Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 20930 (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 15100 - 15001

  • Ari Roth is fired by DC Jewish center -- after staging Nakba play
    • that statement makes no logical sense whatsoever

      sure it does. the arts, as well as many other things, are funded by the state in israel and also promoted by the foreign ministry as outreach and other things. therefore, when the state of israel is funding a ballet company on a world tour, those artists are not working as independent actors, the are supporting the state of israel. whereas, if a person such as myself (i am an artists) gets a show in a foreign country, gets my work in a gallery in london for example, and travels there for the opening and makes arrangements to get my work there and the US government doesn't fund my expenses (like most artists in the US we are not funded by the state) then i am an independent artists. and if an israeli artists did the same thing, not thru the state or a state institution (like tel aviv university which is heavily complicit in the occupation) they would not be targetted by the bds campaign. it's really not that complicated. in fact, phil just interviewed an israeli filmaker last week (or the week before) and linked to his crowdfunding campaign to finish his film. he is working independently from the state institution as are many israelis who are participating in the film.

      n.o.t. t.h.a.t. c.o.m.p.l.i.c.a.t.e.d.

    • wagering quite a bit anonymously over the internet has no meaning.

    • yeah, they also have the big tent campus campaign. what a farce, they call it big, they call it broad, but they real meaning is constriction.

    • And I’m still trying to figure out why it’s always a tent.

      because the think tank hired by the israeli gov calls it a tent

      Policy Paper: Reut’s Broad Tent and Red-Lines Approach

    • BDS supports boycotting Israeli artists

      ha! we could say it a thousand times and you hear what you want to hear. individual artists are not boycotted.

    • mooser, from your link, my bold:

      In Haaretz last week, Harris-Gershon writes about the damage that the JCC is doing to the Jewish community:

      If someone like me should be placed outside the Jewish communal tent, consider the hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of liberal or progressive Jews who would similarly be exiled, since they too would be standing “outside the bounds of legitimate discourse.”

      - See more at:

      the reference to the tent reminds of of the reut tent, where they draw the red lines of discourse and set the rules. and then from the top down they enforce the rules. but there are very few people at the top making those decisions. all they need is bulldogs at the head of these orgs to act as the enforcers. and Zawatsky is the enforcer at jcc-dc. and they will get a new manager who will follow the directions or else he/she will get the hatchet!

  • JVP offers bold universalist Hanukkah message in the wake of Gaza slaughter
    • i hope we make it thru the holiday season without another massive assault oldgeezer.

      the first time i saw the video i just cried. then i watched it over and over. i love jvp, they totally rock. and i love the soundtrack. here's another smile just for you ;)

    • jon: “Where have I ever condoned mass murder? Your comment is a blood libel."

      hops: "If the shoe fits… Sorry the truth hurts so much.”

      yeah jon, if the shoe fits… even hops agrees with us.


    • exactly mooser. it's the herding of the cats. so many wild ones unanticipated coming out of the closets and alleyways, nooks and crannies and mountain roads.

    • jon, follow the embed from here:

      This piece touches on Nathan Thrall’s piece in the London Review of Books exploding Ari Shavit’s American celebration. Shavit was widely embraced by leading editors, liberal Zionist rabbis and the Jewish establishment as somehow revivifying Zionism. But Thrall shows that from defending the Gaza slaughter to opposing a withdrawal from the occupied territories, there is nothing liberal about his attitudes.

      - See more at:

      also, i thought i would point out in your haaretz article shavit's primarily addresses and complains about the "zealots" and the "the extreme right". then he makes a reference to "The nationalist bloc is still large, and the danger that a government of the right, the right and the right will be established is still real."

      the "middle" in israel is still right wing, it's not what we traditionally think of as left. not when 95% support and defend the gaza slaughter.

    • Hannukah is the last candidate for an “affirmation of universalism”.

      soooo, i guess you're not interested in JVP offering a bold universalist hanukkah message.

  • Obama hired Clinton as sec'y of state by reaching out to Israel supporter Hoenlein -- NYT
    • smart peter

    • yeah, there's this hankering of jewish establishment types to claim that establishment types speak for all jews as if jews all run in a pack. so much bs. and they all elected netanyahu as their king! another example of this is this story , a small group of influential loudmouths and the JCC, run by a few power hungry types takes down a beloved successful threatre manager. and because their name has 'the jewish community' in it people think they represent the jewish community on everything, they do not.

    • tuyz, mysteriously for some reason sometimes some of the links are very hard to see. i went up and checked and i couldn't see the link either but i knew i had linked to it yesterday! so i went to add it and when i saw the embed on the draftpage i bolded the front of it so it would show up. it is embedded into the second sentence "a big piece in the New York Times this Sunday,". i just bolded "a big piece". but thatnk you for linking and pointing that out.

    • i don't think there is big data on this cigargod unless it is the big data we are supposed to infer from their title. as cecilie surasky pointed out in her great article

      The Jewish community here in the Bay Area is stunningly rich and diverse. We disagree about politics, we disagree about God, and we disagree most passionately of all about Israel.

      You could say our difference and diversity is our very essence. Which is why we don’t and will never have one spokesperson for the Jews of the Bay Area.

      Suffice it to say, our members, and we have thousands of people on our mailing list just in the Bay Area, were shocked to see a statement from the Jewish Community Relations Council, and the local offices of the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, announcing that the “Bay Area Jewish Community” condemned these ads because they used the phrase Israeli apartheid.

      None of these organizations have the right to claim to represent the Jews of the Bay Area. In fact, the Jewish Community Relations Council will not publicly release its list of members, we can only assume, because the number of groups they can claim to represent is so small. We know that none of the most vibrant and fastest growing progressive Jewish groups in the Bay Area are part of the JCRC. Neither are many synagogues we know.

