Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 22958 (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 22958 - 22901

  • Ahed Tamimi, 17, to serve 8 months in prison for slapping soldier in occupied village
    • ;) sorry! mostly i didn't like the implication the tamimi's were compromising. maybe i made it too personal. i'm impressed with her, the whole family.

    • compromise what? holding her ground and spending 10 years in prison? there was a lot of international pushback, from amnesty to sarah silverman. having her locked up was bad optics for israel. if those optics weren't there she'd be languishing a lot longer, like Dareen Tatour. but sure play it tough, punch left, why not ech, it's your specialty. you know the noble forthright way better than palestinians.

  • Dear Senator Harris, You have been drinking the pro-Israel Kool-Aid
    • Kisch is bending over backwards to make it seem that Harris is amenable to rational pursuasion on this issue.

      that wasn't really my take on it. contrary to you keith, i do think people who read Mondoweiss understand the "vast majority of Democratic politicians are in the Zionist Lobby’s pockets". but come to think of it, you didn't really say otherwise did you? you kind of brushed right past that question and diverted to what most mondoweiss readers thought of sanders/lobby.

      the nature of open letters, FB posts, as well as MW posts, is you get the opinion out there and expose. alice did that.

      It seems, though, that you have chosen to pander to moneyed Zionist interests. Your support for Israel is the diametric opposite of a path to peace in the Middle East. I am so sorry that you are not the politician that I was hoping you’d be.

      i thought it was gutsy and up front. not bending backwards at all. the whole "to make it seem that Harris is amenable to rational persuasion" thing is silly. as alice says, it's a rhetorical device to feign a degree of politeness or decorum when addressing someone in public. whatever, you are punching left. ok you won all better now. and one more thing, everyone with their eyes open knows harris is being prepped to take hillary's spot. letters like Alice's are pushback against that, and against centrists and the establishment thinking they can dictate who our candidates are, and think we'll roll over for them. it's the reason hillary lost, and the reason we are being inundated with the russiagate, to coverup that real reason she lost (a pt you also made).

      anyway, maybe you don't have to have the last word here keith. i wish many more of our readers would write hard hitting open letters to these pandering politicians like alice did.

    • Alice! it's been such a long time, great to hear your voice. i sincerely had no idea you were now 81, you always seemed so young to me. thanks for all your awesome activism over the years. sending my love and hope you get this message.

  • Jennifer Rubin likens Trump to Hitler in 'blood and soil' ethno-nationalism that threatens Jews
    • RoHa, it's weird. he's definitely "governed" and "campaigned" in support (inclusive of) american right wing jews (the jerusalem declaration obviously, and the efforts by flynn to lobby netanyahu's wishes (via trump) re the UN vote settlement vote). so how anyone could claim he's left jews out (too many examples in his administration alone) is beyond me.

  • Landmark 'NYT' op-ed by Jewish official blames Israel's leadership for its isolation (not BDS)
    • thanks for your clarification ismail, i understand now more about what you meant. as far as "shout out to the 2SS is a sort of breakthrough" i guess i didn't read it that way because in the 1st paragraph phil wrote "the article says nothing anyone hasn’t said before" and i understood "breakthrough" more as who said it, president of World Jewish Congress as well as "criticisms that we know are being voiced behind closed doors by Israel lobby execs." as for the rest, please see my recent response to eljay downthread. thanks again.

      (edit, one more thing. the article is popular, iow, this topic does interest many readers. one could argue phil's got his finger on the pulse.)

    • eljay, not about pressuring Israel to do the (just and moral) right thing

      this reminds me of hophmi's comment downthread, the empty List of self-critical Palestinian leaders:, as if lauder's handwringing is "self" criticism, which it is not.

      wrt to your (and possibly others) perception of "excitement", i can only speak for myself. and for me it's more akin to a sense of schadenfreude. unlike me, phil (and many others i presume) doesn't think anything will change until the jewish community changes. he could be right, maybe it's here nor there. when i first read lauder's nyt op ed it raised my eyebrows primarily because he was the president of the World Jewish Congress. but i didn't think what he said was particularly extraordinary to the extent that i didn't even send the link off to phil (albeit i did quote from it in another thread to make some point). i had already read numerous other handwringing testimonials by figures i hold no sympathy for. there's been a string of them and they've been coming in for years now although there's a real uptick. but lauder is not calling for an end to US taxpayer dollars and probably doesn't even mention occupation. he is not offering any suggestions for any meaningful actions ("the late, great two-state solution" is not meaningful action, as phil pointed out it's already dead).

