Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 22416 (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 22416 - 22401

  • The Clinton scandals entailed violent threats against people who knew about his sex life
  • Video: Living Under Fire
  • Israel bars Palestinian grandmother from visiting slain father's grave for 70 years
    • you've got it wrong again jack. denying Salwa Salem-Copty, or any person, the right to visit a loved ones gravesite is what's full of malice, childish, petty, hateful and rotten to the core. and you know it too.

      Enjoy the rest of your life

      you're a fake. as mooser put it so well, a herd of irrelevance!

    • Defenseless? The Arab Liberation Army invades from the North

      invade what? nazareth and surrounding area were not part of the future jewish state. jewish forces invaded nazareth.

  • Washing ashore in Hawaii
  • Target Hezbollah
  • UK minister forced to resign over secret Israel meetings as questions continue to swirl
    • someone who was trying to improve the dynamic in the I/P conflict zone

      i've no idea what you're talking about.

      Sir Alan Duncan has been accused of having the “means and the motivation”

      that just means they have no clue, no evidence, nothing. it's old news mossad wants him out. tables turned the other way this time.

  • 'His bone turned to sand' -- Murad Shteiwi describes IDF shootings at nonviolent protests in Kufr Qaddum
  • The Russia influence story just crashed into the Israel influence story
    • neither of those statements are wrong. Focus GPS was hired to find dirt on trump, that they were (allegedly) hired to find dirt on the other gop candidates too doesn't make the first statement wrong. and the firm did ultimately produced the famous Russia file.

      once trump was the nominee, that beacon turned the fruits of their labors over to clinton to continue the smearing doesn't erase their role in the initiation of the project. besides, free beacon is hardly a beacon of truth, they are smear merchants. so whatever their denials i'm not compelled to believe a word they say.

      but that's just my personal opinion. i have not really been following the russia thing and think it's primarily just distracting dnc/clinton bs. reminds me of the monica scandal. hilary trying to take down trump. squabbling politicians neither of whom i respect.

      we all know why these people (singer/free beacon) spend their money, to influence who is in power for the benefit of israel. the bigger the storm the more we're supposed to forget the little tails wagging the big dog.

  • Leon Wieseltier on the Jewish people sounds a lot like Richard Spencer on white people
    • Leon and Harvey can maybe go in for an autoerotic gang bang on a potted plant in the rec room of their treatment center.

      and don't forget to include MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin --

    • why do you believe neo nazi's are ok with muslims if they are white? what is your definition of white? do you think richard spencer would have no problem with a person named mohammed or hassan if he's white? many jews say they are christian and no one knows the difference. what informs your logic about what nazis adhere to regarding white muslims. or is this just your hunch.

      gentiles are non humanoid mud people, depending on who you ask.

  • Texas city drops Israel boycott ban for individuals but says businesses must still reject BDS to get hurricane aid

      “The leading civil and human rights challenge facing North American Jewry is the resurgent problem of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on university campuses,” the Brandeis Center states in the vision statement on its website. “This social problem requires an immediate, effective and coordinated legal response.”

      help!!! the civil and human rights of North American Jewy is in dire straits!

      maybe every kid who wants a pell grant or student loan should be required to take a loyalty pledge to israel. and everyone seeking a job in teaching too. maybe they should plaster on applications and class registrations.

  • American Jewry and Israel, unbound
    • true, but kuwait is not sumer.

    • i thought Ur was in iraq.

    • Even Finkelstein agrees that Israel has the legal right to exist under International law.

      that's sort of a moot point since they've been violating international law since they came into existence. they abhor international law. the whole "right to exist" is a boondoggle with distinct purposes of diversion and confusion and cover up for what they are doing which is to guarantee palestine will be totally obliterated - wiped from existence. they even claim palestinians do not exist. there simply is no such "right of existence" -- formalized or otherwise. but only educated people know that. others, they hear about it over and over and assume it's there. something either exists or it doesn't.

      these demands to recognize israel as a jewish state or right to exist while israel goes on bulldozing and killing its way through palestine -- all the while whining about their so called rights. personally i think the days of make believe narratives (which the nation fed off of for the first decades of its existence) favoring israel are over. the masses are not on israel's side anymore and you'd have to have a few generations of no internet to ever see that turn around. as a rule, colonization is not popular.

    • thanks citizen

    • Page: 224
    • strikes me as a form of projection.

      me too, and by design. pr people, and people like frank luntz, that's what they do. like the twisted claim removing the settlers is ethnic cleansing. that was constructed by luntz in 08-09 (as his "best settlement argument and more recently echoed by netanyahu.

      to create emotional pressures to draw the object into compliance with the projection and to reinforce it

      btw, i do not equate finkelstein w/luntz nor intend to suggest any similar motivation. but once you start owning the language others become accustomed to it "emotional pressures to draw the object into compliance" which reinforces it.

    • for the most part our society already discriminates against criminals and criminal activity. so by your definition, being anti criminal would be destructive to 1st amendment rights.

      and i have no dilemma regarding bds, hence there's nothing i need to resolve about my support for it.

    • touche! awesome essay danaa!

  • Balfour anniversary drives a wedge into British consensus on Israel
  • Trump plays to the neocons and Netanyahu to get some establishment support
    • yeah, it's pretty clear israel and the neocons want the US to make war on iran for them. they want all the countries in the ME totally destroyed. one big massive warring sea of madness and the little shining star israel burning bright smack dab in the middle of it. how charming. and they want us to make that happen for them.

  • Alternative travel facts from 'the Tuscany of the Middle East'
    • amigo, maybe jack thinks if he puts fake quotemarks around his allegations they will be more convincing.

  • Newspaper ads offer employment help for new immigrants to Israel -- but only if you're Jewish
    • my pleasure paranam kid

    • this is a patent lie


      Israel’s authority handling conversions to Judaism rejects Palestinian applicants without review because of their ethnic origin, its head said.

      Rabbi Yitzhak Peretz, director of the Israeli government’s Conversion Authority, spoke about his organization’s handling of requests by Palestinians to convert on Tuesday during a discussion on conversions at the State Control Committee of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, the news site NRG reported.

      To initiate an officially recognized conversion to Judaism in Israel, foreigners need to apply to the special cases panel of the Conversion Authority.

      “The threshold requirements” to be considered by the special cases panel, he said, “are that applicants be sincere and that they are not foreign workers; infiltrators; Palestinian or illegally in the country.” In 2014, he added, the special cases committee received 400 applications. “Half of the applicants were accepted, the rest were rejected as foreign workers, infiltrators, illegal stayers and Palestinians,” he said.

    • one of the best songs ever

  • In order to receive hurricane relief, Texas town requires residents to reject Israel boycott
  • Contest! Design a logo to celebrate the IDF's 70th birthday
  • Israeli women march to 'wage peace' but refuse to challenge the occupation
    • yeah, we get it marnie. like, what's the point of even having one subthread here without jeff dominating it? the sooner the better right? cuz we so need another 50 paragraphs of his bs. don't tell me, you can understand it intellectually but you just -- can't help it.

    • You forgot to quote the following line: “Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles….”

      no i didn't, in fact i bolded the last part of it. scroll up and reread.

      You tell me that the withdrawal from occupied territories, the return of refugees, etc. would “for sure be a start”. In other words, you are saying that the conflict would not be resolved through fulfilling these demands.

      not necessarily. for example, if israel withdrew all their armed forces from occupied territories and left a bunch of fanatical settlers who were burning down palestinian homes and mosques and torturing kids and stuff, clearly the conflict would not be over.