      - See more at:

    • Democrats who are Jewish will turn out in droves in support of he.....Without a doubt.”...But Clinton knows that there is a wealthy and influential sliver of more-moderate Democratic Jews for whom Israel is a priority.

      money money money money. but what about the other voters. jewish voters make up a tiny portion of the electorate. what if american voters don't want another president beholden to israel?

      somethings gotta break at some point. it doesn't all come down to what conservative or liberal jews think. the jewish group closest to the leftwing of american electorate is jvp. and the left wing of the dem party is the grassroots, the ones who pound the pavement. i don't know if they'll come out in droves for hillary like they did for obama in the final showdown if she makes the primaries. there's that to think about. and i will just stay home unless paul makes it to the finals, or some other candidate who doesn't bend over backwards for israel.

  • Obama took on the Cuba lobby-- when will he take on the Israel lobby?
  • SodaStream rejected, at Harvard (and in Brooklyn)
    • saying drinking water from a soda machine produced on land stolen from your family doesn't constitute an aggression towards your family is absurd.

      you might as well be drinking your family's blood. not to mention watching everyone else drinking it too.

    • I wonder if that’s because ...

      it's probably because he probably doesn't want a bunch of misguided zionist fanatics who demonize those who disagree with them, calling him up and dictating to him, if they have not already. he's towing the line for sure so he won't loose his job. (you can read about these types here: )

  • Palestinian UN effort seeks to set 'terms of reference' for negotiations and promote shift away from US leadership
    • i think it is because they are three members of the security council and they are trying to put together a version no one will veto. and i agree this sounds awfully water down. but one of the salient points (i suppose) is that it asked for an immediate settlement freeze and if it is not vetoed by the security council as soon as israel builds one more thing in the region designated in the resolution (assuming there is a designated region) israel will be in violation of the security council. or something. and as you may recall the last time the US vetoed the settlement resolution, so if they do not this time then it paves the way, possibly, legally, for parties to sanction israel. or something.

      so, they way i see it this particular move re this resolution is that it is affiliated with and acting simultaneously with the geneva stuff (which is why i merged them in my un/kerry/palestine article the other day) and the result of the combination of the 2 sets up a situation in which outside actors can legal take retribution against israel for violating a whole slew of things if they do not behave. i see it as european countries having legal cover for what they may do and what they keep threatening to do (sanctions).

  • Israel will lose all American Jews but the crazies
    • seriously bc, it's beyond me - i couldn't make this stuff up. i don't even think colbert or stewart or letterman could say it any better:

      in the cold night when you’re tucked in bed, those men and dogs protect you

      it reads like a bedtime story, perfect for a late night / SNL.

    • I would point out that the big 3bill in loan guarantees for military are a huge source of income generators for the US military contractors that would not take losing out very lightly. The last I checked the owners of the big US military/Indust corps are not so many Jews. (your implication that only rich Jewish and Zionist billionaires would keep Israel afloat-especially when the 3bill only reps a tiny % of gdp (and I for one favour ending a large proportion of US military loan guarantees.) - See more at:

      oh wow. that's just what this country needs, dumping more money into military contractors. let me give you a little info that may not ever had occurred to you. those workers for the military contractors? the grunts and their bosses to? maybe they'd like to take a vacation? y'know, it's our money and we could just hand it over to them without having them have to do anything at all. if we want to give anyone 3 billion, what's the advantage to us to funneling it thru israel?

      i mean seriously. if i have $100 and i say to you..i will give it to you if you spend it hiring my son. so the son works for the day and you give him the $100. and then you run an ad in the paper and say wow, i generated all this money for your family!! how much brains does it take to figure out i could just give the friggin money to my son and let him take the day off? especially given the fact that the way i got the money in the first place is because my son worked for it?

      you get what i am saying? this is our tax dollars, we work for it. and we give it to big daddy feds and they give it to you and you hire the same friggin people who worked for it to begin with.

      so frankly, wrt the US military contractors that would not take losing out very lightly. , they wouldn't be losing a GD thing if the feds just gave them the money instead of giving it to you.

      do you think we're stupid?

      and wrt to my so called "implication" according to you wrt "Jewish and Zionist billionaires" . there's a hella lot more money being shoveled to israel out of this country besides that 3 bill. that 3 bill is from our taxes, lots of poor people's taxes. whereas the american "Zionist billionaires" who keep Israel afloat-especially when the 3bill only reps a tiny % of gdp - that money rips off the american people because when they shovel money to the idf or illegal settlements they do it thru tax deductible foundations so it actually BYPASSES the feds. the money building those settlements is a lot more than the 3 bill, and yes, americans are paying thru the teeth with their hard earned cash who pay taxes.

      ps, i know very well it's not only "Zionist billionaires" who keep Israel afloat. israel is afloat because it steals land and resources, because it has a captive market under occupation that israel shovels all it's surplus to. 1/2 the population lives on 1/10th the water that israel steals from it and sells back too them, and the list goes on and on and on.

      not only that, when israel slaughters thousand people and destroys whole neighborhood in one of it's ritual genocidal sadistic lawn mowings and the global community donates billions to rebuild it israel demands all that money goes thru them and reaps the profit off of every single badge of cement. so we are well aware here how israel keeps afloat. israel profits from slaughtering people. we know ok? we get it.

      and bds is going to be putting a little damper on that. ;) the little macho macho man wimp who lives off death and theft, that party gonna crash one of these days.

    • Besides, the political-support needs of Israel have changed too – early in its life Israel was dependent, politically and financially, on a wall to wall support of American Jews. The situation in this regard has in fact been normalized

      i totally agree ivri, in fact israel could still go on being financially dependent with very little jewish american support as long as team adelson and his like kind cohorts in lobby keep all those congress critters on the trough for eternity israel can keep on keepin' on being dependent on handouts waaaay into the future. they don't need no stink in' wimpy leftie support, or the youth either heck no.

