Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 26963 (since 2009-07-30 20:11:08)

Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Showing comments 26963 - 26901

  • Searching for my grandmother's home in Yafa
    • speaking of sadistic, remember allison's article A tale of two Susiyas, or how a Palestinian village was destroyed under the banner of Israeli archeology - See more at: link to

      well, check out this Press Release:

      Israeli state pushes Court to take an unusual step threatening immediate demolition of an entire Palestinian village

      By refusing to issue an interim order until the case is heard, the court is allowing for the demolition of the Palestinian village of Susya and subsequent expulsion of its 340 residents to Area A.

      The refusal of the state to the request of an interim order freezing the demolitions suggests it has plans to demolish the village in the near future.

      The court allows the state to destroy the village before even deciding on the case.

      Jerusalem. May 6th, 2015: Yesterday, May 5 2015, Israeli High Court Judge Noam Sohlberg rejected the request for an interim order by the Palestinian village of Susya, represented by Rabbis for Human Rights, in a petition against the Civil Administration's decision to reject the master plan prepared by the village and against subsequent demolition of the entire village.

      The village argued that their plan was rejected for non-professional reasons and that the village should be legalized due to its unique history. The residents sought an interim order to freeze the implementation of the demolitions until the petition is heard, as is standard practice in these sort of cases.

      It was against this request for an interim order that Justice Solberg, without even conducting a hearing on the request, made the unusual move of granting the state's request not to freeze the orders. This decision means that the Civil Administration can now destroy Susya at any time. The demolition of the village will lead to hundreds of residents living in the desert with no roof over their heads and may result in their displacement. The state’s refusal to commit to waiting for a conclusion to the court proceedings raises great alarm that it intends to implement the demolition order in the near future; tragically, it seems the villagers are in real danger.

      In the petition, Susya's residents claimed that the army is obliged to legalize their village as it was the one to confiscate their land and their caves in 1986, leaving them without a housing solution and forcing them to move to their adjacent agricultural lands. As evidence to the life in the village prior to the expropriation, various testimonials and photographs of life in caves were presented to the judge. Among other things, there were documented photos of a visit by the US Consulate to the village at the beginning of 1986. The photos and testimony clearly shows that the Palestinian village of Susya is an old village formed prior to the Israeli occupation and the declaration of the area as an archaeological site.

      Among the evidence was the opinion of the late governmental legal adviser Plia Albeck (considered to be very pro-settlement and who wrote in her memoirs that she tried to find legal ways to declare Palestinian land as State land), indicating the existence of a Palestinian village in 1982 where today the archaeological site stands.

      Despite the evidence presented before him, revealing the many injustices done to the villagers – from the expropriation and dispossession of their lands, to the refusal by the state to recognize the status of the village in its new location - Judge Sohlberg did not agree to hear the case before allowing the demolishment the village and setting the fate of its inhabitants.

      Attached to the petition, inter alia, was an expert opinion by Prof. Eyal Benvenisti, a renowned expert in international law, stipulating that the demolition of the village of Susya constitutes a war crime.

      This week, a report by radical right-wing NGO "Regavim" (which has close ties to the settlement enterprise) was exposed indicating that in the nearby Jewish settlement, also called Susia, there are 23 illegal homes built on private Palestinian land. We have no indication of any attempt by the state to demolish these illegal structures in the settlement Sussia or in its nearby outposts. We see in this current situation that this Jewish settlement, whose very existence is prohibited by international law, and where some of its homes are sitting on private Palestinian land, is prosperous, while the Palestinian village of Susya, whose inhabitants are on their own private land, is at risk of displacement and loss of their entire village.

    • thank you Tamara! i am so ready for round 2 of this story ;) i love it.

  • Netanyahu appoints Ayelet Shaked—who called for genocide of Palestinians—as Justice Minister in new government
    • in general, are you an advocate of a carrot diet for israel, as in no sticks? and if so would that philosophy carry over to other countries as well, or just israel?

    • jeff, you claimed Netanyahu doesn’t want someone in the cabinet who is coming in promising to fight a war against the supreme court.

      your response to my request for a source for that allegation doesn't quote netanyahu or reference him. i have opened enough of your links in my days to know they don't provide sources for your allegations. the first link doesn't even mention netanyahu. can you try quoting something relevant to your allegation please. before demanding a retraction. thanks.

      btw, what you call 'censorship' we call spamming the thread with endless unsourced allegations.

    • this is to be expected (her ascension)and what was predicted (generally speaking) when netanyahu won the election. in a normal society someone would be cast out of politics for that genocidal FB screed. in israel, she gets promoted. this is the direction israel is heading, it should be no surprise to anyone.