      from memory (because i only get 10 free nyt articles a month and don't care to waste one on reading it again) i think he likely repeats and bemoans the situation of the rabbis not recognizing the jewishness of reform, conservative jews which apparently massively impacts the american jewish community. and this phenomena, repeated endlessly by all the handwringers, seems to personally bother, or upset, more than the fact of the occupation/apartheid. so there have been reports from inside the jewish community of "we have to get the kids back" and so now they're all standing in line to get their op eds published demonstrating their personal efforts.

      so i sense we're watching this all play out in slowmo over the course of the decade or whenever it was beinart first wrote his earth shattering "crises" article, which was what many of us considered practical, ordinary, and quite predictable common sense. now maybe this "earth shattering" news of jewish youth, as well as the rest of the youth, turning their collective backs on zionism/israel, bores some people. maybe it's perceived as just not that important in the scale of things. maybe it seems somewhat self indulgent to track every single sign and pew poll. some fret, others bemoan, other relish it, others think it's a waste of bandwidth, some think it represents support for zionism or the perpetuation of it, some feel hope, the list is endless. and phil writes about it. it's part of what mondoweiss covers. i don't know if it "excites" phil, i can't speak for him. but whatever he feels it doesn't bother me in the least and i for one appreciate him documenting the gradual demise.

    • eljay, i sort of relish zionist handwringing over their youth. it reminds of the piped piper story. and none of that handwringing will bring those kids back into the zionist fold. once you see it, the apartheid, the injustice, there's no turning back.

    • bumblebye, did you read huffington post take down of Cambridge Analytica the other day. that was massive.

    • I see Lauder’s comments as less encouraging than Phil does. When folks like him talk about a 2SS, they mean a demilitarized Palestine without real sovereignty (i.e., no control over borders, airspace, etc) with the IDF deployed in the Jordan Valley indefinitely, Israel retaining all the colonies that “everybody knows will remain in Israeli hands after peace talks”

      ismail, could you cite what you mean by this so called "encouraging" wrt 2SS. phil called 2 state "dead" and "too late". yes, he called the article "huge", but not for the reasons you're suggesting. again, it would be helpful if you could cite what it is you're referencing. thanks.

      And as far as heaping the blame on the maniac religious settlers, this has always been a favorite ploy of “liberal” Zionists..

      yep, Lauder, is a zionist (not sure if he self identifies as the liberal variety) so that's to be expected.

    • And – at the tail end of the video – credit their *israeli* intelligence personnel with helping to win the right wing european elections.

      did you read haaretz's headline? "Israeli Spies and Honey Traps"

  • Schumer says he opposed the Iran deal because of 'threat to Israel'
    • are there any words — is there an expression left?

      lol! when they say "crisis" this is all they mean! that other stuff, like the occupation, the death and destruction? what crisis? hell no, they just don't want the kids to find out.

      Come gather 'round people
      Wherever you roam
      And admit that the waters
      Around you have grown
      And accept it that soon
      You'll be drenched to the bone.
      If your time to you
      Is worth savin'
      Then you better start swimmin'
      Or you'll sink like a stone
      For the times they are a-changin'.

    • so far it’s worked. gotta give them credit for that!

      sure, credit given. but note how the negative perception of israel has escalated in direct proportion w/the rise of the internet and public awareness, that train has left the station, and there's no going back now.

      It likely doesn’t occur to Schumer (or Lauder) that the “Jewish State” should change its policies

      one would have to have their head firmly stuck up ones arse or stuck in the friggin sand to not have it occur to them (i was being facetious in my original comment wrt 'not a very novel idea') changing their behavior might garner a different result. heck no, they just WON'T CHANGE. hence, the handwringing. there's no putting lipstick on this pig.

    • one might think it would occur to schumer (at some point) that perhaps pressuring israel to change their policies might produce results that would in turn change people's perceptions of israel for the better.

      when solving a problem sometimes you have to look outside the box. i don't think changing behavior to produce a different result is a very novel idea. i'd think it would be staring israel and schumer in the face. in fact, the growing awareness of their unwillingness to change their behavior could be what's driving public opinion against them. but we all know it's not just the appearance of them being unwilling to change (for we all know they've tried to alter that appearance time and again), it's that they won't change. as long as they keep being grassmowing fanatical a**holes, public opinion will only get worse.

    • yeah, the handwringing about jewish youth is happening full throttle. Ron Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, today in the nyt:

      By submitting to the pressures exerted by a minority in Israel, the Jewish state is alienating a large segment of the Jewish people. The crisis is especially pronounced among the younger generation, which is predominantly secular. An increasing number of Jewish millennials — particularly in the United States — are distancing themselves from Israel because its policies contradict their values. The results are unsurprising: assimilation, alienation and a severe erosion of the global Jewish community’s affinity for the Jewish homeland.

