Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 132 (since 2011-07-28 12:18:16)

Showing comments 132 - 101

  • Despairing of his Israel fantasies, Leonard Fein says racism goes 'unimpeded'
    • sjarjour - It's exactly as viable or non-viable as telling the Israelis to retreat back to the UN borders, and allow a Palestinian state deserving of its name to flourish, as opposed to what seems viable now, given Israel's aggressive land grabs: permitting Palestinians to live huddled in separate enclaves, hence stunting whatever economical or social viability a Palestinian state might otherwise have. Also these enclaves would also only represent something like 10-20% of the land they were initially granted by the international community. Israel itself is doing its best to ensure the 2SS never, ever becomes a truly viable option, hoping that in 20 years, we'll all take those Eretz-Israel "borders" forgranted, and alltogether abandon the hope for a 2SS.

      I'd sooner think it's viable that an increasing amount of people bring about social change in Israel, and that a younger generation of both Israelis and Palestinians will tire of conflict and resign themselves to the fact that it is indeed in everyone's best interest to live together. There will always be the radicals and the nutjobs, but I do believe it's viable they become a minority that both sides crack down on in order to commence living in peace.

      As for my personal preference, I'd go with option B. I don't believe removing people from territories they were born on and now consider their home is ethical, regardless of how unethically said land may initially have been obtained. Removing Jewish children who got born on and grew up regarding stolen land as their own isn't a "solution" that goes down well with me.

  • Never Surrender: A Palestinian-American recounts harassment and discrimination during trip to Israel/Palestine
    • I remember things people said to me as early as age 5, I'm 20 years older than that now. And those conversations I recall aren't even emotionally scarring.

      Regardless of if it's Jewish, Palestinian or Ugandan life, this kind of smug sarcasm in response to someone's account of a traumatizing memory would always be equally tasteless.

  • Anthony Weiner spoke at 1993 anti-Rabin rally where participants called for Israel PM's assassination
    • "Between you and Mandela, I’ll take Mandela."

      I sincerely hope you would.

    • The American right-wing are once again firmly caught up in the ultimate race to the rhetorical bottom. People love hearing someone else fume, spew and hate, especially if they're being flattered by the side. It's become an industry, and there's too much money to be made with it and attention to be had for it to stop anytime soon. It's also a copy/paste of the American-brand of anti-Jewish demagogy of the earlier 20th century.

      I don't so much believe demagogues like Weiner are pro-Zionist per-se as much as they are the kind of people who are, in every era, to be found among the ranks of overt racists and mind polluting demagogues, rallying against whatever scapegoat du-jour happens to be lying around, and mixing half (or quarter)-truths with blatant lies and heating the stew up to boiling temperature to achieve a strong emotional effect in their target audience, which is what I believe they actually get off on. Sort of like a television salesperson who isn't hyped about the product he's screaming at you about, but about the fact thousands are seeing his face and hearing his voice.

    • Exactly. Further, it bothers me that Mandela speaks so highly of Rabin, too. Outtake from Mandela's 1997 address at the international day of solidarity with the Palestinian people:

      "I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to these Palestinian and Israeli leaders. In particular, we pay homage to the memory of Yitshak Rabin who paid the supreme sacrifice in pursuit of peace."

      One needn't look further than Wikipedia to gain some insights into Rabin's revolting antics.

  • Bil'in protesters oppose a 'horrible, horrible wrong' -- Michael Moore
    • It can still be brought up, though, and easily verified. As can the stories of Israeli journalists who have been fired or even banned from Israel for their critical tone, and that of Jewish authors who were banned from speaking there. (I'm only mentioning the fairly petty reverse end of the "regime" here, as it affects Jews, because some people's brains shut off immediately unless you start with the plight of the ethnicity 'they actually care about'.)

      Also, why leave it to Moore? Mondoweiss('ers) should crowdfund a movie, or something. Enough places to start gathering donations for that, and even though I'm typically either broke or buying non-shit food on the occasion that I'm not, I'll tip something towards it. Once something's rolling, one could always try contacting celebs, such as Moore to contribute, at least as a talking head.

  • Terror lurking in a Christmas tree? Israel tries to ban non-Jewish celebrations
    • One which immediately comes to mind is, as it almost always is, that of spin. Given America's tight involvement with Israel, and the fact a Christian country is funding it with 3bn a year and a heap of weapons, the story that this country, which is of such close interest to an overwhelmingly Christian America, is in fact, too, waging a war against Christmas is - and you can trust me on this - a whopper of a news story. It's guaranteed to create emotional heat. Anyone looking for a large readership would put this on page 1 with a dramatic headline (you know, the same dramatic headlines they give Arabs / Arab countries. "Religious leaders all over Israel wage a war against Christmas!" Put that on Fox news.) And that's exactly why you don't see it published in any mainstream news outlet. People might *gasp* re-examine Israel! The Zio lobby can't let that happen now, can it. The fact that whatever story they may be running doesn't exactly flatter Muslims / Arabs however, is a factor that is seldom to never considered. Hence, the "war on Christmas" crowd in America (composed almost exclusively of Christian Republicans) will highly likely not add the Israeli Christmas affair to their doubtless extensive list of the "many occasions of war against Christmas", while they should in reality do just that, being the 'unfatiguable' trackers of opposition against Christmas that they are.
      It's really just the spin I have a problem with, as I always do. Judging by the sheer amount of negative press Arabs have been getting, you'd think that every single piece of dirt on offer has not only been back swept out from whatever carpet it may or may not have been lurking beneath, but that every last bit of it meticulously collected from the floor, and presented in a lime light with dramatic headlines, over a stretch of years and years, in every mainstream publication imaginable. Not so with the misdoings of Jews.
      I have no problems whatsoever with that crackpot of an Imam receiving flak for his stupid fatwa, I have a problem with the 'two measures' system, and don't see why the general public, obviously in possession of such impeccably high morality, should not also be served the sober truth in all its rancid glory what concerns Israel. The simple fact that people still believe it to be a democracy, despite the fact that its laws and actions clearly violate this definition shows the amount of catch-up which still needs to be done. The fact that the vast majority of Americans aren't aware of Israel's recent history enough to know just what the hell the Nakba is, but know the names of the topAfghani muhajjedin by heart shows this, too. I mean, sure, many Arab countries aren't democracies either, but last I checked, the west wasn't pretending that they are. In fact, they themselves don't even pretend that they are. And I like to think we are now sufficiently informed of the sins of the middle-east. Minus those of that small country in the Levant, of course.
      Spin, boy. That's the difference.

  • Merkel squirms during Netanyahu's love song to 'special relationship'
    • “I want to take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that I have no doubt whatsoever about the depth of your commitment to Israel’s security and to the well-being of the Jewish state.”

      I love the underhanded commanding tone apparent in his declaration of love, Bibi should consider having that patented. If he expands on that, it could become something akin to the Edgar Wallace' Plot Wheel, Bibi potboiler edition.
      At any rate, he has little to fear from Merkel.

  • For Lena Dunham, Palestine is invisible
    • Citizen, thanks a lot for all those recs. Living in a small country in Europe, I don't have access to any of the channels those play on I don't think, and a quick look through the local TV program doesn't yield any results, but I'll find a way to procure some of them, anyhow.
      I'm not familiar with Russian Dolls, so I'm not sure which I favor, but I'll give Shahs of Sunset a rip, and work my way through the list when time permits. Thanks again.
      Unfortunately, I can't return the favor with any recommendations, all the 'homebrew' shows over here are forgettable, and we only get the major imports e.g. House.

    • If she was really ignorant of the situation and didn't actually chose to omit it purposefully in favor of conveying her own bias, then I have trouble believing that she's curious, like she says she is. I suppose she's 'curious' in the same way a hipster may say they're into Jazz, a.k.a. hoping nobody will ever put their false claim to the test, and subsequently point to the fact that for someone who makes a claim such as that, their research into even something so immediate as a field of relevant interest is somewhere between non-existent and abysmal.

      And like some others have said, I had no idea who she is, or indeed what that show is all about. I don't watch TV, and this article has all but encouraged me in my continuous endeavor to avoid it.

  • How the settler vote is driving Israeli politics more and more rightward
    • Damn, you're right of course, totally forgot that, sorry. However,

      "Throughout his presidential campaign, Hollande never criticized Israel and overall presented a balanced stance, while his goal was to avoid upsetting anyone. (...) I intend on visiting Israel soon after I win the elections," said Hollande in an interview with a French Jewish news website about a week ago. He promised to fight an all out war against anti-Semitism in France, made it clear that he opposed any form of boycotting Israel, avoided repetitive remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and focused on the Iranian issue instead. "We must be intransigent when it comes to Iran, whose nuclear program is a danger to Israel..."


    • No... To go back to seanmcbride's statement, I don't see how the EU is in any way, shape or form moving away from the US line. That would essentially involve Sarkozy and Merkel, and that's not happening. (As mentioned earlier, Merkel is Europe's Clinton and Sarko's a right-wing nut)
      As for Scandinavia, they don't influence EU policy enough to have much if any effect, and as progressive as a lot of their citizens may be, they're certainly not politically outspoken to any relevant degree. The third dominant force is the UK, and we all know their official stance on the matter (definitely Zionist).

      Ergo, no European force that actually matters are considering either a move away from the States (in fact, the UK is likely moving closer to the States, due to recent contemplation concerning the exit out of the EU, which signalizes further distancing from EU policy.) Most of those who don't matter aren't either, btw.

    • Some pictures of the aforementioned "game", it's quite revolting.

      Translation: "bye-bye mosque"

      There was some kind of introductory text to it I no longer find, perhaps it's for the best. I've just eaten.

    • "But my impression is that the European natives are growing restless and may start pushing back hard. ... And they don’t as a rule display sustained passivity in world affairs — particularly when they are being verbally abused on a regular basis by people who presume that they are their masters."

      Maybe I don't understand just what in particular you're referring to, but I'm not seeing it at all. I'm seeing the european right-wing (From Belgium over Germany to Poland and beyond) resembling the tea party more by the year, and gaining popularity. America has been more than successful at exporting Islamophobia, and Europeans are continuously ignoring any real discussion on Israel. Far right demagogues such as Thilo Sarrazin, Geert Wilders and consorts are not only gaining popularity, but indeed every European government I know of are - far as I can see it - under the thumb of various Zionist lobbies. Politically, the EU is a joke, a union of banks which naturally, are all looking over to America to tell them which step to take next. I haven't seen any meaningful discussion on independence from America, in fact, I've seen no such discussion at all taking place on a meaningful level. Every single european left-wing newspaper that I've read thusfar will censor you for so much as using the word "Jew" in your comment, if your comment is even only vaguely critical, it's a complete joke. Local newspapers titled the recent event of a Palestinian being shot by Israelis as "Arab attacker killed", and blatant Zionists like Paul Lendvai are given regular columns in popular left-wing papers. Merkel takes a pro-Israel stance in her speeches which rivals Mrs. Clintons, and I don't think I have to say much about France. (Only reason they're quieter than other countries is because they have a considerable Arab population).
      There was recent outrage over an allegedly anti-semitic cartoon published by our right-wing party, which promptly blew up to epic proportions and involved heavy protests by our local Zio lobby, while the same party has previously, and for years, published far more offensive stuff targeting Muslims (one such incident was a game they coded, your task was to shoot Muezzins from their mosques - though in all fairness, this was a scandal too) in their 'comics' with far less outcry.
      Even our prominent feminists seem to have turned solely to examining the 'many ways in which Arabs abuse their wives'.
      Politically, from what I know the EU is certainly moving closer to America, and there's a lot of "in it together" stuff going on.
      No, I'm just not seeing it.

    • "From which one must conclude that Jewish religious Zionists are substantially dominating and running the settlements movement, the Israeli government and the American government."

      You forgot step 6.) The American political system has a large impact on European decision making, too. Bizarre how in a way, someone who immigrated to Israel from some Eastern European ghetto may well have a larger impact on European politics through their Israeli vote than they ever had back home in Europe.

      Ever noticed how Jews theoretically get more voting power over gentiles? Technically, I could vote in my home country, then immigrate to Israel, getting automatic citizenship, vote there, thereafter apply for and be automatically granted citizenship in the U.S. (wielding a dual citizenship Israel & U.S., though I'd have to drop my first one) on counts of being a Jewish Israeli citizen, and vote in the States too. Watch out world, here I come... Green parties all over are surely tingling in anticipation, now.

    • I'm starting to like Bibi and the settler crowd, mostly for setting the 'Jewish State' on a destruction course that 20 moderate / left-wing governments couldn't have achieved in ten times the time. I truly believe he - and any subsequent right-wing crackpot - accelerates the inevitable - the deconstruction of whatever moderate facade Israel has paid billions to uphold, and eventually, the deconstruction of its viability as a Jewish state. Thank G-d. And now that the 2SS is all but dead, the only viable option for peace is also the most just one - a bi-national state with equal rights for all, something I hope the west is going to start seriously pushing in the medium-term. It's also the most natural outcome considering Palestinian vs. Jewish population growth.
      I don't dare to think what a further shift to the right would mean for the Palestinians and any grassroots peace efforts over the short term (I really didn't think that this was still possible, thought the fascism express was already chugging along at full-steam...), but however painful it is, I hope the wheels that Bibi and the increasing political power of the settlers have set in motion will eventually block their own machine, to the extent of blowing up and showing the world their true foul substance once and for all. I believe that the West is going to start seriously considering a bi-national solution, and I believe that Israel will be put under increasing pressure the longer it refuses to consider this - pressing - subject. Why is it becoming pressing? We have nobody but Bibi to thank for that. Without him, people would still be flirting with the 2SS, and expecting the Palestinians to settle for a fraction of the land they once called their own, as well as forcing many of them to live displaced from their initial region of origin. Also, I have a feeling Israel would have gotten away turning the 2SS Palestinian enclaves into little Gaza 2.0's, anyway.

  • Jonathan Cook on liberal Zionism
    • I see, thanks, goes to show you learn something new every day. I'm familiar with the term pilpul only through my religious studies, the PEP threw me off, though now I vaguely understand what's implied. Not sure if you're old enough to answer that question, but could you spare a moment to tell someone born in the late 80's around what time amphetamine was called PEP? Sounds 70's to me, along with rad and groovy. :,)

    • Mooser, what are PEP pilpuls, and why so complicated? A severe blow to the head probably has that effect, too.

    • Of course there is no such thing as liberal Zionism (if there is, I have yet to see it in action). It's a 'entry drug', a rhetorical department of Zionism, similarly to the way 'male right activists' use the few examples they are of male discrimination in the Western world to wean you into their cesspit of misogyny.

  • Help keep Mondoweiss strong -- Please give to our end of year fundraising drive today
    • "have had my basic assumptions regularly challenged and also re-confirmed."

      Care to outline what these basic assumptions are, and how they were re-confirmed?

