Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2213 (since 2010-06-04 05:29:53)

Showing comments 300 - 201

  • The legend of the Silwad sniper
  • He willed it but it's still a dream
    • Herzl's dream, as outlined in Altneuland: The native Arabs and Jews gratefully submit to the 'civilizing' influence of European Jewish immigrants, and live happily ever after, in peace and prosperity

  • Two conversations with Europeans in Jordan touch on Jewish fears re anti-Semitism
    • On the lighter side: Wikipedia article on 'Freedom Fries"

      "Congressmen Ney and Jones were not the first to rename French fries "freedom fries"; a number of private restaurants across the country began the renaming movement. Neal Rowland, owner of the privately owned fast-food restaurant Cubbie's in Beaufort, North Carolina began the movement by selling his fried potato strips under the name "freedom fries". Rowland claimed that his intent was not to slight the French people, but rather to be "patriotic and supportive of President George W. Bush" after hearing the news of the French opposition on 19 February 2003. He explained that the name change came to mind after a conversation with a history teacher about World War I, during which anti-German sentiment prompted Americans to rename German foods.[5] Sauerkraut was renamed "liberty cabbage",[6] dachshunds renamed "liberty pups", and hamburgers renamed "liberty steaks" or "Salisbury steaks" (a name that remains in use)."

    • Germans were evicted from their homes in the Reich, or what was left of them after Allied bombardment, and Eisenhower specifically ordered their homes to be made available to Jewish DPs, even though the number of such cases was not very high, and the policy controversial. Germany is still paying compensation for the appropriation of Jewish property during the Nazi regime, to victims and their descendants. There was no compensation for German expellees, and there will never be any. The sums that would have to be paid would bankrupt any of the countries involved, so most steer away from even doing as much as admitting that any injustice has been committed. Which leaves us with collective punishment for what is generally considered the most evil and destructive regime in all of human history. Germans as victims of WW II? Please. Remember the Holocaust, the invasion of Poland, the brutal occupation of Europe etc. All non-German collaborators of the Nazis throughout Europe became resistance fighters or victims of Nazism after the war, whereas all Germans were either fanatical Nazis or enablers and opportunists. Atrocities against them was understandable revenge, and evil people simply had to be expelled to guard against future conflict. Unless they lived in Austria, home of many Nazi leaders, including Hitler, which was declared an official victim of Nazism by the Allies (even though the Austrians welcomed Hitler no more or less than the Sudeten) , or in the former Prussia, which became the Soviet Occupied Zone and was therefore also declared a victim of Nazism (the later GDR).

      Most expellees ended up in the later West Germany as the legal successor state of the 3rd Reich.

      The subject is still taboo and explosive, mostly because it became associated with Neo-Nazis and ultra-right nationalists -- the only ones who would touch it. Not unlike the identification of pro-Palestinian with pro-terrorist. Trying to even build a center for the commemoration of German expellees in Berlin is as controversial inside and outside Germany as the 'Ground Zero Mosque' in Manhattan, or Nakba commemoration in Jerusalem.

      link to

      link to

    • I read McDonough's 'After the Reich' recently, and just bought his "1938"

      The leading expert on the German nakba is Alfred de Zayas

      link to

    • "Is it true that, after the war, Germans were turned out of their homes for the benefit of returning Jews?"

      It's true, and not only for the benefit of Jews

      link to

      Most of the ethnically cleansed German/Sudeten villages in Czechoslovakia were completely destroyed, some resettled by Roma, see p. 3 of

      link to

      See Rabbi Bernstein's report on Poland in 1946:

      "The only point of light in Rabbi Bernstein's report was his description of the seventy-five thousand Jews in Lower Silesia. This region had been transferred to Poland from Germany, and its acquisition had enabled the government to distribute among the Poles and the Jews the land, the industries, and the homes of Germans who had lived in the area. There, he wrote, the Jews were not living in an atmosphere of fear, and they were not encountering violence above and beyond the level society in general was subject to." (p. 176)

      See also p. 94-96 on Eisenhower, Ben Gurion and the appropriation of German homes (in the Reich) for DPs. Patton opposed Eisenhower's directive to evict Germans from their homes as illegal

      link to

      There are also reports regarding Germans resorting to threats and violence against returning Jewish DPs, and objecting to their preferential treatment. Even Germans who had taken over Jewish homes during the Nazi period were not usually willing to return them without a fight (not unlike settlers resisting and still complaining about their eviction from Gaza) See Grossmann on victim rivalry in post-war Germany :

      link to

    • "I know that acknowledging [Jewish wealth] is fearful, given the historical background. But it's true..."

      Gideon Levy drew some angry comments and charges of spreading anti-semitic stereotypes for referring to Austrian billionaire Schlaff as a 'Jewish octopus' in a recent article. The octopus-metaphor is clearly not limited to Jewish wealth or capitalism, and why not call a spade a spade?

      link to

    • Deuteronomy 23:20 Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.
      Deuteronomy 23:21 Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.[12]

      Charging interest only outside the 'brotherhood' /community is certainly not limited to Judaism, but there are, of course, different definitions of 'brotherhood' in the Abrahamic religions (only Judaic brotherhood is based on 'blood'/kinship)


      link to

      The strict laws against interest/usury in the history of Christianity did not prevent the practice of it (within or without the brotherhood), just like the strict laws against adultery did not prevent adultery. It was a taboo, of course, hidden from view, while the Jewish moneylenders could operate more openly, in back alley stalls ('banks'). Unlike Judaism and Protestantism, early and medieval Christianity extolled the virtue of poverty. The Renaissance and the discovery of the New World mark a major shift here, including new rules about moneylending. The Florentine bankers were not Jewish. The Medici were a bunch of gangsters who rose to be Popes and Queens. They were every bit as powerful and despised for their influence as the Rothschilds were later.

      And do remember the Fuggers (spelling varies), who were German Catholics.

  • Bibi & Barney: Spring Pollard for 3-month freeze extension
    • "minimalism is the latest rave nowadays"

      has been around for a while. Remember the Bauhaus. The Nazis closed them down, and off they went - to the US, to Palestine. White City, Tel Aviv, for instance

    • What a bargain. I'll remember this for the purpose of countering anti-semitic stereotypes about Jews being clever in business and always getting the better part of the deal

  • Many people are worried what will happen when current peace talks fail, but will it be worse if they 'succeed'?
    • individual life and collective/national life are not strictly comparable, Richard. But in either case, there is plenty of room between 'all beneficial', just and a rock and a hard place.

