Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 22134 (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 22134 - 22101

  • Why I am leaving Israel
    • Ronit, great article, thanks so much for writing it and sending it to us.

      My burnout also comes from being utterly tired of telling a family facing eviction, with children who have pre-existing medical conditions and no health insurance, that I can do nothing to help them.

      Ronit, on reflection, is "tired" the adjective that best reflects how you utterly feel? because it sounds much more frustrating and/or infuriating than tiring. i could think of some other words too, like depressing and humiliating. it must hurt sometimes, especially the more you get to know people and care about them, not to be able to help them.

  • Racial supremacy and the Zionist exception
    • omg, terrifying.

    • thanks wayfare. unfortunately it requires a login to prove i am over 18 or something. i forgot whatever password i signed up with and no longer have access to my old email .. so i can't watch it on youtube. maybe i will try to find it on vice.

    • thanks amigo. other than msm video snippets that land on twitter's #charlottesville hashtag (live) on saturday, i didn't watch msm coverage. i heard some of the chanting tho.

    • “You Won’t Replace Us”—or, as it became, “Jews Won’t Replace Us”

      can anyone direct me to a video w/recording of “Jews Won’t Replace Us”? i read about it but none of the videos i saw included this chant.

  • Bay Area stands with Reem's Bakery in face of pro-Israel attacks
    • No doubt they are fiercely fighting back.

      actually they are. there's another counter/protective measure intended for tomorrow. that is my understanding from the underground communications network ;) next week too. it's happening -- the coalition supports reem's.

      do not underestimate the power of unity

    • thanks henry, i hope people open the links. the second link in the article (embedded in "an Arab street-corner bakery in the Fruitvale Plaza" and published by berkeleyside) opens with

      In the 10 years that she spent as a community and labor organizer..."

    • just, i really want to taste the sfeeha!

    • reem's is a really popular destination here and has gotten a LOT of positive press in the bay area. i haven't been there yet but really want to go. if what everyone is saying is true it's worth commuting for and relatively speaking i don't cross the bridges that often. i recommend everyone visiting their website ( and checking it out. i love the promo video:

  • Video: Under protection from Israeli forces, settlers take over Palestinian home in Hebron's Old City
    • i've never been to al khalil but i have been to east jerusalem. i visited a family living in under a tarp on the street right below their home which had been taken over by settlers who had arrived from brooklyn just 2 days before. the settlers had israeli flags hanging all over the palestinian home they invaded and stole and the settler women were hanging laundry on the large flat roof of which served as a large outside deck. there were private militia-type guards with guns above the house and the settler men were walking in and out as if they owned the place. the palestinian family were sitting on couches under a large tarp. they served us tea. it was devastating. there were little jewish school children, boys in orthodox clothing, walking by and entering another building across the street. i will never forget being there or how i felt -- like there was nothing i could do.

  • Trump response to Charlottesville sugarcoats a rotten morality
    • mcohen, perhaps i should review our exchange thoroughly because it's likely my perception of what you were trying to communicate was impacted by my impressions/experience of the other mcohen. iow, maybe i was missing your point altogether.

    • and as an aside, i know there are some anarchists like the ones i saw in a video in portland oregon recently who used violent actions to invoke. but this is not the target of this so called alt left accusation. the accusation is used against a whole swath of people on the left who refused to vote for clinton or support neocon wars. whereas the alt right self identify as such and they are a movement so it is not an accusation per se to call people what they call themselves. whereas painting the progressive left wing as extremists (like claiming being anti apartheid or anti zionist as an extreme position because we support equality) is an insult -- which is what it is intended to be and how it is intentionally used -- so i am not falling for it.

    • thanks for (slight) correction sibiriak, i see the slight distinction.

      Both see the other side not as opponents, but as evil that can justifiably be silenced.

      this is drivel even if somebody could eek out a smidgen of truth in it. what's next? pure evil instead of just evil? there are a lot of atheists who don't assign biblical terms to their opponents -- likely on both sides. and the chance there are not people on both sides who see the other side as an opponent is -- nil. on that note i probably share a LOT in common with dick cheney. chances are we both drink water and read the news -- if you know what i mean. to draw an equivalence between 2 groups of people with fundamentally opposing viewpoints because they oppose eachother (which appears to be the 'logic') is by design, to tar and libel.

      one might as well claim refugees are the equivalent of settlers because both claim they are targeted for ethnic cleansing. or a liar is the same as truth teller because they both have the same narrative and therefore are on the same side of the coin! no, they are not!

    • mooser, oh my this is the first i realized there may be 2 separate posters and thank you for bringing this to my attention.

    • ok mcohen, it's an islamophobic site that claims "One Muslim woman thinks so" with a youtube video that is no longer available.. the other videos substantiates the claim "Apparently, there were a lot of Muslims in the tower" but their claim "Most aid organizations and eye-witnesses seem to be Muslims, too" based on 3 videos is not substantiated. news reports stated residents were "Black and Minority Ethnic people, and they were all poor (the nature of living on a council estate)." nonetheless it could be true the majority of residents were muslim, i don't know and it's rather irrelevant to the 'coin theory', or narrative being repeated/pushed.

      alleging It might appear that the alt left and right are the same side of the coin is nuts. a penchant for liberal causes does not put anyone in bed with supporters of terrorist attacks. the fact a person or group can be "exploited for political reasons" doesn't put that person or group on the same side of a coin as self defined nazis or nazi supporters, it puts them on a different coin altogether.

      rotten morality will get people killed on both sides.

      true, but if all it takes to land on the same coin as nazis is getting killed by nazis, then victims of nazis (including jewish victims of nazis) would be on "the same side of the coin" -- which is absurd.

      at least that is how it appears to me. one has to do more than string a bunch semi coherent sentences together to make a logical point.

    • i like this "redneck arab music"

      O shrewd traveler in straight lines and in circles,
      You have no guide but the eyes of speech

    • john o, here's my exchange w/gamal re lowkey (scroll up)

      you may understand the mcohen's context more by reading his archives ;) good luck.

    • stephen, while i don't disagree with what you think it reveals about the ruling class, i perceive this differently. i see this as part of the ongoing feud between the "ruling class" dems who are in competition with, and bashing on, bernie supporters. i see them capitalizing on the racism and violence of white supremacists by trying to link their ideological enemies (the sanders supporters) in a way that paints their opponents in the same extremist terms, as if they have a lot in common. iow, they are exploiting the white supremacist alt-rt rally to target the left. there are a lot of examples of this on the internet. and then i read some screed about some alt-rts loving assad (some of them do) and as a result of this claiming they have so much in common w/anti war left (“social-justice left”), who want to end the war in syria and oppose US intervention -- and therefore we embrace dictators. so this to me is an exploitation of the current circumstances to support neoliberal intervention.

      there was a dust up on twitter when the ceo of 3rd way, a clinton neoliberal thinktank, tweeted something to bernie supporters suggesting they should go to this rally if they wanted to be useful. as if she was above it all and bernie supporters/“social-justice left” didn't care about racism. the neoliberals are exploiting this for sure.

      and i am sure i'm not the only one to notice once the neoliberal dems got sanders out of the way in the primary race trump seamlessly doubled down on his populace speech, so yes the 'moderate' dems are pissed.

      There has been a long-established understanding among the ruling class that their politicians should not exploit “populism” for personal advantage and they are angry at Trump for breaking that rule

      i didn't know about that. do you mean in the UK, here, or everywhere?

    • john o, perhaps he mentioned it because gamal used the term pushback and the rumor term was payback and maybe he was implying gamal, lowkey or i support burning down apartment buildings full of sleeping people and if that was the case then we would be the left (alt left) version of the (implied) altrt right version who caused glenfell? it's sort of a leap, but mCohen routinely has leaps of logic.

    • gamal was referring to grenfell and then stated that it was pushback understanding is that some people think that grenfell was pay back for the Ariana grande Manchester concert suicide bombing and the London bridge attacks.

      is your "understanding .. some people think that grenfell was pay back for the Ariana grande Manchester concert suicide bombing and the London bridge attacks" from word of mouth? do you have any links? because i can't find any reference to it online at all. and i'm not understanding what you're insinuating regarding my discussion w/gamal.

      and what about my statement surprised you. it would be helpful if you were not so cryptic.

      did you say fail to understand white anger in america and Britain.

      yes i said normalized. how do you think me "understanding" white anger in america and britain will change, or may change, my opinion about both trump and the nyt normalizing the idea "both the social justice alt-left and the white supremacist alt-right as two sides of the same coin”.

    • check out this quotation from the @nytimes

      "i see both the social justice alt-left and the white supremacist alt-right as two sides of the same coin."

      this concept is being normalized by both the president and the paper of record. unreal.

  • Chomsky still believes in the old Israel. I did too, once upon a time
    • Meanwhile, the aircraft carrier “Israel” actually costs Americans $3.8B/yr.

      it costs us a LOT more than that in reputation, blood and treasure. when you take into consideration the cost of the (failed) diplomacy for the 'peace process', the invasion of iraq, the constant pressure to attack iran and syria, the cost in both focus and funds expended through our legislative system to cater to all the aipac written bills, the legislatures in state after state catering to their anti bds bills -- the court costs dealing with all their stupid lawsuits. seriously, this list goes on and on and on. the idea we spend 3.8bil on israel a year is a fantasy! if only!!! israel costs us a fortune.

      just last week israel threw a conniption fit because they didn't get their way, their demands met, relating to the US/russia agreements wrt syria. as if the US is there to serve israel's whim. so what happens? Tillerson throws a press conference and says just what israel wants. i mean seriously, how much money was expended alone just for all those meetings? and how much will it cost the US to ensure israel's demands, that iranian forces are no longer in syria??? how much? that is like an impossible demand (because it is not up to the US who syria authorizes to be in their country) and will be another "red line" they can pressure us with down the road. it is just endless, these demands for israel's so called "security" which appear by design to earmark US longterm commitment towards more conflict in the middle east, not less.