  • Several mainstream publications say the two-state solution is dead
  • It's time for the media to talk about Zionism
    • "I didn’t know Muslims smoked pot"
      According to a recent article in a local newspaper, Afghan forces estimate that around 1 in 10 Afghans are addicted to heroin. So apparently, they do harder stuff, too.

      I don't know if you've ever been to a Muslim country, but I can assure you that they drink quite a bit of alcohol, too. Never visited a house without a minibar, though I'll admit, I haven't popped my head into *every* household. ;)

  • Journalist teaches students to join no party and sign no petitions for any cause -- oh except one
    • seafoid -- You were probably talking to Keith, but may I ask you to write a review on amazon once you're finished with it? Looks like an interesting book, I'm trying to find out if it's worth adding to my studies reading list (I'm studying sociology).

    • "When one has been conditioned to see oneself as a victim of the ‘other,’ any sort of critical analysis by the ‘other’ is easily seen as a justification for perceived past abuse, and perhaps as a prelude to future abuse."

      That's spot-on, and describes very well my own emotional experiences and what I had to overcome when I started moving away from Zionism, though I did eventually learn to hate it with quite a passion, mostly for the fear the ideology is continuing to instill in people it pretends to want to protect. I don't remember a time in which my parents have not been nervous people, and it wasn't until I was much older that I started to understand why they were constantly looking for signs of their downfall, it hurts me that the irrational fears they have are preventing them from living the life they should be living - a life as happy people in a safe and peaceful country. I think the only reason why I managed the emotional move away from the ideology so well is because I never understood the base of their fear, I just simply never saw it around me like they seemed to, I doubt any amount of logic would have done the trick if I actually had, hence my skepticism concerning the persuasive effect of logic.
      I'm past believing that this kind of conditioning ever really leaves, it's like it leaves a scar which never heals, something so impossible to overcome, the logic necessary to fight it stands no chance against the behemoth of innate emotional responses, which instantly flatten it. I'm not far away from saying that fear of the Other is the only self-definition some Jews have left. Fearing the potential damage done to oneself by 'the Other' whilst simultaneously being consumed by ones own fear is not unlike fearing the splinter in the eye for the stake through the heart.

      "Different dress, different customs, ghettoized housing and mentality"

      Your run-down reminded me a lot of Batnitzky's book "How Judaism Became a Religion". On a similar note, have you ever read Meyrink's "The Golem"?

    • Very well said, you write very well, I always enjoy reading your posts.
      This kind of behavior breeds anti-semitism at rates which would shame neo-nazis, and one would have to be deliberately obtuse not to see it, especially in the face of such intense persecution paranoia. (And honestly, repeating the "we were all persecuted since our inception" mantra doesn't make it any truer, and goes to show how easy it is for some to forget generations of peace, if there's a juicy opportunity to capitalize off those generations of persecution..) And why do they believe that they have any form of right over others because of it, especially in the face of the fact that many others have also suffered through thousands of years of subordination and persecution?

      Many groups haven't been treated well throughout history, some groups have been, and are continually being treated far worse - Women, the disabled, political dissidents... none of these groups have made their former plight a billion-dollar industry, and keep repeating tales of their persecution ad-nauseum to anyone who would so much think a negative thought their way, let alone expect politicians around the world to shower them in reparations and support rogue states. There was a point in time (not sure if this idea is still around) among radical feminists, in which they called for some fashion of 'country for women', deeply entrenched in the belief that only segregation could truly end exploitation and persecution by males. Something similar may even still be held by some fringe Deaf activists. Only difference between them and the Zios is that they didn't get their fantasy pandered to and supported with billions a year in arms and money, and they don't have all governments in the western world backpedalling the moment they burp a out a criticism of something that has turned into a colonial and racist freakfest.

  • UC Berkeley's new chancellor disavows Columbia divestment petition his name was on
    • It's hilarious how the guy backpedals a whole decade later.

      "Truth is, I do not support divestment as a strategy for the university."

      Does this mean that he also does not support divestment where this concerns art and assets robbed from the Jews during WW2? Answer directly to your local Jewish lobby please, chancellor.

      I think I know now why Roland fights in Berkeley ;)

      "Now it's ten years later but he still keeps up the fight
      In Ireland, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Berkeley..."

  • Israel responds to UN vote by approving 3,000 new settlement units and plans to build in strategic West Bank corridor
    • "latest Israeli settlements are just apartments, which will be given to the natives"

      Ah, I get it. So basically, there was a common consensus among all the affected Palestinians on this land to all have their homes razed and re-built by the Israelis because, you know, they were all starting to need a makeover, and Israel was kind enough to oblige and build them all brand spanking new apartments.
      And what Bibi really meant was that he's building these newest settlements *cough* "apartments"... because Obama didn't negotiate with Europe enough against the upgrade in P status at the U.N., so in other words, he's decided to build all the wonderful Palestinians new homes, because he's so frustrated with the fact that things went so well for them at the U.N.

      Yup, all of this checks out, no problem there whatsoever. Move on, nothing to see here...

  • On crossing cultures as a western visitor to Palestine
  • Exile and the Prophetic: What kind of future does empire and isolation hold for Jews in Israel and beyond?
    • In addition to the factors mentioned in the article, there's several more which point to an increasing decline in Israel's importance and support. They've been trying and largely failing to garner support for their cause in Asia, probably because the Asians aren't wracked with collective guilt over the Shoah like the west is, then there's the cultural / ethnic divide too, their lore doesn't attribute any importance to the holy land.
      The economy is another factor. I believe Israel has been able to feed off the tolerance and money of the west mostly because the latter part of the 20th century has been fairly golden in comparison with what came before, and the situation we are faced with presently. The persistent economical crisis forces many to look inward, and I doubt it's as easy today as it was twenty years ago to persuade even the average american that feeding a foreign country billions of dollars a year instead of, you know, making sure the infrastructure doesn't degrade into something you'd expect to find in the heart of Africa, is a spanking idea. That and more people in the West take a critical stance on Israel and are starting to debate things they weren't before. (Hell, wasn't it this rad thing to do in the 60's and 70's to fly over to Israel and try to outdo one another at Kibbutz-building?) Nowadays, sticking "boycott Israel" stickers all over town seems to be the favored activity among left-wing activists, at least where I'm from. (I'm aware of the fact that this is not so in the U.S., then again, the American conception of "left wing" has always startled me, over here the American democrats would be labelled centrists at best.)

      America too isn't the 'superpower' it once was, and will almost certainly further decline in importance as time goes by. I'm pretty sure they'll heavily cut their Israel-funding, too, at some stage. They simply can't afford to go on like this forever. Taking all that into consideration, and the exponential growth of the Palestinian population, the fact that, as the article points out, Asia is shifting into view and the middle-east is increasingly taking up a position by the wayside, I'd say Israel cannot afford to continue this way for much longer. I'm skeptical of the fact that they'll decide to communicate vulnerability, the way I know them they're more likely to pull a Moshe Dayan and "go down with a bang™".

      Here's another consideration: The west will and cannot (oil reserves are definite) continue buying oil off middle-eastern countries. The oil-rich countries have a hold over the U.S. All they need to do is refuse to be paid in U.S. dollars and be too big to rape, or decide that selling the reserves they do have exclusively to e.g.China suits them better, and their reason for playing nice are all but eradicated. What will happen once the reserves run dry completely, or some awesome new fuel finally manages to take the upper hand, for purely economical reasons (e.g. much cheaper). The oil lobby won't be able to resist this change forever. Then there's common consensus that America can't afford another war. Which ever way you look at it, independence will hurt the ME far less than it will the U.S.
      The oil will run out someday, every empire collapses sometime, and somewhere in the middle of all of that, there'll be a big bang in the Levant, and when that day comes, I hope we'll all be too busy doing something else to care.

  • If Hillel rejects nonviolent resistance to the occupation, what does it propose in its place?
    • There's an impressive amount of anti-Americanism among the settler crowd, clear for all to see on the various settler-news outlets, some seem to believe that American involvement with Israel has a lot to do with Christian lore and some desire to lay claims of their own to the region for religious reasons. I'm not surprised why this facet isn't illuminated in the American media. There's this "good, help us sweep the Palestinians out the way, then eff off" thing going on.
      Roi sounds like your standard, run of the mill IDF Zio, what were you expecting? Also pretty reflective of the general arrogance around. After all, they didn't need the U.N. either, after they got 'their' land, if they can abandon mommy, what would make them think that they need daddy? It's hardly a revelation.

  • Israel considers racially-segregated bus lines in West Bank
    • "50 years from now, it will be a meaningless term."

      I sincerely hope so, though made up things do have a disturbingly extensive history of overstaying their welcome...

    • "“Race” is not biological."
      "racism includes discrimination against ethnicities too."

      I disagree wholeheartedly. Yes, some people may use the term to denote ethnic differences too, officially though, the term is disputed and most often used to mean just what it says on the box.

      Oxford dictionary:
      "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:"

      There's the wikipedia article too with some decent references.

      It is indisputable that a significant amount of people are gonna pick up "racism" as meaning "racial characteristics / genetic differences" and using a controversial term when one could be using the term "ethnically" and getting it over with is in my view, still a weak choice.

    • Page: 1
    • Also, since when are either the Palestinians or the Israeli Jews a race? Wouldn't "ethnically segregated" have been the better choice of vocabulary?

    • Times like these I wish Rosa Parks was still around to weigh in on the matter...

  • A binational state is actually a compromise -- ask Derrida
    • Mainstream phenomena have gone the way of the fringe within a remarkably short period of time before (racism, overt misogyny), provided enough intent is there. I hope that Israel will eventually find itself in a position that necessitates adopting such intent. History shows us that populations are fairly easily turned once circumstances change, so I, at least am optimistic that once Israel's current state permutes and favors a bi-national state approach, its population will change to adapt. Once there is a consensus (and there has to be for a bi-national state to even be considered) that Zionism is unhealthy for the continued existence of this new idea, Zionism too will go the way of all ideas before it, which were deemed counter-productive to a prosperous society somewhere along their timeline. Low down: Once Israel finds itself faced with no other viable alternatives but a bi-national state and finally lets go of the Jewish nation idea, it will (have to) fight against Zionism as ferociously as it's been breeding it these past decades.
      I'm more worried if such a circumstance will ever befall Israel, though hey, it might, if the Palestinians don't fall too heavily in love with the two-state solution, thereby paving the way for negotiations (I mean once Israel is in a position in which it seriously has to negotiate, it obviously isn't presently...) towards a 2SS, something Israel would obviously favor over letting go of their almighty Jewish state. I'm worried that once Israel starts flailing (and it will at some point), the Palestinians will jump at the opportunity to settle for less than they deserve, and somehow end up shooting themselves in the knee. (And yes, I consider the 2SS a first-class knee-shot.)

  • Avnery-- leftist, and 89-- warns of the 'natural increase' of Arabs threatening Jewish majority
    • "‘natural increase’ of Arabs threatening Jewish majority"

      Never mind Israel, just hold your hand out and go beg the U.S. for the money to fund a ginormous artificial island, to be built right out into the ocean. (I know you have plans for that lying around) don't let the fact that you'd be building your Israel-extension into international waters bother you, that just means waters that don't belong to you yet, easily changed, run a campaign titled "the Island G-d promised us", or something along those lines, I'm sure red-faced republican racists are glad to open their diminishing wallets and fork over whatever they can afford to give, after all, you're G-d's chosen, and enough of them are already volunteering for your military service. Maybe they'll even help build it?
      If it gets really bad, there's always the Nakba 2.0 option, worked the first time, right?

      I find it telling that Avnery would warn of this in the first place, if he was half as pro-Palestinian as he likes to pretend he is, he'd be breaking out into jubilation at this realization. In fact, I'd expect to find a similar statement printed on a leaflet placed inside the home of a newly arrived settler family. "Remember to be fruitful and multiply, lest those stinkin' Arabs outdo us. Have a nice day. p.s. You'll find your Kalashnikov under the right side of the mattress and bullets under the pillows."

  • Stevie Wonder, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Marco Rubio -- all pony up for Israel
    • Oh brother. That depresses me too, actually. I was never much for Stevie Wonder, but Leonard Cohen was definitely part of my repertoire. Stopped listening to him a few years ago when I grew out of my teens, but I still remember his tracks being regulars to my stereo back when I first became politically interested.
      And hey, if Don Van Vliet happens to have supported Israel, I'd kindly appreciate if you didn't mention it, it would almost certainly unmake my day.

  • Anne-Marie Slaughter doesn't know what hasbara is
  • How Israelis imagine their future
    • I doubt it's a tattoo because it looks fresh / wet, and there's no reddening around the sides. Though, if it was a tattoo that would be hilarious. Just imagine how shriveled and prune-ish it will look once the lady gives birth... also if you squint and fuzz out the text, you can easily pretend that it's baby Shepard wrapped in a blanket adorned with an U.F.O., dreaming of his future among the stars. The only part I don't get is why he's sleeping in a large puddle of diarrhea.

  • Washington Post defends picture of dead Gaza child after complaints from 'Jews in large numbers'
    • "Even when gentile critics are not explicitly attacked, audiences are prone to question their motives. Not so with Jewish critics. a sad but true situation."

      Oh definitely, on the other hand at least what concerns I / P, the right-wing have been considering this for ages. The louder you scream, the louder they scream "self-hater! betrayer of your own peoples!" right back at you. It's been going on forever, both from Jewish and gentiles alike. For many of them, Zionism quite literally *is* Judaism, and there's little room to maneuver outside of it without being pushed off the edge of the boat altogether. Not only does that put immense personal pressure on those willing to publicly speak out, but they also risk their initial rhetorical advantage being shot down and nullified in an instant by the hyper-efficient zio sentry guards which are no more forgiving towards a wayward Jew than they are towards a non-Zio gentile.
      In order to get a majority of Jewish Israel critics to speak out, one would probably need to dismantle the repercussions for doing so in the first place, starting with wide-spread dialogue on Zionism and Judaism as separate, or at least separable entities, and even that is a flaming-hot taboo as of yet. We're up against the history re-written by a billion-dollar industry, and the task seems daunting.
      I'd go so far as to say we rely on gentiles to make this happen for us, force us into a dialogue on Judaism and Zionism, make it acceptable for us to consider the possibility of the two being separable out-loud, so we have an excuse to open our mouths on the subject without risking being alienated or all but banished from our own communities. Sounds ridiculous, but it really isn't, at least not in my community, where the pecking order most definitely is hyper-zio (gets to talk all the time and reap in the rep) > zio (gets to agree and throw in his or her own points every now and again) > zio but critical (gets to talk sometimes) > non-zio (gets to roll their eyes at you to signify intent, mouth always zipped, and where talk does take place, the punishment for the dissent is something like eternal virginity). I'm beginning to see us as victims of our own construct, if we dwell beneath its mighty weight in silence, we get to live on, if we move, it crushes us immediately. Maybe we need others to free ourselves from our own entrapment, clear the heavy stuff out the way so we can work out the nitty-gritty while being able to breathe.
      On the other hand, lying beneath that construct does have its enlightening sides, you learn a thing or two about the much touted 'Jewish solidarity'. (Huge reward issued to whomever finds it and retrieves it!)

