Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 9188 (since 2009-07-31 13:50:35)


Showing comments 9188 - 9101

  • Modi and Netanyahu's NY bromance
    • PS

      Heres a book on India and also covers the AIPAC relationship.

      Planet India: The Turbulent Rise of the Largest Democracy ...
      Mira Kamdar - 2008 - ‎Business & Economics
      The organization got its start under the tutelage of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. On the AIPAC model, USINPAC has placed young ..

    • Actually this was a alliance made more than a decade ago by .....guess who?
      I cant locate the original Mother Jones(I think, or may have been WP) investigative report on AIPAC and the India Lobby--actually Hindu Lobby.
      Basically Isr went to India with a deal---the Jewish Lobby in the US would take them by the hand and help them build a India Lobby to get congress to aid India with nuclear energy and US corporate investment and locations in India and so forth----in exchange for India allying with Israel.

      Here though a few blips that touch on it...

      link to

      ''Ackerman helped coordinate the links between AIPAC and the AJCommittee and the USINPAC. Israel, he said, is “surrounded by 120 million Muslims” whereas “India has 120 million” Muslims within. In 1999, Ackerman was in Atlanta at an Indian American event, where he celebrated the “ancient civilizations” of Hindus and Jews, pointing out that “Strong India-Israel relations is very critical to ensuring peace and stability in a part of the world that is characterized by instability, fundamentalist religious bigotry, hatred toward the West and its values and murder and mayhem spawned by acts of cross-border terrorism.”
      Ackerman is not only one of those who believes that Israel is the 51st state of the United States, but he is also one of the major proponents of the Indo-US nuclear deal.
      In 2001, Ackerman’s legislative aide, Narayan Keshavan (who was otherwise a journalist, and who died very young, at 53, in 2003), said, “There are scores of congressmen and dozens of senators who clearly equate the growing Indian American political influence to the ‘Hindu Lobby’ – very much akin to the famed ‘Jewish Lobby.’” The aspiration to become like AIPAC and to move India in the direction of Israel is strong among many of those who want to build this India (or Hindu) Lobby, geared as it is against Pakistan and without deference to the fact that the 120 Indian Muslims are Indians too and not simply Muslims. A senior Democratic Senator said in 2003, “All of us here are members of Likud now.” In 2009, if USINPAC succeeds, they’d say, “We’re also members of the Hindu Right now.

      link to

      AIPAC Lobbies Indian PM to Form U.S.-Israel-India Front Against Iran
      by Richard Silverstein on February 28, 2007
      in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society

      One of the distinguishing characteristics of AIPAC’s Mideast policy initiatives is their overreaching nature. Not content with merely isolating a Hamas-led PA government, they author a bill which criminalizes even the remotest federal interactions with Hamas. Similarly, not content with merely advocating a military strike against Iran, they have a grandiose vision of a united anti-Jihadist front against that country consisting of the U.S., Israel and India. Far-fetched you say? Not according to AIPAC, which recently sent its board of directors to India for consultations at the highest level including with the prime minister.

      It’s useful to note the way this story tries to subtly paint a portrait of two states (India and Israel) united in a war against radical Islam, the upshot being the enemy of my enemy is my friend:

      The security measures at Number 7 Race Course Road [the Indian PM's residence] in New Delhi are reminiscent of Jerusalem…As in Israel, special precautions are taken to ensure the protection of the Prime Minister at his official residence. India’s history of political assassinations and terrorism necessitate such measures.

      It is in part because of the shared threat of terrorism that the meeting with Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is about to take place. The AIPAC Board of Directors has journeyed here to meet with India’s national leaders to discuss ways the United States, Israel and India can work more closely together to confront the gravest dangers in today’s world: the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical arms and terrorism motivated by religious extremism.

      If you think about the assumptions behind this trip you realize that AIPAC has created a vision of a global war against Islam with essentially the U.S., Israel and whatever other country it can enlist to fight on its side. It’s frightening, almost terrifying. Do American realize the strategic initiatives that this organization is cooking up for our foreign policy? Where AIPAC wants to take us?

      Get a load of this hokum:

      As Prime Minister Singh enters and greets us each individually, I am struck by the poignancy of the moment. The leader of this country of 1.1 billion people has once again carved out time to have a meaningful conversation on the critical issues of the day with leaders of America’s pro-Israel community. I remember a previous meeting with Prime Minister Singh in New York when he averred that he knew of no other group in history that has played such a prominent role in the development of civilization as the Jewish people.

      In the rough-and-tumble world of politics in the world’s largest democracy, Singh presents himself as a humble and dignified man. He is a Sikh leading a nation of some 885 million Hindus and 145 million Muslims.

      Do you hear yet another echo of Israel here? In the rough and tumble of world politics, Israel presents itself as a humble and dignified country. It is a Jewish nation amid a world filled with multitudes of far larger religions.

      Finally, the writer gets to the heart of the matter, the solicitation of alliance against Iran:

      In our meeting with Prime Minister Singh, we…urge a more assertive stand towards Iran. Prime Minister Singh…emphasizes that Iran is obliged to meet international nuclear commitments but that he hopes that dialogue and diplomacy facilitated by the United Nations will lead to a solution''

      Right now Modi, who is a far right Hindu racist, and India are drunk with false power due to their 'connections' and the fact that it helped India get out of the economic gutter somewhat. So India will also eventually be trouble.

      NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A prominent right-wing Hindu group in India warned Muslims and Christians on Thursday not to join in a lively Hindu religious festival this month, in the latest bid by activists to step up segregation in the multi-faith country.

      Emboldened by the May election victory of Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi, hardliners in his party and affiliated Hindu groups have been stirring up sentiment against India's religious minorities in recent months.

      "We are warning Muslims and Christians that they should stay away from all our festivals. The Navratri festival is for Hindus only," Surendra Jain, spokesman for a Hindu group called the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), told Reuters.

      The annual, nine-night Navratri Hindu festival began on Thursday. In many parts of the country it is marked by celebrations involving prayer, music and dance among men and women.

      It is famous for being high-spirited and Christians and Muslims are known to take part. They also take part in the Holi Hindu spring festival.

      But this year, Hindu activists plan for the first time to demand identity cards to keep non-Hindus out of festival venues. Usually in India, one can tell a person's religion by their name.

      "Muslims and Christians do not pray to the Hindu mother goddess so why should they dance and enjoy nightly feasts with us?" Jain said, accusing young Muslim men of taking part in the festival to tempt Hindu girls into converting to Islam.

