Palestinian equal rights joins the progressive agenda on ‘The Daily Show’

on 154 Comments
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive – Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 1
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive – Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 2
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

As I entered the television studio, Aerosmith was blaring over speakers and the familiar set of The Daily Show stood empty. As can be expected, it looked much smaller in person, but everyone was excited regardless. A mixture of tourists, students and others filed in around an hour before shooting was to start. I noticed there were a few keffiyeh’s wrapped around some shoulders, a couple "Shalom" pins, and one cowboy hat covered in a huge Code Pink anti-war sticker. This was because of tonight’s guests – Dr. Mustafa Barghouti and Anna Baltzer. We were there to watch the struggle for Palestinian equal rights go prime time.

Throughout the day I had been hearing through the grapevine that The Daily Show was having second thoughts about doing the show as they had been getting pressure to cancel it. I sat towards the front, all the way to the left of the stage. In front of me was a pretty glamourous trio of three young people. The man directly in front of me wore his hair slicked back and a tailored black suit, while the woman he came in with was wrapped in a faux fur jacket that they promised wouldn’t bite. The third guy in their party had a shaved head and I noticed his jeans had a patch with an Israeli flag on it. In the pre-show tension it stood out, but it was the kind of thing you see everyday.

Slowly the studio filled up, and a warm up comedian came out to get the crowd going. Soon thereafter, Jon Stewart came out himself to take some pre-show questions. He seems to be as naturally funny as he appears on the show, and he answered questions about whether he had ever done the show stoned (no answer), or if Comedy Central ever exerts editorial control over the show (answer: Have you seen the things they show on this network?). Then the last question: "Jon, what do you think about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?" He kind of rolled his eyes, as if to say here we go, and said that this show had been different than shows in the past because they usually have to wait until after the show to get calls complaining, but this time the calls started beforehand. He said whenever he gets calls about Israel/Palestine, from either side, he treats them like calls from his grandmother (and he mimicked holding the phone away from his ear as he went about his business). The crowd laughed. It was time to start the show.

The first two segments of the show were classic Daily Show. The first dealt with the health care debate and how the single payer option refuses to die. The crowd went wild as Stewart eviscerated Fox’s slanted coverage, and the Democrats mealy response to the progressive groundswell. The bit ended with an extended joke at Joe Lieberman’s expense where the crowd booed his name and the howled at Stewart’s droopy dog impersonation. The second segment featured contributor John Hodgeman (of mac/pc commercial fame) doing a parody of a corporate idea man who is looking to rehabilitate the country’s CEO’s as their popularity continues to plummet during the recession. Pitchforks were out as corporations continue to avoid accountability and get one over on taxpayers through government bailouts. All in all, both were a near perfect reflection of a progressive base in the US frustrated by Obama and raring for a fight.

Finally, it was time for the Barghouti/Baltzer interview. Until I saw them walking on stage I expected that it would be canceled and we’d get some last minute fill in instead, but there they were. The interview ran nearly 15 minutes and it was clear it would have to be edited down to air it. The full interview is posted above, and it is well worth watching the whole thing. Right off the bat it was clear this would be a historic moment:

Baltzer: "We’re part of a large movement of Palestinian and Jews working together. This is not new or novel."

Barghouti: "Jewish Americans have been in the avant garde struggling for justice, in this country at least, and for democracy and in this particular case it is just normal that people like Anna are with us because we are struggling for liberty, we’re struggling for freedom, we’re struggling for justice."

Then, as Dr. Barghouti said that Palestinians have been subjected to a system of segregation, the man with slicked back hair sitting directly in front of me pulled a Joe Wilson and yelled "Liar!" (it’s at 1:49 of the first part of the interview).

Dr. Barghouti was unfazed and explained his reason for working with Anna – "It’s just natural to have an alliance of people who believe in the same values." He returned to this theme of values several times and applause grew every time. He finally made it clear what the Palestinians are calling for – equal rights.

Over the next few minutes he mentioned the names of leaders in whose footsteps he’s following – Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. With each passing mention the trio in front of me squirmed in their seats, and most of the rest of the audience grew more excited.

I think Stewart did a reasonable job with the interview. Although the version that ran on air made it look like he dominated the conversation, in fact he gave the speakers plenty of time to make their points. When he gave them the obligatory question on Israel’s security, Baltzer hit it out of the park:

There is nothing defensive about denying Palestinians water. There is nothing defensive about preventing people from having materials to build their homes. So many of the institutions that I understood to be defensive cannot be justified by security anymore. Building a wall between Palestinians and Palestinians?

This was too much for "Slick" in front of me to take, and he burst out again. You can hear him in the background at 7:47 of the first clip. He was escorted from the studio at 8:11 where he was belittled by Stewart ("Bye sir, you can, uh, certainly visit our sedar"). The crowd laughed and cheered as he was led away, and his faux fur clad friend was truly perplexed both by what Baltzer was saying ("Why is she saying that? What is she saying?"), as well as the crowd’s overwhelming support for the speakers. 

I don’t want to recount the whole interview, you can watch it. I have to say, I was blown away. Although I was laughing out loud for the first two segments, I was on the verge of tears throughout the interview. Here was a Palestinian leader demanding equal rights and an anti-Zionist Jew calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions to pressure Israel towards peace on The Daily Show and they were being applauded, while the traditional pro-Israel hasbara was being shown the door.

Palestinian equal rights was placed directly next to health care and the economy on The Daily Show’s progressive agenda and the audience was totally along for the ride. I could hardly believe my eyes, and yet it made perfect sense at the same time. Who can argue that it is necessary to deny people water? Who can argue against equal rights? The answer is increasingly no one, and if The Daily Show’s audience is any indication, the next generation will be leading this fight in a much different direction.

154 Responses

  1. Susie Kneedler
    October 29, 2009, 1:15 am

    Thanks, Adam. Clean water, safe homes, and equal rights for the Palestinian people: you’re right–who could argue against such justice?

    At least the uncut interview is available on line, so that we American taxpayers–who spend $3 billion a year, plus $10 billion over ten years, plus loan guarantees to the Israeli government for its ever-expanding Occupation, theft, and violence–can see it.

  2. MRW
    October 29, 2009, 1:55 am

    Great report, Adam. “Slick.” lol. You know, if HuffPo didn’t censor all matters I/P to the degree they do, perhaps more people would know how this issue is a lot more important to Americans than most think it is. I’m convinced that the demise of newspapers started with the arrogance and elitism of the NYT pooh-poohing the objections to the Iraq War (Judith Miller) and drove people to the web in a fury to vent. Now the I/P issue is being handled the same way on major blogs (HuffPo, Daily Kos, and toothless, terrified sites like the once-interesting Crooks & Liars) and the pushback is going to hurt them as well.

    Tonight Intelligence Online (fee) announced that “The CIA is investing in technology that will allow intelligence agencies to monitor social networks Twitter and Facebook.” Someone’s going to have to come up with something else.

  3. matter
    October 29, 2009, 1:56 am

    I only managed to watch the first clip and part of the second. At that point, I overloaded on Stewart’s hasbara bullshit. No, Jon, only Shimon Peres threatened to “wipe Iran off the face of the earth,” not the other way around. No, Jon, there is no evidence to date that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There is plenty of evidence that Israel actually has nuclear weapons. No Jon, the European Jews are not “from” Palestine; they are invaders and colonial occupiers. There was more bullshit, but I think you get the picture.

    Maybe Stewart’s Zionist bias is unconscious, but either way, he’s hardly taking an honest point of view. Looks like the freaky trio mentioned above aren’t the only ones needing some de-brainwashing.

    • James
      October 29, 2009, 2:02 am

      as MRW points out, you can always read and follow HuffPo, Daily Kos, and toothless, terrified sites like the once-interesting Crooks & Liars if you insist…

    • JGlatzer
      October 29, 2009, 2:11 am

      i totally agree. there is only one nuclear power in the middle east (Israel), whose ally (the US) is occupying the other country’s (Iran’s) neighbors (Iraq and Afghanistan). Not to mention that Israel is still violating Lebanon’s sovereignty every single day, and that it has already violated the Geneva Conventions by threatening aggressive war against Iran.