  • Exile and the Prophetic: Benjamin Netanyahu's self-constructed hologram
    • I've met quite a few Israelis who actually speak of Israel being in the "Mediterranean", refusing stoutly to use the term 'middle-east'. And of course, it's in Europe too, apparently (as evidenced by the fact that the Israelis play in the European leagues for some bizarre reason).
      Just please Brussels, don't admit them into the EU formally, or we're gonna have to pay for them next. (Thankfully that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon, since Israel are too busy being posing as the 51st U.S. state...)

  • Two days after ceasefire Israel kills Palestinian man in Khan Younis
    • "Why would Palestinians try to cross into Israeli territory when they know they will be killed?"

      Because the department of hasbara says so, now stop asking questions and believe it.

  • Who is Goliath?
    • "he’s decided to blame Iran!"

      Wait, that's even funnier.

      "is there anything Iran cannot be blamed for?"

      I'm pretty sure the measles are Saudi Arabia's fault...

    • " But if you favor some compromise between the Zionist Jewish Israelis and the Palestinians living in Gaza, then Hamas is definitely part of the issue."

      Aside from the obvious question why anyone within a 100-mile radius of moral justice would even step forward to bargain with Zionist Jewish Israelis in the first place, let me tell you that it is decidedly *not* about Hamas. The Hamas are but one name given to the menacing shadow on the wall that the Israeli, eternally shackled to the walls of a murky cave in his own mind, fear.

      If you don't see how the eternal idea of the "hostile other" is a convenient means with which to achieve an end that has already been planned and written (the fact that it was never in Israel's intentions to stick to any of the borders imposed on it by the international community in the first place, for example, and the fact that Israel would always have been indifferent to what amount of suffering the Palestinians go through as a result of Israel's actions), then I think you're missing something here, and if you think that compromise is something that Israel was ever seriously considering, with or without Hamas, you're absolutely deluded. As long as Israel doesn't have to compromise to get rewarded with money, weapons and support from the West, it won't compromise. Indeed a continued 'war' with Hamas has been running in Israel's favor. Look at that juicy nuclear arsenal it's managed to build up by convincing the world that homemade rockets are a viable threat. The Mouse won't stop pressing that lever either, as long as goodies tumble down at every press. Or do you seriously believe that those couple of hundred dead Israelis in all these years are enough to finesse Israel away from its expansionist fantasies? Do you honestly believe that your own leaders (I'm assuming you're Israeli, if you're not, I apologize) care a dime for your life, or see you as any more than collateral damage waiting to happen, in the process of the fulfillment of something that has become a pathological fantasy, and has broken down into naught other but a power game?

      Are you seriously blaming Hamas for the fact that Palestinians don't have the justice they deserve yet? How about the fact that Israel has committed overwhelming atrocities that predate Hamas, which lead to its formation in the first place? Hamas is a 'monster' Israel has created as a result of its own actions. Hamas are neither a side-effect, nor a cause, or an end. Of course, I don't expect people to work the chicken-egg equation with any clarity, not after generations of brainwash and hysteria.

  • Thanksgiving fodder: 'You should fight about Israel'
    • Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Not too thrilled with it, but her geometric-ish art makes for a pleasing viewing experience. :,)
      I'm loving this one, though:

    • "the Israeli’s and the Americans know if they can turn Palestinians back into just Arabs"

      Hmm.. so do most Mondoweiss posters... to my knowledge almost everyone I've seen post here uses the terms "Palestinian" and "Arab" interchangeably (I'm guilty of this once or twice myself, to my shame), nevermind if a significant number of them (I remember reading it being close to 50% of the Palestinians) don't even self-identify as "Arab", nevermind if their backgrounds are interesting and diverse, nevermind that Palestine has been a melting-pot throughout much of history, nevermind that a substantial amount of Palestinians have hundreds or even thousands of years of Christian and Jewish ancestry, (of those I'm in contact with one mentioned a personal interest in Greek culture because of his extensive Greek ancestry, another one got brought up with 2 religions, one for the public, and one for their home) and an unknown amount of them (but it's not uncommon) can still remember having Jewish great-grandparents. I'm not seeing anyone appreciate these (and more) facets when talking about the Palestinians, and that alone also plays into the hands of the Zio freaks who would love nothing more but to paint them all as "Arabs who moved in to occupy Jewish land, and are now squatting there and pretending it was theirs all along" (a surprisingly wide-spread notion among conservative Zio-sympathizers, at least on some message boards I've had the misfortune of gracing)
      I strongly suspect that most discussing this conflict are overwhelmingly (perhaps even solely) interested in the blemish Judaism is taking as a result of Zionist thought in action, or on the negative effect that the U.S. - Israel bond is having on U.S. spending and foreign policy. That and the third group I've identified here are activists who happen to care because they see people are being wronged here. Have yet to see anyone actually give an active damn about what their history is and how it is attempted to be re-written or eradicated by either Israel or Arabs themselves. (I recall a funny book by written by some Wahabi crackpot about the "History of the Palestinian People", most all of what's written in there is ludicrous and so esoteric, it's not even funny. I don't recall the guy being Palestinian, either, though I still smile recalling the friend who lent me the book with a wink. Wish I could find it again, so I could share some quotes.)

      How is this important? I feel that it is, seeing as how Palestinian history has become a matter of political opinion and / or agenda, rather than focusing on historical accuracy. (And if we can all get upset about Zionists re-writing Jewish history in favor of making believe it's been about Zionism all along, and distorting the reasons many Jews had for leaving Eretz-Israel back in the day... we can also discuss in which ways Palestinian history is being re-written.)
      By keeping their history and diversity in mind, we're fighting against the spread of misinformation around, and we're fighting against the "they're one monolithic mass" notion, this is, in my opinion, especially important where the subject of debate is shifting from "what's being done to them" to "who they are and why they're evil". To understand anything, you need to know and consider its history any any resulting diversity, and the same applies here.

      And while we're talking about personal motivations, yes, the "damage to Judaism" aspect disturbs me most personally, too. As time went by however I learnt to care about the negative effect it's having on the U.S. (I'm not a U.S. citizen) and the damage it's doing to Palestinians (both the physical aspects of the injustice - Nakba, apartheid, terrorism etc., as also the damage Israel AND other parties, well-meaning or not, are doing to Palestinians in different ways, and yes, also the damage some Palestinians may be inflicting upon each other) enough to deem it important that none of these aspects and facets become neglected in I / P discourse.

  • Note to Rudoren: Palestinians love their children and want them to live just like the rest of us
    • You know, even IF all those wild claims of immorality, moral corruption and religious zealotry on the part of the Palestinians were true (here's a hint, they largely aren't), WHY the hell are people discussing this at all in the face of everything that's happened in the past 80 years?? Just the fact that this is up for discussion at all to the extent of blotting out everythign else shows the full extent of the zionist domination of I/P discourse.

      People should be discussing
      1.) The events that lead up to the promising of land to the Jews by people who had no right to give it away.
      2.) The eviction of hundreds of thousands from their home
      3.) To what extent Israel qualifies as a democracy with its current laws / "moral police" system
      4.) How these injustices can be corrected (protip: quickest way to stop Palestinian terror on civilians)
      5.) Discussions taking into consideration that maybe, just maybe the above has more to do with what Palestinian terror there is than:

      What people are discussing:
      1.) If or not Mr. and Mrs. Palestinian mommy and daddy lubb their child enough
      2.) Who provoked whom into the latest bombing spree
      4.) The latest home-brew rocket to be intercepted on Israeli soil
      5.) Lots and lots of discussion over Islam as a religion and how much it influences Hamas-terror (you know, because Christians and Jews would never, ever fight back if what happened to the Palestinians had happened to them, oh no. Ten to one they'd actually be ENCOURAGED to fight back and be fed weapons by the west faster than a junkie pops pills)

      THAT is what's bothering me most. Myopic BS and peripheral fluff as well as one sidetrack after another melds together into one large smokescreen to keep people talking about everything but what's actually relevant, anything to keep people from stepping back and seeing the large picture, anything to keep people from coming up with the ludicrous notion that just maybe, giving the Palestinians actual justice may help alleviate the terror, anything to keep on blaming religion on terror thus creating the implication that peace and justice "wouldn't solve anything anyway".
      And hordes of people are buying into this BS, both liberal and conservative, progressive or otherwise. It's maddening. Isn't anyone partial to actually LEARNING HISTORY anymore, and putting injustice into fair context??

    • "And what is really frightening is that neither she nor her defenders nor employer — the paper of record — recognize it."

      It's not about what's happening, it's who it's happening to. If the zios can convince us that the Palestinians are indeed religious fanatics who care nothing about their own dead, and have the emotional depth and the moral polarity of a piece of toast, then they no longer need to find a way to conceal or defend what they're doing to them. ("If they don't care about their dead, why should we"?) It's only one step short of likening them to vermin, something the Israeli's have already done.

      Unfortunately, judging by the amount of idiots who post nonsense like "they staple their wives to fences to protect themselves, that's all I need to know" in various message boards around the internet, they're succeeding. After all, if you can manage to evoke negative emotional responses, who needs facts, proof or anything else.

      It's the kind of wash I'd expect a settler rag like Arutz Sheva to put up online in the "impartial observations by totally impartial people" section, it lacks the intelligence, analytic qualities and pretty much everything else to make it into the NYT. This isn't journalism, it's something Goebbels would have been proud of.

  • NYT's Rudoren: Gaza funeral 'didn't feel incredibly human to me'
    • "you don’t think she would be able to downplay these things"

      Of course she'd downplay these things, (as she *has* been by blatantly ignoring them). I'm not saying she'd engage in fair reporting at all, I was attempting to mock her fake impartiality.
      Ten to one she'd recount how many IDF soldiers had pictures of their family taped to their locker, then get sidetracked and give us an anecdote over how an Israeli Jewish kid was late for school because he lost his homework the other day.
      Put her in an Arab locker room and she'd be counting the Korans and keeping a tally of Allah Hu Akbars. :,)

    • I love how she almost seems proud of her ignorance, the way she hints at it all the time. While she's in her "everywoman" role, why doesn't she sit by the discussion had in the IDF quarters after the news has spread that tens, if not hundreds of Palestinians have died due to Israeli forces, I'm sure she'll find the "gut-wrenching terror over the news of death" and a 'full appreciation of human tragedy' there... not. Maybe someone ought to tell her of Israeli reactions to the 9/11 bombings? And maybe she'd like to visit the settlers, or talk to a family who are standing by the curb of their new home with their luggage, while its Palestinian owners are barely done being manhandled out the back door? Tons of victim mourning going on there...

      The fact she leaves any attempt of analysis completely by the wayside in an increadibly painful faux-attempt to seem less biased actually makes her seem all the more biased. (Mostly because every form of analysis would go more towards painting a nasty picture of Israel than it would of Palestinians...)Everyone, everywoman or everyman, would set out to find answers to these, I would imagine quite immediate questions pertaining to customs and the wider picture, and counter-balance that with some sober observations about Israeli behaviour. This is the kind of "impartial reporting" the zios are more than happy to re-print. That fact alone tells us all we need to know about it.

      In general though, the strategy of it all doesn't surprise me in the least bit. If you can no longer hide the fact that innocent civilians are dying, you might as well paint them as brutes with a death wish, so foreign and alienating their death cannot be seen as a tragedy to anyone with "heart in the right spot". It's the same old victim-blaming routine that's been going on for ages now, each permutation as bad as the previous.
      That aside, I suppose the countless pictures / videos / accounts of Palestinians mourning their losses in tears and through pained howls have passed her by completely. Or if they haven't, she's obviously "too impartial" to mention those in her superficial analysis. Durr.

  • Abbas: Israel instigating 'blood bath', aimed at sinking endeavors to reach the UN
    • "Save Israel. Save the Middle East. Save America."

      Call Captain Planet!
      But really. It's not just the right-wing that's the problem here. Obama's only marginally better, and even then, mostly only outwardly. Just who are you doting on to bring about the necessary changes FOR PALESTINIANS? And by that, I mean who is VIABLY an option here? What US Jew-or-otherhow could force Israel to open up Gaza, enforce the right to return, and put an end to all this segregation going on as well as change the laws in Israel to be fair to people of all religions equally? Peter Parker or Clark Kent?

      "How about if US Judaism moves decisively away from Likud-Beiteinu?"

      Or how about if they move away from supporting Israel all-together, like many liberals who have more than just superficial knowledge of the I/P conflict have already done? Any liberal zio is more damaging than a crazy US Likudnik mouthpiece. (Or do you seriously believe that if you move away from the Likud line in the US, you'll magically get Finkelstein-clones in charge of US-Israel affairs?) Why? The liberal zionists can tune their hasbara down to the extent of finessing dems and armchair activists to join their ranks, and once they do, can be made to passively consent the IDF terror and Israel's land grab and apartheid, etc., while the crazies are just alienating. And that's what America and the world needs to see to wake up to the truth.

  • Israel supporters (and IDF officials) proudly display their bigotry on Twitter (UPDATED)
    • And even if all the people using these bumper stickers really did only have a beef with Hamas, the sticker implies (let's just pretend it does for a moment here...) that they are concerned about the loss of innocent life, and despise brutish practices (real or imagined). They are so enraged by terror that they go so far as to decorate their car with this sticker. Since they're obviously so concerned for the suffering of others, and choose to make the I / P conflict the focus of their interest, I'd like them to stick 10 anti-IDF stickers on their car for every 1 Hamas sticker. Though that still doesn't come close to representing the scale of damage, terror and moral nastiness the IDF have been doing over Hamas since its inception. I wonder if those morally impeccable folks are willing to do that,being oh so concerned about the lives of innocent civilians after all..

      I'm not defending terror on civilians, and I never will, but opposing Hamas so outwardly and not the IDF is a bit akin to placing a bumper sticker on your car that says "these windmills may provide energy, but they eff up our landscape, destroy them!" in the face of nuclear fallout from the 10 nuclear plants you're surrounded with.

      You don't cage a dog and mistreat it for years, then stick your hand in the cage and when it bites you, print off a sticker saying "this dog is morally corrupted, it bites people! Beware!" and parade that around on your car, do you. I hope you don't, and if you do, I hope you're not morally twisted enough to think that you're a gutmensch for it.

    • "Some forms of violent tribalisms and ethnic-nationalisms are tolerated and others are not."

