Terrorism????...Blame America!!!!

"Strange Fruit" and Its Connection to Lynchings in the US South

"Strange Fruit" as Protest and Art

The lyrics of "Strange Fruit" derive from the poem written by Abel Meeropol*, under the pen name of Lewis Allan**. Its lyrics, originally published as a poem in 1937, are a direct protest against the lynching of Black Americans, particularly in the Southern United States15. The song uses stark, haunting imagery to compare the bodies of lynching victims to fruit hanging from trees:
Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant South,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.
These metaphors are both shocking and powerful, forcing listeners to confront the brutal reality of racial violence. The song’s juxtaposition of the serene Southern landscape with the horror of lynching creates a jarring effect, highlighting the normalization of such violence within the broader culture25.


Historical Context: Lynchings in the US South

Lynching in the United States, especially in the South, was a widespread practice of extrajudicial killings, primarily targeting African Americans after the Civil War and during the Jim Crow era6. Between 1882 and 1968, nearly 3,500 African Americans were lynched, with more than 73% of these acts occurring in the Southern states36. These acts were often public spectacles, with large crowds gathering, and were justified under accusations ranging from murder and rape to minor social transgressions or even no offense at all46. The real purpose was often to enforce white supremacy, intimidate Black communities, and maintain racial hierarchies46.

Lynchings were rarely prosecuted, as there was no federal anti-lynching legislation for most of this period, and local authorities frequently condoned or participated in the violence4. The legacy of this era has had a lasting impact on American society, contributing to ongoing racial tensions and systemic inequalities4.

Cultural and Political Impact of "Strange Fruit"

"Strange Fruit" was more than just a song; it was a bold act of protest and a catalyst for change. Its release was met with fear and resistance from record labels, who worried about backlash from Southern audiences1. Despite this, the song became an anthem for the early civil rights movement, described by Atlantic Records co-founder Ahmet Ertegun as "a declaration of war" and "the beginning of the civil rights movement"15.

The song’s influence extended beyond music, helping to galvanize anti-lynching campaigns and raise awareness about racial violence in America5. It was recognized for its cultural and historical significance, being preserved in the National Recording Registry and named one of the "Songs of the Century"1.

Enduring Legacy

Today, "Strange Fruit" remains a stark reminder of America's history of racial violence and the power of art to confront injustice. While lynching as a public spectacle has ended, the song continues to resonate as a symbol of the ongoing struggle against racism and the importance of remembering the victims of such atrocities5.

In summary, "Strange Fruit" stands as one of the most potent artistic responses to the horrors of lynching in the US South, immortalizing both the suffering of its victims and the resilience of those who dared to speak out125.

* Abel Meeropol, the writer of "Strange Fruit," was a Jewish-American teacher, poet, and activist, but he was not particularly known for being a practicing Jew in the religious sense. Instead, his identity was more strongly tied to his political activism, secularism, and leftist ideals.

Key Points About Abel Meeropol's Background:
  1. Secular & Politically Active – Meeropol was deeply involved in socialist and communist circles during the 1930s-50s. His activism focused on civil rights, anti-racism, and labor movements, rather than religious observance.
  2. Jewish Heritage, But Not Religious – While he was of Jewish descent, there is no strong evidence that he practiced Judaism in a traditional or devout way. His work and public life were far more aligned with leftist political causes than religious ones.
  3. Adopted the Rosenbergs' Sons – After Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (Jewish communists executed as spies in 1953) were killed, Meeropol and his wife adopted their two sons, further showing his commitment to radical political causes over religious identity.
Conclusion:
Meeropol was culturally Jewish but not known as a practicing, religious Jew. His legacy is defined by his anti-racist activism, poetry, and political engagement rather than religious observance.

** Abel Meeropol published the poem "Strange Fruit" under the pseudonym "Lewis Allan" for deeply personal reasons. The name "Lewis Allan" was chosen to honor his two children who were stillborn; these were the names he and his wife had intended for them1245. This act of remembrance gave the pseudonym special significance in his life and work.

Additionally, Meeropol, as a Jewish writer and a member of the American Communist Party during a period of widespread anti-Semitism and political suspicion in the United States, may have found it prudent to use a pseudonym to protect his identity and avoid potential backlash or discrimination45. Thus, the pseudonym "Lewis Allan" served both as a tribute to personal loss and as a protective measure in a fraught social and political climate.
 
