Wow this is crazy. Yesterday Matt Lee of AP asked the State Department spokesperson Mark Toner if US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman was speaking for the US government when he said that Israel's actions have generated anti-Semitism in Muslim communities. And Toner says he was "speaking on his own."
Under Lee's questions, Toner repeatedly distances the Obama administration from Gutman with remarks like, "I will leave it to the Ambassador to Belgium to clarify what he meant--" and continually changes the discussion to how much the U.S. loves Israel.
Lee then gets at the heart of the matter: Isn't there a difference between classic anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism that is based on criticism of the state of Israel. Toner says, Gutman was saying "there are different forms of anti-Semitism. We condemn them in all their forms."
As Lee says late in this dialogue, "you’re in a very difficult position." Video goes from 1:00 to about 8:30.
QUESTION: Let’s start with Ambassador Gutman’s speech from last week.... Does the Administration agree with the sentiments that he expressed in his speech?
MR. TONER: ...He made very clear in a subsequent statement that they were his thoughts or his remarks. He did condemn and was very vocal about condemning anti-Semitism in all its forms, and I believe he expressed regret that his words might have been taken out of context...
QUESTION:
Does the Administration agree with the content of the – of Ambassador Gutman’s speech?
MR. TONER:
And the Administration and the State Department says that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.
QUESTION: That’s great, Mark. I’m glad that you do, and I’m sure everyone is glad that you do, but do you agree with the content of Ambassador Gutman’s speech?
MR. TONER: We –
QUESTION: I don’t know; it’s a pretty easy question. Yes or no?
MR. TONER: It is – it was his remarks. It was his opinion. He was not speaking on behalf --
QUESTION: So he wasn’t speaking – the Ambassador to Belgium, he was not speaking --
MR. TONER: I think he said as much. He said it was his remarks and he was speaking on his own.
QUESTION: No, he didn’t. He did not say that. He – but he was not speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government?
MR. TONER: I don’t believe so.
QUESTION: So the – okay, the Ambassador to Belgium shows up at a conference in Europe, in Belgium, and he is not speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government. Is that correct?
MR. TONER: The Ambassador was expressing his views on an issue.
QUESTION: They are not the view – so he --
MR. TONER: He subsequently issued a statement clarifying that he was – I don’t know – expressing regret if his remarks were taken out of context. He then said that he does condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms, and in fact, pointed to his own family history as a testament to that.
QUESTION: Well, I understand that, but you’re saying that he was speaking as a private citizen, not as the U.S. Ambassador?
MR. TONER: Well, of course, when – anytime an ambassador speaks, he is representing the United States.
QUESTION: So the views that he expressed in his speech do not represent the views of the Administration?
MR. TONER: Matt, let me be very clear.
QUESTION: Mark, I understand that you condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I understand that, okay? I’m asking you if you agree with the content of his speech, which he gave as the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium.
MR. TONER: And I would just say that he was sharing his views on an issue. Our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad. The United States – or Israel has no greater friend or ally than the United States, and we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.
QUESTION: Okay. That’s fine, but I don’t – I’m not hearing in there – unless you’re going to tell me right out he was speaking as a private citizen and not as the Ambassador. Is that – that’s what you’re saying?...
MR. TONER: Again, we’ve been very clear that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms regardless of how you call it or how you characterize it.
QUESTION: Do you – okay. So you do not agree, then, with the contents of the Ambassador’s speech?
MR. TONER: I think I’ll just stop there.
QUESTION: Well --
MR. TONER: I think I just said we condemn –
QUESTION: -- this guy is the --
MR. TONER: -- anti-Semitism in all of its forms. He --
QUESTION: Okay. So you don’t draw a distinction between criticism of Israel --
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: -- and all criticism of Israel --
MR. TONER: No. We don’t draw any distinctions. We don’t --
QUESTION: All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. TONER: Look, I will leave it to the Ambassador to Belgium to clarify what he meant --
QUESTION: Does the --
MR. TONER: -- by his remarks --
QUESTION: Does the --
MR. TONER: -- to this gathering.
QUESTION: Does the –
MR. TONER: I can only speak on behalf of this Administration, and that is that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.
QUESTION: Does the Administration think that Israel is above reproach? In other words, that Israel should not be criticized for anything?
MR. TONER: Speaking largely about the issue that was on the table, which is Middle East peace and the importance of it and, frankly, the stability that it brings to the region, we’ve been very clear that the best way to a lasting peace is through the negotiating table. That remains our focus. We want to get both sides back into direct negotiations....