      Of course that's true. If your kid pisses on your lawn, you'll give them a smack on the fingers, if a stranger pisses on your lawn, you'll go fetch your shotgun. Same principle here. The West's most privileged minority are definitely an in-group, and Arabs / Muslims definitely an out-group. It should also be obvious that it's not what you do that gets you punished, it's who you are that determines the severity of the punishment. Israel's been getting a hesitant glance at its fingers for driving over 500 thousand people from their homes and creating an apartheid state, while Arab countries get the whole embargo /drone terror thing for so much as farting. Can you tell who the kid and who the stranger is in this one?

      You can call out society's hypocritical and often split-personality-disordered way of viewing things all day (and there's many things to list in that department). I've always been more a fan of pinning the blame on those responsible for creating this kind of impaired society in the first place.

      But don't worry, we get to make up for our lack of a clue by defending our ill-informed standpoints with all the more vigor! And if our startup fails, never mind, we're still gonna defend our deficient media outlets and ruthless corporations, because we're feeling the phantom pain of our yet-to-be-earned millions.

  • 'Washington Post' prints false narrative of how Gaza escalation started
    • Interesting read, thanks for the link.

    • I agree. I've seldom witnessed such myopic media coverage as on the I / P issue, and pretty much every outlet I know of is guilty of this. Many reputable newspapers often provide fairly well-researched background information on conflicts abroad, and are usually fairly unbiased, I'm finding this completely lacking what concerns I / P commentary. The media are happy to lose themselves in endless deliberations over who "threw the first stone" (oftentimes, quite literally) in the latest escalation, and totally neglect to inform their readership of the background and origins of the conflict, obviously, this tendency runs entirely in Israel's favor.
      Imagine a little "background info box" by the side of such articles that starts with "The conflict started when a significant stretch of land was given to the Jews by the west, which closed its eyes to the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from their homes...". Yeah, that's happening.

  • Couldn't make this up -- Official name of Israeli demolition plan for new East Jerusalem park is 'They Won’t Know and Won’t Understand 2012'
    • No, just plain no, for many reasons, including those which Mooser has already mentioned.

      I once corresponded with a guy who was very pro-Palestinian, the sole reason he cited for that is when his mother was pregnant with him and about to give birth, a Palestinian man rushed his mother to the hospital in his car, and comforted her while she was waiting to give birth. I also know a girl who feels the same way about Israel no matter what, because she dug up Jewish great-great grandparents.
      As much as I hate to admit it, but humans are far less rational than we like to think we are, and facts / reason are far from being the ultimate weapons, seeing as they are oftentimes used as mere tools, as a means to an end which has already been reached.

    • At least concerning I / P, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's more a case of "We may know, but don't care".

      Do you guys think that the majority of stout Israel defenders /hasbarites and islamophobes honestly do not believe in the existence of injustice towards Palestinians? I'm becoming increasingly convinced that their so-called denial is a shaky construct, comprised of strawman arguments and deliberate obtuseness, built up to cloak their conditioned negative emotional response towards Palestinians / Muslims as "our enemies" or just "people who are not like us ". I think that if you strip a lot of the BS logic away from them, it really comes down to "I hate muslims / Islam / Palestinians and I honestly don't care if they're being wronged because I dislike them so much / sympathise with the "wrongdoer" so much more".
      Calling attention to the plight of a peoples only works on those who are already predisposed to favoring / seeking justice, but fails on those for whom "justice" is not as important as religious or cultural affiliations.

      This may be obvious, but I just recently had an epiphany when I talked to someone whose short reply to my lengthy warble on I / P was "I know. I'm still pro-Israel though, and nothing will change that." I've been thinking long and hard about how to find access to these people, and have been failing miserably. I'm also less enthused now than I was before to argue with apologists, because I'm convinced that at some level, it all breaks down to the above-mentioned. I'm even close to saying that I don't believe that the emotional responses we were conditioned to heed whilst growing up will ever really leave, or at least that many people don't seem to have the strength and / or the will to overcome them in favor of promoting justice.

  • Jennifer Rubin's fast track to intolerance
    • Thanks for elaborating. I wouldn't say nailed, I thought I'd comment on the part of it that disturbed me, that be all. I think focusing on gender is completely irrelevant, IMO, because it begs a debate on feminism and the social construction of the female role in society, something that would likely hijack this thread. Even within feminism, there's sufficiently radical groups that call for segregation from men, even male castration or some form of male ethnic cleansing.

      "And lurking in the background of all my remarks on this subject is the fact that Pamela Geller’s writings drive me absolutely nuts. I feel permanently violated by having read even a few of her shrill paragraphs."

      It's another reason I can only stomach reading so-much of what Zionists say, it makes me angry beyond comprehension. I'm shocked at the gravity Zionism has developed, shocked by its unparalleled influence on American culture, shocked by the extremism of many of its ardent supporters. It seems to bring out the worst in almost everyone. I've met preciously few Zionists who don't end up resorting to apologists, pre-conceptions revisionism and lies when backed into a corner.

    • "Ok, here’s the thing: the picture of women, whom we often like to associate with conscience, caring, compassion and kindness, inciting genocidal violence of behalf of Israeli extremism is unbelievably disturbing and creepy."

      While we're talking stereotypical associations, let's add 'female proneness to hysterical and illogical behaviour' to the list, and spice our dish of misogyny du jour with some decreased capacities over men in the logic department and bang smack, a nice explanation for this radical behaviour to those so inclined.

      "(I find myself wondering: who were their equivalents in extreme right-wing politics in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s? No names come quickly to mind in terms of engaged relentless savage aggression.)"

      This springs up conveniently on google, I'm sure many more lurk beyond the first 5 results on page 1.

      Among the selection:
      "[She] was reputed to be smart as a whip and mean as a snake. She had an affinity for classical music and listened to it when selecting women and children for the gas chambers — a deed she particularly enjoyed."

  • Why did Steve Jobs not want to meet his Arab-American father?
    • I stand corrected.

    • "But I have to wonder whether he did not also share the conventional social prejudice against Arab-Americans"

      Jobs "not liking" what he found out about his father was likely pre-9/11. The stigma on people of Arab origin was nowhere near as great in the 80's and 90's, would whatever stigma was abound back then have been enough to warrant a prejudice against Arabs strong enough to completely override his admitted curiosity? IMO I doubt it, but there's no use in speculating, what he said could reference an infinite amount of things, none of which are our business.

  • 'Neocon' is suddenly a bad career move (and Rachel Abrams ain't helping the Elliott Abrams brand)
  • Even Fayyad forecasts struggle for equal voting rights in I/P
    • "The PLO formally recognized Israel and accepted the withdrawal clause in resolution 242 as the basis of a final settlement in 1988, long before Fayyad arrived on the political scene. "

      I wasn't aware of that, thanks for filling me in.

      "Leaders all over the world support Fayyad because he is willing to pursue non-violent forms of resistance to end the occupation that began in 1967. "

      I think the only reason he's appreciated in the West is because he's in Israel's good book currently. He's a full-on PLO party-line puppet. If anything, the current PLO party line shows Israel that they can and should build as many settlements and engage in as many more land grabs as possible, as soon as possible, to make even less Palestinian territory viable in the long run, knowing full well even Fayyad will get scratched out of the West's good books when he demands those 22% when they're no longer viable for Israel because a bunch of new settlments 'just cannot be removed' from land that was the home to Palestinian communities just a year or two prior.

      I also doubt a two-state solution is even on Israel's radar, despite its transparent claims. I think they just happened to decide that the Abbas / Fayyad approach is the safest and easiest way to continue doing just what they've always planned to, and will support them until they start opposing them in a meaningful way, at which point they'll be made out to be Hamas in disguise, and discredited internationally.
      Fayyad, like Abbas wasn't voted for by the people he claims to speak for. Leaders all over the world liking him won't change the fact the Palestinians didn't vote for him, and quite obviously wanted a different approach, with less diluting of their demands going on. He's comfortable for the West, I believe that's why they like him. They can be 'for' Fayyad, and 'for' a vast majority of Israel's demands at the same time.

      The development I'm putting the most hope in is the growing Israel-criticism in the West, which might eventually make leaders in the West more comfortable with considering less diluted Palestinian demands that actually correspond to the wishes of the majority of the Palestinian population, without feeling obligated to double-check if these newest developments offend Israel's sensibilities or not.

    • "All we Palestinians are looking for is viable sovereign state on 22% of the land"

      22% of the land is "viable"? Better hurry up, because at the rate Israel is building settlements and stamping out local Palestinian communities, in another year, only 18% will be "viable", and only 15% the year after that. All in all Israel only need to stall discussions for about a decade, before next to no Palestinian state is "viable" in the first place. Perfectly played into Israel's hands. I've always wondered why Fayyad was being talked of so favourably in the west, it seems I'm now starting to understand why.

  • Rachel Abrams says Palestinian children are 'devils' spawn'-- while Israeli children play with Transformers and draw your heart strings
    • Something I should note, Google Blogger's content policy (please google it, it automatically gives me the version of it in my local language so I can't link up to the english version here) clearly outlaws hatespeech. This is clearly hatespeech of the kind that is very explicitly forbidden in the content policy. She's breaking the Blogger terms of use with this blog, and as such runs the risk of them shutting it down when they catch on.

      On a positive note, she may have titled her blog in the only lucid moment she has ever had.

  • Release
    • I'm with you on this one seafoid. I find it a pity equally to see more covered women nowadays. I have no problem whatsoever with women making use of their right as autonomous people to chose whether or whether not to wear the hijab, burka or whatever else they wish, and live whatever way they wish, as long as their freedoms don't breach those of other people.

      Forgive me for doubting however that the Saudi-funded Islamic resurgence and the resulting impression of Saudi Arabia's interpretation of Islam and cultural ideologies throughout the ME doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a lot more women all over the ME are covered, and are being pressured to cover up and live more traditional lives, when compared to the way it was prior to the late 1970's, to the extent of risking rejection from their community if they don't comply. Rejecting the fact that this is a reality and hiding behind the rose-tinted western view that more women are simply "chosing" to cover up nowadays and live more traditionally, and that chosing a completely different dress and lifestyle would be equally encouraged if the woman wanted it is plain out naive, though may certainly apply in some cases. They are under far more pressure to live a certain kind of life nowadays. Ask any ME progressive who's been around long enough to observe the trend of an increasingly traditional / conservative cultural conditioning. It's not a good thing for all involved, including men. As one notable European Muslim feminist (whose name I have since tragically forgotten) once noted You can't oppress women without oppressing yourselves though it.

      I have discussions with people on occasion who believe that what is happening is down to the fact that Islam needs a reform, and people in the ME have always been too pious to modernise it. While really, prior to the 1970's, there was no urgent need for a reform in the first place. It's not Islam, It's the Saudi brand of Islamic ideology, and their success in pushing it out into almost every crevice of the ME.

      Tangentially, I also criticise this when it happens in traditional Jewish families and communities, where covering up a women's hair and most of her skin trespasses being encouraged and results in harassment and stigmatisation when the woman refuses to adhere to this.

  • The joyful theater of Tahrir
    • Makes me wish I was there, too. The atmosphere must be monumental, I wish them all the best. Whatever government they eventually end up getting, I hope it's one they actually voted for, and that it works hard at fulfilling some of their key demands. They deserve no less.

  • Terrific young Israeli journalists are indispensable
    • Lollers.

      "Well ya know, a certain Mr. So and So in America (love how he even included the farmers name...LMAO) isn't a horrible, horrible anti-semite, *he* doesn't mind snagging a few extra dollars selling Israel his fronds instead..! Tsk tsk you childish hateful primitive people, don't you know you're putting yourself out of business? (No you don't, because you're idiots, hence I'm going through great lengths to tell you in this article of mine!) Your plan to ruin Sukkot has failed miserably! The Righteous win again! Muahaha!"

      By the time the article spiralled down into a Seussian nightmare my eyes were already cowering miserably in their sockets begging for the release of death. Dear me.

      I'll spare myself any further commentary (because let's face it, if I spent more than 10 minutes typing, the response to the article would have taken me longer than writing that horrible article likely did the author) and give the entire article this picture, instead.

    • Both the USA and Israel are rapidly bringing problems upon themselves that not even those who wish for their downfall could have engineered more perfectly, that in essence is what's going to cause the real power shift, and an eventual shift in perspective. Though journalists devoting a lot of their time and effort (often at considerable risk) in order to bring what's really happening closer to us is important, too. Making people re-consider is one aspect of their work that might not be as important in the long run as the hard evidence they collect in the process may eventually be for future generations who wish to adequately reconstruct what really happened.

      Israel-apologists don't have much convincing evidence, they have rhetoric that rests on false equivalences and emotional blackmail. Propaganda goes, facts remain, regardless of how cleverly obscured by ideology they may be at the time. Thing about Zionism in its current, horrid form is that it's an overly negative response to a historical event that is rooted in exceptionalism and as such also has an expiry date, and will eventually overstay its welcome (if it isn't already starting to, in a big way). Zionism isn't profiting a majority of people, and as such will be overridden with the demands and whims of the majority before long, and will be discarded by most once they stop being forced to hold its hand, or once they forget or stop caring why they ever took its hand, in the first place.

  • Erdogan dis'd Obama to his face-- US is Israel's 'lawyer'
    • "Erdoğan would be beyond silly if he stood on the side of that crockplot to cook up war in his neighborhood."

      Exactly. Forgive me if this is so obvious that mentioning it annoyed you to the extent of motivating you to point it out to me, or if my wording came off as smug, it wasn't intended to provoke. I'm sorry if it upset you, which it obviously did for you to react so harshly.
      I agree with what you wrote.

    • " Before any Syrian refugees started streaming across the border into Turkey, Erdogan had erected a tent city for 5000 to house them, which is somewhat fishy. "

      Consider also that Turkish police prevents non profits and journalists from seeing the refugees, only select visits are permitted. They don't have refugee status, either. In an interesting interview Turkish political scientist Şenay Özden suspects it might be Turkey's way to keep itself from being crossed out from the Syrian regime's good book quite yet.

      Turkey did turn around on Al-Assad, I call it a pulling a USA, I'm no longer surprised that governments tolerate dictatorships until they come crashing down, at which point they pretend to always have been "for the people". It's a political particularity that seems to repeat itself ad infinitum, no longer catches my interest much.

    • "Erdoğan denied Obama's claims, [FM Ahmet] Davutoğlu said, and responded, "I do not protect Iran, but you [the United States] act as Israel's lawyer."

      True words. Turkey protecting Iran? Don't think they'd have much of a reason to, especially after Khamenei gave the Turkish government a pasting. The two countries generally fit the description of rivals in the region more than that of friends who share common interests and would protect each other. Far as I recall Iran has recently criticised Turkey's opposition to the crackdown on Syrian protesters, criticised Turkey for working with the NATO, and criticised them for progressing with secularisation. Erdoğan'd be more than just a bit silly to stand on Iran's side now of all times, or even so much as settle for arbitration. That would be a 180 degree turn from pandering to Europe's desires and working out the Kurdish problem to Europe's satisfaction.