      Jon’s hasbara made me sick! It was like he was reciting the greatest hits of StandWithUS: the Jews had refugees too, Palestinian children learn hate from their TV shows, why don’t the Arab countries help Palestinians, Iran has nuclear weapons. This last one is the worst.

      The false guilt by association of what any Arab, ME, Muslim country does to be blamed on Palestine. Was it Palestinians that threw the Jews out in 1948 from the other Arab countries? It’s just plain racist to lump them all together like that. It’s like saying to a Honduran angry about Zelaya being thrown out of office, “Well, you know the Latin countries have their faults too, look at what Daniel Ortega does in Nicaragua. Why doesn’t he help Hondurans.”

      Actually the dumbest part was when Jon suggested Palestine just declare statehood as if they didn’t already in 1988.

      • AM
        October 29, 2009, 11:50 am

        You know that John Stewart, in his interviews, often goes through many basic points that we think is obvious, but that the general population doesn’t know about. If I had to bet, most people probably don’t know about the Palestinians, and many are completely mis informed on the most basic tactics. True, they (correctly) didn’t challenge the Iran question because its not directly relevant for their cause. They are trying to raise awareness on Palestine. That doesn’t may they said, “Oh Yeah, Iran, big baddie!”…and if you have a specific point you want to emphasize, its best to stay on topic even if the interviewer (conciously or unconciously) takes it off topic.

      • wondering jew
        October 29, 2009, 1:39 pm

        JGlatzer- I don’t know specifically what declaring statehood involves, but apparently the statehood declared in 1988 was just on paper, because at the time there was complete occupation and there has been no de facto statehood established since, rather something called the Palestinian Authority. Recently Prime Minister Fayyad has declared that if the peace process does not move forward he plans to declare statehood in two years (2011) and he plans to build the necessary institutions to prepare for that eventuality. So although I am also unclear about what would be involved in the declaration of statehood that Fayyad envisions, obviously the declaration of 1988 is still less than complete.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 1:57 pm

        WJ? States pretty much only exist on paper. Man, I thought you had problems with 21st century civilization — apparently you’re backlogged farther than I thought.

        The reason Palestine doesn’t have a seat on the UN pretty much boils down to five words: United States Security Council veto.

      • wondering jew
        October 29, 2009, 5:32 pm

        Here is Daoud Kuttab on the Fayyad plan to build state institutions and declare a state in two years if peace talks do not progress:

        “This is a brilliant plan that works with or without Israeli cooperation. If the Israelis want a negotiated settlement, the plan gives negotiators two years to reach it. However, if the Israelis drag their feet, a Palestinian state will exist in reality by then.

        “Once these tangible elements of a genuinely viable Palestinian state come into being, all that will be needed is the political will to declare statehood and enjoy worldwide recognition.”

        Read more at: link to

      • Shirin
        October 30, 2009, 2:01 am

        Only a handful of Arab countries threw the Jews out after 1948. In most cases the exodus of the Arab Jews was engineered by Zionists. Iraq is a case in point. In fact, some expulsions were a direct result of Zionist actions, as in the case of Egypt where the Lavon affair caused enormous suspicion of Egyptian Jews, resulting in their expulsion. The loss of the Arab Jewish communities was a tragedy for the countries, and for the Jews who left.

      • Shirin
        October 30, 2009, 2:11 am

        Prime Minister Fayyad has declared that if the peace process does not move forward he plans to declare statehood in two years (2011) and he plans to build the necessary institutions to prepare for that eventuality.

        He can declare statehood all he wants. That’s been done, and I don’t know anyone in their right mind who believes there is a State of Palestine. He can build all the institutions he wants. That’s been done too, and Israel just comes along and destroys them.

    • Shirin
      October 30, 2009, 1:55 am

      I have to agree with you. I was appalled to hear Jon Stewart repeat three bits of abysmally ignorant BS about Iran in one breath. There is not only no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there is strong evidence that they are not. And not only did Ahmadi Najad not say anything about wiping Israel off the map, what he DID say was not his own words or thoughts, but part of a statement by Khomeini that is repeated every year on Jerusalem Day. Further, the President of Iran has nothing to do with military policy or weapons development, or foreign policy, nor does he “run Iran”. Nor are the “Mullahs” at all mad. They are, in fact, quite rational people. It is unfortunate that neither of the guests was able to challenge Stewart’s Iran nonsense.

      • JGlatzer
        October 30, 2009, 12:25 pm

        AM-I totally agree. I didn’t mean to say it was anything the guests did wrong, they were amazing, but Jon’s guilt by association tactics he tried to play on them was shameful at best.

        WJew: fayyad is an idiot. in fact worse. he is a stooge for the international monetary fund, and his declaration means absolutely nothing. there can be no palestinian state established against the will of israel. if they don’t like it they just put up a checkpoint or say it’s a closed military zone and that’s the end of fayyad’s ridiculous plans. there is a fiction being perpetrated: that the “peace process” is leading to anything other than further israeli colonization of palestine, and fayyad as a client of the US and Israel is doing his job by giving Palestinians false hope that there can possibly be a state within 2 years.

        RE: establishment of state in 1988. It means something in some ways, but Palestine is clearly not a state, it is a territory under occupation aka military dictatorship. It means a little more than nothing. What I was upset about that Jon threw that out there, it was as if he thought that the cure-all. Just declare a state he says, well what my point was is that they did in ’88 and it didn’t change or mean shit.

    • Sergeiy
      October 31, 2009, 4:57 am

      Matter, and the rest of you people – Rome wasn’t built in a day. Had Stewart Been saying all the things that would keep us here satisfied, the show would never have made it to prime time on US network TV.

      99% of the US population needs some de-brainwashing, and if you try to do it all at once it just ain’t going to work. So let’s try to have some patience here.

  4. sky7i
    October 29, 2009, 2:09 am

    Hmm, can’t watch the above videos in Canada, and can’t seem to find the extended interview on the Comedy Network (Canada) site either. Anyone know any alternatives? Hopefully someone will upload this to Vimeo/Youtube.

    • DICKERSON3870
      October 29, 2009, 3:11 am

      RE: can’t seem to find the extended interview on the Comedy Network (Canada)

      THEY APPEAR TO BE UP NOW AT – link to

      Exclusive – Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 1 (08:27)

      Exclusive – Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 2 (06:47)

      If you still can’t view them, I can upload them for RealPlayer to RapidShare, SendSpace or HotFile.

      • sky7i
        October 29, 2009, 3:26 am

        If I go to that link, I’m redirected to the Canadian site, but the extended interview isn’t available there. So yes, I’d appreciate another way of getting ahold of them. If you need to e-mail me, mail me

    • DICKERSON3870
      October 29, 2009, 3:32 am

      RE: “Hmm, can’t watch the above videos in Canada”

      MY COMMENT: You might need to update/install Adobe Flash Player. The latest version is

      Adobe Flash Player version
      Windows, Firefox, Safari, Opera – link to


    • Nolan
      October 29, 2009, 4:45 am

      I suspect Comedy Central’s website might be configured so that it can detect where you’re located (i.e. through your IP address). That’s why it keeps directing you to the Canada-specific content.

      You will need to use an IP proxy.

      I’ve set it up for you. All you have to do is click on the link below.

      link to

  5. Nolan
    October 29, 2009, 4:51 am

    Jon’s body language at 3:56 (+/- 5 seconds) of the first part is interesting.

    • former coMMenter
      October 29, 2009, 11:22 am

      I admit I was paying more attention to Anna’s body language.

      Who were those other two guys, and why were did they keep interrupting the show?

  6. Nolan
    October 29, 2009, 5:18 am

    I’ve just finished watching both parts. There were so many good points that were edited out in the version that aired on TV that I’m inclined to say the entire interview was butchered in the editing room. Whoever had the final say on the editing didn’t miss any chance to include all the talking points often brought up in the mainstream media. Anna’s points were very poignant, alas most were not included in the final cut.

    That’s unfortunate, especially the exclusion of the water issue and the wall. Nonetheless, this is better than nothing at all I guess.

    On a side note, twice Jon described himself as an “outside observer”.

  7. Richard Witty
    October 29, 2009, 6:33 am

    I had a different impression from the clips.