      Members of the VHP have in the past been accused of instigating communal violence, including riots in the western state of Gujarat in 2002, when Modi was its chief minister.
      At least 1,000 people were killed, most of them Muslims

  • Netanyahu heads to New York to ‘refute all the lies’ and praise ‘the most moral army in the world’
    • ‘refute all the lies’ and praise ‘the most moral army in the world’ >>>>

      'moral, innocent victims', blah, blah, blah.....

      All their myths are circling the toilet.....going, going, gone.

  • When does 'Unsustainable' become 'Unconscionable'?
    • You have to have a conscience for something to become “unconscionable' to you.
      Israelis don't, US zionist who support them don't, the US leaders and most world leaders don't.
      So there you go.

  • Burke and Lincoln would have hated the special relationship
    • ''Who authorized it?'...Boomer

      yep, I've been asking the same question --havent found an answer yet.

    • '' Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. ''

      Which is why they use anti semite and/or self hating Jew on everyone.
      As MW said civility is for dancing classes....

    • Good essay on the problem.
      But I think Washington 's brilliant and far sighted warning to the nation that ......'' cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.'' the one that goes to the crux of the Israel problem.
      This is exactly what has happened in the US and we are being destroyed.
      Every year Washington's address to the nation is read on the floor of the house but obviously no politician really pays any attention to it.
      Every time I hear some politician talk about 'our founders" I throw up a bit because they usually invoke 'our founders' when they want to promote something the founders would have opposed.
      In I/P the Palestines aren't really the strangers, they are like the freedom fighters our ancestors here were, the real strangers are the Zionist foreign loyalist and their bought helpers. They aren't like us, they are not part of 'us', Israel is the exact opposite of 'us.
      That is the actual truth we have to get across to the public. I think its getting across bit by bit because no matter how bad the US is currently people still basically subscribe to the 'ideals' of it and cant help but see the difference between Israel's Jewish rule and supremacy ideal and the old US 'common good' ideal.

      Washington's Farewell Address 1796

      ''All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

      However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

      The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

      Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

      It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

      ''In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

      So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

      As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

      ''Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

  • Schumer is obnoxious
    • just...

      Yes. Please tell us''>>>>>>

      Dont know about Anderson but can tell you what the attitude of a good number of people (Israel critics and growing bigger) toward Israel is----''Fed up, sick and tired of it.'' Just plain fed up.
      If it wasn't for the displacement/Jews leaving Isr/ problem that would come from dismantling it as a Jewish ruled state I wouldn't care if it disappeared tomorrow. It's made itself a problem for the US and Palestines and others for 65 years and shows no sign of changing-----time's up.

  • Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders get off Israel bandwagon, for once
    • To answer your actual question though about being 'out of touch' with the public, yea they are totally out of touch because they dont pay attention to 'the public' --they only pay attention to niches and money and voter 'blocks'...they dont have any idea what is bubbling in the wider public.....most of all they dont care.
      They have almost zero contact with the public----their so called public campaigning is 99% of the time appearing at those 'niche' fundraisers.

    • Horizontal
      September 26, 2014, 6:39 pm

      I think the politicians are a mixture. Some are tribe members that literally are a Israeli fifth column. A few like the pipsqueak from Tx are true whacko christo zios. Then there are the neocon psychos like McCain get off on constant war, blood and domination so Isr fits that bill perfectly.

      But most do it for campaign money ...blood money...30 pieces of silver.
      There are probably only 10 at most on the whole hill who have any morals or balls --or even any patriotism for the US.

    • Kay Hagan has yet to show her face in this part of her district--we've been laying in wait for her.
      She going to lose to the republican candidate--not any better but who cares , at this point the goal is to just .keep throwing them all out

  • Netanyahu erases the boundary between world Jewry and Israel in celebration of 'our country'
  • Ohio treasurer fights divestment from the 'beacon of American values' in the Middle East
    • Nothing insults me more than people like Mandel calling themselves Americans...wrapping themselves in the flag while undermining the US.
      Pretend patriotism--last refuge of scoundrels

  • Russell Tribunal finds evidence of incitement to genocide, crimes against humanity in Gaza
    • Wake up and smell the coffee ActivistGal.
      Making a presentation to the EU parliament and attracting 1 million views to your videos on this issue is not a small thing.
      Out of curiously what are you an activist on? The I/P issue or some other?

      link to

      David Sheen @davidsheen · Sep 25

      10-minute video by @MaxBlumenthal & myself on Israel's persecution of African refugees just surpassed 1 million views link to

      link to

      Max Blumenthal retweeted
      David Sheen @davidsheen · 23h

      IMAGE: @MaxBlumenthal, @Mogaza present @russelltribunal evidence of Israeli crimes in Gaza at the EU parliament today

  • 'Civility' is for dancing classes, not universities, and is tool of pro-Israel political operatives -- Franke
    • Its about controlling the 'language' using 'settlements' instead of 'colonies' or 'occupied towns/territory' which gives a different impression/picture.

    • thanks MRW---

    • @Mooser,

      This actually very interesting stuff that could explain a lot of about why humans think the way they do.
      I dont have time to go thru all MRW's postings to find it but I'll ask him for the links if he saved the articles---it was a while ago.

    • ''Civility is for dancing classes...''Franke

      I like this lady. LOL
      So true. When dealing with Zionist Israel supporters especially.
      I think one reason I even bother to read or follow the Zios drivel any more is I am fascinated by their upside down brains. How did their brains get that way?
      They attack people like a pack of hyenas , defame, slander them, lie, cost them their jobs.
      And then demand everyone else be 'civil'....gawd!..there is a huge void in their grey matter if they think no one notices the hypocrisy.

      MRW posted some interesting articles on here a while back about scientific research being done on whether 'taught emotions and beliefs" that are constantly repeated and passed down in generations of families or groups can ' genetically alter' the brain and some of its functions. I think there may be something to that There has to be some explanation beyond just 'cult thinking' for the hypocrisy....,.something that doesnt 'click' mentally and allow them to register it.
      When you study the 'instincts' of animals which is inherited generation after generation in animal 'memories' its entirely possible humans could inherit the same process.

  • US elites are vulnerable to donor pressure on Israel question
    • '' Could it be that there’s some lack of democratic internal governance within established Jewish religious entities, that allows for safe dissent '' ...Betsy

      Zionism, which does have a hold on the Jewish religious 'establishment ' doesnt do' democracy. They do money, threats, etc. just like they do in every other arena.