QUESTION: This Administration has been critical of the Government of Israel before, correct?
MR. TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: Yes. Do you – is that criticism anti-Semitic?
MR. TONER: Of course not.
QUESTION: So all criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t want to parse this out. I just simply want to say we condemn --
QUESTION: I know you don’t want to because you’re in a very difficult position.
MR. TONER: -- anti-Semitism in all of its forms. Okay?
QUESTION: You’re saying, though, that you accept a distinction between criticism of Israel and anti – criticism of the government of – the policies of the Government of Israel and anti-Semitism. You draw a distinction between the two things, correct?
MR. TONER: I’d just say that this Administration has consistently stood up against anti-Semitism and efforts to delegitimize Israel, and will continue to do so.
QUESTION: Does the Administration believe that you can be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic?
MR. TONER: I think that when it comes to trying to keep the parties focused on the peace process and in citing behavior that is not constructive to that process, we are certainly able to do that, and have done so in the past.
QUESTION: But does the Administration believe that you can be – that one can be critical of the policies of government – the Government of Israel without being anti-Semitic? Yes or no?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think I just answered the question, that we have been critical --
QUESTION: Okay. So you’re saying that there – you do draw a distinction between criticism of the Government of Israel, of policies of the Government of Israel, and – in other words, not all criticism of Israel – when you come out and you say we think that more settlements are a bad idea, that doesn’t mean the Administration --
MR. TONER: Of course, of course.
QUESTION: -- is anti-Semitic, right?
MR. TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: Okay. So in his speech, Ambassador Gutman draws a distinction between classic anti-Semitism and some kind of new form of hatred toward Jews which is based – what he said, based on the policies of the Government of Israel. Do you – it sounds as though you accept that there is a distinction between the two.
MR. TONER: What Ambassador Gutman was – I believe what he was trying to convey is that there are different forms of anti-Semitism. We condemn them in all their forms.
QUESTION: All right. I’ve got another on Israel, but it’s not on this subject.
[Not Matt Lee's] QUESTION: If I could just follow up briefly on that, some Republicans have called for the Administration to fire Ambassador Gutman. Is there – does the Administration have a response to that, have a position on –
MR. TONER: We have full confidence in him.
It’s like talking to a magic 8-ball.
Were we really expecting anything different from our “government?”
One step away from throwing him under the bus.
“Full confidence in him”, but was he really representing the US in what he said? “It was his opinion”.
An administration tying itself in knots again for Israel. The script is what must be obeyed at all costs.
link to commentarymagazine.com
“QUESTION: All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism? Is that what you’re saying?”
Equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is part of the Big Lie so effective in shutting down debate over Israel’s US-subsidized and US-defended policies. Of course in the long run this tactic increases the danger of real anti-Semitism as people may blame all Jews (unfairly) for the actions of the Rogue State.
Obviously it’s a good thing Gutman isn’t being recalled for this. And maybe it’s an even better thing given that maybe Obama coming to his defense is part and parcel of him pushing back a bit against the Lobby and etc. which I think I espy in him allowing Hillary and Panetta to make the recent comments they have.
I wonder though: If Gutman wasn’t jewish—a point he immediately invoked in his own defense—would the reaction against his comments have been as relatively isolated as I at least see them? And would he have still survived? I.e., what’s the ability of a gentile to say what Gutman said? Not as able, I would suspect.
A second point: In his defense Gutman noted that his father had been Polish and when Hitler invaded he joined some resistance group. Okay, great. So far. But was it one of those resistance groups that was Bolshevik and that then got power and tortured Poland after the war and if so what was his father’s role then?
Not to say that whatever it was should tar Gutman, Jr. even a molecule, but what if his Dad had indeed participated in that Bolshie torturing? Betcha would go unmentioned. Uninvestigated totally in fact. Just taken as totally admirable regardless. Totally unlike if someone revealed a parent’s involvement in some possible Nazi involvement or flirtation even. (See, e.g., Mel Gibson.)
Interesting to me given some recent anger in Israel over one of the Baltic countries (Lithuania I think) condemning both the Nazis *and* the Bolshie resistance that fought the former but then took up stepping on the necks of the inhabitants for Stalin given that lots of the latter were jewish. (Apparently in response to some charges that the Balts had not done enough to pursue Nazi sympathizers some Balts were noting Israel’s refusal to extradite some of the jewish Stalinists who fled to Israel after the Bolshies fell.)