    • oh man like dabakr, we so - like - get how macho israelis are. mean like macho is so where it's at man. never having to explain or say i'm sorry cuz yer al so happening. hey, have you seen the new hipster ad from naftali bennet? wow, like so like so cooool

      can’t wait to see them jump all over you for that assessment.


    • Israel is Real and those strong in heart guard Israel, do the heavy lifting

    • LOL. i so love yossi gurvitz!

    • you've been prescient and one step ahead in framing this inevitable parting of the ways phil. great run down.

  • Omar Barghouti: What Mondoweiss Means To Me
  • You don't have to suffer alone . . . the CIA is here for you
    • he's probably trying to protect himself after the fact. yoo is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, side by side with dick cheney. yoo is the ultimate enabler, the man responsible for providing the legal cover for torture.

  • 'NYT' writer takes Salaita's side, saying U of Illinois violated 'intellectual and academic freedom'
  • Memo to Sen. Warren: More young Dems want US to side with Palestine than Israel
    • i agree w/you finance reform is huge, but...i don't believe she can do much about that anytime soon.

      I don’t think Israel/Palestine will figure highly enough in most liberal Americans’ electoral calculus to swing them away

      yep. that's what they've been banking on for years now. and both parties toe the line. but i don't believe that can go on forever, at all. will it be this election? i don't know. but it's often a tight race in this country between gop and dems. i think the dems need the grassroots, not another lobby pushover and warren is doing nothing to relieve this impression.

    • majority of young Democrats will not mean a pinch of shit to Warren since those young Dems don’t have the bucks. They will vote for her anyway

      couple things about this logic. one is that you're dismissing the central importances of the grassroots (imho), it is not in how much money they raise, it is the mobilization of boots on the ground. it's often the grassroots out there pounding the pavement. granted they do give money (and we saw that with both howard dean and obama, big online campaigns that raised funds) but it pales in comparison to the big funders.

      the other thing is i think you are wrong to assume "They will vote for her anyway". some perhaps, but definitely not all. and i say that primarily because i know i won't and i am not an unusual voter. i am one of the people that flew across the country to get out the vote in the inner city of a swing state and also flew to the iowa caucus to do the same think in an earlier election. even tho i considered my self more progressive than either of those candidates at the time i still was part of an army of progressives doing the legwork.

      i do not believe warren is going to be able to mobilize that kind of grassroots support.

      In this case, it is simple. People who pay the provider typically get what they pay for.

      but can she get out the vote? i predict many progressives will abandon the dems if they do not distance themselves from israel. i'm not giving them any money or any support anymore til they kick the habit.

    • i can't stop laughing!

    • ellen, it's supposed to be up today. i won't be able to see it because my access doesn't show me what you see, so i can't check it. but from what we know on our end it should be up. so give it a couple hours. sorry again.

    • ellen, thank you for saying something about that pop up (that doesn't go away !!! ). i wrote adam and phil about it and adam wrote back and said "i didn't realize that" and that he would look into it. i also inquired about the edit function and his response was "the edit function is coming back, i believe the programmers are working on it now. "


  • Yes, Virginia, there is a liberal Zionist
    • sorry w.jones, i'm not following the whole thing in a linear fashion. backed up w/comments at the moment, not sure i even followed what you wrote or recall it at the moment.

    • i fixed it, it should work now MRW

    • Sibiriak, i agree with your pt about religion not being a people but a set of ideas/myths etc, i just thought i'd point out that the parenthesis you quoted interrupted a sentence of which you only copied half. the full sentence, sans the parenthesis, is

      If there is an inherent fault in the Jewish religion, a fault which inevitably leads Jews into Zionism, and Zionism is a very bad thing, one needs to strike at the root of the problem, wouldn’t you say?

      the way i read it the point was the idea of zionism as being an inherent feature of judaism, which implies non zionism is an aberration of judaism, or possibly one could speculate an aberration of being jewish.

      and so, regarding your critique, "this category error leads you to believe that criticism of Jewish religion= criticism of Jewish people." maybe i agree if that if the "category error" is 'zionism inherent in judaism', because it does seem limiting. sort of a boxing in of the options of what being jewish means and a casting out of the non zionist or non conforming jew. or something like that. something perhaps more nuanced.

    • And then, to top it off, he always takes the “establishment’s” word about itself - See more at:

      i know mooser, he can't stop talking about the establishment! i tried explaining it but it's like talking to a brick wall. which reminds me of a comment i made earlier today in another thread in response to cigargod (who seems to get it)

      sean seems to think because ACJ has shriveled up it means all those jews miraculously converted to zionism of something. or shriveled up and died!

      maybe he doesn't realize how certain elements grow and prosper underground and go unnoticed until.... which reminds me of this time i was camping with a topo map. the night before we put out a fire in a forest and when we woke up in the morning the ground all around us, about a 15 ft radius was emitting fumes - just sort of smoldering under the surface of the forrest floor, that 8-12 inch layering of fluffy ground stuff. and you could see smoke coming out of it for about 2 feet above ground level. and i realized we had not put the fire out all the way the night before and it had spread underground where there was air to sustain it and spread. there were no sparks or anything that started it. but had we not slept there and seen it and spent a long time putting this out in the morning, it would have spread a LOT before inflaming the forrest. it was spreading underground before turning into a fire. i wouldn't have believed it had i not been there. and we dumped water on that fire the night before too.

      anyway, you can tell him til your blue in the face and he comes back at you talking about the establishment this and the establishment that. he simply doesn't recognize the possibility those establishment folks don't speak for 'the jews'. he still thinks people speak for all jews.

      even that article today about the threatre in DC, clearly a popular place, and here's WAPO

      That occurred after a small local activist group’s campaign to stop the play asked donors to withhold funds from the JCC’s parent body.