    I was impressed with Barghouti, particularly the statements that inferred that he accepted the two-state solution, rather than his prior non-violent movement emphasizing a single state.

    Anna Balzer was a little more deceptive. When asked about their impression about how to resolve conflicts between Hamas, Fatah and non-violence, she/they entirely avoided the question, didn’t even say “we don’t have an answer to that”.

    I guess its necessary to spin, to emphasize the parts of the argument that they will later play on.

    Is that car sales repping or honesty?

    A single-state will not in a century result in the degree of security that Israelis need. There is too much anger on both sides, rationally.

    I also questioned the presentation of attractive women (partially as a prop sadly) in Phil’s depiction of the Shministin movement and hear. I guess you have to put your softened image forward, rather than the strident.

    But, the REALITY is that stridency is what gets expressed. Not non-violent speech, but taunting speech, not “non-violent” rock-throwing but actual rock-throwing.

    Neilim, Beilim is not non-violent currently. 99.5% of Palestinian demonstration is not non-violent. Even in the last six months, when Hamas has not shelled southern Israel, and Al Aqsa Martyrs have been closed down by Fatah, the “non-violent” demonstrations still cut fences, throw rocks, taunt.

    That is not Martin Luther King’s standard of non-violence.

    • Donald
      October 29, 2009, 7:05 am

      This from the guy who had nothing critical to say about Bernstein’s attack on HRW.

      Taunting, cutting fences, throwing rocks–golly, no wonder the Israelis can’t treat Palestinians like human beings. And Witty talks about the Palestinians not being as good as MLK, when he supports Israel behaving worse than Bull Conner.

      Nothing new here.

    • Citizen
      October 29, 2009, 7:08 am

      Contacting the Daily Show to cancel the show in advance is regression under any

      Selective editing based on content is also regression, just slightly less.

      The stridency expressed by the heckler was the only stridency expressed.

    • Chaos4700
      October 29, 2009, 7:16 am

      How come you don’t advocate for non-violence among Jews? How come you don’t advocate for non-violence among Israelis, and most especially the settlers? You endlessly decry “Well where is the Palestinian Martin Luther King?” (He’s in prison, incidentally and you keep dodging that topic)

      Witty… where is the Israeli Martin Luther King? At what point has Zionism ever been about nonviolence?

      • Colin Murray
        October 29, 2009, 9:18 am

        These are good questions.

      • James
        October 29, 2009, 3:51 pm

        if witty was capable of asking the same objective questions to the zionists who are always spinning shit he would have a modicum of integrity.. as it is, he is only capable of questioning those he doesn’t agree with and leads others to assume he agrees with those he doesn’t question… so i would ask witty the same question :Is that car sales repping or honesty?”

    • Nolan
      October 29, 2009, 7:27 am

      Wait, they taunted and cut fences? Oh, the humanity.

      Meanwhile, colonizers (aka settlers) are burning vines and olive trees belonging to Palestinians in retaliation for every Zionist outpost the Israeli army takes down.

      Palestinian teenagers were kidnapped from Bil’in recently by the army and various newspapers are reporting that the Israeli army is using Mista’revim – (Hebrew for pretending to be Arabs) or in Western parlance “agent provocateurs” – more often to justify quashing non-violent demonstrations.

      There are videos on YouTube showing what starts as a peaceful march. It soon escalates when a few individuals within the demonstrators start throwing rocks. The Israeli army responds with tear gas and live ammunition and then the marchers start dispersing and more and more start throwing rocks. Then, out of nowhere a group of men emerges among the marchers, they pull out hats from their back pockets and put them on. The hats read “police” and they start grabbing Palestinians, hauling them off into jeeps for “throwing rocks”.

      RW seems to have some psychological syndrome where every time the truth is told in the media, he reverts to his honest yet bigoted and hypocritical inner self. A few days pass and he cools off and starts rationalizing the occupation. Then another report shows up in the media (First Bill Moyers and now Jon Stewart) and he snaps again, panics and the true ideologue in him emerges again, more blatant and propagandizing.

      • Mooser
        October 29, 2009, 5:49 pm

        RW seems to have some psychological syndrome …

        It’s the ziocaine. Good description of it’s effects, too.

      • Shingo
        October 30, 2009, 7:47 am

        Good observation Nolan,

        I’ve noticed that too. Being a rampant Zionist must be such a hindrance. RW workds so hard to sound humane and empathitic, but predictably, his biggotry and ideolgy break through the pressure valve of modertation and reveals itself to us.

    • Sergeiy
      October 31, 2009, 5:04 am

      Hmm…. just on the point about the Shministim – look, the 2008/9 group of Shministim was made up almost entirely of women (most of them gay, if that’s any consolation to you), and they’re all around 18 – the age of conscription in Israel – so, well, there just wasn’t anyone else to showcase. Sorry.

  8. Eva Smagacz
    October 29, 2009, 6:40 am

    Utterly frustrating.
    Can’t watch it at all, even with several proxy services, and different browser, or on link set up by Nolan (thanks for your help, Nolan).
    Tried also all the above on a Mac with Safari, to no avail.

    • OhioJoes
      October 29, 2009, 9:47 am

      Is Smegma setting us up for some sort of Polish joke? Probably not, so here’s a try. Download the latest version of Safari and TURN ON the computer.

      • marc b.
        October 29, 2009, 11:03 am

        Good god, what a revolting piece of work you are, OhioJoes. And not even the testicular fortitude to use your real name when slinging such crap. A vulgar coward. That about sums you up, eh?

      • potsherd
        October 29, 2009, 11:34 am

        I have reported this comment as abusive.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 12:42 pm

        I suppose I should have weighed in on this too, but admittedly I skipped over it pretty quick. As someone with Polish heritage myself, it’s not that I haven’t heard stuff like this before. I figure my time is spent more valuable defending other people’s ethnicities. :)

        But really, have we come to expect anything different from OhioJoes?

      • marc b.
        October 29, 2009, 2:10 pm

        My mother is Polish, and OJoes’ vulgarity and this whole JStreet slight of hand is setting me on edge. Must . . . calm. . . down.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 2:20 pm

        He’s a racist, plain and simple. I kind of got that sense from Mr. Sutton pretty early on with his posts. Oh sure, he dances around his bigotry — not with as much grace as Witty, mind you — but every now and then? It kind of hits you overtly, like now.

    • Citizen
      October 29, 2009, 10:25 am

      I don’t know why, Eva. I was able to view it on an old Mac with an old version of Safari. Where do you live? Also pay no attention to OhioJoes’s vulgar and bigoted slurs. Most of us value your contributions here.

      • kapok
        October 29, 2009, 11:37 am

        It’s “Canadian Content” rules a la CBC. Canada subsidizes lame clones of popular Yanqui programs which CBC shows over and over again and only us ruralitos without cable or satellite ever watch. I am convinced that they have a hand in making it difficult for Canadians to access US media. CTV (Cock-Tease Vision) slips in a few Merkin shows, Dailyshow, CSI, the hospital one with the Chinese actress…through some sort of loop hole.

      • OhioJoes
        October 29, 2009, 12:58 pm

        Ny name is Joe Sutton, and I live in Berea Ohio. Come and visit me any time, Marc “b”!

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 1:11 pm

        You still haven’t figured out how to make the Reply button work quite yet, have you, Mr. Sutton?

      • OhioJoes
        October 29, 2009, 1:16 pm

        The reply button didn’t appear below either your or “Marc” s name. But thanks for outing yourself as Polish. I never would have guessed!

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 1:37 pm

        “Outing?” Seriously? I thought we dealt with your type at Nuremberg, huh. Guess we missed a couple spots.

      • Eva Smagacz
        October 29, 2009, 2:07 pm

        The problem with not being able to see the above videos is likely to be caused by my location: England.
        I am getting a message that the video is not available in my country. I hoped I could get round it by using proxy server but it didn’t work.

      • marc b.
        October 29, 2009, 3:26 pm

        Ny name is Joe Sutton, and I live in Berea Ohio. Come and visit me any time, Marc “b”!

        Really. And what is your pedigree “joe” since you seem to have a fixation with us Poles? Or better yet, in the spirit of glasnost, why don’t you educate me more fully about your racial world view. Or is it just ‘Polacks’ that you have a problem with?