“MR. TONER: We have full confidence in him.”
Says volumes.
I’d just say that this Administration has consistently stood up against anti-Semitism and efforts to delegitimize Israel, and will continue to do so.
Actually the Administration has no consistent message on legitimacy. Here are a couple of examples from the President’s Cairo speech:
“Matt , Matt ,you are confusing me.
I have my pre-recorded ,politically correct, parrot-like answers (“we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms…”)and you demand me to think on my own. I can not do this. I have to repeat what is expected from me, and if you keep pushing me too much, I may start looking like a fool.
What do you expect from me? The truth??”
Yay, you weren’t born yesterday; go dumvita!
So..let’s say (according to Mr Toner’s logic) there were some people in pre-War II Europe , who hated Germans. They were Germano-phobic. Ok. Not that nice. Let’s condemn it.
Then,we have the WII ,and many people start hating Germans for what they’ve been doing to other European nations and people.
It is noticeable and obviously, there are some strong reasons for it.
So, Mr Toner speaking of it, lets say in 1944, on some kind of European Forum, would say:”we condemn all forms of Germanophobia”. ” But, but, Mr Toner, there are valid, concrete reasons for the fact that Germanophobia has increased, don’t you see that?”
“We condemn Germanophobia in all its forms.”
We condemn Germanophobia in all …”
“We condemn Geramanophobia….”
I’m not even mentioning the fact that mere critisism of Germany, its politics or government would lead to accusations of being Germanophobic.
Gosh remember the way people in the US used to talk about the Russians? Remember the way people used to talk about the Chinese, after the Nationalists fell and Mao took over? I don’t remember anybody accusing them of “ophobia”.
I adore Matt Lee. What a smart, brave journalist, who doesn’t want to buy the nonsense that is offered for the media to spread further like a plague.
Wonderful example for many.
A nice song for Him.
link to youtube.com
Toner twisted himself into a pretzel trying to not get nailed down by Lee.
I would have liked for Lee to ask Toner to define all those ‘forms of anti semitism” the US condemns.
What are all the forms of anti semitism besides:
Hating Jews
Hating Israel
Hating AIPAC
Hating giving US 3 billion tax dollars every year to Israel
Hating US politicians who pledge allegiance to Israel
What are the others?
Matt Lee is full of shit. No one said that all criticism of Israel is antisemitism. No one in the administration, which has criticized Israel plenty, has ever said that or promoted that view. It’s clear that Toner was simply saying that he condemns antisemitism regardless of whether Israel’s actions are given as a excuse for it, not that Israel is above reproach.
“The speaker was tacitly supporting the McCarthyite tactics of the Jewish organizations who rallied against Gutman, by mindlessly repeating the line: ‘condemn it in all it’s forms’.”
Then he was missing the point.
“Lee was asking whether criticism was antisemitic or not. ”
Yes, strangely so since no one actually said that criticism was antisemitic. One thing I’ve learned is that no matter how many times Jewish organizations say criticism of Israel is not per se antisemitic, people will continue to claim that we said it was.
“HENCE, there apparently is no legitimate criticism of Israel since it’s ALL antisemitic.”
Again, if you can point out what mainstream Jewish organization said this, please do. I know of none.
“Israel is never criticized by the American government. ”
This administration has criticized Israel’s settlement policy plenty.
“It should have some worth, some traction in the political process. ”
Why? The State Department doubtless has criticized some the legislation passed in Europe targetting Muslims, such as the burqa law in France and the mosque law in Switzerland. To my knowledge, neither country reacted by rescinding their legislation.
The State Department criticized human rights in Egypt for decades. Egypt is our ally. Do you remember when it reacted to US criticism of its internal policies?
Again your argument is the same as in other threads, so my response is the same:
None of these Jewish organizations have to explicitly say ALL criticism is antisemitic. They say so implicitly.
In fact, if anyone were to explicitly say ‘all’ criticism were antisemitic, then they would expose themselves fully.
It is better to just use Jewish suffering as a cudgel when the criticism is too honest and too ‘dangerous’ to the Zionist machine.
It’s the Israel Lobby (book). It’s Jimmy Carter’s book.
The Jewish community is a complex institution like any other community. No one expects them to behave like a cartoon, because they are comprised of people and people are complex.
It’s like saying Israel loves the Palestinians because it doesn’t nuke Gaza.
You’re saying the Jewish community doesn’t want us to believe everything=antisemitic because they aren’t saying that one sentence.
