#Free Palestine from both Likud and Hamas

[blackcur-rants]

@noa-nightingale @strangesmallbard @carcosa-commune @cynicalclassicist

Just to be clear, I don’t think Jessie is a stupid person, far from it, in fact. She is a very smart, well-spoken person in all of her videos that I’ve seen.

However, what I do think is going on with her and this video is that she, like a lot of Leftists and Liberals across the internet, is suffering from what I like to call Star Wars Derangement Syndrome, a phenomenon which I will illustrate below:

Tumblr Jews: Calmly and logically explaining why the Jewish people felt the need to establish a nation state in their ancestral homeland after every other option had been exhausted and how Hamas cares more about destroying Israelis than saving fellow Palestinians

Tumblr Goyim: Oh I get it! Hamas is basically the Rebel Alliance and Israel is basically the Galactic Empire! 

Basically, Jessie is someone who, like a lot of online Leftists and Liberals, gets her politics less from reading actual philosophy and history books and more from her engagement with movies, TV shows, cartoons, comic books, anime, and/or video games. As a result of this, she tends to filter her thoughts and opinions on these complex phenomena like the Israel-Palestine Crisis through a lens of the pop culture she���s absorbed throughout her life + whatever history they vaguely remember from middle school and/or high school and/or poorly sourced, poorly worded Tumblr posts. And quite frankly, Americans of all political stripes have a bad tendency to see morality as a team sport where there’s a Good Team who only ever does Good Things and an Evil Team who only ever does Evil Things. And as far as they are concerned, the Western Powers like Israel and the United States and the United Kingdom are the Evil Team and the Third World is the oppressed Good Team who are a band of scrappy rebels fighting back against The Big Scary Evil Imperial Powers (let’s just ignore that Hamas is a billionaire-led organisation funded by a nuclear power in the form of Iran and the very wealthy nation of Qatar). And everyone is either on one side or the other. Like, you’ll notice she doesn’t specify what Ira Steven Baehr’s specific objections to Jonathan Glazer’s speech actually were, right? Like, it could have been as simple as “Don’t compare the Holocaust to the Palestinian Crisis, especially because part of what made the Holocaust so unspeakably horrific is that it was a mindless Genocide For Genocide’s Sake against populations that posed no threat to either the German People or the German State, whilst Hamas actually does and has done all manner of horrific shit, and the Palestinian War going on currently is horrific because innocent people who are already subject to all sorts of atrocities by their own government are now being subjected to even more atrocities from a foreign government and thus are suffering under two unspeakably awful authoritarian regimes”. I severely doubt a guy like Ira Steven Baehr is going to write that “Actually, Netanyahu and Likud dropping White Phosphorus on residential neighbourhoods and drone striking babies in hospitals is Great! It’s exactly what Mosheh and Eliyahu would have wanted in the Tanakh! How dare you question our Torah, Mister Uncomfortable Dramas with Great Sound Design! You just don’t get it, you villainous boged, you!”.

*Beleaguered sigh* I really hope that Jessie’s upcoming video that she’s releasing later this week lets her speak in a more nuanced manner about these issues and shows a more complex and whole understanding of all of these issues.

@dachi-chan25 @disregardcanon

Okay I... am maybe not the best person to talk about this but I have serious problems with Jessie Gender's new video, When Your Favorite Creator Turns Out to Be Zionist.

Let me first say - I like Jessie Gender. I watched many of her videos and I think she has a lot of very interesting, moving, important things to say about topics like queerness, humanity and such.

But this video just... irked me.

I do not like how she talks about Zionists and Zionism. I have seen how the word Zionist is used against Jewish people. I am not the best person to put it into words but I do not like it when it is used as an insult or implied to be inherently a bad thing.

She seems to use it to mean "person who supports Israel's actions" (implied to support what she calls a genocide throughout the video) and that... is not right.

There are other issues I have as well with the video, like comparing the I/P situation to the Holocaust. There are more things but I am honestly not qualified to speak on them.

Before someone accused me of "supporting a genocide" - I do not. I wish for peace and safety for Palestinians AND Israelis. (And since I have been called a Zionist in the past - I do not consider myself to be one.)

I am just generally disappointed by a creator I like tbh.

I don't think I got my thoughts across very well. I'll be on the lookout for posts made by Jewish people about this video.

[jisreal64]

Hot take:

But a one state solution under either country is a HORRIBLE IDEA!!! If it’s a one state solution under Palestine, then it will be a full dictatorship akin to Iran and Saudi Arabia that oppresses women, queer people, and Jews; and any Israeli that refuses to leave will either be moved by force, arrested, or executed. Meanwhile, a one state solution under Israel will result in a democratic oligarchy that can only be described as a three way mixture between Russia, South Africa, and India, where although the majority will be treated decently, Palestinians who refuse to move to Egypt or Jordan will either be treated almost like lower class citizens, or they will be forcefully deported like Texan border patrol officers and ICE Agents forcefully deporting Latino Immigrants. So yeah, I think that the only way we can go through this is with a peaceful two state solution with a heavy emphasis on human rights, both sides being held accountable for war crimes, and both countries being full time members of the UN. I just don’t want either country being abolished, and it doesn’t help that there is war crimes and misinformation being spread on both sides. Please, just pray for peace, freedom, coexistence, and solidarity. 🇮🇱❤️🇵🇸🕊️

[sethshead]

To free Palestine from Israel, first we must free Palestine from Hamas. Hamas is a force that abuses and oppresses Palestinians. It murders, tortures, and disappears dissenters, opponents, LGBTQ, civil rights and peace activists, and anyone who resists its power, including respected Islamic clerics. It allows women few rights save to be the brood mares for more shuhada. It steals food donations and resells them at inflated prices to the rich, provokes Israel only to then hide behind civilians, and denies civilians anyplace to hide. Hamas is a death cult. A Palestine under its rule, whether within the pre-‘67 borders or from the river to the sea, would be a violent, criminal, gangster failed state.

