Stephen Gowans

The two-state 'solution' is not support for the Palestinian cause. It is, to the contrary, support for the Zionist settler colonial cause. It asks Palestinians to accept a state on 22% of their homeland, while a settler colonial ethno-supremacist state occupies the remaining 78%.

The absence of clarity in the political language of the Palestinian solidarity movement "...some priority should be given to speaking a clear political language. Instead, in a recent Palestinian podcast, the participants liberally used the words ‘occupation’ and ‘settlers’ without letting us know if they meant all of Palestine or just the roughly 22% remaining post-1967. Self-determination was invoked, but where, in how much of, true Palestine? At the end there was even a consensus that one shouldn’t worry about solutions; rather, one should demand ‘justice’ – without telling the audience what this translates into politically. By any criterion, this will not do." palestinechronicle.com/back-…

Hard Zionists theorize Greater Israel. Soft Zionists push the two-state solution. palestinechronicle.com/back-…

Is El-Sayed more of a scientist than these socialists? · Albert Einstein · J.B.S. Haldane · J. D. Bernal · Stephen Jay Gould · Richard Lewontin · Norman Bethune Unlike El-Sayed, all rejected established religion (most were atheists) and likely saw a deep incompatibility between a scientific outlook and religion.

In his exposure of Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby as, ultimately, a defense of Israel as a settler colonial state linked to US foreign policy ambitions, Blake Alcott asks a question that ought to be pondered by advocates of the two-state solution. (The two-state solution would require Palestinians to cede 78 percent of their homeland to a Jewish settler colonial state.) Does any non-Palestinian have the right to propound such a waiving of rights, rights that are literally not theirs to give up? Alcott adds that "no polling indicates that a majority of the world's 14 million Palestinians favors the two-state solution." I would add to the point above, that even if Palestinians did favor a two-state solution, it would be a choice made under duress, unless we accept, per impossibile, that any people would voluntarily give up four-fifths of its territory. palestinechronicle.com/mears…

People of faith like El-Sayed, who, by definition, accept without the slightest evidence obvious fairy tales as truth, should not be so quick to say that as scientists they don't actually believe in any sort of ideology. What El-Sayed believes in, apart from Islam, is the ideology of capitalism, at the core of which resides the illusion that bourgeois society operates on science and cold hard facts, and that science and cold hard facts are free from ideology. That itself is ideology.

Why a Subaltern Studies Critique of a Green Party Motion on Palestine Is Wrong—And Why It Is Ultimately Reactionary gowans.blog/2026/10/27/why-a…

"I am neither the right wing nor the left wing." Marine Le Pen, 2026 "The characteristic feature of the National Socialist movement is that it stands completely aloof from both the camps of our political life—the Left and the Right." Adolph Hitler, 1925

I'm astonished to learn that the US take-over of Venezuela hasn't led to a better life for Venezuelans. Inflation of 400%. (Much higher than Iran's, which Trump falsely claims is the highest in the world.) Nationwide power shortages. The Wall Street Journal reports that "Two out of three Venezuelans disapprove of Rodriguez's" *leadership*. Leadership? What leadership? Trump says: Washington, not Rodriquez, has "total control of Venezuela."

Arguing that a British political party’s call for decolonizing Palestine amounts to replacing Palestinians in their struggle for decolonization is like saying denouncing a rape denies the victim agency to struggle against the rapist, or Marx’s call for a world free from exploitation replaced workers in their struggle for emancipation. By this argument, no one in Britain should have ever called for the decolonization of India, because doing so would have denied Indians their political agency to struggle for their own emancipation. Two further thoughts: 1) To be sure, it’s not up to a British political party to tell Palestinians how to conduct their own struggle (and it isn’t). By the same token, it is not up to a Palestinian to tell a British political party how to conduct its own struggle to change its country’s colonial foreign policy. 2) Anyone who believes that an international law formulated by great powers to serve great power interests can be used to liberate anyone from the tyranny of great powers and their proxies shouldn’t throw around words like “utopian” so freely.