Media accusations of blood libels — against Abbas and Sanders — amplify a Jewish tribal fantasy

US Politics
on 119 Comments

The goal of every speech by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to an international audience is to push his cause. That was the case with his speech  to the European Parliament last week. Let us establish some facts about that speech:  

He said Israel was acting above international law and by settling the West Bank and had undermined the two state solution;

He called on the west to support a two-state solution on the ’67 lines;

He said Israel was exporting violence to the occupied West Bank and cited the killings of the Dawabshe family, of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, and the execution of Palestinians accused of attacks;

He described Gaza as an open-air prison and asked why international law did not apply to Israel’s isolation of the strip;

He brought up the “fascism” charges leveled at Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu by Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya’alon, maybe hoping they would get the attention they deserved in places like the NY Times, which has largely ignored the story till now.

He called on Europe to appoint an incitement arbitration committee to call out incitement on both sides. And in that EXACT  context he lamented the incitement by West Bank rabbis calling for poisoning the water of Palestinians living under occupation and said that this was an example of incitement and  a provocation and a call to violence.

That last statement is the only thing we have seen in the American press in the coverage of Abbas’s speech.

The New York Times’s Diaa Hadid set the tone in an article headlined, Mahmoud Abbas Claims Rabbis Urged Israel to Poison Palestinians’ Water.  Abbas uttered an “anti-semitic trope,” says the Washington Post’s Ruth Eglash. AFP also made hay of the Palestinian president’s statement:

“Israel accused the Palestinian president of libelling the Jewish people after he charged Thursday that rabbis had called for Palestinian wells to be poisoned. ‘Abu Mazen showed his true face in Brussels,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement, using a familiar Arabic name for president Mahmud Abbas.” “Someone who refuses to meet [Israeli president Reuven] Rivlin …..and spreads a blood libel in the European parliament falsely claiming that his hand is extended in peace.” 

On Friday night, the Palestinian leader’s bureau issued a statement saying that it has now become evident that statements by a rabbi on poisoning Palestinian water, which were reported by various Arab media outlets last week, were “baseless.” The Washington Post headline was “Palestinian President Abbas apologizes for anti-semitic comments.” 

“Palestine is the cradle of the three monotheistic faiths. We stand strongly against any attack on any religion,” read the statement released in English. “President Mahmoud Abbas has affirmed that he didn’t intend to do harm to Judaism or to offend Jewish people around the world.”

Netanyahu’s response to the apology upped the ante. Abbas is opposed to peace.

“Abu Mazen again proved that he isn’t interested in direct negotiations with Israel, and worse than that, he is spreading despicable lies about Israel and Judaism,” Netanyahu said at Sunday’s cabinet meeting, referring to Abbas. “While he was quick to issue a feeble, half-hearted apology, what he said is compatible with the things he’s said at other opportunities, including at the UN, and people can conclude from this who wishes to advance peace and who doesn’t.”  

At this point, any half serious  journalist must ask one simple question about this story: Was Abbas’s statement innocent or malicious? Did Abbas think that the statement about the rabbis’ was true and so he was expressing genuine outrage to the European Parliament? Or, as reported, did he intend to repeat a 700-year-old blood libel because he is anti-Semitic?

The answer is obvious. Abbas did not know that the the poisoning water  story was debunked.

Think about what it would mean in real life if Abbas was intentionally attempting to play on ancient anti semitic stereotypes here. Abbas would have to be thinking as he went to Brussels, “Nothing seems to be working with this European Parliament audience.” And then suddenly, out of the blue, a Jew hatred epiphany: To get the support of the Christians in the room he needed to remind them of the stories of Jews poisoning Christian water! That would shake them out of their apathy over what was happening to the Palestinian people. 

The absurdity of the claim is borne out by the overwhelming response to Abbas’s misstatement. Does anyone think that he really wanted his many points about the occupation to a European audience to be overshadowed by the craziness that has descended on his water comments? Did he really intend for the Israeli Prime Minister to get to issue a denunciation of his comments, and for the New York Times to run not one but two stories about the mistake? Of course not.

No one was more thrilled by Abbas’s “incitement” than the Israeli prime minister. Because if you have not noticed, Benjamin Netanyahu’s only strategic vision is to win the news cycle; and in this case he won the cycle for two or three days’ running.

Did Abbas really mean for all that  to happen when he was giving a serious speech to European diplomats? No. The Palestinian president is not that self-destructive. He has not led a conciliatory life into his 80’s just so he could throw around slurs against Jews.

The only logical interpretation of Abbas’s statement is that it was an innocent mistake. For if Abbas had known it was a bad story, he could have easily predicted the chain reaction to his “anti-semitism.” Netanyahu and his propagandists’ hasbara campaigns against the Palestinians are no secret. Neither is the repeating message: “The Palestinian national movement and its supporters are driven by Jew hatred. And that acts of resistance to occupation, violent or not, by Palestinians and their supporters is a continuation of an ancient hatred of Jews. That ancient hatred is the impetus of all opponents of Israel.”

This is the narrative Israeli leaders have been selling. And the old furniture salesman Netanyahu and his apostles here such as Jeffrey Goldberg will lie and cheat to make that sale. And so we are supposed to believe that Abbas said to himself: Why don’t I give you guys some gift-wrapped hasbara?  All of Jeffrey Goldberg’s years of hard work tainting  the Palestinians and their supporters with the “anti semitism” label–  Abbas thought to himself, Why not give Goldberg a good oldfashioned Jews poisoning water blood libel to work with! And work with it, he did: 

Is it in Abbas’s interest that Jewish tribal halfwits such as Yair Rosenberg are now spreading the poison that Abbas is anti semitic?

How many Jews and others are reading the malarkey in the New York Times and other mainstream outlets and thinking, How can Israel trust Abbas? How many of them have even read Abbas’s apology? If they did, would they realize he is not the inciter here? Would they see that it’s obvious he wants Jews on his side of the struggle? “Palestine is the cradle of the three monotheistic faiths. We stand strongly against any attack on any religion.” 

Yet how can he compete with the discourse poisoners?

On any other issue in the world, the New York Times knows the difference between something intentional and unintentional. Knows that it matters if the harm was intended. Does it not interest the Times that the message has been unambiguous from Israeli intelligence officials as long as anyone can remember: “Abbas does not incite.”

Does the Times not understand that Abbas doesn’t need a “blood libel” to condemn Israel? That Abbas does not want for occupation horror stories– that the reality of the occupation is bad enough. 

In fact, all this is  similar to Bernie Sanders’s misstatement of deaths in Gaza — 10,000 he guessed, off the cuff to the Daily News, even as he looked around to reporters and asked, “Help me out here, because I don’t remember the figures. Does that sound right?” And then Sanders’s misstatement also was turned into nothing less than a blood libel, by opportunistic Israel supporters. And the media blew up an innocent statement into endless headlines. And now the New York Times gotten two big stories in a row out of Abbas’s alleged anti-semitism.

So we come to the real problem: the crazed response to Abbas’s misstatement is a tribal Jewish one. “Oh my god, there the gentiles go again! How can he say these things about us?” As if Abbas is another evil goy who just can’t wait to spout bigotry. To believe that is to believe that the whole world thinks like ethnocentric Jews: that Abbas when complaining about the crazy settler rabbis is making connections to medieval European Jewish history in his head.

Then as soon as the charge of anti-semitism is made, there can be one legitimate response of our media, outrage. Because they have adopted the Jewish tribal narrative put out by Benjamin Netanyahu and his propagandist disciples, that all the goyim have always hated the Jews and they always will. So when Abbas stumbles in Brussels, there’s nothing innocent about it.

That is the real crime here. That is the lie. That is the manipulation. That a Palestinian leader having spent his life compromising on Palestinian rights is somehow going to wait till he’s in Europe in front of non-Jewish leaders to let loose with his hatred of Jews. Indeed, that the whole world just can’t wait to come out with the 700-year-old blood libels against the Jews.

When the world really doesn’t even know about that 700-year-old story. When no one in that European audience was thinking, “there go the Jews again, poisoning the water supply.”

That is just a fantasy. It has nothing to do with the real world. And the New York Times has shown itself to be a proud member of this Jewish tribal fantasy world.

This is a serious failing because the newspaper’s decisions about how to report these stories makes peace more or less possible.  The Times should have had the integrity to treat Abbas’s misstatement as an innocent error: it should have left it till the end of the story. It should have told us the real news. Instead this Times article did even worse than that. It tried to make a case against Abbas. The last paragraph of Hadid’s article reads:

“In October, he erroneously accused Israeli forces  of killing a 13 year old Palestinian boy who had taken part in the stabbings of two Israelis. The boy had actually been wounded and later recovered.”

You cannot read this paragraph any other way than:

“This is not the first time Abbas has made stuff up about the Jews.”

Meanwhile the reality of Israel and Palestine is just what Abbas actually described in his speech: creeping fascism in Israel and violence in the occupied territories. That is the real news.

The same day as Abbas was strung up in the world press for a misstatement, Israeli soldiers opened fire on a Palestinian vehicle in the occupied territories because they suspected that the car was carrying boys who had thrown stones, and as a result killed a 15-year-old boy traveling with his family from an outing– and later admitted they had done so “by mistake.” Israeli soldiers indiscriminately killing a boy with his life in front of him: that is the reality in Israel and Palestine, today.

But it will not be the headline in the New York Times so long as an accidental misstatement that reminds ethnocentric fanatics about long forgotten anti-semitic canards is more “real” to editors in New York than another dead Palestinian kid.

About Yakov Hirsch

Yakov Hirsch is a professional poker player and dog trainer. His twitter handle is @Yakovhirsch and his articles are posted at yakovhirsch.com.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

119 Responses

  1. JWalters
    June 27, 2016, 6:02 pm

    Thanks to articles like this, the establishment media’s cover-up of Israel’s glaring crimes is becoming steadily more obvious. It some point the conclusion will be inescapable that Israel controls the establishment media. People will naturally wonder what else the media has been covering up, and whether those cover-ups also have some connection to Israel.

  2. Rusty Pipes
    June 27, 2016, 7:59 pm

    Unfortunately, the well-known realities among Palestinians that right-wing Rabbis, like the IDF’s Chief Rabbi, incite soldiers to kill Palestinian children, that Hebron-hills settlers poison Palestinian flocks and that settlement waste water and sewage contaminate Palestinian fields and ground water can lead Palestinians to accept claims about Israelis in Arab media without fact-checking.

  3. Boris
    June 27, 2016, 8:59 pm

    Part of the Oslo Peace process was “education for peace”.

    Israel had changed schools’ curriculum, introduced topic of Nakba, there were songs written like “Shalom-Salam”, etc.

    Palestinians continued their incitement with the wild fantasies similar to the one Abbas came out in European Parliament (for which he got a standing ovations) and the ones that are being repeated in comments on this website (just look at above comment by some rusty pipes).