The reality is that all meaningful criticism is often (if not ALWAYS) slandered as antisemitic.
And nope, the State Dept. is worthless on the Israel-Palestine issue. The physical actions our government makes or does not make speak louder than words anyway.
It’s absurd to think we are ‘critical’ of Israel. There is no physical evidence for that. So the result is that if we do criticize Israel, it is timid. It is meaningless. Made even more meaningless when you consider we are asking Israel to simply asking Israel to stop expanding Jewish colonies.
Yes, strangely so since no one actually said that criticism was antisemitic.
You need to update your talking points. The Israeli think tanks scraped the bottom of the barrel and came up with a PR campaign based upon branding legal or political criticism of Israel as antisemitic “delegitimization”, e.g. link to reut-institute.org
God forbid, we are dangerous because we want to replace the Zionist model with democracy:
I’m sorry but the nascent state of Israel appointed a Jewish government that drove the Arab citizens into exile. It never had one person one vote, so it always has been a pariah state.
Maybe hophmi thinks it’s being critical of Israel to constantly parrot out to the American public that there is no sky or space between America and Israel and we share the same values? I forget, where does hophmi live?
Having read the speech, I note that Gutman spoke of tension in the Middle East causing friction between Jews and Muslims in Europe. I certainly share his sentiment that European tension will most likely calm down if Middle Eastern tensions calm down. But what he said is simply inaccurate. There is no rash of Jews attacking Muslims in Europe. There is a problem of Muslims attacking Jews. That should be pointed out and emphasized.
The comment is simply untrue. Anti-Muslim and anti-Arab Jews simply have a less direct approach in that they prefer
to use political power to manipulate governments into expelling Muslims & Arabs or into depriving Arabs & Muslims of their citizenship rights,
to fund politicians like Geert Wilders or political groups to implement Islamophobic political programs or to incite Islamophobia, and
to employ gatekeepers and facilitators throughout academia and the media to prevent Arabs and Muslims to take part in public discussions over foreign policy or Zionism.
The velvet-gloved fist of Zionism and Jewish power is much more dangerous to Arabs, Muslims, and non-Jews in general than occasional violent outbursts responding to the latest Zionist atrocity.
It is not clear that fewer Jews or Zionists attack Arabs and Muslims when relative population sizes are taken into account, but even if the claim is true, the Zionist approach produces monsters like Breivik.
BTW, Alexander Wiens, who killed Marwa al-Sherbini, seems to have been of Jewish ancestry and may even have been a product of Lubavitcher education.
“Yes, not surprising that an antisemite like you would make a claim like that.”
To quote you, Hophmi: “Where are the goddam moderators?”
BTW, Hophmi, I consider you to be one of the most niave Jews I have ever met. You don’t realise that if you can accuse someone of being an anti-Semite, they have the perfect right to reply, if they feel like it: ‘Yes, I am, and what are you going to do about it, punk?’
What do you do then Hophmi? Let ‘em have it with your fabulous left-right combination? No, you sit there and gape like the whining punk you are regardless of religion of ethnicity.
Okay Hophmi, that tears it! I almost let “regardless” stand as (shudder) “irregardless”. I won’t forgive you for that. You’re lucky I caught it.
If there is some systemic Muslim antagonism and violence towards Jews in Europe, cite the evidence.
You can’t even say ‘if Israel stops expanding settlements’ – you say ‘ME tensions’.
You are full of shit.
“There is no rash of Jews attacking Muslims in Europe.”
No, they attack them in Palestine.
most of the Jews in Europe are decent law abiding citizens. It is different in Israel.
seafoid,
You are correct. I was being facetious. It is abhorrant that Jews in Europe or anywhere else are attacked because of the actions of people in Palestine who happen to also be Jews.
It is very complicated, Woody. Capitalism has this tendency to displace problems and so does Zionism.
Ambassador Gutless deliberately omitted a paragraph from his prepared speech that ‘whitewashed’ European anti-semitism. See for yourself.
Transcript:
What I do see as growing, as gaining much more attention in the newspapers and among politicians and communities, is a different phenomena. It is the phenomena that led Jacques Brotchi to quit his position on the university committee a couple of months ago and that led to the massive attention last week when the Jewish female student was beaten up. It is the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews. It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Actual speech:
What I do see as growing in Europe, as gaining much more attention in the newspaper, among politicians, among communities, among citizens with a sense of alarm, is a far different phenomenon. It is the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews. It is a tension and perhaps a hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Gutless?
