I suspect that everybody on this list would agree that this rally deserved no support. So by all means let's fight about it some more.
It might be noted that phrases like "just peace" and "Palestinian state" have become almost totally coopted, while Israeli atrocities have reached new heights. Any critic of this affair is compelled to make use of more strident language just to get a modicum of meaning across.
mbs
> Let's look at the whole text again. We have:
>
> * Israel's "darkest hour"
> * the parallel to 9/11
> * "how terrifying the suicide bombs have made daily life in Israel"
> * "assaults on innocent civilians" - in Israel, that is
> * "acts of terror" - which context suggests are not those
> committed by the IDF
> * "the American labor movement['s]...long and enduring relationship
> with the state of Israel"
> * recognition of the "aspirations of the Palestinian people"
> * "violence that can only spread despair among all people, fueled by
> even greater poverty and unemployment"
> * "condemn[ing] acts of terror while moving both parties back to the
> negotiating table"
> * "defend[ing] Israel's right to exist and the right of its people to
> live in peace
> * continuing "to denounce terrorist assaults on civilians, and we
> will work to support a just and lasting peace
>
> So we have about nine statements sympathetic to Israel and two
> sympathetic to Palestinians, witht he wording of the former much
> stronger than the latter. "Acts of terror" - perpetrated by you know
> who - paired with agentless "violence." Israel's right to exist, but
> not a word about Palestinians other than their vague "aspirations."
> That he was not booed by this crowd, unlike Wolfowitz, shows you just
> where Sweeney's sympathies lie.
>
> It won't hurt you to admit that the man has a bias.
> Doug