    It is pretty wild that Abbas called for the investigation of incitement on BOTH sides, while making a vicious insidious accusation himself.

    If one needs to know why there is no peace in the Middle East, and I mean not only between Arabs and Jews, this is a good example.

    As far as the author of this illogical drivel (like the president of PA did not know what he was doing) – Yakov Hirsch – he should stick to dog training.

  4. Yitzgood
    June 27, 2016, 9:56 pm

    Did Abbas think that the statement about the rabbis’ was true and so he was expressing genuine outrage to the European Parliament? Or, as reported, did he intend to repeat a 700-year-old blood libel because he is anti-Semitic?

    I have never seen a definition of anti-Semitism (or any other bigotry) that holds that the person is exonerated if he believes his claims. Nobody just says “I think I’ll repeat a 700-year-old blood libel because I’m anti-Semitic.” Anti-Semitic claims sound bogus to a normal person but plausible to an anti-Semite. The anti-Semite is the one who reads that the Talmud says blah blah blah without wondering whether it is true or not. He believes it immediately, and he can’t wait to share his new knowledge.

    • RoHa
      June 28, 2016, 12:04 am

      I have never seen a definition of anti-Semitism (or any other bigotry) that holds that the person is exonerated if the claims are true.

    • The Hasbara Buster
      June 28, 2016, 9:18 am

      On at least one occasion the Israeli police suspected that Israeli settlers had poisoned water wells, as you can see here. Is the Israeli police antisemitic? Journalists and NGOs have also occasionally issued reports of Israeli well poisoning; see e.g. here. Other forms of poisoning have been reported; in 2005, for instance, the Israeli human rights organization Btselem reported that Jewish settlers had scattered poison on Palestinian fields to kill their sheep. See here.

      Also, after WWII the Jewish organization Nakam (revenge) sought to kill a large number of innocent German citizens by poisoning the water supplies of Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich, and Nuremberg. The plan failed after Nakam’s leader, Abba Kovner, was caught with the poison by the British. But a second plan, to massively kill German POWs by feeding them poisoned loaves, was executed by Nakam’s Arye Distel, and did succeed. At the time, the New York Times reported that over 1,900 prisoners had been poisoned, of whom several hundred are thought to have died. See here.

      The fact that the Jews were falsely accused of poisoning wells in the Middle Ages doesn’t mean that they are not capable of ever poisoning people they see as their enemies. Abbas may be a complete fool for using unconfirmed reports (instead of, for instance, citing the book “The King’s Torah” in which a rabbi says murdering babies is permissible). But he is not antisemitic for thinking (along with the Israeli police, serious newspapers and respected organizations) that extremist Jews can resort to poisoning.

      • yonah fredman
        June 28, 2016, 1:25 pm

        The word Nekama was scratched into the gas chamber walls. Who can put themselves into the shoes of yidden in Germany in 1945? Of course the world must run on law. And vengeance is a formula for chaos and brutality. I do not endorse this.
        But the war between Zionist and Arab Palestinians is one discourse. The topic of vengeance against SS officers in 1946 is totally different.

      • Shmuel
        June 28, 2016, 2:46 pm

        Agreed, Yonah. I think the connection to “Nakam” is rather tenuous.

      • Mooser
        June 28, 2016, 2:58 pm

        “The topic of vengeance against SS officers in 1946 is totally different.”

        So let me get this straight. Weren’t they already in prison? So rather than trial, or any official procedure, they should be poisoned in jail by a Jewish revenge conspiracy?

        “Of course the world must run on law.”

      • Mooser
        June 28, 2016, 5:03 pm

        “Who can put themselves into the shoes of yidden in Germany “

        “Yidden”? Really, “Yonah”? Anyway, just finished a book about about the same period of history which was so cruel to some Jews. Who can put themselves in those shoes? Only about 60 to as many as 100 million people died equally tragic deaths during that time.

      • yonah fredman
        June 28, 2016, 7:31 pm

        Mussar- quite often I prefer the term yehudim to jews. It is a more prideful term to refer to jews as we refer to ourselves in our tongue. But in 1945 pride was not the primary thought of survivors, (and the language of those survivors was not ivrit, but yiddish), so yidden rather than yehudim seemed more appropriate in this context.

        BTW pfeffercorn and Jackie mason’s demon seed, captures you to a tee.

      • Mikhael
        June 28, 2016, 10:52 pm

        yonah fredman June 28, 2016, 7:31 pm

        Mussar- quite often I prefer the term yehudim to jews. It is a more prideful term to refer to jews as we refer to ourselves in our tongue

        I think that if we’re speaking and writing in English, we should use the word “Jews.” If we’re speaking and writing in Yiddish, we should write “Yidden”. If we’re speaking and writing in Hebrew, we should write “Yehudim.”

        (and the language of those survivors was not ivrit, but yiddish), so yidden rather than yehudim seemed more appropriate in this context.

        Lots of Jewish survivors in 1945 (well, maybe not lots, because many didn’t get the chance to become survivors) were Ladino-speaking Jews from Saloniki. Or Hungarian-speakers or Italian speakers.

        BTW pfeffercorn and Jackie mason’s demon seed, captures you to a tee

        Who would be Mondoweiss’s Reuchlin?

      • RoHa
        June 28, 2016, 10:56 pm

        “Mussar- quite often I prefer the term yehudim to jews. It is a more prideful term to refer to jews as we refer to ourselves in our tongue.

        Our tongue? Who are the “we” who speak this tongue, whatever it is?

      • Citizen
        June 28, 2016, 11:27 pm

        @ yonah freeman 1900 German officers?

      • Mikhael
        June 29, 2016, 1:14 am

        RoHa June 28, 2016, 10:56 pm
        Our tongue? Who are the “we” who speak this tongue, whatever it is?

        Hebrew is the national language of the Jewish People and has been for millennia, and “Yehudim” is the word that means “Jews” In Hebrew, the national language of the Jews. So it’s clear that “our tongue” can only refer to Hebrew in this context. Nevertheless, this is an English-language forum so it it’s inappropriate to use the word when speaking and writing in English.

      • Mikhael
        June 29, 2016, 1:53 am

        Mooser June 28, 2016, 5:03 pm

        Who can put themselves in those shoes? Only about 60 to as many as 100 million people died equally tragic deaths during that time.

        I may not be understanding you correctly, are you saying that the deaths of 3.7million Nazi soldiers were “equally tragic” to those of the victims of Hitlerism? The number you cite (the high number is inflated, 60 million is the more accurate count) includes soldiers and civilians from all involved countries in WW2. Of that number, only the Jews (and to a lesser extent the Roma in the Porajmos) were singled out by the Nazis for a complete Vernichtung . And the 60 million total WW2 deaths of course include many Allied soldiers (also including many Jews who fought in the ranks of the US, Canadian, British and Soviet forces, as well as many erstwhile “Palestinian” Jews (like my father’s cousin, who died fighting in Italy in the mostly Jewish Palestine Regiment of the British Army)). While the sacrifices these Allied combatants made in defeating Nazism must be lauded and remembered, their deaths shouldn’t be considered “equally tragic” to being gassed to death solely because of their ethnicity or perceived race. The 60- million count certainly includes many innocent civilians, many of whom died in Allied and Axis air raids, some of whom died of starvation and disease. These deaths are indeed tragic, but they are more representative of civilian fatalities that occur in all wars, although on a far greater scale than the world had ever seen before. But they were not deliberately selected as populations to be entirely eradicated. Of course, the Nazis also committed atrocities against non-Jewish civilians who opposed them, e.g., the massacre at Lidice, indiscriminate and random killings of people in occupied nations and sending opponents to slave labor camps. But these populations weren’t being targeted for total physical annihilation like the Jews were, although the Nazis may have had designs to do so later. All of these deaths of innocent civilians were indeed tragic, even the necessary deaths of innocent German civilians who were killed in Allied air raids — although we shouldn’t qualify tragedy and suffering, it should be clear that the intent that led to it was different than the Nazi Endlösung directed against the Jews. And finally, the 60 million WW2 fatalities you cite include approximately 6.6 million Axis military deaths, 3.7 million of whom were Austrian and German soldiers. Decent people don’t consider Nazi military fatalities in WW2 to be “equally as tragic” to the deaths of any innocent victims of the Hitler regime, whether they were targeted for extermination like the Jews were solely for their ethnic and national origins, or perceived “race” , or whether those innocent victims were courageous opponents of Nazism or innocent civilians killed in the Blitz or the Siege of Leningrad or even the British firebombing of Dresden.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2016, 3:14 am

        hmm, not sure you can quantify “tragic death” by the intent of the killer. try telling a mother whose child was murdered, killed, died in bttle — that her child’s murder is less tragic because he was not killed for his ethnicity or because her child’s killer was motivated by nationalism or colonialism or something. hey. i only want to kill you for your land — all better now as i torture you. it really doesn’t matter as much (not so tragic) as if i tortured and destroyed you for race. as i scalp you, or if my intent is pure when my blade slices thru your larynx and you suffocate — take peace in knowing your death is not as tragic as — y’know.

        60-80 million i heard. how to measure tragic death? that’s a good question — for a mother.

      • yonah fredman
        June 29, 2016, 4:44 am

        On Nov 13, 1942, the uss Juneau was sunk in the battle of Guadalcanal killing 687, including the five sullivan brothers. Why do I remember this? Because a movie was made about the five brothers. Meanwhile, mooser reading the paper about the sullivan parents: “don’t they know that there were 687 equally tragic deaths that day?”

      • RoHa
        June 29, 2016, 5:45 am

        Seems a bit odd to call Hebrew the national language of the Jews when many Jews do not speak it, but do speak the national languages of the nations they live in and of which they are citizens. Swedish seems to be the national language of Swedish Jews. French Jews seem to regularly speak French. (A disgusting habit they have probably picked up from the nonJewish Frenchmen they live among.)

      • Mikhael
        June 29, 2016, 6:08 am

        Annie Robbins June 29, 2016, 3:14 am

        hmm, not sure you can quantify “tragic death” by the intent of the killer. try telling a mother whose child was murdered, killed, died in bttle — that her child’s murder is less tragic because he was not killed for his ethnicity or because her child’s killer was motivated by nationalism or colonialism or something.

        That’s why i wrote that when it came to the innocent victims of WW2. “we shouldn’t qualify tragedy and suffering” (rather than “quantify”) . But when it comes to the many millions of Allied soldiers who gave their lives fighting Nazism (including many Jews in their ranks) we don’t count them as the victims who were singled out for annihilation, and decent people certainly shouldn’t include the Nazi soldiers who died as part of the count of “equally tragic” deaths, which is what Mooser implied by asserting that all of the ~60 million or so deaths in WW2 were “equally tragic.”