      • Mooser
        October 29, 2009, 5:55 pm

        If I’m not mistaken, OhioJoe comes to us fresh from Salon, at Glenn Greenwald’s column, where he was judged to be a pustule, excrescence, way over the frozen limit and a first-class bore.

    • TimC
      October 30, 2009, 10:30 am

      You can now view it in the UK here:
      link to

  9. Citizen
    October 29, 2009, 6:54 am

    I watched the edited version on cable, and just now, the full event. I agree with what everyone above here says about the content. I guess with this Daily Show episode, we have to be thankful it was done at all, I feel the same way about the J-Street conference. Reminds me of Obama’s Cairo speech; at least it was made…

    • Citizen
      October 29, 2009, 6:56 am

      I don’t agree with Richard Witty–his comment was posted before mine was.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 7:53 am

        Having watched the full interview (and I can’t bring myself to watch the edited one) I actually have to say I had a lot of appreciation for it. There has been some criticism here about how Jon Stewart handled it but I have to say, he was pretty even handed. I don’t like that he dredged up the “Iran wants to kill all the Jews” and “Iran has nuclear weapons” canards but — and maybe I’m being too forgiving — he’s speaking from the perspective of the vast American populace who for the most part have been bamboozled into buying the newest re-branding of what we did in Iraq.

        Kudos to Dr. Barghouti for having the courage to point out matter of factly Israel’s connection in our target selection for our recent wars. Though perhaps that’s only courage for Americans — for the rest of the world it’s gotten rather painfully obvious that Israel runs our “foreign policy,” military or otherwise.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 7:54 am

        That was not actually meant as a reply but as a standalone post. Oops :)

      • Psychopathic god
        October 29, 2009, 6:28 pm

        chaos wrote:

        I don’t like that he dredged up the “Iran wants to kill all the Jews” and “Iran has nuclear weapons” canards but — and maybe I’m being too forgiving — he’s speaking from the perspective of the vast American populace who for the most part have been bamboozled into buying the newest re-branding of what we did in Iraq.

        Yes, you are being too forgiving. Stewart should be the corrective to the “bamboozle” narrative, not its endorser.

        Stewart and every other public person who lies and incites to war ought not be forgiven but ought to be called on it, strenuously and uncompromisingly.

        Lies are lies, and people who claim a microphone have a greater responsibility to refrain from telling lies, particularly when the lies are known to cause masses of people to die.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 7:24 pm

        You have a point. I don’t believe Stewart is willingly propagating those lies, but ignorance is not absolution of culpability. He does have a duty to the truth.

        I suppose I give him some leeway if only because he’s hitting closer to the mark than anyone else in prime time, and I believe he will, given the opportunity, side with justice and honesty rather than bowing to inducement and pressure from the usual suspects.

  10. Taxi
    October 29, 2009, 7:21 am

    Why did you even bother, Jon?

    You know this should’ve been John Oliver’s piece.

    We would have seen less sickening hypocrisy from him than from that “outside observer” (yeah right!) Jon Stewart.

  11. potsherd
    October 29, 2009, 8:59 am

    There will be no progress on this front until the anti-Zionist side can muster a dedicated cadre of thousands, who monitor the news for anyone about to present an Israeli point of view and notify members to call and protest against war criminals being given a forum; to call merchants like Amazon and complain that books by war criminals are being sold, etc.

    Until then, the Zionists will continue to succeed in preventing the opposing side from being heard.

    • Richard Witty
      October 29, 2009, 9:16 am

      And, if you pursue that, you will have to be ugly, willingly lying, willingly denying the humanity of half of the world’s Jews (those that live in Israel and are Zionist).

      • Colin Murray
        October 29, 2009, 9:28 am

        Exactly how is “[monitoring] the news for anyone about to present an Israeli point of view and [notifying] members to call and protest against war criminals being given a forum, and [calling] merchants like Amazon and complaining that books by war criminals are being sold” a denial of humanity? Denying humanity to me means dehumanization. The only dehumanization I see happening is that of Palestinians. Monitoring, notifying, and calling sound to me like simple lobbying. Only the Israeli Lobby should be able to lobby on the issue of peace in the Middle East and an extraction of America from conflicts that have nothing to do with us? I don’t think so.

      • Cheryl
        October 29, 2009, 9:32 am

        And that is what has been done to the Palestinian viewpoint…..CAMERA and Stand With Us are just two of the organizations that concentrate their efforts in this direction and Mr. Witty their efforts have gone a long way in denying the humanity or rather smearing the character of anyone who stands up to the Israeli narrative be they Palestinians, Americans, Muslims, Christians, or Jews. Furthermore, the effect they have is really unknown because it is almost unspoken. We simply do not know how many plays, how many news articles, opinion pieces etc. did not occur because groups/individuals that want no criticism of Israel to appear were hard at work and indeed this is ugly.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 9:36 am

        Just so we’re clear, Witty, that you agree with us that Zionists are ugly, willingly lie and willyingly deny the humanity of others. I mean, because, that’s basically the logical extension of your point, when you castigate potsherd for suggesting that we have to do the same thing that Zionists do.

      • potsherd
        October 29, 2009, 10:10 am

        As ugly as the Zionists, denying the humanity of ALL the world’s Palestinians? And denying them a voice, attempting to ensure that their views will never be heard? This is the sin of hasbara, but as always you forgive one side and demonize the other for doing the same thing.

        And of course war criminals are perfectly human – all too human. It is humans who perpetrate evils and humans who make excuses for them.

      • Citizen
        October 29, 2009, 10:51 am

        Does AIPAC’s ugly, willingly lying pursuit of it’s agenda deny any humanity at all?

      • marc b.
        October 29, 2009, 10:58 am

        I have tried to take RWitty’s commentary at face value, investing a sincerity and honesty that in reality it lacks. Is there a point in continuing to engage him? I’m not so sure.

      • kapok
        October 29, 2009, 11:40 am

        half of the world’s Jews…Zionist

        a fading marque

      • Mooser
        October 29, 2009, 5:57 pm

        Richard, no one is denying their humanity. Everything the Israelis do is an aspect of humanity that we have seen before in the same situations, and experience tells will come to a tragic end, and is causing massive suffering now. We know, to our sorrow, just how human they are.

      • Psychopathic god
        October 29, 2009, 6:40 pm

        the more comments such as Witty’s, which boils down to, “Jews are being picked on…boo hoo,” the more Karin Friedemann’s explanation of goy guilt rings true. Friedemann writes:

        The problem is that Gentiles are taught through emotional pressure and violence via the media and the school system to be very sensitive to Jewish suffering so when a Zionist becomes outraged at them for challenging their world view, the Gentile really has to fight against his own inner self in a huge battle against his “inner Jew” making him feel inadequate and intimidated. But the Jew doesn’t care how much he or she hurts others. Jews only care about what’s good for the Jews. … link to

    • Cheryl
      October 29, 2009, 9:18 am

      I think you are correct potsherd. So if we want Stuart and others to continue down this path it seems like sending a note saying we value these discussions, even if they create controversy, may be one route to go. I have long believed that no one (including the press, Congress, etc.) could very much like the feeling of having to tow the line for a vocal and aggressive constituency.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 9:38 am

        A fair fight is exactly the sort of thing that people like Witty fear the most, if you don’t mind my getting speculative (I dare say it’s an educated guess based on personal experience).

      • potsherd
        October 29, 2009, 11:36 am

        I have done so, but I know it’s not enough. The opposition has highly organized masses and the isolated efforts of individuals won’t be able to counter their campaign.

    • MRW
      October 30, 2009, 1:30 am


      “There will be no progress on this front until the anti-Zionist side can muster a dedicated cadre of thousands, who monitor the news for anyone about to present an Israeli point of view and notify members to call and protest against war criminals being given a forum; to call merchants like Amazon and complain that books by war criminals are being sold, etc.”

      Great idea. But actually, in order for it to succeed, you have to describe Zionist anti-Gentilism, because you have to identify the Zionist target. Palestinians aren’t just Muslim, they’re Christian as well: in sum, Gentiles. Then you get down to the nitty-gritty of the conflict.