      The group, calling itself Citizens Opposed to Propaganda Masquerading as Art, launched a similar effort in protest of a Theater J offering in 2011, “Return to Haifa,”
      - See more at:

      so all it takes is a few influential monied jews to turn a whole theatre company around, one owned by the JCC (establishment!) but clearly the JCC doesn't represent the sentiment of all the jews in DC or even all the jews affiliated with it, because those shows he put on were very popular! i think there's some tendency for some in the jewish community to claim they speak for all jews, obviously. like netanyahu saying he's king of the jews and israel being the state of all jews and yada yada. what bs. the jewish establishment is not going to change. but like so what? there's no rule of the universe saying you can just treat them like a log in the road and ride roughshod right over them. clearly, he has faith in the jewish establishment. la ti da. at a minimum you'd think he'd notice how concrened the establishment jews seems to be radically concerned about this trend we see happening w/the jewish youth (even meetings in the knesset! and conferences discussing it in tel aviv). but nooo.

    • Not everything in Judaism and Jewishness is that top-down, that hierarchical.

      i am well aware of that mooser but i was responding to seans claim, and he always postulates about "the establishment" because that's the only actor he recognizes as being qualified to be of consideration. jews as individuals or jews acting individually do not generally appear in any of the issues he thinks are worthy of scrutiny. so, within the narrow framework in which he wishes to address, he's right. the Zionist wing of the Jewish establishment has prevailed in the struggle against the anti-Zionist wing (of the Jewish establishment).

      but, if you break down the demographics of anti zionists between those in the "establishment wing" vs those who are not, or are free agents, arguably most are not establishment folks. whereas if you break down the demographics of zionists, perhaps, or likely perhaps, most of them are part of the establishment. you get where i am going with this? the parameters of sean's equation are fixed narrowly at the onset in such a way as they automatically eliminate a subsection of equation from the get go.

      an example of anti zionists being excluded from the equation is provided in the example of AJC, the group/"the establishment" shrunk as a result of the pressure from zionist establishment. but where did those people go? they didn't disappear, many likely simply dropped out of the establishment of anti zionists, therefore they are not included in the (sean's) equation. but if the parameters of the equation were changed just slightly from "the Zionist wing of the Jewish establishment has prevailed in the struggle against the anti-Zionist wing." to 'Zionist have prevailed in the struggle against anti-Zionism'. obviously, that is a much different statement and one that i would not agree with at all.

      if they had prevailed there would be a LOT less handwringing of the kind we're reading about daily in the press now. they have not prevailed in the least. now as time goes forward i do believe more and more of these jews may in fact consolidate into formations of established groups of anti zionists (like jvp or whatever) but that is not even necessary.

      the idea that people are not counted or not even included as part of an equation unless they are part of an establishment group is weird on the face of it. but that's the kind of equation we continually hear from sean because he respects establishment. whereas today in american, less and less americans do. they have a name for them, the 99%. granted i think there are probably less than 99% who respect and align with the 1%, but either way americans have an independent streak. unless one postulates american jews are so out of the mainstream that many of them, as americans, do not share that sense of independence, it's fair to assume there are just lots of jews unaccounted for when speculating about who's prevailing in the struggle between jewish zionists vs jewish anti zionists. last i heard the trend is favorable for the anti team right now, it's on the upswing, especially in the youth. unless that trend can be reversed, it's not looking so bright for team zionism. and don't they know it too.

    • it doesn't make sense to me someone would write an article w/a theme that there is no such thing as 'liberal' zionism if they considered a zionist and a liberal. or something. my head is spinning.

    • for the record, i accept the existence of Israel as an established fact too. i think one would have to be delusional not to accept it's there. that doesn't mean i think it will always be there or support it always being there.

      i think anyone would be a fool to deny the Zionist wing of the Jewish establishment has prevailed in the struggle against the anti-Zionist wing. obviously. but that doesn't mean tides don't move in and out throughout history. it doesn't mean they are "utterly squashed". in fact last i heard lots of the youth are turning away from zionism.

    • Even the American Council of Judaism now describes itself as a supporter of Zionism

      except they didn't really describe themselves as a "supporter of zionism" now did they. you even said yourself it "seems to have accepted zionism as a fait accompli" how did that morph into describes itself as supporting zionism?

      The council has since moderated its stance and accepts Israel and Zionism, but views them as irrelevant to the lives of American Jews. According to its statement of principles, “the State of Israel has significance for the Jewish experience. As a refuge for many Jews who have suffered persecution and oppression in other places, Israel certainly has meaning for us. However, that relationship is a spiritual, historical, and humanitarian one – it is not a political tie. As American Jews, we share the hope for the security and well being of the State of Israel, living in peace and justice with its neighbors”. Allan C. Brownfeld, the editor of the AJC’s magazine, said that “I think we represent a silent majority. We are Americans by nationality and Jews by religion. And while we wish Israel well, we don’t view it as our homeland.”

      maybe you think "accepting" something as being a supporter of it. whereas if i say 'i accept you but think it are irrelevant' it's not quite the same as supporting you now is it. sort of like you saying 'i accept there are worshippers of judaism who are not zionists but they are irrelevant' you're not really coming off as supporting them, just accepting they exist. for the sake of argument one could use anything to prove their point which is what it seems you have done. and saying, as they did "israel has meaning for us" is rather vague. i mean isreal has meaning for me too. doesn't mean i support it as an apartheid state or at all actually. it sounds like the kind of statement one would submit to get out from under a lawsuit or something.

      and what is the meaning of this However, that relationship is a spiritual, historical, and humanitarian one – it is not a political tie.

      how does that buttress your argument they support zionism, a political construct?

      but it seems to me your point here in this particular comment(a point you have made several times now) is in even co-oping the very author of the article (who clearly does not appear as a support of zionism) as evidence to buttress your point. you can't even leave them alone. your conference of jewish whatevers aside, you're even putting the American Council of Judaism in your conquered column.

      either way it looks like they got bullied, but the chance all these people transformed into supporters of zionism seems far fetched.