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2016, 7:47 pm

        That’s why i wrote that when it came to the innocent victims of WW2. “we shouldn’t qualify tragedy and suffering” (rather than “quantify”)

        qualify and quantify mean two separate things. you wrote this

        The 60- million count certainly includes many innocent civilians, many of whom died in Allied and Axis air raids, some of whom died of starvation and disease. These deaths are indeed tragic, but they are more representative of civilian fatalities that occur in all wars, although on a far greater scale than the world had ever seen before. But they were not deliberately selected as populations to be entirely eradicated.

        and it very much implies here that you are measuring (quantify) degrees of “tragic death” based on the intent of the killer. if someone dies of starvation and disease during a brutal war who are you to determine that death was less tragic than someone who died of starvation and disease because they were deliberately eradicated based on ethnicity or nationalism. if a person is annihilated, it’s tragic.

        and what is this: I may not be understanding you correctly, are you saying that the deaths of 3.7million Nazi soldiers were “equally tragic” to those of the victims of Hitlerism? you keep bringing this up? why? here you go again: decent people certainly shouldn’t include the Nazi soldiers ? no one but you has alluded they are referencing nazi soldiers.

        10’s of millions of innocent civilians died during the war. again: not sure you can quantify “tragic death” by the intent of the killer. (that means measure the tragedy of a victims experience — their death).

        we don’t count them as the victims who were singled out for annihilation

        right, it sounds like you are counting “victims who were “singled out” for annihilation” as having a more tragic end — and not the others. 58% of the deaths in the war were allied civilians >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png — that means they are already not including german or austrian civilians or military forces. what’s 58% of 60-80 million. between 35-45 million dead civilians. that’s who we’re talking about. subtract the ones you are choosing to “single out” and what’s left is between 30-40 million who you’re insinuating their deaths are somehow less tragic. why? try telling that to their loved ones who survived those civilian deaths are not “equally tragic”.

      • Marnie
        June 29, 2016, 6:29 am

        Mikhail –

        “But they were not deliberately selected as populations to be entirely eradicated. ”

        What about Russia, London – Blitzkrieg anyone, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does the holocaust always get top billing in man’s inhumanity to man?

      • eljay
        June 29, 2016, 9:14 am

        || RoHa: … (A disgusting habit they have probably picked up from the nonJewish Frenchmen they live among.) ||

        The non-Jewish, anti-Semitic Frenchmen.

      • Mooser
        June 29, 2016, 3:25 pm

        ” Meanwhile, mooser reading the paper about the sullivan parents: “don’t they know that there were 687 equally tragic deaths that day?”

        First of all, I’m sure the Sullivan’s mourned the loss of all of their son’s shipmates. You make no sense.

        And you also put quotes, and my name, on something I never said.
        You are a creepy little liar, “Yonah”.

        Why are you so determined to demonstrate that you are a liar? What good does that do Zionism, or more widely, Jews? Perplexed by this.

        And all of you, by all means, please, write reams, and reams of comments explaining why Jewish deaths are more important than other people’s deaths. Keep insisting on that.

      • yonah fredman
        June 29, 2016, 3:45 pm

        On the word jews versus the word yehudim versus the word yidden, on the topic of national language.
        I use the word “jew”, but it contains nothing of its origin. Its origin is yehuda son of leah (and Jacob) and its root word is the same as “todah”, modern hebrew for thanks and omitting this “d” from the word jew, makes it in gantsen (totally) foreign and divorced from its root word, and thus the insufficiency of this translation is apparent.

        (In the movie clockwork orange, when droogie Alex reads the bible in prison, he loves it for its Battle scenes and he refers to the jews as yahoodis and that’s better than jews.)

        The loss of Yiddish by the American Jewish masses is a tragedy and a symptom of dissolving and disappearing. Although a language is not a sufficient raison d’etre in my estimation it does add something to Jewish identity. Those dedicated to the disappearance of the jews might see things differently.

        Unlike biological organisms which are well defined, social organisms are fluid. They can slowly dissolve, as membership dues get too high and new groups or atomized individuality takes over. When the jews were treated as an entity (rhymes with enmity) separate from russia, by the czars and oppressed from above and controlled by the rabbis below, the existence of a distinct group was apparent and clear. When millions moved to America where citizenship was earned and granted and the rabbis became artifacts of a fading past, the dynamic for dissolution was set in motion.
        Used to be that jew meant he who observes the Judaic faith, and the first two texts for any semi literate jew were the five books of moses and the prayer book, both written in hebrew. The masses in eastern Europe needed translation into yiddish to understand these two basic texts, but the malice and mendacity of jew haters is quite apparent when they denigrate hebrew without acknowledging its centrality to these two basic texts.

      • Mooser
        June 29, 2016, 5:05 pm

        “not sure you can quantify “tragic death” by the intent of the killer.”

        The victims of the wars and genocides of the 20th Century run into the high 10s of millions.

      • Mikhael
        June 29, 2016, 6:00 pm

        RoHa June 29, 2016, 5:45 am
        Seems a bit odd to call Hebrew the national language of the Jews when many Jews do not speak it, but do speak the national languages of the nations they live in and of which they are citizens.

        No, it’s not at all odd. Many people in the Armenian Diaspora, people who take pride in their Armenian heritage and identify with the Armenian People and live in places like Sweden , Russia, France, California, Argentina, Syria and Poland can speak little or no Armenian but are fluent in the national languages of the countries in which they are citizens — yet Armenian is still the national language of the Armenian People.

        Greek and Swedish seems to be the national language of Swedish Jews. French Jews seem to regularly speak French. (A disgusting habit they have probably picked up from the nonJewish Frenchmen they live among.)

        Most Jews have learned the national languages of the countries they live in, just as descendants of Greeks and Armenians in various countries have learned foreign languages. Since you specifically mentioned Jews in Greece, until fairly recently most did not speak standard demotic Greek but until fairly recently and the destruction of most of the Greek-Jewish population in the Shoah, most of the Greek Jews spoke Ladino (Judeao-Spanish mixed with Hebrew) with a smaller number of Romaniotes who spoke Yevanic (Greco-Jewish dialect, mixed with Hebrew). While the ancestors of these Jews spoke distinct Jewish dialects that were separate from the vernacular spoken by the majority non-Jewish host populations, and today (at least in the democratic countries of the West, where they share citizenship and civic rights with their non-Jewish neighbors), only Hebrew is the national language of the Jews.

      • Mikhael
        June 29, 2016, 6:18 pm

        Marnie June 29, 2016, 6:29 am
        Mikhail –

        “But they were not deliberately selected as populations to be entirely eradicated. ”

        What about Russia, London – Blitzkrieg anyone, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does the holocaust always get top billing in man’s inhumanity to man?

        As I clearly mentioned, these are examples of tragic loss of life, mostly among civilians, that occur during wartime. Nevertheless, the innocent civilians who perished in the firebombings of Tokyo, Dresden or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the British residents and citizens (including many Jewish residents of Whitechapel, which took a heavy toll during the Blitz) who died in the Blitz of London (I think you’re confusing the “Blitz” in London with the “Blitzkrieg” in Poland and other places the Germans invaded earlier) were not killed because their killers wanted to extinguish their entire ethnicity(or as the Nazis characterized it, “race”). Only the Jews and the Roma/Sinti Gypsies (to a lesser extent, and I write “lesser” extent not to minimize the sufferings of the Roma but because the Nazi genocidal policy towards the Roma in the Porajmos was not as comprehensive or planned to the extent that it was in the case of the Jews) were selected for mass and total annihilation solely on account of their ethnicity . The innocent victims who dies in the Blitz (including the Jews who lived in east London) were not singled out for their ethnicity. The innocent Japanese who died in Tokyo firebombings or in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or the handful of American civilians who died in Honolulu at Pearl Harbor (including Japanese-American civilians) were not killed as part of a policy of extinction towards their perceived “race.”

        Also, FYI. The name is Mikhael (מיכאל in Hebrew) or if you prefer “Michael” as it is spelled on my American documents. Please don’t spell it with a Russian transliteration.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2016, 8:22 pm

        total annihilation solely on account of their ethnicity

        you keep quantifying based on the intent of the killer. we already get you think jewish deaths are more valuable and the other 30-40 million civilian allied deaths are not “equally tragic”.

      • gamal
        June 29, 2016, 6:54 pm

        “The victims of the wars and genocides of the 20th Century run into the high 10s of millions.”

        Dr Polya of Melbourne Uni puts it thus : ( 1.3 billion avoidable deaths since 1950)

        “Avoiding mortality is clearly a primary goal of humanity and this book is about how and why the world has performed very badly in this quest over the last half century. Fundamentally, avoiding mortality requires sensible risk management, this involving the successive processes of reportage, scientific analysis and systemic change. Unfortunately, in most areas of human activity this “World’s Best Practice” protocol is replaced by its counterproductive obverse, namely (a) lack of reportage through censorship, self-censorship and intimidation); (b) politicized, corrupted and self-serving analysis; and (c) vengeful or cynical punishment of suitable culprits (rather than useful, risk-minimizing changes to flawed human systems). In the final analysis, we have to make sensible judgments about risks to human life and the proportionality and effectiveness of our responses.

        This book exposes the horrendous extent of global avoidable mortality that has totalled 1.3 billion since 1950, a figure consonant with an independent estimate of post-1950 under-5 infant mortality totalling about 0.9 billion. A broad attempt is made to rationalize this catastrophe. A major determinant is clearly war, foreign occupation and consequent increased disregard of rulers for their subjects. The last few pages of this book list positive suggestions for addressing the global avoidable mortality holocaust.”

        http://globalbodycount.blogspot.ie/

      • eljay
        June 29, 2016, 9:06 pm

        || yonah fredman: … Used to be that jew [sic] meant he who observes the Judaic faith … ||

        Thanks to Zio-supremacists, Jew has increasingly come to mean he who advocates, engages in, justifies and/or defends all manner of injustice and immorality in the name of Jewish supremacism in a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

        Nice job bastardizing what Jew used to mean. Why do Zio-supremacists hate Jews so much?

      • Sibiriak
        June 29, 2016, 9:16 pm

        Mikhael: But when it comes to the many millions of Allied soldiers who gave their lives fighting Nazism (including many Jews in their ranks) we don’t count them as the victims who were singled out for annihilation.

        —————

        1)The Nazis categorized people for extermination in various ways– in terms of ethnicity/race, political views, sexual orientation, physical and mental status etc. Slavs, for example, were declared to be subhuman and the majority of Slavic people were slated for extermination. So were communists, socialists, homosexuals, and people with physical and mental disabilities.
        Everyone in those those groups were “singled- out”, not just Jews (or the Roma you mentioned).