      Imagine, for a moment, that the nascent Jewish state was dumped into the middle of a land full of French or British inhabitants back in 1948, with nary an Arab to be found. The Zionists today would be battling them – again, Gentiles – for the land they claim god bequeathed to them in his moleskine around 200-300 BCE. We’d be having protracted discussions, now, about Huguenots or Anglo-Saxons whatever winning battles whenever to justify their right to be there. The Zionists claim a Bible or Old Testament imperative to do what they’re doing – Netanyahu even made that statement recently at the UN – and those docs are clear: the Gentiles are the bad guys. (Read ’em.)

      So let’s dispense with the niceties of parochial war and call a spade a spade: Zionists dont like Gentiles, and they especially dont like Gentiles telling them what to do when they want to do what they want to do wherever they want to do it, whether that’s in the USA or Israel; put any polite camouflage on it you want as a reason: exceptionalism, victimized, etc. The Christian Zionist crazies are along for the ride on this one because they’re locked into the same tiresome 2000 year-old battle they think needs to be fought waiting for the Messiah to show up in Tel Aviv, whereupon the sheer force of their numbers will cause the Jews located there, Zionist or not, to see the light and convert. If not, of course, there will be another religious war.

      You know, this shit just gets exhausting, and it’s so outré.

    • Sergeiy
      October 31, 2009, 5:19 am

      That’s absolutely true, but I’d call for smarter methods. I mean, the sort of attacks on Stewart I read here in the comments are absolutely counter-productive (even if the points being made are correct). Economic and public pressure needs not be venomous, and – most important – the sort of tactics that work for the Zionists in securing the unchallengeability of their already dominant (and false) narrative are simply not effective when first bringing the truth to the public sphere. Just copying Zionist tactics is a mark of strategic incompetence.

  12. Cheryl
    October 29, 2009, 9:04 am

    Glenn Greenwald just did a fantastic job of pointing out the U.S. footprint in the Mideast including supporting Israel in its wars…..Most lucid argument I have heard for removing the military footprint from Afghanistan. When neocon Dan Senor challenged Greenwald with the number of Al Queda training camps in Afghanistan prior to 9-11, Greenwald rebutted with the U.S overthrow of the Shah, supporting Israel’s wars and thee bases in Saudi Arabia as support that America has been interfering in this neighborhood for a long time.

    Wikipedia suggests Dan Senor (who has just written a book on the success of the Israeli economy linking it apparently to the discipline of IDF service – I haven’t read it yet- and who has been on MSNBC programming at least three times in the last three days )is very connected to AIPAC, Bill Krystol etc. and Israel. Two days ago he supported Cheney’s “dithering” comment and Mika Brezinski (MSNBC Morning Joe show) was incredulous – could not believe it-….obviously she was unaware of Senor’s footprints.

    At any rate the Stuart show and now Ratigan’s show have both presented a viewpoint the rest of the media has been slow to include. Why would they when prior to the program showing, at least in the Daily Show case, they were having to field protests, during the show they field protests and I am sure that they will get an earfull if not more. Breaking through that stranglehold has to be wearisome and treacherous.

    • MRW
      October 30, 2009, 1:39 am

      Cheryl, interesting post. Next time include some links.

    • MRW
      October 30, 2009, 2:07 am

      Dan Senor’s sister is head of AIPAC in Israel, I believe. When Senor was on Morning Joe this past summer with Donny Deutsch, Senor wouldn’t give Donny’s comments the light of day – he was really dismissive – until Donny mentioned in passing, light-heartedly, in a discussion about Israel, “Well, I’m a member of the Tribe…” Senor’s eyes lit up, and he directed all his attention to Donny for the remainder of the show.

      I find Senor to be insufferable on Morning Joe. He is a hardcore Zionist, settler mentality, but he tries to hide it.

    • MRW
      October 30, 2009, 2:19 am

      Hey, everybody here’s the link to the debate amongst Ratigan, Greenwald, and Senor that Cheryl was writing about. Worth watching:
      link to

  13. David Samel
    October 29, 2009, 9:27 am

    During the Gaza invasion, Stewart was actually quite daring.
    link to
    The best part is at the very end, with his rebuttal to Bloomberg.

    As I recall, he also did an excellent bit at the AIPAC conference in 2008, where the presidential candidates prostrated themselves with great indignity

    • Chaos4700
      October 29, 2009, 9:56 am

      Yeah. People are being a bit hard on Stewart for how he handled the interview and admittedly, I can often be one of the hard-asses around here. But in this case I really need to give Stewart credit. I think like a lot of people, Operation Cast Lead has opened his eyes to what is really going on in the Middle East.

      • potsherd
        October 29, 2009, 10:12 am

        If we support his partial efforts, it can only encourage him to go further towards the truth.

      • VR
        October 29, 2009, 1:23 pm

        Not that I dislike the venue, but it is a shame that the only individual progressive to handle this was Jon, that a national introduction of this had to take place on a comedy show. Lets keep encouraging him.

    • MRW
      October 30, 2009, 1:41 am

      You’re right, David. Stewart has a history of ponying up to the bar with some clear thinking. He got my respect when he took on Kinsey and Begala on Crossfire years ago.

    • MRW
      October 30, 2009, 1:51 am

      Thanks, David, I never saw that Stewart show. It was great, except for the annoying Web site overlays. And I loved the rebuttal you pointed out.

  14. potsherd
    October 29, 2009, 11:55 am

    Daily Show online forum: link to

    Weigh in!

    • Chaos4700
      October 29, 2009, 1:00 pm

      Wow, I’m actually impressed. I’ve only skimmed the forums but I’m not seeing them completely overrun by hasbara stooges, like I’m used to seeing pretty much anywhere else on the internet. Myself and a friend of mine once witnessed in real time how a hasbara sting flooded a YouTube posting and dropped it from 4-5 stars to 1-2 stars in fifteen minutes flat. And then of course there are my post-January experiences on HuffPo.

      I see that as a pretty good sign. Also, while there are tons of comments and I haven’t read them all, I did stumble upon a historical essay posted by Nolan (I assume of the same name here) Good work on that! The Daily Show has an intelligent audience base and factual information is going to win the day with them, I think.

      • Nolan
        October 29, 2009, 5:28 pm

        Indeed, Chaos that was me. Thank you.

    • Citizen
      October 29, 2009, 3:09 pm

      Thanks, potsherd, I weighed in.

    • jeffrey
      October 30, 2009, 9:36 pm

      @potsherd As a jew I believed everything John Stewart did,but what i can tell in his voice he is on the verge of finding out the truth! I was screaming at the Tv myself,and then I realized this is groundbreaking!! I know how you feel,but this is a start that should we should rejoice the fact that americans will know,and sooner then later

  15. Koozie
    October 29, 2009, 1:01 pm

    The version that aired was so badly editted that the effect was completely lost. Two significant points here (1) the Jewish-American woman was completely muzzled save for a few meaningless slogans about cooperation (2) not one word about the 1,600 Palestinians killed in Cast Lead (3) not one word about the Goldstone Report.

    • Mooser
      October 29, 2009, 6:01 pm

      “The version that aired was so badly editted that the effect was completely lost.”

      That is rotten, really rotten of them.

    • Eva Smagacz
      October 29, 2009, 6:21 pm

      Koozie, the version that aired was so WELL edited that the effect was completely lost. Why do you think American public is so ignorant of the I/P issues? – it is the editors and publishers of media that are gatekeepers of the information.

      • Citizen
        October 29, 2009, 7:29 pm

        Correct; this is exactly what Richard Witty, as an example, always ignores–he’s like a Nazi on a White Rose blog. A perfect example of what humane progress is up against,

  16. robin
    October 29, 2009, 4:00 pm

    I’m actually more satisfied with this interview than with Moyers-Goldstone. This is mostly because a Palestinian was actually allowed to speak! And to make the most important point that can be made in this whole issue, which is that the Palestinians demand and deserve equality! (And it wasn’t even edited out!)

    Stewart strikes me as a guy who has a solid background in the pro-Israel narrative (he mentions Hebrew school), but who is sincerely interested in questioning that and supporting the right things (while also mocking everybody to comedic effect). So yes, his hasbara talking points were distasteful and distracting, but they represent the real concerns of people like him (in which I include most American Jews and progressives). And the most important thing he did was bring Barghouti and Baltzer on the show, to answer those concerns and refocus the discussion when necessary. Hopefully meeting a man of Barghouti’s moral stature will help open his eyes and spur his curiosity even more.

