Geller’s ‘savage’ bus ad meets strong resistance from the Bay Area

muniads new
Gellar’s savage ad Photo:Mike Koozmin

Predictably, Geller’s controversial savage ads on San Franciso’s Muni buses are  meeting strong resistance from members of the Bay Area community. According to KQED, an NPR-member radio station owned by Northern California Public Broadcasting, San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency is considering pulling the ad. However, SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose told the Huffington Post,  reviewing its options in whether or not it will keep the ad for the entire run “limited in what we can do.”

The transportation agency is likely between a rock and a hard place. Gellar, who stated previously she would have filed a lawsuit had the city’s transportation agency refused her ad, will undoubtedly file one if they pull it.

KQED’s brief coverage of the controversy reveals what’s on the minds of many; “the city caved to a threat at the expense of its residents.”

KQED NEWS:

HOST: San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency is considering pulling an ad that calls enemies of Israel “savages.” KQED’s Aarti Shahani reports the ad is under national scrutiny.

AARTI SHAHANI: MTA spokesman Paul Rose says while his agency has never pulled an ad, they’re not ruling it out here.
 
PAUL ROSE:  We understand how this ad may be offensive. We’re exploring options in light of First Amendment issues, our ad policy and contractual requirements.

SHAHANI: A federal judge recently decided New York’s rejection of the same ad violated First Amendment rights. Plaintiff Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Initiative says she forwarded that decision to the MTA.
 
PAMELA GELLER:  If San Francisco had denied my ad, I would have filed a lawsuit in San Francisco.

SHAHANI: Zahra Billoo is with the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Billoo says the city caved to a threat at the expense of its residents.
 
ZAHRA BILLOO:  We are hearing from members of the community, both Arab and Muslim and otherwise, saying, ‘you know, we don’t feel comfortable boarding buses labeling entire communities savage.’

Meanwhile, a petition created by Bay Area resident James Harris at Change.org, Paul Rose, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency: Stop MUNI’s “Hate on Wheel’s Program”. Remove Racist Ads from MUNI buses, is garnering attention from the San Francisco Examiner to Jerusalem’s Times of Israel.

Will Reisman reports at the SF Examiner ‘Savage’ ads on Muni stir debate:

Change.org, a grass-roots advocacy group, has asked its members to write to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates Muni, and request that the advertisements be removed.

“Declaring a whole people “savages” belongs in the dustbin of 19th century colonial racism, not on a city bus in the 21st Century of a progressive city like San Francisco,” the Change.org petition effort claims.

Sydney Levy, director of advocacy for Jewish Voice For Peace, said the SFMTA should at least insert a large disclaimer near the ads indicating that the agency doesn’t support the message of the campaign.

“This is very offensive, particularly at a time when anti-Islam incidents are rising in California,” Levy said. “The message is certainly out of tune with the values of San Francisco.”

………

The agency’s policy bans ads that are clearly defamatory, pornographic, advocate imminent violence or are false and misleading. There are also restrictions against political campaigns and ads promoting alcohol and cigarettes.

“While this ad is protected under the First Amendment, our ad policy and our contractual obligations, we condemn the use of any language that belittles, demeans or disparages others. Going forward, we will review our policies with regards to ads on the Muni system,” the SFMTA said in a statement from board of directors Chairman Tom Nolan and Ed Reiskin, director of transportation for the SFMTA.
 

Huffington Post:

The Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco has released a statement condemning the ads and calling on Muni to remove them. “The Bay Area’s organized Jewish community takes great offense to the ad’s inflammatory and anti-Muslim language. We are steadfast in our support of Israel and our concern about the growing threat of Islamic radicalism, and steadfast in our opposition to anti-Muslim stereotypes,” the organization said in a statement. “We have long been concerned that the repeated appearance of offensive anti-Israel ads would turn our local public transit system into a battleground for the Israeli-Arab conflict; we are no less concerned by offensive anti-Muslim ads. We urge all transit authorities to reassess their policies and to construct advertising policies consistent with laws governing protected speech that preserve public transit as a safe space for all passengers.”

Thus far, not a peep out of the San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate), San Francsico’s leading news publication.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani
Posted in Activism, American Jewish Community, Israel/Palestine, US Politics, War on Terror

{ 160 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. MLE says:

    She got what she wanted, we’re all talking about her.

    Actually New York and San Francisco can both take down the ads saying they received a lot of complaints regarding the ads. That way she has her ability to speak freely and the reaction was- people wanted it taken down

    • RE: “She got what she wanted, we’re all talking about her.” ~ MLE

      MY COMMENT: You’ve got that right!. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make her undergo therapy!

      FROM WIKIPEDIA [Narcissism]:

      [EXCERPTS] Narcissism is a term with a wide range of meanings, depending on whether it is used to describe a central concept of psychoanalytic theory, a mental illness, a social or cultural problem, or simply a personality trait. . .

      . . . Hotchkiss’ seven deadly sins of narcissism
      Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism:[6]
      • Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
      • Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
      • Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
      • Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person’s ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
      • Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an “awkward” or “difficult” person [or perhaps an "anti-Semite" ~ J.L.D.]. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
      • Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.
      • Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other. . .

      SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

      • P.S. FROM WIKIPEDIA [Narcissism]:

        (excerpts) Narcissism is a term with a wide range of meanings, depending on whether it is used to describe a central concept of psychoanalytic theory, a mental illness, a social or cultural problem, or simply a personality trait. . .
        . . . Thomas suggests that narcissists typically display most, sometimes all, of the following traits:[5]
        • An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
        • Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships
        • A lack of psychological awareness (see insight in psychology and psychiatry, egosyntonic)
        • Difficulty with empathy
        • Problems distinguishing the self from others (see narcissism and boundaries)
        • Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
        • Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
        • Haughty body language
        • Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
        • Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
        • Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
        • Pretending to be more important than they really are
        • Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
        • Claiming to be an “expert” at many things
        • Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
        • Denial of remorse and gratitude

        SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

      • P.P.S. HAPPY FERRAGOSTO, EVERYONE ! ! !

        A CUTE FILM FROM ITALY (and a nice palliative for narcissism): Mid-August Lunch (Pranzo di Ferragosto; The Ferragosto Dinner), 2008, NR, 75 minutes
        As the Italian holiday of Pranzo di Ferragosto approaches, cash-strapped Gianni (Gianni Di Gregorio) gets help from his landlord, his friend and his doctor, who offer financial relief in exchange for Gianni looking after their elderly relatives over the holiday. Four mismatched Italian mamas at the same table make for an awkward, hilarious and touching mid-August lunch in this film festival favorite from Di Gregorio, who also writes and directs.
        Director: Gianni Di Gregorio
        Language: Italian (English subtitles)
        Format: DVD and streaming
        • Netflix listing – link to dvd.netflix.com
        • Internet Movie Database – link to imdb.com
        Mid August Lunch Official Trailer – link to youtube.com
        • Cinemonde Soiree #9: “Mid-August Lunch” [VIDEO, 04:47] – link to youtube.com

  2. Looking at the furor that this ad has caused, and talking to my friends and neighbors, I am now of the opinion that the ad should stay, so I am not going to sign the petition.

    This ad is backfiring badly for Geller. Her choice of “savage” as a description was a huge miscalculation on her part. I have yet to talk to anyone who doesn’t think that her message is beyond the pale. She has definitely pissed off the city by the bay.

    Good.

    • I am now of the opinion that the ad should stay.

      i agree, it creates an opportunity for the framing of counter ads to be more direct in their opposition to funding israel’s apartheid.

      • lysias says:

        IN ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN CIVIL RIGHTS AND APARTHEID,
        SUPPORT CIVIL RIGHTS.

        SUPPORT THE RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS,
        DEFEAT ISRAELI APARTHEID.

      • Abu Malia says:

        I agree as well. Same reason I have always been against banning hasbara trolls: their position is so racist, so abhorrent and untenable in the 21st century that any airing-out of the I/P issue (even from their perspective) is ultimately a net gain for those of us obsessed with justice and equality.

        “May you live in interesting times” was it a Chinese proverb or a curse?

    • ColinWright says:

      CloakAndDagger says: “This ad is backfiring badly for Geller.”

      Ideally, it’s not backfiring for Geller. Ideally, what she really wants is attention — and this is getting it for her.

      And that’s fine with me. I’d suggest thinking about ways of guiding her into still more extreme, repulsive, and attention-getting directions.

      She can be very helpful. She can get what she wants — and we can get what we want. This can be a win-win.

  3. Alex Kane says:

    Important part of the story: The Jewish Community Relations Council statement posits a false equivalence between ads questioning aid to Israel–those $30 billion ads Annie has posted about here–and the racist, Islamophobic Geller ads. There is no comparison, of course.

    • thanks alex, i did notice the false equivalence aspect of their messaging, also noticing they piggy backed on geller’s contention her ads were in response to the ‘stop aid to israel’ ads. well, she didn’t just turn it up several notches, she jumped the shark.

    • American says:

      Yea I noticed that too, but it’s so typical of them I guessed everyone would recognize the tactic.

  4. chuckcarlos says:

    leave it up

    you can not buy this kind of PR

    the idiot behind this stroke of genius is a “Birther”…everybody gets “it”

    leave it up

  5. FreddyV says:

    Someone posted about the potential for blowback in the first post about this.

    It’s here. If the MSM has any sense, they’ll get Geller on as many TV debates as possible. She’ll expose herself as the evil deranged bigot she is and TV will get a ton of mileage.