Last edited:
Comparative Analysis: Land Dispossession in the US (Indigenous Peoples) and the West Bank (Palestinians)

1. Appropriation

  • US: The US government used legal means such as the Indian Appropriation Act to unilaterally redefine tribal land, ending tribal sovereignty and making it easier to seize land. Treaties were often signed under duress or ignored.
  • West Bank: Israel uses legal maneuvers, such as declaring Palestinian land “state land” based on Ottoman law, to appropriate territory. This bureaucratic process is opaque, often lacking clear boundaries, and is used to connect settlements and facilitate annexation57.
Similarity: Both systems use legal and bureaucratic frameworks to legitimize land appropriation, often exploiting ambiguities or outdated laws to dispossess the original inhabitants.

2. Outright Theft

  • US: Land was taken by force, often through military campaigns and forced removals like the Trail of Tears. Treaties were routinely broken, and violence was used to expel Indigenous people.
  • West Bank: Israeli settlers, often with the protection or participation of the Israeli military, engage in violent land grabs, destroy homes and crops, and forcibly displace Palestinians. Since October 2023, land theft and home demolitions have accelerated, with tens of thousands displaced456.
Similarity: Both cases involve state-sanctioned or state-enabled violence and direct theft to expel populations and seize land.

3. Financial Trickery and Manipulation

  • US: The Dawes Act broke up communal land into individual allotments, making it easy for speculators to buy land from Indigenous people through fraud or coercion. Treaties included deceptive terms, and land sales were often manipulated.
  • West Bank: Settlers receive land through contracts from the World Zionist Organization, often without clear boundaries or compensation, enabling the quiet transfer of land. Israeli courts retroactively legalize land theft, and Palestinians are denied building permits, forcing them to build “illegally” and making them vulnerable to demolition356.
Similarity: Both systems use complex legal and financial mechanisms to obscure and facilitate the transfer of land from the original population to settlers, often with the complicity or direct involvement of state institutions.

State and Military Involvement

  • US: The US government and army directly enforced land seizures, removals, and violent suppression of Indigenous resistance.
  • West Bank: The Israeli government and military protect settlers, facilitate demolitions, and legalize land grabs. Settler violence is often tolerated or supported, and the state provides financial and legal backing for land appropriation567.

Conclusion

Both the US and Israeli cases demonstrate a pattern of settler-colonial dispossession: legal appropriation, outright theft, and financial trickery, all underwritten by state and military power. The methods—though adapted to their respective contexts—share striking similarities in their goals and outcomes: the removal of an indigenous population to make way for a settler society, often justified by legal, bureaucratic, or military means, and implemented with violence, deception, and systematic state support3567.
 
Screenshot from 2025-05-28 18-27-48.png

 
Israeli Ambassador Alon Pinkas
Screenshot from 2025-05-29 23-08-25.png

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is deliberately prolonging the war in Gaza to 'save his political career', former Israeli Ambassador Alon Pinkas told the Mail's 'Apocalypse Now?' podcast.

Speaking to special correspondent David Patrikarakos, Mr Pinkas argued that Netanyahu benefits from continuing the conflict as it distracts from October 7th's security failures and the inability to achieve his stated war aim of wiping out Hamas.

The interview comes as Israel announced the death of the leader of the terror group, Mohammed Sinwar, in a massive air strike on the city of Khan Younis.

Mohamed's brother, Yahya Sinwar, the previous leader of Hamas, was killed by Israeli troops last year.

Asked whether Mohamed Sinwar's death could bring the sides closer to resolution, Mr Pinkas called the announcement 'not a game changer' due to Netanyahu's vested interest in prolonging the fighting.

'Of course, it won't change the course of the war', Israel's former Consul General said.

'Sinwar deserved to die 17 times over – but that's not the point. The point is – what are the objectives here? What is the end game? What is the exit strategy? What is the post-war scenario?

'Israel is deliberately clueless, deliberately vague, deliberately disruptive about what comes next.

'There are reasons for this. Netanyahu never took responsibility for the calamity of October 7th – for him to prolong and perpetuate the war, gives him distance from that debacle.

'This is a man who bragged and boasted for years that he's Mr Security. He's a genius that knows how to fight terrorism. Well, that all came crashing down.

'Another reason is that during these twenty months, Netanyahu expanded the war into Lebanon and escalated it with Iran... for which he takes no responsibility.'

'He also wants to create a political divide between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Judea and Samaria – to prove a Palestinian state is not only discontiguous but impossible to implement.

'Ending the war creates a reintegration, which would then lead to pressure from the Trump administration –not only to end the war but to enter some kind of negotiated process with the Palestinians that will bring down his coalition.'

The coalition government of Israel led by Netanyahu has been described as dominated by warring far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties.

It has a tenuous grip on power, as shown by the narrow passing of Israel's latest budget in a 59-57 vote.