      It’s only “a start”, so there must be other undefined demands that would be “an end”. So, what are these further demands? It would be possible to accept “a start” if there is a promise of “an end”. What is the end of conflict from your point of view?

      the end of the conflict, in my view, would be when there is no more conflict. i am not a palestinian so what i think constitutes the end of the conflict is sort of irrelevant. but i don't think the army leaving behind 750k armed zionist settlers sitting on top of all the resource rich land will end the conflict. not at all. and i don't think those settlers will pack up and leave.

      and i have no faith israel will be a peaceful partner. they left gaza too and imposed an economic and inhumane blockade, set up watchtowers and let snipers go at it. so under those circumstances the occupation is not really over is it?

      now, I return to you the question. Do you accept UNSC 242? Do you accept that with the establishment of peace, there will be a withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967, a just settlement of the refugee problem AND an acceptance of Israel’s right to live in peace in secure and recognized borders?

      i can't conceive there could be an "establishment of peace" prior to withdrawl. peace can only be established once palestinians are free. the resolution says peace should include the application of the withdrawl and termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State which to me means israel as well as israeli citizens, would need to terminate claims on palestinian land and respect palestinian sovereignty, territorial integrity and the political independence of the state of palestine.

      do i think most palestinian factions would accept and respect a deal on the 67 lines? yes, i do. would the gov of israel, most of the settlers and their supporters? i don't think so. it's hard to even fathom. so asking me if i would accept it is rather irrelevant. i do not believe it will ever be offered.

    • In UNSC 242 from Nov 1967, it is stated that all the states in the Middle East have the right to live in peace in secure and recognized borders. Do you stand behind this decision as well?

      resolution 242 Expresses, Emphasizes, Emphasizes further, Affirms, Affirms further, and it Requests. the part you cite reads like this:

      1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

      (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

      (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

      Do you stand behind this affirmation [(i),(ii)] as well? and do you recognize that the UN has recognized the statehood of palestine?

    • Nathan October 19, 2017, 3:23 am
      Jonathan Ofir – So, should one conclude that there shouldn’t be negotiations

      Jonathan Ofir October 19, 2017, 9:35 am
      Nathan....Whether I would want more? Oh, I demand more.

      Nathan October 19, 2017, 1:44 pm
      Jonathan Ofir – Since you seem to be against negotiations


      nathan, there's no hint israel's occupation of palestine affords palestinians the right to live in peace. why should israel be afforded this so called right when they have been oppressing, imprisoning, and killing palestinians for decades? under the circumstances, i don't think israelis have earned that right any more than a criminal should have the right to live in peace and harmony while they are carrying out crimes against humanity. whereas, i think palestinians have a right to resist the occupation.

      I wonder if the withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 and the return of refugees, etc. would mean that the conflict is resolved.

      it would for sure be a start. would you advocate for that? a withdraw from all territories occupied in 67? let's start there why don't we.

    • jonathan, regarding Moshe Feiglin's 7-point plan for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, i posted and partly transcribed a video of his speech on that plan in a 2014 article if anyone is interested in the actual plan itself, fairly gruesome. excerpt:

      Victory means destroying your enemy, and take over the place.

      The enemy is not the tunnels, the enemy is not the rockets, and the target is definitely not to weaken the Hamas. Did Churchill say that the enemy is the Luftwaffe airplanes? Was the target to weaken Hitler [Hebrew words]. If that’s the way World War Two would have been done, there would be no victory at the end of it. God forbid. The Six Days War, it took less than a day to take over the Gaza Strip… You don’t run up to tunnels, you don’t go into the homes, you hit the leadership hard. You understand that you the good guy and they are the bad guy, you represent good, they represent evil. We have a war over here, and the war is not against the Hamas and there’s no innocent people around it. So these are the two rules. First of all, we should look for victory, we should win, we should take over, we should destroy Hamas and take over the whole city and we should do it according to Jewish law and not according to this immoral ideas that putting our soldiers in danger…

      [audience applause]

      The question is what are we going to do afterwards with 1.8 million Arabs in Gaza? There are three categories. The first category is those who fighting against you, who fought against you, fighting against you – still not accepting your full sovereignty on your land. And if I did not mention that of course it’s part of it, I’m not talking about going back to Gaza as a colonialist as we did in 1967, no. I’m talking about going back to Gaza as the owner of the land, as we did in Yafo [Jaffa] in 1948. Those who fought you in the past or don’t accept your sovereignty today should be destroyed or sent away. That’s the first category, it’s simple.

      full speech here:

  • Eli Valley lost work at Jewish paper for savage cartoons of Foxman and Dershowitz (but only the Israeli press cares)
    • it's up to 210!! it's such a good video. i definitely want to be in one of his audiences one day. what an entertaining person -- and what a life and history. ;)

    • oh wow tuyzentfloot, thanks so much for the link. i'm listening/watching now. very entertaining. especially the juxtaposition w/mad comics. check out the comic at 13:08 and the photo at 13:20. hysterical.

      i can't believe this video only has 188 views.

    • i think you might be right keith. it's hard to top, beyond brilliant.

  • The real reasons Trump is quitting Unesco
    • hebrew transliteration and unnecessary in english. on the bright side, they use the arabic (palestinian) name. the original hebrew name was (allegedly) valley of jehoshaphat. however:

      It should be noted that not all scholars agree with the traditional view that the Kidron Valley is the location of the Valley of Jehoshaphat. Biblical commentator Adam Clarke maintains this view, claiming that the Valley of Judgment is a symbolic place.[6] Kidron Valley was not associated with the Valley of Jehoshaphat until the 4th century AD.[7]

      A passage in the Bible mentions that God will assemble all nations in the “Valley of Jehoshaphat” (Joel 3:2, Joel 3:12). Some hold that the Valley of Jehoshaphat (“Yahweh shall judge” ) refers to the valley situated between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives to the east. It was in this valley where king Jehoshaphat is thought to have overthrown the enemies of Israel (2Chr. 20:26). Its identification with the Kidron Valley, which began in the fourth century, is somewhat uncertain since no actual valley of this name is known to pre-Christian antiquity.

  • Balfour at 100: A legacy of racism and propaganda
    • is that as far as you got nathan, the first paragraph? did you read the rest of this article and/or the full elaborative article it linked to? i find it rather self explanatory but i'm sure myself or others could walk you through it if you still find it incomprehensible. it just seems rather redundant and a waste of time if you have not even read the (very clear) article.

  • Danish pension fund blacklists four Israeli companies linked to settlements
    • Funny how no one boycotts the white blonde people. Instead, they go after the Jews

      this makes no sense. lots of jewish israelis are white blond people. michael oren for example, he's about as white as they come. and not all danes are white blond people. bds has nothing to do with the color of anyone's hair nor anyone's jewishness.

  • The pedagogy of apartheid
    • "zircle"


    • “allowing different population groups to live in separate neighborhoods” is code for "preventing certain population groups from living in your town (based on their ethnicity)".

      to allow = to prevent. orwellian deceit.

    • Five Angels can dance on the head of a pen, but only if there is no “dirty dancing”.

      yep, only if there is no dirty dancing!

  • Trump's speech on Iran deal is an orgy for Israel and its US friends
    • thanks for the links brewer

    • oh thank you brewer. i will definitely check it out. and here is the link i was looking at the other day (google translated)

      The link with the United States Embassy is marked by the cables of US diplomacy revealed by Wikileaks ..... The cables describe how Nisman presented his draft measures to the embassy; projects that officials accepted or rejected. The cables also mention several reports of the embassy in 2008, when the prosecutor came to apologize up to three times because he did not anticipate about the prosecutions he had ordered for former president Carlos Menem, former federal judge Juan José Galeano, the former chief of SIDE Hugo Anzorreguy, former commissar Jorge "Fino" Palacios and the then head of the DAIA, Rubén Beraja. "The officers of our Legal Office have advised the prosecutor Alberto Nisman to focus on the perpetrators of the bombing and not on those who deflected the investigation," a May 22, 2008 cable said. "Nisman again apologized (for not having informed the embassy beforehand of his decision) and offered to sit down with the ambassador (then Earl Anthony Wayne) to discuss the next steps. "" Details of the criminal charges against Menem and the other suspects were a surprise ...) until now had an excellent and fluid relationship with Nisman, "the embassy said. Over the years, the prosecutor did nothing more than leave traces of that kind of alignment. There are dozens of reports of such visits in the cable collection of the American embassy in Buenos Aires. From the embassy they did not agree with the Syrian track, nor with the investigations of the local connection: they only wanted that it did not move away from the investigation on the Iranians and that did not give elements that could question that line. On February 27, 2011, the Americans said: "You should not target the Syrian track or the local connection. Following such clues could weaken the international case against the Iranian defendants. "

      Nisman himself acknowledged several times how his relationship with Stiuso intervened in that plot.