    • @ Krauss

      However I dont believe its happening fast enough, hope I am wrong.
      Because there has never been a time in history when any kind of corruption reached certain peak that a upheaval didnt occur.
      Some people think it wont happen in the US just because it never has before.
      Well the US is still a teenager when compared to the histories of other countries, we're now at the tail end of the second stage of national corruption. There's nothing on the political horizon to prevent us entering the final end stage
      So US's turn is coming and when it does the turn over will also include the I-Fifth Column.

  • No Surprise Dep't: David Brooks's son is in Israeli army
    • '' it’s dual loyalty, and Brooks deserves to be confronted about it ''...MRW

      I noticed a while back that Walt ( The Israel Lobby) has taken a harder line on the I=People. In one of his articles at FP he wrote that for the I-Leaders is wasnt 'dual loyalty' it was 'single loyalty'.

    • link to

      ''We are in the midst of a “leadership crisis,” Brooks writes, and the answer to it is a “return” to leadership by a self-styled elite class.

      This leadership crisis is eminently solvable. First, we need to get over the childish notion that we don’t need a responsible leadership class, that power can be wielded directly by the people. America was governed best when it was governed by a porous, self-conscious and responsible elite — during the American revolution, for example, or during and after World War II. ''

      Yes indeed, it takes a foreign loyalist to tell America we need a aristocracy of a 'self styled elite class'.
      Well that's what we've got right now---a self styled 'class' that has 'no class'.
      I guess maybe Brooks thinks he would qualify to be part of that self styled aristocracy...or maybe he thinks he already is.

    • @ krauss

      Just call it what it is --a foreign Fifth Column in the US.


      ''A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. . Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of sabotage, disinformation, or espionage executed within by sympathizers with an external force.


      Emilio Mola, a Nationalist General during the Spanish Civil War, told a journalist in 1936 that as his four columns of troops approached Madrid, a "fifth column" of supporters inside the city would support him and undermine the Republican government from within.

      I think that definition of US Zionism in the US is the right one..

  • Rabbis want to criticize Israel but fear donors (and 'NYT' buries the news)
    • I was about to say that same thing annie.....I got as far as ......''Israel’s occupation of Arab lands won in battle and its standoff with the Palestinians""... ..the 'downplay' ....I wasnt interested in reading any more and went to reading the comments.

  • What Max Blumenthal saw in Gaza
    • ivri
      September 24, 2014, 11:41 am

      Just simple observation of humankind my dear Watson...said Sherlock.

    • '' At some level everyone is the same. '>>>>

      Well fortunately or unfortunately everyone is not alike-- at least not all the time. And any people can be better or worse than others---at least some of the time. That's the real pity of just about everything in the world. Humans don't seem to ever learn. Or they don't all ever learn the lesson of their pasts at the same time.

  • Russell Tribunal on Palestine: Delegitmisation of Israeli apartheid has to happen in the courtroom too
    • @ Activist Gal

      I disagree about Waters, he attracts people to the issue.

      For the other of not getting involved because its ...''it’s too pedestrian and far too simplistic. Even some of the mock trials I participated in as an undergraduate were more serious than this ''

      The fact is the 'serious law' hasnt *gotten the job done* in 65 years has it?

      Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way is my motto or shorter form ....put up or shut up.

    • @ Activist Gal

      I agree with what you say mostly ---but Russell is better than nothing. We know it has no real legal authority or standing but having a few names like Waters might attract people like him (real hell raisers) to the 'cause.'
      But like you say there are some very qualified legal experts out there that should be doing this.
      I use to be on a list serve, cant remember which one, back when I was keeping up with the legal angle on I/P and there are lawyers who have an interest in this issue----learned a lot from their arguments back and forth.
      You should get involved.

    • '' The Russell Tribunal’s formality, ‘big name’ jury and appeal to a diplomatic class does not make it any less fierce or grounded. This is about taking the law into our own hands.'''

      All for it....I agree this is necessary.
      But I dont think its going to win it because the road to legal justice has a lot of political corruption pitfalls .
      So you need the pub guys that are comfortable with conflict to go out and help clear the path for you.

  • Israeli refuseniks expose Occupation’s dark underbelly
    • I have tried to think of what differences there might be in Phil and Max as compared to Norman, Medea and Col Wright to explain it:
      Norman has ripped the Holocaust Industry to shreds.
      Medea is one who actually gets in the 'politicians' faces.
      Col Wright has respected military and 'moral' status in her resigning over Iraq) for her blasting of Israel-US.

      But then you have Max's book which was a nuclear bomb on Isr society.
      And Phil's daily revelations on Israeli crimes and the tentacles of the I-Column in the US.

      So thinking like Isr and a Z what would be my reasons for the difference? Maybe it is Max's father connections in his case.
      Maybe in MW-Phils case they see some value in his effort to separate (Israel) blame from US Jews blame cause if there was a big turning against US Jews Isr would be up shit's creek without a paddle. But then otoh MW 'rebel rouses' Jews against zionism--but on another other hand maybe they think zionism ideology isnt well known enough among the public for it to really have any impact on illuminating what Israel actually is for many people.

      But on the other, other, other hand they never exhibited good sense in who they attack and attack any and everyone. The US Zs call MW and Phil a-s or self hating, I believe I've seen the same slur applied to Max so I dont know.
      Phil and Max should tell us how they do it.

    • Speaking of Exposure of the Dark Underbelly........Max is at the Russell Tribunal in Brussels.

      Check out his to

      I cant figure how he is able to get in and out of Gaza and do what he does......only thing that might enable him is his fathers former WH position and political connections. Irsael might be leery of roughing him up for fear of retaliation from his father who also might know where a lot of zionist bones are buried Israel doesnt want to hit the cable news if they do anything to his son.

    • The 43 better get out of Israel before they are 'disappeared' or meet with 'accidents'.

  • Goldberg tries to police view that Israel's actions fuel anti-Semitism
    • P.S.

      Since you asked though what you specifically could do could do less agonizing over what Zionism is doing to the Jews and more agonizing over the non Jewish people its killing and oppressing.
      I cant remember you ever writing a comment about Palestines.
      Maybe you did and I didnt see it.

    • Mooser

      ''I rewally wish you would tell me what it is, American. It would be a kindness, don’t you see? You tell me what it is that Jews do which pisses people off, and I’ll try to not do it. Can’t garauntee, blood’s, blood, you know, and will tell. But it’s a win-win. I refrain from doing something bad, and people get less pissed off at me, or even Jews generally. So what is it? - >>>>>>>

      It is what I said was--and evidently still is for some---its the Hatfields and McCoys Feud!