    • jeff,

      She’s not for killing all the little snakes...I don’t know why you all feel the need to make up stuff.

      They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there. - See more at: link to

      who's making stuff up? you.

      Netanyahu while desperately wanting the coalition doesn’t want someone in the cabinet who is coming in promising to fight a war against the supreme court.

      do you have a source for this or are you making it up?

      edit: whoops, i see someone exited your denial/accusation comment. smart. oh well, my comment stands.

  • Not a single Muslim is quoted in 'NYT' profile of Geller
    • david, that's the least of it. from your jpost link:

      Netanyahu reached an agreement with Bayit Yehudi that will give the party the Education and Diaspora Affairs portfolios for its leader Naftali Bennett. MK Uri Ariel will be agriculture minister and MK Ayelet Shaked justice minister. Bennett succeeded in pressuring Netanyahu to give Shaked the Justice Ministry, because a coalition could not be formed without Bayit Yehudi’s eight Knesset seats. She was originally going to be given the Culture and Sports Ministry.

      did you read "Netanyahu appoints Ayelet Shaked—who called for genocide of Palestinians—as Justice Minister in new government" - See more at: link to

  • A response to the 'Washington Post' blogger who calls me an anti-Semite
    • honestly, where does he come up w/this crap about phil's life:

      phil was born into a jewish world.

  • 'NY Review of Books' says Tony Judt didn't really mean it when he called for the end of a Jewish state
  • Night of horror at Ben Gurion airport for two French music students
    • The Israeli media very often criticizes government, and there are many good people and organizations that do the same and act towards change. You can easily find evidence for this online, but you have to want to do so of course.

      we're already aware the israeli media publishes criticism of israel, many of our articles are sourced by israeli media. still, it doesn't change the apartheid practices just because those practices are reported in the media.

      I don’t feel I can say the same about Palestinian self-criticism (for example, why hamas so much money on terror tunnels, instead of education, welfare, government, etc.)

      hamas spends peanuts on defense in comparison to what the US and israel spend on israel's terrorizing occupation/military expenditures. if that money had been diverted to an equitable system of education, infrastructure and welfare in israel instead of investment in settlements and colonial expansionist policies we wouldn't be having this conversation. your hypocrisy is noted. and the tunnels help sustain a population strangled by the blockade.

      I think you won’t find a lot of ‘hasbarists’ commenting here, because a quick browsing of this site and some of the comments on this page even, suggests that the activity is mostly about fueling hatred of Israel and wishing it gone, not about criticism that is meant to bring change.

      you're wrong. first of all, we have a constant stream of hasbarists here every day. just not many on this thread. second, our criticism (along with others)is exposing israel and fueling a change in the US conversation about the apartheid state. otherwise, you wouldn't be here.

  • Obama's role model to journalists -- Dorothy Thompson -- turned against Zionism and was silenced
    • ;) thanks!

    • thanks gil, it's good to be back. and thanks for the great article!

    • She angrily wrote to a colleague at the American- and Saudi-funded organization - See more at: link to

      a lone casual unsourced mention by Susan Hertog does not a credible source make. is that all you've got to establish American Friends of the Middle East is saudi funded?

      link to

    • that book you quoted was written by susan hertog, wife of neocon roger hertog. link to

      Hertog has been associated with various conservative and neoconservative think tanks and publications. He is a chairman emeritus of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and board member of the American Enterprise Institute and the Club for Growth. He also helped found the Shalem Center in Israel. He was a part-owner of now-defunct The New York Sun, was a part-owner of The New Republic, and is a board member of Commentary. Inspired by John Lewis Gaddis and Paul Kennedy's Grand Strategy Program at Yale University, Hertog funded similar programs at Duke University, William E. Macaulay Honors College at CUNY and elsewhere.[2]
      Hertog has also funded the Hertog Global Strategy Initiative, a research program Columbia University that uses historical analysis to confront problems in world politics. Participants include high-ranking government officials, scholars, and graduate students.[3]

      perhaps she had a particular agenda when she wrote the book.

  • Palestinian teenager is shot dead at a checkpoint outside Jerusalem
    • Gaza is a war torn territory almost entirely dependent on foreign assistance

      and therefor the people are not like us? is that your point? but you don't really know any gazans! lol

    • have you ever met anyone from gaza?

  • Using the dead: the 'NYT' works with Israel to justify military service
    • My Rabbi introduced our shul to Mondoweiss in her Shabbos sermon about preparing your college bound children


  • Accusations of anti-Semitism roil Stanford campus as student coalition denies discrimination charges
    • i think it's molly who has problems with telling the truth link to

      Additionally, the accusation that we asked endorsees to sign a contract prohibiting them from affiliating with Jewish or Israeli groups is categorically false. Shortly after hearing this rumor, we published the contract we ask endorsees to sign, and it makes clear that we do not prohibit affiliations with any community. In fact, two SOCC-endorsed candidates were also endorsed by the Jewish Students Association.