    Plus the I/P conflict will take centre stage.

    Winner!

    • Someone posted about the potential for blowback in the first post about this.

      ‘backfire’ was mentioned it in the main text, last paragraph:

      It is astounding Pamela Geller’s horrific ‘savage’ ads have come to our beautiful city by the bay. This has backfire written all over it and should open the floodgates in a wide ranging way. It will be impossible for SF Muni to refuse counter ads under these circumstances.

      link to mondoweiss.net

      • FreddyV says:

        Aww Annie,

        You’re not getting all semantical on me are you? Heh…….

        Polythene Pam (yes, an ad hominem attack on her plastic surgery) has well and truly shit the bed with this one.

        Put her on mainstream TV with educated Palestinians and let her defend her mental ranting advert.

        If it plays out right, she’ll do more damage than enough.

        • no no not getting semantical, just thought that might have been what you were referencing and i was too lazy to check the thread. someone probably did say blowback. same difference!

        • mijj says:

          blatant anti-semanticism

        • blatant anti-semanticism

          ha! okay, here’s another blatant anti-semanticism, i am sure what they meant to say was We are steadfast in our support of Israel and our concern about the growing threat of Judaistic radicalism ie, settlers..israel’s main threat.

          “The Bay Area’s organized Jewish community takes great offense to the ad’s inflammatory and anti-Muslim language. We are steadfast in our support of Israel and our concern about the growing threat of Islamic radicalism, and steadfast in our opposition to anti-Muslim stereotypes,”

  6. hughsansom says:

    The San Francisco ads strike me as hate speech, but my gut feeling is still that they must be permitted under free speech protections. In Europe, it’s likely these ads would be illegal. But ban these or take them down, the precedent will be established for any who want to libel pro-Palestinian, pro-human rights speech as anti-Semitic (which happens routinely anyway with bigots like Alan Dershowitz and Pamela Geller).

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      zionist speech is often hate speech, because zionism, itself, is an ideology which contains, at its heart, the premise that the Jews are entitled to possession of someone else’s land.

    • Blake says:

      Speaking of Europe: Zios are all in tizz there too over ads on 450 buses in London:
      Bus ads for Palestine and Bahrain

  7. Les says:

    Our savages versus theirs.

  8. Chespirito says:

    Let the noxious ads stay! And pretty please, more air time for the repellent Geller! Rather than ban the Geller ads, let’s raise money to put up the ads mentioned by Annie and Alex about the enormous US military aid to Israel, or about Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and Jerusalem, then we can sit back and watch diehard Zionist groups wig out about them, without a legal leg to stand on. Our ads are of course much better, they don’t spew hatred, and that imbecile Geller couldn’t have done a better job of priming the people of San Francisco for a little truth.

  9. Jeff Klein says:

    The quote is from Ayn Rand, I believe. Jewish, atheist faux philosopher.
    Of course Geller’s blog is called Atlas Shrugged. . .

    • Pamela Olson says:

      So she’s a plagiarist, too… Plagiarizing a selfishness-glorifying loon. More and more pathetic.

    • chuckcarlos says:

      she is? I could never get through that piece of crap she wrote about FL Wright…I just thought she was a real bad writer…didn’t know she had this “political philosophy”…as I said just thought she was a bad writer…Wright is actually more interesting than her rather dull book…although Gary Cooper and Neal tried their best….

      Malamud was interesting, perhaps because he also taught at Oregon State…but that guy who wrote Augie March also was somewhat of a bore…

      of course everyone of those guys had to fight the giants of 20th Century American Literature…only Malamud matched up…in my opinion…but maybe Dorothy Parker was a jew…who knows…

      • Mooser says:

        “but maybe Dorothy Parker was a jew…who knows…”

        Maybe even a Catholic-Jew. Like you say, who knows?

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “I just thought she was a real bad writer…didn’t know she had this ‘political philosophy’…”

        I think the best statement I’ve ever read about Rand is this:

        There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

        -John Rogers

        • Citizen says:

          @ Woody Tanaka
          In the literary world Ayn Rand’s crappy stick figure novels are not included. Her philosophy, Objectivism, is pretty thin gruel too.

        • RoHa says:

          Try this experiment.

          1. Gather together a large number of PhD-carrying Philosophy lecturers from universities all over the world.

          2. Give them beer.

          3. Ask them “What do you think of Ayn Rand?”

          4. Give them more beer.

          Predicted results.

          Most frequent response from American lecturers: Contemptuous snort.

          Most frequent response from non- American lecturers: “Who?”

  10. Dan Crowther says:

    The “organized jewish community” of San Fran can go stick it – they want it pulled down and “safe space” maintained? FAH-Q. They act like the Gellers of the world spontaneously appeared – nonsense, these people are YOUR Frankenstein, “organized jewish community.” Clowns.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      I disagree to a point. The Jewish community in America, as a body, certainly has a responsibility for the evils that zionism commits in Palestine and in America, but the people who are members of that community are responsible only for themselves. It would be unfair to paint the stink of someone like Geller or Foxman or bigots like them on someone simply because the person shares the same religion/ethnicity as these fascists.

      • Dan Crowther says:

        ” but the people who are members of that community are responsible only for themselves.”

        Well, they’re not speaking for themselves, they’re speaking for “the organized jewish community of the bay area” whatever the hell that is. I’m happy to have everyone speak for themselves, but when people forgo that right, and speak on behalf of an entire group, I think its entirely appropriate to remind them that Geller and Co. ALSO represent an “organized jewish community” as well, in fact they’re probably more organized and potentially more representative. The more left-ish side of the “organized jewish community” would rather it stay as an inter-jewish discourse, where I have the sneaking suspicion the Geller’s of the world are allowed to spew their bile without sanction.

        As for me linking these people (the ones who wrote the letter in the post above) to Geller solely by their religion: their letter expressly agrees with her POV, they just dont like the inflammatory language and so on. They too are concerned about “islamic radicalism” and agree with a key modern zionist greivance: that these types of posters from Geller are a response to perceived anti israel aggression. In other words, the israel haters started it. If I thought the self appointed leaders of the “organized jewish community of the bay area” fundamentally disagreed with the Ads, I would feel differently, but when the only objection is to the tone (as they perceive it) my response to the call to stifle speech is, again: Fah-Q.

        I try to avoid generalizations too, but when people put on the “group” hat, generalizations become inevitable. Speak for yourself is what I say, so you have a point there, Woody.

    • ritzl says:

      Yup. If they (the “organized Jewish community”) can do it to Goldstone and Finklestein and so many others, in virulent, scorched-earth support of Israel, they can do it to the Gellers and Glicks and Aaron David Millers for their slavering racism and bigotry, if not their “counterproductivity.”

  11. eljay says:

    >> “We have long been concerned that the repeated appearance of offensive anti-Israel ads* would turn our local public transit system into a battleground for the Israeli-Arab conflict … ”

    (*By “offensive anti-Israel ads”, we mean ads which correctly describe Israel as an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” born of terrorism and ethnic cleansing and engaged in a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.)

  12. John Douglas says:

    The ad is offensive, false and intended to hurt. But even if it didn’t backfire, as it seems to have, it should not be suppressed. Every suppression of speech, no matter how loathsome the speech is, increases the likelihood and perceived acceptability of suppressing more speech. What has happened as a result of this ad demonstates Mill’s axiom that the remedy for speech you don’t like is not suppression but simply more speech.

  13. Denis says:

    Here is Gellar’s rationale to the use of the word “savages”. It is taken from her website and edited for accuracy and completeness. This is one sick chick, I’ll tell you that.

    I don’t know if the strike-throughs will be visible. Text in brackets added.

    Will Reisman:
    Did you ever consider omitting the word “savages” from your campaigns—many critics have particularly cited that kind of language as offensive.

    Gellar:
    Tell me again why the word “savage” is inaccurate.
    The targeting of [Palestinian] civilians is savage.
    The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish [Palestinian] people is savage.
    The torture of hostage Gilad Shalit was savage. [FN 1]
    The bloody hacking to death of the Fogel family [Nabka] was savage.
    The Munich Olympic [Operation Cast Lead] massacre was savage.
    The unspeakable torture of Ehud Goldwasser was savage. [FN2]
    The tens of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel [Israel into Gaza] (into schools, homes, etc.) are savage.
    The vicious Jew-hatred behind [Zionist hatred fueling] this [Palestinian] genocide is savage.
    The endless demonization of the Jewish people in the Palestinian and Arab [people by the Jewish] media is savage.
    The refusal to recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state [Palestine] is savage.
    The list is endless.

    FN1 Shalit made no allegations of torture that I am aware of.
    FN2 There is no evidence Goldwasser was tortured. He was killed during the 2006 attack at Zar’it.

    • ritzl says:

      Geller: “The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish [Palestinian] people is savage.”

      Again with the Israel=All Jews white-hot/nuclear BS.

      Yep. Sick in the extreme.

  14. Dexter says:

    I think it’s time to start saying this ad is offensive to ARABS, without using the word MUSLIM. All Arabs are not Muslim and all Muslims are not Arabs. I come from a Palestinian Christian family (though I am NOT religious in any way, shape, or form), and this ad is offensive to me as an A-R-A-B (and a human being).