      As for what Jews do that piss people off we do have to insert the *Some Jews* here.
      Currently it is Israel and the US Zionist that have people pissed off at the Jews.
      Yea,yea, can say its just Zionist-- but thats not the *perception* the public has.....thanks to Isr and the Zios.....and even thanks to some mainstream Judaism that has adopted it...and then too the Jews that get out and create a spectacle supporting Isr and waving Isr flags around while Isr is slaughtering people.
      That is not exactly brilliant PR for Jews.
      And yea yea yea you can say well its still antisemitism if people blame or take it out on All the Jews.
      But dont ask me how to solve the problem of people blaming
      all the Jews.
      But I will say most Jews who dont want people blaming all the Jews go about their a-s complaints/talking the absolutely wrong way.

    • ''one could, with very little effort, and a big potential reward, expand the term to cover every Jewish person born by oh, 1945, or ’48 and of course, the “Sons of” and so on. - ""...Mooser

      Believe it or not that is exactly what Israel just did.
      They had been after Germany to pay them more for childhood victims or descendents trauma . I recently read that they had reached an agreement and that for payment purposes and to ascertain the total amount to be paid it would be based on European Jews 'born after 1937' or thereabout.
      The Holocaust group changed the definition of survivor long ago from Jews who actually survived the camps to any Jews who emigrated from or fled from or hid out in any of the Nazi occupied countries.
      I didnt save the news article you can probably goggle it.

    • Mooser
      September 23, 2014, 8:51 pm

      Oh come on Mooser you arent that uneducated.
      Jews didnt like Christians any more than Christians liked Jews.
      The Jews threw a lot of dirty stuff around about Christians that got the Catholic Popes and Churches after them just like the Christians did about Jews.
      You know the crazy Rabbi Kook and his ranting about how goy souls are less than the lowest souls on earth and the other Rabbi nutcase in Israel who preached that it was perfectly fine to kill non Jewish babies lest they grow up and attack Jews? Well if you read some history about the past the Jews were saying that same stuff way back then also so it wasn't like they was just minding their own business and weren't provoking some trouble themselves. I cant remember which Pope is was but one of the banishing of the Jews was caused by some Rabbis passing out what the church viewed as 'vile' writings about Jesus's mother Mary. So naturally that started something.

      I do agree the Jews got the short end of the spear most of the times in those ancient fights. But the fact is that the Jews got done in most of the time because they were the smaller group, they had lost their numbers to first to Christianity and then later lost more followers to Islam so they were outnumbered every time any shit hit the fan.

      And actually there were times when the Jews slaughtered Christians documented in real history books--'real' as opposed to the religious's favorite religious books. The Jewish slaughter of some 60,000 Christians at Mamilla is one of the well known ones during the Persian takeover. And there are documented instances where they joined up with Romans also in attacks on Christians.

      link to


      ‘’ Jews and Persians joined forces in the Galilee, and together destroyed Byzantine churches and other Christian buildings up and down the coast from Antioch to Gaza in 614 A.D. All of the churches and Christian buildings in Palestine, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, were destroyed, and the remnants of the True Cross were taken triumphantly to Persia.

      The Persians ransomed their hostages to the Jewish fighters, who then marched them to the Mamilla Pool and slaughtered them.

      The only church that remained untouched at this time was the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, because the Persians, recognizing the Magi depicted in a mosaic as Persian sages, decided to leave it unharmed. The war permanently shaped the Christian built environment in Jerusalem and its rural hinterlands, the Galilee, and along the Lebanese coast.
      Ultimately, the Persians withdrew in 617 A.D. and the Byzantines began to rebuild.

      The Mamilla Massacre is a dark chapter in the annals of the Jewish people, a sobering and necessary reminder of what hatred and revenge can breed in the human heart - ''

      See more at: link to

      P.S The site of the Jewish slaughter of the Christians at Mamilla is where Israel is building another holocaust or 'tolerance' center. Its also where Muslim graves were and they tried to get Israel to choose another site and leave the graves undistrubed ....But, of course they wouldn’t. Unfortunately for Isr some archeologist had already excavated the site and dug up the remains so the events at Mamilla resurfaced in the news again before Israel could 'pave over it'.

      The Christian -Jewish hatred was always mutual. When people educate themselves and understand that maybe they will finally let it go.

    • Yes. No mention of the drowned Gazans fleeing Israel's slaugher.
      But the US media spent 3 weeks chewing their cud over the dead in the plane crash in the Ukraine.

    • What exactly yonah ---do you want to discuss about anti semitism?
      What can possibly be said or fought over that hasnt already?

    • @ Mooser

      Evidently the "Lynch' as specifically related to lynching blacks is a hoax.

      According to this the lynch term probably came from:... '' A better documented early use of the term "Lynch law" comes from Charles Lynch, a Virginia justice of the peace and militia officer during the American Revolution''

      William Lynch speech
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      The William Lynch speech is an address purportedly delivered by a certain William Lynch (or Willie Lynch) to an audience on the bank of the James River in Virginia in 1712 regarding control of slaves within the colony.[1] The letter purports to be a verbatim account of a short speech given by a slave owner, in which he tells other slave masters that he has discovered the "secret" to controlling black slaves by setting them against one another. The document has been in print since at least 1970, but first gained widespread notice in the 1990s, when it appeared on the Internet.[2] Since then, it has often been promoted as an authentic account of slavery during the 18th century, though its inaccuracies and anachronisms have led historians to conclude that it is a hoax.[2][3]


      1 Text
      2 Popular references
      3 William Lynch
      4 Notes
      5 References
      6 External links


      The reputed narrator, William Lynch, identifies himself as the master of a "modest plantation" in the British West Indies who has been summoned to the Virginia Colony by local slaveowners to advise them on problems they have been having in managing their slaves. He briefly notes that their current violent method of handling unruly slaves – lynching, though the term is not used – is inefficient and counterproductive. Instead, he suggests that they adopt his method, which consists of exploiting differences such as age and skin color in order to pit slaves against each other. This method, he assures his hosts, will "control the slaves for at least 300 hundred [sic] years."[1] Some online versions of the text attach introductions, such as a foreword attributed to Frederick Douglass, or citations falsely giving Lynch's name as the source of the word "lynching".[2]

      The text of the speech has been published since at least 1970.[2] It appeared on the internet as early as 1993, when a reference librarian at the University of Missouri–St. Louis posted the document on the library's Gopher server.[4] The librarian later revealed that she had obtained the document from the publisher of a local newspaper, The St. Louis Black Pages, in which the narrative had recently appeared.[4] Though eventually convinced the document was a forgery, the librarian elected to leave it on the Gopher server, as she believed that "even as an inauthentic document, it says something about the former and current state of African America", but added a warning about its provenance.[4]