      O'Donnell said that Nisman went to see him after the publication of his book to talk about "Jaime". "He tells me that the work is very good, but that all the information he receives is given by Stiuso. He also recognized it elsewhere. He told me that all the information was Stiuso because he was the one who had contact with the secret services of the United States and Israel, "the CIA and the Mossad. He added: "He said that Stiuso brought him the information in raw and he saw what he could corroborate to turn it into evidence." And, he said, Stiuso was a very powerful agent.

      Carlos Vladimir Corach was the interior minister of Argentina under the carlos menem administration -- and very close to menem.

      and about menem and that syrian track, this 2015 article is rather interesting

      In the last hours, Carlos Menem surprised his own and others by assuring that, if he declares what he knows about the attack on the AMIA, it will affect the interests of the Argentine State and could "provoke the breaking of peaceful coexistence with other nations."

      He did so in the context of the trial he has on the bench, along with other ex-officials of his own government, of course covering up the explosion that occurred on July 18, 1994.

      In that context, after his sayings, the questions arise as a cataract of doubts: What does Menem know that he has not yet declared? How could that truth affect state interests? What did it mean that peaceful coexistence with other nations could be broken? Why did you never talk about it before?

      First, a digression: what the former president wants to reveal is more explosive than anyone could ever imagine, since he will expose an international pact of impunity to ensure that the true culprits of the AMIA bombing never purge guilt.

      Starting with the last question: Why did not Menem speak before? Basically for fear of reprisals and for having to admit that he appears himself involved - and enchastrado - by the cover-up plot that will be explained later.

      The change of the former president is not entirely novel, but part of a gradual transition that has been showing for some years and that had as a kick-start the change of discourse regarding the death of his son: although for years he insisted on saying that it was treated of an accident, in recent times admitted with insistence that in fact it was an attack, committed in the framework of a sort of message towards his person.

      It is no coincidence the mention: part of what Menem will concatenate the attacks in Buenos Aires with that fact, which cost the life of his own offspring.

      What will the former President of the Nation say? That Arab interests claimed revenge against him for not having complied with a series of agreements endorsed in Damascus in 1988, with then Syrian President Haffez Al Assad.

      In exchange for nearly $ 8 million for the presidential campaign, Menem assured his counterpart that he would sell him a nuclear reactor and help launder Syrian drug money, one of the country's main sources of income .

      This led to the first of the attacks, which caused the Israeli Embassy to explode on March 17, 1992. The message was clear and its executioner too: in those days, Monzer Al Kassar, a minister without a Syria. The data reached the then Minister of the Interior, José Luis Manzano, but he decided to hide it at the request of Menem.

      On July 18, 1994, the second attack occurred, this time to the Israeli mutual AMIA. Then Menem said a revealing phrase, "This they did to me." He knew what he was talking about: he immediately demanded that no Syrian citizen be investigated.

      In fact, the exmandatario believed that they would attack one of their children. So, as soon as he heard about the explosion at AMIA, he called Zulemita Menem to ask if he was okay.

      Then came the worst: the death of Carlos Menem Junior, which occurred on March 15, 1995. The message was clear and had been anticipated a month earlier by an intelligence agent who was in prison, Mario Aguilar Rizzi. The then inmate sent a certified letter - number 8804 - to the Interior Minister Carlos Corach warning that they would kill Menem's son while flying in his helicopter.

      "It is linked to the AMIA issue," the spy said laconically. Notwithstanding the warning, Menem would say in those days, over and over, that what had happened to Carlitos had been a "lamentable accident."

      At the same time, Zulema Yoma would start a solitary crusade, claiming that her son had been killed. Those who treated her "crazy" in those days, did not notice in a phrase that used to pronounce and that has become crucial to 20 years of that happened: "The death of Carlitos was the third attack."

      So ... if he knew that his son's death had not been a fortuitous event, why did Menem publicly decide that it was a "mere accident"? For many reasons, but mainly two: as it was said, in the plot appears himself involved and, if he said the truth, he would blame himself. On the other hand, the former president feared that if he spoke, they would do something to Zulemita.

      An ex-minister of Menem who knew how to enjoy the confidence of Menem as few, he explained to this chronicler as follows: "Carlos shamed the Syrians, the Syrians were charged and left handy. If Carlos raised the bet, he was again in debt and could kill Zulemita. This is how the Mafia operates. "

      That said, the question arises: How can this truth affect state interests? First, there was a clear cover-up on the part of the State so that the true culprits of the AMIA bombing were not reached. Secondly, because there were incredible complicities when it came to executing and covering up the same fact.

      In this chain of responsibilities are important political figures, intelligence agents, police officers and even reputed judicial officials. If we add that there was a certain pressure from the United States and Israel not to investigate the so-called "Syrian track", the scandal reaches superlative levels.

      That is the context in which Menem's phrase must be understood when he said that "peaceful coexistence with other nations could be broken." What would the restless Syrians say if this truth were revealed? Could anyone believe that they would remain with their arms folded?

      The plot is much more chilling than what is here and, as can be seen, surpasses the best books of fiction....

      (more at the link)

      i can't verify the reliability of these sources.

    • Carlos Vladimir Corach in connection with an illegal payment of $400,000 to Carlos Telleldin

      was that the payment caught on video? i've spent a great deal of time over the years googling the bombing in the argentine press. lots of twists and turns. the other day i ran into an article about the murdered prosecutor (supposedly suicide)-- apparently the US embassy kept steering him towards iran (according to the wiki leaks doc) everytime his investigation led him to argentine police perps and officials and the "syrian connection".

  • 'The Siege' gets US premiere at last, in blow to 'Israeli propaganda machine'
  • In Ireland, a Palestinian is understood
    • that wet dream ended in a somewhat less satisfying climax for Mr Paisley


    • The IRA seems to have singled out Jews during the troubles as easy pickin’s for kidnappers and extortionists.

      i'm not sure how your quote from belfast jewish community supports that notion jack.

      assuming everything in the quote is true and the synagogue complex was "considered a neutral venue and the community hosted efforts at reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics" this indicates anyone who did not want any reconciliation to occur might have been one of the "vandals" who later burnt down the belfast jewish institute. but why do you think it was the IRA and not the protestants?
      also, if 3 jews were killed as a result of the troubles (where thousands died), is that why you think this means Jews were "singles out" and "easy pickin’s for kidnappers and extortionists"? the link doesn't even mention kidnapping or extortion. how does your quote support your allegations?

  • On my sixth visit, I've never seen Gaza so devastated
    • If peaceful civilian development would have been their top priority -and not trying to kill Jews- the people of Gaza could have been on the road to reconstruction and prosperity.....My positions are the classic positions of the Left.

      trying to kill Jews trying to kill Jews trying to kill Jews!

      if hamas was on the road to reconstruction and prosperity the israeli government would smash them to smithereens for not getting permits!

      trying to kill Palestinians trying to kill Palestinians trying to kill Palestinians!

      oh, speaking of the road to reconstruction and prosperity:

      “Either the solar panels are not ‘construction’ materials and therefore their installation without permits is not a violation of the law for which enforceable action may be taken (as we believe), or the legal area that covers the construction of these facilities is the laws of planning and building, and the enforcement processes must be executed solely by virtue of this and in accordance with this.”

      Someone apparently pressed hard on the Civil Administration and its jurists and wrecking crews to disconnect the village – which is surrounded by unauthorized and well-pampered settler outposts - from electricity. The planning and building laws did not allow for the confiscation, and so an irrelevant article in the military legislation was cited instead.

      My positions are the classic positions of the Left!

      for more read: Eight EU countries tell Israel to pay up after destroying solar panels donated to Bedouin village

      no doubt those 8 EU countries are just trying to kill Jews trying to kill Jews trying to kill Jews!

    • the palmer commission? wasn't Uribe on that commission?

      In June 2010 an international human rights mission investigated the biggest mass grave in the western hemisphere — containing some 2,000 execution victims who had been dumped there since 2004 — which had just been discovered in the Colombian town of La Macarena. At the same time Uribe travelled to that very locality but not to pay his condolences to the victims’ families, or guarantee that an investigation would determine what happened there. Instead, he went to visit the local military base — exactly the same people that, according to victims’ reports, filled that mass grave with its grisly contents — to praise them for their work.