        2) As Annie Robbins has repeatedly pointed out, you have presented no argument whatsoever why the murder of a person solely”because of their ethnicity or perceived race ” is any more “tragic” than murder for any other reason (or slaughter in an immoral war). A life unnecessarily and immorally cut short is a life unnecessarily and immorally cut short, no matter what the motive of the killers.

      • Mikhael
        June 29, 2016, 9:21 pm

        Annie Robbins June 29, 2016, 8:22 pm

        we already get you think jewish deaths are more valuable and the other 30-40 million civilian allied deaths are not “equally tragic”.

        No reasonable person would make such an inference from what I wrote, which was in direct response to Mooser’s assertion that ALL of the approximately 60 million deaths in WW2 (which would include military and civilian) were “equally tragic.” I clearly stated that the civilian deaths were all tragedies (although, in the case of the Allied strategic bombings of German and Japanese cities, probably necessary to bring an end to the war). I also stated that the Allied soldiers who gave their lives to defeat the Nazi evil (many of such soldiers were Jews who died fighting in the ranks of Allied armies) should not be compared to the deaths of civilians, whether they were intentionally targeted solely because of their perceived “race” (as all Jews living in Nazi-occupied areas were, and as many, but not all, Roma Gypsies were so targeted in the genocidal Porajmos campaign against the Roma) or were incidental casualties of Allied or Axis bombings, or who died from disease or starvation. And the deaths of Axis soldiers fighting should be celebrated, and not remembered as “equally tragic” to the deaths of the victims of the regime they served.

      • yonah fredman
        June 29, 2016, 9:41 pm

        annie robbins- I think focusing on the word “tragedy” in relations to the deaths of civilians in WWII is besides the point. I believe that the world differentiates between civilian deaths and something called genocide, I know that I do. Do you? (Now, I cannot specify what consequences should result from a reaction to civilian deaths compared to deaths from genocide. But let us at least see if we agree on one point: genocide is worse than civilian deaths. Gassing people because of their identity and the idea that extermination is the only solution to their existence is worse than bombing a population in order to achieve political goals. These are two different categories of evil. Can we agree on that point or not?)

      • Mikhael
        June 29, 2016, 10:04 pm

        Annie Robbins June 29, 2016, 8:22 pm
        we already get you think jewish deaths are more valuable and the other 30-40 million civilian allied deaths are not “equally tragic”.

        A cousin of my mother’s (Jewish, of course) perished along with nearly 38,000 other civilians, Jewish and non-Jewish, during the Soviet siege of Budapest as they bombarded and starved that city to evict the Nazis. Had the Soviets not liberated Budapest my relative would have likely been deported to Auschwitz or Majdanek or some other death camp and ultimately executed along with all the remaining Jews interned in the Jewish ghetto of Pest, but she avoided that fate long enough, only to die as a result of an errant Soviet shell destroying the building in which she sought shelter (so we were told by her sister). Logic says that her death was certainly tragic, but since she was killed as a result of the necessary artillery bombardment of that city to evict the Nazi beasts and their Hungarian allies, we still do not count her among the other Jewish victims of the Shoah (or Gypsy victims, for that matter) who were shipped to death camps and killed by the Nazis and their Hungarian collaborators due to their perceived race. Indeed, the Soviet liberation of Budapest, with all the destruction and loss that accompanied it, was ultimately the lesser of two evils, although decades of Communist dictatorship ensued. Pointing out that there is a moral difference between collateral damage (and yes, Jews were sometimes collateral damage in WW2 as well, like my relative) and people being deliberately targeted for annihilation does not make any value judgment on the relative worth of civilian lives by ethnic background.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2016, 10:29 pm

        Pointing out that there is a moral difference between collateral damage … and people being deliberately targeted for annihilation

        like when israel deliberately annihilates a family’s home to kill one person the other twelve killed (children, grandparents, mothers and aunts) — well — there’s a moral difference w/them because they are collateral damage. sorry — not buying it.

        deliberate annihilation is all to common. Iman Darweesh Al Hams, she was deliberately annihilated. israelis deliberately annihilates gazans routinely. they lock them up and kill them whenever they feel like it — with impunity. little children, no different than little jewish children, they get annihilated by israeli soldiers all the time. too many to name.

      • Sibiriak
        June 29, 2016, 11:24 pm

        Mikhael: ..there is a moral difference between collateral damage […]and people being deliberately targeted for annihilation.
        ————–

        So, the millions that a died as “collateral damage” to the Nazi onslaught are in a different moral category than the direct targets of the Nazi onslaught?

        How so?

        I’m not buying that distinction.

      • RoHa
        June 30, 2016, 12:17 am

        “So, the millions that a died as “collateral damage” to the Nazi onslaught are in a different moral category than the direct targets of the Nazi onslaught?

        How so?”

        Perhaps they are not quite as dead.

      • RoHa
        June 30, 2016, 12:44 am

        Well, there really is an Armenian nation (the Republic of Armenia, a sovereign state in the South Caucasus region of Eurasia) and Armenian is the national language of that state. But to say it is the national language of Americans who happen to be descended from Armenians is just silly. (As are those Americans who pretend to be Armenian.) National languages are the languages of nation states. Swedish and American citizens do not have a national language. Sweden and the U.S. do: Swedish for Sweden, and something vaguely resembling English for the U.S.A.

        And the rest of your remarks suggest that you think that Swedish Jews are not really part of the Swedish nation, French Jews are not part of the French nation, etc. That sounds a bit anti-Something to me. Still, if you are right about that, perhaps we in Australia should throw those Australian-citizen-but-really-not-Australian Jewish MPs out of our Federal and State Parliaments, and maybe out of the country altogether

      • Marnie
        June 30, 2016, 1:15 am

        Mikhael

        I forgot to note Pol Pot: The History Place – Genocide in the 20th Century: Pol Pot in Cambodia 1975-1979. An attempt by Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot to form a Communist peasant farming society resulted in the deaths of 25 percent of the country’s population from starvation, overwork and executions. The History Place – Genocide in the 20th Century: Pol Pot in …
        http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/pol-pot.htm

        And of course Rwandan genocide – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

        Not to forget the systematic expulsion, murder and the use of biologics against the indigenous peoples of what is called north america.

        “There are two documented instances of biological warfare by the British against North American Indians during Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763–66). In the first, during a parley at Fort Pitt on June 24, 1763, Captain Simeon Ecuyer gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief enclosed in small metal boxes that had been exposed to smallpox, hoping to spread the disease to the Natives in order to end the siege. The British soldiers lied to the Natives that the blanket pieces had contained special powers.[14] William Trent, the militia commander, left records that clearly indicated that the purpose of giving the blankets was “to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians.[15]

        British commander Lord Jeffrey Amherst and Swiss-British officer Colonel Henry Bouquet discussed the topic separately in the course of the same conflict; there exists correspondence referencing the idea of giving smallpox-infected blankets to enemy Indians. It cited four letters from June 29, July 13, 16 and 26th, 1763. Excerpts: Amherst wrote on July 16, 1763, “P.S. You will Do well to try to Inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect,…” Bouquet replied on July 26, 1763, “I received yesterday your Excellency’s letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.” Smallpox is highly infectious and does not require contaminated blankets to spread uncontrollably, and — together with measles, influenza, chicken pox, and so on — had been doing so since the arrival of Europeans and their animals. Trade and combat also provided ample opportunity for transmission of the disease. See also: Smallpox during Pontiac’s Rebellion. It is unclear if the blanket attempt succeeded. It is estimated that between 400,000-500,000 Native American Indians during and after the war died from smallpox.[13][16][17]
        History of biological warfare – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biological_warfare

        The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine

        But for some reason the nazi genocide drumpfs all. How is that?

      • Marnie
        June 30, 2016, 2:29 am

        Mikhael –

        Armenian Genocide – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

        Bosnian genocide – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide

        Democratic Republic of the Congo — United States Holocaust …
        https://www.ushmm.org/…genocide/…/dr-c

        Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 – 300,000 Deaths.

        HOLODOMOR : The famine-genocide of Ukraine, 1932-1933. In June of 1933, at the height of the Holodomor, 28,000 men, women and children in Ukraine were dying each day. The land that was known worldwide as the breadbasket of Europe was being ravaged by a man-made famine of unprecedented scale.
        “Holodomor” Ukrainian Famine/Genocide of 1932-33
        http://www.holodomorct.org/

        The zionist enterprise and her paid-for polictical/media/religious/evangelical whores would like the world’s focus to continually remain on the nazi genocide and nothing else. Can you take a stab at it and explain why that is so? Hophni, Yonah, Dbakr or the 2 Jon’s – A and S – care to elucidate?

      • yonah fredman
        June 30, 2016, 6:01 am

        Seems to me that the thinking evident here is weak. Before you:two mothers with dead children. One died in a car crash, the other was shot in the head. Both are equally dead. Are the mothers equal in bereavement? Is the mothers’ bereavement how we measure the legal culpability of the driver versus the shooter or of the levels of evil involved.
        The law differentiates between first degree murder and second degree murder. Is that wrong?
        I think the genocide in Rwanda was far more evil than the nazi bombing of london in wwii. Do you disagree?

      • Annie Robbins
        June 30, 2016, 11:13 am

        One died in a car crash, the other was shot in the head.

        i’m sensing a disconnect yonah. excuse me if i have not been following closely enough but in the context of the conversation this is the second time (at least) you’ve made analogies wrt WW2 indicating civilian casualties not specifically targeted for annihilation because of their ethnicity (genocide) just sort of randomly died as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. your earlier comment about “genocide is worse than civilian deaths” — there it is again — no indication in “civilian death” they were murdered or purposely killed in the war or that their deaths were premeditated. car accident, civilian death, no killer no intent to kill indicated. just a car accident? how is a “second degree murder” analogy helpful wrt to discussing nazis? you think deaths other than genocide are not premeditated?

        or perhaps you think pre meditated murder is more morally wrong if it is classified as a hate crime? if someone actively plans the murder of 100’s of sanders supporters or trump supporters or plants a bomb at a convention or rally is that not as evil as targeting a jewish deli and killing 15 people because they are jewish? or killing innocent worshipers in a church because they are all african americans? or blowing up 100’s in a mosque because they are muslim? one is for a political message, the others based on hating a race or religion. all victims die in the same way. are you saying one is more evil, one less tragic?

        Gassing people because of their identity and the idea that extermination is the only solution to their existence is worse than bombing a population in order to achieve political goals…Can we agree on that point or not?

        no, we can’t. because if a murderer gassed 100k people because of their identity with the idea that extermination is the only solution to their existence i don’t think i would judge it as worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      • Mr.T
        June 30, 2016, 10:54 am

        “While the sacrifices these Allied combatants made in defeating Nazism must be lauded and remembered, their deaths shouldn’t be considered “equally tragic” to being gassed to death solely because of their ethnicity or perceived race.”

        That is a sick, evil position, “My dead are more tragic than yours.”