  • Video: Jewish settler looses attack dog on Palestinian shepherd and flock, maiming sheep
    • would be within his/her rights to shoot the dog.

      that ran through my mind too. but then i figured, given who they're dealing with here, it would probably result in this colonialist and his whacked out buddies, would not let anyone get away with killing their dog. and envisioned them invading the palestinian village in the middle of the night and killing some people for revenge -- and getting away with it, as usual. i think it's a given they value the life of their dog over that of the one who killed it. maybe 1000 fold or more.

      and palestinians have no rights in the WB, so the very concept of "within" their rights, is a non non sequitur; doesn't exist under israeli occupation.

    • mooser, i explain how to do it here: it works on (my) chrome browser.

    • sure, you can ask him till the cows come home kid. but it's unlikely you'll get very far. here's the deal, at a minimum i am going to assume you believe what you write -- i figure i owe you at least that. iow, i am not going to assume for the sake of argument you're deceptive, pretending, dishonest, or insincere.

      i've been quite specific, repeatedly. and as you pointed out earlier, i'm just a commenter here. you can carry on all you want in whatever style you want, but the way you're going about it (w/the argument someone is insincere and not taking their words at face value) the chance of it making any kind of impact, (imho) is zilch. ciao.

    • Riight. Tell me next that votes decide anything in the US. Or that the Madassalafi retards are “out front” just because they feel like it, not because someone, meaning the Zionist direction and the US, both roughly under the same BoD, has planned and organized that.

      why would i do that, i am not playing your strawmen games. as i just mentioned to the kid earlier

      i see is that agency, of ongoing persistent extremism being acted out on the world stage, what’s happening in the WB, is a perfect example of extremists representing their ideology. (it also happens to be a perfect example of empire using extremists to further their cause, not that different than empire using isis to accomplish their imperial goals).

    • And what are “settler pogroms” about, if not a planned part of the Zionist genocide of the owners of the country?

      i get the feeling you think zionist genocide and religious ideology are mutually exclusive, when evidence suggests they are not. they work together hand in glove on the ground in the WB (as far as i am concerned).

      in the context of this settler attack, it’s still the religious ideology animating it. and if you or anyone else care to argue it isn’t go for it.

      Well, that’s exactly what we’re doing.

      not that i can see. the nature of animation is that it 'brings to life' adds color, highlights and exaggeration or whatever. i don't see you arguing religious fanaticism doesn't animate zionist genocide. in fact, i see you arguing quite the opposite when you write "And what are “settler pogroms” about, if not a planned part of the Zionist genocide of the owners of the country? "

    • kid, while we banter back and forth and argue our points at our leisure, some following the old article threads or perhaps the last 100 comment thread to follow the most recent conversations, others may be looking for the hottest, most compelling or fresh news on twitter or haaretz or nyt and volley literally 100's of emails or list serves w/tips from readers or staff and writing articles about those tips. maybe a person like that literally doesn't have the time or interest to follow or read all those comments or to respond to every argument or critique. that's just one scenario in which someone might not be dodging your "issue" kid.

      when i write my senator or call her office with a complaint, i don't necessarily think she's dodging me if she doesn't call me back and respond to my argument (of course if i were donating a million dollars to her campaign i might expect better treatment!). sometimes a spade is just a spade, who knows. but what occurs to me is that unlike others, you did get a personal response which is not that common around here (people direct comments and critiques at phil all the time) and instead of taking his words, his response to you, at face value, for some inexplicable reason you choose to believe he is dodging the issue because he doesn't agree with you.

      I don’t understand the relevance your suggestion as to why I should make an argument about the non-existence of religious extremism

      the nature of religious extremism dictates the extremist's actions. if ones argument is that "settlers do NOT represent a religious ideology" ("you choose... the side of the Zionists, by saying that the settlers pursue a religious ideology") presumes violent actions of the settlers are not driven, at least in part, by religious fanaticism. this presumption, imho, as phil tried to point out, is reductive. because, imho, it denies the agency of religious extremism as a whole. and i say this because what i see is that agency, of ongoing persistent extremism being acted out on the world stage, what's happening in the WB, is a perfect example of extremists representing their ideology. (it also happens to be a perfect example of empire using extremists to further their cause, not that different than empire using isis to accomplish their imperial goals). and because i see it as that perfect example, and from your words i assume you do not. it calls into question if you believe in the agency of religious fanatics at all. that's why i wrote " if you care to make the argument there are no religious fanatics, no religious extemists, that they do not exist, then do so.”

      I may well be intellectually below your level

      oh i don't think you're intellectually beneath. quite the contrary, when i was a kid i wouldn't have even had the guts to step in it like you're doing. but i probably have more experience making arguments than you do.