      The text contains numerous anachronisms, including words and phrases such as "refueling" and "fool proof" which were not in use until the early 20th century.[3] Additionally, historian Roy Rosenzweig notes that the divisions emphasized in the text – skin color, age, and gender – are distinctly 20th-century in nature, and make little sense in an 18th-century context.[2] As such, historians such as Rosenzweig and William Jelani Cobb of Spelman College regard the William Lynch speech as a hoax.[2][3]
      Popular references

      Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan quoted the speech at the Million Man March in October 1995, making the speech better known in the process.[5] He later cited Willie Lynch's scheme as an obstacle to unite African Americans in his open letter regarding the Millions More Movement in 2005.[6] The speech was also quoted during the protests surrounding the 2001 presidential inauguration.[2]
      William Lynch
      Main article: William Lynch (Lynch law)

      Forewords attached to some online versions of the speech credit the narrator's name as the source of the terms "lynching" and "Lynch law", despite the narrator specifically advocating against lynching.[1][3] A man named William Lynch did indeed claim to have originated the term during the American Revolutionary War, but he was born in 1742, thirty years after the alleged delivery of the speech.[7][8] A document published in the Southern Literary Messenger in 1836 that proposed William Lynch as the originator of "lynch law" may have been a hoax perpetrated by Edgar Allan Poe.[9] A better documented early use of the term "Lynch law" comes from Charles Lynch, a Virginia justice of the peace and militia officer during the American Revolution

    • Good statement Hughes.

    • I am beginning to think the word prejudice is over used or means too much in a lot of cases.
      One of my sons was so sloppy his room was always a disaster area---his mother and I disliked that trait of his and stayed on him all the time about it.........were we prejudiced against him?
      So if Gypsies are actually sloppy and leave a mess if they stay on my property and it irritates me , am I actually prejudiced against Gypsies or just disapproving of that particular habit of theirs?
      What if I say the Jewish habit of agonizing over who, what, etc is a Jew and so forth gives me brain freeze cause its too much navel gazing for my taste? Am I prejudiced against Jews just because to me personally all that introspection is boring or a turn off?
      What if Jews say non Jews or gentiles are too blunt and insensitive to people, they are rude and uncouth. Are they prejudiced against gentiles?

      The 'prejudice' thing gets blown out of proportion a lot of the time imo. You can even think the 'group' shares some traits you dont like. But so what, not everything about every body appeals to everyone else, doesn't mean you really, as in *Really Don't Like Them*--means you don't like certain habits or whatever they have. You can even not want to hang out with them cause they aren't your cup of tea.

      Prejudice to me means you dislike a person or group to the point where you don't think they are deserving of the same basic things or treatment other people are.

    • @ tree

      Everything is 'code' to the code hunters..
      I cant forget the time a commenter called me a racist.
      When I asked why she would think that she said because I used the word 'lynch' and black people used to be lynched and only a bigot would be insensitive enough to use that word..
      Swear to gawd that's what she said and she was serious....and I had used the word lynch in reference to some 'politician', a 'white' politician I am pretty sure, in a conversation that had nothing to do with blacks or race.

    • '' And I always thought you were only an antisemite. But the combination of Jews and Gypsies is quite revealing '''.....Talkback

      That is a ridiculous accusation against RoHa imo.
      Of course any groups habits/ traits/attitudes/actions can bring about dislike of the group or discrimination against them by some other group.
      No one says the dislike or discrimination is always valid, sometimes it may be and some times not.
      And there is no ....' universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice are not the cause of prejudice. -'' ......that is total bs
      I am prejudice against cannibals because they eat people.

      What is the problem with mentioning or as you say combining Jews and Gypies? ......I dont get it.


    • BTW......the US is bombing Syria right now.

    • "all we see right now coming out of Syria and Iraq are these beheadings … that just captures the public..... of course we’re going to associate that with the Muslim religion and Islam in general." --

      Susan Crabtree, Washington Examiner link to

    • @ ritzl

      If I say 'Zionism' to people most of them have no idea what I am talking about. Everyone knows Jews and everyone knows Israel is a Jewish State. But unless they are followers of I/P and Isr or have researched /explored the history and conflict chances are they never heard of Zionism.

      And trying to avoid the wrong phrases or language like 'The Jews or the' Jewish community is just about impossible even when you have a Phd in Zionism because the Zionist constantly make it overlap with their Jews claim and then the anti zio side even makes it over lap langauge wise in 'the Jewish community' really no matter how much you know , discussing Israel and Jews is like trying to walk thru a cow pasture without stepping in any cowpies---you are inadvertently going to step in some shit now and then..

    • Me too....

      My thought when reading they were wrapped in Israeli flags is the a-s protestors must be jewish...cant imagine non jewish German wrapping themselves in the Israeli flag to protest a-s.
      Maybe someone can find more exact coverage of this.
      Cause wrapping yourself in the Israeli flag to protest a-s has to be the dumbest thing I've heard of.

    • Is this the same guy that was attacked before or a different one?
      Seen several reports of Jews being attacked by Jews in England for criticizing Israel.

  • Homegrown jihadis and the limits of the Israel lobby
    • '' When it comes to the embargo, I would have to study it more closely but my takeaway has always been that the US was more interested in keeping Israel as a buffer against revolutionary nationalism, and called OPEC’s bluff.
      More importantly, other oil companies were negotiating with OPEC regarding prices, and OPEC balked (meaning there were other players involved).......maggiepie

      O.K. I am determined to be nice and not browbeat you cause its bad to bully a girl.
      So I'm just going to say educate yourself with real facts and history and lay off where ever you are getting the hasbara from.

      link to

      Department of State
      Office of the Historian
      Oil Embargo, 1973–1974
      During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an embargo against the United States in retaliation for the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military and to gain leverage in the post-war peace negotiations. Arab OPEC members also extended the embargo to other countries that supported Israel including the Netherlands, Portugal, and South Africa. The embargo both banned petroleum exports to the targeted nations and introduced cuts in oil production. Several years of negotiations between oil-producing nations and oil companies had already destabilized a decades-old pricing system, which exacerbated the embargo’s effects.