      • Mr.T
        June 30, 2016, 11:53 am

        “Pointing out that there is a moral difference between collateral damage… and people being deliberately targeted for annihilation does not make any value judgment on the relative worth of civilian lives by ethnic background.”

        The problem is your subscription to the evil notion that there is a moral difference between collateral damage and victims of genocide, because you are placing more value on one life over another, equally innocent life.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 30, 2016, 12:21 pm

        collateral damage is a military term primarily used to exculpate governments from war crimes. it’s like an excuse that says “we didn’t intend to kill you” knowing very well there would be civilian deaths. this is where the hasbara lines come in about precision bombings, “surgical” bombings, most moral army etc etc. it reminds me of the military term “neutralize” — it’s used to whitewash assassination and extrajudicial execution.

      • Mr.T
        June 30, 2016, 12:00 pm

        “I think the genocide in Rwanda was far more evil than the nazi bombing of london in wwii. Do you disagree?”
        It’s a pointless question. Even if it is true, it does not follow that the deaths from the former are more tragic than the deaths from the latter. To believe so is an evil, inhuman position.

        Frankly, it’s not a far walk to go from counting some deaths as “less tragic” than others, to considering some deaths that your state might cause to be “acceptable collateral damage” to affirmatively favoring your state to commit genocide for a cause you believe is right, because in each case, you are weighing the worth of a human life against a political end. Even engaging in that weighing is an absolute evil.

      • eljay
        June 30, 2016, 12:06 pm

        y.f. appears to be saying that it’s OK to kill Jews in large numbers as long as they are collateral damage and not the intended targets. I find that very disturbing.

      • oldgeezer
        June 30, 2016, 12:16 pm

        @annie and Mr.T

        Totally agree with what you have said.

      • yonah fredman
        June 30, 2016, 12:48 pm

        Let’s assess what we have hopefully established: the tragedy is irrelevant to assessing the evil of a crime. A driver kills five from one family, a shooter kills one, the death of the five is the bigger tragedy, despite the fact that the evil of the shooter is worse. ( This is to answer the rhetoric “they’re both dead, aren’t they ” and the assessment based on the word “tragedy”.)

        Next question: are the killings in Rwanda a greater sin than the London bombings by nazis in WWII? I believe they are and now I have heard from one Mr t, that they are not, based again on the tragedy assessment. I thought we had eliminated that assessment as logically weak. But now I have denigrated the dead in london, which is logically preposterous. So let me recap my logical moral assessment:The nazis wished for the brits to surrender. The means they were using were wrong, but the basic goal was valid as a war goal. Genocide has a goal of wiping out a nation which is primarily a post military goal. The territory had been won. The opposition’s army has been defeated, and now either for reasons of extermination philosophy or the danger of an uprising or a fear of a post war political turnabout populations are hacked to death. No, this is a separate category of evil. My understanding is that genocide legally is considered a separate category by international courts of law. Is this assumption false?

      • Annie Robbins
        June 30, 2016, 1:21 pm

        A driver kills five from one family, a shooter kills one, the death of the five is the bigger tragedy, despite the fact that the evil of the shooter is worse.

        are you willfully not listening yonah, or does your intent just make you blind to logic. again:

        this is the second time (at least) you’ve made analogies wrt WW2 indicating civilian casualties not specifically targeted for annihilation because of their ethnicity (genocide) just sort of randomly died as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. your earlier comment about “genocide is worse than civilian deaths” — there it is again — no indication in “civilian death” they were murdered or purposely killed in the war or that their deaths were premeditated. car accident, civilian death, no killer no intent to kill indicated. just a car accident?

        so again you use an analogy w/a car accident. why? are you suggesting nazis did not purposely kill any civilians other than the ones they intended to genocide? how many “car accident” deaths do you think their were in WW2. and are you treating death by bomb as a mistaken car accident? was hiroshima as non culpable of deliberate murder as a car accident?

        My understanding is that genocide legally is considered a separate category by international courts of law.

        yes, but ‘separate’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘more evil’. you said earlier Gassing people because of their identity and the idea that extermination is the only solution to their existence is worse than bombing a population in order to achieve political goals

        well, i’ll argue (as i did before) that if one’s political goals entail killing tens of thousands of innocent people it is not necessarily less evil than gassing w/genocidal intent (especially if– despite ones intentions — only a relative few die).

        while genocide can be legally “separate” it is not necessarily “worse” depending on the crime. another example is like our war on vietnam — that was for political goals. would you classify it as less evil than an intent to genocide based on ethnicity? i think the amount of people purposely and deliberately killed adds to the gravity of the crime — regardless if a government spouts talking points asserting civilian death is not the intent. like our gov claimed were were not at war with the iraqi people — how well did that go over after a million plus dead because of our invasion and war?

        please stop with the car accident analogies. civilian deaths in wars do not resemble death via car accidents — which have no intent whatsoever — not political, regional, genocidal, nothing. it’s an insult to compare civilians killed in war w/car accidents.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 30, 2016, 1:39 pm

        i have another analogy for you. what if a killer’s intention was to wipe one family off the face of the earth. think hypothetically of a Hatfield going after all the McCoys or the bolsheviks wiping out the romanovs. granted we don’t call that genocide but it’s sort of a mini genocide based on wiping out a clan (similar to how israel targeted and took out whole families in gaza). so the hypothetical hatfield approaches the mcCoys on a day the entire family is gathered for a wedding or funeral or something. a massacre ensues but afterwards it’s discovered people not part of the mcCoys family were present and also killed in the massacre. however, the hatfield had no intention of killing someone from another family. one could argue the non-mcCoy deaths were merely collateral damage, or a car accident? would their deaths be considered (by you) less evil? less tragic? was the way they died more — moral? when the killer open fired on the wedding party they went there with no intention to kill the people who were not in the mcCoy family. but in the course of the crime, accidents happen?

        it just seems to me if my relative was slaughtered at a wedding the intent of the killer (wrt to the intended target) would not be a determining factor assessing the evilness of the crime.

      • yonah fredman
        June 30, 2016, 1:18 pm

        Raising the issue of collateral damage or the specific identity of the victims is an attempt to emotionalize the discussion. Once we’ve established certain categories that we agree upon we can Wade into more swampy terrain. I certainly did not declare collateral damage to be ethically good. It is not. I purposely chose the nazi bombing of london (partially so that the names of the actors involved can be detested but yet their acts do not measure up (or down) to more detestable actions.) But mostly i chose it as an example of intentional attack on civilians. Though some of the victims of the London blitz were collateral damage, the nazi design was focused on demoralization, thus civilian victims were the point and not beside the point. Even so, I consider the blitz to be less evil than the Rwandan genocide. Less evil is not the same as okay, and only malice and mendacity would cause such confusion.

      • Mr.T
        June 30, 2016, 1:42 pm

        “I thought we had eliminated that assessment as logically weak.”

        No, you want to wipe it away to make your losses more tragic than others. That’s the evil you’re perpetrating. It’s not just a logical fallacy that you’re perpetrating, it’s utter immorality.

        “But now I have denigrated the dead in london, which is logically preposterous.”

        No, it’s not. You have if you’re saying that they’re deaths are somehow less tragic than someone else’s death by virtue of the intent of the person who killed them, then yes, you have denigrated the dead.

        “The means they were using were wrong, but the basic goal was valid as a war goal.”

        Who gives a rip? The issue isn’t assessing the evil of the act, but the tragedy of the deaths that culminated from that act.

        “No, this is a separate category of evil.”

        Who cares? Your basic, unavoidable immorality is in intermingling the tragedy of the deaths — again, this is the key issue under discussion, the tragedy of the deaths — with the moral assessment of the intent behind those who caused the deaths.

      • Mr.T
        June 30, 2016, 1:45 pm

        “Even so, I consider the blitz to be less evil than the Rwandan genocide. ”
        And again, who cares? The evil of the act that causes the deaths is wholly irrelevant to the tragedy of those deaths.

      • eljay
        June 30, 2016, 2:02 pm

        || yonah fredman: … Less evil is not the same as okay, and only malice and mendacity would cause such confusion. ||

        Earlier, you implied that the bereavement of a mother whose child died a targeted death is greater than the bereavement of a mother whose child died an accidental (or collateral) death.

        So I’ll rephrase my previous comment: If non-Jews were targeted for murder and for whatever reason a large numbers of Jews were killed as collateral damage, you would have no problem telling the mothers of the (collateral) Jewish dead that their bereavement is less than that of the mothers of the (targeted) non-Jewish dead.

        Well, that’s just cold. :-(

      • yonah fredman
        June 30, 2016, 2:34 pm

        So we are not on the same page:
        MrT believes that tragedy is a worthy measure. I do not. I think trauma can be measured, but not tragedy. I feel tragedy is useless when trying to determine the evil of an act. I think the term trauma can help us assess, but i find the term tragedy to be unscientific.
        Annie-you raise some relevant points. My reaction:
        Wars are organized murder for national goals. Some national goals are deemed worthy by some and not others. The dropping of bombs on London civilians for the purpose of world domination, combines a particularly odious combination of means and ends. In fact nazis viewed the brits as potential racial allies so there was no intrinsic “otherness” ideation, whereas colonialist versus indigenous where the phrase demographic problem dominates does involve a dehumanization based on otherness. So I hear the point.
        On a different point. I think the genocide functions of international courts in our time testifies to the seriousness with which the world reacted to the genocides of world War two. I find the story of Rwanda dramatic and maybe for emotional reasons I find it to be a separate category from the London blitz, but genocide is a specially heinous category in my conception.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 30, 2016, 4:07 pm

        I think the genocide functions of international courts in our time testifies to the seriousness with which the world reacted to the genocides of world War two.

        i don’t think the genocide functions of international courts have been very effective in our time , but maybe you’re older than me.


        I think trauma can be measured, but not tragedy.

        ok, great, so as an example, how would you rate the trauma of a child listening to bombs dropping all around them and then hearing a loud knock and running for the stairs with their father right in back of them and hearing the loud pounding noise turning back and seeing her father explode only moments before succumbing to the same fate? or say — being corralled into a house by soldiers and then systematically bombed in that house.

        do you think the trauma would be more or less if the people bombing you said publicly it was a mistake or they were not deliberately targeting you. on a scale from 1 to ten — rate the trauma of the victim if it was done purposely vs not purposely? and then rate the trauma if it was being done for political aspirations vs genocidal aspirations.

        and rate the trauma of a 8 year old child who dies having lived thru three wars in eight years and witnessing all their relatives die. do you think it would be more or less than a child who lived thru a longer war lasting four years and watched all their relatives die.

        and if the child was not ever targeted deliberately but still experienced nights of hell listening to bombs before their imminent death, how would you rate that vs the trauma of a car accident where the surviving child bled to death over an hour where an ambulance wasn’t allowed on the scene and before the child died watched their mother shot as a suspected terrorist. or that ethiopian fellow that was mauled to death by people in a restaurant after his heart attack. what if he was awake during the attack, rate his trauma. and rate the 13 year old settler girl’s trauma. was it worse or less than the ethiopian man — if he was conscious during his murder.

        but genocide is a specially heinous category in my conception.

        i agree, but traumatically, the intent of the killer doesn’t necessarily make the emotional experience worse for the victims of a crime. all people process/experience pain, fear and death individually… i would imagine anyway.

