Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1754 (since 2009-08-27 21:10:42)

David Samel

David Samel is an attorney in New York City.

Showing comments 1754 - 1701

  • Why Israel's Jewish nationality bill is a big deal
    • Thanks MH for articulating what I felt about this article. With a few small changes, it could have been authored by Alan Dershowitz, who idolizes Aharon Barak as well. The only way in which this bill as "a big deal" is that it strips away the thin, transparent veneer of "democratic and Jewish" that was always impossible to reconcile in the first place. I'm not so sure it's a bad thing at all - it simply codifies what has been in place since 1948 and what Israel's "liberal" defenders have struggled so hard to deliberately overlook.

  • 'Exalted anti-Zionists' are now driving the conversation
    • Chomsky is surely correct that Israel is quite comfortable with the status quo and is unlikely to yield to any significant change without considerable pressure. Surely the one state solution is not right around the corner (though the Soviet empire and apartheid did disappear only a few years after appearing to be virtually permanent). But why does he think that the two-state solution is more achievable? Israel has managed to perpetuate the current situation, even make it increasingly worse, despite the "international consensus" that has been in place for decades. Simply because this consensus exists does not make it more feasible to compel Israel to comply.

      There are three major problems with the 2ss. First, because of the hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers, it would be impossible to draw reasonable boundaries for the Palestinian state, even with territory swaps. Chomsky has elsewhere proposed that Israel could force removal of settlers by announcing that they no longer will be protected by the IDF after a certain date. (So has Norman Finkelstein.)That strikes me as unrealistically optimistic. There will be at the very least tens of thousands of settlers who refuse to budge, well-armed with both weapons and the unshakable conviction that God wants them to use those weapons to protect Jewish sovereignty over their land. If Israel abandons these people to their fate in a new Palestine, armed conflict between the new government and the armed settlers who refuse to abide by Palestinian rule will quickly ensue, and Israel will step in to protect its recalcitrant "expatriates."

      Second, Israel will insist on some degree of control over a Palestinian state. It will not allow two equal, independent states for two peoples any sooner than it will allow a one-state solution of equality for all citizens. The Palestinians will not accept this loss of sovereignty. Does Chomsky's international consensus include Israel's right to control security in a future Palestine?

      Finally, even in the extremely unlikely event that the two state solution is implemented despite the problems discussed above, the inability of a Jewish State to provide equality to its non-Jewish citizens will be a blemish that refuses to fade. At some point, more and more people around the world will be intolerant of this ethnic discrimination that at best is not as bad as apartheid was in South Africa. While there has been more and more discussion of this thorny problem, like Rula Jebreal's op-ed in the NY Times, the only reason that more attention is not paid to it is because Israel's oppression of Palestinian non-citizens is so much worse. But ending the occupation and creation of a genuine Palestinian state, as unlikely as it is, will highlight this affront to 21st century principles.

      Still, while I think Chomsky is wrong about this, I agree with Phil that "he’s Chomsky, and you should hear him out." I am not one to join the Chomsky-bashing bandwagon. I can't see how any reasonable person cannot be awed by his intellect and integrity and energy.

  • Rivlin commemorates Kfar Qassem massacre and speaks of 'equality'
    • Rivlin, a Likudnik, has been making unexpected noises about a one-state egalitarian solution for years. For example, here is a four-year-old post from Phil:

      link to

      I have no idea how someone with such views could become President, the ceremonial nature of the position notwithstanding. I also have no idea if he has consistently and loudly maintained this position. It's really weird.

  • American airstrikes and the universal 'language of force'
    • Terrific research and brilliant article, Nima. My personal favorite use of the "language of force" argument would be hard to find. Some years ago, I saw Bill Maher use the phrase about some Arabs - Palestinians, probably, but not sure. He said the only language these people understand is force, and then gave as an example Assad's (pere) slaughter of 10 to 20 thousand of his citizens in Hama in the early 1980's. Yes, Bill, that certainly did prove that Arabs are more killable than ordinary human beings.

      This does tend to distinguish these people from Americans and Israelis, who are always willing to listen to reason and settle disputes based on international and domestic law. Right?

  • No Surprise Dep't: David Brooks's son is in Israeli army
    • Second thought experiment borrowed from Phil: The Times assigns as its Jerusalem Bureau Chief, or employs as an opinion columnist, someone whose son is an active member of Hamas's military wing

      The very idea is so preposterous, yet the equivalent on the Israeli side does not raise any eyebrows.

  • Palestinian babies not included on Israel gov't list of most popular names
    • Not including Arabic names here is just one small example of how the authorities ignore and neglect their Palestinian population.
      Absolutely right, Ira. It is small, in comparison to the state-sponsored discrimination in housing, employment, education, etc., but I'm glad you deemed it worth discussing. It is by no means trivial, as it is just one of the innumerable little discriminations - the Jewish star flag, the national anthem referring to the Jewish spirit's yearning, - that are a inherent and inseparable parts of the notion of a Jewish State. Each of these things are big enough to be considered intolerable if proposed in the US in favor of any ethnic group.

  • Leading writers and editors protest Israeli sponsorship of Brooklyn book festival
    • Great to see Junot Diaz on this list. He's a truly great writer, and principled and courageous as well. Also, Chase Madar, who wrote a great biography of Bradley/Chelsea Manning, and is an occasional commenter on MW as chespirito.

  • Joan Rivers's Palestinian finale
    • One disagreement, Phil, on your use of the word "apologized." I don't see her statement as an apology. Instead, she attacks those who accurately quoted her but failed to give "an accurate account of what my intentions were." She was "saddened and disappointed" about what others did to her by quoting her words rather than reading her mind. While she said that Palestinian civilian deaths were "deserved," she really meant that they were "unfortunate." She herself would respond if someone else made such a claim, "Oh please!" and then go on an extemporaneous rant that would be far funnier and more clever than I could conjure.

