Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 22925 (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 22200 - 22101

  • Shooting and crying, in 'The New Yorker'
    • thanks donald. i read the same article yesterday and had the same response. then i watched a few episodes of the series -- same response "shoot n cry #fauda "

      i captured a screenshot from an episode, a scene where they are torchering a palestinian, chopping off his fingers with an ax or something, and in the background the torture's israeli colleague is all teared up showing her humanity. i guess they had to stage it like that to show how hard it was for israelis to torture!

  • American Legion calls on Congress to finally investigate 'USS Liberty' attack, 50 years after
    • the anti-esteemed fake news hasbrat/historian michael oren? impressive/not.

    • We concluded our crew did a lousy job, and their crew did a lousy job and in combination we lost a ship. Australia objected in sharing the blame

      did anyone even suggest australia should share the blame? it sounds pretty straight up what happened:

      since the conning officer on Evans misunderstood the formation's base course and believed they were starboard of Melbourne, they turned to starboard, cutting across the carrier's bow twice in the process.

      ....At the time of the collision the commanding officer of Frank E. Evans was asleep in his quarters having left instructions to be awakened if there were to be any changes in the formation. Neither the officer of the deck nor the junior officer of the deck notified him when the station change was ordered. The bridge crew also did not contact the combat information center to request clarification of the positions and movements of the surrounding ships.[11] The collision occurred at 8°59.2′N 110°47.7′ECoordinates: 8°59.2′N 110°47.7′E.[12]

      so it was the US ship that cut right in front of the melbourne essentially committing suicide. this has no relation what so ever to what happened on the liberty. nothing, no attack nothing.

    • The point of the analogy is to establish some damage to USA interests. What you are objecting to is not the analogy but that the situation isn’t literally the same. And of course it is not literally the same.

      marc b didn't say anything about it not being "literally" the same, he pointed out that in the analogy you chose, an example you yourself think was a completely legitimate target, you provided an explanation why it was a legitimate target, and in doing so implied crew of the USSLiberty contributed to their own demise, or was practicing something illegitimate. so answer the question then, you wouldn’t have an objection to the US bombing the f out of Israeli intelligence operations gathering information on U.S. Military operations in the ME? you think that would be fair game? "completely" appropriate to bomb them.

      You can’t have it both ways. If it was attacked deliberately there was motive. You don’t get to play the “innocent Liberty sailors card”.

      marc's not having it both ways, you are. You don’t get to play the “innocent Israeli bombers card”. i'm sure there was motive. they just won't disclose it because they are trying to rewrite history.

      won't work.

    • there was a part of the us armed forces that went rogue with that disobedience.

      when? do you have a link to support this?

  • Netanyahu declares West Bank is Israel 'forever,' as liberal Zionists cry out for 'make-believe peace process'
    • jon, you through in your hamas divert and i answered you. we all know what "fully recognise Israel" means, and even abbas said they will not recognize israel 'as a jewish state'*. it's just a hurdle used by israel to ensure nothing will go anywhere for there is no justification for a colonizer to demand the conquered people to recognize the ethnic legitimacy of the conqueror. it's a sadistic request.

      re "workable", regardless of the statement not meeting your standards do you think it offers more workability than netanyahu's statement. at least it represents a consensus of the movement to agree w/2 states and you flip it off as if it's unworkable. it isn't.

      *this additional demand was added on after arafat/palestinians recognized israel. then it was like .. ok, get on your knees and recognize more. and has israel recognized palestine? no. and you accuse hamas of having a "schizoid approach", maybe go look in the mirror.


      "Hamas considers the establishment of a Palestinian state, sovereign and complete, on the basis of the June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital and the provision for all the refugees to return to their homeland is an agreeable form that has won a consensus among all the movement members," Meshaal said.

      i'd call that interested. and it's more "agreement" towards 2 states than you'll get from netanyahu or trump. but why do you ask? diversion? hamas is not even part of the negotiating team.

      the only options afforded to palestinians by the powers that be is the option to surrender. and you want to talk about hamas.

      "There is no greater sign of defeat than a resistance whose goal is dialogue". steve salaitia

  • Jordanian companies end their contracts with G4S
  • Prominent Israeli rabbi preaches rape in war time
    • freedom house is cia usaid affiliated org, of course they are going to say that.

    • I’ve wondered for a long time what is meant by “the most moral army in the world.”

      it means they excel at propaganda.

    • only in times of war and only when lives are on the line and only when the urges are burning.

      When lives are on the line, you do not educate the soldiers to morality. It’s time to win!!

      gal gadot slashing her sword through al khalil raping gorgeous unarmed palestinian men serenaded by the maccabeats as the heavens open and golden light fills the screen. hollywood awaits.

    • so what about the comely palestinian man and the enflamed female jewish soldier?

      just thought i'd ask.

  • The United State of Israel and Palestine
    • roha, you should have disengaged at "Australia was designed to be the Israel of the Pacific". bont's just the latest incarnation of simulcuz (or whatever his name was, and his other characters who all got banned) who spend all his time here pontificating on whiteness -- same guy who said we/anyone/ could choose to be a poc. think dolezal. a lecturing holier than thou wannabe.