      • Mr.T
        June 30, 2016, 2:59 pm

        “So we are not on the same page: MrT believes that tragedy is a worthy measure.”

        Don’t try to restate my beliefs. You’re neither smart nor honest enough.

        “I feel tragedy is useless when trying to determine the evil of an act.”

        What the living hell are you blabbering about? The issue here is whether one death can be considered “more tragic” than another, not the relative evilness of the act that brought it about. To say, “well, let’s ignore all this talk of tragedy” is complete gibberish.

      • hophmi
        June 30, 2016, 2:59 pm

        “Seems a bit odd to call Hebrew the national language of the Jews when many Jews do not speak it, but do speak the national languages of the nations they live in and of which they are citizens.”

        Will it be odd to call Arabic the national language of the Palestinians, even though Palestinian-Americans speak English?

      • Mr.T
        June 30, 2016, 3:38 pm

        “Will it be odd to call Arabic the national language of the Palestinians, even though Palestinian-Americans speak English? ”

        If by “of the Palestinians” you mean Palestinian people in Palestine, then no, it’s not odd.
        If by “of the Palestinians” you mean a grouping of Palestinian people including Arabic-speaker in Palestine and English-speakers in the US, then yes, it’s very odd. Such a group has no “national language, (Unless you define “national language” as “a language we’re going to haphazardly assign to this grouping for political reasons, and not with regard for whether it’s actually accurate or used by those people.”)

      • MHughes976
        June 30, 2016, 4:15 pm

        Collateral damage is a version of the idea of ‘double effect’, which was developed primarily in Catholic philosophy. The idea is that intended results of action matter more than merely foreseen results.
        For example, the intended death of a foetus via abortion, in response to a woman’s explicit wish not to have a child, is wrong on this theory, since to intend the death of another, who has done no wrong, is wrong. But a treatment of the mother’s cancer, with the foreseen but not intended result of the death of the foetus, is acceptable.
        The idea, in its miltary version, is that someone who kills innocent victims with glee, because they belong to the enemy, is a worse and nastier person than one who takes no pleasure in their death but kills them anyway because it is an unavoidable part of attacking a legitimate target. But whether you are really a nicer person if you treat the victims as of absolutely no account, making no difference at all to your decision, is extremely but extremely questionable.

      • yonah fredman
        June 30, 2016, 4:43 pm

        The original topic of conversation was the revenge that surviving Jews took against German POW’s or SS officers or thoughts of taking action against the entire German population. I commented that who today can put themselves in the shoes of these survivors of 1946. This comment of mine was answered with the comment that 60 – 100 million people died in World war II, and the suggestion to walk in the shoes of the jewish survivors must be counterbalanced with the alternate suggestion to walk in the shoes of other relatives of victims. Then we engaged in a back and forth over the relative tragedy of these other victims who did not die as a result of exterminationist plans versus the tragedy of those who did die as a result of exterminationist plans. Now i have attempted to replace the concept of tragedy with the concept of trauma. This in an attempt to move the topic towards understanding those vengeance seeking survivors. This has resulted in something like a shouting match, hardly an attempt to understand the hearts that would seek revenge in 1946.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 30, 2016, 6:43 pm

        yonah, sometimes conversations branch off where you don’t expect them to. after mikhail introduced the idea of “deaths shouldn’t be considered “equally tragic”” because of the intent of the killer the discussion morphed into one of measuring –both evil and trauma/tragedy. both can be subjective depending on a persons ptv.

        re hardly an attempt to understand the hearts that would seek revenge in 1946.

        well, i have little to say about that other than revenge is common. i mentioned the other day (here: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/campaign-palestinian-ramadan/#comment-844350 ) my relatives told me that during the civil war the union army poisoned the local mill pond w/iron oxide (that’s in a town called lake city SC which used to be called page’s mill). whether it was done as revenge or not i don’t know. but poisoning wells and water sources is as old as wars and vengeance and i wouldn’t put it past any particular ethnic group nor would i put vengeance past an ethnic group. people are not that different than eachother when put in similar situations. this is why people demonize their opponents — to rationalize crimes against them. measuring people’s pain or potential for evil is probably a worthless endeavor and will likely piss people off — hence, the sense of a shouting match.

      • Mr.T
        June 30, 2016, 5:37 pm

        “Then we engaged in a back and forth over the relative tragedy of these other victims who did not die as a result of exterminationist plans versus the tragedy of those who did die as a result of exterminationist plans.”

        Yeah, the conversation stopped at evil notion that one innocent person’s death can be less tragic than another’s based on the intent of the person who caused it. That’s where we are.

        “Now i have attempted to replace the concept of tragedy with the concept of trauma.”

        Unless you’re willing to concede that the notion that one person’s death is less tragic than another’s based on the intent of the person who caused it is unconditionally evil, then all you’re doing is blowing smoke and trying to dance around the fact that you subscribe to an evil notion.

        “This in an attempt to move the topic towards understanding those vengeance seeking survivors.”

        BFD. They were aggrieved and they sought revenge. There’s nothing mystical or mysterious about it. It’s basic human psychology. It’s no different than this Palestinians who take direct action against Israelis because of the trauma that the Israelis have inflicted on the Palestinians. And not a particularly interesting point. (Unless you’re using the “one person’s death is more tragic than another’s” immorality as a basis to excuse the acts of the Jews in 1946 while damning the acts of the Palestinians today, and if you are, shame on you.)

      • Mooser
        June 30, 2016, 5:37 pm

        “Yonah’s” pilpul addiction is starting to get the better of him again.

      • Mooser
        June 30, 2016, 6:03 pm

        “Yonah” , I say the heck with all these people here! If they won’t acknowledge the value of Jewish lives because of our qualities, we will just overwhelm them with our quantities.

      • Mooser
        June 30, 2016, 6:10 pm

        “I’m sensing a disconnect yonah.”

        I think “Yonah” is having a fingernail problem.

      • Mooser
        June 30, 2016, 6:35 pm

        “Pointing out that there is a moral difference between collateral damage… and people being deliberately targeted for annihilation does not make any value judgment on the relative worth of civilian lives by ethnic background.” “Yonah Fredman”

        Yes, at least an equal number of people besides the Jews were “targeted for annihilation” in the same way, by extermination, by the Nazis. And about an equal number did get annihilated, besides Jews, by the same process.

      • Mooser
        June 30, 2016, 7:00 pm

        “I think trauma can be measured, but not tragedy.”

        Gotya, “Yonah”! Whatever happens to them is “tragedy”. What happened to us is “trauma”! Which can be measured! (How? but let it pass) And once quantified, a bill for damages can be presented!

        But “tragedy” Feh everybody gets a little of that. But trauma, that’s the real thing. Big damage awards.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 30, 2016, 7:02 pm

        Mhughes:

        The idea, in its miltary version, is that someone who kills innocent victims with glee, because they belong to the enemy, is a worse and nastier person than one who takes no pleasure in their death but kills them anyway because it is an unavoidable part of attacking a legitimate target –

        right, but since we live in a world where it’s so easy to officially deny one is slaughtering people for demographics, revenge, punishment whatever — without a care in the world with crazy propaganda like ‘you’re forcing me to kill you’ and claiming all your genocidal actions are always “in response”, the whole notion of collateral damage is thrown out the window. and when they can’t hide the slaughter of children they come up w/new strategies like the Dahiya doctrine which cover war crimes by claiming “establishing deterrence” via overwhelming force.

        i’m not claiming collateral damage doesn’t exit, i am claiming mowing the grass is intended to kill civilians. which doesn’t mean every participant committing a genocidal attack has intention to carry out genocide. but i think history will recognize that over decades there’s a policy of intent — to kill civilians as a coping mechanism for carrying out the ethnic cleansing of palestine while leaving behind an element of doubt as to the intent. slow-mo genocidal intent.

      • Mooser
        June 30, 2016, 8:52 pm

        Usually, poisoning the enemy after the war is over and the enemy is in prison awaiting the victor’s judgement, is considered just a bit above parr.

        Uness “Yonah” wishes to argue that the Holocaust has freed us from any need to follow laws.

      • RoHa
        July 1, 2016, 1:02 am

        “Will it be odd to call Arabic the national language of the Palestinians, even though Palestinian-Americans speak English?”

        I almost agree with Mr T. It would not be odd to call Arabic the national language of Palestine. I would not call it the national language of the Palestinians, even if we only mean those who live in Palestine, since I think of national languages as referring to the languages of the nation, not of the people.

        But it would certainly be odd to call it the national language of Americans who have Palestinian ancestors. I, of course, would not class those people as Palestinians, anyway.

    • Thalwen
      June 28, 2016, 7:41 pm

      But Abbas didn’t make his claims based on the Talmud, he made them based on an article that was published that turned out to be false, he made them based on the behaviour of settlers who call for the violent death of Palestinians on a daily basis, who attack Palestinians on a daily basis and who have poisoned livestock on numerous occasions. But somehow his claim wasn’t based on those things, but on a medieval European trope, yep, that’s totally plausible.

      • RoHa
        June 28, 2016, 11:00 pm

        “a medieval European trope”

        Here in Brisbane we only have sub-tropes. We need to go North of Rockhampton to get full tropes.

      • echinococcus
        June 30, 2016, 1:52 am

        Michael,

        The utilitarian conclusion of your High Wordiness is pure genius:
        One can openly commit genocide and state that all cases of unfortunate damage to persons is purely collateral damage. Poof! All guilt is washed away.
        I say, why don’t you propose your fantastic discovery to your government? I’m sure you’ll get paid well.

  5. traintosiberia
    June 27, 2016, 10:18 pm

    NYT could have dismissed the mistake as ” overstatement ,nonetheless a true picture of the goings-on both at the ground level as well as religious level” . Abbas is trying to wake the powers and the leaders up to the reality . NYT is focussing on the quality of the handwriting .
    This is another example of focussing on the patterns of the leaves and ignore the forest .
    NYT could have added that Rabbis are known to incite but this was not the right example.
    But this is in perfect synch with the past ramblings of NYT and rest of the Zionsit inspired media . It reminds me of those famous phrases1 Arsbs want us to be thrown into the sea
    2 The day Arb love more their children than they hate us,there will be peace
    3 there is no partner for peace .
    I am sure there are other. But its the same focussing on language and words and using the language nd words to denigrate ,to belittle,to deceive and to deny what rightfully belongs to Palestinian have been the works in progress in US media and continues to be so.