  • Is Occupy Wall Street anti-Semitic?
    • In hindsight, what I said about law assumes it's free from bias in the States (something the article you linked to quite clearly refutes), and international law is actually enforced in places such as Israel, which is relatively utopian.

      "so how can that kind of exceptionalism be dealt with in law?"

      I'm a European in his early twenties, I don't have much knowledge to fall back on and I don't know much about the American law system, so a lot of this is new to me. I can't give you much more than my uneducated opinion. I don't have the insider knowledge of the workings of America as a society or any of its institutions to give an adequate answer.

      "how is legislation going to get all those holocaust movies to stop being produced by hollywood? how can we get hollywood to quit shoveling out bad persians and arabs thru legislation?"

      I can give you some thoughts, if you care for them.
      We get every single Holocaust movie Hollywood churns out, we're made to watch at least two documentaries on WWII in school, forced to read anecdotes by Zionists such as Wiesel, we have field trips to Holocaust memorials, and were made to visit a concentration camp.
      How then can Jewish exceptionalism be next to a complete non-issue on a local level over here, while gaining enough momentum to take over jurisdiction, politics and popular culture in America? Some questions I've been asking myself are- is it the lobby in America that creates that kind of culture, or the culture in America that tolerates powerful lobbies to spread that kind of message as powerfully as it does? How much of it is down to the wealth these lobbies command, and how powerful would they be without calling on some fundamental elements already present in American culture, and which should be changed first?

      The overwhelming majority of post-WW2 literature published by Jews that influenced popular culture over here were very much appeals to stop exceptionalism, recognise and reject mind-pollution and agitation and stop hatespeech, and fascism in all its forms. A lot of them were philosophical in nature, and drew heavily on socialist ideals. Among the many notable works by Jews who had a large influence on post- WW2 discourse over here are Adorno's The Authoritarian Character, Lukács' The Theory of the Novel, Löwenthal's False Prophets and Hessel's very recent bestseller Time for Outrage, calling for collective grassroots action against the growing gap between the rich and the poor (it's a good enough essay, though like quite a few European left-wing political pieces, it's sufficiently utopian, too).
      Completely different picture in America, where the message seems to be except where Zionism and Jews are concerned!. This additional message was never subject to any kind of larger debate over here, rather it seems to be seen for what it is - a completely contrary notion to the ones being advocated by the aforementioned intellectuals, and many more non-Jewish intellectuals like them. Accepting both these works and Zionism's messages would be seen for the hypocrisy that it is and the message of exceptionalism rejected, it simply makes no sense. It pretty much starts and ends at this realisation over here.

      Attempting to stop Hollywood from making Holocaust flicks, or discouraging certain religious interpretations isn't at the heart of the issue at all, IMO. I believe a lot of the problem is already contained in the culture, othering and fear mongering is something we've generally been afraid to engage in as a population after WW2, while the same things have been actively encouraged in America throughout the 20th century, the face of evil changing with every war or conflict America has been involved in. It's a culture that seems to have continually been motivated to hate / other / put down -something-. I see it as an unholy alliance of a culture that has a richer history of this type of behaviour (and hence a higher tolerance for it), paired with a wealthy and expansive Zionist lobby who promote othering for their own means.

      What can be done about it that would have a meaningful impact? I can't think of anything that isn't already being attempted in some way, shape or form, and is continually being over-powered or discredited by the dominant mindset most of the time. Only thing I can come up with is mass outrage, Hessel style. (On a negative note, one thing he has in common with some other like-minded intellectuals is the utter cluelessness about how this could viably be engineered on a meaningful scale). I'm hopeful that the WS protests that have taken America by storm result in a longer-term change in perspective.

      Apologies for the ramble, it's the best I can do.

    • Thanks for refreshing my memory.. I've been following that blog for some months now, and I remember that entry, I enjoyed it, too. I remember that MW article & your contributions to the discussion, too.

      "[calling people self-haters is] a cultural phenomena that has not permeated cross culturally imho."

      Absolutely, I agree- it's a cultural thing, the concept isn't confined to Jews at all in common discourse. That said, I've heard 'self-hating' used to describe gentiles too, but as you mentioned, it gains potency when used against a Jewish person (by whom is irrelevant), because in contemporary culture, it alludes to something beyond the mere statement of a fact or suspicion on a personal basis, rather it suggests the problem is down to a general flaw in the greater Jewish population, that is exhibited in the weak-willed, a meaning that is, of course, not contained within the word itself, but is an additional meaning given to the term through culture.

      "it’s also a really dicey topic to discuss. i remember at dkos it was one of the very hot button issues surrounding the ‘chosen people’ issue. what seems clear to me is depending on the the way people interpret or practice their judaism, ‘chosen’ can mean different things to different people.. as it pertains to equal rights."

      I remember commenting on this issue somewhere before, personally I don't see any controversy in it whatsoever on a societal level. I think how people interpret "chosen people" is relatively irrelevant, as long as their interpretation doesn't result in actions that endanger democracy, and they adhere to the principles set down by a secular democratic state, in which citizens of all religions, cultural and demographic backgrounds are to be treated as equal on all grounds, and no religion is favoured over the other. As long as they stick to it, fine. If they don't and break the law in the process, they should be punished accordingly.

      I feel that any problematic situations that arise out of controversial interpretations need to be solved through law, and citing rules of the respective countries these individuals agree to by residing in (or international law and human rights conventions that all countries are bound to), rather than ending up in a discussion around whether or whether not to deny people the right to interpret the word of G-d the way they wish / were taught to, or what is or isn't the truth, that won't work without creating more problems than it solves IMO, it's the type of approach to the discussion that creates the trigger, it can be easily avoided by a different, more neutral approach.

      "i know lots of jewish peace activists who participate in religious activities but it’s nobodies business and they shouldn’t have to advertise it."

      I agree. I've always assumed the issue was confined to the online world, and a bit of a non-issue offline. Me personally nobody's ever questioned my religious alignment off the internet (then again I wear a kippah so I'm assuming they'd figure.) I've also never heard anyone accuse anyone else of this off the net, or report having been accused of it. Then again culture and mindset over here is generally very different to the way things work in the US, so I couldn't say to what extent this is / isn't an issue off the internet, or how international this is. Feel free to clue me in / elaborate, though, I'd be interested.

      I'm continually amazed at some of the discourse happening in the USA / Israel, seems so little of it makes its way over here, things are discussed in completely different ways over here, for the most part, through a completely different cultural lense. People we'd consider extremists over here might pass as moderates over in the US, the general sentiment over here is that Americans are prone to extremism and sensationalism, both in their ideology and in their rhetoric (irregardless of political alignment). For what it's worth.

    • Thank you Annie for taking time out of the day to censor the hot-headed bits rather than preventing the entire post from being published, it seems I still lack the calm it takes to prevent my stronger emotions from getting the better of me, at times. I appreciate the way you handled it. I'll try my best to practice some restraint, if something that isn't acceptable does slip through despite my efforts, please feel very free to cut those parts out of it, I'd rather parts went missing than the entire post, mostly because it usually takes me quite a while to write them.

      Thank you equally for your support, not only to me, but to most posters here and to the creators of this blog, I respect and look up to your important and time-consuming efforts, you have a strength in you I don't presently have, and can only hope to obtain one day.

      "not sure our opinions totally segue in your post (re ‘no right to meaningful compensation’)"

      I don't mind disagreeing with anyone, in this case though I don't think we do. I meant the above outlined is society's way of dealing with some other groups who have witnessed / witness discrimination whereas the idea of compensation never seems to get old for the West where Jews are concerned. I believe due compensation is important, regardless of the potential difficulties in defining the fine line marking where compensation ends and where exceptionalism starts (and the obvious problem of defining what "due" compensation is, and what forms it may or may not take, in the first place, a problem Zionists have been profiting from by playing on society's will to compensate them for the Shoah).
      Despite obvious problems, due compensation is important, it's part of acknowledging that something went wrong somewhere down the line, and marks society's readiness to engage in a symbolic (or material, or both) gesture of apology and respect.

      "y’know it just may have to come to this kind of confrontation to flush out the implication of these accusations."

      I believe so. It's against my nature to play hardball, but how far can you go seems to be the question many are asking by their provocative behaviour, my challenge to them is to be consequent about the game they're playing without turning most people's stomachs (or even their own).

    • "it seems obvious to me how some people prioritize anti semitism over other forms of racism and bigotry and assume the rest of us do too."

      It's quite clear, as evidenced by the drastic difference in narrative when something bad happens to Jews (or something bad might, possibly, around two corners, happen to Jews) and the narrative on display when bigotry hits a gentile. In the latter case, it's an unfortunate exception that doesn't warrant any form of larger-scale action or exceptionalism, in the former, it certainly does.

      Well, what about those other groups?

      "A 2005 study estimated that over 90 million females were "missing" from the expected population in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, South Korea and Taiwan alone, and suggested that sex-selective abortion plays a role in this deficit. [...] India's 2011 census shows a serious decline in the number of girls under the age of seven - activists fear eight million female fetuses may have been aborted between 2001 and 2011"

      For all those people who know that around 6 million Jews died in the Shoah, how many know the above figures off by heart? And what does the fact that most don't know these figures tell us about our society? After all, it affects us too. Women were considered inferior in the West up until very recently, historically. Many lives have been lost or ruined by the idea of male superiority in the West, too. This should affect us too.

      The moment something bad that's happened to a group of people is in the past, and a society has largely overcome it, that's that. Tabula rasa, start again, once it's over, you have no right to make yourself the victim, or to claim any meaningful compensation. It may be crudely remembered, but next to nothing is truly owed over a significant stretch of time. When it happens to Jews? Tabula rasa my ass. Nothing owed my ass. Dealt with in the same way other groups misfortune is dealt with my ass. You'd have to be blind to miss the exceptionalism going on here.

      People need to wake up to this and acknowledge that anything more or less than equal treatment and dealing with problems each group faces in an equal way is crucial. We've all seen what exceptionalism can do, it brings out the worst in people, regardless of if it swings into a "positive" or negative realm. It's poisonous, dangerous and anti-democratic. I'm not a self-hater for refusing to make use of my right to whine, or for refusing to make demands that others cannot afford to make, or for refusing to claim resources that others cannot afford to claim. I want one thing, that is equal rights. Equal rights.
      'positive' exceptionalism creates hate in those who are not included, and by the ludicrous rhetoric that needs to be resorted to in order to keep something so obviously unjust upright. It creates danger. It creates spite. It creates jealousy and resentment. It makes those who are included feel like they deserve more than others, just for being born into the 'right circle'. It creates a caste system. It's an active danger that has a looming backlash so obviously built into its very foundation, that it's a ticking time bomb. I believe it is currently the biggest threat to both the safety and the sanity of Jews everywhere.

      I say this as a person who loves and practices my religion, as someone who is proud of it and proud of (most of) our contribution to society. If anyone wants to tell me I'm a bitter self-hater, or not a Jew because I don't endorse the exercise in fascistoid exceptionalism and ethnic cleansing that is Israel, I welcome them to tell me into my face and look me in the eyes while addressing me by my real name (my name's Avichai Saltzman and you can get my adress per e-mail if you wish), because quite frankly, it doesn't mean shit to me over the interwebs and I have no reason to believe these people even stick up for their filthy words offline, or would dare to say these things without sinking in shame anywhere else but on the internet.

      You'd think if they were so behind what they say, they'd actually come out and tell their fellow non-Zionist Jews at gatherings, you know. GTFO our community you non-Jew! You do not support Israel! You are quite obviously a bitter, paranoid self-hater and you don't deserve Judaism if you don't equate it with Zionism! If that's what you think, come out and say it IRL to people in your community, that you celebrate and pray with...

  • Fat lady sings -- Israel announces new E J'lem neighborhod called Givat Hamatos
    • "I don’t envision a 1SS in terms of land ownership based upon “identity,” but rather an inclusive, singular entity with equality of rights, freedom of movement and political representation for all of the people living in historic Palestine, including all of Israel’s 5 million Jewish citizens."

      That's assuming that Israel has a will to live beyond its existence as a Jewish state. I think they're far more likely to go out with a bang, and then use Israel's destruction as a political tool similarly to the way they still milk the Shoah in order to flea-bargain for more political power and exceptionalism and upkeep the idea of Israel as an exalted ideal, than abandon what needs to be abandoned in order to create a country of equal rights and admit that their little experiment has failed dismally, and mend their ways. That would essentially be like giving up Israel anyway, with the exception of having to admit failure on top of that.
      Politically, the former option would make a lot more sense. It wouldn't even need to be attached to millions of casualties, as the majority of Israelis would likely flee in time before the shit hits the fan completely. Of course, they could then proceed to continue playing the role of the banished victim on the political stage, and keep the anti-semite accusation dangerously potent.

      Turning into a one-state compromise somewhere in the Levant would bring no profits besides peace and the hope of a good life in harmony with all the peoples of the land. I mean, you think they'd want that, but they haven't shown us one single time that that's what they value over endangering their stability, reputation and the safety of their population by making enemies in favour of continuing to ride the Zionist horse, so I'm not going to assume that that's something they'd ever break with, for whatever reason.

      Call me a pessimist, but I believe Israel is on a self-made road of no return with not the slightest scrap of honest will to deviate from the purpose of its inception, even at the cost of the safety and lives of its population. In general though, of course I'd be overjoyed if I was proven wrong when things eventually play out. In my perfect world, nobody would be made to leave (not the Palestinians, and not the Jews that now call it their home, even though most came illegitimately), there would be no antagonism and no hate.

    • You forgot my favourite, "it's not pretty, but it's necessary in the greater scheme of things", it's such beautifully vague derailment, and comes so close to suggesting omniscience on the part of the claimer, that it just takes the cake.

  • In prisoner deal, Palestinian and Israeli right wings are working together-- politically
    • "Now both sides are behaving as rational and responsible agents. Go Figure. [...] Yes, this is evidence that Hamas and a right-wing Israeli government can negotiate and reach an agreement."

      I don't see it as evidence of anything, tbh. I honestly don't doubt they can agree as long as the topic is the exchange of prisoners and not say, GTFO'ing to UN resolution borders, or stopping to build settlements, or granting the Palestinians full and equal rights all the time and sticking to it, or anything that may actually be meaningful on a larger scale and over a longer period of time.

      As for the US, what could the US do? Let's pretend for a minute that they were actually impartial (I know, it's a stretch), what could they possibly do if Israel just won't budge in all the important points? (Don't give me 'implementing sanctions' ..we all know that's about as likely to happen as Forrest Gump writing a book about experimental physics and outselling Hawking with it) And what will the US do? The same thing they always do - softly whispering something about sanctions before going beet-red, smacking themselves on the fingers for even having thought it, and hastily booting the nasty word under the rug before proceeding to stamp on it with an apologetic grin on their face.