    • The people of Hebron are being taught that you don’t have the right to kill ethnic minorities and you have to learn to live peacefully with people different than yourselves.

      this is hysterical. palestinians alive in al khalil today had nothing to do with whatever happened in 1929 and the idea israel is teaching them any kind of moral lesson about living peacefully is absurd. thanks for reminding me again to gloss over your worthless supremacist hasbara.

    • You use a racial definition for “violent invaders”

      actually she didn't.

      you are applying it as an eternal characteristic of people based on their ancestry

      hmm, no she didn't.

    • and in the room!

    • The history of the 20th century is the breakup of empires....I don’t see a modern example of people’s with such differing cultures forming a common polity.

      someone should inform wikipedia

      Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 the United States was the world's sole hegemonic power[30]

    • david, thanks for getting back to me. i agree the US veto is a huge issue. i noticed in your 'pressuring israel' section you allocated a sentence to this:

      These will be need to be resolutions with teeth; that is, they will need to threaten enforcement action under Chapter 7 if Israel refuses to accept them.

      it just seems quite clear to me israel will not accept any of this (your ideas) so this part about the teeth, and the veto, and the specific "enforcement action(s)" and american politicians .. it seems this would have to be tackled and spelled out. i suppose you know of the recent brookings poll stating over 60% of dems think israel should be sanctioned over the settlements. so when you say "YOU ARE: I mean the American people" i hope you know congress and the american people are certainly not united on this issue, the congress does not in any way represent the american people on this issue.

      and, i'd like to point out i noticed your concern/mention of bds being task w/explaining they are not out to "destroy israel", a phrase you mentioned twice. however, oddly, you made no mention whatsoever of israel destroying palestine. no fears of palestinians having their land/home/country destroyed. i mention that because, while you were only saying palestinians could be paid to leave (if they wanted to) you made nary a mention of jews being paid to leave. maybe you are under the impression jews want to stay more than palestinians do or jews worry about their country being destroyed more than palestinians do. i can absolutely assure you that is not the case. and yet you don't seem to task jews with convincing palestinians how they really don't want to destroy palestine. so why the double standards? especially when israeli are routinely destroying palestinian homes -- as a policy.

      anyway, back to the part you glossed over. what kind of enforcement action do you think the security council should threaten israel with? sanctions? divestment? UN forces? and if you think there needs to be soldiers dismantling the occupation why not UN forces? i don't understand why you need idf forces to dismantle a wall, soldiers didn't put up the wall. you could hire contractors to do it.

      Israelis and Palestinians don't need to work together on the mechanics of ending the occupation anymore than a husband and wife need to work together to divorce. they have lawyers and courts who do that sort of thing is one party doesn't want to work with the other. clearly israel didn't need to work with palestinians to evict them out of the country. this is why i think curatica referenced your list as phantasmagorias. (ps, i don't think the 2 parties can divorce each other btw, i think israel should be put on some kind of marshal plan to rework their laws and education systems until they learn how to play nice, without the benefit of patrolling palestinian neighborhoods to release their inner oppressors and let off steam.. call it a cooling off period)

      all the politicians keep saying israel and palestinians have to work together (preferably behind closed doors) to come up w/solutions. but isn't it clear that's not working?

      There will be a joint civilian police force to keep the peace in area C.

      please, they already have joint forces in area b. it's still an occupation and israel does whatever they want. why not suggest joint forces working together patrolling the galilee? why not suggest having joint forces patrolling jewish only towns within israel "so that it can be seen that Israel is putting right the wrong it has done"? what's to guarantee israel wouldn't still carry out night raids on palestinian villages? well, because one assumes jewish families wouldn't want palestinian soldiers learning the ropes by invading jewish homes in the middle of the night and photographing the kids.

      there's simply no description of enforcement towards getting israel to comply here. much less getting the soldiers to comply. it's sort of pie in the sky planning mixed in with odd statements like jews are "the primary victims of Zionist hasbara", which i find unfathomable because unlike palestinians victims routinely imprisoned, maimed and killed, jews are not routinely dying and having their houses blown up because of zionist hasbara. yes, unfortunately they may be brainwashed into being a brutal oppressor and killer, but that still doesn't make israeli jews the primary victim. there is only one primary victim in this decades long atrocity fueled by zionist hasbara. maybe you are confusing 'target' with victim.

      anyway, i suggest for your next essay to zero in on the very kind of pressure you support the security council imposing on israel. similar to the sanctions we have against iran? with similar threats? and exactly how you would convince israel you're not trying to destroy it by recommending those measures. because until israel complies, no plan for breaking down the occupation "so that it can be seen that Israel is putting right the wrong it has done" will work. precisely because not only does israel not want to put right what was done, but because they don't think they've done anything wrong. they likely think of themselves as the primary victims.

    • i would respond to him but not necessarily on linkedin. maybe in the comment section on his blog after his comment saying he would get back to you.

      edit, i just read irishmoses' response. yep.