      That last paragraph doesn’t give the impression that the ACJ is now anti-Zionist. It seems to have accepted Zionism as a fait accompli.

      - See more at:

      it seems to you. beauty is not the only thing in the eyes of the beholder.

    • i 2nd that, happy hanaukah to everyone celebrating!

    • without assuming your hypothesis or interpretation (re: "greatly outnumber") is correct sean, because i don't know and don't care, either way, i couldn't agree more. however, that was not my complaint (my point). iow, you are either willfully ignoring what i stated, or you are simply too dense to figure it out. as you can see, i have eliminated your questions because i'm not interested in being interrogated by you. especially since, once again, you've completely ignore my point and not addressed it at all.

    • yes of course jon. as i've mentioned many times i am not religious nor have i ever had much interest in reading about religion. but i have a deep respect for the religious, many of them and many of my ancestors (immediate, i don't really know anything about who they were thousands of years ago, or care) were religious social activists, some who died violent deaths for their service to humanity as men of the cloth. i think, logically, many of the greatest people who have walked the earth have been religious people and some of the greatest minds are those of faith. and i simply refuse to succumb to the idea that a political construct has the power to take down a major religion that has shaped mankind. i won't do it for christianity, islam or judaism. and i know , or i should say don't know, as much info about one as the other which amounts to very little. still i have faith in mankind which requires me to have faith great minds will, thru their religion, bring out the best in others and not the worst.

      hence, it is difficult for me to facilitate a conversation seeking to degrade the core of any religion although i have nothing but complete contempt for those who use their religion to subjugate, demean, oppress and kill others. anyway, obviously i am not a fan of zionism and i believe it is a cancer on the body of judaism. but i do not believe it has the power to consume the host nor will i empower zionism by facilitating that concept. yes, there is a power struggle. it is easier for me to moderate a conversation with islamophobes regarding islam but i'm not qualified really to judge intricacies of what is at the core of religious belief because i don't really know or care what is at the core of religions. i get bored reading about them. these names all symbolize relationships in mankind i don't believe they are real people. anyway, i am rambling. i'm in the odd position of protecting judaism or islam or whatever. i've asked someone else to step in and make these decisions on this thread. it's over my head.

      also, i think it's an interesting conversation and one worth having and exploring. but not at the expense of having one person with one very strong view interrogating everyone else and pressuring their own views constantly and repeatedly. it's more interesting or possibly more helpful for others to be able to take the conversation in varying directions (perhaps as it pertains to the article at the top of the page, ya think!) vs everything filtered thru one dominating/repetitious viewpoint/voice.

    • it was just a question citizen c. sorry i ask, you.

    • hi sean, i'm done moderating your comments in this thread because i'm not qualified to judge where attacking a religion (or claiming it's insignificant and completely consumed by a political construct) crosses the line into attacking the worshipers of a that religion given my repulsion for your determination to insist judaism is completely consumed by zionism, or whatever it is you repeat constantly. . or whatever. so i have written phil and adam and they will either show up and clear them or not. frankly, it sounds anti semitic to me and i'm done with reading them.

    • much to do about little? any chance he wanted to malign him in 2000? dig up old history and discredit him?

    • sean, i noticed jon s cited a passage for you upthread after you said you were interested in “the dominant spiritual history and essence of Judaism” and “the Jewish universal spiritual tradition.” and claimed "Old Testament is certainly not a universalist document"

      For universalist values you can start here:

      “…and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)

      - See more at:

      yonah also mentioned some things. i am curious if you're interested in exploring ways in which the old testament might not be, as you claim, certainly not universalistic. what do you think of jon's quote? other than just ignoring it or asking another question to confirm your own extremely oneside view or to say it's simply irrelevant and has no significance in today's world. was there anything at all in what yonah or jon s said that you found meaning in?

  • PA to seek UN Security Council resolution giving Israel two years to end the occupation
  • Caroline Glick melts down with European diplomats
    • no you're missing the point. she's a op ed columnist being grossly anti diplomatic and a diplomacy conference in which she represents the host of the conference.

    • I would give my right arm to see Max Blumenthal rip this idiot to shreds in a debate.

      i'm rather attached to my body parts shingo but i share your sentiments, assuming it's a rhetorical shredding of course. don't think i'd be down for watching him burst out of his chair and... y'know. ;) that probably goes without saying.

    • lol, that's a funny claim jack. all anyone has to do read seafood's archives (click name tag) to know that's sillystupid. phff.

    • beautiful

    • LOL omg! let me guess, they will be monitoring bds activists? something tells me this could back fire. ;)

      btw, i am so retro i don't know what an app is. probably an application. is it like a mini browser filled with info. i should find out. i am so non-techie. lol

      ok for a little nighttime wonderland, mr wonderful miracle himself:

    • She’s not a diplomat, Annie. The other guy is. She’s an op-ed writer. She doesn’t owe any duty of diplomacy.

      you're right, she doesn't. it begs the question then why the jerusalem post would choose to include her as one of only 5 participants in this important panel at the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference. certainly they must have someone in their employ familiar with israel's relationship with europe who could provide both challenging and provocative engagement AND be diplomatic at the same time? since they're billing this thing as a Diplomatic Conference? no?

      Are Palestinians with widely read columns in Al-Hayat al-Jedida privileged?

      in the arena of Al-Hayat's influence, absolutely.

      also, i'm sort of over discussing this w/you hops. you can have the last word.