      ...Uribe’s scorn for human right defenders is notorious. According to Human Rights First, “President Uribe and other administration officials have branded [human rights defenders] as terrorist sympathizers and have insinuated that illicit connections exist between human rights NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] and illegal armed groups. Irresponsible comments by government officials in Colombia put the lives of human rights defenders at even greater risk and threaten to undermine the value and credibility of their work

  • The low-rent bullying of the Zionist ideologue
    • I think those kids are entitled to a full and fair trial under the same laws that would be applied to a Jewish kid who committed similar crimes.

      it doesn't matter what you think because this will never happen. and your analogy is stupid because israel is not a civil state where "the same laws that would be applied to a jewish kid" and you damn well know it. it is an ethnic state with only one ethno-religious group running the apartheid system (that grants them rights/privileges over and above others) whether it be the cops who show up, the military, the courts, the building authorities - everything. when all the authority is stacked towards one ethnic group and the other can act w/impunity running over kids w/no consequence, shooting kids in the eyes and face, snipers attacking one group and not the other, how does this fit in your american analogy? it doesn't. you just say "police" as if they are somehow neutral and are not acting always in the benefit of just one ethnic group. there's simply no analogous comparison no matter how you spin it because in the US the laws --- unlike israeli laws which are discriminatory, especially and obviously so in occupied palestinian territory -- are not supposed to be applied based on ones ethnicity (note here how we do not have a policy of bulldozing the houses of a criminals family only if that family is of a specific ethnicity and note how we do not prevent certain ethnicities of acquiring building permits for decades requiring them to pack all their family members into a house they are not allowed to expand for generations etc etc etc x 1000000's). so no, your stupid analogy doesn't work regardless of how much you claim people should be treated fairly under the same laws. because , as we all know, there are completely different laws applied if you are jewish. the settlers living in the same area as palestinians are not subject to a military court system. they have an army protecting them as they commit crime after crime after crime, the very same army invading palestinian homes night after night after night, arresting and imprisoning and killing little kids.

      as for your stupid claim "Jews are not entitled to the same rights as other people", if jews had to endure even one week being ruled under military jurisdiction in the WB as palestinians do (FOR DECADES) they'd be hightailing it out of there in no time. your argument is not genuine, it is by design written by frank luntz after focus groups of americans were polled about which argument would work best on americans. it's disingenuous and full of deceitful.


      How do you sell the American public on the idea that Israel has the right to maintain or even expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing.....

      In the report, Luntz describes the "best settlement argument" as one that draws a parallel between the Arab communities in Israel and the Jewish settlers in the West Bank—and refers to the idea of evacuating Jews as racist. "The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can't be any Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea," he suggests saying.

      there's only one group being ethnically cleansed here, and pretending jews are the victims is a lie designed by propaganda experts, political consultants, and pollsters.

      and you're a fake. this is fake news:

      I think those kids are entitled to a full and fair trial

      "Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing….."

      and i got a bridge to sell.

    • shorter jon: zionists didn't push palestinians out til 48, therfore zionist didn’t push for depopulating Palestine, therefore i am not a nakba denier.

      iow, if i recognize the holocaust happened but don't recognize hitler's agency i am not a holocaust denier.

      how clarifying/not.

    • The Zionist movement didn’t push for depopulating Palestine.

      classic nakba denial. they cleared 500 villages jon. depopulated those villages. ethnic cleansing. to this day palestinians are still being pushed off their land.

  • The problem with Miko Peled's 'Holocaust: yes or no'
    • indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way.
      "states criticized the failure to provide an adequate and permanent compensation"

      i didn't make that up. i just googled "criticize" and it popped up. also says "Indicate the faults of (someone or something)"

      The common denominator is, obviously, that we are dealing with human beings and their faults....the common denominator is that criticism is about the doings of human beings.

      other than your infallible logic, do you have any source for this? this "doing of human beings?"

      places blame on an historic event – not on human beings.

      can you find even one definition of criticize that includes "to blame"? what about all the reports we're hearing about the fire in northern california critical of the winds? blaming them for spreading the fire?

      i'd like to your sources that criticism is solely in relation to human relations. granted, i would agree it generally requires a human to criticize but that does not mean a human cannot criticize practically anything, including the weather, or an event such as the industrial revolution. and in criticizing an event, such as a revolution or a genocide, there's no implication one's absolving the human culpability.

      There is no such thing as “criticism of the Holocaust”.

      hmm, this is an interesting line of argument. has anyone else ever made it? off the top of my head, i can't think of anything that can't be criticized. what other things can't be criticized? what about the founding of our country? can that be criticized? WW1, is that off limits? what about god? can god be criticized? a religion, can one criticize a religion or only the people worshiping it? your allegation opens a can of worms.

    • nathan: I can’t imagine what it is about the Holocaust that could be criticized.

      hmm. let's start with the definition of "criticize"

      indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way.
      "states criticized the failure to provide an adequate and permanent compensation"
      synonyms: find fault with, censure, denounce, condemn, attack, lambaste, pillory, rail against, inveigh against, arraign, cast aspersions on, pour scorn on, disparage, denigrate, give bad press to, run down; More
      form and express a sophisticated judgment of (a literary or artistic work).
      "a literary text may be criticized on two grounds: the semantic and the expressive"

      for example, one of the faults of the holocaust was how so many people died. like all genocide, it was destructive to humanity.

      further conceptualization of what indicating "the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way" might include studying what the opposite of criticism might include. for example, to approve or to compliment (ie: to claim the holocaust was 'highly proficient and an excellent moment in the history of mankind' might be construed as a compliment expressing approval).

      personally, i can find very little information about the holocaust i could imagine not criticizing. so, i guess we're rather on opposite ends of the spectrum here.

    • because Peled DID make ‘an expression of’ “Holocaust: yes or no” – simply because he said those words.

      i don't see it as that simple jonathan. i think context matters. when you preface a thought with "whether it's" this or that, it has to be in relation to something. like, whether we buy a blue house or a purple house make sure it's a big house, yes or no?

      so this person was not making an expression of "house: yes or no?" because he's not asking whether they want a house, yes or no. in "whether it's holocaust yes or no?" the "whether " has to relate to something. you can't divorce it from the statement. and the topic he was discussing is "the freedom to criticize and to discuss every issue." iow, do we support the freedom to criticize and to discuss the holocaust. yes or no?

      A colon is used before a list or quote.

      This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s: the Holocaust, yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum.

      There should be no limits on the discussion”.

      Now you want to interpret HOW he meant those words, and thus you insert editorial brackets.

      punctuation matters. A colon is used before a list or quote. given that, what was the list about in my punctuation? you interpreted holocaust yes or no as did the holocaust happen yes or no? i interpreted it as the beginning of a list of topics that he advocates should be discussed and criticized.

      But this interpretation does not seem to be supported by Peled’s subsequent response to the Guardian (nor in other responses which I am aware of). As quoted by Guardian, he goes (full quote this time):

      maybe that has to do with the charges made against him or the phrasing of the question. the guardian citing another publication, opened their article w/claims of "a speaker who said people should be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened."

      can we just assume that was what they ask him and therefore, that was what he responded to? again, i wish i could hear a tape recording of what he said or read an entire transcript. transcribing is a tricky business.

      but more importantly, we just see things, fundamentally, very differently. because while you see him "quite clearly whistling to Holocaust deniers" i see, quite clearly, he was whistling to JLM. and when you see him "throwing out raw meat for the sharks at that moment" i see the same thing. but in my world the sharks are not holocaust deniers (which in the british labour party, in the grand scheme of things, people who question whether the holocaust happened, are insignificant) they are the press, the JLM and those who want to take down corbyn and redefine anti semitism and alter the labour party rules. he threw them raw meat and wow did they bite. he was fearless, daring, provocative.

      watching all this from the other side of the pond, i think the jewish labour pro israel lobby needs a punch in the face. and i think he gave it to them. frankly, i loved it. he set the tone which was their trap and they all chomped like hyenas. i think he's come out of it the hero that he is. he's brave and honest and they can't take him down. he's his father's son.

    • keith, you mean like claiming only 4 million died vs nazis never tried to kill any jews, or they didn't kill any intentionally? how could the former be worse than the latters?

