Comments on: Cairo speech was pitched to American Jews

By: Craig

Craig — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 08:55:44 +0000

Actually, Jews bought land from the wealthy Nashabibi and Husseini clans. They didn't steal it you, brainless nitwit. This is a well known fact to anyone with a historical background in Middle East affairs. These rich Arab families sold the land for $1000 an acre, essentially stealing the money of Jews, for land that needed A LOT of work before it could grow anything. Israeli soldiers raping Palestinians? Hmmm, that's a new one, because the Palestinian's were the ones raping Jewish women when they committed the Hebron Massacre in August of 1929. Keep spreading your lies, you pitiful excuse for a human. FUCK YOU Strahl.

By: stevieb

stevieb — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:46:03 +0000

A laughing fool whose knows fuck all about history…

By: anon

anon — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:06:43 +0000

Yoni, you made no response to the specifics in my post. Why don't you try again?

By: Marion

Marion — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:46:02 +0000

The Detroit News and Faith forums…

By: andrew r

andrew r — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:35:59 +0000

Norman Finkelstein made a similar point on a certain Lebanese TV program. He got a bit paternalistic, asking, "how can you expect people to respect Arabs if you don't respect yourselves?" Except what are they supposed to do? Most people have a hard enough time trying to exist, let alone fight military occupiers and secret police. Maybe if the people of the Arab world waged a mass suicidal assault against the Saudis, Hashemites, Mubarak, gulf rulers and their American backers, they could turn to abolish the usurper state and bring the refugees back to their land. But the consequences for resisting are real, and one of the time honored strategies for subjugating people is to crush them just enough, then give a little breathing room. You can't ask people to sacrifice the little room they have, you have to respect the choice they make for themselves (To be fair to Finkelstein, he would agree with this). That's why people in the "free world" owe it to occupied people to resist their own end of the subjagation. Maybe it will take a mass suicidal assault here, too.

By: andrew r

andrew r — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:54:07 +0000

Either that or the allied conquest of the Levant, with help from Zionist detachments, which paved the way for militarized colonial settlements that eventually conquered Palestine and expelled most of its inhabitants.

By: RowanBerkeley

RowanBerkeley — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:09:18 +0000

Ed, you perpetually chase this 'libertarian' moonbeam and ignore reality. Let me put it to you this way: if somehow 'the state' were magicked away, the plutocrats and tycoons would immediately create their own police forces, territorial militias, and expeditionary armies — a new 'state' in all but name, except that it would lack even the rudimentary humanitarian checks and balances provided by the so-called 'democratic' system. One doesn't have to be a 'leftist' to see this — it's obvious, common sense.

By: ThorsProvoni

ThorsProvoni — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:06:14 +0000

Before the arrest of the Rosenbergs American Jewish politics tended to be leftist and pro-Soviet or at least Soviet sympathetic. There are many reasons for this tendency, but 1953-73 is a transitional period, during which the growing wealth and intellectual dynamism of the Zionist faction gives it dominance. This development was practically foreordained by the economics if I wish to skirt a Marxist analysis. Even without the red scare and McCarthyism, it made a lot more sense in terms of potential monetary gain to base corrupt Jewish American social networking around commitment to Zionist ideology and the Zionist state than around commitment to Marxist ideology and the Soviet state.

By: svh

svh — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:39:19 +0000

to the informed reader: good thing you let us know you are informed. I wouldnt have known based upon your rant without any substance. Your post is nothing but a personal attack. Not very original. The other day I was thinking that these tactics that pro-israeli debaters use (ad hominem and other below the belt tactics) are a bit similar to the tactics israel itself is using in order to grab more and more land. The end always seem to justify the means, lying, attacking, cleansing, building walls and debating in immoral fashion, anything goes, right, informed reader? All moral standards go out of the window when israel is concerned….

By: LeaNder22

LeaNder22 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:47:12 +0000

god forbid an arab uses a bulldozer to run over people in downtown jerusalem or something of the sort. How many years did nothing like this happen? How many years did Israel pretend it wanted peace and tell us it's all the Palestinians fault? He carefully picked up that parts of the narrative he shares even with the neocons, but he never descended to the Pipes, Horowitz et al hate propaganda. That's the difference. The moral high ground has been misused as a propaganda tool, and that was the confusing part of the story. Responsibility. Everyone has to take responsibility for his actions. Israel too. The Holocaust should never be allowed to legitimatize injustice to others.