    • and doesn't it seem a little odd someone would be running for student senate and not be familiar with the senate committees?????

    • Isn’t that really what you want? To force Zionist Jewish students to be marginalized unless they support BDS?

      no one is forcing Zionist Jewish students to be marginalized. i do think in social situations on campuses or anywhere it is natural for people to stay clear of, or isolate, people who support racist politics. i don't think this necessarily means a demand for everyone to support bds, it means not supporting a zionist agenda. but i don't think people should be forced into financially supporting war criminals and crimes against humanity and that's what using student funds to invest in corporations that invest in apartheid amounts to, a forced investment of student funds.

      I wonder how many people would find it objectionable for a student who is a fundamentalist Christian, to be asked how his or her Christian identity would affect their position on gay marriage rights

      if a student runs on a platform of being a proud fundamentalist Christian, then it's not only acceptable to ask what those values mean to them it's prudent to do so. they should not mention it in their profile unless they plan on communicating what that means and how it pertains to their candidacy. and that doesn't just go for religion it pertains to anything someone highlights about their identity in their platform.

      btw, i'm not sure if everyone opened the links. but this is instructive, it sounds like molly didn't do all her homework : link to

      SOCC, like several groups on campus, annually endorses election candidates. Any candidate may apply for an endorsement. We base our endorsements on the following criteria: (1) knowledge of senate functions, (2) nuanced understanding of campus issues currently impacting the communities that make up our coalition, and (3) a commitment to advocating on behalf of our communities. During our endorsement process, we offered an oral interview to all 31 applicants.

      Molly Horwitz did not receive a SOCC endorsement due to her lack of knowledge about the role of the ASSU Senate and lack of familiarity with SOCC communities. In particular, when asked to name the six organizations comprising SOCC, Ms. Horwitz was unable to correctly identify a single group. Her lack of familiarity with our organizations, from whom she sought endorsement, demonstrated a failure on her part to conduct basic research about who we are. Furthermore, when asked what Senate Committee she envisioned herself being a part of, Ms. Horwitz replied, the “Mental Health” Committee -- a committee that does not exist. It was these responses that led SOCC not to endorse her candidacy.

      In contrast, Ms. Horwitz provided well-thought out responses to questions about divestment. We asked 26 of the 31 candidates interviewed, including Ms. Horwitz, a standardized question regarding the Senate’s handling of divestment and sometimes follow-up questions. Other candidates were asked about other major campus issues like sexual assault or mental health resources at Stanford. The question served as a means for us to assess the candidates’ ability to evaluate a problem and design an action plan to resolve it. The question was not a litmus test for candidate views on divestment; indeed, SOCC endorsed candidates who did not sign the divestment petition.

      i recommend you read "Divestment doesn’t foster discrimination — Hillel and the ADL do" link to

    • They also dispute other claims, aired in the conservative publication Stanford Review, that student candidates were asked to sign a contract forbidding her and other candidates from partnering with Jewish groups on campus.

      this is a total lie. SOCC released the doc that all potential endorsees were asked to sign. the word "jewish" was not even in it.

      read it yourself: link to

      I agree to the Privacy and Confidentiality of Information of Materials...

      more at the link.

    • What a starling coincidence. One week after the explosion of press generated from the UCLA judicial review -- accusations of anti semitism "surge of hostile sentiment against Jews’ nationwide" that made it's way into the pages of the NYT, Morning Joe, Huff Post -- huge shitstorm on UC campuses across the state, allegedly, according to Molly Horwitz, (who's mother happens to be an ardent supporter of Stand With Us), a panel from SOCC just happens to ask Horowitz the exact same question ???

      maybe the members of SOCC all live under rocks and don't read the nyt or follow the latest accusations about anti semitism on californian campuses?

      Horwitz: I think that there’s no motivation for them to tell the truth, like at all.

      i think this was a set up. i think there was no reason for SOCC to do a repeat of UCLA during the very same week it was exploding in the press.

      On the evening of March 13th Molly Horowitz wrote this email (pdf) to Stanford University Election commissioner Sijjan Sri-Kummar ..... it reminded her of the "Rachel Beyda (Google for more information) fiasco":


      I had my SOCC interview today and one of the questions was literally this, “Given your Jewish identity, How would you vote on divestment?” I don’t know if other applicants were asked a question about divestment or whether it was just me. I also don’t know if it was recorded or not. They didn’t inform me that it was, but people were taking notes during it. It reminded me of the Rachel Beyda (Google for more information) fiasco at UCLA. I also asked my friend on the judicial affairs committee whether that was proper conduct. Please let me know if you need more information.