Mr Pinkas said the 'majority of the Israeli public' believes the prolonging of the war is purely an exercise in saving Netanyahu's career.

'There's no question about It', he told host Patrikarakos.

'He came out with morally justified ideas about eradicating Hamas. It hasn't worked - in 18 or 19 months.

'It took the Allies nine months from Normandy in June 1944 to the outskirts of Berlin. It has been 19 months – for one of the strongest militaries in the world, against a ragtag, savage terror group, to achieve something that would look even remotely like a decisive political victory.

'For Netanyahu, given his extreme right-wing coalition – this is all about saving his political career.'

To listen to the full interview with Alon Pinkas, search for 'Apocalypse Now?', wherever you get your podcasts.

source: Daily Mail
 

Chronological Record of US Vetoes on UN Security Council Resolutions Supporting a Two-State Solution (1976–Present)

The United States has consistently used its veto power in the UN Security Council to block resolutions supporting a two-state solution or calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories, especially since 1976. Below is a chronological summary of key vetoes directly related to these issues:


June 29, 1976
  • The US vetoed a Security Council resolution that called for Israel to withdraw from all Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 and affirmed the Palestinian right to self-determination, effectively supporting a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders15.
April 30, 1980
  • The US vetoed a draft resolution (S/13911) that reaffirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty, and called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied since 19675.
January 20, 1982
  • The US vetoed a resolution that reaffirmed the right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries and called for the implementation of previous resolutions regarding the Palestinian question5.
September 6, 1985
  • The US vetoed a resolution condemning Israel's practices in the occupied territories and reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention5.
January 17, 1986
  • The US vetoed a resolution that called for Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions and condemned Israeli policies in the occupied territories5.
January 20, 1987
  • The US vetoed a resolution that reaffirmed the Palestinian right to self-determination and called for the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East5.
May 31, 1990
  • The US vetoed a resolution condemning Israel for the killing of Palestinian civilians and calling for the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories5.
March 7, 1997
  • The US vetoed a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activities in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories, which are considered obstacles to the two-state solution5.
December 18, 2011
  • The US vetoed a resolution that would have condemned all Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory as illegal and demanded a halt to all settlement activities56.
Recent Years (2020s–2024)
  • The US has continued to use its veto to block resolutions calling for ceasefires or measures that would move toward a two-state solution, including the most recent vetoes in 2023 and 2024 related to the Israel-Hamas conflict and Palestinian statehood bid2357.
Screenshot from 2025-06-07 15-52-26.png

Key Points
  • The US has vetoed every major Security Council resolution since 1976 that explicitly supported a two-state solution or called for Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders15.
  • The US rationale has consistently been that such issues should be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties, not through UN resolutions16.
  • The pattern of vetoes has continued into the 2020s, with the US blocking resolutions related to ceasefires and Palestinian statehood2357.
This record demonstrates a consistent US policy of using its veto to block Security Council action perceived as prejudging the outcome of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or as being unbalanced against Israel.
 
The Palestine Papers

The Palestine Papers are a collection of over 1,600 confidential documents detailing the Israeli–Palestinian peace negotiations that took place between 1999 and 2010146. These documents, leaked to Al Jazeera and published in January 2011, include minutes from private meetings, diplomatic correspondence, strategy papers, emails, maps, and draft agreements136. The leak was described as the largest of its kind in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict6.

The documents primarily came from the office of the main Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, and his team, and were authenticated by both Al Jazeera and The Guardian, as well as by Israeli government sources12. They reveal the inner workings of the peace process, including the positions, proposals, and concessions discussed by both sides.

The Palestine Papers are controversial because they show that the Palestinian Authority (PA) offered significant concessions to Israel—such as on the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for refugees—that went beyond what many Palestinians expected or what the PA had publicly acknowledged45. These revelations led to criticism of the PA from within Palestinian society and from rival groups like Hamas, who argued that the PA was willing to compromise on fundamental Palestinian rights4. Conversely, the documents also illustrate that Israeli negotiators often rejected these concessions and maintained positions that many Palestinians found unacceptable45.

The leak provided unprecedented insight into the peace process, exposing both the flexibility and desperation of the Palestinian negotiating position, as well as the intransigence of the Israeli side on key issues such as settlements and borders145. The documents also included notable details, such as the "napkin map," a hand-drawn sketch by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of a land swap proposal presented by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert1.

In summary, the Palestine Papers fundamentally challenged public perceptions of the peace process by revealing the extent of behind-the-scenes negotiations and the significant gaps between public rhetoric and private diplomacy on both sides146.
 
Back
Top