Criticizing Michelle Alexander’s Breaking the Mainstream Silence on Palestinian Suffering
Law Professor Alexander’s powerful commentary on Palestinian suffering covers what’s been long suppressed in the mainstream.
It represents a notable contribution to truth-telling in a venue with global reach - the New York Times.
Alexander could no longer stay silent on “one of the great moral challenges of our time: the crisis in Israel-Palestine” - festering for over a century, mainly since Israeli aggression stole 78% of historic Palestine in 1948, the rest in June 1967, two of history’s great crimes.
It’s unacceptable to stay silent about one of the great moral outrages of our time, a subjugated people brutalized under occupation, enduring virtually every imaginable indignity.
The world community fails to respect their rights - struggling on their own for unattained liberation, persisting against long odds.
Alexander touched a nerve in the mainstream, igniting a firestorm of criticism against her. Vital truth-telling in a global venue didn’t go down well with Zionist ideologues.
Mondoweiss quoted former Israeli envoy to Washington Michael Oren, calling her commentary a “strategic threat and Israel must treat it as such.”
Trump regime envoy to Israel David Friedman tweeted: “Michelle Alexander has it all wrong in today’s @NYT. If MLK were alive today I think he would be very proud of his robust support for the State of Israel. An Arab in the ME who is gay, a woman, a Christian, or seeking education & self-improvement can’t do better than living in 🇮🇱.”
Friedman is a Zionist ideologue, an Islamophobe dismissive of Palestinian rights, opposed to their statehood - a bankruptcy attorney who profited from the misery of others, supporting lawless settlement expansions and annexation of stolen Palestinian land.
Aish HaTorah is an orthodox Jewish organization. It slammed Alexander’s commentary, saying it hit a “new low,” adding it’s “a flawed and polemical piece.”
A tirade of more Big Lies followed, debunking cold hard truths, including Israeli apartheid rule, persecuting a long-suffering people, inventing Jewish state enemies, pretending its ruling regimes seek “peace with the Palestinians…”
The so-called Committee for Accuracy in the Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is an Israeli lobby group, involved in debunking hard truths about the Jewish state, combatting what it calls “anti-Israel bias,” claiming its ideological extremism is fair and balanced.
It denounced what it called Alexander’s “anti-Israel smear.” Virtually every Israel critic is falsely accused of being anti-Semitic, the Big Canard of last resort.
CAMERA took that route with Alexander, accusing her of “flirt(ing) with antisemitism” by the following comment, saying:
“Our elected representatives, who operate in a political environment where Israel’s political lobby holds well-documented power, have consistently minimized and deflected criticism of the State of Israel…”
The above hard truth doesn’t go down well with defenders of indefensible Israeli actions, not a hint of anti-Semitism in it.
Alan Dershowitz slammed Alexander, a notorious bigot, a longstanding Islamophobe, a purveyor of myths, canards, and false logic, a misinterpreter of legal standards, a believer in unique Jewish suffering, mindless of all others, an advocate of torture and targeted assassinations.
He’s a Zionist ideologue, an Israeli apologist, legitimizing its aggression, its high crimes of war and against humanity, once saying in times of war, “old rules” don’t apply against “fanatical foes.” Fanatics are aggressors, he failed to explain, notably the US, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners.
He turned truth on its head, calling Alexander’s commentary “one of the most biased, poorly informed, and historically inaccurate columns about the conflict between Israel and Palestine ever published by a mainstream newspaper” - a colossal Big Lie by a notorious liar for Israel, turning truth on its head, calling “the Palestinian issue…overhyped.”
He lied claiming they could have had a state long ago, rejecting nonexistent offers, “responding with violence and terrorism,” adding “(t)he Palestinian issue is not “one of the great moral challenges of our time,” what Alexander clearly explained.
Lots more criticism of Alexander is likely because her commentary in a major mainstream venue struck a nerve.
Had it been written for an alternative media site online, it likely would have been largely unnoticed - the fate of most scholarly criticism of Israel, in books, articles, and public addresses.
Its accuracy stands the test of time. Pro-Israel propaganda is unrelenting, why lots more truth-telling commentaries like Alexander’s are needed in the mainstream.
They’re powerful antidotes to Israeli exceptionalism and other Big Lies about the Jewish state.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."