    • "Its justice if the people consent"

      not if you offer them a choice between a rock and a hard place

    • Success, on Netanyahu's terms, would mean: continued growth of settlements AND a Palestinian state. How does he intend to square that circle? Leaving the settlers as a Jewish minority in the new Palestinian state (minus Gaza and Hamas, of course)? Another fifth column, but very well supported by Israel and her Jewish and Christian Zionists in the US and elsewhere. Let's not forget that the settlers are the most committed to Greater Israel, many of them with large families and considerable demographic growth potenital. Before you know it, the likes of Lieberman will be elected to the Palestinian parliament. Because the new Palestine will, of course, be a democratic state that does not discriminate on the basis of 'race, sex or religion' - just like Israel. Except that some will be more equal than others. Who says a minority cannot dominate a majority? And it will be so much easier to sell sttler aggression and racism as self-defense if they are a minority in a predominantly Arab/Muslim democracy. Financial and moral support from the US will not be lacking. And Palestinian politicians will be as corrupt as their Israeli or American colleagues. They will, at the very least, bent over backwards in exchange for jobs, economic development, and the votes that will follow from Palestinians willing to sacrifice justice for prosperity. Impossible?

  • Letter to Rachel Maddow
    • Here's the transcript of his speech:

      link to

    • Philip - 'that thing' doesn't deliver any more proof for a missile strapped to the plane than did the 'pictorial proof' delivered to the UN by Powell in 2003 for Saddam hiding weapons of mass destructions:

      link to

      Ahmadinejad simply stated that many people in the US and elsewhere do not buy the official version of 9/11. This is undoubtedly the case, and not the same as saying: 9/11 was definitely an 'inside job' (which it was only in the sense of being the result of US foreign policy). The reason for their disbelief and the growth of the truther-movement is also, I think, quite obvious: American politicians, including the president, have quite obviously lied, or, at the very least, invaded and destroyed a foreign country based on nothing more than a conspiracy theory linking Saddam to OBL, with neither one of them apparently having a connection to the 9/11 attacks beyond any reasonable doubt. Ahmadinejad is perfectly right to ask: why are some conspiracy theories to be taken more seriously than others? Why is it ok for the US to destroy a country and its people based on a conspiracy theory, whereas any questioning of the official account regarding the 9/11 attacks is presented as offensive lunacy? Same story with Ahmadinejad's so-called Holocaust denial: Why is it ok to deny the Nakba, or to present it along the lines of 'bad things happen during war', whereas the same statements cause uproar with regard to the Holocaust?
      The MSM obviously adopt this double standard

  • What settlement freeze? Colonists in occupied Hebron pour concrete for four buildings
    • I wonder whose idea it was to serve lox and bagels to journalists at the Manhattan press conference with Ahmadinejad.

      link to

    • "Let us hope that the Democrats do well in this November’s elections. If they do, we may see an Obama more insistent on real peace policies when it comes to places like Iran and Israel.

      Then he can call in the opposition (including his Democratic "blue dogs") and tell them that, if they want to reduce the world’s population, it would be easier and cheaper and quite a bit saner, to promote contraception rather than another bloody war."

      Lawrence Davidson, consortiumnews-link


  • Thank you! We've raised $7,500 so far - please help us raise $2,500 more.
    • I'm waiting for the argument that there was an anti-semitic plot behind the UN, US, EU letting Israel get away with settling the WB, thus turning it into a pariah state

    • "I’ve already seen quite a few of my comments which should never have seen the light of day. Could you maybe tighten things up a little around there?"

      PRICELESS, mooser

  • What the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state means to Palestinians
    • I mean by natural law laws rooted in human nature that apply everywhere, regardless of positive law, with which it may be, and often is, in conflict. Take the conflict between the right to life and self-preservation and the right of nations to self-determination and freedom from invasion by other nations/peoples. My point was this: Many immigrant settlers - during the colonization of North America or Palestine - where simply desperate people seeking refuge from poverty and starvation, or from political and religious persecution, or a combination thereof. Others set out not so much out of need but motivated by chauvinism, nationalism and greed, or some religiously, ethnically or politically inspired superiority delusion regarding the indigenous population. According to Hobbes, "the first Law of nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war." It is easy to see, I think, how the 'down-trodden' align themselves with the chauvinists, out of fear (justified or not) or to justify their taking from others what had been taken from them.

    • 19th century Irish heading for the US to escape the British-induced potato famine, Jews heading for British Mandate Palestine to escape Nazi Germany: Euro-colonialists

      What about natural law vs. international law?

  • Duss on the Peretz/Thomas double standard
    • is that one of the corrections to Hitlers bio announced in the title of the book? If so, what insights does this offer? The trope is so old and widespread that it can hardly explain why the genocidal persecution of Jews happened in Germany, and why it struck during Hitler and Nazism, and not already in the 16th century (Reformation, Witch Craze and religious wars). The nationless Jews as parasites-trope is fully developed in Luther's writings against the Jews: they do seem excessively vitriolic only until you compare them with what he has to say about Catholics and the 'papists'

  • Despite protests, Harvard to honor Peretz with research fund in his name
    • Where are the self-hating Americans on this blog?

      2007 presidential candidates McCain, Clinton and Obama (all Christians) strongly opposed inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia, thus signaling: 'If I would be president, I would only talk to leaders who admit that the American way is the best way, and ostrazise/sanction/bomb everybody who doesn't.'

      Ahmadinejad's reply to Bollinger's hostile (a word with an interesting etymology, btw) introduction:

      "In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don’t think it’s necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims..."

      link to


      self-hating German (approved)

    • "The decision to honor Peretz despite his legacy of bigotry will be remembered as one of the most shameful in the history of Harvard University."

      no kidding

  • For Thomas it was time to go, but for Peretz it's a free ride
    • "That can make an 89-year-old person somewhat less than him- or herself."

      I find the 'poor old woman'-defense a bit offensive with regard to what she says. Off the cuff, incomplete, ambiguous - perhaps, but nobody had to take offense unless they want to give the worst possible interpretation to her remarks. And let me tell you this: I'm nowhere near her age, but if I should warn all shady Zionist Rabbi figures not to shove a microphone into my face, on a hot and humid day, in front of the White House, of all places, on some Jewish-American Heritage Day, after months of Netanyahu spitting into Biden's, Clinton's and Obama's face re the settlement issue, and ask me whether I had some 'advice' for Israel.