    • Sibiriak, for brevities sake, and i won't try to speak for echi here (god forbid), but i think what peled may have meant was he doesn't understand what anti semitism is supposed to mean anymore. there was once a time when anti semitism meant hatred for jews.

      have you ever heard of the "new" anti semitism? it means anti zionism equals anti semitism. in this new configuration, zionism being a political construct, it means if one is anti ethnocratic or anti colonialist states, including or specific to israel, one hates jews. that's sort of twisted logic. so when people change the definitions of terms, to fit their political objectives, it's normal to either not understand those new terms or reject them.

      i recommend jonathan cook's "The 'New Anti-Semitism' and Nuclear War" for an understanding of this new (faux) version of AS:

    • peled didn't make an "expression" of “Holocaust: yes, or no”, that was an editorial choice.

      peled's expression was

      This is about free speech, the freedom to criticize and to discuss every issue. Whether it’s the Holocaust [do you support the freedom to criticize and to discuss it] yes? or no? Palestine [do you support the freedom to criticize and to discuss it], the liberation [do you support the freedom to criticize and to discuss it], the whole spectrum [do you support the freedom to criticize and to discuss it]. There should be no limits on the discussion.

      “Holocaust: yes, or no”, in spoken words, stripped of context, standing alone in some editor's interpretation/glory, is slanderous disingenuous cherry picking. which hopefully explains why i will not debate it with you. because i do not support the premise that was he meant was "did the holocaust happen? yea or no?". that is clearly NOT what he said.

      "freedom to criticize and to discuss every issue. Whether it’s the".. everything after the "whether it's the" pertains to what he had just expressed: ""freedom to criticize and to discuss every issue."

      absolutely nothing about denying the holocaust.

    • get real Sibiriak.

      This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue. Whether it’s the Armenia genocide, yes? or no? Palestine? the liberation? the whole spectrum. There should be no limits on the discussion

      you really think that would have made headlines anywhere???? seriously, get friggin real.

      note how i altered the punctuation. remember, this was speech -- the choice of “Holocaust: yes or no” was an editorial decision. the decision to not place a period after "the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue" was an editorial decision.

    • De-platforming is a form of “shutting down speech”

      right, your word. the definition being "Canceling or disinviting someone to speak at an event".

      not inviting someone is not deplatforming.

      If a Zionist group, for example, lobbied against a proposed invitation to a pro-Palestinian speaker at a Labour event, would you not consider that an attempt to shut down a certain kind of political speech at that event?

      yes i would. but i'm starting to get the impression what he said was somehow not offensive enough to make an argument. because he didn't 'lobby against a proposed invitation', he said

      It's about the limits of tolerance: we don’t invite the Nazis and give them an hour to explain why they are right; we do not invite apartheid South Africa racists to explain why apartheid was good for the blacks, and in the same way we do not invite Zionists

      take it or leave it. but advocating not extending an invite to zionists is not shutting down their speech, canceling an event, or disinviting them. it's not offering them a platform.

      as an aside, i would appreciate a comment section w/no zionists. can't they just talk elsewhere? i'd also like a political party in the US that didn't invite zionists to speak. note how aipac doesn't issue invites to anti zionists at their convention. are people all up in arms they are not giving anti zionists a platform? zionist shut down and deplatform and disinvite all the time. and they have a firm grip on the msm (anti zionist journalists hired by the msm? not really). and all of this happens under the 1st amendment. so not offering zionists a platform would seem normal for a party who supports palestinian rights.

    • ok, i will review what he (and you) said. i wasn't aware he said anything about (or even mentioned) holocaust deniers. albeit, that accusation was made against jackie walker who at no time denied the holocaust, so i really don't know the breadth of how it's being applied nowadays.

      (edit after review)

      You left out the second part of my sentence: “but other forms of political speech like pro–Zionism should be shut down.”

      he didn't reference anything about shutting down other forms of political speech. he spoke about not inviting them to speak (as i referenced earlier, hosting them).

      the guardian article opened by saying

      investigate how it gave a platform at a conference fringe event to a speaker who said people should be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened.

      (fake news, he didn't say that)

      also referenced and linked to another article that claimed

      suggested Labour should be free to debate whether the Holocaust had happened.

      (fake news, he didn't say that .. at least they had the decency to write "suggested")

      and peled still stands by his words:

      "...crime that we must study and from which we must all learn”, he wrote in response.

      so all this 'holocaust denier/debate whether it happened' is conjuncture likely spoon fed to the press via JLM. frankly i'd like to read (or listen to) the whole speech in context. your commentary appears to be more related to what has been written about what he said vs the specific words he used. when someone said, in the context of discussing free speech, we should be allowed to discuss and criticize the holocaust yes? or no? it could be construed as an invitation to question whether the holocaust really happened, but that seems to me to be a radically extreme interpretation of those words.

      i recall getting raked over the coals in the comment section once when i interpreted netanyahu's words about obama and the grassy knoll as an implied threat. for me (and i believe my generation) speaking in relation to an american president, as being too obvious to ignore. i think there's some hyper sensitivity here regarding who's allowed to set the parameters of speech. had netanyahu spoke of criticizing and discussing the holocaust no one would have thought he was alluding to denying it happened. but peled? it's like wacko gangbusters. the press did this whole "debate whether the Holocaust had happened" routine, not peled.

    • I agree with Yonah here.

      really donald? let's review:

      Blacks in America under slavery had a longer life expectancy than blacks who never left Africa. The Armenian genocide was not a genocide, but casualties of a nationalistic uprising. The palestinians were recent immigrants to Palestine. 50% of Palestinians living in Palestine in 1947 were not indigenous but immigrants trying to take advantage of the economic boom introduced by the Zionist movement.

      Let’s discuss. Don’t be oversensitive.

      i'd call this a false comparison. name one person who was put on trial, put in jail, or even fired for expressing any of these ideas. where are the headlines denouncing them? and i do not think, when discussing the principle of free speech, asking if people should be free to discuss and criticize the holocaust is a "shout out" to people who think the reality of the Holocaust is up for debate. i do not think that was peled's intent -- at all.

      and had he said the armenian genocide instead, nobody would have blinked an eye.

    • It’s about the massive political stupidity and harmfulness of arguing that “Holocaust: yes or no” should be up for discussion

      it's likely he wasn't reading off a written script, should people have "the freedom to criticize and to discuss" the holocaust? yes? or no?

      frankly, i do think people should have the freedom to criticize and discuss the holocaust. i mean, people have been criticizing the holocaust since it happened. so i don't think there's any question most people think it's ok to criticize the holocaust. so what you're arguing is that discussing the holocaust is wrong. i think we can either decide to read something into peled's statement we don't like or just take it on face value. but the punctuation is not his punctuation, it's an editors punctuation.

      i don't understand why the holocaust should be so taboo in a climate where the US government has not even formally acknowledged the genocide of native americans. it is unlikely jews have more negative feelings about the holocaust than native americans have about their genocide. yet there's no taboo about arguing native americans were not genocided. can someone explain the difference to me. there are also people still alive today arguing slaves had a better life on the plantation than they would have had otherwise. no one is putting them on trial, throwing them in jail or kicking them out of political parties. i mean, these people are insufferable, but we don't generally give them the time of day other than telling them off or calling them racist ignorant fools.

      so should we allow people to criticize and discuss the american genocide of the indigenous people of this land? yes? or no? or is that massive political stupidity and harmfulness? is it career ending? no, it's not. in fact there are university professors who deny we genocided native americans.

      bounty hunters got paid for every scalp here in california, so that's friggin genocide.