Yes, Israeli leadership must also change. Likud has never been willing to part with “Judea and Samaria”, no matter how much grief that causes Israelis within the pre-‘67 borders. Netanyahu has been a consummate bad-faith actor, and even the country’s more dovish leaders have still wanted to manipulate the “facts on the ground” to make final negotiations more advantageous to Israel. It is certainly past time for Israel to stop playing games with the futures of two peoples. But Likud can be and has been voted out. The same is not true of Hamas.

I accept that Hamza Howidy is not necessarily representative of the Palestinian electorate. I do not tokenize him; I simply agree with is observations and conclusions. Though most Palestinians do still demand a river-to-sea state or “right of return” (which in practical terms amount to the same thing), Howidy recognizes the obvious. Israel is going nowhere, nor are the Palestinians. Jews and Palestinian Arabs have connections to the land. Each possesses a kind of indigeneity and a right to self-determination in the land of their national origin, whenever that was. Neither wishes to live under the rule of the other.

Any one-state solution is foolhardy, an invitation to further conflict and bloodshed. None who desire that can legitimately be called a friend to Palestinians or Israelis. Recognizing the legitimacy of both of our national aspirations and finding a way to bring us together as neighboring states in respectful peace is the only thing that could remotely be called a victory for either side. If you and all your chants, slogans, rhetoric, and demands do not amount to that, you are doing more harm than good to both peoples.

[mariacallous]

These are different situations in a lot of ways ofc but I've seen the argument made on twitter that the far left is doing the same kinda damage to the free palestine movement that they did to police reform with defund the police/abolish prison rhetoric. They're taking the most extreme stance with 'from the river to the sea' and defending Hamas and ripping down hostage posters and that could turn off moderate people in the same way 'abolish' turned people away from real discussions being had post George Floyd. I just wonder come a year from now when it's time for 2024, what the general public will think of all this rhetoric + Biden's take on the war. What do you think?

I think there’s some validity to that, tbh. I think that when it comes to I/P, people tend to be more vociferous and polarized as they try to “show support” or “advocate”, in a way that isn’t helpful to anyone involved. There is almost no other issue that triggers people’s berserk buttons quite like this topic, to say nothing of the conspiracy and aggressive thinking that comes along with it.

You also get some of the worst people involved being the loudest, which doesn’t help either.

You would think some of the core issues at stake would be universally agreed upon - civilians shouldn’t be targeted, Palestinians have been suffering for a while and deserve rights and freedoms and their own territory (just like Israelis have), and the situation is complicated and has not been handled well by basically everyone - and yet so many people apparently don’t see it that way.

There’s also this zero-sum mentality, where if you acknowledge the atrocity on 10/7 and what was involved, you’re automatically denigrating and ignoring the mistreatment of Palestinians, and vice versa.

The Palestinians have suffered in many ways, and one of those has been to have some of the worst fucking “advocates” in the west and elsewhere.

Rigid thinking, like rigid nationalist ethnostates, helps no one, but people like both of those things.

I’ve said before that people will rhetorically and otherwise use the pro-Palestinian cause to boost themselves and attack Israel and Jews, while doing nothing to actually help the Palestinian people. So much effort has been spent in vanity projects and ineffective campaigns that could and should have been used more successfully elsewhere.

And all of this plays into the hands of people on the right, both in the US and Israel, plays into the hands of “Zionists”, plus into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran, and makes real progress much harder.

Fundamentally, the only viable choice is a two-state solution, with freedom of movement. Fundamentally, 10/7 should be a permanent disqualifying failure and shame for Likud and the other parties in Netanyahu’s government.

[petrified-aspen]

Been hearing a lot of people parroting the propagandized idea that "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!" is an inherently anti-semitic slogan. Immediately upon hearing it, this stinks of anti-Palestinian bias; only the worst faith interpretation of the phrase possible could be taken as even slightly problematic, and I doubt Columbia student protestors mean it in that bad of faith.

But there is a specific assertion that I found particularly fishy:

(if you harass this person, i will be disappointed in you. Feel free to block though.)

This is a big claim: That the phrase originally called for Arabic supremacy over the land, and by saying a 'translated version' of it that has a completely different literal meaning, you are also calling for Arabic supremacy and the ethnic cleansing of Jews. If this is true, this could mean there are violent anti-Semites at your child's school, revolting in support of a new anti-Semitic state! Gasp!

Wait, wait, slow down, don't get wound up so quick! before we act on what we just heard and repost it without a second thought, let's look into it and find a source that isn't complete conjecture from a Tumblr blog!

There's an easy place to start: Wikipedia. I know, I know, you shouldn't cite it in your essay, but it might have some sources that are useful for us! Okay, scrolling.. perfect, a blurb detailing exactly how it was used in the 60's!

Okay, so immediately, we have an example of a pro-Palestinian organization, which predates Hamas, using the phrase to mean something completely different from what the commenter claimed. Now, they would probably wrinkle their nose at the original intent, the "call for an Arab state", and interpret it to be a call for ethnic cleansing. I would like to point out, though, that Zionists have been calling for a Jewish state encompassing Mandatory Palestine for, like, a century (more on that later). Knowing this, it's complete hypocrisy to wrinkle your nose at the implied call the PLO once made while turning the other cheek at Zionist rhetoric which says functionally the same thing. This hypocrisy is made even more obvious by the PLO's revised usage of the term.

See, if you actually wanted to engage with pro-Palestinian protestors in good faith on this topic, you would reasonably assume that the students at Columbia mean the phrase as a call for an Arabic and Jewish state. At the VERY least, you would entertain the idea that they are just as likely to be benign as they are likely to be ideologically aligned with Hamas.

But let's see what the article that Wikipedia cites has to say, just because I'm curious.

Here is a paragraph from page 77 of "From the River to the Sea to Every Mountain Top" by Robin D. G. Kelley:

Turns out, slandering people for their benign use of the phrase "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free" is nothing new, having occurred when Marc Lamont Hill used the phrase in a speech to the UN in 2018. Just a reminder of exactly how deep and how far back these lies run.

The article goes on to identify the ACTUAL origin of the phrase--and what do you know, it isn't Palestinian! In fact, it isn't even Arabic:

"First, the odious phrase in question began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel. The Likud Party’s founding charter reinforces this vision in its statement that 'between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.'" (Kelley, 78).