    • We give Israel $3.8 billion, but Haig said that without Israel we would have to spend “tens of billions.”

      when did haig say this? what decade? was it during the reagan, ford or nixon administration? we've already spent “tens of billions” on israel and more than that (trillions) on the middle east.

      Haig said that “its absence would require the U.S. “to deploy real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers” to the Middle East.

      did he say this before or after the WOT and our invasion of iraq (and we can thank netanyahu, the israel lobby and the neocons for pushing that disaster)? because we've already deployed "real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers" to the middle east this century, or haven't you noticed? clearly, haig was wrong.

      could you please let us know what year haig made this statement and in what context from a reliable source, because in a quick search i can only find it on pro israel hasbara sites. don't you think it's a tad outdated?

  • Senate is selling out our free speech right to the highest bidder, say American Muslims for Palestine
  • Lessons from Finkelstein: International Law and equal rights should be the focus for Palestine solidarity
    • ah, that makes sense yonah. it's a term i rarely hear. wasn't clear you were using it with sarcasm.

    • yonah, why do you call it mother russia and not just russia? isn't mother russia a figure of speech indicating national personification like motherland?

    • thanks 'for the record' misterioso

    • my head is spinning around today. when logic goes topsy turvy and the oppressor and the oppressed become 2 sides of the same coin and the enemies of free speech become the protectors of their right to silenced us. argh. loose wires in the brain it's all so confusing!

    • Oh, I see.
      Israel is an Army which possesses a State.

      how an army/state in the middle east protects people of "eastern europe, specifically those under the rule of the czars, but also those in other countries where hatred was tolerated and encouraged in law and deed by government and groups, where there was a need for group organization to battle groups and governments that repressed them and threatened them with violence.. the threat posed to Jewish life and limb in Eastern and Central Europe in the period 1881 to 1939... in palestine of all places!

      i just don't buy it. so who protects the palestinians against the extreme nature of the need to self protect that indeed exists -- hatred that's tolerated and encouraged in law and deed by government and groups, that repress them and threatened them with violence???

      the way to 'self protection' is to go somewhere across the world and oppress other people who had nothing to do with posing a threat to ones life and limb in Eastern and Central Europe in the period 1881 to 1939. really? sounds like someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes! an excuse for russians and europeans to colonize the holy land in palestine.

      and god forbid you drag Jews in Australia circa 2017 into the equation. why that would be disingenuous! .. about as disingenuous as fantasizing a palestinian connection to Jewish life and limb in Eastern and Central Europe in the period 1881 to 1939!

    • Seems to me he often feels that his way of looking at things is the only reasonable way

      this is not unusual and something i happen to share with norm a great deal of the time (about my way of looking at things). i have a lot of respect for norm i just think his opinion about what the broad public will accept isn't correct because he's not factoring in the element of time -- because he can't. i think everyone can agree we don't know how long it will be til this situation becomes resolved (or how it will be resolved) and the world could be a very different place by then. so factoring in public opinion, not knowing what public opinion will be in 5yrs vs 20 yrs vs 50yrs or whenever, how can you do that knowing we might be looking at a completely different dynamic in x number of years, possibly a completely different dynamic altogether. everyone keeps talking about this 2state window -- is it closed? if it's not will that window be open in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years? once (or if) public opinion internationally thinks it's decidedly closed -- and that could happen -- then what? the more he's talking about change right now -- tomorrow or next week this year or next year -- the more chance there is of him being correct. but the farther away in time you get (which team israel is banking on) the more unpredictable broad public opinion becomes.


      it does’t matter if the ICJ voted in your favor if there is no action taken supporting that vote.....what difference, practically speaking, has a vote on that illegality made?

      Well, for one thing, it’s contributed significantly to the legitimacy and therefore to the POWER of the BDS movement.

      in public opinion perhaps but institutionally i think currently we may be getting outflanked w/all this anti bds legislation -- for the time being. practically speaking, i see no change in the occupation, the siege, the annexation, the settlements or the wall. i think public opinion is moving faster than the icj or the UN or whatever. right now, i think the power of bds is coming from the people, not international law which seems kind of toothless and moving at the pace of a turtle vs public opinion which is moving very very fast in our favor, the inaction/pace of international law notwithstanding.

    • gamal, you are so cool ;) listening now...

    • Because international law is a powerful FORCE, not just a an ideological norm

      i realize when i wrote "norm’s ideological allies" it may have implied something other than norm finklestein's ideological allies.

      i also realize, perhaps i wasn't clear my comment was an extention of my earlier one. more specifically regarding the concept of winning or losing the "broad public". on a day to day basis, the broad public is more influenced by the media than they are by international law. and if it were true "the maximum you can realistically achieve" --- in the matter of public opinion, is somehow constrained within the framework of the law (or what is legal), or "the furthest we can go in any argument", then we never would have invaded iraq -- which had broad public support. the "broad public" has been shown repeatedly throughout history to be very influenced by arguments that are outside the law.

      i am not advocating for anything against international law. but as you point out (below) people have different "take on international law". my linear visual metaphor was with regard to moving the opinion of the broad public. in the matter of public opinion, it is likely that everyone on that (1-100) spectrum thinks they have the law on their side. finklestein is squarely in the "2 states" column which i placed in the center of the linear metaphor. the one state for everyone (1) is at the opposite end of the spectrum of the occupation forever crowd (100).

      everything's fair game in terms of moving public opinion because the broad public is not in unison on what the law provides or doesn't provide and can be swayed by either side of the spectrum. people will not be studying international law for decades to make up their minds about what is right and what is wrong in israel/palestine. they will be more persuaded by their peers and what they see on videos on the internet and imaginings of whole families being blown up in gaza or homes being bulldozed or simply the idea of what it means to them be a free person and what "equal rights" means to them. remember, israel thinks they have the law on their side and their supporters do to.

      that is my point. the argument that one staters are not aligned with international law, that bds is a cult, or that 2 states is the only scenario likely to win the hearts and minds of broad public, i'm not sure i agree with it. personally, i would be quite happy with 2 equal states, quite happy indeed. but what i would be happy with is irrelevant. we are in a battle with a powerful opponent who are losing their grip on public opinion in a society that has allowed and funded this atrocious occupation for decades largely with the approval of the broad public. but right now things are more fluid. public opinion is changing. i'm arguing that to counter the forces on the pro occupation end of the spectrum, there's no moral imperative to attach oneself to a "2 states is the only way" interpretation of international law. BDS has not done it so why should i? in the fight for public opinion i am going to stand in the most idealized concept of a free society as i can, and in that position countering apartheid, the middle road (2 states) may even have a chance of holding.

    • Page: 221
    • imagine a line of 100 inches of linear logic and place "international law" in the center (50 inches) of that line. place yourself or "what i want" on the left side (1) of the spectrum but stay as close to that center as you can. place norm at 50. place norm's ideological allies or his so called "broad public" at 49-51. place all your ideological opponents at 100. place congress at 99 standing right beside them. place peter beinart and a bunch of the 'liberal zionists' at 79-95.

      now, if your goal is to end up with a totally free region where everyone has equal rights and lives in total harmony, where do you stand? because i would stand at 1. i would not stand at 50 because the people i am tugging against on this line are about as divorced from international law, or aligned with those divorced from international law, as one could imagine! the idea one has the most advantage by standing in the center (along with international institutions whose vote has not stopped an illegal occupation for decades and been largely ineffective) might sound like a nice theory, but the weight will be stacked against you.

      large swaths of the "broad public" will empathize and align with the human instinct to be free and i would argue they are not mostly 49-51. the narrative of 'dismantlement' of apartheid will resonate with them -- which is much more resonant of what the left wants than 'dismantling' a state which is not always the same as dismantling a regime. don't underestimate the broad public.

    • Politics, says Finkelstein, is not about what you personally want or believe, it’s about the maximum you can realistically achieve within the existing framework. In the matter of public opinion, the law is the framework, the furthest we can go in any argument. If we are advocating for something which is on the other side of the law, such as dismantling Israel as a state, then we lose the broad public, we lose our credibility. We no longer have the law as a common horizon that gives us credibility among people who don’t know us, we are just talking to ourselves.

      if politics is about the maximum you can realistically achieve within the existing framework, and the law is that framework, and advocating for something which is on the other side of the law, such as support for an illegal occupation, then according to finkelstein's theory, aipac and all those pro israel thinktanks have just been talking to themselves for all these years, and we know that is not the case -- don't we?