    • If my comments are ignorant, authoritative, or presumptuous, then present your counter-arguments, show me in which way they are so. If, as I suspect, you are not interested in that, fine...

      i was referencing one specific comment, borrowing your own words: "sorry if I hurt your tender feelings -- I am a strong believer in calling a spade a spade."

      as for "authoritative" "presumptuous" and "ignorant", this comes to mind: "settlers do NOT represent a religious ideology ....refrain from conflating"

      And, no, I do not think that people who don’t agree with (such as you) are lying.


      not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
      synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical

      how do link to a specific comment on another Mondoweiss page?

      click on the users name and go to their archives. locate the comment. click on the time stamp of that specific comment. copy/paste the url. example:

      Philip Weiss March 19, 2018, 10:08 am
      You’re being reductive/ideological.
      A lot of these racists quote the bible. Ben Gurion made a shidduch with religious parties.
      Bad people use religion and good people use it too.

      I am not interested in mudslinging.

      i guess that depends on ones definition of mudslinging. because if i accused you of merely acting as if you were against the occupation while providing cover for Zionists, i'd be slinging mud at you. for sure.

    • Irrelevant when discussing the nature of Zionism

      the article wasn't about the nature of zionism. the reference phil used (wrt zionism) was beinart's article, the crises of zionism, and book by the same title (albeit i have not read the book but one imagines it's about the same thing) as well as Lauder's article which i did read (and referenced this morning in a different thread) and ben ami (whose commentary phil referenced i have not read). having read both beinart and lauder the reference to the so called "crises" -- was the handwringing over jewish youth and lack of support for israel and how it doesn't 'look so good' so the millennials are turning away.

      so it's in this context, and the context of this video, he wrote "American Jews still cannot turn against the religious ideology that animates this settler". which many of them can't. there's nothing about the post per se about the "nature of zionism" (although there have been many articles about that). again, his reference as i read it was in relation to settler pogroms.

      if paranam, or you for that matter, want to write about the nature of zionism do so and send it in, i bet adam and phil would be interested. or the comment section is a great place to talk about the nature of zionism. but in the context of this settler attack, it's still the religious ideology animating it. and if you or anyone else care to argue it isn't go for it.

      both seem to work and, as with any mass propaganda, superstition appeals to more people. Foot soldiers have no say and no participation in decisions.

      there's no difference between the foot soldiers and the settlers in the knesset -- so yeah, they make plenty of decisions. and the guy who set the dog on them made that decision, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the settlers are out front in this enterprise (which serves the state in the colonial project).

      What moves all Zionists, necessarily and by definition, remains racism.

      oh really. you think it's racism motivating fundamentalist christians to support israel. because last i heard it was second coming. not that they are not racist, but it's not racism that makes them believe christ is coming back once all the jews are in israel (and other biblical signs and conditions i am not familiar with).

    • you choose 1 side of the divide, i.e. the side of the Zionists, by saying that the settlers pursue a religious ideology.

      You do the same when you talk about “liberal” Zionists; Zionism is a purely racist ideology, so liberal Zionist = liberal racist = does NOT exist.

      Now, it is your right to choose sides.... But please be upfront about it, instead of being disingenuous

      this is amusing because this mindframe, of you thinking you're right, accusing someone (anyone?) who doesn't agree of being a zionist, and making a division between either agreeing with you or being a racist, and then pretending like you have some kind of authority to make people choose between affirming your opinion or being on the other side of this so called "divide" you've created in your mind. and then doubling down and saying "it is your right" to choose and then assuming the only reason someone might not share your view is because they are being disingenuous and not up front.

      no one has to make a choice of even considering what you, an anonymous person, is writing. this is the comment section of a website. people share their opinions, we argue, but what consequence is there for anyone who doesn't take you up on this 'choose one side of the divide' instruction?


      if you don’t but then I will continue taking you to task over this

      like who cares? how do you take anyone to task here, by making an ignorant authoritative presumptuous comment? and talk about stating the obvious, that phil is "free" to ban you. i'm just not understanding how whatever you're saying holds any kind of threat at all.

      apparently, you don't think stating your opinion or disagreeing with phil (or anyone for that matter) is persuasive enough, maybe you think it has more weight if you make accusations of deception (essentially, 'anyone who doesn't agree w/me is lying') if they don't share your opinion? rethink.

    • he's not dogging anything paranam. if you care to make the argument there are no religious fanatics, no religious extemists, that they do not exist, then do so. not in islam, not in christianity and not in judaism. otherwise, tell us who those religious fanatics are, in judaism

      In Israel, the phrase "the Messia's Donkey" can also refer to the controversial political-religious doctrine ascribed to the teachings of Avraham Yitzhak Kook which claims that secular Jews, which represent the material world, are an instrument in the hands of God whose purpose it was to establish the State of Israel and begin the process of redemption, but upon its establishment they would be required to step aside and allow the Religious-Haredi public to govern the state. According to this analogy, the secular Jewish public are the "donkey", while the Religious-Haredi public who would take their place represent a collective quasi-Messianic body.

      they represent a racist political ideology.

      zionism is a racist political ideology. and while these religious fanatics might "represent" the goals of the (once) secular colonizing government, they are fueled by religious fanaticism.