      It reminded her of Rachel Beyda? maybe ms horwitz and her mother w/stand with us wanted molly's face in the new york times. maybe she wanted national attention during her candidacy for Undergraduate Senate, and when she didn't get the much coveted SOCC endorsement she decided to make up a story.

      It's almost mana from heaven the way this incident just plopped itself right into the middle of big campaign alleging anti semitism is running rampant on california campuses.

      Here's a photo of Molly Horwitz in the New York Times, looking downright traumatized. She said she was "horrified" by the experience.

      please. this is a bunch of BS.

  • Marking Memorial Day in Tel Aviv with Kahanists and Combatants for Peace
    • I’ve tried to disentangle your angry, and mostly valid, attacks on Israel to find tactics that make sense, I just can’t find any.

      i engaged with you respectfully addressing your specific argument. initiating a response with an unsubstantiated reference my so called "angry" attacks is weak, diversionary, and duly noted!

      of course Palestinian violence is not “responsible for the perpetuation of the conflict. ” He most certainly did NOT imply that.

      tip: refuting an argument that's logical and sourced requires more than a mere refutation, capital letters won't help. Wishnitzer's quote "If I were Palestinian, I would have several different choices. But what I can do as an Israeli?” very much does imply that he thinks future available options rest solely with palestinians, not with israelis. and that, in turn, implies the responsibility for perpetuating or ending the conflict rests with palestinians. i welcome you deconstructing his statement otherwise. but "of course" and "NOT" is not an argument with merit, not in my book anyway. you should have stopped at "tried to ...find tactics that make sense, I just can’t find any."

      What he clearly knows, as do his Palestinian counterparts, is that Palestinian violence has played A ROLE in the perpetuation of the conflict, and Israelis are not the ONLY people who have agency in this ongoing tragedy.

      hmm, i'm not sure anyone is making the claim palestinians have no agency.

      But they most certainly did not want to rule over another people.

      given tho options of ruling over another people or treating them as equals, evidence suggests you are wrong. but of course i do recognize the founders of the state as well as the majority of zionists wanted the land without the people on it and would have much preferred they (palestinians) simply had disappeared vs all that maiming, killing, imprisonment, torture, home demolitions and wiping villages off the map (which is still going on, read allison's recent article) and global response to decades of zionist war crimes and human suffering . so in that regard, point taken. but so what? i could as easily say i didn't want to run you over with a truck, i just wanted you dead and gone.

      I don’t see what is gained by denying that Palestinian violence and the fear it created was an important factor.

      this is a strawman, primarily because we're not discussing "important factors" regarding israeli fear. we're talking core issues (causes) for the conflict. you didn't answer my question:

      they could elect leaders who would stop building on palestinian land! Despite the obvious asymmetry of power and the asymmetry of suffering, despite the fact the gov of israel routinely ‘mows the grass’ in gaza slaughtering hundreds of civilians, despite the bulldozed homes, imprisonment of thousands of palestinian people and continued land theft, “they” (presumably combatants for peace) acknowledge israelis fear violence.

      so what?

      get it? i did not deny Palestinian violence or israeli fear. both so called "liberal" zionist and right wing gov coalitions have all operated as colonial expansionists. the release of the palestine papers exposed israeli intransigence wrt the "peace process."

      there's only so much coddling of israeli fear people can take. evidence suggests even if israelis didn't fear palestinians they'd still want all the land. it runs against human nature to do nothing when when your land and rights are denied. assuaging israeli fear is a diversion that perpetuates the conflict.

      Even if you think those fears are completely unjustified, do you honestly think any change is possible if they are completely ignored?

      yes, i do. in a situation of crisis put out the flames before tackling the therapy. if a kid with a box of matches is standing in the living room screaming his head off in fear of the fire that is raging in the bedroom where people are sleeping you don't focus your attention on the fear of the child. that comes later. in fact, in that circumstance it's irrelevant whether the child's fears are justified. you put out the fire. this is a no brainer.

      as long as you're prioritizing israeli fear you're part of the problem. as long as the house is burning put "those needs" on the back burner. they are not part of the immediate critical solution, they are part of future resolution. in fact, the action of putting out the fire will go a long way to assuaging the screaming child's fear. this require adult supervision. it requires the global community to fix it. support bds. fire requires oxygen to burn. stop giving the fire oxygen. suffocate the flames. stop expanding the state.