    • first of all, i didn't discuss her face once (i discussed her expressions which are a reflection of her mind) and everyone knows when it is relaxed she is an attractive woman as is clear by just visiting her twitter feed or seeing any of her bio photos.

      a rally at a school and a disgruntled activist or your memri video of a 92 year old woman is a completely different setting/context than "diplomatic" conference. which reminds me of something i read yesterday.

      my father [Zeev Shek] belonged to the generation of diplomats who only dreamed of making peace with our neighbors; they understood that this was the mission of Israeli diplomacy. That is the meta-idea of diplomacy: to improve relations between countries, and not to spoil them.

      if one (jpost) is going to host a conference specifically on and for diplomats, to put forward a hostile employee in a coveted position on a panel that does what any normal person would consider being the very opposite of diplomatic than they should expect criticism. maybe they don't understand what the meaning of diplomatic is. this is analogous to hosting a formal tea party w/formal invitations and when the guests show up one of the hostess is attired in her old robe and worn out slippers. to throw a conference for and about diplomacy and treat the guests and diplomats to this kind of rhetoric and presentation is the antithesis of diplomacy. they stuck a bulldog on them. get it? was the whole premise of the conference a charade? to get them there in order to abuse them? she wasn't a member of the audience, she was on a panel and because she's a managing editor of the post she represented the establishment she works for and there was not a trace of 'diplomatic' in her rhetoric or presentation from what i can see here hops.

      and of course she is privileged. anyone who has a regular column in a mainstream publication with wide readership is privileged. privileged doesn't always mean financially. it means the ptb have allowed one a soapbox with which to enhance ones visions and opinions to a large wide ranging audience. that's a position of power others do not have. different but similar to the way i have been granted a privileged position by being able to post articles here where what i see is distributed to a larger audience. of course it is nothing like the post but in our world it's a lot.

      i took the screenshots to enhance and make clear what i see when i encounter her on video. she's rare bird in that her extreme expressions portray her contempt. that's somewhat rare for public figures and i am fascinated by this quality about her as well as many of her extreme viewpoints.

      She’s an angry lady, Annie.

      then why, pray tell, would the jerusalem post put her on a panel with ambassadors at a diplomatic conference?

    • hey thanks tom, means a lot coming from you. ;)

    • exactly giles, so sad. that is what i said elsewhere on this thread.

    • hey! let's throw a cool conference with diplomats and then trash them when they get here! caroline, you cover the panel with those nasty europeans. give em hell baby!

      lol, i can't get over it.

    • serious jack, you have to ask? i just wrote this elsewhere in the thread, but it's worth repeating.

      the question itself is hypocritical because israel/glick and the whole zionist ball of wax would go completely apeshit if for one second the US or the european union applied equal standards to both entities. imagine palestine being supported militarily the way israel is? imagine if they had an airforce, a navy, iron domes of their own and american made ammunitions? there’s your double standard, the military edge (a steep ravine) we provide to israel.

      iow, israel should be happy that US/EU have a separate standard for israel, in fact they demand it.

    • He deserved it. He says, You’re like us, you’re good people so we expect more of you. How many Iraqis are dead because the west wants their oil and the American neo-conservative wanted a beachhead in the ME, to spread democracy? BS

      john, first off i think his phrasing was bizarre, so i am not going to defend it. second, i think what he meant , or should have said more concisely is that israel, unlike any other states in the region, has the benefit (assuming he sees it as a benefit) of being afforded a european status w/all the frills that go along with that. like being the only non european state included in Horizon 2020, the €80 billion research and innovation project launched by the EU to create job growth and fuel the economy - See more at:

      aside from the billions in financial perks israel is included in this idea of being a 'western state' which in fundamental ways it just isn't - petraeus even thought israel should come under the purview of centcom. and your point about the west being barbaric - i fully agree.

      and lastly, the question itself is hypocritical because israel/glick and the whole zionist ball of wax would go completely apeshit if for one second the US or the european union applied equal standards to both entities. imagine palestine being supported militarily the way israel is? imagine if they had an airforce, a navy, iron domes of their own and american made ammunitions? there's your double standard, the military edge (a steep ravine) we provide to israel.

    • It’s pretty clear what she thinks of non-Jews.

      oh yeah. have you ever listened to "Caroline Glick explains the roots of genocidal Jew hatred"

    • it wasn't some random panel hops, the conference was hosted by the same news outlet in which she is a managing editor. the conference was not their regular annual conference (which i believe is in april) it was a " Diplomatic Conference" (i even watched dan shapiro's speech). this is not a call for civility nor am i attacking her freedom of speech. it was a situation in which the moderator lobbed the diplomat a question (and it would not surprise me in the least, given her affiliation with jpost if she didn't in fact assist in writing those questions herself) and she launched into a diatribe which included completely unsourced allegations ei " What you’re saying is they are objects." (probably not a coincidence she's used the term "objects" wrt palestinians before) she just goes off. it was, literally, a stunning spectacle.

      so setting up a conference for diplomats, which one assumes those on location (ambassadors etc) are beckoned to attend, and then having one of the employees of the brand (hosts) publicly lambasting one of them in this fashion under the rubic of "diplomacy" is astonishing. it's rare we witness this kind of stuff. very rare. but this is not a call for civility, by all means let it all hang out. but as i wrote above, she's "a mainstay of Israel’s international diplomacy".

    • I’d agree that it does show that, but I feel that more importantly it shows her psychic split....Though I’m not a fan of analyzing people psychologically .... deep down under the massive fortress of paranoid hysteria she’s built into her mind and into Israel’s culture, way under in the dark she feels the truth buried beneath the lies. Her freakish mode of communication you observe is a result of her inner conflict.

      i found it intriguing she was accusing others (in this case, lots of others) of a serious malady in which she so obviously and transparently demonstrated symptoms of that same affliction. albeit, i am not a physician nor qualified to diagnose her condition, much less report on it. but to dangle that term (actually she did a more than merely dangle it), to make such a concise accusation (read the caption under the last photo for those were her exact words during that expression) using that exact phrasing almost demands the listener, subconsciously at a minimum, to consider the implication, wrt the accuser.

      plus, as i eluded to in my article i have watched several of her videos in the past. mostly, overall, i think it's very (extremely) sad.