    We should let Americans know this ad targets Arabs — Muslim, Christians, Atheists alike. The sad reality is that Americans are more inclined to act if they understand “Christians” are being persecuted as well.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      The sad fact is that in America, the fact that it offends Arabs or Muslims will be a benefit, and not a detriment, to just over half of the population.

    • W.Jones says:

      I agree Dexter.

    • RoHa says:

      “All Arabs are not Muslim and all Muslims are not Arabs.”

      Actually, that is not true. Lots of Arabs are Muslim, and quite a few Muslims are Arabs. It would be more accurate to say,

      “Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabs.”

      But you are quite right in saying that the ad targets Arabs, and I think you are right in saying that Americans care more for Christians than for Muslims. It seems to me that the emphasis in the media right now is on Muslims persecuting Christians.

      Is there any way that the idea that Israeli Jews are persecuting Christians can be squeezed through to Americans?

      • Dexter says:

        RoHa,

        Yes, you are correct: “Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabs.”…That’s what I meant, but realize I worded it incorrectly. Good catch!

        You ask a very good question. How can we make American understand the simple fact that Christians are also being persecuted in Palestine.

        This is the dirty little secret Zionists work hard to keep. Part of their strategy is to exaggerate the wedge between Arab Christians and Muslims, aiming to isolate Muslims as, well, “savages.” But imagine a sign in the U.S. that states:

        “Jews are killing Christians and Muslims in Palestine. The civilized world must unite and make them stop!”

        This is a simple fact, but can you imagine the uproar and how quickly those signs would be pulled?

        • RoHa says:

          Be nice to see someone try that sign. Or, with even more impact, just “Jews are killing Christians in Palestine”. Simple and true.

          I trust you have noticed how much attention was given to alleged persecution of Iraqi Christians, and how little is being given to alleged persecution of Syrian Christians by the rebels.

          Here in Oz the MSM do mention the latter, albeit rather quietly.

  15. talknic says:

    The maps address legal rights in order that there be justice and the opportunity to live in peace as equals, per the UN Charter Article 2. 1

    Geller’s ‘savage’ bus ad appeals to fear in order to justify the denial of those rights …. by one UN Member state, supported by another UN Member State, via their veto vote in the UNSC.

  16. sydnestel says:

    Geller’s ad is paraphrasing her loony hero Ayn Rand

    “[W]hen you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the
    civilized men, no matter what.”

    But Rand’s idea of “Civilized” and “Savage” are distinctly objectivist. Not what most of us think of when we use these words.

    “Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.” (see link to brainyquote.com)

    Also, as far as I can tell, the NY court case did not unequivocally side with Geller. It merely granted her an injunction, ordering the MTA to run the ads until a full hearing is held and a decision could be rendered. The next court session is Aug 29. You can read the judge’s logic [sic] at

    link to docs.justia.com

    IMO, if the U.S first amendment enshrines the right to use racial and religious hate speech, then the first amendment needs to be amended. At the very least the word “Jihad” – which is a normative Muslim concept meaning struggle (and is not at all typically associated with violence) should be ordered removed.

    • piotr says:

      Israeli airport controls are epitome of “high regard for privacy”, women in the middle of period had their tampons confiscated,including one currently in use, and the request for e-mail password is quite comparable to me.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “…if the U.S first amendment enshrines the right to use racial and religious hate speech, then the first amendment needs to be amended.”

      I disagree completely. I am certain that more than half of my fellow Americans would label my opinions about their religious beliefs to be “hate speech” and I have no intention of stopping. Freedom or fight.

      • Dan Crowther says:

        Im with Tanaka, I disagree completely. What sydnestel proposes is a tyranny of the easiest to offend – count me out.

      • Citizen says:

        @Woody Tanaka
        The First Amendment protects speech that annoys, is disruptive, controversial, speech that promotes the free flow of ideas and facts; otherwise, it would not be needed.

        The exceptional circumstance, analogized by yelling fire in a crowded theatre, needs to be narrowly construed. A problem with hate speech legislation is that it immunizes some targets, and leaves other targets without shield. And it doubles criminal penalties, in effect.

        • ColinWright says:

          Citizen says: “…The exceptional circumstance, analogized by yelling fire in a crowded theatre, needs to be narrowly construed. A problem with hate speech legislation is that it immunizes some targets, and leaves other targets without shield. And it doubles criminal penalties, in effect…”

          It also merely promotes hypocrisy and dishonesty. One can make one’s meaning quite clear, and so long as one is prepared to deny that you implied what you obviously implied, you’re in the clear.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “The exceptional circumstance, analogized by yelling fire in a crowded theatre, needs to be narrowly construed. A problem with hate speech legislation is that it immunizes some targets, and leaves other targets without shield.”

          I agree, to some extend. My primarly disagreement with it is that I don’t think that speech, alone (i.e., distinguished from actual threats, child pornography, incitement and the like, which should be criminal), should ever be subject to anyone else’s leave.

          “And it doubles criminal penalties, in effect.”

          I have no problem with that, in theory. For example, I am all for increasing penalites for bias crimes.

      • ColinWright says:

        Woody says: “I disagree completely. I am certain that more than half of my fellow Americans would label my opinions about their religious beliefs to be “hate speech” and I have no intention of stopping. Freedom or fight”

        Hear hear.

  17. Fredblogs says:

    What anti-Muslim language is there in the ad? I see an anti-terrorism message. It doesn’t say “defeat Muslims” it says “defeat Jihad”. Which, regardless of Muslim apologists who point out that it literally means “struggle”, in this country means “terrorism”.

    • Oh Fred, you’re so clueless, it’s almost funny.

    • Dexter says:

      Fred,

      Could you please tell us again how Jews are superior to Christians and Muslims. I’m sure we’d all love to hear it.

      • Fredblogs says:

        What are you talking about? I never said anything about Jews being superior to Muslims. Only that the mainstream culture of the Jews is more productive than the mainstream culture of most majority Muslim countries. Jews and Muslims in America are on equal footing.

        • Dexter says:

          Jewish culture? Can you explain what that is? I have heard of a Jewish religion, not a Jewish culture. I have, however, heard of Israeli culture.

          Your tired, 20th century racist rhetoric is filled with the notion of “superiority.”

        • Fredblogs says:

          And your tired 21st century accusation of racism are filled with lies.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Dexter
          You can a course in Jewish Culture in many American universities, or just google “Jewish Culture Studies” or even just “Jewish culture” and start learning–never too late to cure one’s ignorance.

        • Mooser says:

          “And your tired 21st century accusation of racism are filled with lies.”

          You tell ‘em Fred! Anybody says Jewish culture isn’t superior (or, if you wish “more productive”) is a racist liar!
          And I also agree with you about that nouveau racism of the 21st Century. What’s wrong with good old 18th, 19th, and 20th Century racism. It was good enough for our ancestors, it’s good enough for us! Gimme that old time religion, it’s good enough for me!

        • Dexter says:

          Oh please Citizen. Any moron knows that Jewish “culture” was a product of Zionism. Before that, a Jew in Germany considered himself German, a Jew in Russia considered himself Russian, and a Jew in the U.S. considered himself American. The only thing they had in common was Judaism as a religion. The German Jew knew nothing of American culture, vice-versa. So give me a break, and keep your fairytale mythology that Jews were a genetically unchanged “people,” wandering the globe for 2,000 years, until they finally came back “home” to the uninhabited land of Israel crap to yourself.

          Seems like you’re so indoctrinated, you may be beyong redemption.

        • Dexter says:

          Merk,

          Just refer to my comment aimed at Citizen, and insert your own name.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Dexter

          All I did was recommend you study up on Jewish culture because you said, ” I have heard of a Jewish religion, not a Jewish culture.” I never said or implied I believed in the fairytale mythology you say I do. Actually, I agree that’s a Zionist myth. But it’s hard to believe you never heard of Jewish culture separate from that Zionist myth. You seem to think that the Jewish religion is totally separate from Jewish history and Jewish culture. That’s just plain ignorant. Can’t you name even a few Jewish religious holidays where the Jewish people celebrate their view of their history? How can you take Jewish history out of The Old Testament? Further, haven’t you ever heard the expression, “A Jew at home (and within the Jewish community), and a German on the Street”?

          I only took one school course in Jewish Cultural Studies at university. The teacher was a reformed Rabbi associated with the Spertucus (sic?) museum in Chicago. He was big on the influence and use of Hegalian dialectics and Maimonides to understand Jewish culture. There’s no question “Jewish culture” is an ambiguous subject, as hinted at here:
          link to amazon.com
          Which leads to the question you have, What is Jewish Culture? An attempt to address your question is here:
          link to huffingtonpost.com

          Some academic examples of what is covered in current courses on Jewish Culture are here:
          link to littman.co.uk
          link to littman.co.uk
          link to littman.co.uk

    • Citizen says:

      @ Fredblogs
      Yeah, let’s cater to the fact that, among all the Western countries, only the Americans pride themselves on only knowing one language.

    • Edward Q says:

      The ad is a racist smear, plain and simple. To get around your bias, you could try substituting “Jew” for “Muslim”. There aren’t any facts in the ad, so what does the innuendo imply? Do you consider yourself a “savage” or a “civilized man”?

      • Fredblogs says:

        Substitute “Jew” every time “Muslim” appears in the ad if you’d like. Since “Muslim” doesn’t appear in the ad, you won’t have much work to do.