  • 'I found a system of segregated roads' -- Anna Baltzer's path to activism
  • AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and 'Washington Post'
    • jett, my hunch is that he's speaking metaphorically. and instead of to "imply censure", i read it to imply "a license to criticize" AIPAC. as if they've not been licensed (authorized or given permission) in the past. to phrase it another way would be: because of the injury mere high school students have done to another powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association, reporters are now licensed to criticize AIPAC (maybe on the same path-to-pariah status....).

    • yourstruly, there's an embed to segal's senate campaign website under his name in phil's article (above).

      1. Cardin is a vehicle of AIPAC, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, only second to the NRA in its influence over Congress. AIPAC carries the agenda of Bibi Netanyahu, for Israel and, unfortunately, too often for the United States as well. Twenty-nine years ago, I founded the Jewish Peace Lobby ( as an alternative vision of what it means to be pro-Israeli. This campaign is the first time we, or anyone, has challenged AIPAC electorally, and challenged their tight grip on Congressional action on all things directly or indirectly related to Israel.

      2. AIPAC/Cardin defends and shelters the aggressive settlement activity of the current Israeli government. This is destroying the possibility of the two-state solution, and thus, necessitates an Israeli choice between being a Jewish state or being a democracy. It is clear that democracy is losing in that contest. This is a heart breaking tragedy, and must be fought with all we have got.

      3. Secondly, Cardin, again aligned with AIPAC, joined with all 54 Republican Senators in opposing the Iran Nuclear agreement negotiated by the Obama Administration. President Obama told us that the choice was either between the nuclear deal or the use of force against Iran. Bibi wanted an American attack. John Kerry confirmed this publicly a month ago. In effect, Ben Cardin voted for war against Iran. Anything he says to the contrary is BS.

      4. Cardin, in his blank-check support of any Israeli government policy introduced legislation that would felonize (up to 20 years in jail) any American who joined and supported a boycott of the Israeli settlements, if that boycott was called by the United Nations or any of our European allies. The ACLU has condemned this as un-Constitutional, as has my excellent Congressman, Jamie Raskin, formerly a Professor of Constitutional Law.

      Further, I join the Congressional Black Caucus in calling on Israel to halt the deportation of African refugees seeking asylum in Israel. Of course, Israel has to have control of its borders, but as a country that calls itself the Nation State of the Jewish People, Israel must be true to our people's historical experience. We must remember Exodus 22:21 "And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."


      I am running against Cardin from the left. My campaign banner is Bread and Roses, the banner carried by women textile workers in their historic strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in 1912.

      Bread basically means A Decent Society, one in which basic human needs are met, even for the poor. Roughly speaking this is Bernie Sanders. I support the goals of Bernie's agenda, and most of his policy positions. If elected, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Jerome Segal will form a solid tripod, to which I will add my strengths and benefit from theirs.

      (more at the link)

    • awesome story elizabeth. thanks.

    • Putin/Russia is not “Soviet” any more.

      i don't think he meant russia. i think he meant soviet-style. in lock-step, under strict control.

  • 'Someone is paying Trump to do it' -- Pompeo elevation shows neoconservative lock on foreign policy
    • Well, I don’t see how 1948 shows that there will be no population movement.

      i think you read it wrong.

      the lesson of 1948. There is nothing more miserable for an ordinary Palestinian than to be in exile.

      iow, they won't be fleeing en masse again. of course Maghlawatan could be wrong. instead of more outright israeli slaughter (mowing the grass) israel could set up extermination camps or something w/trains to either certain death or exile while the whole world watched. i mean, anything is possible. palestinians could be used, again, like lab rats. but something tells me they'd hold their ground and choose the 'give me liberty or give me death' option.

    • you nailed phil

  • American Jews need Israel to be safe -- megadonor Paul Singer
    • kay, i read somewhere recently (sorry, can't remember where) there was some organizational rallying of the jews handwringing event over the new polls. it was a full on 'got to get the youth back asap!' type event. so i think this is one of the memes they came up with double downing around. frankly, don't think it will work so well because it's been around so long the kids have all heard it, and they like it here already. i don't think it's new tho. maybe this particular rallying cry but "jews need israel to be safe" is not new.

    • Roger Cohen said that if you put a gun to his head, he’d say Israel was worth the price the Palestinians had to pay for its establishment because it has made Jews around the world safer:

      and yet, he said it without anyone putting a gun to his head!