The hypocrisy deepens. Not only does "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free" not have anti-Semitic roots, it has Israeli supremacist origins, and was appropriated into a rallying cry for solidarity by the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

"But Hamas is still using it in an anti-semitic way, and you shouldn't contribute to that," you might say. I'm glad you did, because it begs the question; why do Hamas and the PLO have such different ideologies, despite both fighting for Palestinian liberation? Why don't resistance fighters in Gaza align with the PLO rather than with Hamas?

Well, Hamas is really the only group with the funding, equipment, and ranks able to put up an organized resistance against the Israeli attacks on Gaza. There's a very specific reason why; the organization that would become Hamas, as Andrew Higgins wrote in WSJ, was influenced heavily by Israel:

TL;DR: Israeli government officials with jurisdiction over Gaza promoted the development of charities that would fund and build the foundation for Hamas, all because Hamas' right-wing militancy made them an enemy of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Fatah.

So let me get this straight. Zionists created an Israeli-supremacist slogan, a leftist pro-Palestinian organization (and generations of pro-Palestinian activists afterwards, including Angela Davis) appropriated it to be a rallying cry that promotes cross-cultural and ethnic solidarity, then the Israeli state propped up an anti-semitic group who then re-appropriated the phrase, and now there are politicians, journalists, and likely members of your community spreading lies about the meaning of the phrase to slander a humanitarian movement as anti-Semitic. Did I get everything?

This is what we mean when we say that Zionist propaganda manufactures accusations of anti-semitism to rally more people to their ultimately genocidal cause. All I had to do was open two Wikipedia articles to find evidence of a decades-long effort to project every flaw of Zionism, in all of its senseless violence, onto Palestinians. It took FIVE MINUTES for me to think critically, do a bit of research, and come away from this a more educated person.

I don't doubt that many of the people who are raising the alarm about anti-Semitism in the Palestinian liberation movement are acting in good faith. As a Jewish person, I am grateful for any legitimate, moral defense of my culture. But if you aren't willing to put the work in to analyze if what you're reading (and repeating) is actually true, then you will only harm the movement in the long run; at best, you're depriving yourself of crucial tools for solidarity, such as this rallying cry. At worst, you're slandering people and and risking their livelihoods and their safety.

Here's my citations, I highly recommend you check them out:

Oh, and I almost forgot: From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26873236

[eretzyisrael]

Hamas flags have been seen on the streets of London, Hezbollah flags have been seen on the streets of London, Al Qaeda flags have been seen on the streets of London, ISIS flags have been seen on the streets of London, Islamic Jihad flags have been seen on the streets of London, Boko Haram flags have been seen on the streets of London. We are hearing calls for Jihad and chants of 'from the river to the sea', 'free Palestine' and worse, making the Jewish population of this great city, which prides itself on its diversity and tolerance, feel extremely uncomfortable.

Both free speech and freedom of expression are vital components of any democracy. What we are seeing and hearing right now are neither - these haters have crossed the line.

Likud Herut UK

[undefeatednils]

The Israeli counterattack on Gaza just drains me.

So much suffering, on both sides. Jewish families learning of the fates of their missing relatives, Palestinians fearing that today might be their last day, children in Gaza experiencing yet another war, this time the most destructive one in decades...

And in the meantime, propaganda of the worst kind. People celebrating the monsters at Hamas are terrible. As are those who instrumentalize the pain Israelis face to justify attacks on any group that shows any sympathy for Palestine and Palestinians.

There are only two genuine solutions to this pain and suffering in the long term. I sincerely believe that. Those are either a two-state solution that aims to create a viable Palestinian state that exists alongside Israel using roughly 1967 borders, or a secular, binational state with the explicit right to return for Palestinians and a constitution that firmly protects minority rights with an eternity clause. Remigration of Jews out of the region should, in my opinion, not even be a suggestion.

Still, the loudest voices are the ones that explicitly align themselves with extremes. Those who claim that Palestinian Arabs have lost the right to statehood, the right to not live under apartheid for even more decades. And those who don't see Israeli lives as worthwhile. Who dismiss even the dead of the kibbutzim, who are among the strongest and fervent advocates for peace in Israel, as mere colonizers who deserve the worst.

Here in Germany, where the media is unnecessarily kind to the perspective of Israeli right-wingers, good people are now turning into hardliners that see anything but absolute loyalty to the IDF and Likud as antisemitism of the worst degree. Even if comes from Jews. Even if it comes from Israeli Jews. It's sickening.

I'm leaving this untagged to make it harder to find. Thank the hellsite for having a bad search system. Ultimately, I just want people to live without fear. And despair breeds violence. And violence begets violence.

That cycle must be broken. And Israel has been responsible for keeping the wheel turning. I just hope that there will be change for the better.

Free Palestine. And safety for Jews.

Never again.

[winterthebeau]

Is it wrong that I support a peaceful two state solution between Israel and Palestine instead of a one state solution under Palestine? Don’t get me wrong, I think a lot of the people in the Israeli government are no better than groups like Hamas, but most of the whole “death to Palestine” stuff comes from a conservative Republican-style party called Likud. I believe that there should be a ceasefire between the two countries and that both Hamas and Likud should be abolished, and I feel like a one state solution under either country would result in genocide and oppression from each government (in the case of Israel it would be discrimination against Palestinians and Muslims, and in the case of Palestine it would be discrimination against Jews and Queer people). One final thing is that many people are who support the free Palestine movement because of the war and genocide towards Palestinians don’t care about similar issues like the Syrian Civil War, a war that has lasted for over 10 years where both people who want to overthrow a dictatorship and install a democracy as well as civilians are being bombed by both Syria and Russia.

Yeah, you very much are wrong. It doesnt matter if "only" the conservatives hate Palestinians (which very much isn't true), Israel is a settler colony, and they've been committing different stages of genocide against Palestinians for 70 years, ever since their founding. Hamas only exists to resist this genocide, and Palestine doesn't need to be "freed" from them. Plenty of people care about the Syrian civil war and the Ukraine war, but those aren't the focus at the moment. Stop trying to play down what's happening in Gaza and the west bank.

[fromchaostocosmos]

Genocide is bad. Palestinians are human beings. Free Palestine

The implication of this message is that I think Genocide is good and I don't think Palestinians are human beings.