      By the side, creative framework sounds like a term Bibi would use. "U know gaiz, we really r pretty dam diplomatik, if u agree with wut we wont lul i mean az long as ur demands fit our kreatif fraemwork I mean if itz placed in a kreative framewurk lol durrrr !!!!111oneoneeleventy"

  • Neocon orgs seek to paint Wall St protests as anti-semitic
    • " i don’t think most people are stupid enough to link ‘the jews’ to WS."

      Your optimism should be framed. :)

  • Some preliminary questions about the alleged Iranian terror plot
    • So, if a man in Yemen is declared a threat to the USA (by the USA), that justifies a US drone attack on Yemeni soil, but Iran - let's assume for a second that this story isn't pulled out of the US of A's ass entirely - doesn't have the right to do something similar on US soil to someone they'd like to see dead for their own self-declared reasons without Teh Righteous Sanctionhammer getting ready to be put to use in defence of themselves and the Saudi Arabians?
      That's one way of teaching Arab countries the way the game's played. Do as the US do on the Palestine issue and you're in their good books as a country, regardless of how revolting your leadership may be (Saudi Arabia), but dare you have a revolting leadership and be pro-Palestinian, now that's just the icing on the cake, isn't it. That will make you our most hated enemy within mere years!

      They've been pushing for an Iran war for ages now, and the European press has - to my knowledge - been publishing cynical commentary asking when they'll 'start on Iran' way back when they were barely in Iraq. If I'm surprised it's because it took them this long to start orchestrating a thin justification for it. (Too busy in other parts of the Muslim world, I take it) I'll admit the mafia part is a bit of a weak point in the plot, though. No special forces trained for such things available at the time? That's too bad. But never mind, the most important thing is that Haleburton, Lockheed-Martin and Carlyle are currently jizzing themselves in glee at these developments. only evil Muslim-loving communists would be indecent enough to ask for solid proof at a time like this.

      ps. May the proof be delivered in form of a powerpoint presentation?

  • In Cairo, we consecrate the freedom of religion
    • "Witness eee on other threads recently going on about 10 jews being killed in Cairo being a pogrom, but unable or to apply the same rationale to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Palestinians at the hands of the IDF since 1948."

      If I believed that my people were the only ones worth mourning over, and nobody else but them were close to my heart, wasn't raised with the idea that equality is desirable, and on top of that was raised to believe that Palestinians and / or Muslims in general disliked Jews for religious reasons, I'd likely not be too sad to see them die, either, regardless of the ratio.
      I hesitate to wager that most people like that can ever truly be swayed, I think if they ever are, it would be by an elder in their lives whom they personally respect a lot, and who approaches them with tolerance and understanding before proceeding to challenge them, someone who manages to change their immediate emotional response to these issues through something familiar, someone who has their trust- something a hostile stranger throwing facts at them will never manage to do. Once someone has developed a strong emotional response to something, they'll construct their own facts to justify it and will tend to ignore or argue away all contrary facts.

    • Thank you for the beautiful account, it brightened up my day, and truly moved me. I'm glad you managed to celebrate such a wonderful Yom Kippur, despite initial struggles, and thanks for sharing.

      "I want to tell you, I am not a Zionist.

      That’s good, she said, no intellectual should be an ist."

      What a wise mindset.
      In my community, where Jews do not advocate Zionism, we're asked, and indeed seem to believe that they need to keep it to themselves in order to avoid offending the majority who are, instead of encouraged to strike up conversation about it and present a much needed critical view in front of all. It seems to be the only topic where this policy is encouraged, and non-Zionists seem to be incredibly passive about it. I've been thinking about how I could contribute to opening up discourse on Zionism, but have not yet been able to come up with any viable ideas. I'm proud to say that otherwise, critical discourse is highly valued.

  • Palestinians have their own Gandhis and Kings
    • "Kristof writes: “Granted, Mr. Netanyahu is far from the only obstacle to peace. The Palestinians are divided, with Hamas controlling Gaza. And Hamas not only represses its own people but also managed to devastate the peace movement in Israel.”

      Why, you'd almost think Hamas were an illegitimate force that have 'seized' Gaza, and are spreading their ills like cold germs. Words like 'controlling' and 'repressing' conjure up images of dictators that have put themselves into power, and almost comes off as dismissive to the fact that they were voted by a significant majority in Gaza.

      They repress their people? I'd like an elaboration. Sanctions and prohibitive laws that now apply in Gaza are, far as I know, limited to those that come with the application of Sharia, something Palestinians were aware of when they voted Hamas, and quite obviously welcomed, and can easily be lifted by not re-electing them.
      As for the 'devastating the peace movement in Israel' - it's convenient to leave out the fact that Hamas promised and end to violence in the case of Israel keeping to its '67 borders very shortly after they assumed government, a fair proposal that the West comfortably ignored, apparently being totally OK with Israel remaining on the side of illegality, in the full knowledge of what was going to ensue. Does that mean I don't condone the violence that cost Israeli civillian's their lives? Of course not. Do I think most of it could have been prevented had Israel adhered to UN resolutions instead of aggravating the problem by further expanding and further fragmenting the Palestinians? Yes.

      That's how they use the Palestinian political parties to their end. The democratic Fatah can be played like a piano, and stalled for decades with futile peace talks, Hamas can be slammed for their violent side, and used as an excuse to justify the progression of a plan that was always going to play out that way, anyhow. And of course, the West's Israel support and subsequent favourable spin on whatever happens in the Levant are the water that clears us of this deed.

      They continue expanding knowing full well that the west is going to be understanding when they turn around and say "well, it's too late to pull back now, look at all those people we'd have to uproot or even expell! Look at those kids who were born here, who love this place!" A never should have done it in the first place can unfortunately not be converted into any kind of action the west would deem viable without coming off as cruel and heartless, something the Israelis are playing on to the fullest, it's despicable behaviour to the very end. Revolting to the highest degree.

  • Muslim and Christian cemeteries desecrated in Jaffa on eve of Yom Kippur
    • The fact that this is happening is sad enough, without Western media outlets being too busy gracing the Zionist lobby's rear end with their lips to write about these things.

      Ironically it's just that which makes the zio fundamentalists feel like they're in God-mode, they just know the Western media is going to turn a blind eye, it's almost a reaffirmation, for Christ's sake. If scandals like these got equal reporting to deeds of similar gravity committed by others, some of them might just think twice about their senseless violence because just maybe, their reputation abroad - notably in the States - matters a little to them.

      Somebody needs to pass the West the memo that you can't have the cake and eat it too, can't essentially do everything to make sure they have impunity and then turn around and lecture them for acting accordingly. They're like a child, probing how far they can go before mother West converts her half-hearted tsk tsk's into actual actions. They've been shown enough times in the past that words can be ignored, and rewards come regardless / sanctions that actually affect them never follow. Show them something else, and these things might be preventable in the future.

  • Operation Enduring Failure: Ten years of war on Afghanistan
    • It really is as simple as that. If you refuse to believe that what you believe to be right is wrong, then it figures that you would justify those wrongs by dwelling on the illusion that they're actually rights.

      That's why I think it's futile to confront those people with evidence of the wrongdoings (violence, hatred, illegality, terror) for the sole purpose of showing them that this occurs, they already know that, but believe in its moral justification, because they're supremacists.

      I think it's an important point to make, I see the anti-Zionist equivalents of PrettyShitty and LongLostIsrael on zio message boards from time to time, thinking they can change people's minds by posting links to videos displaying Israeli violence, or by pointing to the fact that Palestinians were expelled. Never once worked.

      Jewish nationalism is hard to break, equally hard as breaking an Islamic fundamentalist's views and beliefs, they're essentially rooted in the same things - anti-social interpretations of religion that provides a moral justification for committing even the most disgusting of deeds. Humanist modes of argumentation are a lost cause with them. They're not humanists, they're supremacists who transparently cloak their supremacism in more generally acceptable hasbara and logic for the rest of us. Logical argumentation is a facade they utilize, not a tool with which they can be won over, or their minds changed. Argumentation is as lost on many of them as atheist discourse would be on Bin Laden.

    • "I actually supported the Afgan war at first. The reasoning was simple: the American people were so traumatized by 911 they would not be satisfied without war."

      With all due respect, but that is one sorry reason to support a war. Especially because a war is never good trauma therapy, anyway. It just brings more enemies, increases the fear and hatred on both sides and damages people's psyches further. It also increases the risk of such incidents happening again. Making war in an attempt to eradicate a trauma is like attempting to make hunger go away by not eating.

      "The American people were intentionally traumatized by the media and government to psychologically prepare them for this imperial slaughter "

      I agree. I was about to say, it's not like the media practiced damage reduction, and responded with sanity and soothing clarity to the event, like the Norwegian government did after the Breivik massacre. (The official Norwegian response was "we will respond with more tolerance and democracy to this atrocity" - bravo Norwegian government). The Americans took the opposite course after 9/11, they responded with collective fear-mongering and demonising of the Arab / Muslim world, and painted a devil on the wall big enough to cause the psyches of a vast number of Americans to cower in the closet.
      I've seldom seen media so wilfully fear-instilling, doom loving and sensationalist.

      Besides, supporting a full-blown war to "help combat the trauma in Americans", and by so-doing taking into account a larger scale trauma in the population of the country being attacked places American psychological wellbeing over the Afghan one morally, something I find unacceptable.

  • A society coming apart at the seams: Settlers attack IDF in the West Bank
    • "Why doesn’t he call it Israeli terrorism?"

      Maybe for fear of a collective settler uprising against the IDF? How many more infringements of their perceived impunity will the settlers swallow before they start shrieking and swinging the anti-zionite Mjölnir at the IDF and start demanding 'adequate' restructuring of the IDF administration, until it adequately considers the needs and concerns of settlers a.k.a. turns a blind eye altogether?

  • Anwar al-Awlaki's extrajudicial murder
    • "It’s hilarious that zionists constantly justify their murderous criminal behavior by citing someone else’s murderous behavior."

      That happens so, so often. Then again, when no valid comeback is at hand, derailment is always a favoured tactic. I mean, there's the option of shutting up, or changing their minds in favour of the better argument or superior evidence provided, but that would extend so far beyond their horizons, the latter two options aren't very likely to happen.

      I've seen this list worked up and down many, many times.

      Remember kids, admitting you've been out-argued shrinks your penis by an inch, changing your opinion in favour of that of your opponent shrinks it by 2!

  • Khalidi reflects on the 'Palestinians' Next Move' in The National Interest
    • "A highly coordinated and truly massive campaign of active nonviolence could shock the conscience of the world and energize Palestinians everywhere. The bad news for the Israelis—who have brutally repressed nonviolent protest in villages such as Bilin, Nilin, Nebi Saleh, Walaja and many other places over the past six years—is that, according to Ministry of Defense political-military chief Amos Gilad, “we [the Israelis] don’t do Gandhi very well.”

      I presume now that the hopes of a settlement through negotiations is being formally dropped left and right, that leaves the Palestinians between a rock and a hard place., as this quote suggests (I believe protests are the right thing to do, I love Khalidi's use of the term 'hiatus' here, that's exactly what negotiations are, a hiatus away from doing things that may actually bear some fruits). Yet I too can sense violence and bloodshed coming the Palestinian's way on a large scale in the case of the next plan of action being massive protests, and even moreso if the settler self-defence law gets passed. I can see so, so much room for abuse by the Israelis here, it might even play into their hands as the hasbara central spin du jour becomes "they violently attacked us and came to protests armed, now we need even more protection than we did before!11" to justify their various "security measures" (which involves much shooting and killing at sight, doubtlessly, as well as presenting a handy occasion to flip out yet more armaments, and erect yet more wire mesh fences, or install yet more checkpoints, and fragment the Palestinian territories yet further). More large scale physical confrontations mean a higher probability of violent clashes, after all it may be hard not to hit back, when an Israeli is about to beat your friend to a pulp with a nightstick. And we all know who the West is likelier to believe was the agitator, especially with that anti-Muslim / anti-Arab drip that's been in the West's veins for almost a decade now.

      I ask myself, how many more dead at Israel's hands? How many more lies will we have to hear in the coming years and decades? For how much longer will Israel continue to wrestle with guns from the position of its deathbed, kept alive only by Western life support and the favourable spin the west has graciously given the atrocities it commits?

  • US withholds $200 million from PA for punishment over statehood bid
    • They are not settlements, they're actually bastions of righteousness and freedom on the front lines, where settlers are armed to ward off the muslim savages that attack them daily in an effort to undermine their western values, people who attempt to steal the land the Lord has given to the Jews out of a burning hatred of Jewry (Have I not yet mentioned that all Palestinians are racist fascists who worked with the Nazis way back when?) The new laws are for Israel's protection only. The UN is an anti-semitic organisation anyway (the many sanctions it has placed against Israel should prove this nicely, it has been undermined by rich promoters of Islam and hence places more sanctions against Israel than it does against Muslim countries), so the US are best off punishing the Palestinians for dealing with them.

      These important steps by the US to aid Israel, the first line of defence against oriental savagery and their devious religion, ensure the islamo-socialist caliphate never materialises. How unpatriotic of you to claim otherwise, you have not been adequately brainwashed yet.

      On a serious note, there is no greater joy for haters of double-standards than to see the US expose their own so wilfully by punishing the placement of a legitimate bid to an international organisation they themselves recognise as being legitimate and are members of themselves.

  • Vice PM Moshe Ya’alon: Regime change in Ramallah will ultimately be necessary for peace talks to progress
    • " it is simply that in every case in which power seemed to be irrevocably one-sided, things changed"

      This is pretty much what is keeping me hopeful, though I have less than a vague notion of how this will end up panning out. If the US are anywhere near smart, they'll abandon Israel at one point (for their own wallet's sake, and let's face it, they have enough problems already, without entertaining another), leaving it in the hands of various US / Western Zionist lobby groups to drum up money and garner support of their own accord (something that will substantially reduce both the pro-Israel propaganda the greater public is subjected to as well as the flow of money to Israel). The US will not be able to afford to entertain Israel in the way it is currently into all eternity, that much is pretty much sure, if for nothing else but economic reasons.

      What isn't so sure is how Israel will react (but I wouldn't bet against it being in the time-honoured manner). In the case of a blow-out and large-scale violence, I can see the first Western states declaring it a hostile state that poses a viable threat to Europe, some might start cutting off trade relations with Israel formally. Israel's increasing isolation on the global stage (and its failed attempts to bring far eastern countries into this) is what I think will be its eventual downfall. Once the US drops Israel - and it will, sooner or later, they're on their own. They're a hideous creation that only a mother could love, once that mother drops it, or starts showing signs of weakness, it will find itself all alone in a world it was cheeky enough to continually alienate previously.