      The onset of the embargo contributed to an upward spiral in oil prices with global implications. The price of oil per barrel first doubled, then quadrupled, imposing skyrocketing costs on consumers and structural challenges to the stability of whole national economies. Since the embargo coincided with a devaluation of the dollar, a global recession seemed imminent. U.S. allies in Europe and Japan had stockpiled oil supplies, and thereby secured for themselves a short-term cushion, but the long-term possibility of high oil prices and recession precipitated a rift within the Atlantic Alliance. European nations and Japan found themselves in the uncomfortable position of needing U.S. assistance to secure energy sources, even as they sought to disassociate themselves from U.S. Middle East policy. The United States, which faced a growing dependence on oil consumption and dwindling domestic reserves, found itself more reliant on imported oil than ever before, having to negotiate an end to the embargo under harsh domestic economic circumstances that served to diminish its international leverage. To complicate matters, the embargo’s organizers linked its end to successful U.S. efforts to bring about peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors
      President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recognized the constraints inherent in peace talks to end the war that were coupled with negotiations with Arab OPEC members to end the embargo and increase production. But they also recognized the linkage between the issues in the minds of Arab leaders. The Nixon administration began parallel negotiations with key oil producers to end the embargo, and with Egypt, Syria, and Israel to arrange an Israeli pullout from the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Initial discussions between Kissinger and Arab leaders began in November 1973 and culminated with the First Egyptian-Israeli Disengagement Agreement on January 18, 1974. Though a finalized peace deal failed to materialize, the prospect of a negotiated end to hostilities between Israel and Syria proved sufficient to convince the relevant parties to lift the embargo in March 1974.

      The embargo laid bare one of the foremost challenges confronting U.S. policy in the Middle East, that of balancing the contradictory demands of unflinching support for Israel and the preservation of close ties to the Arab oil-producing monarchies. The strains on U.S. bilateral relations with Saudi Arabia revealed the difficulty of reconciling those demands. The U.S. response to the events of 1973–1974 also clarified the need to reconcile U.S. support for Israel to counterbalance Soviet influence in the Arab world with both foreign and domestic economic policies.

      The full impact of the embargo, including high inflation and stagnation in oil importers, resulted from a complex set of factors beyond the proximate actions taken by the Arab members of OPEC. The declining leverage of the U.S. and European oil corporations (the “Seven Sisters”) that had hitherto stabilized the global oil market, the erosion of excess capacity of East Texas oil fields, and the recent decision to allow the U.S. dollar to float freely in the international exchange all played a role in exacerbating the crisis. Once the broader impact of these factors set in throughout the United States, it triggered new measures beyond the April and November 1973 efforts.

      Being embargoed because of Israel’s war cost US ‘business’ billions and cost the world trillions.

      FURTHERMORE...... a few examples of --tell us again how capitalist US supports Israel cause there is profit for them in it?

      ''With the oil embargo in place, the industrial governments of the world in some way altered their foreign policy regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict and after the use of the Arab oil weapon. These included European countries such as the UK who decided to refuse to allow the United States to use British bases in the UK and in Cyprus to airlift resupplies to Israel along with the rest of the members of the European Community''

      *Pay attention maggie pie....the European (and world) reaction to the US supporting Israel put some sever kinks in its “imperial spread” and for the capitalist to profit abroad they need that US imperial umbrella. The kinks in the dumb capitalist support for Israel has cost them some money—that must be why they do it they don’t want to make more money. lol

      ''A year after the start of the 1973 oil embargo, the nonaligned bloc in the United Nations passed a resolution demanding the creation of a "New International Economic Order" in which resources, trade, and markets would be distributed more equitably, with the local populations of nations within the global South receiving a greater share of benefits derived from the exploitation of southern resources, and greater respect for the right to self-directed development in the South be afforded by the North.

      *Hello again maggie pie and other imperial capitalism not the Lobby! do realize don’t you that that UN resolutions brought BRICS in relation to US support of Israel meant US capitalist and the US would have a harder time ‘exploiting’ other countries for their own profit. So explain to us how it was in US capitalism interest to support Israel which brought on this chain of events? Hummm?

      Now Chomskites take your highlighter pen and highlight each sentence/event/blowback that shows US support for Israel was in US interest or US capitalist interest---also highlight each sentence that shows the US depended on Israel to prevent Arab nationalism and explain to us how supporting Israel attacks on Arabs helped keep Arab nationalism down..rotflmao---also why if the US was so dependent Arab oil it pissed them off by shipping Israel weapons and giving them a 2 billon grant the week after the '73 war started.
      Also explain to us how supporting and arming pissant little Israel as a 'deterrent' to Soviet popularity and influence among Arab countries was going to turn those Arab countries away from the Soviet Union and toward the US.
      If you want to stick to these claims then you need to say that US leaders including the imperial capitalist were so stupid they couldnt even figure out how to open their own car door.
      Or you could always reform and admit the truth that politicians make policy decisions based on politics 99% of the time and Israel is a 'domestic political consideration'' every former US President has said in their Presidential Library papers----- and they will let the capitalist and US main street and everyone else take the hits and loses to avoid political attacks that could damage them and their parties ambitions.

      Come on you can do it crank up the Chomskey imperial" jingos, "...get that one reason, 'imperialism fits every event' record going.
      All people and mean all, including Israel critics, that think the US has One Motive for e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g it does are so shallow they could drown in a saucer.
      What the US DOES for Israel and often does TO other countries FOR Israel is because of the Lobby. Period
      Once in a while the Lobby doesnt get what it wants like a US attack on Iran---Saudi wants one too but neither have gotten it ..yet.
      But the Lobby pursues what it wants thru every WH adm and what one president wont capitulate on to our AIPAC congress another might.

    • @ maggie,

      I made this comment 'only after' I researched many of your previous writings and "positions" ---like this one which you wrote in 2010 and is a laundry list of all the things the "Lobby' forced the US to do and even uses W&M for authority:

      link to

      So your 'switcharoo' says more about you than my critique says about me.

      The reason you get called out by those like me on serving the lobby koolaide is because intentionally or unintentionally redirecting the focus from the Lobby to the ' capitalist and imperial state motives is just that----moving the target that needs to be hit. So I dont care what kind of activist you are if what you do is throwing the dogs off the scent.

      No one here is stupid enough to believe the Lobby 'runs everything'.

      Neither is anyone here stupid enough to believe that the CEO's of Lockheed, Boeing, GE, BOA, et al were the ones calling congress and demanding they support Israel's Gaza slaughter.

      THAT was the Lobby my dear.

      So nice try but no cigar.

    • LOL

      MW needs to create another subject column for articles.
      File this one under 'hasbara and gate keeping' for the Jewish Lobby, Zionist and Israel.