    • oh wow she's awesome!

    • completely different ritzl. it's her verbal expressions too, accusing a continent of having a behavioral disorder that many very real people suffer from is more than just a cop out.

    • she’s talking to an ambassador at a public diplomatic forum. she’s being incredibly rude and that’s not the way a civilized person treats a guest in your country.

      her own publication invited (summoned) the colomist to an event. she's accusing him and a whole continent of being racist, completely dismissing his point as being basically ludicrous and lambasting him. the chances he would bark back with the same degree of venom is so far fetched as to be unimaginable.

      she is a public speaker and a pundit and she must be aware of her appeal, which by the way her fans adore! this is a face of israeli diplomacy. and this is also very typical of the demeanor of many israel supporters all over the internet.

      i am not going to shut up about it. she should take a toastmaster class if she wants to learn how to speak in front of crowds. but she does this quite frequently. it's definitely not the first time i have watched a video of her speaking. she's an aggressive verbal attacker and deserves as much respect as she puts out, which is none. as i mentioned earlier, it's not like i hauled off and threw a fist in her face.

    • how is it misogynistic? "snarls, berates, whines". How else would you describe her demeanor? it's pretty out there, she's not subtle or anything. and she sure as heck knows how to dish it out, no holds barred. it would be one thing if she was disadvantaged in some way but she is not, she is privileged and in a position of power. i feel sorry for these panelists.

      i said nothing about her as a woman per se. she's vicious but men can be vicious too. she's puts herself out there to this extreme degree, don't expect anyone to stay silent out of respect just because she's a woman. it's not like i punched her in the face and it's not like i have not taken men to task over similar kind of behavior.

  • As Kerry and UN press on occupation, Netanyahu sees a 'diplomatic assault'
    • israel as a state has accepted arab israeli,s.palestine as a state must accept palestinian jews

      the acceptance of israeli arabs and palestinian jews as equal citizens is the true path to reconcilation

      do you think israel would accept population centers of palestinians inhabiting all the prime locations and hilltops over looking jewish population centers throughout israel? how does that amount to "equal".

    • thank you just. tail orders dog around. what i don't get is what was said privately. all of this could have been stated over the phone, in an email or via intermediaries. so why the face to face?

    • US officials said they drew a distinction between a unilateral step, and an effort to draw up a multilateral resolution at the UN Security Council, which would have the backing of many nations.


    • he did go completely of the rails last spring marnie, who could forget.

    • goo question nick.

  • Collective punishment of 1.8 million human shields in a prison -- Newsweek dares publish the truth of Gaza
  • Liberal Zionists seek to strip Naftali Bennett of freedom to travel in hope of saving two-state solution
    • Isn’t our job to get this message out and keep getting it out until the discourse in this country changes and the real issues are faced?

      we're giving it our best shot breakingthesilence.

    • yes i read that abbas had given them passes and i wondered how that worked. did they arrived at the border of lebanon and in the israeli border guards let them pass on i wonder if they left thru the WB into jordan. i also read about them speaking to some creep likud druze politician. and after reading something in english alluding to the drama of manal i translated her name into arabic and started searching in arabic and reading the drama over google translate (that was hell). it seems there was a real shitstorm between Khalaily's sister and then manal got caught in some possible lie or something. i've been following.

      any gossip very much appreciated.

      and a big super congrats for Syria’s Hazem Sharif.

    • why would they scrub it? did you know the new arab idol is going to be chosen tonight? it's the final night and one of the contestants is palestinian, from the galilee.

    • ;) thank you cigargod, that's a sweet way to start my day.

    • “we are told” clearly indicates his characterization of an opposing argument – not his personal opinion.

      not how i read it. he's informing and characterizing a situation in which recent events "have led to new rounds of criticism" (that is verifiable fact not opinion) and plans to boycott ( fact not opinion). and the people criticizing israel are expressing themselves in language of support for Palestinians ( fact not opinion), and then he says we are told "these moves" are in reality little more than expressions of age-old tropes about Jewish power”(there is your opposing argument).

      the "we are told" pertains to what he communicates after informing the reader of the circumstances. the argument/accusation is that the actions of boycott and expressions (language) of supporters of palestine is " in reality little more than expressions of age-old tropes about Jewish power”

      but the set up is his framing. he does not say ' these moves are expressed in the language of support for, we are told, supposedly oppressed people such as the Palestinians, are, in reality little more than expressions of age-old tropes about Jewish power”

      calling palestinians "supposedly oppressed" is not a slip of the tongue. it's highly inflammatory and insulting and amounts to nakba denial. if, as you claim, he was claiming others made this charge he didn't make it clear, at all. he could always issue a disclaimer.

  • Israeli government attempts to shut down Nakba film festival in Tel Aviv
    • If they want to pay for it themselves, that’s fine. But they should not expect Israel’s Zionist Jewish majority to underwrite their treasonous conduct.

      and what of all the israelis who go to see the films, what of their taxes? certainly the amount of funds from the state supporting the cinema pales in comparison to the funds collected from the left in israel, no? why should all their taxes go to settlements and things they do not agree with? why do you think it's the zionist jewish majority underwriting all the funds from the state? and what of the 20% of the population who are not even jewish? do they also have to pay taxes? do they get to pay a smaller percentage because the state doesn't spend anywhere near the money on their schools or their art? why do they have to pay for memorials and parks that laud the very people who took over their land?

      your argument is less than weak, it's broken.

      subversive anti-Zionist and anti-Israel activities.

      just like our history, your history is your history. and no, it doesn't reflect well on zionism. so be it.