      And then? We'll be left with a bombshelled ideology that has left millions still ill with its afterpoisoning. I can only hope that the majority of Jews, especially those in the western world, will sooner rather than later manage to drop the ideology, or at least subject it to massive revision, and see the remaining Zionists in their current form as a radical Jewish fringe that has been discredited on all accounts, making them people who join the ranks of Christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists in the minds of the vast majority of the population.

      Then, perhaps, we can start mending the great damage that this ideology has done to Judaism, its history and legacy, start scraping the foul revisionist odor off the history books and rediscovering, and finally properly honouring the righteous ideas our ancestors walked into their graves for.

    • "If Jews are ever attacked in the US, who do you think will organize to protect them? Zionist Jews or Jews like Phil and Adam?"

      Instead of giving you an answer, I'll give you a question. Why wouldn't Jews like Phil and Adam "organize to protect other Jews" in a hypothetical situation where Jews were being attacked in America? Prithee, enlighten us, you obviously have the answer to that question. (Will it be of the 'self-haters' persuasion? Will it not? I can hardly contain my excitement).

      I fail to see how the US zionists have contributed anything at all to stability or protection in the first place, their key contribution is making a notable number of enemies by their constant whitewashing and endorsement of Israel's repeated breaches of human rights, illegal occupation and continued landgrabbing. If you're afraid of teh eebul Mooslims, it might be wise to stop continually ticking them off like a boss.

    • "It is quite simple. Jews want a state of their own."

      Which has exactly what to do with the discussion that was going on previously?

      And that's fine. It's not objectionable to want a car either, as long as you don't steal someone else's, and proceed to mistreat its rightful owner.

      "You should really examine yourself to figure out why you lay all the blame at Israel’s feet."

      All of the blame? It never occurred to me that there existed a finite amount of it, and I've just decided to spend it all on being Israel critical. The finite amount of blame thing is an interesting thought though, one I should pursue when I've had one too many beers. It's right up there with the question If a part of my body itches, and I don't scratch it, and it stops itching, who scratched me? or Do all Chinese people have to starve if I take away one of each of their chopsticks?

      If by any chance you mean critical of Palestinians, I recall saying I don't endorse violence, which includes the violence of Palestinians against Israelis. In practice, you don't mistreat a dog for years and then blame it for biting you though, do you. Is that excusing it? No, but it's a whole lot more understandable than almost anything Israel have pulled in regards to the Palestinians for as far back as I can remember.

      And just in case that's what you were going to proceed to do.. I don't need to be familiarised with "your side of the story", or reminded of the ifs and buts. I've heard it all before, more often than I like to admit to myself. In fact, I endorsed it all before for years and years, I have since corrected my opinion substantially. Don't lecture me brosky, I've been there and bought the t-shirt.

    • "U can bet due to the rate of settlement expansion and sheer stupidity of Israeli leadership resolving the conflict diplomatic-ly will become impossible."

      What makes you think that resolving the conflict diplomatically was ever a viable possibility in the first place? All that's happened in recent times is that what was already mission impossible has now become a little more difficult.

      Israel's idea of diplomacy has always meant, and still means refusing to argue with anyone other than those of whom it is already clear will bend to their demands. This of course isn't an acceptable diplomatic solution as much as it is forcing their agenda down other people's throats formally and on paper, instead of, you know, doing it by brute force, which is what they usually resort to when "talking" doesn't cut it.

    • "I know it offends you terribly that we refuse to be those old Jews again. Damn uppity Jews don’t know their place."

      If you don't see how this has transcended not settling for being a subordinate peoples and slipped into the foul depths of bullying everyone around and doing horrible things and developing a serious superiority complex, you're pretty damn near-sighted. People like you have swung from one extreme to the other like a pendulum. Apparently it really is as simple as fancying yourself the jailor instead of the inmate to you, and your universal perception of human interaction has seemingly descended into a 'fuck or get fucked' mentality, and refuses to transgress this on any meaningful level. You have one of the sorriest, most distorted views of emancipation that I've ever encountered, and you seriously lack any reasonable conception of balance, equality, measure and common sense. Then again, so does Israel as a whole, and the apple doesn't fall far from its roots.

  • Mourning the Jewish New Year
    • Thanks much Annie, appreciated. :)

      Good night all and L'shanah tovah

    • Thank you James, glad you enjoyed reading it.

    • Thank you very much, got all those links open in separate tabs. I'll read 'em after I catch some sleep and can actually concentrate.

    • Well said.

      "Recognition of what we are to learn from those events, and how we should apply that to what is happening today."

      Very good point. The bolded is where I see people slip up the most. They may know past events by heart but have absolutely no conception of how it might apply in contemporary times, and so fail to recognise it when past mistakes are repeated. I don't doubt there's people around who equate 'not repeating events that lead to the holocaust' with 'not sticking people in gas chambers', or 'not doing anything bad to Jews' if that doesn't happen, voila, past mistakes weren't repeated, it may well be somewhere near as simple as that for some.

      Explaining what forms and guises past mistakes may come in today requires not only a solid and comprehensive understanding of history, but an equally solid and comprehensive understanding of the workings of contemporary society, something that's next to never taught anywhere near adequately, if at all, in schools (let's face it, most of us don't end up going on to university, and even then, most don't take courses that teach that kind of thing). I studied sociology, and even there the majority of the people on my course seemed to limit themselves to learning facts by heart without comprehending the connection between them, or their greater meaning. A comprehensive understanding of the way stuff links up is far from being a given, remarkably few people seem to have it, what's more it requires an active interest to understand.

      I personally don't bank on claimed regret or remorse, regardless of how comprehensive it may be, it's a moral contract all too quickly broken if and when the tides change. I believe only G-d sees what's truly in a man's heart and mind.

      "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." So are those who do remember the past yet benefit from repeating it.

    • "Without remembering, how will we get to the root of the Catastrophe that has befallen the Palestinian people?"

      Not at all, of course. And that's precisely the point. Remembrance doesn't only mean accepting that something worth remembering has happened, continued remembrance is a sign of respect, a sign of caring, no less.

      The West remembers the abolition of slavery, it remembers the Holocaust, it remembers 9/11. By doing so it acknowledges its mistakes, and that it respects the people negatively affected by all these things as fellow human beings who are deserving of their memory.

      So what does sweeping the Nakba under the rug and perpetually either denying or downplaying Israel's various horrid actions against the Palestinians signalise? What do the Zionist's repeated attempts at falsifying Palestinian history, and the West's silence on the issue signalise?

      We don't care about you enough to acknowledge you in any single way, shape or form. We don't care about what you own, who you are and what happened to you.

      If people would gleefully distort your history to make another people's history look more favourable, you know you've got the shorter end of the stick. No amount of rhetoric and fakey sweet talk can cloak that. The Palestinians sense this, naturally, yet reacting with a distaste of the Western world (a natural reaction, given all this) is turned around on them and used to portray them as haters of Western values. (Which is ironic to an extreme degree, seeing as their dislike for the West results more in the fact that the Western values that are preached by the west are not in line with their actions or intentions here). The west is mad, because someone's holding them to the standards they themselves preach. Respect. Freedom. Thou shalt not steal.

      That's what we've been showing the Palestinians. What are we showing the world? That we obviously do not believe in treating people equally, and will do so only until our frail and narrow sphere of comfort is breached.

  • ADL gloats over the cancellation of Gaza children's art exhibit
    • "Perhaps more effort should be used to expose these organizations and lobbies rather than make more Americans aware of Zionist crimes in occupied Palestine."

      Exposing them how? Creating awareness of Israel's crimes is already taking the wind out of their sails by making their lies apparent and exposing their pro-Israel cause for the filth that it is. I know you're implying they need to be broken down in another way too, I don't see how else this could plausibly be attempted, unless their modus operandi is so apparently questionably kosher that it begs to be scandalised. Elaborate? I'd be interested.

    • "What's to stop other organizations from using the same strong-arm tactics to silence opposing viewpoints?"

      Exactly. It's appalling how various pro-Israel lobbying groups don't see how they're contributing directly to the dismantling of freedom of speech and freedom of expression by pulling stunts like this. And this not even a century after our art and our opinions were banned.

      And to justify their contribution to making society a bit more like Orwell's dystopian one, they claim " the art could not possibly have been created by children". It's despicable.

  • Background on Israel as a 'Jewish state' and the ongoing discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel
    • "Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state may be a really, really bad move for Palestinians to do."

      It would be a horrible mistake on their part, IMO. Doing that would kill even the faintest hope of a fair one-state solution, a door I don't think they should be shutting on themselves, regardless of the odds.

  • Something to contemplate as you sit in rush hour traffic waiting to get on to the Queensboro bridge
    • "That sign undermines US National Security"

      American Jews are allowed to do that, you see, compromise their state's national security, if it profits them somehow. It's only everyone else in the US who can't afford to do these things without breaking their necks.

      One dominant idea that marked the left-wing intellectual mainstream thought of post-WWII Jewish thinkers was the rejection of every kind of exceptionalism within society. Singling out one group and treating them differently to the way other groups are treated on the basis of such things as appearance, religion etc. is not acceptable in modern, democratic states and damages the democratic apparatus as well as increasing the chance of persecution and civil war. They knew this. They attempted to act against it.

      The fact that we collectively seem to have fallen in love with exceptionalism again (as long as it's positive for us) does imply that we don't really give a rats ass about risking damage to democratic ideals, as long as it profits us in the short term. It's not only spitting in the face of democratic values, it's also blue-eyed to believe that everyone else is just going to sit by and watch that happen, without antagonism building up within them, or alternatively, to believe that such developments won't cause a backlash in the foreseeable future.

  • Let's negotiate over how we divide the pizza while I eat the pizza
    • That's plain-out offensive. 'Pure religion' is completely subjective and holds no objective or consensual meaning at all. I don't even know what that is.

      And using your ominous concept of 'pure religion' to argue why there are no self-haters of different faiths is nonsensical.

  • White House sells Quartet statement on negotiations as 'a major accomplishment in Israel's favor'
    • "a Quartet statement urging Israelis and Palestinians to return to talks with no preconditions"

      ...besides the same old preconditions in their minds, of course, which will result in the same old preconditions being spoken out within the first five minutes, which will result in the same old stalemate.

      "The EU's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, went to the Middle East this week to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians with the aim of reviving peace talks and averting a Palestinian statehood bid at the UN General Assembly"

      So she's expecting them to give up a considerable chance of actually achieving something important in favour of the ___th session of the above outlined discussion. I think the West has spent too much time consuming their own media excretions that they've successfully convinced themselves that the Arab world is inept in every way. How else can this grade-A insult to the Palestinian's intelligence and common sense be explained? Hardly surprising though seeing as the EU as a whole were always going to play along with the US' stance on this.



  • Palestinian negotiator Hanan Ashrawi pressed on next steps for Palestinian statehood
    • "So how would this two state solution be achieved?"

      At this point I doubt even the Palestinians have that crystal ball.

      "A leadership would have to develop among both Jews and Palestinians that would want this and campaign for it."

      That's pretty much it - I just cannot see Israel departing from the purpose of its inception. I personally feel this point is the one-state deal breaker - I can sooner see Israel shrugging off some land and containing its expansion whim to tolerate a Palestinian state beside it than I can see a willingness to depart from the 'Jewish sanctuary for Jews' idea and practice, an ideology that I am deeply convinced overrides their reluctance to give off some land or shift some people around. (And yes, of course I could be completely off the mark on this, it's a personal suspicion that doesn't seem to leave me). That's where the key improbability lies for me.

      "I just can’t forget what happened in the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947/48. Over one million people were killed in the ethnic cleansing to bring about partition. Study this historical lesson and decide if this is what we want for the future of Israel and Palestine."

      I share your concerns, I honestly do. And I'm not going to deny that there is a possibility of the India / Pakistan situation happening with I / P, too. Yet I think either solution will bring about violence, suffering and dead, and I have no way of foreseeing the arising circumstances to the extent of wagering that one solution will cause more or less violence than the other.

    • If you have a beef with something I said, please name it, if I'm wrong, then show me I am, my opinion can be changed.
      I appreciate the paternalistic edge though, I've come to miss it a bit now that I don't get to see my dad as often as I used to anymore.

    • "Those eyes. Noor al ain." shmaltsy music starts playing "And when you look at her face you know she is a Palestinian" melodramatic cello finish

      Really? Because she looks a lot like my auntie Saryl.


    • "a democratic, secular state where all are equal regardless of religion and national origin would solve many problems"

      In theory, yes. Yet what about the Palestinians who might not want a government of the kind that would be necessary for such a state? In the west, creating a united government for two separate peoples might be within the realm of possibility, provided they can agree on the fundamental things (western, secular), but this situation is different. On either end of the extreme a significant amount of Jews living in Israel wish to live under Halakha, and a significant amount of Palestinians want an Islamic government. Neither group would likely settle for a secular state, as it would neglect both these wishes and force a compromise upon both that I can't see going down well, if at all in these people.
      What flag would that 'one state' carry? Small things can go a long way. We can't turn back time and make these things a non-issue like before Israel's conception, unfortunately. Times have changed, people have changed, beliefs have changed.

      It's possible, but such a state would perpetually walks a fine line, in my opinion the probability of it managing to do that for any reasonable stretch of time is too low for me to see much going for this idea presently.
      I can sooner see the Palestinians giving up some land to Israel in favour of having a country that runs on *their own terms*, which is what a lot of this is about too, it isn't only about the land itself, it's also about the right to live the way they chose to, have the government they chose to, etc.

      The two-state solution has its weak points too, absolutely. It's only that I can see fewer fundamental things going wrong as opposed to if a one-state solution is implemented. If something does go wrong it will likely be due to Israeli aggravation, which in the case of two states, is easier to verify and crack down on.

  • Border anxiety in the West Bank
    • Thank you for that, impressions that likely shape for life. I can easily see how someone who lived through that time (as opposed to having heard of it in history class) would more easily be able to spot and oppose similar cultural developments in contemporary times.

    • Thanks for that. In hindsight I should have just run it through google to see where it came from. I laughed when I realised the 'facts for a better future' bit is actually part of their header. Never too early in a website to start with the lying, huh.

      That also explains why he didn't link to his source. If that was my source, I'd likely be too ashamed to, as well.

    • I'm sure that valuable experience you made would enrich any such conversation, I failed to have any such effect when I argued with them, then again I don't have a lot of personal experience to fall back on. (Even if I did I doubt they'd be too impressed, in all honesty)

      If you don't mind, would you tell me more of your civil rights experiences in the 50's and 60's? I'd love to hear more.

    • "Starting in 2000, Fatah militants took over the homes of Christian Arabs living in Beit Jalla to shoot at Gilo residents. Terrorists fired on Gilo more than 400 times from 2000 – 2002.[3] As a result, Israel erected the protective barrier in 2002, helping to decrease the attacks. Israel later launched a defensive campaign – Operation Defensive Shield – to stop terror attacks during the second Palestinian Intifada (uprising), which stopped the attacks altogether."