    • A group that refers to “violent struggle for Palestinian freedom” is not, as you write “portraying Palestinian armed resistance as responsible for perpetuation of the conflict rather than the colonial violence that has always defined Israeli policy to Palestinians.” But they are acknowledging what you have apparently decided warrants no attention of any kind: Israelis DO fear violence. Despite the obvious asymmetry of power and the asymmetry of suffering, that is a reality that can’t be blithely dismissed by anyone who wants to end the occupation.

      dan fleshler, merely because they referenced a "violent struggle for Palestinian freedom" on their website does not refute what cohen wrote regarding the responsibility for perpetuation of the conflict.

      let's review what cohen wrote before deconstructing the basis of his logic: (my bold)

      Wishnitzer denied that the event portrayed symmetry between the deaths of Israeli soldiers and Palestinians who resist but asserted that, “There is always a choice for [Israeli] soldiers and for those [Palestinians] who fight the occupation. If I were Palestinian, I would have several different choices. But what I can do as an Israeli?

      This narrative turns reality on its head, portraying Palestinian armed resistance as responsible for perpetuation of the conflict rather than the colonial violence that has always defined Israeli policy to Palestinians.

      first of all, when cohen writes "this narrative" he is referencing a revealing quote by Wishnitzer not something on their website, so i am not sure this represents the official position of the group. that said, the framing of (paraphrasing the bolded section above) 'as an israeli my options are limited whereas palestinians have multiple options for ending the conflict' does flip reality on it's head and does imply Palestinian armed resistance as responsible for perpetuation of the conflict rather than the colonial violence.

      "But what I can do as an Israeli?" --- to begin with they could elect leaders who would stop building on palestinian land! Despite the obvious asymmetry of power and the asymmetry of suffering, despite the fact the gov of israel routinely 'mows the grass' in gaza slaughtering hundreds of civilians, despite the bulldozed homes, imprisonment of thousands of palestinian people and continued land theft, "they" (presumably combatants for peace) acknowledge israelis fear violence.

      so what? every human being fears violence. if israel's main concern was the fears of israelis they would end the actions that perpetuate that violence but they won't do that. do you know why? because expansion of their state is more important to them. the colonial enterprise is worth more to the powers that be than peace and it has always been so since the founding of the state.

      so why is it you think acknowledging israeli fear is so important in ending the occupation? palestinian fear, due to the asymmetrical dynamics you have acknowledged, has by far more basis for pronouncement. and yet Wishnitzer, denying a portrayal of symmetry between the deaths of Israeli soldiers and Palestinians, asks "what I can do as an Israeli?" and thinks palestinians have lots of choices!

      you're not seeing the forest for the trees. if everyone on the planet acknowledges israeli fear then what? if palestinians ended all violent resistance then what? there are already laws in israel making the non violent action of sanctions and boycotts a crime. as well as legislation promoted in this country. the cause of the conflict is the zionist expansion of the state. that has to stop. no people anywhere on earth will be pacified when a ruling authority is bulldozing their homes, imprisoning their family, and denied their civil rights. the very word "resistance" means it is a response. that is a reality that can’t be blithely dismissed by anyone who wants to end the occupation, not "israeli fear." this whole obsession with fear and hurt feelings and jewish or israeli emotions (including all those oh so sad pro israel jewish students on campuses having their feelings hurt) is a diversion. a decades long diversion and no, it simply is not at the center of the conflict, israel aggression, violence, domination and colonial expansion is.

      wake up.

  • In defense of Cornel West's prophetic voice
    • thanks philip!

    • there are 2 highly recommended embedded videos in this text, one ( embedded in "strongest public commentary by a nationally known figure on the American scene") we just added to the base so you can watch it below the text of the article.

      the other is part one of west's recent interview with dave letterman (embedded in "Black and lacking the moral fortitude to speak truth to power")

      for some reason i find it really hard to see these embeds, but i hope people watch both the excellent videos. here's pt 1 of the letterman interview:

      link to

    • I strongly disagree joe. I did not just vote for him because of his color.

  • Will Graham's gaffe about 'all-Jewish cabinet' get the MSM to talk about pro-Israel money?
    • maybe you are on the wrong thread steve. what are you talking about? lots of rich people are "good in finance', it has nothing to do w/being jewish.

    • The best defense as we all know, but you, is pre-emption

      no we definitely do not all know that. besides, "pre emption" is offense not defense.

    • It’s antisemitic to mention it, unless you are Jewish and bragging about it.

      i opened the jta article phil linked to "Who are the Republican candidates’ Jewish donors?" link to and they list each candidate with 3 sections underneath each one boldly titled.

      the headings being,

      Campaign status:

      His Jews:

      His views:

      his jews? i thought that was weird. but then it was published in jta so i guess they can get away w/it.

