Jewish Israelis have participated in the "occupation apparatus". Nahida's demands imply reverse ethnic cleansing. There is no way the Western countries will support that, so it will never happen. It would be better simply to demand that Western countries follow their own principles and interests, and stop supporting Jewish supremacy. Anyone who was born in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza would have the right to stay there. Others' rights to move there would depend on how long ago their ancestors lived there. This would mean the end of the Jewish state.

Congrats to this mostly left/liberal site for posting a piece by Pat.

If this was about a protest in favor of apartheid in the old South Africa, it would not be entitled "South Africans bay for blood", it would be "White supremacists bay for blood". But because its about Jewish, not white, supremacists, it's entitled "Israelis bay for blood". It should be "Jewish supremacists bay for blood".

Evelyn Burch - are you saying that Israeli war crimes are not Jewish? Are they American, because America sponsors them? Why does America do this? How can you describe comments on an ambiguous lefty rant, diverting attention from Jewish power, as "obsession with all things 'jewish'"?

Greenwald wrote something similar the other day: http://tinyurl.com/b5lq7lz

The problem with his analysis of the USA's relationship to Israel is its glaring ambiguity. In the article referred to above, he does say “the US and Israel converge more than ever before: if not in interests, than certainly in tactics”. Hidden in the middle of a long complaint about the allegedly 'new' tactic of targeted assassinations (admiral Yamamoto would disagree), he hints that perhaps the US and Israel's interests fail to converge.

Whether Israel is a useful tool of Western imperialism, or an albatross round its neck, is the $64,000 question. How you approach stopping the USA's unconditional support for Zionism depends on your answer to this question. If Israel is harmful to US capitalist interests, the leftist approach has to be abandoned. It's not a class issue - it's an issue of an ethnic minority undermining the interests of everyone else, rich and poor.

Saying the USA and the other Western countries support Israel, and that's how it gets away with what it does, is stating the 'bleeding obvious', to use Greenwald's adopted London slang, and avoids the issue. WHY do they support it? Because it defends the oil wells, keeps Arab radicalism in check, holds the line against the Soviets? Does Israel send soldiers to fight for American interests?

No. The West supports Israel because of Jewish power. Palestine solidarity in the West consists of defeating this power.

The Guardian on Petraeus' tart's expose of CIA jail in Libya: http://tinyurl.com/bh2zup6

This doesn't mean it's true

This is the first time I've posted on this site. It seems to contain a good selection of articles and comments.

I agree with Nahida (above). I think Palestine solidarity should not take a position on the Holocaust, nor on who were the perpetrators of atrocities like 9/11. These are open questions. One should aggressively defend the freedom of speech of "Holocaust deniers" and "9/11 truthers", because Jewish supremacists who have infiltrated Palestine solidarity want to suppress that freedom. But it is important not to fall into the opposite error of making agreement with these conspiracy theories mandatory.

This is the first time I've posted on this site. It seems to contain a good selection of articles and comments.

I agree with Nahida (above). I think Palestine solidarity should not take a position on the Holocaust, nor on who were the perpetrators of atrocities like 9/11. These are open questions. One should aggressively defend the freedom of speech of "Holocaust deniers" and "9/11 truthers", because Jewish supremacists who have infiltrated Palestine solidarity want to suppress that freedom. But it is important not to fall into the opposite error of making agreement with these conspiracy theories mandatory.