        • Edward Q says:

          Try a little harder to see where Muslims are referred to in the ad, Fredblogs. Here is my substitution:

          In any war between the civilized man and the savage Jew, support the civilized man.

          Support Gentile Nations

          Defeat Jewish Aggression

    • ColinWright says:

      Fred says: “What anti-Muslim language is there in the ad? I see an anti-terrorism message. It doesn’t say “defeat Muslims” it says “defeat Jihad”. Which, regardless of Muslim apologists who point out that it literally means “struggle”, in this country means “terrorism”.”

      Okay. Try this one on.

      “In any fight between the honest man and the liar, support the honest man.

      Support Palestine. Defeat the lies.”

      I take it you you don’t read any anti-Zionist message into that.

      • Fredblogs says:

        @ColinWright
        The issue is whether there is an anti-Semitic message in that, and there isn’t. Just a difference of opinion as to who is lying.

        • ColinWright says:

          Well Fredblogs…

          I hate bothering with this, since you know you’re lying, I know you’re lying, and you know I know…and…

          But okay.

          ‘In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilzed man…’

          First off, as a principle, the claim isn’t valid. There is no axiom that ‘in any fight between the civilized man and the savage, one should support the savage.’ There never has been. Eighteenth century Quakers were unwilling to support the claims of frontier settlers over those of the Indians. The Nez Perce are generally seen as ‘the good guys’ in their running fight with the US Cavalry. The British never decided that the actions of the Mau Mau had given them permanent title to Kenya. The ad posits a moral axiom that doesn’t even exist.

          Secondly, since Israel is generally seen as at war with the Arabs, the ad rather obviously equates Israel with ‘the civilized man’ and Arabs with ‘the savage.’

          So it is a racist ad advancing a spurious argument. That you choose to defend it is a comment on you.

        • Fredblogs says:

          Sorry, to disappoint you Colin, but I’ve never posted a lie here. I don’t see Israel at war with _all_ Arabs, there are plenty of Arabs in America that Israel isn’t at war with. Along with whole countries of them in the Middle East that aren’t actively warring on Israel. I see Israel at war with terrorists and countries that routinely commit savagery in their attacks on Israel. I see the Palestinians who murdered that settler family including the children as savages. That is who and what Israel is at war with.

        • Mooser says:

          “I see the Palestinians who murdered that settler family including the children as savages.”

          Well, if Israel had the “stand your ground” laws we civilised Americans do, those Palestinians would do fine.

        • ColinWright says:

          Fredblogs says: ‘ I see the Palestinians who murdered that settler family including the children as savages. That is who and what Israel is at war with.’

          Ergo, the Israelis who tried to burn those two four year olds to death are also savages, and your whole notion that Israel somehow represents ‘the civilized man’ while the Palestinians are ‘the savages’ just went out the window.

          Your positions don’t hold up very well, do they?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “I see an anti-terrorism message.”

      Of course you do. The person who smeared over a billion people with her rank bigotry is a Jew, so of course you will find a way to defend her. She’s a Jew and you’re a bigot. What more is there to say, Fredo?

      • Fredblogs says:

        Projecting, Woodrow, projecting.

      • Fredblogs says:

        The funniest part is that I thought she was one of these evangelical supporters of Israel. I didn’t know she was Jewish until you told me.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          LMAO. Yeah, because Queens is full of evangelicals named “Geller” who are obsessed with israel.

          Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. You’ve demonstrated that you don’t really know what you’re talking about, so why should this subject be any different?

        • Fredblogs says:

          I didn’t know she was from Queens until you told me either. I stopped making assumptions on the basis of last names when I found out Avril Lavigne isn’t Jewish and neither is Weird Al Yankovic. The wisdom of that was confirmed with Scarlet Johanson, who is Jewish. The first I heard of Pamela Geller was a report that some evangelicals were protesting the ground zero mosque, then the report cut to “Pam Geller”. I assumed she was one of them. I don’t read her blog and the ground zero mosque protest was the only thing I knew about her until this article.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “I stopped making assumptions on the basis of last names when I found out Avril Lavigne isn’t Jewish and neither is Weird Al Yankovic.”

          Are you really that ignorant, Fredo? Why on Earth would you think either of those names is Jewish?? LMAO. It would be like thinking that someone named Lakshmi Patel or Angus MacTavish or Keiko Takahashi was Jewish. For the love of pete, if the Frenchness of Avril Lavigne’s last name didn’t seal the deal, her first name is literally French for “April.” LMAO.

        • Fredblogs says:

          Lavigne because “Levine” means “a member of the Jewish tribe of Levi”, and there are lots of alternate spellings. Yankovic because some of his songs relate to Judaism, and because I know some Jews named Yankelovic.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          So the answer is “Yes” you really are that ignorant. LOL!!!

    • @Fredblogs:

      What anti-Muslim language is there in the ad?

      Well, any reasonable person would conclude that calling the Muslims savage is anti-Muslim language. The judge said as much in his ruling.

      • Fredblogs says:

        I don’t see anything in the ad calling Muslims or even Palestinians in general “savage”. But the people who are terrorist attacking Israel certainly are.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “What anti-Muslim language is there in the ad? I see an anti-terrorism message.’

      Exactly Fredo. And I’m sure that if we put up ads saying “Beware Of International Banker Who Want To Get Us Into Foreign Wars For Their Own Profits And Because They’re All More Loyal To A Foreign State Than To The USA” that would clearly be an anti-banking message.

      • Fredblogs says:

        A bit long winded there. I think “defeat Jihad” has a better ring to it. And you did have a nice anti-banking message, until you spoiled it with that bit about “more loyal to a foreign state”. A common anti-Semitic stereotype. About what I’d expect from you.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “A common anti-Semitic stereotype.”

          Yes, that was kind of the point, dopey. It is anti-Semitic the same way the “defeat Jihad” language you are defending is Islamophobic.

          “About what I’d expect from you.”

          LMAO. Coming from someone whose main purpose in life appears to be to defend Jews (as well as French-Canadians and accordian players whose names remind you of Jews) regardless of the facts, I don’t doubt that you impress your bigotry on everyone else. When all you have is a hammer…

        • Mooser says:

          “Coming from someone whose main purpose in life appears to be to defend Jews “

          Gosh, Woody, that’s a very bizarre perspective coming from a guy who is usually as sensible as you. You think Fredblogs “defends” Jews? No, Woody, Fredblogs indicts Jews, every time he talks about us. He seeks to portray Jews as being as far from the common run of humanity as he can. He tries desperately to prove Jews are different from other people, and cannot live in common with others.
          Now why would a person do that? Why would a person take the part usually played by an abuser in a relationship, the one who seeks to isolate the abused from others? If possible, to convince them they are worth less than others, and not entitled to the same rights. Why would he do that, I wonder?

  18. Edward Q says:

    The fact that the zionist “organized Jewish community” opposes these ads tells you how counterproductive they are.

    • Mooser says:

      “The fact that the zionist “organized Jewish community” opposes these ads”

      Now I’m totally confused. You mean the Zionists are against these ads? I thought the ads expressed their feelings perfectly.

  19. The Munich Olympic massacre was savage.

    In the process of assassinating the perpetrators of the massacre, the Israelis killed a waiter in Norway and four passersby in Lebanon, none of them related with the incident.

    Prioritizing vengeance over the life of innocents, now that’s savage.

    • Sumud says:

      In the process of assassinating the perpetrators of the massacre, the Israelis killed a waiter in Norway and four passersby in Lebanon, none of them related with the incident.

      THB – they did a whole lot more worse than that.

      In the days immediately after Munich Israeli fighter jets attacked Palestinian refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon and the IDF sent ground troops into southern Lebanon, the single largest mobilisation of the IDF since 1967.

      The revenge attacks killed 250-300 entirely innocent Palestinian men, women and children in the refugee camps.

      THAT was savage.

      • Blake says:

        Savage describes the Root cause of why the Palestinians ended up in those refugee camps in the first place

      • ColinWright says:

        “…In the days immediately after Munich Israeli fighter jets attacked Palestinian refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon and the IDF sent ground troops into southern Lebanon, the single largest mobilisation of the IDF since 1967.

        The revenge attacks killed 250-300 entirely innocent Palestinian men, women and children in the refugee camps.

        THAT was savage…”

        Also par for the course. Israel pretty consistently retaliates by killing five to fifty gentiles for every Jew that dies. The victims don’t need to actually be guilty of anything — ethnic association is entirely sufficient.

        …It’s one of the reasons I smell a rat behind that Burgas bombing. What happened to the retaliation? I can’t think of any other time Israelis have been killed and there hasn’t been a display of the righteous wrath of Zion.

  20. RE: “Geller’s ‘savage’ bus ad meets strong resistance from the Bay Area”

    MY COMMENT: I support “free speech”, but this kind of hate speech from an über bigot like Pam Geller really frightens me.

    • Denis says:

      I really agree. She is the tip of a deep shitberg I don’t even want to think about. But freedom of speech at least encourages such loathsome people to get on the radar screen so there is no question that they’re there and real and scary.

      BTW, was Ayn Rand an Israeli? lol . . . anyway, she is exhibit #1 in my personal savage jihad against fiction in politics. A know-nothing dolt but brilliant writer able to inspire hate-filled wanna’ bees like Gellar for generations to come. Who was John Galt, anyway?? Holden Caulfield’s uncle?