      And remember, as Finkelstein points out, the law is completely on our side in this matter. The Palestinians won in every aspect. The International Court of Justice, the highest judicial branch in the world, voted unanimously in favour of the Palestinian cause. Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, are Palestinian territory under International Law. The occupation, the siege, the annexation, are illegal under International Law. The settlements are illegal under International Law. The wall is illegal under International Law. Israel has a legal right to exist as a state within the pre-June 1967-borders, meaning Israel has to withdraw immediately from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

      it’s irrelevant if "the law is completely on our side in this matter” if there is nothing “won” by winning. it does’t matter if the ICJ voted in your favor if there is no action taken supporting that vote. if "the occupation, the siege, the annexation, are illegal under International Law. The settlements are illegal under International Law. The wall is illegal under International Law“ what difference, practically speaking, has a vote on that illegality made? contrary to finkelstein's allegations, obviously Israel having "a legal right to exist as a state within the pre-June 1967-borders” does not mean Israel has to "withdraw immediately from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem", because if it did — israel would have withdrawn from gaza, WB and EJ a long time ago.

      there is a difference between "in theory" and reality. the reality is, for pro israel supporters "politics" has always been very much about 'what they personally want and believe' and the maximum they have realistically achieved has never been within the existing framework of what's legal under international law, not that i know of, not ever.

      the elite, congress, educational institutions, think tanks, the media, is not "the broad public". if people were somehow bound by influencing "the broad public" by way of what's acceptable under international law, the broad public would be all over the map because most of the broad public has no idea what's legal and what is not and/or is deeply divided over it.

      now, imho, the framing of calling for equal rights and ROR being an advocation for "dismantling israel" is an adoption of a zionist narrative. it doesn't matter if norm thinks one state, in effect, would 'dismantle israel'. you don't hear regime change advocates in syria openly advocating for a dismantling of syria even though you know the neocons would like nothing better than chopping syria up into bite size easily controllable territories. so to base a theory on ones own intent using the framing of ones opponent, gives ones opponent the advantage. because words matter.

      and i have more to say on this topic, will put it in another comment.

  • At town hall, Sen. Warren says Israel Anti-Boycott Act 'violates our basic constitution'
    • nope,

      "I cannot support the bill in its current form if it can be interpreted as stifling or chilling free speech. I would never put my name on legislation that would do that. So I took my name off the bill – until it is rewritten so the text is clear that it won’t violate our right to free speech."

      opposing the bill as it is written is still opposing the bill. what other reference to gillibrand might there be in the article you are referring to?

  • Israel would use nuclear weapons to keep refugees from returning -- Noam Chomsky
    • i agree with that quote from Shenhav too.

      i agree covering all sides and all aspects of an historical event is a tall order for any film. however, some might perceive producing state funded films leaving out key historical context deeply relevant to times ventures into producing state propaganda.

    • jon, what did you think of the reviewer's comments. noticing you did not respond to it in our conversation

      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

      iow, although this is fairly common knowledge, it was completely missing from the film. what do you think of that? and in the same conversation i linked twice to Yehouda Shenhav's 2003 article in haaretz documenting the "intensive campaign" to recognize Arab Jews as refugees even though they said they were not!

      so how honest could this film be if it completely skips over central issues regarding Israel's culpability and intent towards efforts to get iraqi jews to israel, including terrorism against them. and who were these zionist agents inside iraq setting off bombs and threatening the jewish community. can you think of any reason iraq might have executed some of these agents, aside from anti semitism?

    • this is a great article on arab-jewish "refugees", an idea cooked up by politicians to counter the palestinian right of return.

      Hitching a Ride on the Magic Carpet

      An intensive campaign to secure official political and legal recognition of Jews from Arab lands as refugees has been going on ....Bill Clinton launched the campaign in July 2000 in an interview with Israel's Channel One, in which he disclosed that an agreement to recognize Jews from Arab lands as refugees materialized at the Camp David summit.....At Camp David, Ehud Barak decided that the right of return issue was not really on the agenda, so he thought he had the liberty to indulge the Mizrahi analogy rhetorically.....This hot potato was cooked up for Barak and Clinton by Bobby Brown, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's adviser for Diaspora affairs, and his colleagues, along with delegates from organizations such as the World Jewish Congress and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations....

      Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: "I don't regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists."

      In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee." He added: "I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee."

      The opposition was so vociferous that Ora Schweitzer, chair of WOJAC's political department, asked the organization's secretariat to end its campaign. She reported that members of Strasburg's Jewish community were so offended that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of "Sephardi Jews as refugees" ever come up again.


      The World Jewish Congress and other Jewish organizations learned nothing from this woeful legacy. Hungry for a magic solution to the refugee question, they have adopted the refugee analogy and are lobbying for it all over the world. It would be interesting to hear the education minister's reaction to the historical narrative presented nowadays by these Jewish organizations. Should Limor Livnat establish a committee of ministry experts to revise school textbooks in accordance with this new post-Zionist genre?

      Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition.
      In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.

      The history of the "Mizrahi aliyah" (immigration to Israel) is complex, and cannot be subsumed within a facile explanation. Many of the newcomers lost considerable property, and there can be no question that they should be allowed to submit individual property claims against Arab states (up to the present day, the State of Israel and WOJAC have blocked the submission of claims on this basis).The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute, degrades the dignity of many Mizrahi Jews, and harms prospects for genuine Jewish-Arab reconciliation.

      Jewish anxieties about discussing the question of 1948 are understandable. But this question will be addressed in the future, and it is clear that any peace agreement will have to contain a solution to the refugee problem. It's reasonable to assume that as final status agreements between Israelis and Palestinians are reached, an international fund will be formed with the aim of compensating Palestinian refugees for the hardships caused them by the establishment of the State of Israel. Israel will surely be asked to contribute generously to such a fund.

      In this connection, the idea of reducing compensation obligations by designating Mizrahi immigrants as refugees might become very tempting. But it is wrong to use scarecrows to chase away politically and morally valid claims advanced by Palestinians. The "creative accounting" manipulation concocted by the refugee analogy only adds insult to injury, and widens the psychological gap between Jews and Palestinians. Palestinians might abandon hopes of redeeming a right of return (as, for example, Palestinian pollster Dr. Khalil Shikai claims); but this is not a result to be adduced via creative accounting.

      Any peace agreement must be validated by Israeli recognition of past wrongs and suffering, and the forging of a just solution. The creative accounts proposed by the refugee analogy turns Israel into a morally and politically spineless bookkeeper.

    • Iraqi Jewish Communists were dragged from their prison cells, directly to the planes taking the Jews away. In effect they were expelled to Israel.

      jon, none of this happened in a vacuum. here is a review of a fictional account:

      At times, "The Dove Flyer" becomes a tedious and hard-to-follow accounting of the disputes of the community's competing power brokers. 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.

      read more:

      my point, it wasn't only a policy of the iraqi government, it was a zionist policy. so much so, zionist bombs were going off to force iraqi jews to emigrate. so, at the behest of whom were they dragged from their cells and put on the plane? merely Nuri Said? or Nuri Said and the british and ultimately the mossad? i'm not sure it's helpful to pull one anecdote you heard in the melee of an era that included zionist cells it a bitter battle with communists jews and jews who clearly did not want to leave and a puppet government that made these arrangements (at the behest of ?) in conjunction with a new country that desperately need those jews to arrive. my understanding is, israeli-iraqi-jews, for the most part, do not primarily lay the blame on the government of iraq -- nor do they consider themselves refugees

      it's not clear cut. so when you ask if iran's jews are free to leave, perhaps they are grateful to the iranian government that they are free to stay. perhaps they are grateful to the iranian gov that there are not zionist cells in iran threatening and targeting their communities with bombs in an attempt to convince them they are not safe. just maybe.

      and as i expressed in an earlier comment about this same topic -- 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 achieve to begin with.

      especially when one examines the extreme (and dangerous) efforts extended by zionists, that were later exposed, to get the remaining 60,000 egypian jews to leave egypt, how can anyone with any certainty lay the primary blame of the fate of iraqi jews on the iraq government or the people of iraq? israel needed those jews, they went to extreme efforts to get them there, efforts that included terrorism, and then they want to be compensated for those efforts after enjoying the fruits of their own labor. it's really disgraceful.

    • Nuri al-Said was a british puppet:

      Throughout most of his career, Nuri was a supporter of a continued and extensive British role within Iraq, which was against the popular mood.


      Nuri went into hiding, but he was captured the next day as he sought to make his escape disguised as a woman (but with men's shoes). He was shot dead and buried that same day, but an angry mob disinterred his corpse and dragged it through the streets of Baghdad, where it was hung up, burned and mutilated, ultimately being run over repeatedly by municipal buses, until his corpse was unrecognisable.[12]

    • my hatred is for those who perpetrate crimes against the Palestinians and the state that enables them.

      hate is not a topic i revel in, probably my least favorite topic of them all. but at least if one is going to talk about it they should speak of their own (as amigo has done above). people pondering others alleged hatreds should take a look at their own instead of using inflammatory allegations about others alleged hatreds. i agree with yoni about banning these kinds of blatant accusations but it's not up to me.

      the absurdity tho, the hypocrisy, of pro israel posters, so many of whom continually initiate and utilize the accusation of hatred, to claim "Hate is a recurring theme" of one of their ideological adversaries, is simply stunning.

      take the mote out of your own eye! if you want to talk about hate talk about your own. and if you claim to not hate, don't accuse others of it. but using the accusation as a weapon to be bandied about to spam a comment section is really the lowest of the lows. and what is this:

      Does anyone really think that he hates ... but doesn’t hate ...?

      shall we ask the question and all dive in opening up for discussion what we all really believe you hate jon??? no we should not. can you just stop with this recurring obsession of yours. just ignore yoni if he drives you to such obsession. you're not going to win any debates like this.

    • are they free to leave?

      this reminds me --- remember when israel tried to get iraq to trade their jews for palestinians and they said no. i guess there wasn't any rush to emigrate from iraq. but zionist agents took care of that -- by false flag bombings of some strategic jewish targets so that iraqi jews would feel unsafe and insecure and leave.