    • hi david, perhaps i did misunderstand. when you wrote "a two-state agreement is a necessary first step towards its [one state] achievement" i thought what you were suggesting was that "first step". and i feel wary about the initial "phases", of settlements being a final status issue (this is what it has always been). and these joint projects leading to "When these works are completed the IDF forces can withdraw to Israel." what if these works do not get completed? it reminds me of oslo and this idea of 5 or 10 years down the road. the occupation soldiers would still be there, it just seems strange to think they would all be there policing who? palestinians.

      and when you write "The parliament of the United State would be directly elected by all citizens" i just wonder, how is it you are going to make this happen? how are you going to get israel, the citizens and/or the government, to accept "that Palestine has a right to exist in peace and security, and that the occupation must come to an end"?

      with "resolutions demanding, first, that Israel accepts that the settlement program is illegal in international law, and must be halted immediately; second, that Israel accepts that the military occupation of the West Bank, and the blockade of Gaza, must come to an end"?

      by sanctioning israel? how are you going to get the security council to do that? and are you going to demand the security council first assure or convince their intent is not to "destroy israel"? because this will be the accusation just as it is the accusation against the bds movement now.

    • thank you. exactly. the idea the entire sea surrounding the archipelago would be under a joint administration is a one state idea. there's no point in the illusion of 2 states with israel having that much jurisdiction/authority. area A currently allegedly is supposed to be administered by the PA, and we all know how that works out with israel's violent incursions whenever it suits them. what's the point of 2 states with israel still there in palestine? and then final status w/dialogue down the road. sounds like more of the same. .. maybe in 5 years or 10 or whatever.

    • i am working my way down the article and have already taken many notes about things i disagree with, or that i think seem unbalanced. but i wanted to stop here over this one part, as i find it outrageous:

      The settlements built for Israeli Jews are also part of the physical structure of occupation, but their inhabitants are part of the human reality. The settlement issue is one of the final-status issues that are related to each other and will be considered in the next stage of the process, which I call the dialogue phase.

      i strenuously disagree, the "settlement issue" has always been on the back burner. it's always been relegated to "final status" (by whom? not palestine). there's no reason it should be shoved down the road into some dialogue phase because that's where it's always gone to die. palestinians have expressed they want to see a proposal for israel's borders in any terms for future negotiations because they have never gotten any. agreeing to "final status" issue down the road is completely unrealistic. to begin any process in good faith, israel needs to place their cards on the table upfront, and the international community should too. palestine has already made numerous proposals.

      In the West Bank Area A should remain under Palestinian control; Area B, which is currently under joint Palestinian and Israeli control, should change to Palestinian control; Area C and East Jerusalem should be under a joint Israel-Palestine civil administration with security provided by a joint civilian police force.

      area c is over 60% of the west bank. why should it be under joint control? perhaps the galilee should also be under joint control. i could understand this if you were proposing a 1 state solution but how can you justify keeping occupation troops there if this is the proposed palestinian state?

      Ending the occupation must include removal of the main physical structure of occupation, the Separation Barrier, and related remedial work such as replanting a million olive trees, as well as the removal of the Israeli-only roads, or their incorporation into an integrated road network. When these works are completed the IDF forces can withdraw to Israel.

      more hurdles to jump before israel withdraws. i don't think so. i think palestinians can figure out how to end the practice of israel-only roads all on the own. and the removal of the main physical structure of occupation can take place after the soldiers leave. the occupation has to end. the kumbaya emersion can begin after israeli military forces leave.

      those are just a few of the things i noticed thus far.

    • fifth century B.C. Greek historian NEVER mentions a PALESTINIAN people

      shocking. and what did herodotus have to say about israel back in 5 bce.

    • why don't we hear suggestions to pay israeli jews lots of money to enable them to settle in any other country of their choice?

  • The liberal Zionist crisis -- white nationalists are villains, but settlers are 'complex'
  • Andrea Mitchell suggests State Dep't staged 'fake news' in Jerusalem with Kushner, Netanyahu and no press
    • the video of the protest at the end where they burned the israeli flag, transparently reflects what palestinians think the prospects are of anything coming from these so called negotiations.

  • As many as 1 million Israelis have left for the U.S.
    • But if we are talking about actual the number of Jews that exist, I’m not sure there’s enough to be right all the time.

      where's your "ironclad data" to prove that?!

    • thanks keith, seriously.

    • Indeed zionism has not walked down the road to a final solution as they nazis did. That said the discussion of final solutions have found a way into the norm of Israeli discourse

      have you read this yet?,7340,L-5007644,00.html

      Both parts of this conversations are probably not politically correct, but 25 years later, it appears that contempt for the Holocaust among central components of the Israeli Right has shifted from random conversations to the heart of public discourse. More and more Israeli Jews dare to express openly or implicitly that the main problem with the Holocaust was the selection of victims by Nazi Germany and their aides.

      this was published today!

    • There is something called the demographic problem, which currently is a question of votes in the Knesset....

      currently, it is more than a question of votes in the Knesset. it is a matter of image. as it stands israel governs over millions of people who have no voice over that government. that image would be even worse if they continued to reference themselves as a "jewish state" when less than 1/2 the people are jewish. i think currently there are more non jews in the entire region of the mandate of palestine. the idea of a demographic problem is racist.