      • Citizen says:

        @ Denis
        Sorry, Denis
        Ayn Rand is not recognized in literary circles or literature classes a university as a “brilliant writer.” Her best writing ability can be seen in any third rate potboiler on the supermarket rack.

  21. ColinWright says:

    “…Thus far, not a peep out of the San Francisco Chronicle (SFGate), San Francsico’s leading news publication…”

    The Chronicle always was an almost relentlessly mediocre publication. More usually given to mindlessly toeing the progressive line — but discernibly mediocre for all that.

    This doesn’t surprise me in the least. Not that I thought it was a pro-Zionist publication or anything — but given a chance for moral failure, it doesn’t surprise me it would make it under the bar.

    • chuckcarlos says:

      Chronicle used be deYoung (as in Museum) morning? and Examiner was Hearst in the afternoon…neither was distinguished ever…Sac Bee used to be distinguished but has hit the skids and is basically kaput…LA Times is the best of the sad lot…don’t know why they have better journalists/writers but they are also going kaput

      SF Guardian used to be alternative…and it was fine but guess it had disappeared…

      Believe Shilts wrote for the Examiner, and nobody knew he was gay when he started and basically wrote the truth about the bath house scene…the old line like Shilts who did the Dashiell Hammett/Jack London/Hemingway deal are all long gone…

      so we come here to get our info

      • chuck, i remember when the chronicle was in the morning and the examiner in the afternoon. and i remember when herb caen graced the frontpage of the datebook section everyday too.

        link to sfgate.com

        Caenfucius say: Of course we can have guns and butter but have you ever tasted a buttered gun? Bleagh! … Life does even out. One of the most spectacular views in town is from the bottom of a pit – and if you don’t believe it, ask any BART worker staring up at a miniskirted passerby … I have a memory like an elephant. I remember every elephant I’ve ever met … When a place advertises itself as “World Famous,” you may be sure it isn’t … Notice that should be printed on our paper money: “Caution: Inflation May Be Hazardous to Your Wealth” … A big canning outfit wants to do a singing commercial that begins “This is the dawning of the age of asparagus,” but the “Hair” composers aren’t ready to sell out just yet … News stories that attempt to demonstrate how cosmopolitan San Francisco is (by telling of Jews working with Arabs, Armenians with Turks, Greeks with Italians and so on) merely demonstrate the opposite. If this were truly a cosmopolis, such a mixture would be taken for granted … Suggested sign to be posted during Operation Intercept at the U.S. Mexican border: “Abandon Dope, All Ye Who Enter Here.”

        San Francisco shorthand: This is simply “The City.” There is only one “The Hill” (Telegraph). When you say “I’m going over to The Street,” it has to be Montgomery. “See you at The Club for lunch,” can only be the Pacific-Union (sorry, Bohemians). On “The Street,” you need only say “The Drink” to get a martini on the rocks. You drive through “The Valley” (Sacramento) to get to The Lake (Tahoe). There is only one “The Bridge,” especially when you live in “The County,” whence you sometimes drive to “The River” (Russian). “I saw your name in The Paper” needs no amplification. There is only one.

        edit,maybe it was only called datebook on sundays, but he was there everyday i think. the paper just isn’t the same without him. the city either.

  22. Taxi says:

    I’d like to see Pam Geller and Joan Rivers in a ring fighting over a vial of botox.

  23. RE: “Geller’s ‘savage’ bus ad”

    MY COMMENT: Can you feel the H–A–T–E? Über bigot Pamela Geller is like Gertrude Himmelfarb, Marty Peretz, Bernard Lewis, Rachel Abrams, Jennifer Rubin and Anders Behring Breivik all rolled into one!
    She reminds me of Georgia’s very own J.B. Stoner. – link to en.wikipedia.org

  24. RE: “If San Francisco had denied my ad, I would have filed a lawsuit in San Francisco.” ~ Pamela Geller

    PAMELA GELLER’S ÜBER RACIST ATTORNEY: “David Yerushalmi, Islam-Hating White Supremacist Inspires Anti-Sharia Bills Sweeping Tea Party Nation”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam,

    (excerpts) You’ve gotta hand it to David Yerushalmi. Until now, I can’t recall a Jew who’s ever been called a white supremacist before (actually now that I think of it, I called him a Jewish white supremacist way back in 2007). Thanks to him, we now can. . .
    . . . I’m referring to an eye-opening expose in Mother Jones about the inspiration the Jewish extremist is offering for the anti-Muslim legal initiatives that are sweeping the south after the victory of one such campaign in Oklahoma a few months ago. . .
    . . . One of the most delicious phrases used to describe the Jewish anti-jihadi is “white supremacist,” to which I say: if the shoe fits…I’ve also called him a Jewish fascist. But white supremacist will do just as well.
    As Murphy notes, this is a guy who endorses the principle that “Caucasians” are superior to blacks and that Jewish liberals are a cancer in the U.S. body politic. The nearest Jewish “intellectual” antecedent I can determine would be Meir Kahane. But Yerushalmi’s views are far more radical than Kahane’s. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to richardsilverstein.com

    • ColinWright says:

      “I’ve also called him a Jewish fascist.”

      I gotta object to this continual and rather indiscriminate equation of fascism and Zionism.

      ‘Fascism’ properly speaking was a movement that came to power in Italy in 1922. While deplorable in many respects, in the context of the times, little Italy did was clearly beyond the pale. Her adventures in Libya and Ethiopia aren’t really all that different from France’s activities in the Rif War and Syria, for example. Nor was Europe a flourishing garden of democracies otherwise. I think I read somewhere that prior to World War Two, Mussolini actually killed six political opponents. For a period of sixteen years, that’s not exactly a reign of terror.

      I’m not trying to set up the Benito Mussolini admiration society here — but really. He wasn’t the anti-Christ. Left to his own devices, he would have diddled around with trying to separate Croatia from Yugoslavia and have slowly exhausted all enthusiasm for his regime — and Italy would have eventually muddled back into the family of nations she never really left.

      Nor — aside from Nazi Germany — were any of the other variations all that horrifying. It’s forgotten that Greece was more or less fascist: dictator, secret police, mass movement, all the fixings, really. It wound up on the side of the good guys. It was a pretty common theme back then. The list of countries that clearly weren’t fascist would be shorter than the list of the ones that problematically were. One party, authoritarian states that took a dim view of criticism and tried to elicit support through mass movements of nationalism were more the norm than the exception.

      The Nazis were the real bad guys — and it is they that Israel and its supporters resemble. Let’s not sugar-coat it by calling Israel ‘fascist.’ She’s considerably more than that. You’d have a hard time finding one of the smaller European states in the interwar period that was more or less fascist and that carried on as she does.

      Yes, Israel is a fascist state. But she’s more than that: she’s a Nazi state. And her more enthusiastic supporters are Nazis. They’ve got the substance. They just don’t like the label.

      Think about it. Unlike Fascism but like Naziism, you’ve got the fully articulated doctrine of racial supremacy and a determination to realize it. Unlike Fascism but like Naziism you’ve got the continual mad-dog aggression against everybody. Unlike Fascism but like Naziism you’ve got the lavish use of state terror. Unlike Fascism but like Naziism you’ve got not merely brutality but clearly gratuitous sadism. Unlike Fascism but like Naziism you’ve got a clear drive to completely extirpate the ‘other’ by any means necessary. Finally, unlike Fascism but like Naziism you have the apocalyptic vision of a racially pure society possessing total military supremacy. Israel is an evil place. It’s more than a ‘fascist’ place. It’s a Nazi place.

      • Shmuel says:

        Colin,

        I don’t know which 20th-century regime Israel most closely resembles, but your apology for Fascism reminds me of some of the arguments made by Israel’s supporters.

        Yes, apart from the colonial (and other) wars and massacres, the concentration camps in northern Italy and Yugoslavia, the “squadristi”, the political prisoners (I happen to live near one of the most infamous of the political prisons), the Manifesto of the Purity of the Race (and consequent laws and actions) – not to mention the indoctrination, intimidation, “Fascist Saturdays” and, worst of all, those silly hats – Fascism really wasn’t all that bad.

        Mussolini and Fascism were responsible for the deaths of nearly a million Ethiopians, Serbs, Greeks, Albanians, Italians and others. But of course, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were worse, so if we are looking for analogies, why settle for second-worst?

        By the way, apology for Fascism is still a crime in Italy (although rarely enforced). Those nostalgic for the “good old days” of the March on Rome, castor oil raids, and the Republic of Salò will tell you it’s because the communists won the war, but there are one or two other reasons as well.

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmuel: “I don’t know which 20th-century regime Israel most closely resembles, but your apology for Fascism reminds me of some of the arguments made by Israel’s supporters…”

          Yeah. I was wading into tricky ground with that — when I started setting up Italy as contrasting with Nazi Germany. I’ll point out that much of what you mention dates from when Italy started trying to follow Germany’s lead.

          However, what I’m really interested in is (a) differentiating between the degree of savagery represented by Fascism as opposed to Naziism, and (b) pointing out that in many respects, Israel is more akin to the latter than the former.

        • Shmuel says:

          I’ll point out that much of what you mention dates from when Italy started trying to follow Germany’s lead.

          That is what is known in Italy as the “italiani brava gente” argument: It was all the fault of those nasty Germans. One might also say that Germany was following Italy’s lead.

          However, what I’m really interested in is (a) differentiating between the degree of savagery represented by Fascism as opposed to Naziism and (b) pointing out that in many respects, Israel is more akin to the latter than the former.