      The allegations against Israeli agents had "wide consensus" amongst Iraqi Jews in Israel.[3][4][5][6][7] Many of the Iraqi Jews in Israel who lived in poor conditions blamed their ills and misfortunes on the Israeli Zionist emissaries or Iraqi Zionist underground movement.[8] The theory that "certain Jews" carried out the attacks "in order to focus the attention of the Israel Government on the plight of the Jews" was viewed as "more plausible than most" by the British Foreign Office.[9][10][11][7][4] Telegrams between the Mossad agents in Baghdad and their superiors in Tel Aviv give the impression that neither group knew who was responsible for the attack.[10]

      anyway, not sure why i thought of that... and then there was the lavon affair. same thing in eqypt, bombings and hangings of perps.

    • doubtful to me that Israel would use nukes to prevent Palestinians from returning to Palestine, considering that most current refugees live in close proximity to the Israelis

      it occurred to me chomsky's reference to the use of nukes to prevent ror does not necessarily mean they would use them against palestinians.

    • the reference that Mist made to the Magna Carta was poor. Using it as an example of the right of return is inherently flawed

      while it may have been incorrect to state the right of return was "universally accepted" i don't think using it as an example is inherently flawed, i think it's a good example even though it was broken time and again. if you have not given the principle much thought, why not think about it now? do you think the english jews had a right to go back to england? or should have had that right?

      is it really material if it was formally removed or deliberately unenforced? Same result..... A distinction without a difference in this case.

      even tho the result was the same, that jews were allowed back in england, i don't think it was a distinction without a difference. because making the point it was a royal decree and not an act of parliament is sort of like saying "we didn't decide that, the king did". and you stating it was "deliberately unenforced" implies the decree was still in effect. if that's the case i wonder if it was ever formally decided by law to end the edict or did it just linger on indefinitely deliberately unenforced? yikes!

    • keith, i noticed how jon66 seems to have left the conversation rather than respond to RoHa's aug.9 7:24 pm Magna Carta point, and jons's comment/accusation came after that. i noticed how yoni's point ("The Protectorate did not overturn the Edict of Expulsion") was ignored -- it seems Jon66's wiki link has no source for the "overturned" quote but there's this, regarding the WhiteHall conference in 1665:

      Most prominent legal scholars agreed that "there is no law against their (the Jews) coming". This was correct, as Jews had been expelled from England by the Edict of Expulsion in 1290 on the basis of a royal decree, not on the basis of parliamentary legislation. This finding would prove crucial to the eventual readmission of Jews in the 1660s.

      so it appears Yoni's information is accurate on this point at least and this info is easily accessible at the same source (i found Whitehall link prominently displayed at the base of jon66's link). but it seems rather than discuss the topic or the implications of these points (of which i do not feel informed enough to be qualified to contribute), accusations/divert followed.

  • Palestinian-American denied entry to West Bank for summer skateboard program
  • 'Pummeled' at town hall, Sen. Wyden says Israel Anti Boycott law is needed because 'movement has grown'
    • true, a mere shadow. but but, i mean, how many of those "Phil has internalized anti-Jewish hatred" comments could he possibly write? shh, we shouldn't kick up the dust.

    • yes i heard misterioso! it's great news and i've been tweeting about it.

    • the 'you lack credibility cuz you would do the same thing if you could' defense -- sans sourcing or an iota of evidence. #fail

    • speaking of hallelujahs -- did you read the national review coverage phil linked to?

      wow, the author jonathan tobin launches off claiming

      influence of the far left is the only thing that might explain why Booker and Gillibrand are presenting themselves to their party’s base as less than fully supportive of Israel.

      then he writes it's the "left-wing grassroots" of the party that's changing views towards isreal;

      The left-wing grass roots of the Democratic party are increasingly hostile to Israel, something that became clear in 2012 when the delegates at the Democratic National Convention revolted against their leadership’s efforts to include in the party platform a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The delegates booed loudly and rejected the measure in a voice vote while the convention chairman ignored the crowd and declared that the measure had passed. The spectacle was a benchmark moment.

      and finally, towards the end:

      Democrats growing split over Israel

      so we go from far left, to grassroots of the party to a split party. and then to top it off:

      edging away from Israel in order to be more attractive to the voters who might decide the next Democratic presidential nomination.

      voters who might decide the next dem nominee? that's sounding more and more like the majority of the party to me. but he still calls these people "radicals"! you can't be in the majority and radical at the same time, can you?

      it was only the heavy-handed tactics of the Democratic establishment and its super-delegate rules that dragged the more centrist Clinton over the party’s finish line in 2016. All the energy within the party was on the left.


      the left, the far left, the radical left, the grassroots left... call them what you will, are the center (the heart) of the party, the anti-democractic establishment dems just won't give up the power.

    • since we’ve had a law on the books for 40 years that prevents American commercial activity from participating in concerted boycotts led by foreign governments, why do we need this new legislation? bds is not led by a foreign government.

      If you want to pull out your cell phone… you are completely free to tweet about supporting the BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] program. You can post any criticism of Israel on your Facebook page, write an op-ed about your views for a newspaper, walk up and down your street with a megaphone, organize a big picnic in your back yard…

      we already know that. he's evading. boycotts are protected speech under the first amendment.

      While Noah Pollak the writer formerly associated with the Emergency Committee for Israel said Booker was making “a political decision — a choice to associate himself with the Linda Sarsour wing of the party

      this cracks me up! now the sanders wing is "the linda sarsour wing"!! stated as a smear, as if people will back away from being associated with her. big fail in logic there.

  • Zionism is apartheid, and worse
    • a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, multi-lingual "democracy" where half the people are not part of the multitudes who are sheltered, and the sheltered are actively oppressing that other half -- the indigenous half -- of the population.

      let's give that a name shall we? democapartheid! when half the people democratically decide to oppress the other half.

    • jack, scroll down and watch the jonathan cook video, he explains the separation.

    • same photo on haaretz/reuters articles

      why would you think it's doctored? i'm sure if it were there would have been articles written about it by now.

      This would NEVER have happened in South Africa

      huh? you mean in sun city?

  • Israel imposes laptop ban on Palestinians leaving Gaza
    • i recommend "'It’s about revenge’: Court revokes Israeli citizenship of alleged Palestinian attacker"

      “This is a dangerous act,” Sawsan Zaher, an attorney for Israeli rights group Adalah told Ma‘an, adding that the decision was an example of discriminatory policies targeting Palestinian citizens of Israel.

      “Jewish Israelis have also committed similar acts. But no one demands that their citizenship be revoked,” Zaher added. “This decision sets a precedent that (Israeli) courts can revoke the citizenship of any Arab who commits a criminal act.”

      During the hearing, Zayud denied involvement in the attack and claimed he had lost control of his car, stating “I did nothing. They want to turn me into a terrorist. I don’t know what they want from me. I am not a terrorist.” Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said last year that he had begun the process of revoking Zayud’s Israeli citizenship immediately following the attack. Deri also said that he had planned to reject the permit renewal of Zayud’s father, who is married to an Israeli citizen, but is not a citizen himself.

      Zaher told Ma‘an that it was the first time that an Israeli court had ruled to revoke the citizenship of a Palestinian citizen of Israel for “breach of loyalty”

      "courts can revoke the citizenship of any Arab who commits a criminal act.”

      or more accurately, any palestinian-israeli they claim has committed a crime.

  • Dershowitz and Chomsky agree on one thing
    • Since then, discrimination based on identity has all but disappeared

      i seriously doubt that. try self identifying as an anti zionist. or a palestinian-american or muslim-american, or even a communist. i bet the opportunities are not as forthcoming.

    • yonah, for some reason your comment reminds me of something i read earlier today following one of the links in phil's article in the dershowitz blockquote -- specifically the link to paul butor, about him leaving harvard. he said Critical Legal Studies (CLS) "radical" professors were having a "Disastrous effect" on harvard law school but denied it was why he was leaving after 26 years (he died young at 60 only 3 years later). anyway, curious i started reading up on this period at harvard and Roberto Mangabeira Unger.

      For Unger, society emerges not through compromise or the winnowing down of best options, but rather though conflict and struggle for control of political and material resources. The victors of this struggle come to set the terms of social interaction and transaction, which is then institutionalized through law. This emergent order Unger calls formative context. Under a particular formative context, routines are established and people come to believe and act as if their social words were coherent wholes that are perfectly intelligible and defensible. They come to see the existing arrangements as necessary. Unger calls this false necessity. In reality, these arrangements are arbitrary and hold together rather tenuously, which leaves them open to resistance and change. This opposition Unger calls negative capability.[27]

      so these established routines that "people come to believe and act as if their social words were coherent wholes that are perfectly intelligible and defensible. They come to see the existing arrangements as necessary." reminded me of your question:

      is the zionism that was born in reaction to it an anachronism as well?

      hmm. if people come to see zionism as necessary, intelligible and defensible, when in reality its justification is an anachronism from a previous era and "these arrangements are arbitrary and hold together rather tenuously, which leaves them open to resistance and change"

      unger's colleague morton horowitz, author of The Transformation of American Law,

      The main argument of his book is that in the first half of the 19th century, many judges self-consciously allied themselves with a rapidly growing class of mercantile capitalists and promoted a series of legal rules which favored those capitalists.

      and this sort of takes us full circle -- to the idea of a donor class who seek to set the rules in their favor. anyway, just rambling.

    • We don’t carp anymore.

      who is "we", because there's certainly lots of commentary/accusation about anti semitism out and about (see hops recent comment downthread -- if that's not carping what is?)

      as an aside, that's some awesome trolling ability, to segue your glee/genocidal bragging at the top of the thread.