      It is only the .. negation of the diaspora and the battle against the Palestinians that makes this a propaganda failure rather than something that can be seen as a natural ebb and flow. Government planners need to study this natural ebb and flow and factor it in when figuring out how to encourage the natural development of the country ... in the year 2017.

      why? what would be the point? maybe i am misunderstanding your meaning. do you mean it's "only" the occupation and the israeli settlement expansion on palestinian land that prevent a "natural development of israel"? and when figuring out how to encourage the natural development of the country, in the year 2017, planners should ignore the occupation? that just doesn't make sense to me. the "natural ebb and flow" of an apartheid country engaged in a decades long occupation would have to take that occupation into consideration in 2017. of course, ending the occupation would impact a "natural development of israel". maybe i am not understanding your meaning.

  • On boycotts, Palestine, and resistance: a review of 'Assuming Boycott'
    • mooser, stream-of-resentments that echo trumps moral equivalence between neo-nazis and the 'far left'. and then caps it off by implying monuments of pro slavery 'heroes' represent a "righteous cause":

      Orwell even rights a paragraph on how the language is changed, the monuments pulled down and every trace of history is erased except that the state is the only power that ever existed. The left has a habit of taking righteous causes and. shredding them into bloody and twisted, sterile, politically and culturally intolerant tampons

      what to make of this mangled 'logic'? i wonder what kind of spiel he'd go on if germans tried to dismantle all their monuments to hitler and the nazis. oh wait, they don't honor him/them in public spaces last i heard. nor pretend hitler represented a "righteous cause".

      as for the "culturally intolerant tampons".. i am at a loss for words as to how respond to that.

    • I bet that other Apple users have the same problem and know how combative our is.

      ok, you can blame spell check for this grammatical error too i suppose.

      Oh my, your are definitely like the Bolsheviks

      you can blame spell check for that too i suppose. (your are vs you are/you're)

      So what does the ability for far left radical to claim Orwell applies to the polar political opponents?

      would you care to rephrase that? i have no idea what you are saying. must be the sheer lack of my imagination or creativity or something. chalk it up to the american education system or whatever. or maybe it's iPad's "spell check correction program from hell". what is your native tongue anyway? hebrew? yiddish? do tell.

      there are also plenty of celebrities that don’t have to worry about losing backing, income, or fans that play Israel regularly.

      i am sure there are. like her:

      Gal Gadot is ostensibly here to talk about her rise from almost total unknown to an iconic, worldwide symbol of all that is good and powerful...

      believe me, we are all way too aware hollywood has many zionist supporters:

    • LOL! i wonder if dbakr knows what the definition of viscous is ;)

    • your are definitely like the Bolsheviks in the way I described. Also in the way George Orwell described more precisely then I almost 100 yrs ago. If I can remember where ....

      and you're definitely the way i describe and george orwell agrees with me too and i can prove that if i could just remember where i left my socks w/my favorite paragraphs stuffed inside.

      so if you tell me her acceptance was a mistake on her part I’ll. accept it on face value.

      i'll repeat, harjo didn’t oppose bds on “well thought out grounds”. in fact, i don't recall she ever stated she opposed bds at all. she was a coward imho.

      most famous or just well known celebs artists or academics who choose to ignore bds do so with thought out reasoning

      sure they do, with that reasoning being 'i don't want to lose my job and have my reputation dragged through the mud publicly by israel lobby cohorts and fanatical SWU people. '

    • what they have no right to do is claim to hold any opinion or view more moral then harjo or anybody else who opposes boycotting Israel on well thought out grounds.

      that's quite a mouthful. no right to claim we are more moral! no right to hold an opinion we claim is more moral! no right to claim our view is more moral! maybe you don't know the meaning of free speech dabkr, because as far as i know i have every right to claim my views are more moral. that is a right protected under the first amendment.

      as bad as the Nazi right is, the left’s new little game comes right off the pages of the Soviet and their attempts to eradicate any trace of the czars.

      oh my oh my! now we are the bolsheviks! are we also, inadvertently, responsible for the holodomor?

      p.s. harjo didn't oppose bds on "well thought out grounds". in fact, she explained on FB she had not even heard of bds until right before she was going to go on the trip. she said she had not given it any thought at all when she accepted the invitation because she had not heard of it.

  • 'We came to school and found the school destroyed': Israeli forces demolish West Bank school hours before children's first day
    • Are you white? Is it a choice?

      yonah, i think you are confusing someones self identity (how they identify themselves) with how others (like you) may identify that person. people can self identify at will, consciously. but i don't know if that's always the way it works out. ie, how many people think of themselves as fat, ugly and/or boring? just generally low self esteem? probably a lot. but is that something they want to feel or choose to feel? how people self identify depends on many factors. yes, i do believe we all have the power to self identify however we want, and that ultimately we do choose our own self identities. but asking someone a question about some physical attribute or their families origin doesn't mean the answer is necessarily related to how that person identify themselves.