  • There are only two kinds of Jews, Schumers and Feinsteins
    • achievement is often related to how much one receives, opportunities. for example if you have 2 schools and one of them gets extraordinary outside funding and all the kids get free lunches and healthcare it stands to reason the students will achieve more than a school where the kids are dragged out of bed and night and shot in the streets and they have a limited budget of books etc.

      if you live in a community where there are an abundance of grants and scholarships and alumni admissions programs that practically guarantee your siblings and heirs go to the best schools then it stands to reason your community will achieve more than in oppressed communities. so yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if Jews have achieved disproportionately in their contribution to humanity. but that doesn't mean all those contributions are in the best interest of humans collectively. for example, the occupation contributes much human suffering.

      the white race has achieved a lot, often at the expense of others. but collectively, if you test drugs on humans from one side of the world, or bomb them to smitheriens -- ask those people how much it matters whether their suffering or death is worth it for the benefit of mankind. everything is relative.

      i don't necessarily think it's measurable. because you could take the achievements of one man, like bill gates, and look at how much his influence or achievements could benefit mankind after his death. or alexander fleming, whose discovery changed the world of modern medicine. i mean, how do you measure all of mankind's achievements and determine who's contributed more collectively once you balance that with the contributions that have had a negative impact?

      how? one scenario. one man owns a diamond mine. he takes all his riches (all of them, not 50%, which are huge in the billions) and spends it on the arts and opera and medicine and everything good. when you measure his achievements how much credit do you give to the children who slaved and died for that persons wealth? all the unspeakable wars and murder that happened across the globe, do the victims get any credit for that one man's achievements, or all the achievement of those he funded? because he got rich of the backs of others -- many who paid with their lives. so isn't it those people who should get some credit for making those achievements possible? the backs other walked on to get to the top. each one of those backs belongs to a person.

    • lalalalala i can't hear you.

    • maybe in the context of "Jews [in the senate] who care about the opinions of all people and those [in the senate] who care only about the opinions of Jews" one could claim There are only two kinds of Jews. You are either a Chuck Schumer or a Dianne Feinstein.

      but outside of that, i find it sort of repulsive to imagine every jew being either a Chuck Schumer or a Dianne Feinstein. or the idea of Feinstein as 'caring about the opinions of all people'. and there are way too many instances of feinstein not 'caring about all people' to list.

      that said, as a constituent of hers, i can't even recall a time i thought of her as particularly jewish. it's not something she puts out front or is overt about, at all that i know of (disclosure, i am not a close feinstein watcher). in fact, i think she was in office quite a few years before i even connected, 'oh feinstein is a jewish name'. i swear it didn't really cross my mind. i read about her mom being sort of a b*tch and feinstein being unruly as a child and how they put her in a catholic school so the nuns could squash that, which apparently worked, for whatever that is worth.

      feinstein is a highly polished politician but frankly, i don't think of her as particularly attached to israel. whereas w/schumer i can't think of anything he's more associated with than his jewishness and his protection of israel. so yes, they are radically different.

      i'd have to say tho phil, this premise? this "only two kinds of Jews.... Schumer or a... Feinstein. " what were you thinking? and you know i am a big fan of yours.

      You can make any other distinction you please. Religious observance, intermarriage, Hebrew-literacy, Christmas trees, but this is the most meaningful one because it defines our time.

      imho, the most meaningful distinction (re jewish people) that defines our time is between zionist vs non or anti zionist. and the kind of jew "who care only about the opinions of Jews", one akin to what yakov hirsch might describe as a "Hasbara culturist", would be one end of the spectrum and could be represented by a schumer or a goldberg or netanyahu. but look at the wealth of beauty on the other end of the spectrum and tell me you've chose feinstein? why not amira hass? or jackie walker, or adam? or one of many many others?

      i have to give this article a thumbs down!

  • Gideon Levy on Israeli denial: 'Anyone who raises a question is demolished'
    • thank you phil! it always amazes me how much you accomplish.

    • Kudos.....But, Phil, you need to post this on every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday on Mondoweiss. As you know, readership is far less on Saturday and Sunday.

      just thought i'd mention this was published yesterday, on a friday.

  • 'NYT' free speech advocate Bari Weiss reportedly helped bring down a Columbia dean over 'intellectual heresy'
  • Rabbi Cardozo: outlawing circumcision would 'end the state of Israel'
    • Nonsense. They are both in the category Mutilation

      nonsense. female circumcision is the removal of an entire sex organ (if you'd like to argue women can have orgasms without one -- have at it -- but count me out). that is not the same thing at all.