          It sounds like a circular argument to me. You minimise the crimes of Fascism and then assert that Israel is far worse than that. It also sounds like a complete lack of perspective that results in the misrepresentation of both Fascism and Zionism, and possibly Nazism as well.

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmuel: “It sounds like a circular argument to me. You minimise the crimes of Fascism and then assert that Israel is far worse than that. It also sounds like a complete lack of perspective that results in the misrepresentation of both Fascism and Zionism, and possibly Nazism as well.”

          There are different degrees of evil: child rape is worse than auto theft.

          So I’m saying that (a) Nazi Germany was qualitatively and quantitatively something worse than Fascism, and that (b) Israel is far more akin to Nazi Germany than she is to Fascist Italy.

          I certainly don’t see anything circular about that, and while the picture could be refined, I don’t see how it distorts matters.

        • Shmuel says:

          I certainly don’t see anything circular about that

          It is circular because your premise is that Fascism was not all that bad (considering the enormity of its crimes, that it may not have been quite as monstrous as the Nazi regime is irrelevant), and based on this premise you assert that Israel is much worse, and so must be more like Nazi Germany. That you compare the difference between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to the difference between child rape and auto theft proves my point.
          Mussolini’s thugs raped, murdered, tortured, starved, gassed, oppressed and suppressed with the worst of them (I can introduce you to some of the victims and their relatives, if they’re not too offended by your apologetics). How do you compare the rape and murder of 10,000 children with the rape and murder of 20,000 children? Would you compare the first to a misdemeanour and the second to a serious crime?

          There are aspects of Zionist ideology and Israeli policy that resemble Fascism and there are those that resemble Nazism (often the very aspects that Nazism and Fascism had in common). Neither analogy is especially fitting, but dismissing the comparison to Fascism, because “Zionism is much worse” shows a lack of understanding of both phenomena.

          Aside: The term fascism is not limited to the ideology and regime of the Italian Fascist movement and its “ventennio”. It can thus be applied to Israel, without necessarily evoking Mussolini.

        • ColinWright says:

          I think that if your ethical view compels you to argue that there was no qualitative difference between Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany, then there is something wrong with your ethical view.

          In a way, this is a staple of Israeli apologists. All sins are equated, and then Israel becomes no worse than anyone else. Ultimately, I cannot object to the neighbor beating his child to death because I once dumped an empty paint can in the garbage.

        • ColinWright says:

          “Neither analogy is especially fitting, but dismissing the comparison to Fascism, because “Zionism is much worse” shows a lack of understanding of both phenomena.”

          In what way does it show a lack of understanding? Such phrases have an impressive ring to them: but they are meaningless without further explanation.

          “Aside: The term fascism is not limited to the ideology and regime of the Italian Fascist movement and its “ventennio”.

          Indeed, ‘Fascism’ has been extended to where it means ‘any non-communist authoritarian system I disapprove of.’ Even in its heyday, ‘Fascism’ was an impressively nebulous term. For example, Francoist Spain and Nazi Germany — states that were in some respects polar opposites — both become ‘Fascist.’

          “It can thus be applied to Israel, without necessarily evoking Mussolini.”

          Note that I did agree that Israel is Fascist. I merely argue that it is more than Fascist — it is Nazi.

        • Shmuel says:

          I think that if your ethical view compels you to argue that there was no qualitative difference between Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany, then there is something wrong with your ethical view.

          Oh, I don’t know. Nazis murdered most of my family, and Fascists “merely” persecuted my wife’s family. I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp of the ethics involved.

        • mijj says:

          You once dumped an empty paint can in the garbage? .. you evil, monstrous *#^%#@!!

        • Shmuel says:

          Ultimately, I cannot object to the neighbor beating his child to death because I once dumped an empty paint can in the garbage.

          I know a woman who was gang-raped as a child, by squadristi who came looking for her socialist father and didn’t find him at home.

          I know another woman whose father and uncle fled the country but were murdered in exile by Mussolini’s agents.

          I know a man whose father (an opponent of the regime and a Jew) was tortured and murdered in an Italian concentration camp.

          These are people I happen to know personally. They are a drop in the bucket. Shall I tell them about auto theft and paint cans?

        • Mooser says:

          “However, what I’m really interested in is (a) differentiating between the degree of savagery represented by Fascism as opposed to Naziism (b) pointing out that in many respects, Israel is more akin to the latter than the former.

          Very generous of you Colin, but we already have more than enough uses for pilpul. But if you feel casuistry has been getting the short end of the stick lately, go ahead. Or maybe a grant is available for your very useful project from a Catholic group.

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmuel says: “Oh, I don’t know. Nazis murdered most of my family, and Fascists “merely” persecuted my wife’s family. I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp of the ethics involved.”

          So now you’re agreeing there is a qualitative difference?

        • ColinWright says:

          “Very generous of you Colin, but we already have more than enough uses for pilpul. But if you feel casuistry has been getting the short end of the stick lately, go ahead. Or maybe a grant is available for your very useful project from a Catholic group.”

          Be quiet, Mooser. The grown-ups are trying to have a serious conversation.

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmuel says: “…These are people I happen to know personally. They are a drop in the bucket. Shall I tell them about auto theft and paint cans?”

          You are rather obviously attempting to avoid conceding the point. If you find the whole subject impossible to talk about, that’s fine — but say so.

        • Shmuel says:

          So now you’re agreeing there is a qualitative difference?

          You are rather obviously attempting to avoid conceding the point.

          You really don’t get it. I try to judge both historical and current phenomena for what they are – without hyperbole and without trivialisation.

          The crimes of Fascism were enormous. They destroyed millions of lives. That cannot and must not be contextualised or rationalised or minimised. Were some of their policies less draconian, less destructive than those of the Nazis? Yes. Were their policies toward Jews less all-consumingly brutal? Yes. Did they gas and hang and torture Ethiopians and Serbs and Italian political prisoners with any less brutality than the Nazis did Poles or communists? Probably not. And where does Israel fit into all of this? Is it somewhere between extremely evil and mind-numbingly evil? Based on what criteria? Is it more like the Belgians in the Congo or the French in Algeria? Is the Nakba more like the Porajmos or the Holodomor or the Rape of Nanking? Is it more Apartheid or Jim Crow? If you suggest a historical analogy that is less than the absolute worst you can possibly imagine, are you belittling it? Betraying Palestinian suffering? How do you decide that Israel is more Poland than Somaliland, more Eichmann than Graziani? Surely not the number of dead. The communities destroyed then? The families broken apart? The freedom denied?

          Auto theft? Paint cans? Sent some people away for a holiday (to quote another apologist for Fascism)? You do not know what you are talking about. If you have a point to make beyond the most evil thing you can think of, make it. If not you do an injustice to the victims of Zionism and the victims of Fascism.

        • ColinWright says:

          “…You do not know what you are talking about. If you have a point to make beyond the most evil thing you can think of, make it. If not you do an injustice to the victims of Zionism and the victims of Fascism…”

          As far as I can see, you’re waving your arms in the air. I would rebut some of your claims in detail — but that would be to miss the point.

          I could be wrong about this, but my suspicion is that for all your enlightenment, you can’t quite stomach seeing Israel equated with Nazi Germany. That’s understandable — but it’s not an argument.

          Well, I think that in the ways I specified, the two can be equated — even if you find that difficult to accept. I don’t see any reason to pretend otherwise.

        • Shmuel says:

          I could be wrong about this, but my suspicion is that for all your enlightenment, you can’t quite stomach seeing Israel equated with Nazi Germany.

          I believe such equations usually show a lack of imagination and perspective, and are counterproductive. What I really can’t stomach (for all my enlightenment) is apology for Fascism (or Zionism), as I think most of my comments on this thread have shown. I do not believe that comparing Israel to Fascist Italy is letting Israel off easy.

          Well, I think that in the ways I specified, the two can be equated
          The ways you specified show a lack of understanding of Fascism and a tendency to hyperbole with regard to Zionism.

          Let’s have a look at them:

          a fully articulated doctrine of racial supremacy and a determination to realize it
          See “Manifesto on the Purity of the Race” and the Racial Laws, as well as the Fascist ideas of Italian destiny and Roman glory. Despite Ruppin and a few early others, Zionism’s “doctrine of racial supremacy” has been more implied than articulated and the ways in which it has been and continues to be realised differ from both Fascist and Nazi racial policies.

          Continual mad-dog aggression against everyone
          Most of the nearly one million people Mussolini killed were in senseless wars of aggression that Italy was woefully unprepared for and would have lost miserably had it not been bailed out by its German ally. Then there were the colonial wars. Italian resentment against these wars are probably what got Mussolini hung upside down and pissed on. Israel’s “mad dog-aggression” has usually been calculated and timed (with some surprises, like Hizbollah 2006), with specific and usually attainable internal and external goals.

          lavish use of state terror
          This is where your apology for Fascism comes in. Mussolini made extensive use of state terror both against political opponents at home and in the territories it occupied in Europe and Africa (as well as in areas not under its control, as in the case of the Roselli brothers, murdered in France).

          not merely brutality but clearly gratuitous sadism
          Ask some Ethiopian or Serbian or Slovenian survivors of Fascist sadism, or former Italian dissidents about their experiences with the squadristi. Gratuitous sadism was a hallmark of the Fascist regime, which fundamentally rejected bourgeois “squeamishness” and worshipped power.

          you’ve got a clear drive to completely extirpate the ‘other’ by any means necessary
          Neither Fascism nor Zionism had/have such a drive. Both were/are interested far more in domination than in extirpation. Nazi views on the subject varied, depending on the “race” in question.

          the apocalyptic vision of a racially pure society possessing total military supremacy
          Total military supremacy is the obvious vision of all militaristic aggressor states. This was as true for Fascist Italy as it is for Israel. As for a “racially pure society”, to the extent that such a vision can be attributed to Israel (for the most part, not obsessed with “racial purity” per se), it can easily be attributed to Fascism, which openly espoused the ideology of “scientific” racism.