  • If you can't say 'equal rights,' I can't work with you
    • you agree with the spirit of this article.....Our anti-Zionist author admits that Israel is about all Jews

      not sure "Israel is about all Jews" accurately captures the spirit of the article.

      The article totally negates your spirit.... – in opposition to your spirit to say the least.

      i don't agree. joseph argues:

      As long as the result is the removal of worse-than-apartheid from Israel and equality of all citizens, the removal of racist laws that discriminate against the native Palestinians, right of return, etc.

      i think this has much in common with the article. i'd advise, when arguing joseph negates the spirit of the argument, basing it on something more than him saying jews should have made a state in europe instead of the ME, which makes for complete common sense.

    • yes, sometimes its best to go w/the flow susan. i like robert cohen's blog and his many columns over the years but i think his detractors on this particular article make some salient points. firstly, i always find it a tad bewildering whenever i hear a jewish person (or any person for that matter) express that firstly they come to this issue out of concern for jewish people, or in this case the future of jewish people and judaism. it always strikes me as sort of "say wha???" it just seems to me at this juncture it's sort of a slam dunk as to who takes on the overwhelmingly heavier load of suffering, so i come to it firstly as a humane and moral issue, and a concern for justice and since it appears to me a genocide is taking place, to end that genocide and suffering. although i am certain cohen's intentions are noble and good, there seemed to me some lopsidedness surrounding the choice of his firstly concern.

      but i agree with you "there are many wise words".

    • omg i can't stop laughing! .. mooser, the vast majority of the time i crack up because of you and don't say a thing. yesterday it occurred to me it must have been a creative mind just like yours that wrote the original scriptures (stories). i think you were saying something about noah and the arc -- i can't keep track.

    • ignores its inclusion of the word/idea of return altogether.

      the most common understanding of the term "return" implies a person is going back to a place the have already been to. a jewish refugee coming to palestine for the first time, by common definition, is not returning anywhere. that term, adopted by israel and inserted into legislation ( as i recall, i think with israel's nationality law in 1952) began after the (UN?) phrasing of the palestinian right of return -- which of course referenced the term "return" in its common usage, at least common at that time.

  • McMaster solidifies power at NSC -- and supports Iran deal, sees Israel as occupier
    • The team was dispatched by Commander General David Petraeus to brief the Pentagon on intelligence that Israeli intransigence in the peace process was jeopardizing American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and that America was perceived as weak, ineffectual, and unable to stand up to Israel.

      misterioso, i recall this briefing. i think (although i am not positive) there was some interest by mullen to place israel in centcom instead of EUCOM and israel freaked out. that first haaretz quote was in response to israel mossad agents posing as cia to recruit Jundallah to assassinate iranians (was it the nuclear scientists?) leaving a US fingerprint which massively pissed off the US intel community, but -- there were no repercussions as i recall.

      there were some back channel skirmishes/communications (via swiss embassy) after one of the iranian scientists was assassinated -- with the US denying being part of it (that is from memory -- i remember writing about it at the time and sourcing it but for the most part it was covered up in the US media).

    • Imagine the dissonant, ear-splitting cacophony if anyone organised a ‘Zio-Fascism Awareness Week’…

      in the UK, use of the term "zio" is practically off limits and considered antisemitic, which is ridiculous. probably here too but i have not heard as much backlash about it as in the UK.

  • Palestinian journalist Shamsiyya is arrested after filming harassment at a checkpoint in occupied Hebron
    • this is so sad. Badee Dwaik just posted an article here less than a week ago, and in the comment section too

      I’m totally agree with you about the willing to take the casualties and that why I spent three years in Israeli jail first time I jailed when my age was about 19 years and many times arrested after this too.

      israel simply doesn't tolerate peaceful protests against apartheid. little did we know days later Badee would be abducted and imprisoned again.

      and for Imad Abu Shamsiya, it has been constant harassment ever since he recorded the execution.

  • Ensconced at New York Times, pro-Israel advocate Bari Weiss smears Sarsour as a 'hater'
    • this says a lot more about yonah's "logic" (or rather we should say lack thereof) than it does about sarsour or her defenders.

    • which is why they labeled her rather than confront the accusation.

      the point of a nyt op-ed laden with accusation is to move the public discussion to those accusations -- to get a reaction -- to (hopefully if it doesn't backfire) keep the ball in your own (pro israel) court.

      i recommend 'Bari Weiss and the neoconservative hold on the Democratic Party establishment'

      i think it's fairly clear b.weiss is in for a fight. she's got her important establishment soap box and she's using it pull the rug out of a palestinian leader of the left flank, the flank her neocon establishment 'centrist' part of the dem party is trying to take down.

      (my bold)

      Weiss appeared on a National Review podcast and said directly what her goal is. She wants to reach the Democratic establishment: New York Times readers and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

      Weiss wants them to “disavow” Sarsour because she is a “strident anti-Zionist”. Weiss said, “I wrote the piece to find out what Kirsten Gillibrand has to say about all this. Her, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi… If I can get a reaction from Kirsten Gillibrand to this piece, that would be a goal.”

      This is what is politically significant about Bari Weiss’s article: she is asserting the power of the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic establishment, in the establishment newspaper, at a time when things are up for grabs in the Democratic base– and when Kirsten Gillibrand is being targeted by AIPAC for stepping back from Israel support.

      So even though Bari Weiss is a “neoconservative” (according to The Week) and worked at the conservative Wall Street Journal and is doing a podcast with conservatives at the National Review, she is actually trying to win battles in the Democratic Party.

      the whole article is good. but i understand why you'd rather discuss ("confront" in hasbrat lingo) the lobby lapdog smear merchant's accusations.

    • Sorry if I focus on the famous person rather than someone who is not famous....I react to every morsel of information

      the NYT is more famous than linda sarsour. stop with the diversions and excuses. we're all too familiar with what "morsels" interest you and what/who you choose to completely whitewash or ignore.

    • they have not succeeded in defending Sarsour.

      sarsour doesn't need defending from that nyt smear merchant. as phil pointed out, The pro-Israel camp did not succeed in marginalizing Sarsour

    • phil:

      She is hardly the only pro-Israel ideologue at the New York Times. No, there is a rich pedigree. But what does it tell you that such a smear artist has a prominent place at the country’s leading newspaper? The Times has great affinity for Zionism

      jon: Why should it matter if she is a “pro-Israel ideologue”

      Why should it matter that such a smear artist has a prominent place at the country’s leading newspaper?

    • Are her accusations false?

      At the risk of relitigating Shakur’s entire criminal trial and conviction, it’s important to note the black activist — born Joanne Chesimard and currently living in exile in Cuba — may not have gotten a fair shake. Convicted of murder by an all-white jury in 1977 for shooting and killing a New Jersey state trooper in 1973, Shakur and her supporters have maintained her innocence for decades.

      The evidence in her case casts enough doubt to suggest she may have been scapegoated. Most damning, forensically, is that Shakur’s bullet wounds seemed to support her claim that her hands were raised when the trooper shot her, according to the New York Times; further, no gun powder residue was found on her hands. Throughout the proceedings, Shakur said she did not handle a firearm during the encounter.

      The trial was widely denounced as a racist witch hunt at the time, and Shakur’s cohorts in the Black Liberation Army broke her out of prison in 1979. Shakur’s struggle has since become rallying point for activists, with “Assata’s Chant” — a sort of protest mantra — becoming central to the Black Lives Matter movement.

      That Weiss could see this information and deduce that Shakur is, unequivocally, a cop killer and terrorist suggests an abiding trust in the American criminal justice system people of color have little reason to share. For centuries, the black experience especially has been defined by wanton brutality and railroading at the hands of police, prosecutors and judges. The 1970s were no exception.

      Yet Weiss presumes an all-white jury’s verdict about a black activist in the ’70s — based on disputable evidence, no less — is conclusive. She also, apparently, believes that when the police label someone a “terrorist,” it is a matter of fact rather than of politics. “Last I checked ... [criticizing a domestic terrorist] was a matter of basic decency and patriotism,” Weiss wrote. But if Weiss’s patriotism and understanding of guilt mean having blind faith in a system that brutalizes people of color, what use is it for women who don’t look like her?

      more at the link

    • but include the quotes here for those who are too lazy to read the article

      it's not always laziness, nyt has a firewall and i only get 10 articles a month, why waste one on this raving zionist.

  • Head of American Jewish Committee is Israel's 'Foreign Minister,' said Netanyahu minister
    • 20.5 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities this fall and according to betty, because "AIPAC conferences are made up of hundreds of high school college students" that somehow means the younger generation is going to support israel. amusing --

      without mentioning that Hamas bombarded Israel with thousands of rockets for years until Israel responded...Dead bodies are good for Hamas propaganda.

      yadayadayadazzzzzzzzzzzzz same ol same ol pt scoring talking pts, boring!

  • As Israeli soldiers crushed Gaza, world Jewry united, and sent Ben & Jerry's ice cream to the front
    • What’s so special about Ben&Jerry’s?

      it seems like you're willfully ignoring points already made jon. who made the claim ben and jerry's was special? the whataboutery reminds me of "why target israel, but what about saudi arabia and syria" etc etc. as long as saudi arabia chops people's heads off why focus on palestine. gee, with this kind of thinking why bother making anything better because there is always something worse in the world.

      barghouti stated "Activists and partner groups in any given context decide what to boycott and how." new companies are targeted when someone initiates a campaign. some get more traction than others. just because no one has started a campaign to target intel or google doesn't mean the companies won't come under pressure in the future. all it takes is one local activist group to zero in on those companies.