  • Defending the Iran nuclear deal from Israel and its supporters
    • amigo, israel knows very well it won't be a cakewalk and they don't care. they are using the quick and easy promotion to convince americans to go to war, not because it relates to the truth.

      once we invade, like iraq, they want iran to burn for a long long time. they want to destroy it just like iraq was destroyed. they want to send it back to the stone age. they know it won't be quick. they lie w/impunity all the time.

    • Suissa copies former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to say that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities will be more like the assassination of Osama bin Laden

      this is hysterical, comparing taking out all of iran's nuclear facilities to invading one domestic home/compound in pakistan! ah, but it's all relative:

      than the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

      iow, it won't be a ten year war? and they know this how? don't they think iran has the capability to retaliate? or are they so confident that if iran does retaliate the US/IS is capable of making a desert and calling it peace.

      on a scale from 1 to 10, one being the (alleged) assassination of bin laden and 10 being the invasion and occupation of iraq, Suissa is claiming this would be a 4, 3 or 2 (closer to 1 than a number over 5)? what kind of idiots speculate like this?

  • Leaked Sony emails reveal Hollywood execs efforts to support Israel
    • “a really good director who on the face of it doesn’t seem completely biased, so that we can show something that gets the message across without making it seem like propaganda.”

      fat chance of that.

  • If Not Now, When?: Jewish anti-occupation activism and accountability to Palestinians
    • Then about 9-10 years ago knowledge of and criticism of Israel’s policies began to seep into the American public and suddenly we have J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, etc.

      jvp started 19 years ago. j street was founded 7 years ago. they are very different orgs.

      i'd urge you to poke around:

      link to

  • The grave danger of derailing the Iran deal -- an interview with Chas Freeman
    • i love how he's such a straight talkier.

      people in the Middle East are not in the least surprised that the flea directs the dog

  • Israeli racism takes center stage at Manhattan JCC
    • just goes to show you can't tell a book from it's cover. her hippy dippy hairdo w/the scarf and glowing smile and twinkling eyes --- and she's a friggin racist. blatant as the sky is blue.

    • dealing w/zionism -- it's a completely different standard of what's acceptable under other circumstances.

  • Kristol frets that he walked into Obama's 'trap,' and Rubio says he'll demand Iran recognize 'Israel's right to exist'
    • link to

      The strongest disagreement came from Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who argued that although the U.S. would prevail in any conflict with Iran, such a course of action would be dangerous. “I think a military attack on Iran opens up pandora’s box,” said Graham. “You’ve got to assume the worst, not the best. They could attack our bases in the region. They could cause disruption in the Gulf of Hormuz [sic — the Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman]. It would be a messy affair.”

      Former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina said, “I think a bombing campaign would be very difficult … as you may well know it’s not clear we could even reach a lot of the facilities.” Fiorina stressed that she would prefer increased unilateral sanctions over a military strike. Ohio Gov. John Kasich declared that, “I don’t think anything is quick and easy there but to me this deal is unacceptable.”

      In addition, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal asserted that while he is “a strong supporter of Senator Cotton,” when “it comes to this specific issue, I don’t know what the military believes in terms of how long it would take them,” emphasizing that such a call would be determined by classified intelligence.

      Most military experts disagree with Cotton’s assessment, and believe an attack on Iran would carry “significant costs and dangers.” In 2009, the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that “Any strike on the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor will cause the immediate death of thousands of people living in or adjacent to the site, and thousands of subsequent cancer deaths or even up to hundreds of thousands depending on the population density along the contamination plume.”

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • that's bs hops. ian specifically referenced "key points" that you "the problem was and continues to be that the Zionists chose an inhabited land."

      so you counter that by claiming selective application for political purposes by referencing events that happened hundreds of years ago? you're avoiding the topic, diverting. israel is currently expanding and preventing any resolution to the fact there are millions of people w/no rights being represented by a gov they have no say in. and you're just diverting by claiming victimhood, poor lil isrsel is picked on and we have historical guilt.

      it's a transparently stupid diversionary argument. you're making excuses for crimes against humanity. take the last word, i'm not interested in debating while you're beating a dead horse.

    • That’s because you’re being silly when you talk about Israel’s legality as a nation as being based on documents that have little legal effect.

      shorter hops: laws don't matter if israel doesn't follow them.

      “Yet the problem was and continues to be that the Zionists chose an inhabited land.”