      Age does matter, though: whether she has been the least biased or best journalist ever or not: HT was a highly accomplished woman, she was real, and she did deserve much better than this. To deny her the usual accolades, even the super-sized cupcake that should have been delivered to the WHPR seat by the POTUS himself, on her 90th birthday, to simply drop her in disgrace, is absolutely unacceptable to me. Can't do much for people her age to dispel fears that they'll face Obamacare's 'death panels' if they become a nuisance.

    • "It seems that the next mass movement planned is of Palestinians to the United States and presumably Europe too. Just so long as they don’t let their mosques get too noisy."

      Noisy or not, I dare say mosques cause no more offense and consternation in Europe than Walmart greeters and wages, McDonalds (interior design, packaging, food), or US military bases.

      Germany may be one possible destination for a 'planned' mass movement of Palestinians

      link to

      Germany will also, of course, continue to welcome young Jewish Israelis in Berlin (unless Israel interferes with some serious diplomatic pressure). How does this exodus fit with Israel's demographic plans?

      link to

      I see it coming: Israel gets stuck with an increasingly theocratic, racist and dysfunctional society and economy. Eventually, they'll have to integrate indigenous Palestinians and Asian migrant workers in order to maintain a democracy, and a workforce willing to work on Saturdays. The religious fanatics will have to be kept separate, at least for a while, in two open air prisons, guarded by the IDF, with the possibility of a future merger after all come to their senses in what will then be called: The United States of Palestine.

    • Good point, Peter, but:

      Camera (blog) says:

      "The contempt that Helen Thomas manifested in her recent statement about Jews going back to Europe really shouldn't come as a surprise.
      In 2002 she gave a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where according to the New York Post, she told the audience "I censored myself for 50 years. ... Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'" (Dec. 31, 2002.)
      Well, she sure answered that question now, didn't she?"

      Obviously, people who censor themselves are not free of bias either, they just apply someone else's bias, or what is politically correct. And there is no indication that Thomas held any other views on Israel and Zionism on the day she was accosted by the Rabbi than what she had explained previously, see for instance:

      link to

      With the Rabbi, she didn't add any qualifying remarks, and was certainly not given a chance to do so, during the 'interview' or afterwards (save the apology she posted on her website). Instead, what she said was twisted into 'go back to Auschwitz', thus conflating any criticism of Zionism and continued Jewish immigration to Israel at the expense of further ethnic cleansing and oppression of the native Palestinians with genocidal anti-Semitism.

    • If she had said "Jews should get the hell out of America", you'd have a point. But she didn't.


      link to

      link to

    • What antisemitic views? I bet you the entire American population, minus the bigots, was appalled and shocked at what happened to Thomas. And I don't think her firing did anything to counter antisemitism.

  • Our cross to bear
    • In other words: You have to find people who are willing to live in a permanent war zone, and in a country which is politically and ecologically unstable. By constructing some divine command, they are able to convince themselves that they are better than their enemies and victims, and that it's all worthwhile in the great scheme of things.

    • That works nicely in the sense that the host (AS) does not need the parasite (Z) to exist. A parasite always feeds to the detriment of the host: does Zionism diminish or worsen AS?

    • "Some months ago I posted a reference to an 1881 essay by a German commentator of that time..."

      Could you please post the link again, PG, or the name of the author/title?

    • "Why, then, are American taxpayers subsidizing Jewish people to perform the same bad acts against another set of indigenous people: a. do two wrongs make a right?"

      No, but it may be comforting for Americans to know that other people, including people that were subjected to anti-Semitism in the early 2oth century in the US, are no better, and prone to commit the same wrongs?

      A great many Jews in Tel Aviv during the 1930s were American Jews, for instance, so I don't quite know what period you refer to when you write: "Americans did not harm the Jewish people, American aided them."

      Why did post-war Germany become Israel's 'best friend', second only to the US, and keeps supporting the occupation and Gaza blockade diplomatically and with military aid (some recent fissures in that relationship, but true up to then)? Not that I would proclaim such moral or psychological benefits as paramount, but I do sometimes wonder to what extent they play a role.

    • Thanks for the link. I read this and several other posts by Gurvitz. Not to mention his pictures on flickr (see link on his page). Amazing stuff

    • now, now, mooser, didn't it occur to you that applying higher moral standards to Jews, not to mention Israelis, was antisemitic?

      Seriously: great post

      Reminded me of this:

      link to

    • excellent review, Matthew.

      revealing citation:

      “we must, like the Israelis of old, willingly bear the immense burden of membership in a tribe many of whom feel, and have long felt, chosen by God”

      Shouldn't that read "Israelites", rather than "Israelis"?

  • Frank Gehry joins supporters of Israeli settlement boycott
  • Israel allocates over $2.4 million to promote tourism in the occupied territories
  • A few scenes from the occupation
    • "A different name should be crafted for them, to distinguish them from participants in a moral culture"

      There is a perfectly good word for them: Criminals. Includes thieves.

    • "We all curse the thieves, and wonder what anyone can do about such vermin."

      Objection to such dehumanizing name-calling: vermin. I don't care how despicable their actions are. Surely, 'human' is not equivalent to 'good' or 'morally superior' to the creepers and crawlers?

      excerpt from Margaret Atwood's "The Shadow over Israel", published in Haaretz:

      The Shadow is not the Palestinians. The Shadow is Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, linked with Israeli’s own fears. The worse the Palestinians are treated in the name of those fears, the bigger the Shadow grows, and then the fears grow with them; and the justifications for the treatment multiply.

      The attempts to shut down criticism are ominous, as is the language being used. Once you start calling other people by vermin names such as “vipers,” you imply their extermination. To name just one example, such labels were applied wholesale to the Tutsis months before the Rwanda massacre began. Studies have shown that ordinary people can be led to commit horrors if told they’ll be acting in self-defense, for “victory,” or to benefit mankind.

    • I don't know what they are talking about: Europe has never learned how to be multicultural? At the time of Herzl and Hitler, there were about a dozen official languages in Austria-Hungary, the successor state of the Habsburg Empire, see here:

      link to

      And I completely fail to see how Zionism, the historical analogue of German and Italian nationalism, and Israel, which has been strutting as representative of all Jews, and has done all it can to spread and fuel Islamophobia in order to justify its colonialism, would be of any help here?