    • He was, perhaps unwittingly, activating several traps.

      jonathan, there's just no mention of getting rid of these traps. between the JLM and the british press there's been a constant non stop focus on anti semitism ever since corbyn became leader of the party. constant. this is part of a strategy to take him (and his supporters) down. i don't see why people should accommodate those traps by tip toeing around them. i think it was really clear what peled was saying. not only that -- i agree with him. and if people, as a party, are going to unite over a common policy regarding i/p, i don't really see why people should be cobbled by constant restrictions and accusations of anti semitism.

      in todays world, the accusation of anti semitism is primarily used as a weapon. but it requires a compliant browbeaten society for that weapon to be effective. unless you accept peled is an anti semite, which i don't, i think it's more important to focus on hearing what he has to say, meaning his point, rather than concern yourself for traps set by ones adversaries. unless you believe anti semitism is running rampant in the labour party (i don't), in relation to all the labour party issues that need focus and attention (brexit!), this is (relatively) a contrived non issue being blown way out of proportion to counter the ever increasing support for palestine within the party.

      i'm not british but if i were i wouldn't give it the time of day. imagine as the dem party becomes more and more supporters of palestine. do you really think that would mean the whole party (all those individuals) turning anti semitic? no, obviously not. but would the accusations be as loud and screaming as they are in the UK? you betcha! do not empower these trap setting fanatics.

    • i doubt if he has an agenda per se, but i tend to agree w/peled here. however, not being raised jewish, i'm not hyper holocaust sensitive.


      But I think we need to realize how serious this is.

      fundamentally, i just completely disagree. only in an environment where people experience fear of discussing certain historical events would this be considered a serious matter. had peled said cambodian genocide, yes or no? or native american genocide, yes or no? or armenian genocide y/n? no one would have blinked an eye.

      plus, i can completely see a distinction between supporting free speech (meaning one should be able to discuss or argue anything one wants) vs some requirement to host nazi speech or colonizer speech for "balance" or whatever. not hosting racist fruitcakes isn't anti free speech. it's common sense. but i don't support arresting people (or trials) for expressing their thoughts and opinions as long as the form of expression does not incite or cause bodily harm. there's no contradiction in supporting free speech and not hosting speech you do not agree with.

  • 'A blot on Judaism, Jewish history and ethics' -- British Jews regret the Balfour Declaration
    • sounds intreging Misterioso. more from your link:

      What was it that kept the film Queen of the Desert from the public for two years and then only grudgingly granted it very limited distribution? No one is saying. The fact remains, however, that Hollywood knew the story of Gertrude Bell violated a narrative written and protected by Zionism.

      Levant history before 1947 was of little consequence, a period best left unexamined.

      Queen of the Desert was initially screened in 2015 at the prestigious Berlin Film Festival. It was nominated for the festival’s highest award, the Golden Bear. Directed by noted German director Werner Herzog and beautifully photographed on locations in Jordan and Morocco, the film was a natural for American “art house” screenings.

      With Nicole Kidman (above) as the film’s star, and a script by Herzog, which examined the role Gertrude Bell played in modern history, film companies should have battled for U.S. distribution.

      They did not. Films that violate the conventional historical narrative do not sell, or so it is assumed by the historically ignorant decision-makers of Hollywood.

      The film focuses on a Middle East before Israel entered the historical stage. Could that reality play a role in Hollywood’s reluctance to embrace Queen of the Desert?

    • it leaves out the belief on the part of imperial powers in the role of Jewish influence at a time of world war, the perceived need by imperial leaders to get Jews on their side as an asset.... There is no sense here of Jewish agency; no mention of the fact that the Germans and the British were in competition for Jewish support, no sense of the role Jewish financiers had played in liberating Jews, including my grandfathers, from eastern Europe. And as for the colonial impulse, Britain wanted out of Palestine by ’47. But Jewish support for Zionism, and western Jewish lobbying on its behalf, often involving big political donors, is with us to this day.

      in the climate present today in the UK, they'd probably get accused of anti semitism if they brought that up -- an investigation started and kicked out of labour if they happen to be party members.

  • From Greta Gerwig to NYU, Israel has deep reservoir of cultural support in U.S.
    • Leftwing Jews ... don’t support the Green Line and the 2SS ... there is an emerging consensus that Palestinians should be under a Israeli military dictatorship.

      uh huh. that sounds, like, so left wing.

      Also remember as the communities intermarry increasingly your group are talking about exterminating or at least politically oppressing forever their biological relatives.

      my group? oh, how could anyone forget!

      Most Americans ... don’t want to engage in materials that are fundamentally based on the belief that Jews are an intrinsic evil.

      trolls littering the threads.

    • not understanding your point dbakr. i didn't say or imply zionists in America didn't partner with Israelis and spend relatively big money on pushing the Israeli narrative at any time in the past. israel's always operated a smooth consistent hasbara machine. but they didn't make a new ministry to counter bds til recently. i also don't recall all this fretting about the youth that's escalated since beinart wrote his 2012 Crisis of Zionism - something MW had been calling out for years. my pt, in case you missed it, is that the jewish anti zionist phenomena, especially in youth culture where it counts the most because it threatens the sustained US support for israel , is not limited to some smattering of people who read mondoweiss. in fact i think most of our readership is middle aged/older although i could be wrong.

      what does your (worthless) allegation "Palestinians (or their leaders) are the single most wealthy and well funded refugees on earth" or your earlier question, or anything in your comment, relate with what i wrote to elicit your response? i'm sort of at a loss here.

    • Maybe he’s moved on and prefers to dwell in the present.

      hey what's another million iraqi dead (give or take a mil) and the rise of isis! so yesterday, unlike the holocaust which is always as fresh and a baby's bum.

    • notwithstanding the smattering of Jewish anti-Zionists who frequent this site.

      uh huh. we've heard this before. so why is it the zionist machine is spending so much trying to fight this scourge of anti zionism infecting their youth? just throwing millions at their unnecessary unwarranted fretting?

    • but can you supply examples of these “lies”, as you style them?

      why bother? half the battle is won if one accepts his framing. the list, as it reads, is slanted. ie: referencing colonization as "tribal conflict" and other bs like that.

      as an aside, when ofcom dismissed all charges against al jazeerah lobby spying investigation:

      It dismissed all charges, which included anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing, and the infringement of privacy.

      It ruled that as per the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s guidance: “It did not consider that such a critical analysis of the actions of a foreign state constituted anti-Semitism, particularly as the overall focus of the programme was to examine whether the State of Israel was acting in a manner that would be expected of other democratic nations.

      i guess the UK wouldn't like any democratic nations placing undercover spies in the embassy infiltrating student groups to take down british politicians -- and it has nothing to do with an "obsession with Jews." as some people would no doubt have us believe.

  • In decertifying Iran deal, Trump caves to Israel. But who will say so?
    • thanks bandolero, and please excuse my late reply. maybe you're right, but it still seems unlikely to me iran would re enter negotiations. but, sometimes i'm wrong and you brought up a lot of interesting points. we'll find out soon enough.

    • I do think that Trump will not recertify that the deal is in the US interest.

      Bandolero, there's no recertification that the deal "is in US interests". trump has already stated (repeatedly) he does not think the deal was in US interests while at the same time recertifying the deal.

      So why not try to talk on making a better deal – meaning a deal both the US and Iran are more comfortable with?

      i don't think anyone is preventing anyone from discussing this, but as it stands, a week before the deadline, iran says 10 trumps couldn't scrap the deal. there's simply no indication iran is not comfortable with the deal, rouhani calling it "irreversible" and "our moral victory". you have to have 2 to tango, it took a couple years to iron out the deal, so why should iran (or anyone else for that matter) engage in more talks when there's simply no indication whatsoever any deal made by the US would be honored by the US -- beyond perhaps one presidential election?

      plus, look at what happened when gaddafi/libya agreed to disarm to end crippling sanctions? iran is not stupid. what has trump ever done that qualifies him to be able to come up w/a better deal than obama did? trump, who already threatened north korea? it makes no sense. if the US backs out of the deal the inspections just go poof and i really do not think other countries will go along w/more sanctions imposed on iran.

      but sure, we can talk around the coffee machines. we can talk till the cows come home. but what leverage does trump have besides threatening to attack iran or impose sanctions, toothless without international support and compliance?

    • thank just, i have been following this closely. iran's been crystal clear they won't amend the deal. if it falls apart there's no turning back. meanwhile, the neocon press has been all over jumping the gun on this and trump does what he always does when he bashes the deal but has certified it twice already. there'd be no teeth in more sanctions if the rest of the p5's don't go along (and they won't) and china just extended a 10 billion dollars loan to iran last week. so logistically, it would be an embarrassment to the US to back out of the deal.

      and these 2 anonymous senior officials? whatever. not impressed. even cnn calls it "expected decision". this is jumping the gun on the news -- it's a media trick. but i am not falling for it.

      but who knows, obama threw the lobby's 'bomb syria red line' decision to congress and the lobby lost. big egg on face.