          You criticise the facile use of the word fascist (to the point of asserting that the word has no real meaning), yet gravitate to the word Nazi with remarkable ease. Be my guest, but please, don’t downplay the horrors of Italian Fascism.

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmuel says: ‘Then there were the colonial wars. Italian resentment against these wars are probably what got Mussolini hung upside down and pissed on. Israel’s “mad dog-aggression” has usually been calculated and timed (with some surprises, like Hizbollah 2006), with specific and usually attainable internal and external goals.’

          Well, this hardly strengthens any claim that Israel would not be more like Nazi Germany than like Fascist Italy.

          You say Israel’s aggression has usually been calculated; that would be unlike Italy but like Nazi Germany. Hitler had a plan, and determinedly followed it.

          As to the attainability of Israel’s goals, I dunno about that. They never did establish suzerainty over southern Lebanon. In fact, their wars have worsened their position vis-a-vis Lebanon, not strengthened it. Israel has taken Sinai twice — and been forced to withdrawn from it twice. The same applies to some extent to Gaza. Yes, Israel has acquired the West Bank. I doubt that is going to extend the life-span of the Jewish state.

          So what are the goals Israel has fulfilled with her wars? From a purely amoral standpoint of state power, the 1948 war was a success. The others have been either obvious failures or will eventually prove to be mistakes.

          …Again, somewhat like Nazi Germany. For all her brilliant military successes in 1939-1942, the strategy didn’t pay off for her in the end, did it?

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmnuel says “you’ve got a clear drive to completely extirpate the ‘other’ by any means necessary
          Neither Fascism nor Zionism had/have such a drive. Both were/are interested far more in domination than in extirpation. Nazi views on the subject varied, depending on the “race” in question.”

          You’re denying that Israel seeks to drive the Palestinians out of Palestine? I think she does everything she can to bring this about. If she could do more, she would do more.

          Again, what we have — by your own admission — is an Israeli approach that is far more Nazi than it is Fascist. As you say, Italian Fascism revealed no such extirpatory urge. Both Naziism and Zionism do.

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmuel says: ” This was as true for Fascist Italy as it is for Israel. As for a “racially pure society”, to the extent that such a vision can be attributed to Israel (for the most part, not obsessed with “racial purity” per se)…”

          Lol. It wasn’t my intention, but I’m making you start to talk like Fredblogs.

          Israel above all depends on the notion that Jews are a ‘race.’ Any other definition, and the rationale for the state collapses. Jews are a race, and they want Israel to be for Jews alone. And you don’t see that as an obsession with racial purity?

          Remember that ‘rape’ case? Seriously tell me Israel wouldn’t pass the Nuremberg Laws if only she thought she could get away with it.

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmuel says: ‘You criticise the facile use of the word fascist (to the point of asserting that the word has no real meaning), yet gravitate to the word Nazi with remarkable ease. Be my guest, but please, don’t downplay the horrors of Italian Fascism.’

          Admittedly, I did ‘downplay’ the horrors of Italian fascism. Yet — as you yourself have admitted — Fascism did differ both in quantity and quality from Naziism, and of course any effort to elucidate that difference was going to have the effect of ‘downplaying’ the horrors of Italian Fascism.

          Secondly, Fascism always was ill-defined. Mussolini never succeeded in making the Fascists the sole center of power in the state. He had to leave the king in place. He never succeeded in establishing the kind of domination Hitler did over the church, the army, and industry.

          Matters weren’t helped by Fascist ideas being picked up and adopted by everyone from Juan Peron in Argentina to the Iron Guard in Rumania. ‘Fascism’ promptly became a widespread, diffuse, and extremely poorly defined movement.

          Finally, of course, the process was completed in retrospect by the word becoming a simple epithet. I have heard everybody from Ronald Reagan to Muslim fanatics defined as ‘fascists’ — or at least, ‘Islamofascists.’ Like ‘terrorist,’ the word has lost whatever clear meaning it may have once had.

          Naziism (like Zionism) however, always was a word associated with one specific ethnic group. Its goals related to that group, and it had a clearly delineated set of practices and principles. To compare someone to a Nazi is to accuse them of a quite definable set of objectives, and I think that can legitimately be done with respect to Israel. Israel may well be a ‘fascist state’ — but that would not be especially unusual nor would it help much with defining what it is she sought. However, I think that Israel is also a Nazi state — and that is something specific, and it fits.

        • Shmuel says:

          Lol. It wasn’t my intention, but I’m making you start to talk like Fredblogs.

          I was going to let this rather pointless conversation drop, but Fredblogs? Really?

          And as long as I’m here … I did say “per se”. It is a tad simplistic to state that mainstream Zionism and Israeli policies are about “race” and “racial purity”. To the extent that the Law of Return, for example, includes a racial component, it is anything but a guarantee of “purity”. On the contrary – which is why the worst racists want it changed. “Not Palestinian” is often far more important, legally, socially and demographically in Israel than “Jewish” in a racial or religious sense.

          About the “rape case”, the Israeli justice system is certainly biased and discriminatory, but that particular verdict did seem a bit odd (at least to those of us with some actual familiarity with the system) the way it was first presented in the media. The article that Elisabeth linked to goes a long way to explaining the basis of the court decision (still problematic, but nowhere near as problematic as it first appeared). If you think that this incident somehow “proves” that Israel is obsessed with “racial purity” this conversation really has become pointless.

        • American says:

          “Mussolini never succeeded in making the Fascists the sole center of power in the state:…Colin

          You’re right according to the most recongized experts. I read ‘the’ book on ‘Mussolini and the Italians’ several years ago. Mussolini couldn’t even get the Italians to accept anything like it. Italian ‘culture’ wasn’t geared that way and Italian society never had hardly any respect for ‘government’, much less anyone elses, like a nazi imposed one, anyway.

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmuel says: ” …“Not Palestinian” is often far more important, legally, socially and demographically in Israel than “Jewish” in a racial or religious sense. ..”

          I know you wanted to let this drop — but this I can’t resist commenting on.

          On the one hand, you’re right — ‘not Palestinian’ does seem to be as much of a criteria as ‘Jewish.’

          On the other hand, the substitute criteria is if anything even more racist. The ‘non-Palestinians’ do need to be ‘white,’ it would seem. Witness the almost hysterical Israeli reaction to 60,000 indubitable ‘non-Palestinians’ from sub-saharan Africa. If the goal was simply to flood out the Palestinians with anyone at all, those Africans would be welcomed with open arms — and all the Filipinos, Thais, etc would be quite welcome to stay.

          I would say that the Zionist redefinition of Jews as a racial category has led to a certain degree of wishful thinking — witness Yishai’s ‘Israel is for the White man.’ However nonsensical even a few photos make the proposition, the Israelis now see themselves as ‘White’ — and hence any ‘White’ immigrant will do.

        • American says:

          “Israel above all depends on the notion that Jews are a ‘race.’ Any other definition, and the rationale for the state collapses. Jews are a race, and they want Israel to be for Jews alone. And you don’t see that as an obsession with racial purity?”…Colin

          I don’t think they call themselvess a race.
          Their view of themselves ‘transcends’ even race.
          The uber zios view of Jews is very convoluted…..a mixture of ‘ancientness’ and the imcomparable specialness of their ancient ‘Tribe” to others and a mystical connection of all Jews despite their different races or ethnic origins. It’s really bullshit.
          Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat.

        • ColinWright says:

          Shmuel says ” If you think that this incident somehow “proves” that Israel is obsessed with “racial purity” this conversation really has become pointless.”

          It’s hardly the only symptomatic incident. Should I go into all that hysteria about ‘fourteen year old Jewish girls being carried off into Arab villages,’ etc?

          You are trying to reduce this to the single incident, rationalize the incident, and then pretend that something that’s clearly there isn’t there. For the sake of argument, my characterization of it might be off — but complete denial certainly isn’t closer to the mark.

        • ColinWright says:

          American says: “…You’re right according to the most recongized experts. I read ‘the’ book on ‘Mussolini and the Italians’ several years ago. Mussolini couldn’t even get the Italians to accept anything like it. Italian ‘culture’ wasn’t geared that way and Italian society never had hardly any respect for ‘government’, much less anyone elses, like a nazi imposed one, anyway.”

          I’m happy to have the support of course — but I can’t resist pointing out that the Nazis, coming to power in 1933, can hardly be accused of ‘imposing’ a system on Italy that she had adopted back in 1922.

          Italian Fascism wasn’t the Nazis’ fault. The Italians came up with it all on their own. Indeed, my impression would be that it wouldn’t be until the late thirties that Italian Fascism can be seen as being influenced by Nazi ideas — although Mussolini was quite happy to take advantage of the Nazi threat to complete the unfinished business of establishing Italian rule over Ethiopia.