    • yes i was ;)

      the "Isn’t Israel like a cannibal" set me off.

    • i'm not here to jump through your hoops echi, if you're curious about specific targets go to the bds website and it's clear not all the actions listed "remains limited to post-67 occupation". the targeting of g4s is not limited to "post 67", as it doesn't pertain to infrastructure based solely on "post 67", the targeting of musicians playing in tel aviv, the targeting of pinkwashing and gay pride parade is not "post 67"and in the example i already posted from omar's words, i think i bolded it, makes another example. there are also businesses targeted because they fund the israeli army, this is not "post 67" either.

      you made a claim and did nothing to support -- no links nothing, and you want me to counter it and provide some kind of proof, i am not going to do it, it's stupid. i don't care that the most longstanding efforts by the bds movement directly target companies (israeli, international, or otherwise) who directly profit off the occupation and are directly complicit in the oppression of palestinians. the occupation is pervasive , it's current and it's now.

      and while it might be your focus to insult the movement and position yourself in some kind of more morally sound opposition ("people, like me, have always boycotted and shunned anything even remotely “Israel” before there was any 67"....." “official” boycotters have finally agreed to boycott the Zionist entity in toto") and yet oddly, you can't name or link to even one website or action that meets your purity standards. you made this claim about yourself and others but aside from supposed acts of "shunning", where's the meat? there is none. you're on your pedestal knocking organized actions and efforts based on location or time based and cannot seem to list even one company you boycott that targets "the Zionist entity". so tell me what you boycott. what in your private life do you (and your alleged cadre of "lots of people") not purchase because you are targeting "the zionist entity"?

      None of this is a takedown of the people who work (and risk a lot) in it –it just indicates a howling unmet need.

      so what are you and the "lots of people" you referenced going to do about that unmet need? because it appears from your lack of evidence you done.. nothing but some "shunning".

    • so that would be a "no", you have no particular corporation/company you’ve targeted for boycott. no compiled lists of israeli companies you recommend “targeting the Zionist entity” (itself) for boycott. you can not direct us to even one boycott website that meets your approval.

      how illuminating.

      You join by not buying

      oh please. the leader of the only organized palestinian boycott said "Boycotting an egg is always fine, as a first step, if this is all one can do" but there is no other palestinian "boycott" to join other than the bds movement. the same movement, one presumes, that gets on your nerves.

      omar barghouti:

      The rights stated in the BDS call are non-negotiable, as they constitute the minimal requirements for the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable right to self-determination. But the tactics and actions of boycott, divestment and sanctions are of necessity context-sensitive. Activists and partner groups in any given context decide what to boycott and how. Some partners, like the American Studies Association, adopt a full boycott of Israel in a certain field, while many others adopt selective boycotts of or divestment from companies illegally operating in the occupied Palestinian territory. As long as our three rights are upheld, we work with both ends of the spectrum and everything in between.

      you are evading... and you don’t have to try to defend any group.

      i'll defend the bds movement til the cows come home because i WANT to, because it is the ONLY boycott in town. there's no "lots of people, like me" you who operate outside the bds movement and there are lots of people, like me, inside the bds movement who do not purchase israeli goods and are full spectrum.

      “official” boycotters have finally agreed to boycott the Zionist entity in toto; now wondering if any action followed.

      no action by you obviously. you can't name even one action by one group you've participated in that meets your standards, not one group anyone can "join". you're just pretending to be purer or better or more dedicated than "official" bds activists -- and you're a total fake. how is your purity working for you and how can you mobilize and grow without a name or a site. you think your little private boycott is somehow superior? what a joke.

      do you fool anyone here?

    • my pleasure echi.

      lots of people, like me, have always boycotted and shunned anything even remotely “Israel” before there was any 67, and we continue to strongly encourage people to join.

      do you have links where people "join"? is there a particular corporation/company you've targeted for boycott that's not "post-1967 stuff" that doesn't stress your "nerves"? are there compiled lists of israeli companies you recommend "targeting the Zionist entity" (itself) for boycott. can you direct us to even one boycott website that meets your non post-67 approval?

    • Many other international corporations have such facilities here: Coke and Pepsi, Unilever and Nestle, Intel and Google and Microsoft and so on. Why pick on the ice cream? As to selling in the settlements: everyone does. All the corporations I mentioned, all the car makers… I haven’t heard of any companies who won’t sell their stuff there (except for McDonald’s, thanks to the owner).
      I don’t understand the focus on Ben & Jerry’s.

      once i had the opportunity to query a leader of the bds movement and i asked a question similar to this, why or how they chose to target a particular product. at that time i think it was ahava. the answer i got was that it requires a lot of resources to organize and target a certain brand. and i recall one of the terms used was "low hanging fruit", as opposed to a company like coca cola which would require a massive effort to rebrand.

      sometimes it has to do with particular activists on the ground, like who is going to spearhead that particular target? for example, code pink spearheaded the ahava action and they did it under advice from the israeli group -- i believe called women in black but don't quote me on that, but i was there, in israel, w/code pink at the inception. anyway, if an activist group from a certain region wants to take on a corporation w/facilities in their region -- say a weapons manufacturer, it makes more sense w/activists on the ground to focus on that corporation than one headquartered in vermont. but for vermont bds activists it makes perfect sense. and it makes perfect sense for bay area activists to spearhead the targeting of hewlett packard because their headquarters is here. and they (HP) , like veolia, are not "low hanging fruit", nor are the bay area activists targeting HP inexperienced newbies to the bds movement, the way code pink was when they targeted ahava. Unilever was targeted by local dutch activists at their headquarters in the netherlands and pulled their earlier settlement investment, we covered it here i'd imagine once unilever purchased ben and jerry's dutch activists became more active but i don't know if they have ben and jerry's in the netherlands. for vermont activists to take on a multi million dollar business like ben and jerry's -- that's impressive.

      i hope that's helpful. there is not just one determining factor why a certain brand is targeted and another not, lots of brands are targeted and certain activist communities have more experience, organizational skills, creativity and even more clout within the movement than others. targeting a large corporation requires more mobilization than targeting a small (low hanging fruit) company, i would imagine. the objective is having the biggest impact you can reasonably expect to have and succeeding vs biting off more than you can reasonably chew. it's not to ask why focus on ice cream, better to ask why not focus on ice cream? as time goes on and the movement gets bigger more companies will be targeted.

      i don't ever purchase ben and jerry's, and ice cream is my favorite food.

    • blood libel!

      where's talknic? i miss talknic.

  • Trump portrait appears on separation wall, credited to Australian street artist
    • new mexico became part of mexico after spanish colonizers claimed it. most of the hispanic population of new mexico arrived via mexico with spanish roots (vs native american tribes). i read recently (a couple years ago), according to dna, the spanish genocided the indigenous mexicans by killing off the (native american/mexican indian) male population.

      before the spanish arrived mexicans were all indigenous native americans, i don't think the tribes at that time recognized a border between what is now arizona, new mexico, and mexico. but i could be wrong. after the spanish conquered northern mexico they launched expeditions up into new mexico.

  • Jew and Israeli: Solomon Schechter and Shlomo Sand
    • keith: "To succeed, a multicultural society must embrace universalism."

      yonah: "Might i suggest a boycott of Jewish businesses?"

      wow yonah, you're really on a roll today.

    • when you think of pastrami do you ever think of texas? think again! there was "a lot of jewish settlement going on in el paso"! could pastrami have found it's way to new york via el paso???

    • oh thank you for the clarification mooser, that never would have occurred to me.

    • mooser, that link is hysterical! i always get a kick out of yonah spinning a long yarn on what he claims i "seemed to suggest", completely devoid of any example or quote coming from me.

    • while your premise may involve loss of true self, as in, conforming to a society and denying your essence, there's no mandate assimilating into american society requires any of this. this is brainwashing.

      eating white bread and mayonnaise with your neighbors, but then going home and chowing down on some pastrami on rye

      10's of millions of americans don't eat white bread and mayonnaise and millions of americans who are not jewish chow down pastrami and rye, including myself. the majority of food consumed in america is not traditionally american -- it comes from people's traditions, from other cultures, who assimilated.

      assimilation is losing one’s connection to the past, to the family, to traditions, to language.

      there are millions of assimilated americans who have not lost their connection to the past, to the family, to traditions, to language. you act like being american or assimilating requires one to adopt this idea of loss, but it doesn't. it's a myth you've swallowed. and if there are people, jewish people, who assimilate and eat less pastrami and rye, so what? that does not make them 'deny their essence', because maybe 'their essence' prefers ice cream or caesar salad to pastrami. the alternative to ones cultural roots is not necessarily white bread. jews come from all over the world and like arabic food and italian food and tacos and chinese food. these culinary delights do not deny jewish essence at all -- unless perhaps one is orthodox and eats kosher. but there are kosher restaurants here. one can assimilate and eat kosher at the same time.

      there is a certain element of refusal to totally accept conformity to society involved, of which those in the counter culture would approve, although they would say, join our counter culture and abandon your memories and traditions or put them in a scrapbook and on a shelf. (or on the ash heap).

      some might see refusal to totally accept conformity to society as an american trait. the population of the western states ballooned by people not totally accepting conformity to society -- which is why they kept moving west. only in your fantasies does the counter culture say "abandon your memories and traditions". maybe some of your traditions, like the belief in the necessity of pitting yourself against the rest of humanity, might be worth abandoning anyway, did you ever think of that?