  • PA considers ‘re-defining security coordination’ with Israel in wake of Palestinian govt minister death
    • oh heavens, enough already!

    • Why haven’t other protesters died before in similar circumstances?

      hmm, they have.

      As usual a report by Deger oozing with blatant bias....This assertion is so political biased

      which assertion might that be, since she presented both of them.

      Palestinian protesters regularly put the IDF to the test with their routine confrontational demonstrations

      iof doesn't have to be there at all.palestinians arrived on their own land to plant olive trees, if this is your idea of "put the IOF to the test" the iof definitely failed. if iof felt they had to be there (and they did not) they should have been there strictly in the capacity of protecting the rights of palestinians to plant on their own land, protecting them from potentially dangerous and fanatical kahanist settlers.there's no logical reason why iof invaded and interrupted beautiful celebration of palestinians planting olive trees on international human rights day.

      what planet are you on?

  • We're all anti-American now
  • 'Racist, fascist bullshit'-- Marcel Ophuls exposes Islamophobia in Israel
    • Now, would you like to cite some cases in which the anti-Zionist or BDS movement has actually hurt or threatened Jews?

      good luck w/that! he kind of slunk outta here when i called him on that yesterday. not one example. just spinning in some kind of circular hasbara whirlwind.

    • You really have to stop reading into what people say instead of reading what they actually say.

      what conversation do you think are we in hops. you responded to subconscious's comment about attacks on Shlaim, Pappé, Finkelstein, Hedy Epstein. then you went on to buttress the rationale, with an explanation of that attack, did you not? and in your comment you said

      it’s hard to escape the fact that at least three of four tend to come from a radical political tradition with a bad record on antisemitism.

      those are your words. now what prey tell, is the point of saying it is "hard to escape the fact" these people "tend to come from" a tradition of a bad record of anti semitism ..."it’s a small step to antisemitic bigotry."

      these are your words. my point is if you care to accuse them of anti semitism as others have can't you, at a minimum, cite them? use their words or something they have written?

      I didn’t throw Atzmon in for effect....Atzmon main argument is to blame Judaism for the ills of the world...

      hmm, ok. in a comment responding to accusations against 4 people you say "Critiques of Israel by Jewish radicals have long strayed into bald anti-Jewish critiques that would be labeled as antisemitism if anyone else made them" and then reference 2 different 'jewish radical' than the ones up for discussion, to what purpose if not to make an analogous point?

      this is called a false equivalence.

      False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1]

      A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.

      Last I checked, Max speaks for Max, not for BDS.... you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge the problems in the Stalinville that is the BDS Movement

      so what is your point again? you're using subconscious's comments to launch into a diatribe about how anti semitism is "rampant within the anti-Zionist movement" and now you're defending your false equivalence saying max doesn't speak for BDS? how did BDS become part of this conversation? is the BDS movement anti semitic too hops? is that your point? where are you going with all this? you're spinning in circles. is your point there is "Stalinville in the BDS Movement"? you're losing me completely. would that be similar to a "Stalinville" that is the lobby wrt congress sanctions against iran? is that what you mean? is that how they get 100-0 because it's stalinville? because 2 can play this game.

      you apparently think that acknowledging antisemitism within your movement delegitimizes it.

      excuse me? this is the first comment of yours i realized we were discussing BDS!!! anti semitism exists hops. i never said it didn't. but it's a joke to call it "rampant" anywhere especially in the BDSmovement without one single example tying it to the organization. this is the weirdest form of argument, you've really topped yourself here. i guess given enough rope you can lasso any kind of comment about anything into an attack on BDS! lol

    • antisemitism is rampant within the anti-Zionist movement.

      and your preface to this was the claim "three of four tend to come from a radical political tradition...radicals used to insist that there was no antisemitism in the Soviet Union" with the implication three of four insist there was no antisemitism without once offering even one example of any of these people claiming there was no antisemitism. then you throw in Atzmon for effect (knowing very well max has accused him of anti semitism) and the whole post becomes one guilt by association garbledigook absent one iota of actual direct context to any of these people. it reminds me of the point scoring section in the hasbara handbook.

      massive #FAIL

    • that's a drag lysias.

    • Then he interviews Michel Warschawski saying that the Israel lobby in France is “importing” a religious conflict from Israel to France

      ok, now i really have to go listen. i was in conversation w/mcohen the other day. he said something about "it's all good"or something wrt all the french jews moving to israel because of anti semitism. there are ways to make that happen of course. it's been done intentionally in the past (baghdad). anti semitism is milked to kingdom kome, if it wasn't there maybe they would have to invent it. sad.

    • yeah, but as phil says "Their careers will not be damaged by that exploration, though, because they are Jewish. That is unfair."

  • 'Suicide Drones' and the Spoils of War: Israeli arms manufacturers look to cash in on the war in Gaza
    • he's coming back this winter abu malia. i exchanged emails with him a couple weeks ago and he's involved with a project and says he'll be back when he finishes.

    • maybe the baker boys were victims of a heat sensored 1st time field tested weapon. i wonder how jack or jon would feel if weapons were field tested for the first time on little jewish kids? a few kids die to test it out, ultimately saves lives and causes less collateral damage than other munitions. Deal with it, just a few slaughtered jewish children, no biggie. when the target is innocent kids – it shouldn’t be attacked, but heck you win a few you loose a few. but at least when you're buying weapons tested on jewish children, you know it's other kids dying first. like lab rats, you loose a few to make sure the product is field tested.

    • yeah,one of the people interviewed for the 'makers', included high school kids field testing in gaza. it's not every society that has a local laboratory of live victims to test their weapons/inventions on.

Showing comments 15100 - 15001