    • jack

      You are not guilty because of what your ancestors did or what other members of your group did. Considering someone guilty because of what another member of the group did is racism.

      it's not necessarily racism. ie, in civil wars both sides might take revenge on any and all soldiers and civilians from the other side for the actions of members of the group based on the political positions of those groups. collective punishment is not always limited towards people based on their race. wars are often fought for other reasons.

      that said, i agree with you that a person is not guilty because of what others do. even if those others commit atrocities in your name or supposedly for the benefit of you. where i draw the line is when one actively and consciously supports and empowers others to commit atrocities/collective punishment. for your review:

      but the guilt of being part of (responsible) some groups' ethnic cleansing...? only as an american am i responsible for the ethnic cleansing of palestine/iraq/native americans and so many others. only as part of a 3mil+ american "tribe" do i regrettably contribute to these ongoing atrocities.

      ultimately i believe we all have choices over what we feel and experience. but like other (most) people, i can't always control my emotions (yes i feel a sense of collective guilt because of native american genocide and slavery and it is partly this guilt that makes me support reparations). when i read about american drones killing whole wedding parties, i can't help but feel a sense of guilt that my country is doing that. and if someone were to take revenge on my country (collective punishment) or my fellow citizens or god forbid a member of my family for the actions of my state, i don't think i would necessarily consider it as motivated by racism.

    • i can't really imagine what it would have been like growing up as part of a 1mil+ ethnic tribe think commitment, although i recognize this is not uncommon. it's not just a jewish thing. but as an adult i certainly do appreciate my freedom, my not having to be behoven to an ethnic tribal group think/emotion. i don't have to accept or reject some group think or religion imposed on me. others before me paved the way and for that i am grateful.

      i am sure there are benefits of being part of some inclusive tribal thing. many benefits i am sure. but the guilt of being part of (responsible) some groups' ethnic cleansing (yes i have that with my southern ancestors, and also have ancestors hung for being abolitionists. both a long long time ago.. no awareness of ancestors contributing to genocide of native americans)? only as an american am i responsible for the ethnic cleansing of palestine/iraq/native americans and so many others. only as part of a 3mil+ american "tribe" do i regrettably contribute to these ongoing atrocities.

      i don't think choosing jewishness is at the crux of the issue, for jewishness is not on trial. zionism however is. choosing zionism is dangerous for the victims and perps. beware.

    • we’ve been hearing this for much longer then 75yrs. much longer. it doesn’t phase most of us and hasn’t for years.

      gee, how old are you anyway?

      it’s useful to remind people how badly anti zionist pray for our demise.

      how so? how do you use these so called prayers for demise? just to make yourself feel better about the notorious israeli atrocities? do tell. and 75 years isn't a very long time relatively speaking. about as long as another stint at a jewish kingdom as i recall.

      maybe Israel needs an advocacy organization.

      it already has hundreds of them.

  • Jews argue whether Zionism is racism -- in the Forward!
    • It would be justified to cast a few doubts as to the credibility of his quotes

      why? he wrote a lot of books. was there ever an incident where anyone caught him fabricating quotes? (like the time you got outed for fabricating a quote from nasser) if you doubt his credibility that's one thing, but you can't simply declare it's justifiable because, along with other things, he had a long career as an anti-zionist.

      I would surely be skeptical about his claim to have met Chayim Weitzman

      why? he certainly got around a lot. have you read his wiki page? it said he was a "celebrity" in the arab world

      the Arabic edition soon gained Lilienthal access to the leaders of the Arab world; among other contacts, he was the first person of the Jewish faith allowed to travel in Saudi Arabia, and was invited to a private meeting with King Ibn Saud.

      sounds like perhaps the late Alfred Lillienthal was a renown historian in some circles anyway.

      It’s rather common knowledge in this forum that Zionists are unreliable people. You really can’t believe a word they say. Everything is simply “hasbara”, right?

      unlike you, not all zionists fabricate quotes and then get hung out to dry because they can't back them up. not everything a zionist says is a lie. not all hasbara is a lie (ie, they have nice beaches in israel). but it's not at all uncommon to plant a lie in otherwise truthful information so that people will believe it.

    • My point is in response to the idea that the linking of Zionism and Racism in 1975 was refuted at the time by an impressive list of civil rights icons who were intimately familiar with racism and disputed the idea.

      the 'impressive list of civil rights icons' wasn't organized around the idea of "linking of Zionism and Racism in 1975". it was organized, probably at the behest of israel lobbiests, in response to the arab boycott which escalated with the 1973 oil crisis. does this sound familiar:

      April 28, 1975 Randolph Initiates Committee of Black Americans to Support Israel

      The formation of a newly organized group, the Committee of Black Americans Supporting Israel (BASI) was announced at the first meeting of the group here last Thursday night. At a reception at the house of Dr. Robert Gilmore, treasurer of the A. Philip Randolph Educational Fund, It was disclosed that more than 100 prominent Black leaders have already agreed to join the committee, which was initiated by 86-year-old A. Philip Randolph, who is the president of the Randolph Educational Fund (REF).

      “We are here to express our support for the State of Israel,” Bayard Rustin, executive director of REF, said, “Whenever minorities seek justice, they have to defend democracy. We seek to defend democracy in the Mideast and therefore we support Israel,” he stated, Rustin explained that “our support of Israel does not mean that we do not support self-determination for the Palestinians,” but, he added, “We are not for the self-determination of the Palestinians if they are dedicated to the destruction of another people…”

      Rustin was also critical of the “Arabs attempting to bring discrimination to the United States by their boycott” and promised that the American Black community was not going “to sit idly” in the face of “imported Arab discrimination.” He noted the Blacks in America have struggled for a long time against discrimination and that “we will continue our struggle and support of fundamental principles.”