    • i don't think trump is going to decertify the deal.

      Eli Clifton says that Trump is caving to three billionaire donors: Bernard Marcus, Paul Singer, and Sheldon Adelson.

      clifton wrote, "Trump is expected to “decertify” the Iran nuclear deal....according to the Washington Post"

      (my bold). then he wrote:

      perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to decertify comes from three of his biggest political donors: Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and Bernard Marcus.

      i'm just mentioning this because clifton didn't ever say he thought trump was caving. and personally, i think the headline implies it's a done deal. you might be right, but i don't think it's responsible to report something ("In decertifying Iran deal, Trump caves to Israel" vs 'In decertifying Iran deal, Trump would be caving to Israel') as if it's already happened.

  • Israeli plan to 'transfer' 300,000 Palestinians to West Bank is new normal -- Zoabi
    • It’s not an editorial blunder.

      you're right, it's not. the headline perfectly reflects what zoabi said and i have no interest in chomping on your theories about what is or is not a transfer or what you think this website is dedicated to.

    • Why is the word “transfer” (in the headline) placed in quotation marks? Apparently, the editor understands that this is not really a transfer.

      why asked a question if you're going to answer it yourself nathan? most news sources have editorial guidelines they follow. ie, the guardian:

      Headlines and standfirsts (where absolutely necessary), captions and display quotes all take single quote marks.

      mondoweiss doesn't use double quotes in headlines, ever. when you see single quote marks in a headline it means the headline is quoting someone (in this case, zoabi). and as a rule, people do not quote themselves when they are speaking nor do people quote others' individual words when transcribing someone's speech from a video. this is why the word transfer was not quoted in the article.

      plus, when we blockquote either speech or when citing an article we generally do not also use quotemarks. it can be assumed the text in a blockquote (which is generally in italics) is the quote.


      The whole of Israeli society has shifted since the second intifada… more and more toward the right wing. Today you cannot talk about any meaningful differences between the right and the center within the Israeli politics regarding the Palestinian issue…. When [Avigdor] Lieberman talked about transfer in 2003 if you remember, he talked about transfer from the back of the Knesset, from the last line… and no one listened to him and they tried to silence him. “Don’t talk about transfer, it’s embarrassing us.” Now Lieberman with the transfer has moved from the back of the Knesset to the center of the middle of the Knesset…

      The concept of transfer or of land swap that Netanyahu is now debating with Trump administration is a concept which is so, yanni, normal within the Israeli discourse. What was not normal, what was so embarrassing, so extremist ten years ago is now in the center. Now the settlers dominate the government.

      (my bold) the headline quoted zoabi. not really that complicated. and certainly nothing to do with "editor understands that this is not really a transfer."

      i can't fathom why, as a rhetorical device, you think claiming the editor agrees with your opinion makes your case stronger. clearly, it doesn't. it just makes you seem foolish.

  • As battle rages in UK Labour Party, Moshe Machover expelled after asserting 'Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism'
    • He speaks about ‘Jewish interests’ without ever defining what they are. He says that ‘British Jews believe…’

      he makes up all sorts of stuff and gets top comment all the time and basically holds court in the comment section making outlandish statements where every commenter and the entire conversation (thread after thread after thread) revolves around his outlandish anti semitic bullshit ("jews.... uniformly" etc etc).. it happens day after day after day.

      gross. it's poisonous discourse.

  • Feel-good Gaza poster in NY window draws feel-bad response from neighbor
    • To the future? obviously Zionism is the primary jewish cause of the century

      too early in the century to make that claim.

  • A Jewish atonement for Zionism
    • Yoav, i had no idea. i will check out your link now. sorry it took me so long to respond, i just noticed your comment. thanks again for the great review. i had never even heard of Moshe Menuhin before.

    • thank you Yoav, i thoroughly appreciated your review, especially the excerpts. i was struck by Menuhin’s phrasing in his remarks on the effects of zionist aggression toward Egypt in 1956, "From time immemorial,.... This happy lot of Jews was irresponsibly sacrificed as a burnt offering on the altar of aggressive “Jewish” political nationalism." (written decades before joan peter's used the initial phrase in the title to her lying book of myths).

  • Three megadonors (who just happen to love Israel) are pushing Trump against Iran deal
    • Trump seems to be leaning toward decertifying the Iran deal,

      i don't think he'll do it. but this recertification process every 90 days guarantees this theme will be constant. america won't "win" a war with iran -- too dangerous. and the international community is stacked up against dropping the deal. not going to happen.

    • most of us throwing money at this situation is futile. why compete financially with billionaires when we can vote corrupt politicians out of office. throwing money at it is playing their game, whereas we need whole new rules, or a whole new game.

  • A plea to Israel: Don't start the third Lebanon War
    • i'm not sure when israel will attack lebanon again but i'm sure they will. the constant warnings and hasbara drumbeats keeping israelis fearful is part and parcel of setting up the illusion israel, who would be the initiator of the attack, would be acting defensively and preemptively -- which would not be the case at all.

      the long term neocon plan for the region is to shatter it and break it (sykes-picot) apart. so as long as isis was in ascension in syria and everything is bloody and awful there's no requirement for israel to start the war, might as well let them all kill eachother. but since the long term plan is that wide swath of land (preferably kurdistan) controlled and supervised by is/us via american bases separating iran from syria then israel's attack on southern lebanon is almost certainly guaranteed. as isis shrinks and assad liberates more and more syrian land, israel's aggressiveness towards lebanon will get more pronounced.

      i'm not sure how they plan on chopping off sections of iraq, syria, and turkey to make their client state but there will be efforts to occupy hezbollah's defensive forces on the home front in lebanon while doing the carving up. nothing to do with israel being attacked and targetting and everything to do with eventual israeli expansion. my 2 cents anyway.

      the israeli public is easily manipulated, just pawns and grist for the mill. years of fear fear fear programing make them susceptible to almost any lame excuse to start a war.

  • Zohra Drif's memoir of Algeria's fight for freedom is stunning
    • i find this less than convincing:

      Agassi called the hotel. “This is Etzel. We put bombs in there. Clear the people’ we told them,” she says.
      The response was disparaging. “They laughed and said, ‘those bloody Jews won’t tell us what to do,” she recalls.

    • jack, you have no authority to declare what "the issue here, is". Notwithstanding your vain attempts to impute hypocritical feelings towards who you deem to be, or not to be, disgusting. you think the issue is the hypocritical double standards of others, but refuse to look at your own. under the circumstances, i think the issue is your hypocritical double standards supporting a colonial state renown for its glorification of child murders.

      no thanks for letting us witness, once again, the sludge at the bottom of the zionist barrel. if only we need reminding -- but unfortunately we don't. we can't miss you when you won't go away.

    • and all the "dark hearts" who deemed the jewish terrorism employed to secure a jewish state, somehow 'worth it' do they personally disgust you too? and what of the slaughtering of hundreds of children in one of the israeli grass mowing operations, does that similarly disgust you? somehow i'm not swayed by your oh so selective personal disgust. you who routinely excuse the terrorism of colonialists and condemn actions of the oppressed.

  • UN takes first concrete step to hold Israel accountable for violating Palestinian human rights
  • 'NYT' leaves out Dennis Ross's charge to US Jews: 'We need to be advocates for Israel'
    • Ross said: “We don’t need to be advocates for Palestinians. We need to be advocates for Israel”. From such a statement, Phillip Weiss concludes: “So much for justice and compassion.” In other words, if you are pro-Israel, then by definition in the world of Mondoweiss you are the bad guy.

      no, in other words, one should be disqualified as an impartial mediator between 2 parties once one has announced ones advocacy of support for only one side.

    • 1st link -- wright's testimony-- (my bold).

      So the Bible--and belief that it is God's Holy Word and infallible, became a useful tool in Zionist propaganda. I take the point of view that the Bible is a mixture of Hebrew legends and myths and cannot be used as an element in U.S. foreign policy.

      yeah, so of course these arabists would have to be purged.