    To hear Adam Horowitz describe it, this was a really important and powerful moment for Palestinian rights advocacy in America, and I hope he’s right.

    • Citizen
      October 29, 2009, 7:34 pm

      Well, he did more than anyone else in the celebrity MSM with a career to lose–that’s nothing to diminish. Have no clue if he had anything at all to say in the editing done for cable TV that was reflected by the full show segment captured on video clip.

  17. Les
    October 29, 2009, 5:45 pm

    While the Gaza massacre was occurring, Amy Goodman reported on open opposition by some Jews who had formerly accepted the status quo but who had become committed anti-Zionists thanks to what they saw with their own eyes. Their low numbers suggested a deep gap though not a wide one among Jews, but the gap was real and unlikely to be temporary because it was so very deep. Stewart is early to the debate and adds to the widening process because he encourages a larger audience of people, especially Jews, to join the debate. Hamas versus the PLO or one state versus a two state solutions are relevant topics for Palestinians to debate but they are a side show for everyone else who should keep in focus the choice of supporting “peace for Israel” that requires it to return to its side of the Green Line or of supporting “a piece for Israel” which requires a US and European imposed Sudetenland settlement on the Palestinians. In time Stewart may be able to advance the terms of the debate but he deserves credit for his beginning position.

    • Nolan
      October 29, 2009, 6:06 pm

      Do you remember who was interviewed by Amy Goodman back then or when the show aired? I’d appreciate it.

      • Les
        October 29, 2009, 8:14 pm

        Sorry I don’t remember the exact date. This took place at a demonstration outside the headquarters of a pro-Israeli Jewish group located not far from the Fire House studio. It was of an unnamed young mother, as far as I could tell, who Amy interviewed briefly. I was particularly struck by the woman’s anger as a Jew and her determination to make sure her children learned what was being done.

  18. Call Me Ishmael
    October 29, 2009, 6:19 pm

    I just finished watching on the LINK TV network the latest weekly edition of James Zogby’s “Viewpoint” program. Zogby interviewed Mustafa Barghouti for about 20 minutes. It’s worth watching. Barghouti stressed the need to freeze settlements BEFORE renewing peace negotiations, and achieving a reconciliation between the PA and Hamas BEFORE holding Palestinian elections.

    Today’s show in not yet up on the “Viewpoint” website (link below), but you should be able to find it there within a few days.

    link to

    • Citizen
      October 29, 2009, 7:40 pm

      Obama’s regime seems tale a stance (since Obama in Cairo) exactly the contrary.

      • Chaos4700
        October 29, 2009, 7:56 pm

        It seems like the only “change” we can believe in, is Obama going back on what he’s said at earlier times.

  19. GalenSword
    October 29, 2009, 6:19 pm

    How about equal rights for Arab and Muslim American citizens: [AAFIA] The Zionist Islamophobic Police State?

    J-Street is suspiciously uninterested in the ongoing conspiracy of the Israel Lobby against the rights of Arab and Muslim citizens.

    The organization does not seem to have a problem with civil rights violations here that maintain Jewish domination of the discussion of ME policy in the USA.

  20. DICKERSON3870
    October 29, 2009, 11:15 pm

    RE: Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti on “The Daily Show”

    SEE: “Daily Show under fire for covering Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, By Daniel Tencer, 10/29/09

    (excerpt) Jon Stewart’s comedy news show The Daily Show is reportedly under fire from pro-Israeli groups for giving airtime to two pro-Palestinian figures on Wednesday night…

    …According to a letter reportedly written by Baltzer and circulated by blogger Eric Johnson, the show “was overwhelmed with angry emails and phone calls prior to the appearance, and up until the last minute it seemed like they might cancel.”..,

    …The segment drew criticisms from a number of pro-Israeli activists and commenters. “Jon Stewart [had] a couple of disgraceful guests on his show on Wednesday night for a night of Israel bashing,” wrote blogger Israel Matzav. “No, there’s no pro-Israel counterpoint (perhaps he will try to convince us that ISM activist Baltzer – who is Jewish – is meant to provide balance)…

    …Baltzer is now urging Daily Show viewers to send letters of support to the show, in an effort to keep the show from being dissuaded from covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the future.

    And some commentators are praising Stewart for taking on the issue. TalkingPointsMemo blogger M.J. Rosenberg credits Stewart with starting a “sea change” in American media’s coverage of the Middle Eastern conflict….

    [Article Contains Extended Interview Videos, PART1 & PART 2]

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to

  21. yonira
    October 30, 2009, 7:32 am

    Why isn’t Mustafa Barghouti the president of the PA?

    • Taxi
      October 30, 2009, 7:38 am

      Because Israel refuses to release him in exchange for Shalit.

      As a ‘uniter’ who is dearly loved and respected by all Palestinian factions, he poses a danger to Israel more grave than Iran and Hizbollah combined.

      • yonira
        October 30, 2009, 7:54 am

        Mustafa, not Marwan, but I’d take either of them. they are both pretty level thinking guys who could bring much needed reform to the PA.

        Would Hamas accept either of them coming from Fatah though?

      • Chaos4700
        October 30, 2009, 8:00 am

        There’s also this little chestnut:

        link to

        Funny, you Zionists keep letting that slide down the MEMRI hole, huh?

      • yonira
        October 30, 2009, 8:04 am

        What did I say wrong now Chaos? what are you talking about?

      • Chaos4700
        October 30, 2009, 8:07 am

        You see that blue text with the underline? It’s a link. Click it and read.

      • yonira
        October 30, 2009, 8:20 am

        I did, and like everything you say, its complete irrelevant to the topic at hand. Were either Barghouti’s perpetrators of this? Are you saying that Hamas didn’t do the exact same thing during Cast Lead?

        Are you saying only a member of Hamas has the moral clarity to lead the Palestinian people?

      • Chaos4700
        October 30, 2009, 8:25 am

        You’re asking why Mustafa Barghouti hasn’t been forwarded as president of the PA and why Hamas doesn’t trust Fatah and I provide an article exposing how the US State Department has been directly manipulating Fatah and how that utterly destroyed the Palestinian unity government (of which Barghouti was a minister)… and you don’t consider that relevant?

        Do I need to get out the sock puppets? That straw man you dropped in at the end of your post tells me that this is going to take a lot of work.

      • Shingo
        October 30, 2009, 8:30 am

        Did you not know yonira,

        That during the last elections, Israel beat and jailed Barghouti (repeately) so that he could not partake in the elections? I believe this happened 8 times.

        “Are you saying that Hamas didn’t do the exact same thing during Cast Lead?”

        Did what during Cast Lead?

      • yonira
        October 30, 2009, 8:44 am

        Hamas tortured Fatah members during Caste Lead.

        And which Barghouti are you talking about Shingo? Marwan or Mustafa?

        Chaos, what is the point though? There will never be Palestinian unity or a 2 state solution because Fatah is morally bankrupt and Hamas is morally superior?

        I just don’t get where you are coming from, you complain about everyone, but you have zero hope of any real solution? what is the point of that? no hope, always the victim? Mustafa Barghouti has a organization which has a real chance to change things and the first thing that comes to your mind is to post an article about how Fatah militants attacked Hamas supporters 2 years ago?

        Reconciliation between the Palestinian factions and between Israel and Palestine is needed before there can be any change, and your thoughts, words, and deeds are not conducive to reconciliation.

        Israel is not going anywhere, instead of putting all of your energy behind conspiracies and hatred, why not have a little hope and the ability to forgive and help pave a better future for these strickened people.

      • Chaos4700
        October 30, 2009, 8:51 am

        I’m pretty sure he’s talking about Mustafa Barghouti.

        I’m also intrigued by the notion that you’re focusing on Hamas for doing exactly what Israel does to Palestinians… during a time when Israel was slaughtering children at a rate of over a hundred a week. So it’s not a crime if Jews do it?

        Do you deny that Israel and the United States have been actively thwarting Palestinian unity and therefore, recognition with Israel? Because even by your logic, that makes Israel and the US ultimately responsible for destroying the peace process.