  • Naive? At a Jewish spiritual retreat center, I insist on talking about Gaza
    • Mooser,,,,

      Okay American, what do you mean “I am not Jewish”? I realize you may not follow the Jewish religion (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!) but aqpart from that, why aren’t you Jewish? What is the difference between you and a Jew?>>>>

      The answer is right there----I am not Jewish because I dont follow the Jewish religion.
      I am not a believer in all that Jews are a certain peoplehood and distinct ethnic or race stuff.
      That is such common sense it shouldnt have taken Sands to have to point that out.

    • NickJOCW
      September 22, 2014, 5:36 am

      We can’t ignore the fact that this war would never have happened without American backing and support.''>>>>

      We know this already.
      Talk about a solution that would work to end US support.

    • @ Mooser

      "hey can kick the rest of us out any time they feel like it, and how do you plan to stop them? Isn’t Israel the representative of the Jews, the Jewish State? '>>>>

      If I were Jewish, ( since I'm not cant say for certain) , but I dont think I would care if they kicked me out.

      The fact is the Zionist and Israel 'need' the Jews, not visa versa.

      I have read that when Jews were excluded from wasp country clubs back when, they pitched in some coins and built their own country clubs.
      Build some clubs that exclude zionist.....application for membership denied due to anti social and moral turpitude concerns. lol

    • Well then you are probably wasting your time on them and should read this book to understand the folly of trying to change them.
      I have used the narcissism label for the tribe many times, at least the Zionist wing of it, and this book also covers tribal narcissism.
      Tribal narcissism breeds a lot of very bad and scary things, from soccer fans killing each other to Zionist .

      '' This is your brain on narcissism''

      link to

      Jeffrey Kluger, author of “The Narcissist Next Door,” is that it is actually a clinical personality disorder affecting 1 to 3 percent of the population. Kluger’s book goes beyond cautionary tales of narcissism — like that of Narcissus — and explores how the disorder affects daily life, relationships, government, Hollywood, sports and elsewhere.


      Personality disorders like narcissism, paranoia, histrionic personality disorder and borderline personality disorders are what is called egosyntonic.
      You think you’re not narcissistic, you really are better. You’re not paranoid, there really are people who are after you. So until you get over that belief, until you can stop fighting on behalf of your disorder, you’re never going to get into a psychologist’s office in the first place

      Is there a chapter that was really surprising?

      The one on tribal narcissism. I find that topic terrible and dark and fascinating and all kinds of combinations. I’ve written a bunch for Time on morality and racism and how tribalism drives those kinds of behaviors. And tribalism in this case really is just narcissism, the grandiosity of the group. So it wasn’t too hard to find the overlap in the Venn diagram there. So I find that topic both compelling and awful.''

      Do you want to delve more into the chapter for the reader who hasn’t gone more into it?

      There’s narcissism of the individual and there’s narcissism of the group, and in both cases it’s essentially the same thing. We are better, we are more entitled, we are different or at least less interested in the people around us, or the tribes or nations around us, because we’re worthier than they are. Our people are the prettiest, our language is the most musical, our clothes are the most stylish. And these people are barbarians or at the very best civilized but crude. We are deserving of resources just as I, as the individual, am deserving of the raise, or deserving of the job or deserving of the hottest girl at the party because I’m better than the other guys around me''

      At the end of book you arrived at a place of having sympathy for narcissists. What led you to that that place?

      Well there’s nothing wrong with responding to narcissism with frustration and fear and outrage and exasperation, and all these different things we feel when we’re dealing with impossible people. But at the same time, almost all that behavior comes from pain. Almost all of that behavior comes from some kind of internal suffering.
      The same is true of anyone. Anyone who is so tormented by internal doubt and a private personal history that affects the way you behave — I wouldn’t want to feel the pain the raging narcissist feels''

    • Gene Shae
      September 21, 2014, 10:16 pm

      If I was at this retreat, lynne would have been in tears''>>>>

      And If I had been there you would then have been sipping your dinner thru a straw for offending the lady.

    • @ Chet

      I am not a neurologist but here's how my psychiatrist sister in law explained it to me. Different parts of the brain are responsible for different processes ---the logical -rational part of the brain absorbs and processes information----but the part of the brain responsible for 'emotions' is actually the part of the brain that ' makes judgements" ---- depending on how screwed up it is its 'judgements' will be faulty (wrong) even though it has received all the information from the logical part necessary to make an accurate/ the right judgement. The emotional part of the brain is also the part that produces a person's 'conscience' ---neurologist and psychiatrist who study psychopaths claim that studies of their brains show area of no activity ... a small dead area in that portion of the brain.

      I am not excusing these people because even in the emotional brain a person still mentally 'chooses' the judgement he wants to go with. Probably why another old saying is a person believes what he wants to believe in spite of all facts to the contrary.

    • '' but the larger American society lets them (zionist/israelis) get away with it."""

      Yes we have for decades....but I dont think its been from indifference or racism---its been from ignorance. Allthe public knew of Israel was the false story media and press fed them.

      The internet has changed that a great deal.

      Plus activist are finally 'exposing' zionist and politicians by confronting them directly where they have to either answer the question put to them in public or run away in public....

      The few times I have gone to political meetings where there was any kind of back and forth between the candidate and audience I have wanted them to make some statement like Debbie Wasserman made---that'' the US has a moral obligation to Israel'.
      So I could ask....... 'why do we have a moral obligation to Israel?"
      So he or she could say.......''because of the holocaust.''
      So I could say........'what did the holocaust have to do with the US?
      So he or she could say.......''Americans let the Jews be murdered and didnt rescue them so they owe the Jews and Israel."
      So I could say ..'we didnt rescue our own POWs either,
      we let them die in Japaneses camps'.
      So she or he could say......'but we are Jews, the killed 6 million of us".
      So I could say...." but others are also people and Hitlers war killed 75 million non Jews".
      So she or he could then say...."but you wouldnt even let Jewish refuges into the US"
      So I could say......" you dont let any non Jews refugees into your Jewish state today so that complaint is hypocritical"
      So she or he could say what?.....''but because of non jews anti semitism the Jewish state has to be treated special for Jews to be safe'.
      So I could say.....' if anti semitism is a threat and thats why you dont let non Jews into the Jewish State why arent you and all Jews living in Israel, why are you here in a non Jewish state around possible anti semites if the safe place for Jews is Israel"?
      This could go on like this forever to everything they would say.

      I would luv to see a political "menage a trois' public debate on Isr-USA-I/P with Zionist, jewish anti zionist and gentiles and Palestine Israel critics all go at the issues of US-Isr, Israel and Palestine.
      Israel and the Zios would be totally ruined, stripped naked.