  • Balfour Declaration, now 100, was 'gun pointed at heads' of Palestinians -- Khalidi
    • no, you reread my comment jeff. you specifically declaring something is meaningless. the only example you proffered was "Jewish migration to Palestine are not motivated by either a desire to cease natural resources nor a desire to exploit indigenous labor."

      note how, regardless of your hifalutin claims of motivation or "desire" -- israel most definitely steals natural resources and exploits labor. and a hell of a lot of other examples of how it perfectly mirrors colonialism. so you can talk til the cows come home. you can "reject" that settler colonialism is properly named. meanwhile, read up on The Palestine Jewish Colonization Association. walks like duck and even called itself a friggin duck until the pr went south and they tried harder to cover up. #FAIL

    • Jewish migration to Palestine are not motivated by either a desire to cease natural resources nor a desire to exploit indigenous labor

      ultimately, blatherings (allegations) about desires and motivations are irrelevant. settler colonialism is not defined by the desires or motivation of the settlers, it's defined as an act -- a function. walks like duck talks like duck -- it's a duck.

  • Samuel Freedman extols Jewish 'love affair' with Jewish state-- while decrying 'dogma of white supremacy'
  • Between our life and our mother Algeria, we chose our mother: Excerpt from 'Inside the Battle of Algiers: Memoir of a Woman Freedom Fighter'
  • Ten days of awe: standing with whom?
    • On further reflection I think I understand.
      By calling the “bride” story a fabrication you imagine you are dismissing the fact that Palestine was quite densely populated and reasonably well developed before Zionism.

      i think it's more than that. a bride is about love, about life partner forever commitment and dedication. 'population and development' take the poetic meaning out of it. it's so much more than that. in the hasbara there's so often this 'temporary, just passing thru, all those other arab countries would do' memes.

      a bride implies the one and only. this is the part zionists want dismissed.

  • High holidays? Meh
    • I agree completely, people who are Jewish just fuel the hatred.

      you're not agreeing with me, because obviously i didn't say that. own your own bigotry - don't pawn it off on me.

      p.s. try reading the link embedded in and supporting the sentence you quoted -- i took the liberty of adding it where you cited me so there would be no mistaking the context.

    • In the evolutionary terms, we lessen sense of dread and anxiety with ritual and repetition while seeking to strengthen our tribal links, to close ranks within our extended families, while our xenophobia and paranoia are ranked up by our primitive reptilian brains.

      it seems like it would be a very strange time to be jewish. so many mixed messages. people are voting today in germany:

      German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said this month that if the AfD gets its projected 10 percent share of the vote, “We will have real Nazis in the German Reichstag for the first time since the end of World War II.”

      and the mindboggling thing is how many people fueling this hatred are jewish ( it's truly befuddling. "In the evolutionary terms" how would one reconcile these mixed messages, this deliberate infusion of xenophobia, with 'high holidays'?

  • Why the split inside the Democratic Party over BDS needs to happen
    • you call that sarcasm? ah, because Jews spend a lot of time focusing on israel and not the internal politics of Russia, Poland and Ukraine means their grandparents didn't come from Russia, Poland and Ukraine but instead a state that didn't even exist in their grandparents time on land they had never set foot on because they now teach their children hebrew (the vast majority of words which did not even exists in their great grandparents lifetime) instead of russian or polish? but you got one thing right "identity is a social construction".

      guess what? under your "theory" africa is the homeland of all humanity -- including jews, give or take a few centuries.

    • great article phil, the dem party definitely needs a big public fight over israel. long long overdue. should have happened years ago -- remember the jerusalem vote at the 2012 convention? too bad that wasn't squeezed into the article somewhere. anyway, it's about time!

  • Jews have religious commandment to support Israel and fight BDS -- American Jewish Committee
    • That article is about mild to semi-mild pressure helping to advance the peace negotiations.

      eva, jeff is diverting, ignoring your point (regarding his stupid diversionary claim that "less threatening the Palestinians are the more humanitarian measures can be taken towards them." the article demonstrates how, even in "less threatening" times (relative calm), israel will not advance peace, ever, quite the opposite, they create more obstacles to peace:

      Instead, the exact opposite happened: Israel’s interest in the peace process completely died out. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who thee years earlier agreed under the duress of American threats to the idea of a Palestinian state, began laying more and more obstacles in its path.

      but jeff doesn't want to talk about that.

      Moreover I wasn’t talking about peace negotiations but living together.

      eva, no where was jeff discussing "living together" -- as you pointed out earlier he was justifying "horrific violence proves necessary it will and should be employed". and when you confronted him about

      So lets be clear: To prevent JEWISH statelessness, means that horrific violence will be employed, if necessary, regardless to the cost to others (NON-JEWS), and it is meant to be chilling.

      he ducks and swerves What I was picturing was not Palestine but jewish enslavement?

      it's impossible to have a coherent conversation with someone who just keeps evading his own hypocrisy. now he wants to discuss "coexistence". when will this snake start devouring his own tail, that's what i want to know. godspeed.

    • i stated a commitment to support israel was a committed to the status quo (existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues) -- effectively, support for the occupation and the persecution of palestinians. to which jeff claims he's not sure the AJC cares one way or the other about status quo -- and they want "any solution that the Israeli and Diaspora community can agree on and would be willing to jointly publicly defend".

      ok, so lets suspend all rational thought and pretend we are not discussing the status quo of what "a commitment to support israel" effectively means. and along with that pretend when jeff uses the term "solution" in this conversation he's not talking about palestine/israel! and when he says what the "Israeli and Diaspora community can agree on and would be willing to jointly publicly defend" -- that we're not talking about that status quo. we could be referencing the status quo hamantaschen or matzo soup!

      in this scenario, where we completely divorce/disconnect and divert ourselves from the conversation about the status quo regarding israel/palestine and what the ajc will or will not "jointly publicly defend", let's everyone pretend jewish religious conversion falls under the rubric of existing state of affairs in israel/palestine, especially regarding social or political issues!!!

      so sorry everyone for wasting your time. i should have said 'you’re not so sure the ajc cares about the status quo of israel/palestine? could you tell me just one thing (just one)the “Israeli and Diaspora community” (whatever that is) agree on and are willing to “jointly publicly defend” that is not the status quo on israel/palestine?

      another round of applause for jeff and the dumbing down of discourse on mondoweiss.

      btw, this reminds me of the senate panel on 9/11. everything and anything all panel participants did not agree on was left out of the investigation. that's one way to find out what everyone will “jointly publicly defend” --

    • There’s more of “Jeff b” on Mondo than there is of Phil W!


    • no smiggins of mensh, an ethnic cleanser:

      "Today they are few and old. They no longer present a threat. They can safely return."

    • I’m not sure they care one way or the other about status quo. I think a more accurate description is they want any solution that the Israeli and Diaspora community can agree on and would be willing to jointly publicly defend.

      sta·tus quo
      ˌstādəs ˈkwō/Submit
      the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.

      so, you're not so sure the ajc cares about the status quo? could you tell me just one thing (just one)the "Israeli and Diaspora community" (whatever that is) agree on and are willing to "jointly publicly defend" that is not the status quo?

      i didn't read the rest of your hasbara, which is why i am not responding to it. i only have so much time in my day for empty false rhetoric which is what i've come to expect from you. so, i skipped it.

    • I support Palestinians refugees right to return. I don’t support expanding this definition to foreign born descendants.

      the chance jeff supports palestinian refugees who were born at a refugee camp in the west bank or gaza returning to their family home in jerusalem, haifa, yaffa, lydda and ramle? please. watch him now claim the west bank is a "foreign land". cough. he thinks he sounds all reasonable now supporting refugees returning sans their descendants knowing full well it's been 70 years and old people without their children will die off so his oh so not generous support amounts to nothing.

    • The AJC isn’t saying that, you are saying that

      nah, under other circumstancing a commitment to support israel might not necessarily be support for the occupation of Palestinian lands and persecution of Palestinians. but we are not living in another time. we're living now, at a time of perpetual consistent palestinian oppression. being committed to the status quo is, effectively, support for the occupation and the persecution of palestinians.

      don't confuse figures of speech with what those policies actually entail.

  • 'Regime instability' in Iran is aim of leading Israel advocate's memo to White House

Showing comments 22416 - 22401