  • Closed for atonement, but check out these recent highlights
  • Israeli intel firm behind Pennsylvania's 'terror' bulletins on peace, environment, LGBT groups
    • sorry, lysias, I obviously misread your post regarding the stubborn financing of the Spanish monarchy

    • Thanks, lysias, for the addition of Philip II, although I don't see where you come up with the idea that the Fuggers refused to continue financing Philip's wars? My understanding -- and I do have a bit of a Fugger obsession -- is that the Fuggers, somewhat insanely, did continue to fund Philip's war beyond any possibility that it could be won, or that the losses could be absorbed by Spanish conquest of resources (gold) in the New World -- the 80 year war/Dutch Rebellion: 'Spain's Vietnam' , as it has been called by Philip's main biographer, but more appropriately, perhaps, Spain's Afghanistan?

      At some point, Philip had to make the choice between bankrupting Spain or the Fuggers - and, unlike Bush and Obama with regard to Wall Street, chose the latter. Few people remember the Fuggers and their phenomenal wealth and political influence. Basically, not much happened in early modern Europe without the Fugger's involvement. Their merchant/banking network and widespread 'tentacles' not only amounted to 'a very early newspaper', as you say. Their involvement in the emerging postal system (they were the ones who paid the wages on site) meant that the Fuggers knew what was happening in Europe and in the New World before anybody else did. Philip defaulting on his payments taught all future banking dynasties that, in order to survive, they had to somehow control the monarchs/politicians by non-military means, rather than give them any recourse to tell them to go to hell. And that, going to hell, the Fuggers, being devout Catholics, fully expected. Sure, the Vatican relaxed the rules against usury, and the Fuggers charged 40-50 percent interest in order to cover their likely losses by their borrowers - the aristocracy of Europe - eventually defaulting on their debt. Still, fearing that Christ might have actually meant it when he said that a camel was more likely to go through a needle's eye than a rich man to go to Heaven, Jacob Fugger the Rich (possibly the richest and most influential man ever, who bought himself a Catholic Habsburg emperor by funding his election campaign in the Holy Roman Empire) is still revered in Augsburg, his hometown, for having funded the very first social housing unit in Europe. To this day, qualified people (you have to hit hard times without it being your moral responsibility, such as sloth etc) can live there for the same rent that was paid in the 16th c, except for the currency adjustment: 1 Euro, these days (less than the cost of admission if you're a tourist). However, utilities have gone up sharply. And here's the catch: as a tenant, you have to say 3 prayers a day for the Fugger family (all of them). That's to shorten their time in purgatory, and pave their way to Heaven.

    • Maybe it takes catastrophe?

      see Shtrasler on this:

      link to

    • The Rothschildts apparently learned this from the Medici and Fuggers.

    • start one, I'll raise some funding in Canada ;)

  • The pharaoh of Jerusalem
    • How about Washington instead of NY, not now but 200 years ago?

      from Wiki:

      "The Burning of Washington was a battle that took place on August 24, 1814, during the War of 1812 between the British Empire and the United States of America. The British Army occupied Washington, D.C. and set fire to many public buildings following the American defeat at the Battle of Bladensburg. The facilities of the U.S. government, including the White House and U.S. Capitol, were largely destroyed, though strict discipline and the British commander's orders to burn only public buildings are credited with preserving the city's private buildings. This is the only time since 1783 in United States history that a foreign power has captured and occupied the United States capital (Philadelphia was captured by British forces in 1777 during the American Revolutionary War).

      Historians assert that the attack was in retaliation for the American burning and looting of York (now Toronto) during the Battle of York in 1813, and the burning down of the buildings of the Legislative Assembly there. The British Army commanders said they chose to attack Washington "on account of the greater political effect likely to result".

      Governor-General Sir George Prevost of Canada wrote to the Admirals in Bermuda calling for a retaliation for the American sacking of York and requested their permission and support in the form of provision of naval resources. At the time, it was considered against the civilized laws of war to burn a non-military facility and the Americans had not only burned the Parliament but also looted and burned the Governor's mansion, private homes and warehouses.
      Further proof of the intention was that after the limited British burning of some public facilities, the British left. There was no territory that they wanted to occupy, no military facility that they had planned to attack, and the attack caused no American casualties."

  • On the subject of 'partners for peace'
    • fair enough, eljay

      However, I can't remember any recent conflict resolution in the ME or elsewhere (Europe 45, for instance) that was 'just'. Or maybe even in all of human/political history. You?

  • Remembering Gaza
    • Let me rephrase that, to explain the Holocaust:

      "Negligence during war gets people killed.

      Negligence and tragedy.

      You are quick to condemn my words.

      You know that I regard the Zionist behavior (celebrating Hitler's victory, the transfer agreement, Stern gang etc) as similarly negligent, not the button pusher, but the party that insisted on the condition in which negligence that resulted in death could happen.

      Lots of bad choices, bad actions going around."

      You like?

  • Notes on international law and the right of return
  • A Jordanian complains about his king and the Zionists
    • mrw - Europe and Iran

      Europe may not be you united on this, but the Islamophobes are sure trying to get them on board. Just stumbled over this website, which gets ten thousands of hits daily, spreading anti-Muslim hatred under the header of being 'pro-Israel', 'pro-American' and "Politically Incorrect" (domain name). The bomb-Iran article is in German, but the video from Israel's/Caroline Glick's latma TV is in English, and about as sophisticated and 'funny' as thei post-Marmare release "We con the world":

      link to

      They also report on an academic conference that reminded me of the recent one at Yale. This one, in Bavaria, dealt with "Israel in the Media". I watched the two videos posted, in which several participants are being interviewed on their contributions to the meeting. Their message: The Palestinians cannot win the war against Israel by military means and are continuing the struggle via 'Pallywood' - productions, amplifying and faking victimhood in order to fuel anti-Israel protests and anti-Semitism in Europe. And yes, occupation necessarily produces 'ugly pictures', like children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks. So the Israelis are at a distinct advantage to counter the negative fallout. And so on. All very familiar.

      The article insists that the P/I conflict is not essentially about territory, but about the 'clash of civilizations', and only supporting Israel's fight against radical Islam will prevent 'Eurabia'

      link to

  • 91 year old, and his grandson, among three farm workers killed by Israeli shells in Gaza
    • Recent headlines:

      IDF foils attempted terror attack at Gaza border fence‎
      Jerusalem Post - 20 hours ago

      Attacks from Gaza on Israel increase‎
      Jewish Telegraphic Agency - 12 minutes ago

      Editorial: A message for Hamas
      09/13/2010 04:29

      "It is Hamas’s destructive policies, such as the current attempt to escalate the conflict with Israel, that are the source of Gaza residents’ miseries."