    • jon, where's the appropriate place to have a discussion about it? when the times of israel publishes this editorial by the rabbi, is it better form to just shut up?

      i don't like the topic. and it's one many people are having in the US (in europe i think a lot of people are having it) and given that the vast majority of people it impacts are not jewish, don't you think it's a little jewish-centric to think people would base their opinions, or make these kinds of decisions, moral judgements or ethical decisions, whatever you want to call them, on such a personal issue, based on anti semitism, zionism, or how they feel about jews one way or the other?

      i am with oldgeezer on this one. "People are allowed to have an opinion about the propriety of nin essential surgery being performed on non adults. You couldn’t be more ethnocentric if you tried".

      i read some of the many comments over at the times of israel. a lot of jews are speaking up about it there (granted people who have strong feelings about this are more likely to be drawn to this discussion). but what do you think of the times of israel publishing that? or is it only ok publishing pro circumcision articles? are you really being fair when you write things like

      We’ll remember them next time we see that “I’m anti Zionist, not anti Jewish” slogan.

      seriously, is that a fair thing to say about a very controversial procedure that a lot of people are feeling anguish about and discussing. i would urge you to go read the comments over at TOI.

    • jon, you do know all those female circumcisions in africa and thereabouts are not done because elders deliberately set out to harm those girls, and for thousands of years, millions of parents didn't purposely “abuse” their children? Do you realize how crazy that allegation is?

      they didn't contemplate abusing or hurting the girls, they did it for their future prospects. for the good of their community and a perpetuation of the norm/tradition.

    • people could much more easily be sued by their circumcised children.

      rich kids who don't want to wait around for their inheritance!

      according to this report in west only 31.1% of male newborns are circumcised "before their release from the hospital". but it's on the decline all across the U.S.

    • citizen, yes i know. and i think it's barbaric.

      jon, when i said i wouldn't put it on my front burner what i meant was it's not something i would push for here in the US and the reason why is as i stated "if religion and people’s faiths were not so protected in our society it would be banned and illegal."

      as an atheist i'm not that concerned with protecting peoples faith and religion. but there's a fairly well trodden history of fascists states trampling on people's religious freedoms so as a citizen (vs a religious person) i tend to support those freedoms. i would really not like a state forcing a religion down my throat hence i hesitate in restricting others religious freedoms. while it may be different in europe i am not sure in the US, at this time, we could embark on making circumcision illegal without a huge fight that could open a whole can of worms about other things, separation of church and state as well as states rights. i'd like to think given time, science education and human nature this practice might die off. so, as i said, not on my front burner. but if i was in a voting booth and it were on the ballot -- i'd be very tempted to either not vote or lean towards making it illegal. kids die from this. it's not a good idea. and circumcised adult males, they don't really know what they're missing now do they?

      but i would not go out of my way to support its banning or advocate its banning because as a non religious person i can't really put myself in the mindframe of a religious person to know how much it means to them. the mouth thing? totally gross and rife with potential problems. but i don't put it in the same category as female circumcision, which i definitely think should be illegal. everywhere. but it's also the sort of thing that if you make it illegal people who really want it will do it anyway. like banning abortions.

      i mean what are you going to do, send the state around to people's houses to make sure their kids have not been circumcised? arrest doctors and parents? then you potentially have people not taking their kids, for the duration of their childhood, to all but certain (illegal) doctors so they won't get busted. can of worms.

    • My question to you and to the other commenters on this thread

      glad you qualified this with "other commenters on this thread" because until now i have yet to comment on the thread. generally i stay out of online circumcision conversations. it's unlikely anything that could be said i can add to.

      nonetheless, i'll add to it. it's extremely personal for most people and it was extremely personal for me when the option was offered at the hospital after my son was born. luckily i had no argument from his father.

      i believe, if religion and people's faiths were not so protected in our society it would be banned and illegal. but is this an issue i would put on my front burner? probably not. but do i think society would be better off without it? of course -- it's barbaric.

  • Israeli left leader praises Trump and bewails 'Palestinian majority' and 'Palestinian narrative'
    • all this handwringing from israeli jews over what people think of them bores the heck out of me. i'm reminded of a quote i read in a nyt book review:

      "The deepest truth is that Israel so far has not tried the one thing that could address the underlying grievances that give life to its terrorist enemies, trading land for peace. ….. it still means that the most obvious approach Israel might try to find a strategic end to the problem of terrorism is off the table."

      the eternal victims, more worried about what people think than fixing the problem.

    • We need them [people who are now in universities] to promote together with us solutions to the challenges that we have, we just can’t wait for that to arrive…...I don’t want us to wait and to rely on the Palestinians .......– time is actually serving them. Time is actually serving their interest in having a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Sea. This is not a risk that we can take.