I would love to say that am confused, surprised, or baffled my this message, but I'm not.

Not because I said anything that would give anyone the impression that I am guilty of what you are accusing me of. But rather I think you sent this message me to me because I'm Jewish and specifically because I'm one of the "Bad Jews".

I'm not one a Jew you can weaponize against other Jews.

In any posts of mine or ones the I have reblogged where I added to them and I talk about Palestinians I am always very clear on the fact they are people.

People like me, like you, like everyone else and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect as a our fellow humans. That when it comes to their experiences and wants we need to listen to them and not speak over them.

I do my best to speak about Palestinians in a way that gives them agency and does not treat them like a monolith.

I think I have also made my stance very clear in regards to this war and what has been going on. While I do not think it qualifies as a genocide what is happening are very much war crimes.

War crimes that committed by both the Israeli government and by Hamas.

I look forward to the day Benjamin Netanyahu pays for his many crimes and when the Likud party no longer has a strangle hold on the Israeli government.

I do not see how sending a message like this helps the Palestine people.

If you want to help in a real and meaningful way here is a post with a list of multiple charities you can choose from to donate to, if you can afford to so, that will help Palestinians in a real tangible way. Rather then you know sending harassing messages anonymously to Jewish people online.

[volja4ua]

Hello, I hope you're doing well.. My name is Mahmoud, and I'm a 17-year-old from Gaza. The ongoing war has devastated my city, destroyed my school, and made daily life incredibly challenging. Despite these hardships, I'm determined to continue my education and build a better future. I've been given a chance to study abroad, but I need help to cover the costs of leaving Gaza, as well as living expenses and other essentials abroad once the crossing opens. If you can, please consider donating or sharing, your kindness can truly make a difference. Thank you. https://gofund.me/bd3ccf0b

Hello Mahmoud! I don’t have any money, but I will definitely implore anyone who happens to read this to give. I’m just a random tumblr user, probably nobody is going to see this, but your cause is a noble one.

Since this is a Palestine related post I’d just like to clarify my position on Israel/Palestine. I stand not with Israel or Palestine, but with the peace-loving people of both nations. Hamas and Likud are the same. Israeli terrorists (what else am I supposed to call people who kill children for political reasons) ought to be treated the same way as Palestinian terrorists. Like the activist John Aziz, I want to see a day when Palestine is an independent nation, participates in global competition, wins awards for music and food and sports, and otherwise is known for things not related to war. It might seem idealistic and naïve, but I believe in this vision of Gaza. I’m not going to compromise on what I know to be true (killing children is wrong) for some sort of moral expediency.

I’d like to clear up one last thing. Just because I talk about Israel/Palestine less than Russia/Ukraine doesn’t mean I care less about Palestinian suffering. The truth is, RU/UA is probably more fixable. Just give UA weapons and let them into NATO. On the other hand Israel/Palestine can’t be solved by just giving one side more weapons, that would end with genocide of one side or the other. The only solution is peace, and that’s a lot harder. Plus, it’s the Middle East! There’s a reason ‘peace in the middle east” is listed in the same breath as “curing cancer”. So in short, all victims of war and displacement have equal dignity. But in triage, you have to prioritize. When two patients are equally sick, you choose the one who can be cured faster. I wish you luck, Mahmoud, on all of your endeavors. Free Palestine.

[stephenjaymorrisblog]

Right Wing Lies About Anti-Semitism

Stephen Jay Morris

5/2/2024

©Scientific Morality

Here is a supposition for all of you: Suppose I was Anti-American. I was opposed to the foreign policy of the good old USA. Would that make me anti-White? Would that make me anti-Christian? Of course not! Suppose I said that O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder? Would that make me racist? Hell, no! Just because I oppose the Prime minister of Israel and his Likud Party doesn’t mean I hate Jews, or even Israel.

The Goyim of the American Right are draykopfs.  They have no comprehension of the Jewish people’s history. They only see Israel as a Middle East foothold of American Imperialism. Members of the Zoomer Left refer to Israel’s supporters as Zionists. Wrong! Do you realize how many denominations of Zionism there are? First, the word, “Zionism,” is Hebrew for “nationalism.” There are different types of Zionism. For one, there is Socialist Zionism, under which Jews live in Kubutz, a commune. Also, Israel would then live a under a socialist economy. Then there is Liberal Zionism, wherein the politics are almost the same as those of American Democrats. I won’t list all of them here.

Here is the culprit of today’s Israel. Ze’ev Jabotinsky was the founder and leader of the Revisionist Zionist. He was not just a theorist of Zionism; he was also an activist. In 1930’s he went to Germany to warn German Jews to pack up and get themselves to Palestine. They laughed at him! He was told, “This is Germany! Nothing bad could happen to us.” Well, six million dead Jews later, he was proven correct. Gentiles really hated Jews. Years later, in 1973, the Likud Party was founded. They had plans for Israel, including eliminating all vestiges of Socialism and creating a capitalist Israel. There is unspoken racism by Ashkenazi Jews (White Jews) against Sephardic Jews (Brown Jews). Out of the 14 prime ministers Israel had at the time, only two were Sephardic. Sephardic Jews are the workers and soldiers of Israel. The Ashkenazi Jews run the country. The Arabs are second-class citizens.

The grand plan of the Likud Party is to make Israel a pure Jewish State. The Arabs would have to leave. Currently, Israel is a secular democracy, but the Likud Party would like to change that to a Theocratic state. They tried to abolish Israel’s Supreme Court, but Israelis went apeshit and took to the streets. The Likud Party wants to abolish the Prime Minister’s office and install a lifelong dictator. Plus, they want to expand Israel’s territory. Gaza is a pushover, as is the West Bank. Taking land away from Jordan is next on the agenda. Maybe after that, it’s Iran?

Israel has bought off American politicians—both Democrats and Republicans—with money. Lots of it. This explains President Biden’s loyalty to Israel. And let’s not forget Trump. He is also owned. Benny yahoo would rather deal with Trump than Biden, since Trump is easily swayed by gifts and money and, lest we forget, compliments.