      • Shingo
        October 30, 2009, 8:54 am

        “Hamas tortured Fatah members during Caste Lead.”

        In case you forgot, Fatah supported Cast Lead, so they got off lightly considering they commited treason.

      • Shingo
        October 30, 2009, 9:03 am

        Oh and in answer to your question, yonira

        It was Mustafa Barghouti who IDF soldiers beat at gunpoint.

        link to

      • yonira
        October 30, 2009, 9:15 am

        First of all, all Jews aren’t Israelis and all Israelis aren’t Jews.

        Secondly I question their killing of 100 children per week at any time in history by Israel.

        Thirdly, no I don’t question your accusation of the United States meddling in the affairs of the PA, both Israel and the US have made huge mistakes concerning this, but this isn’t the only reason for the separation. Even if it were, both sides still could take control o the situation and reconcile. There is always a scape goat, on all sides, including the Israelis. But the reality is, there needs be Palestinian unity before reconciliation with Israel.

        The other huge obstacle is the settlements, they are probably biggest thing getting in the way. I am avidly in opposition to the continuation of settlements and I write my Senator expressing my disappointment in Obama’s lack of ‘balls’ to confront this.

        As for Mustafa being assaulted by Israeli guards, whats new, as a non-violent peaceful man he should have just allowed himself and his entourage to be inspected. Its the reality on the ground, it sucks, but its reality. That same election he was able to run and won only 19 percent of the vote, for whatever reason.

      • Taxi
        October 30, 2009, 10:57 am


        It’s Marawan who seems to have a natural flair for leadership. Mustafa is a good egg who doesn’t want to be the ‘leader’ but a peace ‘activist’.

        Both Hamas and Fatah love and respect Marwan.

        If he was allowed to campaign from his prison cell, he would still win the elections.

      • Chaos4700
        October 30, 2009, 12:52 pm

        “First of all, all Jews aren’t Israelis and all Israelis aren’t Jews.”

        You’re damn right about the first part, certainly. I’m also glad to hear you reject the notion (if only implicitly) of Israel as “the Jewish state.” You should get right on telling the Israelis that.

        “Secondly I question their killing of 100 children per week at any time in history by Israel. “

        In spite of the various journalistic reports? The UN reports? The Amnesty International and HRW reports? Really? Well congratulations! You are officially the Jewish equivalent of a Holocaust denier.

        “As for Mustafa being assaulted by Israeli guards, whats new, as a non-violent peaceful man he should have just allowed himself and his entourage to be inspected.”

        Kind of like how the Jews should have just acquiesced and worn yellow stars of David, huh? Really, that’s your take on it?

        You cannot blame the Palestinians for not having a unity government when the cause for its breakdown has been manipulation by Israel and the US. It happened because of the “Gaza bombshell.” Maybe the weaknesses were there, but breakup was not inevitable (far from it) and the US and Israel exploited those fault lines to sabotage the Palestinian government. That’s not incidental, that is direct criminal intent of international magnitude.

        If any foreign nationals in the United States were part of an organization to do exactly that to our red state/blue state divide, and got found out, they would be charged with crimes against our government.

        You keep exposing the absurdity of your position to greater and greater heights, yonira.

  22. Nomi998
    October 30, 2009, 8:51 am

    GalenSword, you say, October 29, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    J-Street is suspiciously uninterested in the ongoing conspiracy of the Israel Lobby against the rights of Arab and Muslim citizens.

    Poor Arabs with 22 countries including 3 out of the 4 largest countries in Africa.

    • Chaos4700
      October 30, 2009, 8:53 am

      That’s like justifying Nazi Germany’s invasion of Russia by saying they have so much land mass.

      Actually it’s not even that. You needed to stack together 22 countries in order to justify Israel? Seriously?

    • Shingo
      October 30, 2009, 8:56 am

      It’s also like saying, what do the Jews need with Israel when there are so many countries with predominantly white people in them they can live in.

    • MRW
      October 30, 2009, 9:18 am

      What the hell are you talking about? Some illogical stab at establishing a lack of parity, implying ‘look how many they got, we’re entitled to a country’? Poor Arabs with 22 countries including 3 out of the 4 largest countries in Africa. You use the word “Arabs” the way people use the word “Orientals” to describe Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc, all completely different and distinct. The inhabitants of those 22 countries are equally different. They include the members of the Arab race (Arabian Peninsula), Berbers, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, etc.

      Israel, 80% of which is made up of people of all nationalities, is united by a religion….not a race, a religion. Arabs are not. They are Muslim, Christian, Druse, AND Jewish.

      If you’re going to get on here with your jolly-jumper of facts, get them right.

  23. Tuyzentfloot
    October 30, 2009, 8:54 am

    I can see a number of strategies for minimizing the risk when there is an intent to treat a hot subject.
    Safest is to ignore the subject.
    Allowing an oped poses a risk but it can be defended because you can say this should be allowed even if completely contrary to your opinions.
    Include oped’s from the other guys to reduce risk.
    An interview is harder, but the risk can be minimized by coming down hard on the interviewee.
    There’s a bit of wiggle room with what you select from the newsstream:
    more explicit articles can be balanced with radical pieces from the other side. You treat it by mistreating it say.

    Much harder when you start to impose your own vocabulary on the news. Then you’ve got nothing to hide behind.
    The objectivity criterium is easily used to block deviations from what the press agencies deliver and that includes vocabulary. But it’s obvious that a large factor in avoiding deviation is not being aware of how much you’ve adapted.

  24. Nomi998
    October 30, 2009, 8:56 am

    ‘Moderate’ Fatah Leader Barghouti Calls to Resume Terror
    Palestinian Authority convicted terrorist murderer Marwan Barghouti, often touted by Israel’s left as a “moderate” PA leader, has called for a resumption of PA support for terrorist attacks on Israelis. His comments were printed last week in Al-Quds.

    The PA should support terrorists in its midst who launch attacks on Israel, Barghouti explained, because it has been proven that the PA cannot achieve its goals by negotiations alone. He called to continue talks as well, and to pursue both peace talks and terrorism simultaneously.

    To funny this is a moderate.
    Well atleast we know Arabs who kill civilians are moderates.

    • Shingo
      October 30, 2009, 9:00 am

      “‘Moderate’ Fatah Leader Barghouti Calls to Resume Terror”

      Yeah, maybe he got the idea from guys like MEnachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir, terrorists who used terror to create Israel, and were rewarded by being elected to lead the country.

      I guess Begin and Shamir would call themselves moderate the way that the war criminal Sharon, was called a man of peace. If Israelis who who kill civilians are moderates, then why not Palestinians right Nomi?

  25. Nomi998
    October 30, 2009, 9:02 am

    Chaos4700, you say.
    That’s like justifying Nazi Germany’s invasion of Russia by saying they have so much land mass.

    As Golda Meir brilliantly said, there is no such thing as the “Palestinian” people. They are nothing more than a mixed multitude of unwanted Arabs from every Arab country. Arab expansioninsm is their historic trait. What started as a bunch of tribes out of Arabian
    peninsula had occupied the whole Middle East and North Africa and forced everyone to convert to Islam. They just can’t live with a fact that anyone would resist them.

    • Shingo
      October 30, 2009, 9:09 am

      I have to laugh when I hear people stil spouting that non sequitir from Golda Meir.

      Whether you call them Palestinian people or not is of no consequence. Right wing Zionists have convinved themselves that this is som ekind of argument, but it’s meaningless.

      Palestinians are the deecendensts of the acient Judeans, you know, the people you believe are your ancestors? 85% of them have Jewish ancestry and they’ve lived on the land for millenia. They converted to Islam when the Muslism invaded, but they are still the original inhabitants. Even Ben Gurion knew this, but dead enders liek yourself will keep flogging that dead horse long after anyone has stopped listening to your lies.

      So in the end, the truth of the matter is that it is the immigrants who can’t face the fact that anyone would resist them.

    • Chaos4700
      October 30, 2009, 12:58 pm

      Golda Meir was an awful, terrible woman who commissioned Operation Wrath of God, which was basically a campaign of assassination and terrorism across the Western world spotting out anybody having to do with the Palestinian government. And as a Socialist, she was a joke. She lived in the United States for how many years and did absolutely nothing for the Socialism movement here (although she still gets credit for some absurd reason). And for the record? Her real name was Golda Meyerson. So where exactly does she get off accusing others of making stuff up?