      Artillery shelling in Gaza kills 3
      Boston Herald - ‎9 hours ago‎

      "GAZA - Three Palestinians were killed and two others wounded yesterday during an Israeli artillery shelling in the Gaza Strip, officals said.

      An Israeli Army spokesman told reporters that the shelling in the northern Gaza Strip city of Beit Hanoun was carried out to thwart an attempt to fire a rocket at Israeli forces.

      The attack was also in response to two mortar shell firings yesterday into the southern Israeli region of Negev by Gaza militants, the spokesman said. The shells reportedly did not cause any injuries or damage."

      Israeli tank kills 3 Palestinians
      ABC Online - Anne Barker - ‎16 hours ago‎

      "Israeli troops have shot dead three Palestinians, including a 91-year-old man and his teenage grandson, in a Gaza town near the Israeli border.
      The Israeli military says a group of Palestinians were preparing to fire a rocket-propelled grenade into Israel.
      Soldiers opened fire from a tank, hitting an unknown number of people.
      Three men were killed, including the 91-year-old and his grandson.
      Hours earlier Israeli forces had fired warning shots at a group of men approaching the border fence.
      Palestinian militants fired one rocket into Israel but no-one was hurt.
      At least seven rockets or mortars have hit Israel in the past week.
      Hamas, which rules Gaza, is vehemently opposed to the new peace talks between Israel and Palestinian leaders, which resume for a second round tomorrow."

      It's too depressing to cite more

  • Netanyahu said Iran was 3-5 years away from nuclear capability-- back in '95!
    • "There is a need for Zionism because there is anti-semitism in the world, that is easily stimulated"

      ... and no more effectively stimulated than by Zionism itself. Does that make your head explode? It works on mine.

    • That's my understanding, too, that Obama's nuclear free ME includes Israel.

      The question, though, is whether a nuclear free ME provides fewer or more opportunities for military conflict.

      I'm no military expert, but: the Iron Dome missile shield project, for which Obama secured additional funds from Congress, appears to once again secure Israel's exceptional position: Israel can attack with impunity without having to fear a counter-attack. It's even better given the fact that the fallout from nuclear weapons, used in the immediate neighborhood, would also harm Israel. Not a particularly effective deterrent (or only in connection with the 'mad dog'-image Israel has cultivated)

    • "He was confirmed in the Church of England - even more unfashionable in 1974 than being right-wing Labour. In politics, the truth as opposed to the myth of Tony Blair is that he has been unusually consistent. He has always advocated a ruthless electoral pragmatism in pursuit of mild social justice. And he has always confused people with his "radical" rhetorical flourishes."

      link to

    • Time magazine feature article suggestion: "Why the US doesn't care about peace." I suggest exploding missiles and butter-sticks for the stars and stripes on the cover illustration

    • It's mind-boggling how they keep repeating lies, and the very same lies they spread about Iraq. You'd think nobody would even give them air time. Instead journalists just sit there, as if on drugs. Same in Canada. I still can't get over the firing of Helen Thomas.

    • Maybe the 'year away' formula falls short of being an ultimatum, and I appreciate Shunra's comment about the Iranian threat being pushed annually around budget time in Israel.

      Note Bolton's mid-August countdown announcement: "Israel has 8 days to bomb Iran"

      not that Bolton has ever been right about anything

    • Israel is number 4 among nuclear powers, without ever having signed a treaty. It's the most militaristic country in the ME, with a long history of aggression against its Arab/Muslim neighbors (unlike Iran before and after the Revolution). It's government is currently an extreme right-wing coalition, and the political power of the ultra-right and religious, who are determined to hold on to every inch of Greater Israel, at any cost, to fulfill the destiny of the Jewish nation, as they understand it, has grown to the point where neither Netanyahu, even if he wanted to, or Obama seem able to stop them.

      Are you afraid of Israel's nuclear arsenal being/getting into their hands?

      I am.

    • re Iran/Nazi analogy as manipulation

      Absolutely, and it is being directed at both Israelis (the fear factor: works well to counter Israeli guilt and empathy with regard to the Palestinians) and the US (bomb Iran for/with us). As to the latter point, there was a good post on HuffPo:

      link to


      "The obsession with Hitler is about returning to the lost glory days of World War II -- to what Americans call "the Greatest Generation," who, as 1938-ers (among many others) romanticize as proudly fighting against a clearly identifiable evil. It is about returning to a world where Americans could unify around a common purpose and a common enemy. Nazi rhetoric is about restoring honor and glory to America. When commentators compare Ahmadinejad or Khameini to Hitler, they are doing rather little to explain the true threats Iran poses. Instead, they emphasize how righteous any future conflict with Iran would be."

  • In the Wake of 9/11, Israel Put Iran into the 'Axis of Evil'
    • can't buy you luv...

      Poor Tony had to cancel several events on his recent book tour. Too many eggs and shoes being thrown at him by protesters. He's been looking sad, lately.

  • Meeting 3 U.S. officers who are angered by the special relationship
    • "Umpteem times doesn’t make a truth. Its false."

      What is demonstrably false is that Jews were the only victims of WW2, including the post-war period, or any other historical period. Your solipsism is nauseating.

    • Joshua and the Tamarin study:

      link to

    • "Israel’s founding myth is like Jacob and Esau.'

      It's more like Cain and Abel. Jacob and Esau is the maintenance myth

    • One more thing: Canada is next - Israel's new BFF Harper

      link to

      Must be, as someone pointed out earlier, while Fox North is shaping up and Canadians are increasingly living in the information bubble that used to be much more typical of the US

    • corr: build, not built

    • "Israelis should focus less on guns and more on butter."

      Guns provide butter, and not only in Israel.

      See Jeff Halper's article on Israel as an extension of the American empire:

      "Israel has inserted itself into the center of the US military industry. This, at least, is how AIPAC is able to sell Israel to members of Congress. [...] Israeli involvement in the defense-related economies in the districts of most members of Congress explains to a great degree why Israel enjoys the uncritical support it does. "

      Beware the MIC. One would have to admit that the arms industry provides the ultimate product in advanced capitalist societies, (especially since a great many consumer products on the US market are now manufactured elsewhere): built them, blow them up, built more. Except that you need constant war, of course, preferably far away from home.

      Halper also addresses the influence of neocons and the Christian Right. Well worth reading:

      link to

  • Some violence gets to be righteous
    • "They simply do not expect or accept that they will ever have to pay in kind for the killings they commit"

      I don't diagree, but would add, citing Chomsky: "It's ugly, but it's standard."