        • Shmuel says:

          You are citing Yad Le’achim as proof of the Zionist ethos? Your grasp of Israeli society is tenuous at best, yet you feel confident enough to determine whether the shade of Israel’s shirt is more brown than black. You make it too easy for guys like Oleg.

          And if you think that my position with regard to Zionist/Israeli racism is one of “complete denial”, you haven’t been paying attention.

        • seanmcbride says:

          American,

          The early Zionists described Jews as a “race” all the time — it was one of their core beliefs. But not just any race — a very special race as framed and defined by the biblical Weltanschauung.

        • RoHa says:

          a criteria“?

          Ahem! A criterion.

        • Mooser says:

          “qualitative difference between Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany

          Yes, there was a quantitative difference, no, there was no “qualitative difference”. Once you start killing people you’ve pretty much gone over the line. The number you kill may be just a matter of opportunity or circumstance. But once you’ve declared your ideology gives you the right to take lives, and then do it, well, baby, like it or not you’re down there with the worst.

        • ColinWright says:

          “…well, baby, like it or not you’re down there with the worst.”

          All this sort of reasoning leads to is everyone being condemned equally.

          The French used poison gas in the Rif Wars, we interned the Japanese, the British were responsible for the massacre at Amritsar.

          Therefore, we are just as bad as the Italian Fascists, who are in turn just as bad as the Nazis, and nobody has a right to object to anyone’s behavior, and Roosevelt was the same as Hitler.

          Yes there was a difference — both quantitatively and qualitatively, and while I can see that it simplifies everyone’s moral thinking wonderfully if there’s a uniform ‘bad man’ category to which they can consign all whom they wish to differentiate themselves from, that’s not actually the way the world is.

        • ColinWright says:

          American: “I don’t think they call themselvess a race.
          Their view of themselves ‘transcends’ even race.”

          Kinda like Hitler’s notion of ‘culture-creating’ races, and ‘culture bearing races,’ and ‘culture destroying’ races? This too transcended the ordinary nineteenth century racialism — and indeed, assigns the ‘Aryans’ a role vaguely analogous to that of ‘the chosen people.’ It certainly lent a whole new meaning to the ordinary implications of the idea of ‘race.’

          The Jews of Israel certainly betray a notion of themselves as set apart — a ‘culture creating’ race, definitely something better. Then there are the ‘culture bearing’ races — ourselves, for example, Europeans, those who can conceivably be in some position of other than abject subjection to Israel. Then there are the Arabs — the ‘culture destroying’ race. The necessarily vile. The invariably scheming. Those whose death is an objective good.

          It’s not a perfect fit — but it’s pretty good.

        • American says:

          Yes I’ve seen some do that…but not like any definition of ‘race’ the world recognizes. And then when you ask them to explain “how Jews can be a race” according the world’s understanding of race definitions when many different “races” belong to Judaism, they get into all this stuff that goes into the ancient tribe and culture making up a race. All discussions of it I’ve ever seen go round and round in a circle with no legitimate explanation of how a white Jew and black Jew for instance can be the ‘same race’ by virtue of being Jews. It makes no sense…it’s like a mythical race creation.

        • American says:

          @ Colin

          I’m not saying the nazis imposed fascism before it existed….I’m saying that the average bulk of Italian society didn’t give a rats ass about government or what it was, since not many of them paid attention to any kind of authority anyway. Least that’s how most Italian writers describe Italian attitudes toward government or at least how they generalize Italian society. Of course there were exceptions in attitudes between the general society and the political society as there are everywhere. It seems most ‘intrigue’ surrounding fascism in Italy took place in the upper classes where they spent all their time plotting against each other or using social venues to ostracize either the fascist or the non fascist or trying to rouse some Italians to take a side or other.

        • ColinWright says:

          American says: “Yes I’ve seen some do that…but not like any definition of ‘race’ the world recognizes.”

          Well, what definition of ‘race’ does the world recognize? It’s fashionable to denounce the concept entirely, and indeed, while the major divisions — Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid — can be defined with some precision, the concept is almost completely mischievous when it comes to Europe, and even here in the US, ‘Blacks’ often obviously have more White genes than they do ‘Black.’ Conversely, I have encountered ‘Whites’ in the south who obviously had a touch of the ol’ tar barrel — but who were nevertheless indubitably ‘White.’ Race becomes a term that is as much culturally as racially determined.

          The point is that for most purposes, ‘race’ is not exactly a scientific term in the first place, and while some have made heroic efforts to demonstrate the contrary, it’s particularly not a scientific term when it comes to discussing Germans, Jews, and Arabs — the groups germane to this discussion. It’s simply a way of asserting a certain importance and (largely imaginary) immutability for cultural and ethnic identity.

        • ColinWright says:

          American says: “@ Colin

          I’m not saying the nazis imposed fascism before it existed….I’m saying that the average bulk of Italian society didn’t give a rats ass about government or what it was, since not many of them paid attention to any kind of authority anyway. ..”

          Yeah. At the same time, if this was the end of it, then ‘fascism’ never would have meant anything.

          It obviously did mean something. Italy started pursuing an aggressive and expansionist foreign policy. Mussolini famously ‘made the trains run on time.’ Etc. It’s almost impossible to imagine a non-Fascist Italy engaging in intervention in Spain on the scale that Mussolini did.

          One element I’d add to your observation of the effect of Italian culture would also be the effect of fatigue. By the late thirties, fascism had been in power for fifteen years. Italians were getting tired of it.

  25. ColinWright says:

    “Five Palestinians were seriously injured on Thursday after Israeli settlers threw Molotov cocktails at their car south of Bethlehem, medics said.

    The injured were all from the Hassan family, and included four-year-olds Iman and Muhammad, their parents Ayman, 37, and Jamila, 25, and Hassan Hassan who was driving, Red Crescent official Abdul Jaafra told Ma’an.

    Both children suffered first degree burns, and the adults suffered second and third degree burns, Jaafra said…”

    ‘In any war between civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.’

    Was that it? Have I got it right?

    • ColinWright says:

      Continuing on this. Getting pretty amusing as usual — assuming that is, that you’ve a very black sense of humor.

      According to Haaretz, the attack took place near the settlement of Bat Ayin, and while police concede that firebombs were thrown at six other vehicles containing Palestinians at the same time and in the same place, they are considering the possibility that the vehicle caught fire for other reasons.

      link to haaretz.com

      Remember how they tore apart the adjacent Palestinian village after those settlement murders a year or two back? Arrested and interrogated literally everybody?

      Why do I have a feeling the perpetrators in this case needn’t worry quite so much? In fact, I’ll bet the police just won’t be able to come up with any leads.

  26. ColinWright says:

    PS. I love the Haaretz headline:

    “Palestinians wounded in West Bank vehicle fire, in possible fire bomb attack.”

    Sure. The passengers are covered with second and third degree burns and there was a rash of fire bomb attacks at the same time — but they made up the fire bomb attack. Actually, the vehicle just suddenly exploded into flames and they had the presence of mind to lie about it. Ever had a major burn? I mean, I’m trying to picture this. Somehow, the entire car spontaneously erupts in flames — everyone is simultaneously mysteriously soaked in burning gasoline. Someone shows up — you must be in agony — and you cook up a story.

    Can you imagine the obscenity of the ‘investigation’? The ‘investigation’ is going to consist of the Israeli police trying to create an inconsistency in the victims’ stories so that they can pretend that there’s doubt about what happened and they needn’t harass the good folks on the adjacent hilltop.

    It’s a hideous travesty. If they were just honest about what they are, it would be an improvement. Instead, we have to go through this nauseating charade all the time: that Israel is a land of justice, that Palestinians have any rights at all — much less equal rights — that the authorities don’t actively condone, encourage, and even participate in these attacks, that what is going on doesn’t have about the moral texture of the German occupation of Poland.

  27. ColinWright says:

    At least the four year olds only had first degree burns. That’s something. Either they were lucky or their parents displayed really remarkable courage in getting the fire on them put out before tending to their own problems.

  28. ColinWright says:

    My. Israel’s on a roll.

    More examples of civilized man at work: ‘In suspected Jerusalem lynch, dozens of Jewish youths attack 3 Palestinians

    One of the Palestinians was seriously wounded and hospitalized in intensive care; eyewitness: Today I saw a lynch with my own eyes…’

    – Haaretz

    Keep it up, guys. Pretty soon even the US media won’t be able to sweep it under the rug.

    By the way, for Israel lovers who want to admire the handiwork of their beloved, pix of the burn victims from your previous outrage.

    link to maannews.net

    You can even see the four year old. Enjoy.

    • ColinWright says:

      It happened! The New York Times (reluctantly?) covers the story. Tries to soften it as much as possible, and no mention of the fire-bombing, but it’s there:

      link to nytimes.com

      To those who would say that this is not enough, I would point out that the struggle against Israel is like football: it’s a game of inches. Every such story that makes it to the Times et al — however bowdlerized — is a victory.

      Twenty years from now, when there is no Israel, we will look back and try to pin point the exact moment when the tide turned.

      There won’t really be any such moment. It will have been a matter of a million infinitesimal steps — of a pastor in Missouri deciding not to ask his congregation to ‘pray for Israel,’ of a congressman deciding he really can risk not signing that latest round-robin, of a computer maker deciding it might be a good idea to seek out an alternative source, of a couple in Tel Aviv deciding to make the move to New York, etc.