      Randolph, who noted that American Jewry always supported the rights of Blacks here, said: “I would like to see the Blacks of America register their support for the State of Israel. It will be a crime for anyone, and especially for Blacks, not to support the just cause of Israel.

      According to Rustin, BASI activities will include organized tours of Blacks to Israel. The first will be a group of 20 disc jockeys who will leave for Israel in a few weeks. Rustin explained that the disc jockey is a tremendously influential person in the Black community “where our folks listen to him 24 hours a day.”

      Representing Israel at the reception which included reporters from both the Black and Jewish media, were Ambassador David Rivlin, Consul General of Israel in New York, Moshe Bitan, former Israeli Ambassador to Ghana and presently Director General of Paz, the Israeli Oil Corporation, and Consul Yakov Levi, of the Consulate in New York. Addressing the meeting on the issue of the Arab oil boycott. Bitan observed that “it is superficial to believe that if Israel gives in, the price of oil will go down.” He said that the Arab oil producers will reduce production to get higher prices. Bitan arrived here last Wednesday for a two-week lecture tour throughout the United States.

      recognize the talking points? and who's paying for all those trips to israel? this is a lobby junket and there were likely cash rewards/donations to grease the wheels. the group was already formed months before the UN vote and just like congress critters who vote 100-0 for aipac written legislation i doubt this full page nyt ad was initiated, or even written, by the Committee of Black Americans Supporting Israel, and they didn't just spring up in response to the UN zionism=racism vote.

  • White Jews: deal with your privilege and call out Jewish support for white supremacy
    • that's hysterical kaisa!

    • no worries! i fixed your link.

    • "the most obvious reason" what isn't happening? do you mean the most obvious reason white jews are not calling out jewish support for white supremacy is because "groups like JVP themselves are not actually controlled by the faction represented by people like Lesley. "

      aside from your critique of jvp, do you have any other response to leslie's speech?

    • " white America is generally more accepting of discussing and acknowledging the history of anti-Semitism than they are the currency of anti-black racism."

      true. the concept of jewish victimhood is accepted and nurtured in american culture, whereas --- slavery, african american victimhood -- is whitewashed, and the current systemic oppression of african americans often goes completely unacknowledged or/and sometimes (unconscionably) defended.

      thank you Lesley Williams, great speech.

  • New network leads the fight against fascism on campus
    • LOL! bull's eye mooser.

    • My allusion to trump was not light hearted either, though I see it was not well received either.

      i am no fan of trump, so my reference to your comment was not in his defense. i just wasn't clear on how you were making the connection to steve, as being 'just like trump'.

      For many years I bought into the ACLU logic of defending hate speech because I know restrictions will be disproportionately levied against less powerful voices. The problem is that speech is already and always has been unequal in de facto practice. Further, institutional structures make speech and power extremely uneven.

      i totally agree with you there's a problem, that speech is already and always has been unequal in de facto practice and that institutional structures make speech and power extremely uneven. but i don't have an easy answer as to how to solve this and i also don't know the ACLU limits applied in defending hate speech because the 1st amendment has limits to free speech -- called "fighting words"

      "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

      further, i completely agree w/nada elia's point about suppression of palestinian activism. i support pal legal and all they do documenting and defending this. but i am very reluctant to take positions on curtailing speech because i don't want it to come back to bite me. this is why this issue is so contentious -- and why i stated earlier "people’s ideas about free speech were likely formulated way before charlottesville", and for me way before the milo protest or even my activism for palestine. these kinds of ideas people have been arguing about way before i was even born.

      i can tell you feel very passionate about this, and it can be very frustrating especially to see university administrations using the "uncivil" excuse to silence only one side and state and fed legislators pushing (and for some succumbing to) bills trying to outlaw our speech (taylor bill). but i don' have the answers other than CAN efforts such as nada's link, the anti-fascist syllabus -- educate people about fascism! call out hate speech (which is not protected) when we see it. vigorously defend and support people whose rights have been squashed and who have been sanctioned or jobs lost for speaking out about white supremacy. but i'm up there in the years and my personal opinions regarding speech (the freer the better) i can't imagine what it would take to get me to change that opinion. i think that's where steve's "in any case" comes from. it means literally -- in "any" case, prevention of free speech (on campus or anywhere, for whatever reason) is something i would loath to advocate. but does that mean i think supremacists have a right to publicly incite or call for death or violence, no of course not.

      i think in the long run, the first amendment will work in our favor. i think the anti bds legislation will land in the courts and then the burden will be on those defending the legislation to prove how “demands for equality and racial justice” it is not protected political speech. they will have to prove those demands are based on national origin and bigoted -- which is patently absurd. but, that legislation likely won't land in the courts until it's applied, until someone or some company gets fined, arrested, or imprisoned.