      Do Americans accept it?

  • Gideon Levy: 'Zionism in its present meaning, in its common meaning, is contradictory to human rights, to equality, to democracy'
    • Interesting. And at the same time Israel's EU integration or affiliation is in the news. A slap into the face for the Turks. So Obama has to chat about Baseball and democracy with Erdogan to balance things out diplomatically, or what?

    • I just read it. It is quite amazing and taboo-breaking. One death threat against Levy in the comments section so far.

    • If, as you say, peace is a state of mutual acceptance, do you offer it, Witty?

      Levy's position as a Zionist does seem to offer it where he suggests a democratic OS, allowing for an Arab majority scenario. I agree that this is a bit vague: the point where there would be an Arab majority is predictable, and raises the question how Jewish that state would/could be at that point. Would the Arab majority respect the rights of a Jewish minority any more than the Jewish majority does now with respect to Israeli Arabs, not to mention Palestinians? Would an Arab majority continue to grant citizenship to Diaspora Jews, or would they be excluded from automatic citizenship, as the non-Israeli Palestinians are now?

      You probably don't even have to be a Zionist in the sense of insisting on a Jewish majority state to be plausibly afraid of a future state in which a Jewish minority fares no better than the Arab minority does in Israel past and present. There is plenty of motive for revenge to scare Jewish Israelis as well as Diaspora Jews. There is arguably not much mutual trust or good will available at present.

      The OSS as suggested by Levy sounds fair enough, but it would not be the first time that the Israeli Right subverts suggestions of the Israeli Left. See Avnery on the security wall and the OSS:

      link to

      As was pointed out above, Europe was as 'tough' a neighborhood as the ME prior to and at the end of WW II. Surely, if the Europeans managed to maintain peace after 45, it must also be possible in the ME?

      So how did Europe, in the 17th or the 20th century, move from decades of horrific religious and national strife to peace?

      In either period, Europe was devastated by and sick of war, realizing that there was no military solution to its problems. Do we need the big war shaping up on the horizon for the ME to come to that conclusion? I hope not.

      And yes, international law and treaties did play a significant role, be it the Peace of Westphalia, the Geneva Convention, or the EG/EU. That also meant: restrictions regarding sovereignty and self-determination.

      Zionism, at least in historical practice, if not in theory, was and is an anachronism by adhering to the old principle of head-through-the-wall and 'might makes right'. Israel abuses the universally recognized victim-status of the Jews in WW II to extend a state of impunity beyond what an increasing number of people consider reasonable and just. This impunity, not a Jewish homeland or state, is what has to go, without transferring the same impunity to the victims of Israel's colonial project, the Palestinians.

  • 'There Are No Civilians In Wartime': Rachel Corrie’s family confronts the Israeli military in court
    • You mean the Renaissance?

      " Although the occasional forensic autopsy had been performed in the medieval period and into the Renaissance, academic dissections [...] were not fully sanctioned by the Church until the fifteenth century. [...] The sixteenth century was the ‘‘Golden Age of Anatomy,’’ although the Church started to reimpose stronger controls during the reigns of Pope Paul IV and Pius IV (Weisz 1997). Medical schools became independent of the Church,and anatomy theaters—public dissections initially for medical students but quickly attracting a more general viewing audience—became quite popular [...] These Renaissance dissections were conducted on executed criminals and marginal members of society. The dissection itself provided an opportunity for posthumous punishment sanctioned by state and Church authorities, a form of punishment that mirrored the divine punishment to be meted out by God. The wax replicas, enshrined in museums, thus memorialized the moral lesson of justpunishment for criminal or immoral action."

    • Philip - I didn't have the courage to suggest blood libel. Yes, I suspected this to be the reason, here's why:

      link to

      link to

      Making a connection to the old blood libel myth here, even the reference to Dr. Mengele (comments on your link) seems farfetched to me. Organ harvesting and trafficking is a modern and lucrative crime (but does not usually involve murder). Why would Jews be any more or less likely to engage in this or any other crime, such as drug trafficking? Is it any less racist to assume that Jews are inherently better (rather than worse) than the rest of humanity? As the saying goes: "A philo-Semite is an anti-Semite who likes Jews."

      I would agree with the distinction between bad journalism and anti-Semitism in the Guardian-article, and see no reason for this British politician to be fired for requesting an investigation into allegations of organ harvesting charges against Israeli relief workers in Haiti. Nor or do I comprehend the outrage about her earlier remark that she could imagine becoming a suicide bomber had she grown up in the OT. There is nothing inherently Arab or Muslim about suicide bombing. Ehud Barak said much the same in an interview with Gideon Levy some 10 yrs ago when asked what he would do had he been born Palestinian: "I would join a terror organization."

      link to

      Why can't the British politician say this? Why are even Jews afraid of being accused of the blood libel charge in the context of organ harvesting charges that have nothing in common with classic blood libel ( defined as ritual murder and the use of blood for obscure religious purposes). Let me guess: Adam Garfinkle (Jewcentricity, 2009) on the medieval history of blood libel

      "It was an anonymous apostate Jew in Norwich, England, who in 1144 started the whole blood-libel disaster - the accusation that Jews kill Christian children to use their blood to make matzohs for Passpver. Another self-hating apostate made it even worse a century later. A self-hating apostate Jew named Nicholas Donin first caused the Talmud to be burned, in mid-thirteenth century France. There were several such apostates in Spain, too, one of them Evner de Burgos, who converted to Christianity in 1321, helped create the conditions for the anti-Jewish riots of 1391. But the prize, if not for troublemaking then for historical impact, belongs to one Johann Joseph Pfefferkorn [...], a Jewish butcher in sixteenth century Cologne [...]."

      Which actually brings us to a time where blood libel charges were already much more frequently leveled against Christians (the 'conspiracy of witches') than Jews (also true for early Christians in Rome), and that would include Luther.

      Self-hating Jewish converts befouling the nest - that's pretty much the argument for the equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, see:

      link to

      link to

      So that leaves us with the conundrum that only Jews are allowed to criticize Jews, but they are also responsible for unleashing waves of irrational anti-Semitism if they choose to do so.


    • Courage? Why does it take courage to write about Hiss?