  26. Nomi998
    October 30, 2009, 9:05 am

    Chaos4700, Citizen, V and the rest of the anti Israel people on here lost your argument with the Olmert offer to Abbas.
    All the PA knows how to do is reject, whine, and complain
    Olmert proved once and for all Abbas is a rejectionist.
    Olmert offered Abbas the equivalent of 100% of the territories, the Arab sections of Jerusalem and Abbas said he wasn’t even close to an agreement with Olmert.
    As Abba Eban said, The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
    Abbas thought Obama would hand Israel to him on a silver platter – ain`t gonna happen.
    Abbas is no different then Arafat or Hamas.
    He wants 2 Palestinian states. He wants his own state and to flood Israel with millions of Arabs for the 2nd state. The 600,000 Jews forced from the Arab countries in the late 40s aren’t going back there. Abbas then wants all of Jerusalem.
    Fatah’s General Assembly held in Bethlehem during the summer heard Abbas promise that Fatah would liberate all of Jerusalem and purge it of Jewish “settlers.”
    Unless the Israeli left wants to live under Sharia law and speak in Arabic, then they better stop appeasing Arab rejectionists.

    • Shingo
      October 30, 2009, 9:13 am

      There was no offer to Abbas. Olmert was a lame duck leader with no influence in the Knesset and no hope in hell of being able to deliver any such offer.

      All the Isrelis know to do is pretend they want peace.

      “Olmert offered Abbas the equivalent of 100% of the territories”

      Rubbish. For Olmert to have offered Abbas 100% of the territories, eh woudl have had to ofer to dismantle the settlements. He didn’t, hence Olmert is exposed as a liar.

      Any more lies you want to spread? How about the one abotu Arafat walking away from a golden deal? Can’t wait for that.

  27. Nomi998
    October 30, 2009, 9:10 am

    Shingo, its a waste of time talking to you.
    Cause as i said before, Olmert was as left as they come when it came to concessions.
    The fact is, the Palestinians only want an agreement where Israel no longer exists.
    This is where Netanyahu is so much better then Olmert.
    He see’s the Palestinians and their stages plan.
    When Arafat was ordering Jews murdered on buses and shopping malls, Rabin and Peres looked the other way.
    They couldn’t see a murderer and his intentions.
    Netanyahu see’s this first hand thats why the Arabs dont like him.

    • Shingo
      October 30, 2009, 9:18 am

      It’s only a waste talking to me because I keep debunking your lies.

      Olmert says he made an offer when he had no power. Israel had alreayd moved to the right and he had no sway in the Knesset. Without their agreement, there was no deal.

      It is Netenyahu who doesn;t want a 2 state solution. Even Hamas have supported a 2 state solution.

      “When Arafat was ordering Jews murdered on buses and shopping malls, Rabin and Peres looked the other way.”

      Actually, they were murdering many more Palestinians. Rabin was ordering soldiers to break the bones of Palestinian children.

      Netanyahu is a lunatic, and the only world leader who saw 911 as a good thing, apart from Bin Laden of course.

  28. Nomi998
    October 30, 2009, 9:15 am

    Shingo, ha, you get your information from a known liar like Shlomo Sands.

    Even the Palestinians are admitting there is no such thing as a Palestinian people.
    link to…-thing-as.html
    Azmi Bishara: There’s no such thing as ‘Palestine’
    June 24, 2009

    I wonder how many of you remember Azmi Bishara, the former Knesset member who walked into the Israeli embassy in Cairo in April 2007 and resigned from the Knesset after he got word that he was about to be indicted for treason for helping Hezbullah aim rockets during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Bishara has not come back to Israel since.

    Here’s an interview with Bishara (in Hebrew) from Israel’s Channel 2 television that took place approximately ten years ago. A fuller translation than what you are about to see will follow the interview

    You Tube

    And here’s a more complete translation than what you saw on the screen:
    In an Interview with Yaron London (Israel’s Channel 2, recorded about a decade ago), Bashara said:

    “I don’t think there is a Palestinian nation. I think there is an Arab nation, I think that this (the term “Palestinian nation”) is a colonial invention. Palestine, up to the end of the 19th century was southern Syria.
    Yes folks, I keep telling you, there’s no such thing as ‘Palestine’ or a ‘Palestinian.’ Even the Arabs themselves occasionally acknowledge that truth when their guard is down. Here’s another example.

    In an interview given by Zuhair Mohsen to the Dutch newspaper Trouw in March 1977, Mr. Mohsen explains the origin of the ‘Palestinians’: The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.

    In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.

    For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.So why does everyone expect Israel to cut out half of its guts to create a real state for an imaginary people? Why does everyone expect Israel to endanger its own security to give a state to a people that does not exist?

    • Shingo
      October 30, 2009, 9:25 am

      Too funny Nomi,

      Sadly, your revisionism is udermined by Israel’s own founders.

      Soon after the first Zionist Congress in 1897, Basel (Switzerland), a Zionist delegation was sent to Palestine for a fact finding mission and to explore the viability of settling Palestine with European Jewry. The delegation replied back from Palestine with a cable:

      “The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man.” (Iron Wall, p. 3)

      On March 1, 1899 Yosef Diya al-Khalidi (from the renowned Jerusalem family) wrote in a letter to Theoder Herzl explaining that Zionism in practice entails the dispossession and the displacement of the Palestinian people, he wrote:

      “It is necessary, therefore, for the peace of the Jews in [the Ottoman Empire] that the Zionist Movement . . . stop. . . Good lord, the world is vast enough, there are still uninhabited countries where one could settle millions of poor Jews who may perhaps become happy there and one day constitute a nation. . . .. In the name of God, let Palestine be left in peace.” Herzl responded that Zionists do not intend on dispossession and displacing the Palestinians, on the contrary, he stated the Jews will bring to Palestine ONLY material benefits? (Righteous Victims, p. 37)

      In 1905 during the Zionist Congress convention at Bessel (Switzerland) a Palestinian Jew, Yitzhak Epstein 1862-1943, delivered a lecture about the “Arab question” :

      “Among the difficult questions connected to the idea of the renaissance of our people on its soil there is one which is equal to all others: the question of our relations with the Arabs. . . . We have FORGOTTEN one small matter: There is in our beloved land an entire nation, which has occupied it for hundreds of years and has never thought to leave it. . . .
      We are making a GREAT psychological error with regard to a great, assertive, and jealous people. While we feel a deep love for the land of our forefathers, we forgot that the nation who lives in it today has a sensitive heart and loving soul. The Arab, like every man, is tied to his native land with strong bonds.” (Righteous Victims, p. 57)

      In an article published by Ben-Gurion in 1918, titled “The Rights of the Jews and others in Palestine,” he conceded that the Palestinian Arabs have the same rights as Jews. The Palestinians had such rights, as stemming from their history since they had inhabited the land “for hundreds of years”. He stated in the article:

      “Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants.” Ben-Gurion often returned to this point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had “the full right” to an independent economic, cultural, and communal life, but not political. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37-38)

      Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality. He stated in 1905 in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that:

      “Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)

      There’s plenty more where that came from…

    • MRW
      October 30, 2009, 1:12 pm

      Nomi, we dealing with the 21st C here. Start your own history blog. We’ve read all these Giyuz talking points before.

  29. Chaos4700
    October 30, 2009, 1:00 pm

    Nomi, they aren’t paying you for each new thread you start. You could maybe use the Reply button once in a while, just out of common courtesy.

  30. Kathleen
    October 31, 2009, 11:39 am

    The Daily Show has opened up over the last year. It has been noticed that Jon who seems to pride himself in making it seem that no issue, no country, no leaders are “off limits” on his show. But many know that this was a myth. Stewart would attack other governments brutal policies but not Israel’s. Stewart would attack through humor other Religions. But not Judaism. Very obvious over the years. Israel and the Israeli lobby was clearly “off limits ” on his show up until the last year.

    This is a good change and better late than never

  31. 7iber Dot Com linked to this.

Leave a Reply