Now let’s get to the accusation of Antisemitism of the Zoomer Left. It is an erroneous accusation, if not outright dog shit! No Jewish college student is afraid for their life because of anti-war protestors. First, that assumption is Antisemitic in itself. It portrays Jewish students as weaklings who need protection from groups of students who are outraged by the genocide in Gaza. Plus, a lot of Jews are themselves demonstrating alongside the Free Palestine coalition. Now, here’s the kicker: Most of the Left are anti-religion. They dislike theocracy of any type, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Islamic. Hamas is a religious Right terrorist group. They hate the left! There used to be a Palestine Communist Party, but Hamas destroyed them. Hamas not only hates Jews, but all “infidels.”

Are the Christians in colleges threatened? Shit, no!  The Free Palestine movement does not support Hamas. If anybody tells you otherwise, they have been paid to lie, to alarm you, or are completely ignorant! So, the Jews in college have nothing to fear.

Tell me I am wrong.

[sethshead]

“We are in a world with just two options,” Green declared at one point. Either an “endless war, an endless cycle of blood,” or an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement. And to give that second option a chance, he and Abed both are bringing a critical message to progressives in America: The zero-sum game of competing oppressions, of competing unilateral claims to justice, is doomed. Green was vociferous on this point. “The whole of Israeli society is being completely overlooked” in the global debate over the war, he said. “And no one is going anywhere. The only question that needs to be asked is how we can live together.”

People like him in Israel are very aware of how the left here is talking about them, and it’s not helping. “You can call me a colonizer or a settler,” he declared, “but I’m not going anywhere. And neither are the Palestinians.” When people chant, “Palestine will be free,” he said, “we Israelis hear, ‘without you.’ In the same way that a lot of Palestinians hear the ministers in Bibi’s government speak and think they want to do the same thing to them.” The problem as they both see it is that we are caught between two polar opposites. “Hamas believes in Greater Palestine,” Green said. “And on the other side we have people who believe in the idea of Greater Israel.” Indeed, that concept is in the charter of Netanyahu’s Likud Party. “Both sides have very problematic governing bodies,” he added. And the status quo of maintaining the occupation and managing the conflict has been exploded now.

[…]

Abed gathered herself. “Other than proving you are more right, what is your mission?” Abed asked of the Palestine solidarity movement. “If it’s not helping, then shut the fuck up.” She went on, “The damage it is doing to our work; it’s fueling so much hate.” In her view, the more shrill the language deployed against Israeli policies or the country itself, the more hardliners in the government and in public opinion are strengthened. “The global left has to be synced with what we need. Holding a sign with the Israeli flag in a garbage can—how does that help at all? Other than making you feel righteous. It’s heartbreaking to me how distant I feel from Palestinian-Americans here.”

Standing Together is several clicks left of me overall, but in terms of ending conflict and creating a space in which two peoples (or more) can thrive, I stand with Abed and Green.

I will say this for the thousand and first time: Israel and Palestine cannot be a zero-sum game if either people want freedom. All of the fashionable rhetoric that delegitimizes Israel or frames Zionism as inherently and uniquely racist, violent, colonialist, etc., won’t help to bring about Palestine or improve the lives of Arab Israelis. No faith in the miracle of ‘67, in the inextricability of Judea and Samaria from Israel will bring Israelis security and calm.

The path of “managing the conflict” has been proved unsustainable. The only other option is engagement, compromise, and peace. The alternative is to throw away lives and potential, and that is to no one’s benefit.

[jacobsvoice]

The New York Times, Zionism and Israel

(September 13, 2022 / JNS) Nearly a century ago, The New York Times hired Joseph W. Levy, who had spent his boyhood in Jerusalem, as its foreign correspondent in Palestine. Fascinated with archeological discoveries that affirmed the truth of the biblical narrative, Levy admired Zionist land development and the newly founded Hebrew University. He enthusiastically embraced the Zionist narrative of a previously barren land suddenly “flowing with milk and honey.” He admired “the new type of Jew” who was “a member of the chosen people, once again a free citizen in his ancestral homeland.”

The eruption of murderous Arab violence in 1929—when Jews were slaughtered in their ancient capital cities of Hebron and Jerusalem—shocked Levy. Nevertheless, he blamed Zionists for their failure to establish “friendly relationships and cooperation” with local Arabs. His evident anti-Zionist bias would remain the hallmark of Times coverage of Palestine, and eventually, Israel.

Jewish statehood was staunchly opposed by the Times, lest it compromise the loyalty of American Jews to their home country. Publisher Adolph Ochs, a committed Reform Jew, insisted that Judaism was a religion only, not a national identity. His Sulzberger family successors embraced his discomfort with Zionism and the idea, no less reality, of Jewish statehood.

The birth of the modern-day State of Israel has remained problematic for the Times ever since. It became evident once Thomas L. Friedman was appointed Jerusalem bureau chief in 1984. He was an unrelenting critic of Israel for its “occupation” of Jordan’s West Bank—biblical Judea and Samaria. Jewish settlers were repeatedly blamed for obstructing peace with Palestinians, who showed no sign of wanting it.

Returning to Washington in 1988, Friedman’s newly published From Beirut to Jerusalem emphasized Israel’s occupation of “Palestinian” land, leading to its moral decline. He celebrated the emergence of Palestinians as a “people,” absurdly identifying their violent intifada with the American struggle for civil rights and equating Jewish settlers with Palestinian suicide bombers.

Several Jewish Jerusalem bureau chiefs followed in Friedman’s footsteps. Serge Schmemann blamed “the bellicose settlers of Hebron” for the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a resident of a Tel Aviv suburb. After a Likud election victory, Joel Brinkley warned of “a right-wing theocracy.” Steven Erlanger blamed Israeli governments for failing to confront “extreme and ideological” settlers, who he equated with Hamas.

Jodi Rudoren, who grew up in an Orthodox family, focused on Israeli responsibility for Palestinian suffering. Following the murder of three rabbis in a Jerusalem synagogue, she blamed “extremists on both sides.” A Times editorial described it as “a tragedy for all Israelis and Palestinians.”