    • During the liberation of Dachau concentration camp in April 45, prison guards and members of the SS were shot and bludgeoned to death by members of the US army and Dachau prisoners. Surely, we can all understand what prompted this 'Dachau massacre', and some of the victims were no doubt members of a military/paramilitary. Still, it is listed among the Allied war crimes committed during WW II, as it should be (the guards and SS men had surrendered and were not resisting arrest). The assassination of illegal Israeli settlers is therefore no 'ordinary act of war', and it's not just 'ok'. The question here is: what alternatives do the Palestinians represented by Hamas (not a member to the current 'peace negotiations') have to stop illegal settlements?

  • Maybe it should have been called 'why Israel doesn't care about traffic accidents'
    • "The Time editors must be hunched in a bunker with their fingers crossed, waiting for the reaction."

      I read the comments on an article in Haaretz today, which discusses the Time article from the perspective of the ADL charge of anti-Semitism. The reaction was split between readers siding with Foxman or Time. Many pointed out that Time is right on the mark, even underestimating the moral and political shallowness and the hedonism and consumerism that characterizes especially young Israelis in and around Tel Aviv. 'They make Americans look deep', one reader summed up his impression after living there for 3 months. Max Blumenthal's videos come to mind. The Time article, daisy cover and all, may be described as 'Blumenthal lite', perhaps?

      One Haaretz reader opined that the Obama admin. is behind the Time article - in preparation of blaming Israel for any failure of the present peace talks. Interesting thought. At the very least, the piece runs counter to Netanyahu et al harping on the Iranian threat and the coming Holocaust. Sure doesn't look like Obama is eager to bomb Iran.

      Also: A few months ago, Haaretz ran an article on a poll according to which Israelis are among the happiest people in the world, right up there with the Canadians (who mostly complain about the weather). Didn't make the news in the US at the time.

    • piotr - correct, see:

      "The image on the cover of the September 13th issue is the Star of David made of gerbera daisies [1], which means cheerfulness. I discovered that by putting my cursor over the image of the cover [2], and it says so. So the message Time wanted to get out is that Israel is positively cheerful and doesn't care about peace."

      The rest of this article is not so enlightening:

      link to

    • Compared with what came after - the British Mandate and Israel - the Ottoman Empire, with all its flaws, doesn't seem so bad. Same with the Roman Empire. Maybe the idea of human progress is overrated.

    • Here's another great quote from a veteran of the 1948 war who participated in ethnic cleansing:

      "I declare herewith that I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed, that I shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad visions, that I shall not sing anymore its nationalist anthem, that I shall stand at attention only on the days of mourning for those fallen on both sides in the wars, and that I look with a broken heart at an Israel that is committing suicide and at the three generations of offspring that I have bred and raised in it.” - Dov Yermiya

      link to

      Zionism, much like Nazism, has achieved the very opposite of what it set out to do: total defeat instead of world control for the Nazis, the least safe place for Jews to live for the Zionists, and a state that most effectively fuels anti-Semitism in the ME and beyond.

      Foxman is a fool. How many Americans are blind enough to believe that Jews/Israelis are any more interested in money, and more prone to economically induced complacency than the rest of us?

  • Are the settlers civilians?
  • BDS and one state as an alternative to the peace process
    • I think I'll pass on that ringtone offer.

    • Here's Uri Avnery on how the Israeli national myth might derail the intentions of the BDS movement:

      "As the jolly song of the ’70s goes: “The whole world is against us / That’s not so terrible, we shall overcome. / For we, too, don’t give a damn / For them. // … We have learned this song / From our forefathers / And we shall also sing it / To our sons. / And the grandchildren of our grandchildren will sing it / Here, in the Land of Israel, / And everybody who is against us / Can go to hell.”

      The writer of this song, Yoram Taharlev (“pure of heart”) has succeeded in expressing a basic Jewish belief, crystallized during the centuries of persecution in Christian Europe, which reached its climax in the Holocaust. Every Jewish child learns in school that when 6 million Jews were murdered, the entire world looked on and didn’t lift a finger to save them.

      This is not quite true. Many tens of thousands of non-Jews risked their lives and the lives of their families in order to save Jews – in Poland, Denmark, France, Holland, and other countries, even in Germany itself. We all know about people who were saved this way – like former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, who as a child was smuggled out of the ghetto by a Polish farmer, and Minister Yossi Peled, who was hidden for years by a Catholic Belgian family. Only a few of these largely unsung heroes were cited as “Righteous among the Nations” by Yad Vashem. (Between us, how many Israelis in a similar situation would risk their lives and the lives of their children in order to save a foreigner?)

      But the belief that “the whole world is against us” is rooted deep in our national psyche. It enables us to ignore the world reaction to our behavior. It is very convenient. If the entire world hates us anyhow, the nature of our deeds, good or bad, doesn’t really matter. They would hate Israel even if we were angels. The goyim are just anti-Semitic.

      It is easy to show that this is also untrue. The world loved us when we founded the state of Israel and defended it with our blood. A day after the Six-Day War, the whole world applauded us. They loved us when we were David, they hate us when we are Goliath.

      This does not convince the world-against-us people. Why is there no worldwide movement against the atrocities of the Russians in Chechnya or the Chinese in Tibet? Why only against us? Why do the Palestinians deserve more sympathy than the Kurds in Turkey?

      One could answer that since Israel demands special treatment in all other matters, we are measured by special standards when it comes to the occupation and the settlements. But logic doesn’t matter. It’s the national myths that count.

      Yesterday, Israel’s third largest newspaper, Ma’ariv, published a story about our ambassador to the United Nations under the revealing headline: “Behind enemy lines.”

      I remember one of the clashes I had with Golda Meir in the Knesset, after the beginning of the settlement enterprise and the angry reactions throughout the world. As now, people put all the blame on our faulty “explaining.” The Knesset held a general debate.

      Speaker after speaker declaimed the usual clichés: the Arab propaganda is brilliant, our “explaining” is beneath contempt. When my turn came, I said: It’s not the fault of the “explaining.” The best “explaining” in the world cannot “explain” the occupation and the settlements. If we want to gain the sympathy of the world, it’s not our words that must change, but our actions.

      Throughout the debate, Golda Meir – as was her wont – stood at the door of the plenum hall, chain-smoking. Summing up, she answered every speaker in turn, ignoring my speech. I thought that she had decided to boycott me, when – after a dramatic pause – she turned in my direction. “Deputy Avnery thinks that they hate us because of what we do. He does not know the goyim. The goyim love the Jews when they are beaten and miserable. They hate the Jews when they are victorious and successful.” If clapping were allowed in the Knesset, the whole house would have burst into thunderous applause.