    • Because the Jews are superior?

      no, because the supposition that "the world" is against jews already has a handicap (for jews) built into it. the assumption that assimilation is bad, a negative, is contingent on the idea "the world" is negative (vs not contingent on a concept jews are superior). the handicap would be to counter that presumed negative.

    • The men of 1792 emancipated us only for the sake of principle.

      only? isn't principle a noble reason. would one say 'they ended the occupation only out of principle?'

      the philosophy of the Revolution decreed that principles must be placed higher than sentiments.

      of course. systems of philosophical thought are not generally based on sentiment, they are based on principles made up of logic, values and reason.

      edit, i just reread that part about 'only out of principle' and think i misread Abba Solomon's intent/meaning. i should finish the article before further commenting -- sorry.

  • Video: Peaceful demonstration at checkpoint leads to nightmarish response
  • Debunking the 2 claims: anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and BDS unfairly singles out Israel
    • I do have one ability which is to accumulate some major wealth through my business.

      or so he repeatedly claims. he keeps reminding us how rich he thinks he is. anyone can say anything about their own bio online, but rich people rarely brag about their wealth publicly, so i'm leaning towards thinking this is all part of the fake online persona -- possibly from a computer generated composite repeated to illicit jealous or anger? i have no idea.

    • the letter/quote has been roundly debunked as a fake:

      CAMERA, the ardent Zionist organisation, which specialises in advocating censorship and the McCarthyite sacking of lecturers, has accepted that the letter is a ‘fabrication/hoax’ and accuses the Anti-Defamation League and its representative Michael Salberg (hints of knives and competitors!) of not doing its homework when Salberg cited the quote on July 31, 2001 to a Congressional Subcommittee. Having checked the “source” (Saturday Review, August 1967) even CAMERA are satisfied there was no such letter, though they claim it was in accord with his views!

      CAMERA ALERT: Letter by Martin Luther King a Hoax

      and then they go on to claim martin spoke the words at a dinner before his death in a town there is no record of him visiting at that time. everyone knows hasbrats continue to repeat lies about what martin allegedly said. and there are NO copies of this alleged encounter magazine in existence, it's all a lie fabricated after martin died by a cia funded publication .

    • what poll? does the poll actually mention "zionism" at all? can you link to it please?

      The fact that some Palestinians are so fearful of anti-Zionists that they must hide their names doesn’t speak to the problems with Zionism.


      *Hussein is a pseudonym. His real name is withheld for safety purposes.

      it's not a "fact" a pseudonym was adopted for "Hussein" because "Palestinians are so fearful of anti-Zionists that they must hide their names". the way it is phrased by TOI the pseudonym could have initiated by the author. we really do not know.

      the author Nadiya Al-Noor, has her own blog at TOI and she is not palestinian nor does she live there. and TOI posts on the top

      facts and any media content here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, report this post.

      iow, no fact checking -- for all we know this "hussain" could be a fictional person or an israeli collaborator.

      plus, all of her "articles" read like the finest pro zionist hasbara known on the internet:

      and guess what! her FB page "Nadiya Al-Noor" reveals "I am White and Jewish in ethnicity" and works for "CAMERA on Campus". how unique, a pro israel jewish person spouting off hasbara!

      she lives in NY and claims she's a muslim convert. seriously jon, this "hussain" is the only evidence of a zionist palestinian i could readily find, besides the news anchor. and contrary to you, i think this does speak to the problems with Zionism.

      anyway, could you please link the poll?

    • It is possible to support Zionism without endorsing all of its actions. It is possible to support the US and understand it’s imperfections.

      jon, the term "imperfections" implies a blemish or flaw on an otherwise healthy (or perfect) state of being. "without endorsing all of its actions" implies the majority, or bulk of its actions, are endorsed. for a jewish citizen of israel, this might make sense. but from a palestinian perspective, the idea of the occupation being an imperfection is laughable. or considering or disagreeing w/the routine bulldozing of homes as "understanding zionism's imperfections".

      There are Palestinians living in Israel who support Zionism.

      they are rare. so rare you could even get your own tv show promoting ones self -- and even Lucy Aharish has never defined herself as Palestinian (, so i am not sure she qualifies. the times of israel ran an interview with one but it was such an anomaly they changed his name for his own safety, or so they claim.

      I don’t believe that all who oppose Zionism are anti-Semitic any more than all who oppose marriage equality are anti-gay.

      did you just juxtapose opposing zionism w/opposing marriage equality? strange indeed. one (zionism) has been the cause of endless suffering while the other (marriage equality) never hurt a soul.

    • Zionism, the return of the Jewish people to Israel

      this is not the definition of zionism. let's be realistic jon

      If Zionism, the colonial enforcer of apartheid, prevails then the Palestinians must suffer.

    • where the truth depends solely upon knowing the motives and knowledge of the actors, how can establish the truth if there is no record of their thoughts?

      the truth of what happened at the liberty does not depend solely upon knowing the motives and knowledge of the actors anymore than the truth of the sun shining on your face depends on how you perceive it. you would never claim (one assumes) the israelis didn't bomb the liberty would you?

      would it occur to you to say "the truth of whether the israelis bombed the liberty depends solely upon knowing the motives and knowledge of the actors?" no, it doesn't. why? because the truth of it is that the israelis bombed the liberty. regardless of however you feel about it. you are confusing people's opinions or perceptions about it with "truth". you think because israel denies something that denial holds as much weight as the truth, it doesn't.

      if you care to believe the sustained bombing and murder of the crew at sea of the liberty was some kind of accident i have either two choices, to think you are stupid or a liar. the circumstances and recordings and testimonies have thoroughly convinced me of the truth of what happened and i am not of any mind to think the attack was unintentional. besides, i learned early on not to believe in the words of liars, and israeli gov officials lie with impunity whenever it serves them. the country was built on lies and carnage, among other things. one does not have to know the motives of killers to determined they've killed anymore than one has to know what a tree thinks when if falls in the forest to determine a tree has fallen in the forest. it's irrelevant what motivations they had for attacking a ship at close range flying an american flag on a clear day. it could have been the most noble cause in the world, like stealing the golan or whatever. it's irrelevant. the israelis attacked the liberty knowing it was our ship, and there are recordings and eyewitnesses to prove it.

      either way, there is only one truth as to what happened. the truth doesn't depend on whether it's believed or not.

    • the truth of the accusation based upon an interpretation of facts

      so when we hear the recording of the israeli pilot saying it's an american vessel we can interpret that fact by denying the recording or interpreting his words as to mean what?

      let's look at a fact; gravity makes objects fall to the ground. is that a truth based on interpretation? or does it become he said she said based on ideological motivation? the truth of an accusation is based on facts, not the interpretation of them. it doesn't all of a sudden not become a fact a murder murdered because he/she said they didn't based on their motivation to be free or their motivation not to pay reparations.

      facts and truth don't change because of how they are interpreted. one can choose not to believe them based on ones motivation, but the truth of an accusation is based on what happened, not the way someone interprets what happened.

      did Elor Azaria murder abdel al-Sharif? yes he did. can you interpret this as self defense? of course. but that won't change the truth, that Azaria murdered al-Sharif.

      the truth can't be altered by interpretation, only ones perception of the truth can be altered by interpretation.

    • xx

    • got it donald. and thanks for the suggestion pawtiger.

    • donald, did you get a chance to read tony klug's transcript? i recommend:

      Uncritical Jewish identification with oppressive Israeli policies fuels anti-Semitism

    • The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command....And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth.

      Orwell, 1984.

      it makes perfect sense for BDS, a palestinian led movement, to single out their oppressors vs all the other oppressors in the world. to think otherwise is illogical. and it makes perfect sense for the global community to respond to the US singling out Israel for decades as the number #1 recipient of US 'aid' to fund their atrocious apartheid, oppression and theft.

      all others will not accept the lie which has been imposed—the records do not tell the same tale—and the lie will not pass into history and become truth. israel lies exposed for the world to see.

  • Napoleon, Hitler and the economy -- David Brooks hints that Trump is losing his mind
  • 'Transferring' Palestinian citizens of Israel to a Palestinian state goes from outrage to Netanyahu policy
    • oh my. thanks for the research. sort of strange/interesting. and he has 5m followers!

    • speaking of etchi, can someone explain to me what tvfilthyfrank means at the end of the video?

      "what about israel? what about israel?"

    • yet only Israel is accused of genocide. Please explain.

      generally commentary in the comment section pertains to the context of the article, which is not about syria. the US engaged in genocide in both iraq and syria. iraq by our invasion and the preceding sanctions designed to weaken the country prior to crushing it. syria we engaged in genocide by facilitating and empowering genocidal groups like AQ and ISIS. it's not true others are not accused of genocide just because we are not discussing syria and it makes perfect sense to discuss israel's genocidal intents and actions when commenting on this article.

      Definition of genocide
      : the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group


      Definition of concentration camp
      : a camp where persons (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined

      First Known Use: 1897

      stating there are concentration camp-like conditions in gaza is an honest statement. and nakba denial is also a banning offense. "mowing the lawn" is a genocidal statement depicting a genocidal action.

  • 'You are a Jew, you need to stand with the Jews': Peace activist Ariel Gold assaulted by settlers in Hebron
  • Israel is losing the battle for public opinion thanks to honest journalists, and platforms like Mondoweiss
    • Your constantly reinforcing that Zioinist talking point is not doing the Palestinians one bit of good.

      i totally agree. there's no difference between nathan claiming it or eastlake claiming it or echi claiming it. i'd listen to that argument and perhaps take it seriously if it came from omar barghouti or some (any) prominent palestinian activist but it doesn't. the concept just serves zionist hasbara.

      as a constant repetitive reoccurring theme it's highjacked countless threads.