Times Jewish columnists have been incessantly critical of Israel. Roger Cohen warned that it “cannot remain a Jewish and democratic state” with its “undemocratic system of oppression in territory under its control, … inflicting on disenchanted Palestinians the very exclusion Jews lived” for centuries. Its “corrosive business of occupation” and “messianic religious Greater Israel nationalism” threatened democracy.

No columnist lacerated Israeli settlements more persistently than Anthony Lewis. Identifying himself as a “friend of Israel,” he equated Israeli “occupation” (of its biblical homeland) by “Jewish zealots” with South African apartheid. Settlement, he asserted, “mocks the tradition of Jews as a people of law.”

Echoing Lewis’s absurd analogy Friedman feared that “scary religious nationalist zealots” might lead Israel into the “dark corner” of a “South African future.”

Friedman has remained an unrelenting critic of Israel. He yearns for a “two-state” solution with Palestine occupying biblical Judea and Samaria. Otherwise, Israel will “be stuck with an apartheid-like, democracy-sapping” occupation. He believes that his repetitive castigation of Israel helps it to preserve its moral integrity. In fact, it reinforces his stature as the most unrelenting Times critic since Joseph Levy paved the way nearly a century ago.

How ironic that a newspaper with Jewish publishers for nearly a century that has employed a stream of Jewish reporters, Jerusalem bureau chiefs and columnists should engage in unrelenting criticism of the world’s only Jewish state.

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of 12 books, including “Print to Fit: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel (1896-2016).”

[lem0nademouth]

you said to correct you if you’re wrong. so I will.

what does anyone actually mean when they say “Free Palestine”? i mean that genuinely. because it changes meaning person to person it seems. personally, when I say “Free Palestine”, I mean “free Palestinians from Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, IRI + Qatari manipulation, the Likud, and tokenization by the West”. i mean treat Palestinians like human beings because they are human beings. i mean make both Israel and Palestine safe for both populations to live in and travel between.

unfortunately, most Western Leftists don’t mean that. the underlying default message of “Free Palestine” is “demolish Israel as a state, reestavlish Palestinian sovereignty over Israeli land, and remove Jews from it”. i get that seems like a big jump. it’s not.

recently “from the river to the sea…” was declared hate speech. why? because at its core, it is a call to mass exile at the very least and full blown genocide at worst.

the river in question is the Jordan River, which acts as a natural border between Eastern Israel and Jordan. it’s the easternmost border of Israel.

the sea in question is the Mediterranean Sea. Western Israel and Gaza sit on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. it is the westernmost border of Israel.

to “Free Palestine” from “the river to the sea” is to fully reestablish a Palestinian state on any and all land that is currently Israel. and let’s entertain the idea that some people earnestly believe this isn’t a bad thing, they genuinely believe Jews would be safe in Palestine.

they won’t. they never have been.

ever since the land of Judea, now known as Israel and Palestine, was conquered by the Romans and renamed Syria Palestinia, Jews have not been safe in their Indigenous land. dhimmi laws are the longest lasting example of systemic antisemitism in the Levant, but it goes far beyond that. until the establishment of Israeli statehood, Jews were being exiled, massacred, displaced, harassed, alienated, and discriminated against.

“peaceful and cooperative cohabitation” has been rejected by the Palestinian government several times, actually. the original proposal from the Palestinian government was to move Jews into ghettos and call it autonomous Jewish land. i wish i were joking.

and while we’re here, the non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel include but are not limited to: Samaritans, Druzim, Bedouin Muslims, Copts, Assyrians, Palestinian asylum seekers, Arameans, Circassians, Arabs from across SWANA, and Armenians.

aside from the fact that dismantling Israel would be a wild act of colonialism, it would also put half the world’s Jewish population in very real, very immediate danger.

a troublingly significant amount of Western Leftists champion “Free Palestine” as a campaign to free Palestine and Israel of Jews, establish all Israeli land as Palestinian, and then, presumably, revel in their victory. they have no plans for a sustainable government system or how to remove Hamas and PLO ally groups from power. they have no resettlement plans. no ideas for how to reconfigure infrastructure. there aren’t any actual plans for what to do in this utopia where Palestine is “free” because the goal is met when the Jews are gone. this version of a “free” Palestine requires nothing more than the dismantling of Israel and removal of Jews. what it lacks is a plan for how to actually help Palestinians.

Russia, 1881: We’re gonna kill any Jew that doesn’t flee Russia. We’re restricting Jewish emigration to Europe, but permitting emigration to the Middle East.

Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Slovakia, Croatia, France, and others, 1933-1945: We’re gonna kill every Jew in Europe. Flee to the US or Palestine, or die trying.

The US, 1927-1952: Yeah sorry we’re restricting Jewish immigrants to like. 300 people per country. So good luck getting in. We recommend that Jews go to Palestine instead. Btw we are looking to take in Nazi scientists if you know any

Egypt, 1947-1950: We’re rounding up all our Jews and deporting them to Israel

Iraq, 1951-1952: We’re rounding up all our Jews and deporting them to Israel

Algeria, 1962-1965: We’re pressuring and intimidating Jews in the hopes that they’ll all leave the country and go to Israel

Egypt, 1956: We’re rounding up all our Jews and deporting them to Israel (again)

Egypt and Libya, 1967: We’re rounding up, torturing, and killing all our Jews. The ones that survive can flee to Israel

Poland, 1968: The Jews in our country are already loyal to Israel. They will face dire consequences if they don’t leave our country and go to Israel

Ethiopia, 1974-1985: We’re going to marginalize and eventually try to kill all our Jews, and the only way they can escape is by being airlifted out of the country by Israeli helicopters

The US, 2023: Why can’t the Israeli Jews just go back to where they came from? Don’t they all have dual citizenship or whatever?

[thisdaynews]

OPINION | Netanyahu’s Exit Won’t Jump-Start a Peace Deal

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/opinion-netanyahus-exit-wont-jump-start-a-peace-deal/

OPINION | Netanyahu’s Exit Won’t Jump-Start a Peace Deal

This is true no matter if the election’s outcome is a National Unity Government composed of Likud (minus Netanyahu) and Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party, or a narrower coalition formed by Gantz. There could be ameliorations, of course. A Gantz-led government in particular might seek to improve living conditions in the West Bank, slow down the pace of settlement construction outside of the major settlement blocs and avoid some of its predecessor’s most provocative desires such as formal annexation of the Jordan Valley. The Palestinian leadership, under virtually no international pressure to restart negotiations with Israel as long as Netanyahu is in power, might feel compelled to do so with a more acceptable prime minister in his place. And the U.S. administration might finally unveil its peace plan, long-awaited and long-forgotten in equal measure.

