Why does it seem like fails?

They said this in a post including that it’s okay to kill Zionists and they explicitly support all armed resistance

I think it is super fucking important that the source be easily findable and checkable.

Because Iran is paying for Wikipedia to be scrubbed. My blog isn't scrubbed.

I also archived this article in the Wayback Machine and Archive.is in the event that something happens to the article. Because again, history is being changed in front of our eyes. So.

"dark money": "Dark money" technically refers to untraceable or difficult to trace political donations. AIPAC's donations are all out in the open. It does not in any way fit the literal definition of "dark money". What Mamdani appears to be saying here is that the money itself is "dark" or evil because AIPAC (associated with Israel and Jews) has (metaphorically) touched it.

"single goal, to preserve their power": Mamdani frames AIPAC as uninterested in specific policy or political changes--the usual reason that PACs exist. He accuses them instead of being interested in power for power's sake, which it will use to undermine the health of society. He implies a contrast with himself and the DSA, whose intentions are painted as good and pure and whose goals are implied to to hinge on creating specific political and policy changes, with any interest in gaining power merely a side effect or dirty necessity of achieving such goals. In other words, he is taking an organization that is doing the exact same things that his own organization is doing, and painting it as uniquely evil. Mamdani tends to reserve this kind of rhetoric for organizations associated with Israel and, by extension, Jews.

"turn us against each other"--this accusation makes little sense. AIPAC is an organization focused on American-Israeli relations. It has no interest in tearing apart American society. However, Jews have long been accused of trying to undermine the coherence and well-being of the societies in which they live. It is not a factual statement, but an accusation built on and promoting distrust and scapegoating of Jews.

"moral change"--this statement puts AIPAC in opposition to "moral change" and morality in general. It build on and feeds into centuries of Christian and Muslim antisemitism painting Jews as immoral, scheming, an operatives of the devil.

DYK that's was the point of the game? It was invented by Eleanor Abbott for children hospitalized with polio. The disease would effect mobility among other things so Candyland focused instead on bright colors and engaging illustrations rather than complicated gameplay to encourage the imagination of bedbound children. This post, and this comment, is a testament to Abbots genius in when she made this game.

Just look at how it's described in 2026 (now), in 2016, in 2006 and in 2004 (below the cut).

one of said sources, Rashid Khalidi, is a former PLO spokesperson. like, actively produced propaganda in an official capacity for the PLO.

another of the sources claims that “as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible” was a position that “enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations” (emphasis my own), which is just… an utterly batshit and easily-disproven statement for anyone who has ever met a Zionist (or for that matter, a Jew) or read the writings of the early Zionists.

The system was not designed with the idea that there would be people with this sort of extreme view who could hijack it.

I'm both fascinated and terrified to see this debate. Terrified for obvious reasons: is antisemitism incarnate; It's the protocols recreated in the home of British government; it's another symptom of the rise of authoritarianism.

I'm fascinated because this is the opportunity for UK MPs to do the funniest thing in the world and read out the list of countries which pour money into lobbying our government and show that not only is Israel barely on the list, but also the countries trying to influence our politics the most are America and the Arab states. These will piss of the far right and the far left beautifully.

Acknowledging October 7th was an atrocity is not "Israeli influence", it's just having eyes and a heart. Acknowledging that Iran underpins the instability in the middle east isn't "Israeli influence", it's having a fucking brain and the most basic levels of critical thinking and historical knowledge. Both these can be true while you also acknowledge that the IDF have commited war crimes - they're an army at war and there has never been a war where war crimes didn't happen. Israel isn't exceptional, it's just a country like all the others.

The idea of having a debate about Israeli influence when the debate is based off soviet and Islamist propaganda is laughable and stinks of disrepute, however we have rules in this country and we have to follow them.

The conclusion of the debate was cross party condemnation of the petition in it's singling out of Israel when it comes to political influence when no one else is being interrogated for it. There was also cross party talk of the age old stereotypes that this petition played into and pointing out that even another petition couldnt necessarily force a debate as the petition committee is allowed to use their discretion when it comes to repeating things.

The Gaza caucus did of course come out strongly for the petition and also bought up several Israel related things which were irrelevant to the debate but overall, the view of the fact they were being forced to even have this discussion was incredibly negative and unimpressed so a rare win for British politics

This is not a one-off, or someone with marginal influence within the movement. She is one of the most prominent figures in the movement, and her organization is thoroughly connected to the organizations responsible for the campus protests.

The founder of SJP and AMP believes the thoroughly debunked “Khazar Theory” about the origins of Jews.