      'promoting solutions' is not a replacement for changing policy, which israel refuses to do. she "just can't wait" for young people to get back on board supporting israel and promoting israel but doesn't seem to realize it's palestinians suffering the burden of waiting, and their supporters, including young people, can no longer 'just wait' around for israel to change.

      bottom line, she's barking up the wrong tree. she's in the knesset and it's her fellow MPs and israelis she should be yammering up (and her so called "99%" of israel's security establishment allegedly supporting 2SS).. because people lose faith in 'promoting solutions' when the very people doing the promoting don't follow through. if she doesn't "want .. to wait and to rely on the Palestinians" then make 2 viable states. and if she can't, or won't, then she should embrace BDS, which appears to be the only effective way to pressure israel.

      and if she represents israeli "left", oy vey!

  • Zionism, anti-Semitism, Israel — and the UK Labour party
    • a derogatory word for Jews? what's next, banning the term zionist?

    • oh yeah, "the irrational hatred of israel" yada yada yada. meanwhile he shirks off claims that accusations of anti-Semitism run rampant. remember the private meeting at the labour conference:

      We’ve gotta say in the language of social democracy, I think, these people are misogynistic, they are homophobic, they are racist, they are anti-Semitic, they are reactionary. I think that’s what we need to say, it’s an important message.

    • it appears CAA's new complaint is now splashed all over the news. (15 articles so far)

      a "secret" FB group w/ "thousands of members ", corbyn being one of them for not sure how long but up until 2015. although he didn't sign himself up apparently. some in the group had included some anti semitic postings w/links (david duke!). frankly, i'd be more concerned if there were only 8 or 9 members, or 20. even 100. but with thousands of members how could anyone read most of what was posted. they said he commented on thread where someone used the term "zio", which apparently is an off limit abbreviation in the UK -- for some unknown reason.

      you'd think the UK would get really sick of this after awhile. and this is the last paragraph in one of the articles

      Last night, the Government pledged £13.4million for security at Jewish schools, synagogues and community buildings amid fears over anti-Semitic hate crime and terrorist threats. Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced the cash, which follows £38.5million since 2015.

      that's over £50 million in 3 years. jeez.

    • fantastic! thanks tom. i've been glued to the scandalous faux anti semitism press coming out of the UK since corbyn's rise. and the AJ investigation thoroughly exposed how Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) accusations of anti semitism became “the defining narrative actually now”.

      and your footnotes are crucial... off to open a bunch of them now.

  • In Gaza
  • Nine reasons Israel is not a 'progressive paradise'
    • I’m not saying that it would be easy or that it would be done for the “right reasons”.

      i didn't mean to imply you were suggesting either of these things. mostly i was posting the impracticality of this due to demographics. and, i see your point. but back to the impracticality, (and certainly not to make light of what appears, currently, to be a genocide of kurds by turkey) as you can see from this map here: this colored part of the map is the chunk of syria the US seeks to chop off. it includes Deir ez-Zor, location of syria's largest oil field. the kurdish population in syria is less than 10% and they could not win a democratic vote in this region although they probably could in a few very small regions. but these region are separated by a large land mass from the kurdish region in iraq.

      the other (big) problem is that none of the states that would be bordering this state want a kurdish state, which would present huge problems in terms of trade, security, everything. this includes turkey, iraq, iran and syria. plus, all of those states know the survival of this kurdish state would require the constant presents of US military bases for it's survival. so it would be massively destabilizing for the region. not that differently than israel destabilizes the region.

      and it was wrong of me to write " i’m not really clear how syria oppresses their kurdish citizens, if at all." because being not clear about something is not the same as implying they never oppressed the kurds, which i am sure they have. i think it would be simpler, and a lot less bloody, to accomplish kurdish freedom by lobbying for rights within the states they currently live. but allying w/US-IS to grab the largest oil region 25 million people depend on for their national resources to give to a minority is a mistake --- mostly because "within a defined “Kurdish” geographic region" you'd have to ask 'who's doing that defining'? ie: most of the people in Deir ez-Zor are not kurdish and never have been historically or otherwise.

      that said, i am no expert on this topic.

    • the geographic region comprising (claimed) Kurdistan were to vote democratically to establish an independent – and secular and democratic – Kurdish state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally, I’d support it.

      one of the problems, as i see it, is the US/IS juggernaut wants a huge region of syria included in this proposed state and it includes an incredible oil rich region supporting syria. plus, although there are kurds in this region, they are not the majority by any means. hence, it is highly unlikely "if the people of the geographic region" of syria targeted for this proposed state voted, they would choose to break off from syria. and i'm not really clear how syria oppresses their kurdish citizens, if at all. it's an empire land grab the US wants to control where we already have lots of military bases. this has nothing to do with "kurdish freedom" per se.

Showing comments 22958 - 22901