  6. Marnie
    June 28, 2016, 1:49 am

    “The same day as Abbas was strung up in the world press for a misstatement, Israeli soldiers opened fire on a Palestinian vehicle in the occupied territories because they suspected that the car was carrying boys who had thrown stones, and as a result killed a 15-year-old boy traveling with his family from an outing– and later admitted they had done so “by mistake.” Israeli soldiers indiscriminately killing a boy with his life in front of him: that is the reality in Israel and Palestine, today. ”

    The IOF’s response to the murder of a 15-year-old boy traveling with his family was “mistake”. No apology. No condolences. No remorse. AND NO END.

    Mr. Abaas erroneously reported what he thought to be true. When he found out he was wrong, he sincerely made his apology. But he was skewered and will continue to be skewered at home, but more importantly abroad.

    He wasn’t entirely wrong. See Rusty Pipes above and google search below:

    Israel Escalates ‘Water-Apartheid’ As Illegal Settlers Contaminate …
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/israel…water…settlers-contaminate-palestinian-water/209921.

    Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories – Wikipedia …
    https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Palestinian_territorie..

    Israel Escalates ‘Water-Apartheid’ As Illegal Settlers Contaminate …
    http://www.ewash.org/…/israel-escalates-‘water-apartheid’-illegal-settlers-contaminate-palest..

    Palestinian villages struggle as Israeli settlement waste contaminates …
    mondoweiss.net/…/palestinian-villages-struggle-as-israeli-settlement-waste-contaminat…

    water injustice in palestine – Friends of the earth international
    http://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Water-injustice-in-Palestine.pdf

    Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics “PCBS” Issues a Press Release
    http://www.pengon.org/en/environmental-watch-online/22.html

    Illegal Israeli Settlement Sewage Water Polluting West Bank …
    https://occpalgaza.wordpress.com/…/illegal-israeli-settlement-sewage-water-polluting-.

    The Environmental Impact of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank
    http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=427

    Management of Shared Groundwater Resources: The Israeli-Palestinian …
    https://books.google.co.il/books?isbn=9401006806

    troubled waters – palestinians denied fair access to water – Amnesty …
    https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdf/mde150272009en.pdf

    Just to note a few…

  7. Jackdaw
    June 28, 2016, 8:11 am

    ” He has not led a conciliatory life into his 80’s just so he could throw around slurs against Jews. ”

    Abbas refused to meet with Israeli President Rivlin in Brussels. In fact, when Abbas learned that Rivlin was staying in the same hotel, Abbas and his entourage moved to another hotel.

    That tells me more about who Abbas really is than this poisoned well nonsense.

    • Mooser
      June 28, 2016, 1:46 pm

      “Abbas and his entourage moved to another hotel.”

      Idiot! Abbas did that out of consideration. He did not want to strain the services of the hotel, or compete with Rivlin for attention and services.
      Abbas gave Rivlin precedence, and you are trying to use it against him.

      • Jackdaw
        June 28, 2016, 2:08 pm

        Mooser.

        Who knows more about competing for attention, than you?

      • Mooser
        June 28, 2016, 4:49 pm

        “Who knows more about competing for attention, than you?”

        Point taken, “Jackdaw”. I could never steal your spotlight. Or upstage you. Nor will all my sarcasm ever undo all the good work you are doing for Zionism here.

        Now, “Jackdaw”, could you enlighten me on something? When a Zionist Palestine squatter like you determines that his comments on Mondo are doing Zionism more harm than good what does he do?

        Does he say “okay, this isn’t working for me, better try something else” or does he say “Oh, the heck with Zionism and Israel, I’m satisfying my own ego, and nobody can take a swing at me, so I’ll keep on doing it no matter what the cost to Zionism?

        Always wondered about that. Of course, if I am wrong, and you are accomplishing something positive, what is it?

    • Mooser
      June 28, 2016, 4:44 pm

      “Abbas refused to meet with Israeli President Rivlin in Brussels. In fact, when Abbas learned that Rivlin was staying in the same hotel, Abbas and his entourage moved to another hotel. That tells me more about who Abbas really is than this poisoned well nonsense”

      Ahh, no wonder the Palestinians are so reluctant to leave Palestine. They have no wish to insult the Israelis, by indicating they don’t want to be around them.
      I’m sure the Israelis really appreciate that.

    • Annie Robbins
      June 28, 2016, 7:04 pm

      Abbas refused to meet with Israeli President Rivlin in Brussels.

      they probably only live about 20 minutes away from eachother. if pres rivlin seeks a meeting w/abbas why do it in brussels? also, what would be the point of leaving the occupation to stay in a hotel on another continent brimming w/israeli security? that would make little sense.

      • Jackdaw
        June 29, 2016, 2:27 am

        A few weeks ago Abbas gave an interview and said he’d meet Bibi anytime. Bibi seized on the statement and invited Abbas. Abbas refused. Bibi said he’d come to Ramallah, Abbas refused.

        It was the EU that tried to nudge Rivlin and Abbas into talking. Rivlin accepted, Abbas refused and ‘left the hotel’.

        You don’t get it. You don’t want to get it.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2016, 2:54 am

        jack: allegedly and, according to you, completely unsourced.

      • Jackdaw
        June 29, 2016, 8:44 am

        @ Annie

        “allegedly and, according to you, completely unsourced”

        You see, Annie, anybody else would have already googled ‘Rivlin, Abbas, Brussels’, and gotten sources, but you couldn’t do that because there are truths out there that you cannot accept.

      • eljay
        June 29, 2016, 9:07 am

        There’s this, too (dated April 1, 2016, but apparently from a March 31 interview):

        … Abbas said Netanyahu is “the partner” for peace, and called on the prime minister to meet with him “at any time.” …

        Abbas appears to have a bad habit of shooting his mouth off and/or putting his foot in it.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2016, 9:53 am

        You see, Annie, anybody else would have already googled ‘Rivlin, Abbas, Brussels

        jack, stop fooling around. if you want to pursue a discussion of the latest hasbara talking pt leave a link, otherwise i am not playing.

        there are truths out there that you cannot accept

        and what truth would that be? that israeli leaders have exhausted themselves for decades trying to provide palestinians with a state but there’s just no partner for peace? you bore me jack and this story bores me. the meeting that didn’t happen that launched 1000 articles. so what? this is a stupid non story.

      • oldgeezer
        June 29, 2016, 10:11 am

        @jackdaw

        Moving hotels is a nonissue. Quite a common occurrence to keep your party separate from others.

        Not meeting with Rivlin is also a nonissue. They aren’t golf buddies and Rivlin has no authority. He also stated his meeting would call for face to face discussions with Netanyahu who clearly is only interested in subjugation and not peace.

        The context of Abbas statement was that he wanted to meet to discuss the ending of military operations in PA controlled areas.

        i7 reports that Netanyahu did not give the nod to meeting with Abbas once Abbas said he would meet with him. Other Israeli sources say that Netanyahu agreed to a meeting but wished to discuss other issues (ie Palestinian incitement).

        Both sides claim they extended an invitation.

        Your proof is proof of nothing.

        The EU has the right approach. There needs to be an adult in the room to supervise both petulant brats.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2016, 10:51 am

        oldgeezer, this is nothing more than a ‘look over there’ story. the back drop for this is what’s going on w/the UN, the new quartet/french initiative ‘big report’ that’s supposed to be released today or tomorrow that israel is trying to bury. see “Israel wants to keep Quartet report from becoming basis for new UN resolution”

        http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/UNs-Ban-calls-for-end-to-Gaza-blockade-457954

        The report has been a number of months in the making and is expected to both spell out what the Quartet believes are the reasons for the current diplomatic impasse and how it can be broken.

        so this is the impending doom the msm here is not very interested in covering. instead we get crap like elliot abrams reporting for >> http://www.newsweek.com/note-west-abbas-will-never-sign-peace-deal-474435 w/the meme abbas is not a partner for peace. and based on what? you guessed it — the senior Israeli official, who must remain anonymous because, according to haaretz, he/she “requested not to be named due to the diplomatic sensitivity of the issue” (the issue of course being abbas’s “refusal” to sit for a photo op w/rivlin! — which is all this would amount to since the meeting was not planned in the least.) and this — this gets covered by over a dozen news outlets — literally humped by hasbrats. and it’s a non story. but the strategic placement of this non story as the backdrop from which to look at big news — is — the news that actually does concern israel — is why we’re supposed to ‘look over there’ at the non story instead.

        and presumably this is what jack means when he says “truths out there that you cannot accept” — the “truth” wrapped in a neat tidy package symbolized by abbas spurning a meeting in brussels. horrors!!!

      • oldgeezer
        June 29, 2016, 11:09 am

        @annie

        Oh I agree totally. The Israeli fears of the quartet report have been in the news for the past few months.

        It will be an interesting read particularly as it is coming from a group that is largely comprised of pro Israeli governments.

        The old partner for peace routine wore thin eons ago. If anything Israel has never been a partner for peace. Never wanted to be. The Israeli project was about theft, dominance and oppression by design.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2016, 1:49 pm

        The old partner for peace routine wore thin eons ago

        totally, and did you read elliot abram’s newsweek article?!!! the old meme is being hauled out again! the hasbara is on constant rotation/repeat mode. and then we’re expected to discuss it lest being accused of some kind of denial.

        and here’s more bs from jack:

        A few weeks ago Abbas gave an interview and said he’d meet Bibi anytime. Bibi seized on the statement and invited Abbas. Abbas refused. Bibi said he’d come to Ramallah, Abbas refused.

        on monday apr 4 netanyahu made a very public statement (in english for pr value) smirking/bragging that his “door is always open”

        and he has the gaul to say “the first item is ending the palestinian campaign of incitement to murder israelis” and this comes after Hatim abu Mayyala, 13, was shot in the back of the head by an israel soldier in silwan on saturday two days before >> http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/page/6/#sthash.6SLEwkhK.dpufa and the week after the medic executioner event/video w/netanyahu rallying around the killers family and the whole ensuing israeli support for the killer.

        but all that context is completely stripped out. including the context reported the saturday before:

        Since the beginning of 2016, Israel has demolished, on average, 29 Palestinian-owned structures per week, three times the weekly average for 2015

        this is the reason for the press conference:>>> http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-concerned-over-israels-demolition-of-palestinian-homes/ here’s the headline:

        US ‘concerned’ over Israel’s demolition of Palestinian homes
        State Department says practice calls into question Jewish state’s commitment to two-state solution

        (same day we published Video: Israel demolishes every home in West Bank Bedouin village – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/video-israel-demolishes-every-home-in-west-bank-bedouin-village/#sthash.ARGeLWUT.dpuf ) so netanyahu says he was discussing stuff w/the americans, garbles about peace process, says he’ll meet w/abbas and then says first on the agenda is the ‘palestinian incitement to murder campaign’

        but according to jack, it’s all boiled down to ‘netanyahu offers abbas rejects’. when the real story is israeli incitement/murder/demolitions, israel’s refusal to allow 2SS, and israel’s illegal settlement expansion .