      Be so kind as to link to that wikipedia article you got this from, I'd like to examine the sources, the source annotations of which are still in the excerpt you lifted. May well be you have a point, I wouldn't know that by your ominous copy / paste job though, would I. Trouble with wikipedia is, the source material ranges from serious to outright BS, each source is best separately verified.

      "You also don’t mention what has happened to the huge amount of aid given to the Palestinians that could have been used to build nice neighbourhoods. It ended up in Swiss bank accounts and the leadership of the Palestinians live in very nice homes."

      Why don't you go read up on where the aid went, instead of putting wild guesswork off as a fact? You're suggesting that a significant amount of it ended up on Swiss bank accounts. I'd like to see you bend over backwards to prove that. As you may or may not know, foreign aid is usually watched closely by the respective givers to make sure it's used for its intended purpose. Or do you really think especially the USA would send over aid without tripple checking that it isn't diverted to fund more guns or something. That's being wilfully ignorant of the process of aid giving. There's an extensive article on the usage of Palestinian aid even on Wikipedia, a website you use too, by the looks of it. It also attempts to explain why so little of the aid money could be allocated to infrastructure and the likes.
      And yes, some of the source material is horrible here, too.

      Apart from some presidents in Latin America who are communists to the bone and refuse to live in houses any more luxurious than the majority of their people do, I can't think of a single example in which politicians *don't* live in nice houses. That's not a valid point in anyone's favour, that's a feeble attempt at making one.

      "No, it’s much easier to blame Israel"

      Or is it. In my experience it's much easier to spout mindless hasbara and get away with it. In my experience Palestinian supporters in the west have usually needed substantial evidence behind what they say to progress even only that inch further, while from what I'm seeing all Zionists usually need to get applauded was an unsupported claim.

      Zionist: "No Palestinians were ever forcefully expelled from their homes or the land, they left of their own free will"
      West: *clap clap* [asking for evidence would be anti-semitic!]

      Activist: "Palestinians have been forced from their homes by Israel, and their homes and properties are still being razed / claimed today"
      West: GIVE US IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE!. No, asking Palestinians isn't evidence, they're all liars. Those photographs aren't evidence either, they're sooo out of context, that's not acceptable evidence. the UN doesn't count, they're anti-semitic. Give us REAL evidence!!11

    • The irony of it is that the Zios will look at these pictures of the dirty, ramshackle Palestinian areas, and the glitzy, modern looking Jewish areas and use that as an argument in their favour.
      "Look at how backwards and primitive the Palestinians are, then look at the modern, wealthy, civilised-looking Jewish areas in contrast".
      I've heard similar around the net once or twice and sadly, these people seem to have a completely distorted view of cause and effect, so arguing with them wasn't particularly fruitful, especially since they refuse to believe that Israel is preventing the Palestinians from flourishing economically, so they truly believe that both the slums and the glitz are 'earned'. Next step of course being "the Palestinians are attacking the Jews because they're jealous of what they've achieved and want to steal some of it", I can just see it coming.
      Yum, where did that come from, I love sour candy! Damn, just my stomach acids.

  • Nearly 1 in 4 young children in the U.S. living below the poverty line, but aid to Israel is untouchable
    • "Jews in their own historic homeland can under no conditions be made to remain a subordinate, dependent minority as they are in all other countries in the Diaspora."

      That's an insult to most countries in which Jews reside. The western world must love their own [very real] subordinate position in this skit if they keep on nodding off blatant lies like that in favour of a good relationship with Israel.

      I love the "made to remain" part, too. When were Jews ever in the history of Israel a minority, let alone a subordinate one? Lay off the ziocaine, man. Heard it messes with your mind in a big way.

  • Buttu, Erakat, Dajani, Rabbani and Abunimah respond to UN speeches
    • Of course it's not racial. A lot of the Jewish attachment to Israel results from the idea that, should there ever be a tragedy that befalls the Jewish people again, Israel is a 'safe harbour' they can move to and count on to defend them. Yet in a hypothetical worst case scenario, safety would be an illusion either way. In Israel, and outside of it, and it's likely counter-productive as a population to pool into one place when running from something, especially with long-distance weapons the way they are nowadays, that would make things a lot easier for the opponent, no?

      But really, it's more likely to get decapitated by the blades of a helicopter when standing up on a Wednesday morning after taking a dump than that hypothetical situation ever coming into being in such a way that makes Israel a valuable thing to have. In fact, Israel has already done enough to be counter-productive to its own stability by committing the atrocities that it has. The whole thing's little more than an irrational solution to an irrational fear.

      Yet that's something people put trust in and that keeps on going as long as people trust in it, never mind how naive and utopian it is. The moment people get real and reject this idea is likely the moment Israel risks losing a vast amount of its international Jewish support.

    • "It has corrupted many American Christians, who now believe that the theft of Palestine from the native population by racist genocidal Eastern Europeans represents a fulfillment of eschatological prophesy even though a more reasonable interpretation would equate the exiled Palestinians, who are the descendants of the ancient Judean population, with the population that needs to return with the coming of the Messiah."

      Beautiful words, I subscribe to that view. Being religious, that, among other things, makes the Palestinians be especially close to my heart. In general, it's not about any descendants anymore though, is it. It's not even about religious belief anymore, it's about labels. Jew? - Approved. Gentile? - Not Approved. That's what our legacy has deteriorated into. It's neither morally justifiable nor is it scriptural, I have no idea just what the hell it is, besides being sinful.

  • Obama approves secret sale of 'bunker buster' bombs to Israel
    • You're welcome.

      "chomsky is a disappointment on the issue of israel, so it is interesting that they give him a hard time in israel"

      It's not surprising that they do, whatsoever - it's pretty obvious, really. He's not the only one who's been banned from speaking in Israel, same thing happened to Finkelstein, and Israeli reporters who run overly Israel-critical stories may also be hit with the Israeli banhammer (read an interesting article on one such reporter a while back), and on and on it goes. Yum, democracy. Yum, freedom of speech.

      I don't think Chomsky's a disappointment on the topic of Israel, his recent books are weaker than his earlier ones and he keeps on repeating himself, but he has more than just a few very valid and important points, and it's obvious why Israel doesn't want him speaking there.

    • Quite obviously not nearly Zionist enough to count as one in Israel's eyes. Technically, he just about passes as a very unconventional Zionist.

      You know what I meant when I wrote Zionism though. I meant the same conventional Zionism pretty much everyone here means when they write of Zionism in their posts. The same Zionism Israel means, the same Zionism the Reps mean. Not Chomsky's unconventional diluted home-brew version of it. He himself refers to himself as "having held" Zionist beliefs, meaning he doesn't consider his melange of different ideologies that he holds nowadays to represent Zionism's *current common interpretation*, and I'd agree - he doesn't.

    • " i know the un isn’t jewish, but it is the only reason i can think of why israel has such hostility towards it…"

      Might have a little bit to do with the many UN resolutions to do with Israel, and the fact that the UN has identified many of the numerous infringements of human rights the Israel is engaging in, and has criticised them.

      "The Human Rights Council has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined."
      Browse them here.

      Reason for zio rage? Very much so.

      At least the UN passed a 1948 resolution determining its borders (one of the many resolutions that Israel paid no heed to, of course, and promptly breached), which, if you want to be nice, could even be considered damage reduction, at the time. Nobody else seemed to care about what the exact borders would be, the west as a whole was still caught up in the "Bravo Western Jews, go show those native savages how modern civilisation is done" mentality at the time.

      On a side note, if you think Israel is hostile against everything that isn't Jewish, you're very wrong. They're hostile against everyone who isn't Zionist, hence Chomsky's ban from speaking there at one point, among other things. They love the Christian Zionists more than those Jews opposing Zionism, go figure.

  • Outside the UN
    • "My contention is that Arabic poetry (to name only one tiny branch of intellectual endeavour), whether “classical” or modern is amongst the most beautiful pieces of literature ever written in any language anywhere!"

      I agree. I personally am a fan of Mahmoud Darwish, despite losing so much in translation, the poems are still beautiful. (I applaud Fady Joudah in particular for doing such a fantastic job translating Darwish) I look up to him as a person, too. A man of intelligence and integrity, may he rest in peace.

  • Abbas brings Tahrir to New York, and some of our media seem to be on board
    • "so why would a jew or anyone else cheer for palestinian statehood?"

      That's an important point. I mean, there's literally dozens of Jewish pro-Palestinian intellectuals in publication, plenty of Jewish pro-Palestine activists (on and off the net) and many more Jewish people who aren't involved but have a pro-Palestinian mindset.

      How many Palestinian people standing up for the Zionist cause?


      Exactly. That alone should tell people that maybe, just maybe, a significant number of Jews fight alongside Palestinians on this because ... the Palestinians have a point? [a very good one at that], whereas the Zios don't?

      But oh no, they'd rather squeeze their nuts with hot tongs before they come to such a conclusion, never mind if it comes begging. The pro-Palestine Jews are put off as self-haters, traitors, idiots who can't formulate a comprehensive thought, accused of having a death wish and largely prevented from speaking in popular media outlets. Why are there many more Zios speaking in the American media? Not because they have the truth, it's because they have the lobby for it, guys. Look past America and you'll find most countries have far more balanced reporting on the issue. It's a matter of perspective, not of truth and falsity. I wish people would look past the brim of their plate and understand that.

      As for 'everyone else', quite obviously they're terrorist sympathisers, who all hate the Jews (never mind they walk hand-in-hand with them at demonstrations, have Jewish friends, etc), it's so obvious. They're all members of the upcoming socialist-Muslim caliphate, or whatever it's called. Heresy who calls it otherwise, death to you and your descendants! *approaches with a wooden stake*

    • "he said that he speaks for 100 generations of Jews who longed to return to Jerusalem"

      I wonder what was stopping those "100 generations" from immigrating to Palestine. Oh yes, the fact that they didn't want to. In fact, many Jews *left* the land of their own accord, notably tradespeople, and settled abroad. The land wasn't even densely populated throughout large stretches of history.

      Ask the common Jew around the beginning of the 20th century if they 'long for Jerusalem" so bad they'd be willing to expel the native population and settle there by force, and they'd likely have laughed in your face. So much for Bibi's 100 generations.

    • “A beautiful people, I thought to myself”
      I personally thought that sentence was awesome. +1 from me. The first Palestinian I saw and registered as one is Queen Rania. I was in puberty, so I'd rather not explain what happened.
      One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the Palestinian's humour, from what I understand, and the Palestinians I know, they have a fantastic and sharp sense of humor. Do want.

      "The truth always finds a way to come out, and the more effort being put into suppressing the truth, the more powerful it is once it comes out."

      Quoting an Israeli artist who posted on this website once, "nothing bad lasts for ever", that much is sure.

  • Obama tells 900 rabbis that resolving I/P 'crisis' is key to peace in Middle East
    • Interesting stuff, thanks.

    • I'm so tired of the same, meaningless hollow phrases, looping these statements doesn't make them any truer.

      "The most important thing we can do to stabilise the strategic situation for Israel is if we can actually resolve the Palestinian-Israeli crisis"

      Israel doesn't give 2c for 'stabilisation', seeing as it's proud of absolutely everything it has done to cause the situation they're currently in, in the first place, which includes pissing off every single one of their neighbours repeatedly. Regret on their part? Remorse? I don't remember hearing "whoops, we totally took the wrong turn here, we need to make amends" as a mainstream Israeli response to things. They're still on the "we can do everything we want and get away with it" trip, knowing full well they'll be granted clemency from the US at the end of the day. In fact, it's this knowledge that likely makes them bully others around so much, in the first place. The irony.

      About half a year ago, I remember reading an article in a mainstream publication over here reporting that Obama promised Israel over a dozen fighter jets if it kept to its promise to stick to whatever ceasefire de-jour was being formally practiced back then. (The article was in a German-language newspaper a while back, pardon me for not linking to it, I've lost the link to it since. Anyone have any links to this in English?) Yes, that's the level we're working with, here. It's like giving Iran 10 nukes for every half a year it abstains from hurting anyone with them, it's so absurd, it blows the mind.

      "The biggest threat Israel faces from a security perspective is Iran's nuclear program"

      By the same standards, Israel's possession of a dangerous amount of nukes poses the same security threat, if not a bigger one, especially since Israeli politicians (I'm remembering a Dayan quote that was discussed in a previous topic here, but there's likely been people parroting him since, and certainly enough people still supporting his ideas) have proudly proclaimed they'd be willing to 'go out with a bang' than back down from their present course. I want to hear Iran letting off quotes like that, and Obama then flying over to talk of the solidarity between the two states, and of the US support that Iran can be sure of. It might not be pretty, but it might make his actions that smidgen more consequential.

      "Prime Minister Netanyahu knows he can count on the United States"

      Important point. You see, there Bibi was, actually thinking he could play the US like a piano - important to know that he can only 'count' on the US, instead. Sad news for him, I'm sure.

  • The Palestinian Authority's top gun in D.C.: Benjamin Netanyahu
  • Palestinian statehood and the struggle for self determination and national rights
    • You're right, I retract that statement, it's likely too much of a stretch to conclude that Reps pushing Zionism is enough to make a part of the liberal population in the US mentally depreciate or question that ideology as a result, especially with liberal Zionism as popular as it is in Democratic intellectual thought at the moment.

    • Try Avaaz, if you don't know it already, and sign this petition. It will be presented to the UN, and well over a million people have already signed. Re-tweeting this is well worth it.

    • "The third way is from the inside out, with Jewish Americans and Israelis engaging with Zionist ideology and challenging it – it is the only way it can work"

      Absolutely, that's my favoured solution, too. It's high time for a change of perspective in the Zionist world. There are reasons for optimism: things are going the right way presently, the Zionist worldview was never since its inception under this much criticism, and subject to this much international scorn, it has forced those who take a rabid pro-Israel stance into a defensive position instead of being the dominant one, currently the Zionists are still clinging to a "being pro-Palestinian means you guys hate Jews" position, which of course, is untrue, transparent and a feeble attempt at justification. (What makes this even better is that its untruth is so easily verified) The weakness of their rhetoric, the utter childishness with which they defend their cause and repeated failure to get their facts straight is damaging their own ideology greatly.
      The chief means through which the ideology is spread currently - through the mouths of agitators and mind polluters who frequently resort to human beings' lowliest instincts and fears in order to garner support, isn't working in their favour, either, it's increasingly pushing Zionists who have never associated with the far right to get into bed with them ideologically if they want to maintain their current stance, something I can't see going well into all eternity either.

      There is yet a chance that the majority of Zionists end up departing from their belief, leaving it where it belongs - on the radical, opposed fringes of society along with other ideologies that have departed from the mainstream in the Western world. With that out of the way, I can see the rest falling into place eventually with no major setbacks.

Showing comments 132 - 101