Yet none of this would add up to measurable progress on the way to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. History has long taught that economic betterment of the Palestinians is no substitute for steps that address their political aspirations. Prospects for successful peace negotiations on core final status issues—such as borders and Jerusalem—seem equally dubious. Gantz would be greeted with high expectations; he is, after all, a former Israeli general and chief of staff cut in the mold of Yitzhak Rabin: strong, pragmatic and potentially flexible.

But Gantz is no man of the left. He is, if anything, a representative of the old right—a tough, militant patriot whose primary focus isn’t on ending conflict with the Palestinians but ending incivility, divisiveness and polarization among Israelis. Gantz was virtually silent on the Palestinian issue during his two electoral campaigns, preferring, like Netanyahu, to focus on the threat from Iran. He has taken the current government to task for being too soft in its policies toward Gaza. He supports permanent Israeli control over the Jordan Valley. He has welcomed all of President Donald Trump’s most controversial steps, including his administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights and announce that settlements do not contravene international law. He may have done some of this chiefly for electoral purposes, to avoid being painted as too far to the left. But Gantz is hardly a free agent. He will be constrained by his party’s leadership, including the hawkish Moshe Ya’alon and more than a few of its members who might feel just as comfortable among the ranks of the Bibi-less Likud.

Not that the Israeli government’s makeup would be the only obstacle to meaningful peacemaking. The Palestinian side presents its own considerable challenges. Divided and dysfunctional, its leadership has lacked a coherent military or diplomatic strategy to end the occupation or negotiate a two-state solution. The split between Fatah and Hamas, the principal branches of the national movement, has meant that there are now two of everything—two statelets, two security services and at least two visions of what and even where a future Palestine should be. President Mahmoud Abbas, whose mandate expired years ago, lacks the authority and legitimacy to make consequential decisions on behalf of his people, let alone decisions pertaining to a final status deal—and so, he has systematically preferred to avoid rather than make them, his presidency becoming an exercise in inertness.

Then there is the matter of the U.S. administration’s peace plan. With a new government in place and Trump apparently seeking to draw attention away from the impeachment hearings by more actively engaging on the foreign policy front, the odds of it putting out the plan will rise. Much of what has been written about the proposal and its purportedly pro-Israeli bias has been speculation—albeit speculation based on the track record of an administration that has shown little compunction in moving unashamedly toward right-wing Israeli positions, breaking from well-established bipartisan stances and jettisoning U.S. relations with the Palestinians.

Yet even assuming the conjecture has been wrong and that the plan includes such heresies as acceptance of a Palestinian state or of a Palestinian capital in parts of Jerusalem, the idea that it can come remotely close to what Palestinians—from the most pragmatic to the most hard line— will accept is pure fantasy. There is not a chance the proposal will go as far toward addressing Palestinian requirements as did the parameters suggested by President Bill Clinton in 2000, the ideas put forward by then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2007,or the plan presented to Abbas by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014—all of which were rejected by the Palestinian leadership. There is not a chance that same leadership will accept less today than what it turned down when it had more confidence in the U.S.

Some wild cards could come into play. At 85, Abbas may leave the political scene in the near future, triggering a scramble for power and a new Palestinian leadership configuration. Palestinians in the West Bank could join their many brethren around the region and rise up—against the Israeli occupation, the Palestinian Authority’s rule, or both. But it is hard to see either event triggering a short-term breakthrough in the peace process; in fact, both could push preoccupation with a negotiated settlement even further into the background. For now, the upshot is that neither the bottom-up approach of improvements on the ground nor the top-down approach of U.S. proposals will move the needle.

If anything, the more things change in Israel, the more Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking will remain the same. Therein lies the paradox: Perpetuating the status quo in Israeli politics— meaning Netanyahu’s continued premiership—arguably was the likeliest way to break the logjam and transform both Israeli-Palestinian and U.S.-Israeli dynamics. Netanyahu in power meant scant prospects of material betterment for the Palestinians, of revived negotiations, let alone of a two-state solution; it meant a greater potential for ever more provocative steps such as annexation of parts of the West Bank, thereby forcing a conversation about alternative ways of approaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It also meant a downward spiral in relations between the Israeli government and important segments of the American public—especially among a younger generation of Democrats and American Jews, alienated by Netanyahu’s overt pro-Republican partisanship; his affinity for authoritarian and illiberal leaders worldwide and inflammatory anti-Arab rhetoric at home; and his kowtowing to his Orthodox coalition partners and ignoring the concerns of American Jews on any number of religious issues, such as a more egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall. All of whichmade it at least conceivable to start a more open and honest debate over how the U.S. should involve itself in the dispute.

There have been some incipient signs of late of such an evolution: in poll numbers that show a growing percentage of Americans, notably younger ones, supporting a more evenhanded U.S. approach and open to alternatives to a two-state solution; in the increasing number of Democratic officials prepared to criticize Israel; and in the willingness of several of the party’s presidential candidates to debate topics not long ago considered off-limits, such as linking the provision of military assistance to Israel with the uses to which it is put. In this sense, the principal asset of those hoping for a more radical break from the past was the person embodying all that they reject—Netanyahu.

His expected departure from the political scene suggests that this theory, interrupted midexperiment, is unlikely to be tested anytime soon. Instead, with a more broadly respectable Israeli prime minister, the pendulum could well swing back to where it had been from the early 1990s onward: resumption of a peace process that is mostly process and no peace; a focus on steps on the ground that improve the conditions of the occupation without ending it; and bipartisan support for a U.S. mediating role that tends to accommodate existing realities rather than challenge them.

A happier face will be put on negotiations, on the occupation, and on Israeli-U.S. relations. Netanyahu’s exit, ironically, could be his final, unwitting gift to the goal he pursued and that his prolonged tenure would have endangered: ensuring—at least in American eyes— that the unsustainable status quo is still sustainable.

Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and a former State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations.

Read More

[newageislam-blog]

Donald Trump’s Recognition of Jerusalem: A Stab in the Heart of a Peace Process

An American President taking a pro-Israeli decision related to the Israel-Palestine conflict is no surprise. The U.S. has largely favoured Israel throughout the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem. It has offered protection to Israel in the UN Security Council, come to its aid in times of crises, and provided it with advanced weapons. The U.S. has even looked away when Israel was amassing nuclear weapons. In return, Israel has become America’s greatest ally in West Asia.

Despite this special relationship, previous American Presidents have been wary of recognising Israel’s claims over Jerusalem. Even after the U.S. Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the Administration to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to the Holy City, American Presidents have deferred the decision endlessly given international public opinion and the political and moral sensitivity of the issue. It is this consensus that U.S. President Donald Trump has now broken by recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Cutting off the Oxygen

Mr. Trump’s supporters claim he was acting on a long-made promise, and that Washington remains committed to the peace process irrespective of the Jerusalem move. They also say that Mr. Trump has just shown the world he is a tough decision-maker and can act decisively while brokering peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. But what these arguments conveniently forget is that Jerusalem is at the very heart of an Israeli-Palestinian solution. By endorsing Israel’s claims over the city, the American President has driven a knife into that heart. A President who promised the “ultimate deal” to resolve the conflict has effectively dealt a body blow to the peace process.

This is not diplomacy. If this is a calculated move as part of a diplomatic package, the U.S. would have held talks with both sides and extracted compromises, taking the peace process a step forward. If so, Mr. Trump would also have said which part of Jerusalem he was recognising as Israel’s seat of power and endorsed the Palestinians’ claim over East Jerusalem, including the Old City. Instead, Mr. Trump has taken a unilateral decision giving the largest concession to Israel, perhaps since the Oslo process, without getting any promises in return. His move will only strengthen the Israeli Right, which is dead opposed to ceding any inch of Jerusalem to a future Palestinian state.

Was Never Recognised

History is not on the side of the likes of Mr. Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Jerusalem has never been recognised as Israel’s capital by the international community. In the original UN General Assembly plan to partition Palestine and create independent Jewish and Arab states, Jerusalem was deemed an international city. The Zionists didn’t wait for the plan to be implemented by the UN. In 1948, they declared the state of Israel and in the ensuing Arab-Israeli war; they captured 23% more territories than even what the UN had proposed, including the western half of Jerusalem. Israel seized East Jerusalem in 1967 from Jordan, and later annexed it. Since then, Israel has been encouraging illegal settlements in the eastern parts of the city, with Palestinians being forced to live in their historical neighbourhoods.

The Israeli Right has always made claims over the whole of the city. In 1980, when the Likud government was in power, the Israeli Parliament passed a basic law, declaring Jerusalem “complete and united” as its capital. This move invoked sharp reaction from world powers, including the U.S. The UN Security Council (UNSC) declared the draft law “null and void” and urged member countries to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the Holy City. This is the reason all countries have their embassies in Tel Aviv despite West Jerusalem being Israel’s seat of power for decades. Israel defying international norms and UNSC resolutions is nothing new, but America publicly endorsing Israel’s illegal claims is unprecedented.

In an ideal world, had the U.S. been a neutral power broker, it should have put pressure on Israel to come forward and engage the Palestinians in talks. This is because on the Palestinian side, conditions for talks now look better. Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip, recently came up with a new political charter that signals a readiness to deal with Israel and accept the 1967 border for a future Palestinian state — a compromise which has been compared to the group’s rhetorical anti-Semitic claims in the past. Hamas and the Fatah, Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas’s party that rules parts of the West Bank, also reached a reconciliation agreement recently. This could have been used as an opening to break the logjam in the peace process. Israel’s history suggests that it will not agree to any compromise unless it is forced to do so. Over the years, it has continued its illegal settlements in the occupied territories despite repeated warnings from the international community. If it was really bothered about peace it would have frozen the settlements and agreed to having talks with the Palestinians.

American Nudges

The only country that can put effective pressure on Israel is the U.S. American Presidents have done that in the past without upsetting the U.S.-Israel alliance. Notable among them has been President Jimmy Carter who practically arm-twisted Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister Menachem Begin to join talks with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and even with the Palestinians (whose claim over the occupied territories was not even recognised by the Israeli Right those days). Mr. Carter’s attempts proved successful as Begin and Sadat finally signed the Camp David Agreement. President Bill Clinton also played a key role in the 2000 Camp David negotiations between Yasser Arafat and Israel’s Ehud Barak, which eventually failed to reach a deal. But since the collapse of the Second Camp David talks, American Presidents have largely looked away from the issue. President George Bush’s 2007 Annapolis Conference was no more than a photo op in the last days of his presidency. President Barack Obama’s focus was on the Iran deal, while his administration offered full support to Israel at the UN. And Mr. Trump is least interested in finding cues of peace on the Palestinian side and acting upon them by putting pressure on Israel, the occupying force, for compromises. In his world, what matters is America’s cultural and military alliance with Israel.

The real tragedy is the impact Mr. Trump’s decision will have on the Palestinian people. The hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who live in the annexed East Jerusalem without even Israeli citizenship, hope to be free at some point in time. Likewise, the millions of Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and the blockaded Gaza hope to see East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. The U.S. has struck a blow against these hopes. First they lost their city and now are losing even their claims. This will only lead to their despair mounting. But if the history of Jerusalem states anything, it is that its disputes cannot be settled by force. During the Crusades, both Christians and Muslims captured the city using brutal force. The Ottomans ruled it for centuries only to have it lost to the British a century ago. The Jordanians and the Israelis split it among themselves for two decades after the Second World War. And, now, a millennium after the Crusades, the status of Jerusalem is still disputed. Mr. Trump’s move may be a big shot in the arm for the Israelis, but a final settlement is still afar.

For more details click here: The War Within Islam

Visit here: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-the-west/stanly-johny/donald-trump%E2%80%99s-recognition-of-jerusalem–a-stab-in-the-heart-of-a-peace-process/d/113504