What he said was honest. He didn’t blame it on some mystified comic-book antisemitism, cavemen like you prescribe to (Ziococaine).
It takes a lot of guts to speak against the orthodoxy.
I know you’re a lifelong cult member, but how is it so shocking that a 45 year long occupation and on-going land theft would engender hatred in Arabs and Muslims toward Jews (the Jewish State, the eternal homeland of the Jewish people, BLAH BLAH Jewish-this and Jewish-that as per Zionism).
Keep wearing those blinders though. You’re a caricature anyway.
Excuse me Pudzionist666, but isn’t your comment missing some quote marks, and some cites?
proudzionist777: Ambassador Gutless
?
Here is my cite. And please don’t make fun of my name. It demeans your position.
link to commentarymagazine.com
“And please don’t make fun of my name.”
Pudzionist666, you make fun of Gutman’s name but no one can make fun of yours?
like most people of his kind he is a hypocrite. and like most supporters of ISrael they demand a different standard for themselves
The issue is the Ambassador’s behavior. Not mine.
I made fun of his name because I feel that he acted gutless when he willfully omitted recent anti-Semitic incidents in his speech in order to whitewash European anti-Semitism.
Also. That an acting US Ambassador, who has round the clock security protection, wouldn’t know firsthand about acts of anti-Semitism shouldn’t surprise anyone.
So. I am not commenting on what the Ambassador has said, rather, I am questioning his character and casting doubt on whether he is in any position to even comment on European anti-Semitism to begin with.
“The issue is the Ambassador’s behavior. Not mine.”
Wrong, Pudzionist666. The issue is your behavior in response to Mooser’s statement, in light of your statement regarding Gutman.
“I made fun of his name because I feel that he acted gutless when he willfully omitted recent anti-Semitic incidents in his speech in order to whitewash European anti-Semitism.”
And maybe Mooser made fun of your name because he felt that you were acting like a pudknocker.
“So. I am not commenting on what the Ambassador has said, rather, I am questioning his character and casting doubt on whether he is in any position to even comment on European anti-Semitism to begin with.”
And, again, perhaps Mooser is commenting on you being a pudknocker. So how, again, do you ask others not to do that which you, yourself, do?
I made fun of his name because I feel that he acted gutless when he willfully omitted recent anti-Semitic incidents in his speech in order to whitewash European anti-Semitism.
He was addressing a Zionist “lawfare” conference and he was perfectly correct to point out that you can’t take legal action against people who are critical of wrongful or illegal acts committed by the State of Israel against Palestinians:
link to ejpress.org
If the new task force tries to treat the criticism of Israeli violations of international law as antisemitism it will not end well for these Zionists. It is already illegal for them to publicly condone, deny, or grossly trivialize crimes defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court that are directed against the Palestinian people. link to europa.eu
” when he willfully omitted recent anti-Semitic incidents in his speech in order to whitewash European anti-Semitism.”……PZ777
How many anti semitic attacks have there been….I saw someone the other day say 81 reported incidents…and they weren’t all attacks, some vandalism and etc.
However in the grand scheme of things even they were all attacks, 81 attacks is less than 0.000001% of all Jews in the worlds affected.
That doesn’t sound like rampant anti semitism to me.
Why don’t you concentrate on something with really big numbers like child abuse, or domestic violence or the number of amputees from Iraq and Afghan. We got bigger problems than people spitting on each other and calling names.
Obviously you’ve never been spat on or called names because of your religion.
You’re right, we should look to Israel this would never happen there.
link to haaretz.com
“Obviously you’ve never been spat on or called names because of your religion.”
And you have? What happened, did you get in the way of some Ultra-Orthodox or haredi Rabbis? If you did, you have my sympathy. As many recent articles here have shown us, they have an incredible range and staying power, and the epithets they use are quite vituperative.
No sir, Piddlesinuses, nothing ridiculous about you!
“It demeans your position.”
Yup, Puddy, old pal, (or may I call you “Pudila”? It’s quite euphonious, don’t you think?) when I need an opinion on “demeaning my position”, a Zionist like you is the very first person I’d go to. Cause I know how concerned you are about me, and how disinterested your judgements are, based on a concern for all humanity as they are. Yessiree, Pudly, if there is anyone who knows about about people not being demeaned, it Zionists.
Of course, we can’t overlook the fact that you might have an inordinate interest in me not being demeaned because we’re both Jewish. Is that the case you are trying to make?