      There is a danger that the current worldwide protest will meet the same reaction: that the Israeli public will unite against the evil goyim, instead of uniting against the settlers.

      Some of the protest groups could not care less. Their actions are not addressed to the Israeli public, but to international opinion.

      I don’t mean the anti-Semites, who are trying to hitch a ride on this movement. They are a negligible force. Neither do I mean those who believe that the creation of the state of Israel was a historical mistake to start with, and that it should be dismantled.

      I mean all the idealists who wish to put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people and the stealing of their land by the settlers, and to help them to found the free state of Palestine.

      These aims can be achieved only through peace between Palestine and Israel. And such a peace can come about only if the majority of Palestinians and the majority of Israelis support it. Outside pressure will not suffice.

      Anyone who understands this must be interested in a worldwide protest that does not push the Israeli population into the arms of the settlers, but, on the contrary, isolates the settlers and turns the general public against them.

      How can this be achieved?"


      link to

  • Well I've got a hammer! Washington Post, LA Times and NYT publish important Palestinian voices
  • 'Do you know how hard I work to control the rage inside of me?'
    • yes, Australia, also South America. Remember the Holocaust: That's why I'm here, and why what Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians makes my blood boil.

      I watched Tony Blair being interviewed on CBC last night. I had to turn it off at the point where he insisted that Islamist terror has absolutely nothing to do with 'Western' policies in the ME, and that Iraq had to be invaded for violating UN resolutions, and Iran should be next: apparently, we can't risk putting the bomb into the hands of people who obviously don't share 'our values' (he cited the 'stoning for adultery'- case as proof!). Rick Salutin's commentary in the Globe and Mail today provided some balance, though (without mentioning Blair)

      on being a terrorist suspect at age 7 - the case of Abu Laish's son being denied a visa to the US:

      link to

    • I'm tired of this argument that the Palestinians payed for the crimes of the Nazis, and that Germans somehow didn't pay enough. Nazi Germany was not a democracy. Hitler came to power with no more than a third of the popular vote. What about the other two thirds? Not all concentration camp inmates were Jewish. Most of them, in the 1930, were non-Jewish Germans. Palestine was the preferred Jewish homeland long before the Nazi crimes against Jews, and the Palestinians were victims of Zionist terror before Jews became victims of Nazi terror. A Jewish homeland in Germany was never on the Zionist agenda, and Germany was in ruins at the end of WW II. Jews were not the only ones who wanted to leave Germany and Europe. For most, the promised land was the US and Canada, not the ME. And that was true for Jews as well as Germans (and other Europeans).

  • Martin Indyk on the peace process: hoping against hope
  • Photos of expulsion plastered to Jewish Nat'l Fund wall reveal a society in crisis
    • Keith -- more irony: restoring not only a European oasis, but also a biblical past:

      link to

      link to

    • The reality is that settlers everywhere have attempted to recreate their homeland at their destination, and imported plants and animals -- the so-called 'alien species', for sentimental and economic reasons, or even for the purpose of pest control. That's how rabbits came to Australia, and honey bees to North America, for instance. The native Americans called the latter 'white man's fly'. The European settlers all but wiped out the native Americans, and the Euorpean bees did the same with the indigenous bee species. So it goes.

    • Another society in crisis: Germany and racism/anti-Semitism (?)

      slightly OT, but relevant to an issue frequently discussed here -- see, for example Phil's post on national myth formation and the controversial ethnobiological case for Jewish nationalism and Zionism in the wake of recent genetic research which allegedly - like Phil I don't think it actually does -- challenges or even refutes Sand's main thesis in his "Invention of the Jewish People":

      link to

      So now we have the charge of anti-Semitism against German Central Banker Thilo Sarrazin, a Social Democrat, for the following comments:

      "All Jews share a particular gene that makes them different from other peoples."

      "The cultural peculiarities of the peoples is no myth, but determines the reality of Europe."

      Sarrazin has struck a nerve and come under fire for his critique of Muslim migrants and the failure of their integration into German society. Last year, he remarked that he would prefer immigration by Eastern European Jews because of their IQ being higher than that of the German population. His recent remarks on the 'Jewish gene' were rejected as 'racial profiling' by S. Kramer, secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany:

      "Whoever tries to define Jews by their genetic makeup, even when it is superficially positive in tone, is in the grip of a race mania that Jews do not share."

      link to,,5953098,00.html

      I agree with Kramer in principle, yet some Jews/Zionists apparently do share this view, even though Kramer denies this. Why?

      How can the same argument -- the 'Jewish gene' -- alternately be interpreted anti-semitic and racist, and pro-Israel/Zionist?

      Logical or not?

  • Slater: Goldberg's argument is slippery
    • This 'school of reasoning' is also behind the 'war on terror': kill many thousands, even millions of Arabs/Muslims to prevent another 9/11.

    • It's kind of tricky to get an accurate picture of the ME, don't you think? Here's Gabriela Shalev, Israeli ambassador to the UN, in a stunning display of myopia:

      "On the verge of the end of my seventh decade I didn’t intend to change my style. Wise words don’t need to be spoken loudly. [....]
      To compare between Israel and Iran is a bad joke. I think even Iranians themselves wouldn’t even dare to do it. We never threatened any country. And in Iran, we have a dangerous country, a non-democratic regime, that develops the cruelest weapons, and they threaten us publicly. How could one compare between the two countries?”

      Note: Israel NEVER threatened any country. Everybody who claims otherwise is apparently ruled by passions, emotions and plain folly, not any facts.

      I also liked her comment about Christianity:

      “It's like what they say about the New Testament: that what is new is not interesting, and what is interesting is already written in the Bible. "

      Really? At any rate, it might be wise not to speak too loudly about this around Christian supporters of Zionism in the US and elsewhere. They might get a little emotional.

      link to

  • 72 virgins... 39 lashes
  • Israeli troops fire on nonviolent anti-wall protest in Al Ma'sara, injuring five,
    • Add: even Germany is planning to deport Roma. This would be unthinkable if the refugees were Jews. One lamentable result of the Holocaust industry's version of Nazi Germany and it's grip on the public, even and particularly in Germany

      link to

    • Re: France willing to arm Lebanon with missiles

      Surprise! France is one of the top arms dealers in Europe. Not that great on human and minority rights. See this article on expulsion of Roma from France

      link to

  • When will the 'Washington Post' Op-Ed page provide space to Palestinian voices?

Showing comments 300 - 201