    • Israel claim to be a Jewish state, but they do not have any authority to do so

      well i guess that shoots down your theory that Nobody would classify Israeli policy and actions as "anywhere near Jewish".

      the fact the western intervention facilitated the founding of the state doesn't debunk the argument israel is a Jewish supremacist state. the fact bds supporting anti zionists jews are (sometimes) not allowed into the country doesn't dismiss the reality Jewish people are privileged in Israel. and neither of these claims (by you) explain why, as you also claim, "Jewish identity was an obstacle in Zionism, not a motivator" or "it is ridiculous to suggest Zionism cant exist without Jewish supremacism".

      Zionism supercedes Jewish identity and attempts to superimpose itself on it, rather disastrously.

      while it's likely truthful, for many jewish people, their zionist identity supersedes their jewish identity, zionism, being a political construct, doesn't have power or ability in and of itself to "superimpose itself" or "supersede jewish identity". it derives it's power solely through people who believe in it -- not the other way around. zionism would starve, shrivel up, die and become non existent if there were not jewish supremacists who embodied it. it's probable that for (many) zionist jews, their jewish identity is so intertwined with their zionist beliefs/identity such that the 2 are inseparable and feed off eachother. but "zionism" has no power to superimpose, these are individual personal choices (whether resulting from upbringing, brainwashing, fear or whatever) and any jewish person has the ability to self identify as jewish sans one iota of zionist identity.

      structurally or otherwise, zionism has never manifested itself as offering equal opportunity or self determination for non jews. while there may be people who believe in a sort of cultural zionism that allows for equal status for non jews, i don't see where that's ever evolved out of an 'idea' or 'concept' phase. zionism has thrived through jewish identity and i would appreciate you explaining how and why you claim that identity (as jewish) has been an obstacle to zionism as none of your words address my query about your allegation.

      self identification is tricky as it is conceived by the individual. so while you may have one concept of what it means to be jewish, you're not really in a position to say what it means to another person. and it's all full of contradictions, like self identifying secular jews who believe god gave the holy land to the jewish people. it really doesn't matter whether this idea came from a jewish identity or a zionist identity, what matters, in the context of this discussion, is that it requires a concept of jewish supremacy to believe in it. it requires a concept that jewish people were singled out by god (not that dissimilar from the idea you can't get to heaven except through belief in jesus christ, except for practical purposes heaven is not quite the same kind of real estate).

    • “By definition Zionism cannot exist without Jewish supremacism”—

      But definition alone is not enough to accurately characterize the political status of Israel.

      so what? whether or not the definition of zionism ("alone") accurately characterize the political status of Israel doesn't refute the argument, that Zionism cannot exist without Jewish supremacism.

      Nobody in the field of activists would classify Israeli policy and actions as anywhere near Jewish, or inspired by Judaism.

      nobody? hmm. i don't think so. and "Jewish" doesn't always mean "inspired by Judaism", the two are not inherently interchangeable -- nor did Sibiriak infer they were. so why are you choosing to insert judaism into your response?

      Jewish supremacism itself is so vague and subjective it is worthless for use in crafting political strategy.

      not really. in israel Jewish supremacism is neither vague nor subjective, it's pervasive.

      it is ridiculous to suggest Zionism cant exist without Jewish supremacism

      it is ridiculous to suggest Zionism has ever been manifest without Jewish supremacism.

      Jewish identity was an obstacle in Zionism, not a motivator.

      was? is? please explain.

    • agreed, thanks Sibiriak. i greatly value eljay's contributions here.

    • BDS = destruction of the state of Israel is the Zionist narrative. That’s interesting, Zionist Bont.

      remember when gamal wrote Bont was "a perfect rightwing caricature of a “leftist”" (and mooser "what a distinguished lineage our “Bont Eastlake” has!")?

      that was after bont advocated citizen get banned. if he didn't exist nathan would have to invent him.

    • he's playing a game mooser and it's all too transparent. boring. i'm done.

    • It really would be much easier if you would simply express a straight-forward denial.

      okey dokey, here's your straight-forward denial. you claim mondoweiss is "not committed to honest reporting". that's a straight up lie.

      One would never shoot back at his accuser by saying “prove it”.

      clearly, you're wrong. thus far, all your worthless ad hominem jabbering and you've yet to produce one piece of evidence there has ever been any intent to mislead or misinform our readers. and you want to be taken seriously. all i have to say to you is -- prove it. iow, sh*t or get off the pot.

    • Ossinev, i didn't pop up for me when i just googled it either, so i googled "mondoweiss Reflections of a daughter of the ’48 Generation’", then it popped right up. i regularly place "mondoweiss" before the topic or title when i search for our articles on google.

    • Even if we would look at the conflict through the lens of the Mondoweiss website (as if Mondoweiss has defined correctly the conflict), you would notice, for example, that the Jews had no right to come to Palestine or that they should leave the country.

      for example? could you give an example of an article from mondoweiss supporting your (quite repetitive) allegation please -- rather than just alluding to your earlier allegations as if you even once substantiated your claims, which you can't seem to do. for example, what article on mondoweiss states "Jews should leave the country"?

      just. one. article. otherwise people might think you're fabricating information to make a point you couldn't make otherwise.

    • here's the link to Tikva Honig-Parnass's excellent article ossinev:

      it's an odd choice to build a case mondoweiss is not dedicated to honest reporting -- because it is brutally honest.

      dabakr -- it's been months since i was comment moderator .. i'm just commenting in my capacity as an ordinary person with an opinion like everyone else here.

    • i didn't state anyone who supports israel is suspected here. i stated "it’s already been established you fabricate quotes and then run away from confrontation for verification" hence, i called you a hasbrat who defends the apartheid state, which you are. here's your fabricated quote:

      don't ask me what i am arguing when you initiated an ad hominem attack. i wanted a source, a specific article to watch you flounder making your claims. i ask you to cite a specific article you think is not honest

      “long after I had already, from an ideological and political perspective, learned to view Zionism as a colonialist enterprise…..” I think that you understand the political code expressed in the term “colonial enterprise” (illegitimacy). I’d be thrilled to hear a denial

      have you ever heard of the jewish colonial trust?

      or the Jewish Colonization Association?

      or the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association?

      anyone who doesn't think israel was/is a colonial enterprise is denying history (and being dishonest -- that would be you). if you choose to make the argument mondoweiss is not committed to honest reporting you're going about it in an odd way. why not just point out factual errors? arguing israel was not a colonial enterprise when there's massive evidence to the contrary does not an argument make.

      Of course, it is your position that Zionism is illegitimate, that the State of Israel should never have come into existence, and hence your reporting is always a reflection of that ideological position. I’d like to hear a denial.

      of course you would, just like your silly allegation nassar had genocidal intent you'd like to skip over the part where you actually have to back your argument with (legitimate) quotes and sources and pretend that part is all settled and then sit back while i counter. but there's no need for me to counter unsubstantiated allegations (btw, having an ideological position is not, in itself, dishonest). it's a waste of my time. just like it's a waste of my time to argue that because someone thinks israel delegitimizes itself routinely is a basis for claiming that view is inherently dishonest. ad hominem claims are just that, and nothing more.

    • nathan, maybe you should try sourcing your ad hominem allegations with links since it's already been established you fabricate quotes and then run away from confrontation for verification. you can start with the mondoweiss article arguing "that the State of Israel should never have come into existence". i'm happy to have that discussion, once you link to it.

      An ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel is not committed to honest reporting.

      cite a specific article you think is not honest, please. as a hasbrat who fabricates quotes to defend an apartheid state your credibility around here is suspect. at least from my perspective.

  • NYT, Reuters, Economist journalists self-censor reports from Israel so as not to be 'savagely targeted' -- John Lyons
    • citizenc, do you mean the problem with journalists and politicians refusing to speak about the lobby openly begins with the jewish left, or do you mean the problem with the Israel Lobby exercising outsize power begins with the Jewish left.

  • Rabbi Rosen's final mourning
    • how easily did we
      point the finger of blame
      to avoid our culpability
      in our own destruction
      this ruin that has finally
      blown back upon us

      how deep the shame that
      comes with this terrible knowledge
      how can we not have known
      what others must have known
      seen what others must clearly have seen
      what must they think now
      that we have sunk so low

  • Russian meddling is Watergate-worthy, but Israeli meddling is hunky-dory
  • 'Lack of hope' drives Palestinians to carry out terrorist attacks, State Department says
    • I haven’t met these desperate Zionists but sure, if you say so.

      what explanation to you proffer why rich zionists would convene a conference with a million dollar commitment (per guest) just to attend the brainstorming session how best to topple the bds movement? you having met them or not is irrelevant. you knowing Zionists in Israel w/a nice standard of living who take vacations in greece is also irrelevant. everything doesn't revolve around who you've met or your personal experience (again and always catalan). maybe a simple counter theory as to why you think so much money (including israel gov funding) is being poured into stopping bds? or do you contest that too because you don't know anyone who's personally invested? thus far you've made no counter argument, just a bunch of irrelevant garble about who you know with a little mocking twist added on for sadistic pleasure one presumes.

    • Are you sarcastic, or arrogant?

      the mocking tone belies a sadistic core.

Showing comments 22134 - 22101