Comments on: NYT swaddles mildly pro-Palestinian view in turgid prose

By: Sin Nombre

Sin Nombre — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:01:56 +0000

Eurosabra wrote: "As a free citizen of a liberal republic, an American Jew should not be obligated to take a stand on ANYTHING to guarantee rights and physical safety, let alone the conduct of 501 (c) 3s with respect to a foreign state." Not a molecule of difference between that and what I wrote before. As to the other issue you sideswipe though I'd bet you any amount of money you want that the U.S. will remain a very liberal republic long after Israel has descended full bore into something else, which it is already more than just flirting with by denying the franchise to all those arabs under its control. (Not to mention Mr. Lieberman's call for a loyalty pledge; the rejection of democracy inherent in the call for recognition as a "jewish" state; the impunity with which the Israeli military ignores what even the Israeli courts say is the law; and now I see the veto power just given to the Shin Bet over the appointment of your judges. Some "liberalism." Some "republic.") Or, to put it another way, it's a damned amusing thing to see a partisan of Israel, which is hemorrhaging jews *to* the U.S., to be suggesting how undesirable the U.S. is as a home for jews.

By: Eurosabra

Eurosabra — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:32:03 +0000

As a free citizen of a liberal republic, an American Jew should not be obligated to take a stand on ANYTHING to guarantee rights and physical safety, let alone the conduct of 501 (c) 3s with respect to a foreign state. Odd how the Irish as an ethnicity were never forced to affirm or deny the Mitchell plan, while a case might be made that FOREIGN POLICY groups of a very narrow scope like the JPPI or JINSA might. That their Jewish nationality is more important to some than their American citizenship is an indication that we will be seeing them soon Heim ins Reich, whoops, I mean BaMoledeteinu.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:24:39 +0000

On the day recently Israel declared its admiration for Druze IDF fighters it cut off the water in the Druze villages. I guess Israel was responding to Israeli complaints there swimming pool level wasn't high enough…

By: Citizen

Citizen — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:18:57 +0000

Witty always operates in this way. The only time he argues for long, large, wide context is when he points to his erroneous belief that Jews are a people for 3,500 years and have that long a claim on the land taken and expanded endlessly at the expense of the native Palestinian arabs. Otherwise, he carefully selects his marker in a sort time frame, ignoring what came before, and in tandem he always ignores the very unequal balance of power.

By: Sin Nombre

Sin Nombre — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:13:31 +0000

Eurosabra wrote: "sind euer Unglueck [sic]." Oh, Euro, if I'm reading you right that sentiment has nothing *whatsoever* to do with what I wrote, nor even can be attributed to what Colin wrote either. (Assuming you meant "sind unser ungluck" since I don't understand your meaning otherwise.) Indeed, and precisely along the lines of what I wrote, I have no doubt many jews cringe like crazy seeing a Ross or Makovsky doing their thing precisely because Ross and Makovsky *are* doing *their* thing and *their* thing only and *do* only represent themselves—and perhaps whatever organizations that they were formerly associated with that are happy not to distance themselves from the two such as AIPAC or "The Jewish Peoples Planning Institute." You are right though that of course it's grist for the mill for anti-semites, even despite organizations like that new JStreet group showing that the Rosses and Makovskys don't speak for them. On the other hand it would also sure be nice to see some other kinds of public distancing from them, from, say The American Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, or even "The Jewish Peoples Planning Institute." Not that they are under any obligation to do so, but you'd think that if your concern was real in their mind they would indeed say something at *some* remove. After all, at some point in time even after someone has merely been *perceived* as speaking for me when they don't, if I don't stand up and deny it it's not unreasonable to conclude at the very least that it doesn't bother me, right? You simply can't have it both ways: Objecting to being identified with someone, but then forever refusing to distinguish yourself from them.

By: MRW

MRW — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:19:12 +0000

That's all peanuts compared to what Israel does to the Palestinians. Or this repelling story: " target="_blank">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/06/261...

By: MRW

MRW — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:17:41 +0000

They count on tribal publishers.

By: Eurosabra

Eurosabra — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:16:39 +0000

It's interesting how individual elitists never ONLY represent themselves when they're Jewish. Certainly the fvcking Croatian Defense Ministry, via its Silicon Valley and Beltway connections, was able to use retired US military personnel and MPRI to carry out ethnic cleansing in 1995, and secure the Military Frontier, but because they are good white Christian Catholics, it was a simple case of a few diplomats and a few good Americans doing what had to be done, omelette, eggs, regrettable. Whereas Ross and Makovsky sind euer Unglueck.

By: Strahl

Strahl — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:58:21 +0000

More intellectual dishonesty from Witty. There have been studies conducted by 'mainstream' (superficially credible) sources that demonstrate the bias in the NY Times. Harvard conducted one such study. Witty, plays games here by implying Phil's criticism is 'too much'. Yes, this article was something Witty. However, in the grand scheme – like when we conduct studies, and get the bigger picture – it's a raindrop in an ocean of pro-Israel stew. You ignore context and the in-house politics at the Times. If we look only on the surface and even then, narrow our parameters of time periods for such an analysis of the Times (like between last week and today, implied by you) then sure, the Times looks spectacular! However, if we examine the media like any rational person would; if we examine the media as the INSTITUTION that it is, we will observe that typical bias. Manufacturing Consent has been there and done that. Witty is so quick to congratulate the times on it's 'critical' article but this is purely political on his part – he wants to use this article for his argument and can only do so w/o providing context to the bigger analysis of the media. The broader perspective which is the only relevant perspective. We do not conduct studies on the media within the time span of a single day.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:27:43 +0000

Of course you don't remember. Israeli mafia man. You've been on this blog for years and the evidence has been presented multiple times, complete with reliable sources. The MSM media beat the war drums, exactly different than what they did in the Vietnam era. You know it, and so does everyone reading this blog. Careful, you are sinking to the gutter likes of Thom, ismail, SOG, Jack of Jerusalem ,Chris Berel et all…