      I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the problem is that most countries, particularly Western countries, have little historical legitimacy... Today, to assuage their historical guilt, they’ve made Israel into a scapegoat, even as most of them continue to persecute their minorities.

      never mind that "most countries", unlike israel, are not in the process of ethnically cleansing people from their homes and land. never mind that! let's pass off all the criticism as "historical guilt"!!!

      “They implemented plans that had been in conception before the Holocaust.”

      That is total nonsense.

      denial denial NAKBA denial.

    • i agree too, thanks Ian.

    • excuse me? my archives are available to everyone by clicking on my name. why don't you try producing that which you allege?

      btw: link to

      Hamid Dawud Mohamed Khalil al Zawi, most commonly known as Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi (ابو عبدالله الراشد البغدادي), and also known as Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi and (About this sound pronunciation (help·info) ah-boo oh-mahr ahl bahg-dahd-ee[needs IPA] Abu Omar al-Qurashi al-Baghdadi,[1][2] (died 18 April 2010) was presented as the leader of the Mujahideen Shura Council (also translated as "Council of Freedom Fighters",[3] "Consultative Council of Mujahedeen",[2] and "Council of Holy Warriors"[4]), an umbrella organization composed of eight groups that oppose the United States' military presence in Iraq, and its successor organisation, the Islamic State of Iraq.
      The U.S. however since July 2007 consider this person to be fictional.[5]

      fictional. get it. that means "he" could have been "created" by any number of intel psyops orgs, national or otherwise. (including the cia).

      not to be confused with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi link to

      p.s. ISIS (successor of ISI circa 2013) did not exist when the illusive omar al baghdadi character was purportedly to have existed, therefore he could not have been the "leader" of ISIS.

    • Zzzzzz. You got anything else, Professor, other than old discredited zionist screeds. You’re unbelievable, man. Just unbelievable. It’s sad.

    • Hop… did you provide links to articles, evidence that demonstrate that Bolton is a neo nazi and a Holocaust denier?

      not that i am aware of, just the links alleging he was. he also provided a link written by bolton refuting this allegation. i thought neo nazis were proud of being neo nazis. why would he refute it?

      there was reference to some secret 3 hour tape recording him when he was in college with 13 minutes of clips edited from the tape -- that allegedly prove he was a holocaust denier. but nobody has provided any quotes of anything. ( as i recall -- i have not read all of the comments)

      anyway, i'd never heard of bolton until this thread and don't know much about him at all. but what i can't figure out is the massive amount of pushback against the man instead of the (unsurprising) allegations in the link, about the desecration of christian sites. this is still going on today, as well as advocates for blowing up the temple, so none of it is that controversial as far as i am concerned. and the people killed, either they were or they were not. it makes sense to refute the allegations in the bolton article would be to simply find counter narratives about what happened to those dead people. why not just prove he's a liar by countering the allegations? seems like it would be easy if it was true.

    • thanks hostage

    • I’m not interested in whether or not they were anti-Semites.

      I’m interested in whether their conclusions were true or not. And the truth of their conclusions does not depend on their ideology.

      roha, ahhhh! don't even go there, it's clear they are not interested in the conclusions -- which are impossible to refute anyway. note how they don't accuse jabotinsky of being a virulent anti semite. as hostage points out (w/quote):

      Jabotinsky’s interpretation of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration/Mandate and his written assessment of the military situation in 1923 were in total agreement with the initial impressions reported by the King-Crane mission

      all they have is ad hominems.

    • “Kg. [King] and advisers” met “with the Syrian Commission, less Rihbany [an American Arab] who went home. They do not want a Zionistic State-no instructions beyond.”

      i'm shocked!!!!

      by the time of their departure, the commissioners were nothing more than rubber stamps for Arab opinion and that their findings were predetermined days before they left.

      and do you think the standing ovations for netanyahu during the last congressional speech were predetermined or a la naturale? and are they all virulent racists because they support the zionist state?

    • hops, is there anything specifically in bolton's article that david linked to you'd care to refute? because the zionist harassment mentioned in which you've provided sounds all too familiar. i've only gotten to the end of page two but it sounds as though 2 people, bing and green, are encouraging students to write their master thesis focusing on smearing their adversaries. that in itself sounds fairly bizarre. if they act anything like some of the cohorts we have here in the US, who frequently lie with impunity, i'm not sure how this builds your (new) case.

      i was just wondering if there was something specific in either of those bolton articles you care to refute? or perhaps another bolton article. since allegations of anti semitism and holocaust denial tossed around so liberally, perhaps you'd care to quote the man himself other than the allegations made against him. your complaint seems to be limited to ad hominem in nature.

