Condemnation for Israel's crimes is at an all time high in the US in spite of Western propaganda. Also, the pro-Palestinian solidarity movements are increasing in growth. Still, as Finkelstein pointed out in an interview a while back, contempt for Israel's actions does not result in mass support for the Palestinians. A large part of that is due to Western propagandists but it's also do the Palestinian Authority doing absolutely nothing. They're not mobilizing their people in a mass resistance movement, the way its been done countless times before with other oppressed groups. The PA just sit and whinges. So we can blame the West as often as we like, and they deserve plenty of blame, but PA need to take responsibility for Palestinian suffering as well.

PLO response? I foresee....more begging and whinging to the US and Israel to do something. lmao...the PLO has no spine.

It'll happen, eventually......maybe.

Anyone remembers Piper destroying Maher on Politically Incorrect?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NskeUuwMZtk

@sonicare: I don't want to pretend to know how people label these guys. I do know that corporate media propagandists do more labeling than anyone and I suspect folks just repeat what they see and hear. But if certain folk are reserving the term "terrorist" for ideological killers, then they're wrong for doing so. To be a terrorist, all that's required is the use or threat of violence, in order to terrify or coerce; typically in order achieve a social or political goal. But even if one were to ignore the academic and legal definition and just consider ideology alone, then the Charleston shooter would still qualify as a terrorist.

What difference does it make, either way? I think Glenn Greenwald did a good job of explaining what it is to be labeled a terrorist;

This is far more than a semantic question. Whether something is or is not "terrorism" has very substantial political implications, and very significant legal consequences as well. The word "terrorism" is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name. It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook

Wow. Didn't see that coming.

Well, you do have a history.

@bmanva: lol! Heads up; Mayor is notorious for appealing to ignorance when it comes to the "land grab" question.

I think that lesson was learned during "Protective Edge"

I don't want those HK's hovering over me, either. If I had the balls, I would have shot it down, too.