      But they would never allow themselves to be put on a stand in any real back and forth because they know they would 10 minute flat their responses would be reduced to --anti semite, self hating jew, terrorist, anti semite, self hating jew, terrorist, anti semite, self hating jew, terrorist...

      And the politicians?...they just keep running and ducking for cover.

      link to

      Max Blumenthal

      Bernie Sanders shrank away when I asked him about his vote on Gaza slaughter

      Gaza slaughter link to sequel to this link to

    • What makes some people susceptible to propaganda and brain washing?

      Wikipedia says for ''Weak Minded "... is the state of being easily impressionable or possessing a weak sense of self-will, judgement or conviction.
      A weak minded individual's opinion may be easily swayed by propaganda or emotional manipulation tactics, as they do not possess an adequate ability to judge or discern the quality of an assertion, or they may exhibit a lack of discipline."

      Weak minded used to be a term used a lot in the past to describe someone who could be easily led. Most brainwashed and/or fanatics of any kind are weak minded and it has nothing to do with being educated or not or mentally deficient or not . The rational logical part of their brain is short circuited by their ' emotional quirks'.
      Their brains basically have blown a fuse, the power is off upstairs.

  • The rabbi at the shitshow
    • The Rabbi's shit show is small potatoes compared to the real shit show --->the US Government:

      Stephen Walt: R U a "skeptic," "reproacher," or "enabler? @NathanThrall brilliantly dissects follies of US "peace processors."

      A must read, except I prefer to label the suspects as the 'evils, the 'ignorant and the 'incompetent.

      link to

      ''Despite the tactical differences among Skeptics, Reproachers, and Embracers, there is more uniting the three approaches than distinguishing them.
      Members of all three groups consider themselves pro-Israel and are concerned with preserving it as a Jewish state.
      All favor a two-state solution, the annexation by Israel of large settlement blocs on the West Bank, and a Palestinian capital in some part of East Jerusalem.
      All wish to deny Palestinian refugees anything more than a symbolic return to Israel, and do not call for the return to Israel of an upper limit of 120,000–125,000 refugees, as discussed at the Taba negotiations in 2001.
      All underestimate the moral significance to Palestinians of Israeli recognition of at least partial responsibility for the refugee problem. All imagine amounts of financial compensation to refugees that are orders of magnitude lower than refugees expect. (A 2003 survey showed that among those refugees willing to choose compensation instead of returning to Israel, 65 percent believed a fair amount would be $100,000–$500,000 per family. Prior to the Camp David negotiations in 2000, US officials estimated that a combined total of up to $20 billion might be available to Palestinian refugees and Jewish refugees from Arab countries, meaning that Palestinians could expect to receive no more than $1,000–$3,000 per refugee.)
      All neglect how unacceptable their proposals are to refugees, whose support will be indispensable for a lasting agreement, since they make up a majority of Palestinians worldwide and roughly 45 percent of the population of the West Bank and Gaza.

      All three groups back the Israeli demand to place severe restrictions on the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state, with limits on Palestinian armament, border control, and airspace, as well as the presence in the Palestinian state of international security forces, Israeli early-warning stations, routes for Israeli emergency deployments, and a continued presence for some considerable period of Israeli troops. Some but not all of these restrictions are acceptable to PLO leaders, but they remain highly unpopular with the Palestinian public.''

    • Mooser
      September 20, 2014, 1:08 pm

      Holy Crap, this is insane. Will anybody, anybody, find me one, just one example of Jews (outside of the ultimate ghetto, Israel) where Jews have, once emancipated elected to stay in an insular, self-administered closed-off society?>>>>>>

      I can point you to the Enlightenment period in Europe when the nations were offering full citizenship to Jews.
      There were some Rabbis who sounded just like Rabbi Lashew (who seems to be encouraging the ghetto mentality).
      I posted a link to the papers and documents that were exchanged between the nations leaders and the Jewish leaders on the subject of Jewish citizenship on here last year so its way back in the archives.
      What was most interesting was that Jewish leadership was split---the Rabbis were the ones who argued that citizenship for the Jews should contain special exemptions from obligations of national citizenship in order to preserve the 'unity of the tribe" iow they wanted the full rights citizenship but also wanted to maintain a kind of " ghetto light' for Jews.
      Their feared full assimilation even in the political national sense would threaten their rule or break up the tribe.
      I see that still at work among the Rabbis who have adopted Zionism.

    • Shmuel
      September 20, 2014, 5:26 am

      ''what is wrong with it affecting people who are emotionally invested in israel?''>>>>>

      "Something happens....then you make a choice and take a side".............
      Graham Green, The Quiet American

      I think we have reached the point where hurt feelings and emotions just have to be considered collateral damage.
      And whatever symbols or expressions like Megan's work, regardless of its non pc-ness, to divide and galvanize Jews and everyone else into opposing Israel and Zionism are acceptable.
      Only one side can win in this fight because Zionism will not compromise.
      So everyone should do and use whatever they can to make sure Israeli Zionism loses.

    • @ just

      Yea I 'm familiar with Kaufman, I posted his speech here not long ago.

    • Someone correct me if I'm wrong but it seems most of what I read about the campus activity is students advocating against Israeli crimes---not against Jews.

      otoh is seems most of what I see about the zionist students and their Rabbis (leaders) is them 'personally ' attacking the pro Palestine and peace advocates.

      I cant remember off hand who said this but it was a Jewish writer......"We've never been able to look into the others eyes and see when they've had enough of us".
      Truer words were never spoken about the Zionist (and Israelis).
      They never have and never will know when to leave well enough alone.

    • I see nothing admirable in the Rabbi--sounds like typical liberal zionist.
      Shoot and cry, whine, play the scared Jew card, condemn and insult.

      I am sure she would feel bad if she ran over a puppy but then she would expend the most angst on how it wasnt her fault, and the horrible effect it was going to have on' her.'
      Would she beat up the owner of the puppy she ran over for berating her about her driving?
      Probably, thats basically what she is doing to Marzec.

      There are no good zionist...there are only degrees of bad ones.

  • Will the WCC finally break the interfaith ecumenical deal?
    • I am not even very religious if truth be told but I remember as a child I started crying and making a fuss in church one time because there were paintings of Jesus carrying his cross and being whipped bloody by the guards. My parents had to cart me out of the church and plunk me down on the lawn across the street to quiet me down.

      So to all the Christians and Jews nattering on about their religious 'fellowship' worries and problems I would say shut up and pick up the cross and start walking.

Showing comments 9188 - 9101