    • yonah, here's a book with a passage that might interest you: Future of the Middle East - United Pan-Arab States
      By Sam A. Cohen

      link to

      link to

      Sam A. Cohen is a naturalized American citizen with deep roots in the Middle East. He earned two master’s degrees and a doctorate before working as a scientist for 50 years. Cohen is now retired living in Montecito, California.

      i have not read the book.

    • irishmoses, accusations of "jew hater" and "jew hatred" is the mother's milk of israel hasbara. it's the big tamale, numero uno ad hominem. they just wear it out, day in and day out. boring ritual.

  • Just like the Nazis, Iran 'plans to exterminate six million Jews' -- Netanyahu
    • jon, as i recall, Yehouda Shenhav wrote about it. i have linked to it here before. no time now...

    • yes, i assumed it was "informed" by his personal experience too jon. since he left iraq when he was 13 it's likely his perceptions of events going on around him in iraq have been severely impacted by political opinions as an adult. after all, he was born in the 1930's, memories generally morph with adulthood.

      if you scroll on that haaretz link under the heading of "Political agenda" the author mentions the final chapters are the most poignant, probably because he more matured when he experienced these events over time and therefore can write about them with more authority.

      Surprisingly for me - a reviewer who relishes any opportunity to visit Baghdad, whether in person or in fiction - it is the book's closing chapters, when the family finally makes it to Israel, that are most poignant. The description of the breakdown of Kabi's proud father, who experiences enormous disappointment after years of dreaming of life in Zion, is perhaps the most touching of all. It is here we see the odd mismatch of cultures, and feel for a people who had a sophisticated, urbane and ancient culture but are now reduced to living in tents and eking out a new existence due to Ashkenazi discrimination and the raw newness of a state ill-prepared to absorb so many immigrants.

      could it be that he was piecing together his understandings of his past experiences, tinged with his political views in recreating events in his youth? and not to beat a dead horse, but when the author writes "It becomes clear that Amir wants .... to prove the ultimate superiority of the Zionist outlook" i wonder how much and otherwise interesting story might also be a bit of indoctrination with huge gaps in history) like israel's involvement in the fate of iraqi jews and why they left. i'm sure it probably is an interesting story, but it reeks of agenda, an agenda i am not sure i need to be privy to for the sake of art.

    • asherpat, all the israelis on the streets screaming death to arabs, should they be bombed? and how many sweet ways can america say we were not making war on the iraqi people as we blasted falluja? so what if a chanting mob says "death to america"? we do it with live ammo, which is worse? words or a drone taking out your family?

      grow up. we're responsible for the deaths of 4 million muslims in the last few years. so they have every right to say death to america as our leaders plan their demise.

    • based on the the writings of Eli Amir

      based on his (fictional) novel by the same name. Amir left bagdad for israel with his family when he was 13. later worked for the Jewish Agency, and as a special advisor on Arab affairs to the Israeli president. i would be interested in whose writing Amir's story was based on unless it is autobiographical.

      link to

      The novel drags, however, when it attempts to capture so many trials and tribulations that it seems it will take forever for the Jews to leave Iraq for Israel, as some 80 percent of them did in 1950-51. Some scenes border on the didactic, as if the writer is trying to give the reader more of a history lesson than a plot-driven novel.

      ....It becomes clear that Amir wants to explain the great battle going on within the Jewish community of the time between Zionists and communists, and to prove the ultimate superiority of the Zionist outlook. Those who belong to neither camp and want to stay rooted in Baghdad, like the narrator's bourgeois cousins, are portrayed as having sold their souls - people who essentially survive by paying protection money to the most powerful neighborhood gang.

      Missing is the background that would explain to the reader why this famous chapter of aliyah is so controversial, accompanied as it was by rumors that Mossad agents set off bombs in Baghdad to scare reluctant Iraqi Jews into signing up for immigration. Although there is a slight hint in the novel that fellow Jews might have planted the bombs, it isn't at all clear in the narrative that Israel was likely involved in these events.

      that was probably left out of the movie too.

      the zionists were certainly motivated to get iraqi jews to come to israel as they had tried to set up a deal w/the british puppet gov to "trade" iraqi jews with palestinians way before the immigration/expulsions. one wonders to what efforts they took to make life so unbearable for iraqi jews they would leave after centuries.

      either way the zionist got their wish didn't they -- at the expense of iraqi jews. and now they want to be compensated for what they set out to do to begin with. really evil shit if you ask me. did they mention any of that in the movie? or was it primarily framed as anti semitism?

  • Obama's long & passionate Monday with Saban, Foxman, Hoenlein and other Jewish leaders demonstrates power of Israel lobby
    • i beg to differ shingo. israel is not part of america, even the very worst parts of America. it's a separate country - not "all american".

Showing comments 26963 - 26901