I have a inordinate interest in the Truth only, not in you.
this is good too, for the movie
“I have a inordinate interest in the Truth only, not in you.”
Oh my God, Proud69, has Phil got you tied up in the basement, too, forcing you to look at his awful lying website? There are some things not even ideological disagreements should allow. Just blink the address to me, and me and The Litvaks (my all Jewish sport-bike posse and minyan) will bust you out of there in a heartbeat. Just hang on, pardner! We’ve got a mikveh built into a side-car. We’ll have you out and purified in no time. Just think how glad your family will….. Oh, never mind.
“I have a inordinate interest in the Truth only, not in you.”
Sorry, Pudzionist666, anyone who hangs such a silly name on himself, and then has the lack of self-awareness to complain when someone predictably mocks it, may be interested in somethings, but Truth (with a capital “T” no less!!!) is not one of them.
Seems he likes to make an utter fool of himself on MW, Woody. We couldn’t imagine a more ridiculous character than this proudzionist777 with his mission to find Truth. There must be an underground comix book with him on the cover.
“And please don’t make fun of my name. It demeans your position.”
Aww, sorry, Pudlowski. It’s just that I couldn’t see any other reason to pick such a ridiculous name. I thought you wanted people to make fun of you.
Few people in real life make fun of me, but you’re welcome to try.
who gets to make fun of you? lots of people make fun of me. you think that somehow recommends you? do you wear a tuxedo? The statement, Few people in real life make fun of me, could only be delivered, in a movie, by a ridiculous character. So proud– are you ridiculous?
“Few people in real life make fun of me, but you’re welcome to try.”
Oh really? Didn’t you say in an earlier thread that you were married?
Are you being served, Mr Peacock?
Truthfully. Only my wife and our two little kids make fun of me.
I’m simply not a ridiculous person.
Am I proud of Zionism, that most audacious and successful revolution in recent history? You bet.
proudzionist777, my you’re perceptive. BTW, Zionism is not a revolution, it’s a regression.
“Am I proud of Zionism, that most audacious and successful revolution in recent history? You bet.”
Not audacious, not successful (if you count things like humanity, morality, ethics… you know, little things like that) and not a revolution. So, wrong on three counts.
Well, if your family has given you that impression, then you have a very loving, accommodating family.
“I’m simply not a ridiculous person.”
Well, in that case, I should start vilifying you for being extremely deceptive.
“Am I proud of Zionism, that most audacious and successful revolution in recent history? You bet.”
No sir, nothing ridiculous about you, pudsy-wudsy, old fellow-coreligionist and such like. But don’t you think there’s too many orphreys on your chasuble?
“Well, if your family has given you that impression, then you have a very loving, accommodating family.”
Or maybe they are just tired of inventing excuses for the bruises.
“Am I proud of Zionism, that most audacious and successful revolution…”
Oy! Another revolutionary! I would feel much more kindly towards Zionists if they didn’t so consistently align themselves with the extreme left!
What’s this weeks parasha, hevre?
Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Maoism, Lenism. All these movements had their legions of true believers who’d do anything in service of the cause when called to.
All have been subscribed to the rubbish heap of history, yet Zionism remains.
Can someone explain that?
>> … Zionism, that most audacious and successful revolution in recent history …
Audacious? Sure. Most? Dunno. Successful? If one’s measure of success is the existence of a religion-supremacist state born of terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and maintained and expanded by a 60+ years, ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder, then I guess Zionism has been a “successful revolution”. Hooray for injustice and immorality.
the superpowers military industrial complex supports them.
All have been subscribed to the rubbish heap of history, yet Zionism remains. Can someone explain that?
Yes. Zionists and their American imperialist friends are whistling while walking past the graveyard. If it’s not our turn next in the march of history, it soon will be.
The main reason is that Israel is enabled by the lone superpower, and that superpower’s foreign policy agenda depends on its political campaign system, which in turn is based on bribery. A secondary reason is that the US press is no longer an industry that honors its first duty to keep US citizens objectively informed.
“Communism, Nazism, Maoism, “
Yessirree Pod(zionist) you guys set real high standards for yourself. Just like all those “isms” you mentioned, while they existed they were going to exist for all eternity! Right up til the last day. And at no time was any diminishing acknowledged.
So for you, everything Israel is today is promising a long and successful future, huh?
“Here is my cite”
Commentary? ROTFLMSJAO!
Gutman must have gone to the same school of shoot yourself in the foot waffle as Nuland. All you can eat including your words.