      Treating speech equally is a great ideal, its just that we as a society have never practiced it yet. Until we do, I am trying to raise some hard questions about the underlying assumptions behind the current thinking on this subject, because its clearly not working well.

      raising tough questions is admirable, especially under circumstances of societal upheaval and when things are "clearly not working well". and tough questions force us to confront our own ethics. but i don't think it makes your points stronger to tell someone "you would be arguing that Jews and those labeled disabled should stop complaining" -- that makes it very personal and more likely people will disengage.

    • To side with trump so soon after Charlottesville in a Mondoweiss thread is pretty extreme.

      i don't know, people's ideas about free speech were likely formulated way before charlottesville and i don't agree expressing ideas like steve's ("prevention of free speech on campus for whatever reason (Jewish students feeling “uncomfortable” is one) should always be condemned.") as "to side with trump".

      Then you say: “I wasn’t aware there was much fascism on the average American college campus,” in response to an essay that enumerates said fascism in some detail, and historicizes it.

      actually, that was the first thing steve said, and it's perfectly normal to express ones unawareness of something one was previously unaware of in response to an essay that enumerates in detail.

      In 1930s Germany you would be arguing that Jews and those labeled disabled should stop complaining and seeking attention because both sides...

      i'm really not clear how one could extrapolate this from steve's comment.

  • Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals)
    • it was most likely mondoweiss and cohorts that cabs up with the term ‘, liberal zionist’

      LOL! someone should inform wikipedia mondoweiss coined the phrase! for they have a whole segment on liberal zionism and nary a mention of us! phff! ungrateful wonks.

      or perhaps i misunderstood what you meant

      Definition of cab
      : an ancient Hebrew unit of capacity equal to about two quarts (2.2 liters)

      maybe by 'cabs up' you meant we stuffed liberal zionism into a 2 liter jug and guzzled it up!

    • The absurdity of the above quote is in its assumption that “anti-Jewish sentiment” is a logical result of Jewish behavior.

      no, it's an assumption “anti-Jewish sentiment” is an inevitable result of "organized Jewish opinion". and “anti-Jewish sentiment” is an illogical (not a logical) response to "organized Jewish opinion" because "organized Jewish opinion" does not account for all or even most jews, ie the unorganized! or jews operating or organizing outside of mainstream zionist orgs.

    • Rosenberg totally ignores it......There’s no way he could have missed the import of what was said.

      or the meaning of what he said. rosenberg's a talker and he made several points but strawmanned his way through the video, speech and the article glaringly not addressing and ignoring what spencer said but instead arguing against points spencer did not make (spencer didn't allude to or imply whites have a "historical history of oppression" -- nor did spencer claim to love israel, which seemed to be what all the 'tweet proof' in the article was directed towards).

    • why would you ask jack? unlike the generally apathetic israeli response to screams of "death to arabs", there was not only a counter demo in charlottesville there was also huge backlash in the press here.

    • His basic thesis is that oppression sets Jews apart and entitles them to exclusive ownership of “their Historic homeland”. “Whites” have never been oppressed therefore can claim no such privilege.

      Rosenberg leads the reader to believe he is going to debunk spencer's statement but then he goes on to explain how the alt right adopts basic premises of their adversaries and then explains why jewish exceptionalism is inherently (according to him) different than white exceptionalism. but check this out:

      “As an Israeli citizen,” Spencer told his Israeli interviewer, “someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me who has analogous feelings about whites. I mean, you could say that I am a white Zionist in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that’s for us and ourselves just like you want a secure homeland in Israel.”

      It’s an analogy with superficial plausibility. It’s also a malicious lie, and a deliberate one.

      explaining why, in his opinion, zionism is different than white nationalism, according to Rosenberg it is because of the context in which one filled a need and the other didn't. but this doesn't explain why what spencer is saying is a lie -- because spencer didn't even address the context in which it came about. nor did rosenberg note that the context today is not the same, or acknowledge jews in the US (about 1/2 the worlds views) are not any less off than other american whites. and it can be argued in some ways more affluent/privileged (as an ethnic group) and/or identify as white.

      but did he explain why what spencer claimed was a lie? when spencer said

      "you should respect someone like me who has analogous feelings about whites"

      who is rosenberg to claim spencer's feelings of "someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and experience of the Jewish people". so what was he talking about? "the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that’s for us and ourselves just like you want a secure homeland in Israel"

      so how is this a lie if he believes it? i don't agree with it at all, but isn't "to have a secure homeland that’s for us and ourselves" what many israelis want, and would say what israel is? because rosenberg would have to deny it is not the very same desire. to have an ethnically exclusive homeland. and he didn't do that.

  • Netanyahu is silent for 3 days over neo-Nazi violence, while his son says Black Lives Matter and Antifa are the real threat
    • Where are the voices of their [zionist] lobbies

      the lobbyists (aipac etc) speak publicly through adl and congress members. hence, the publicized criticism of trump via lindsey graham (&cohorts) and others follow -- what options do they have? this entire racist fiasco has been a (predictable) train reck of massive proportions.

    • "the way of the simple man, who looks for simple answers to his problems..instead of blaming himself for his own self-inflicted issues" concludes "hate groups from both the Left and the Right go after Jews."

      but life/reality is not always as simple as the way of the simple man.