    • K Renner
      June 29, 2016, 3:29 am

      @Hasbara

      Yawn.

      You’re whining about Abbas not wanting to waste time with idiots? Or that Abbas, god forbid, doesn’t like Zionist Israelis and doesn’t want to be around them in his free time?

      Pathetic. Do you, I wonder, apologize for Israeli Jews who want to take away the little rights of Palestinians in Israel ,or don’t want “filthy Arabs” living by Jews?

  8. slandau
    June 28, 2016, 8:29 am

    Like many “tropes”, this one has a logical basis. Please google Nakam:
    “According to an interview with The Observer with Lithuanian-born Joseph Harmatz,[2] Kovner obtained a poison from Ephraim and Aharon Katzir. Karmatz also claims that later Israeli President Chaim Weizmann approved of the plan. The poison was claimed to be used on 3000 loaves of bread for former SS guards in an American prisoner of war camp, “Stalag 13”,[2] but he was concealing their bigger plan of poisoning the water supplies of Munich, Berlin, Weimar, Nuremberg and Hamburg.[1] The Nakam group intended to kill 6 million Germans[2] – as many as the Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust…..On April 14, 1946, Nakam painted with diluted arsenic some 3,000 loaves of bread for the 15,000 German POWs from the Langwasser internment camp near Nuremberg (Stalag 13)….On April 23, 1946, the New York Times reported that 2,283 German prisoners of war had fallen ill from poisoning, with 207 hospitalized and “seriously ill”.[1] According to Harmatz (Nakam leader), 300 to 400 Germans died. He said this “was nothing compared with what we really wanted to do.”[2]” [Wikipedia]

  9. hophmi
    June 28, 2016, 11:30 am

    “Was Abbas’s statement innocent or malicious?”

    It was stupid. That’s what it was. The only stupider thing is for pro-Palestinian activists to apologize for it.

    • The Hasbara Buster
      June 28, 2016, 12:28 pm

      It was stupid, agreed. But, as this article accurately asserts, it was not a blood libel, which is what really matters here.

      • Yitzgood
        June 28, 2016, 9:30 pm

        But, as this article accurately asserts, it was not a blood libel, which is what really matters here.

        The well-poisoning libel is a separate libel. The blood libel involves using blood to make matzos. The article’s argument is that it wasn’t a well-poisoning libel because Abbas believed what he was saying. Are you agreeing with that precise argument? Let’s pick yet another libel. Supposing Abbas said prominent Rabbis called for desecrating the host?

      • The Hasbara Buster
        June 30, 2016, 8:11 pm

        @Yitzgood

        Sorry for misusing the term “blood libel.” I understood it to encompass all gruesome crimes falsely attributed to the Jews.

        Your argument seems to be that Abbas gives credence to such unbelievable lies about the Jews that he must be an antisemite. But as I pointed out above, on at least one occasion the Israeli police thought that Jewish settlers were behind the poisoning of a well in the West Bank. Therefore, the idea that a settler rabbi can call on his followers to poison wells is not in and of itself antisemitic. It didn’t happen — but believing it might is not an instance of antisemitism.

    • K Renner
      June 29, 2016, 3:27 am

      The stupidest of all is how Nutty and the other Palestinian-haters and legitimate blood libelers (accusing Palestinian mothers and fathers of willfully sacrificing their own children to “make Israel look bad, for example) try and run with a soundbite.

  10. Ossinev
    June 28, 2016, 12:44 pm

    @Jackdaw
    “That tells me more about who Abbas really is than this poisoned well nonsense”.
    Sorry old bean you really must go the extra mile and explain what you actually mean when casually tossing (sic) these one liner “gems” into the blogosphere.

    • Jackdaw
      June 28, 2016, 2:10 pm

      @Ossinev

      I’m sorry, but here in Israel anyway, it’s common knowledge that Abbas isn’t a peace partner.
      This sorry episode in Brussels is the latest proof.

      • oldgeezer
        June 28, 2016, 3:54 pm

        @jackdaw

        Not proof of anything. It is merely the latest excuse from people who are only interested in expansion, have no desire foe peace, and whose leaders see peace as a threat.

      • MHughes976
        June 28, 2016, 4:01 pm

        Abbas was not accusing anyone of actual well-poisoning but of ‘incitement’, an activity of which Israel.accuses people quite readily. I think he meant that the PA doesn’t go in for incitement even if some individual extremists do – and the same, he hoped to add triumphantly, is the same on the Israeli side. He found that he had managed to go to one of the centres of Christian Europe, dating from medieval times when mobs were indeed incited against Jews on all manner of crazy grounds, and rehearse the same good old, bad old trope that had appeared at the time of the Black Death. How about that for playing into the enemy’s hands? Or scoring an own goal, as we Englanf football supporters say? But it’s not really deeply prejudiced or anti-Semitic or anti-Christian to believe, or even be a bit too ready to believe, in the capacity of religious extremists to say outrageous things.
        I would bet £10 that Abbas, if offered the classic 2ss, even with all the demilitarisation often mentioned by Natanyahu, would fall over himself to accept – is in that sense a willing, even desperately willing, peace partner. But I won’t collect on my bet because the offer will not be made.

      • Kay24
        June 28, 2016, 4:30 pm

        It is also common knowledge that the zionist leader is not a peace partner either, or else he would not keep building illegal squatter abodes, which are condemned by the UN, EU and even the US, and is so detrimental to any peace talks. A well known liar and a war criminal, Netanyahu has also stated that there will not be any Palestinian state “under his watch”.
        Is that an example of a keen peace partner?
        These zionists birds are in so much denial when they make ridiculous accusations about the other side. Pot calling the kettle black, again.

      • MHughes976
        June 28, 2016, 5:10 pm

        I think, Kay, that a genuine peace partner would put a proposal for peace on the table. This is something Netsnyahu is not going to do.

      • Marnie
        June 29, 2016, 12:45 am

        “I’m sorry, but here in Israel anyway, it’s common knowledge that Abbas isn’t a peace partner.”

        Stop the presses!

        That’s just a drop in the bucket jack; the rest of the world is well aware of Netanyahoo’s peace plans – no state for Palestinians, a Jewish supremacist state from the river to the sea.

        Now why wouldn’t Abbas partner up with ol’ blue hair for something like that?

      • K Renner
        June 29, 2016, 3:25 am

        @Hasbara

        It’s common knowledge to anyone who’s not a demented ziobot, a Palestinian-hater, or some kind of ignoramus otherwise, that Israel isn’t interested in even a remotely fair peace and so Israel has no ground to stand on whining about how Abbas “isn’t a partner for peace”.

        Israeli and Zionist “peace” is no peace at all. The fact that you people continue to push your BS and demand that the only acceptable Palestinian “peace partner” is one who bends over for you and throws his people under the bus is nothing short of pathetic.

  11. Kay24
    June 28, 2016, 1:08 pm

    Talking about dishonesty, what is with these zionist leaders and officials?
    Too many US dollars going that way?

    “Police Recommend Criminal Charges Against Senior Netanyahu Adviser
    Perah Lerner, the prime minister adviser on Knesset affairs, has been under investigation for nearly a year on suspicion of fraud and breach of trust.
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.727612

  12. Sulphurdunn
    June 28, 2016, 5:31 pm

    Since the times article appeared after the fact it can’t be accused of poisoning the well (irony intended), although it has a long history of doing that in its coverage of Israel. This time it used confirmation bias, which seems to be the preferred bait anytime it can get it on a hook.

  13. Thalwen
    June 28, 2016, 7:38 pm

    “In October, he erroneously accused Israeli forces of killing a 13 year old Palestinian boy who had taken part in the stabbings of two Israelis. The boy had actually been wounded and later recovered.”
    That boy being a child who was laying on the ground who was grievously wounded, while settlers hurled racist abuse at him and called for his death. That video, which I remember well, would cause many who don’t pay attention to think he had died(given his abuse in Israeli custody later on, perhaps it might have been easier on him if he had). Abbas doesn’t strike me as the kind that pays much attention to what’s happening to his people.
    And this is not the first time the NY Times has sought fit to make light out of violence against Palestinian children(he survived! no big deal).

  14. JanetB
    June 28, 2016, 7:39 pm

    I find it interesting that apparently, the Palestinian are the only people in history that are not allowed to hate their oppressors/occupiers. The ancient Celts no doubt hated the Romans, the Saxons hated the Normans, and many First Nations people may still hate Europeans with good reason. Why would anyone be surprised if Palestinians hate Jews, it is surprising that so many Palestinians are able to differentiate between different groups of Jews.

    • Qualtrough
      June 29, 2016, 10:17 pm

      JanetB – You raise a good point, but it is even worse than that. Not only are Palestinians NOT allowed to dislike or hate their oppressors, Zionists expect Palestinians to like them. I can certainly understand why a Palestinian might equate all Jews with Israelis/Zionist because they certainly don’t encounter many of the former who are not the latter.

  15. K Renner
    June 29, 2016, 3:16 am

    I don’t know why some people actually continue to listen to the pathetic, hypocritical whimpering of Nutty, Goldberg, et al to the vein of “Israel wants peace, the Palestinians don’t”.

    Israel and the vast majority of Jews around the world calling themselves “Zionist” have proven time and time again that Israel does not want peace. That Zionism is an ethnically and religiously bigoted ideology bolstered by a lying narrative, one that simply would not exist in practise if it didn’t walk hand in hand with shameless land theft and ethnic cleansing.

    An Israeli, Jewish ,and Zionist “peace” simply isn’t. No Palestinian in his or her right mind could or should ever accept what the Israeli and Jewish and Zionist types (per their own words) float as “peace proposals”.

    Never, never, never.

  16. Talkback
    June 29, 2016, 9:18 am

    I finally get it, warum Jews can commit crimes against Palestinians with impunity. Because they never happened, if they somhow sound like an antisemitic trope.

  17. klm90046
    June 29, 2016, 9:28 pm

    They’ve been meeting and talking for twenty years, without result. What would twenty years and a day do?

  18. Ossinev
    June 30, 2016, 12:41 pm

    @Mikhael
    “No, it’s not at all odd. Many people in the Armenian Diaspora, people who take pride in their Armenian heritage and identify with the Armenian People and live in places like Sweden , Russia, France, California, Argentina, Syria and Poland can speak little or no Armenian but are fluent in the national languages of the countries in which they are citizens — yet Armenian is still the national language of the Armenian People”

    Does that include all those non – Armenians who converted to Armenianism or whose paters were non- Armenians ?

Leave a Reply