Comments on: Censored by the Huffington Post and Imprisoned By The Past: Why I Made ‘Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem’

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:57:13 +0000

To write of Jerusalem that it is "the capitol of Israel and the spiritual home of the Jewish people" is just absolute fucking nonsense. I appreciate your courageous reporting, but really – this is just complete bunk. Jerusalem was built by and named after the Jebusites – one of many native Palestinian peoples who were exterminated by the Jews, who then went on to claim the stolen real estate, as well as the stolen cultural capital, as their own. Sound familar? Jersualem is NOT the capital of Israel, despite the mountains of pseudo-mystical drivel barfed up on the subject.

By: phillip

phillip — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:22:15 +0000

I believe the point was in what wasn't said. I would rather their be no bloodshed.

By: Democrat4eva

Democrat4eva — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:42:12 +0000

Yes, and this is why the likes of right wing republicans try to subvert foreign policy some openly, and others using underhanded means like this Canadian extremist Brad Kostynuik, AKA "Wharold", a kahanist likudnik from Calgary he runs this with his wife Brandi Dickman, " target="_blank">http://www.rockpaperinternet.com/brad.html Kostynuik creates anti Obama posters and art which he distributes to his bloggers, like other right wing extremists in the hope of turning public opinion. This is Brad Kostynuik’s professional life website in his official persona " target="_blank">http://www.rockpaperinternet.com/brad.html resume of “Wharold” AKA Brad Kostynuik " target="_blank">http://www.defrost.ca/defrosters.php?action=view&... This is his smear site, at Wordpress where he smears Obama, and Palestinians, and his xenophobia and racism " target="_blank">http://doosmdayclockradio.wordpress.com He posts in talkbacks and commentaries at various right wing websites using the alias "Wharold".

By: tree_

tree_ — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:06:31 +0000

"did jews need a sovereign state between the years 1939 and 1945. obviously they did." A bit late to the argument here, but for anyone that knows and comprehends history, its atually obvious they didn't. Poles had a sovereign state, prior to the German invasion. Sovereign statehood did them bubkis. Americans of Japanese ancestry had a sovereign state, the US, that decided during WWII that, because their ancestors came from another sovereign state, Japan, that was at war with the US, that those American ciizens should be locked up for the duration of the war. I could go on with numerous examples during WWII of groups of people with a sovereign state who either failed to benefit from that state, or who were negatively affected by belonging to a sovereign state. Think about it. If a country or entity wanted to kill all Jews the easiest way to do it would be to attack them in one single country.

By: Peacegeek

Peacegeek — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:17:23 +0000

Bravo! Max Blumenthal is one of the finest new journalists in America. Max's perspective has been honed by his unique background. Son of one of America's most distinguished journalists, Sidney Blumenthal, Max is now leading the charge against censorship and undue influence of powerful corporate interests friendly to Zionism and the Christian Zionist right. Abandon the Huffington Post, it has reduced its appeal to the toe-curlingly obscene tabloid culture that look the other way when Israel forces assassinate targets, drop bombs on babies and women and strangle over a million people with one of the most repressive military occupations in world history.

By: JES49

JES49 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:19:20 +0000

Show me where Stone's positions are biased then. Then we can discuss matters on their substance and not ad hominem. And might I remind you that being "well outside the mainstream" is not indicative of anything. Opposition to slavery in early 19th century America was "well outside the mainstream". Most of the rest of the world actually respects Israel's decision to declare its capital as (the Western part of) Jerusalem. That's why ambassadors present their credentials at the official residence of the President and why they attend other official events in Jerusalem.

By: Shirin

Shirin — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:57:31 +0000

Julius Stone's positions regarding Israel are biased and usually well outside the mainstream. That is not ad hominem. And I have not decided the legitimacy of Israel placing its capital in Jerusalem, most of the rest of the world has.

By: JES49

JES49 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:46:41 +0000

From Wikipedia: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim." Your argument about Julius Stone was (and is) ad hominmen. I suggest that a more stronger approach would be for you to find someone who argues on the facts of the law rather than on Stone's character. It is not up to Shirin to decide where Israel, or any other country, places its capital. Prior to 1980 there were 13 countries that had their capitals in Jerusalem. My other arguments stand.

By: Shirin

Shirin — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:22:11 +0000

JES, you need to refresh yourself on the term ad hominem. Ad hominem does not mean not substantiated. Yes, Julius Stone is blatantly biased in his opinions regarding Israel, and is often, if not usually well away from the mainstream. A country cannot decide to put its capital in a place that is not legally part of its territory. At the very least whether Jerusalem is legally part of Israel's territory is very much in dispute, with Israel on one side and most of the rest of the world on the other. The fact that only one very small and insignificant country has its embassy in Jerusalem is very telling.

By: Mikha'el

Mikha'el — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:08:22 +0000

Re: the young man who said:: “I’m a Zionist, so of course I prefer the bloodshed on the other side.” And? What is your point? That it is inhumane for someone to prefer that more of his enemies are killed than his own people? With every other nation engaged in war, such sentiment is taken for granted. I believe that during WW2, the average Briton preferred that there was more bloodshed among German civilians, and was not dismayed that such was the case. However, Israelis' preference that few or none of their own people suffer is portrayed as an indictment by your set.