  • On Charlottesville and Jewish memory
    • i'm not seeing your point jon. is your comment in response to something in particular ellis wrote in the article? or are you simply initiating a topic you'd like to discuss, or in this case continue discussing? how do these zionists leaders' expressions of their so called "desire to live in peace" with palestinians relate to

      The ongoing debate is about how history is interpreted and how it functions in the present. Much of how we remember is related to the way we want to feel about ourselves. It is also about the future we hope to bequeath to our children.

      do you mean these expressions of intention to live in peaceful coexistence with the Arab population, is how you'd like the history of israel or zionism to be interpreted or remembered? does it have to do with the way you want to feel about yourself? is this what you'd like to bequeath your children, this idea israel was founded by people who desired to live in peace with inhabitants of the region they were colonizing?

      i believe history, for future generations, will be more reflective of socially generated media than in the past (where the elite controlled the headlines and therefore lead public opinion). so unless the internet is severely curtailed or shut down i believe the history of israel and zionism will be more reflective of the apartheid reality vs lofty allegations and rhetoric from forefathers of an ethnic nationalist regime.

  • Why I am leaving Israel
    • bless you gamal. here's a snippet for you

      The last Arab writes:
      I am the Arab that never was,
      the Arab that never was.
      Either say you have erred or keep silent.
      The dead won't hear your apology,
      they won't read their killer's journals
      to find out what they might,
      they won't return to Basra the Eternal
      to find out what you did to your mother
      when you recognised the blue of the sea.
      Say we didn't take the journey just to return
      the last words said to your mother, in your name:
      Do you have proof you're my only mother?
      If our era has to be,
      let it be a graveyard as it is,
      not as the new Sodom wants it to be.
      The dead won't forgive those who stood
      perplexed like us at the edge of the well.
      Is beautiful Joseph the Sumerian our brother
      so we can steal
      the beauty of the evening stars from him?
      If he must be killed
      then let Caesar be the sun
      setting on slaughtered Iraq.
      I'll beget you and you'll beget me,
      and very slowly, very slowly
      I'll remove the fingers of my dead from your body,
      the buttons of their shirts and their birth certificates.
      You'll take the letters of your dead to Jerusalem.
      We'll wipe the blood from our glasses, my friend,
      and re-read our Kafka,
      and open two windows onto a street of shadows.
      My outside is inside me.
      Don't believe winter smoke.
      April will emerge from our dreams.
      My outside is my inside.
      Pay no attention to statues.
      An Iraqi girl will decorate her dress
      with the first almond flowers,
      and along the top edge of the arrow
      drawn just above her name
      she'll write your name's initial letter
      in Iraq's wind.

    • brewer, you are so sweet!

      That was what I meant by ” in derivation and intent”.

      ah, sorry for misunderstanding you brewer.

      This says nothing about ”how she should address her lover”.

      i know, the quote i cited above that reference (in italics) was not yours nor addressed anything you said. maybe i should have placed it in a separate comment. sorry!

    • It is, in fact, the equivalent to the “N-word” as used by racist Americans

      i disagree. the word "Arab" is not, in itself, derogatory nor does it carry derogatory connotations (except to racists). the author's use of the term arab could be related to how her partner self identifies and therefore she might use the term he uses for himself. if that is the case, then i do not agree it is appropriate to lecture a palestinian over how they should self identify. albeit, it's my understanding most palestinians self identify as palestinian. but lots self identify as arabs too. the two are not mutually exclusive.

      It’s high time people started using that least have the courtesy to call the person you love PALESTINIAN.

      while i'm sure we all appreciate the lecture on the distinction between the terms palestinian and arab (because the chance anyone here would already know that "Palestinians are people who come from Palestine" is practically nil and who knew Arabs were members of a Semitic people!) are you seriously addressing the author and lecturing her on how she should address her lover? don't you think he would do that for himself if he didn't feel he was being respected?

      that said, i agree when referencing palestinians it's best to simply say palestinian. aside from being accurate and specific, it's just nice to hear the word and to repeat it. it's beautiful, deserving of honor and respect and admiration and brings me warm feelings. courage and sumud and i could go on and on.

    • Ronit, great article, thanks so much for writing it and sending it to us.

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

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

  • Racial supremacy and the Zionist exception
    • thanks jon. btw, my son sent me the vice video last night.

    • omg, terrifying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      do not underestimate the power of unity

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

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

    • just, i really want to taste the sfeeha!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      rotten morality will get people killed on both sides.

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

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

    • i like this "redneck arab music"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • check out this quotation from the @nytimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Senate is selling out our free speech right to the highest bidder, say American Muslims for Palestine
  • Lessons from Finkelstein: International Law and equal rights should be the focus for Palestine solidarity
    • dbakr, i’m all for ‘everything’s fair game’.

      you forgot "in terms of moving public opinion". please don't confuse policies of an "emerging nation" with public opinion, and please don't conflate "everything’s fair game in terms of moving public opinion" with 'everything’s fair game with an emerging nation', because ethnic cleansing and genocide are not ok (and illegal) under any circumstance.

    • ah, that makes sense yonah. it's a term i rarely hear. didn't realize you were using it with sarcasm.

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

    • thanks 'for the record' misterioso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing comments 22200 - 22101