      Like many other people -- Elizabeth Warren and Bill Maher come to mind immediately -- she had some good qualities but was God-awful on Israel.

  • Defending Apartheid: Then in South Africa, now in Palestine
    • Terrific article, Nima. You would think Israeli leaders and defenders would be careful to avoid phrases like "national suicide" that were used in defense of apartheid, but perhaps they are unaware of such previous use and just naturally arrived at the same arguments in defending an indefensible ideology whose similarity to apartheid is painfully obvious.

  • 'NYT' op-ed calls on Jews to abandon liberal Zionism and push for equal rights
    • Are the Hasbarists deliberately holding back?
      Peter, if they are, they have been doing it for a long time. I regularly look at readers' picks in Times articles and opinion pieces that accept comments, and the ranking is almost always similar - the top ones are very critical of Israel. A few weeks ago, I was quite surprised to see a comments section that was very different, and thought that the "Hasbara brigades" had decided to make an effort to skew the results, but for some reason, that article was an anomaly. To my knowledge, there is no organized effort on the part of any Palestinian rights entity to galvanize members to support like-minded comments, and I believe that these consistent comments rankings indicate that the Times readership is a helluva lot more critical of Israel than its editorial and journalistic staff.

    • thanks ckg! Gratifying to see it resonate with Times readers

  • Revenge devoid of purpose: Punitive demolitions of Palestinian homes
    • Not only did the younger confessed murderers of Muhammad Abu Khdeir not have their houses demolished, they apparently were RELEASED pending determination of the charges against them, according to this shocking article (which I have not seen corroborated) - link to
      According to their lawyer, it could take more than year and a half for trial proceedings to end, adding that they were too young to stay in jail for that long.
      The older ringleader, who is presenting an insanity defense, apparently remains locked up.
      Of course, Israel does not have the same restriction on incarcerating Palestinian youths, even if they are only suspected of much less horrible crimes. Then again, Palestinian youths are accustomed to awful treatment, while Israeli youths must be protected.

  • NY Times describes Israel’s June rampage in the West Bank as a “clampdown”
    • As you know, James, taking issue with every single objectionable word choice in the Times would be a full-time job, but some bother me more than others.

  • Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney dodges Gaza question (and how long can he get away with that?)
    • It is often difficult to determine whether Israel's congressional supporters are true believers, or more knowledgeable but cowed by the power of the Israel lobby. In my opinion, it usually doesn't matter anyway. In this case, though, I get a strong sense that Maloney knows what's going on, but has a genuine fear of losing his seat if he speaks up. His opponent (who used to be my ophthalmologist) waxed rhapsodically about her trip to Israel when she was in office and no doubt would benefit greatly if Maloney were to speak up. Maloney comes from a very insecure district that has swung back and forth for the past couple of decades. Doing the right thing might very well give Hayworth a victory. I know it's very frustrating but I can't see much of a surprise here. The eight Congresspeople who voted against the measure all have somewhat more security than Maloney, I would think.

      On the other hand, I saw a tweet from Glenn Greenwald a few weeks ago, asking whether there was any member of Congress willing to risk his/her seat by condemning the wanton slaughter of children. Good question.

  • Tunnels-to-kindergartens propaganda Netanyahu peddled to NYT and CNN is exploded by Israeli news site
    • Give Dershowitz a break. He confused the numbers of kindergarten kids with the varieties of Heinz products. Also, if he claimed to have personally observed that the tunnel "ended very close to an Israeli kindergarten in a kibbutz," his stellar record of honesty and integrity make his report unimpeachable. At least he has the aura of truthiness even if the precise words he is saying are technically "false."

  • Fatelessness
    • Danaa, this is a really beautiful essay that states indisputable truths we don't often contemplate. Among your great points is this gem:

      It is not in the generalities of grand events but in the specifics of the human experience that similarities abound. To suffer extreme deprivation, to be the subject of prolonged persecution, to witness the wanton killing of men, women and children, to be herded into a densely populated confining space, shorn of basic comforts, with only bare recourse to shelter and safety, trapped even as bombs are dropping and tank shells exploding, is to experience the full extent of what it means to be a victim. Whatever the reasons, whatever the times, whatever the means used by those inflicting the punishment, and whoever are the ones doomed to suffer, the condition of victimhood is universally experienced as something uniquely miserable by all humans unlucky enough to know it first hand.

      Those who attempt to downplay or minimize the misery faced by the people of Gaza should be required to memorize that passage.

  • Jodi Rudoren and Abe Foxman mull over 'the Arabs' owning New York hotel
    • I should have added two things. First, neither Jodi nor Gary Rudoren foresaw any embarrassment over publishing this encounter in the video? They easily could have omitted it. Surprising that they were so clueless.

      Second, in my hypothetical, who would have been leading the charge to fire the Arab-American reporter who casually referred to "the Jews" owning something? Abe Foxman, of course. Here's Foxman claiming Pat Buchanan is "a racist and an anti-Semite” because he “bemoans the destruction of white Christian America.” link to

      One more thing. Don't miss 8:30 or so, where we meet the only "Arabs" in the Rudorens' daily life. They are "very nice Arab guys who do a good job with the cleaning" (laundry). Ugh!

      Also, thanks to Adam, who caught that Gary's parents are named Ruderman; Rudoren is an amalgam of his and Jodi's (Wilgoren) last names before marriage

  • 'NYT' gives Israelis the opportunity to shoot and explain (why not Hamas?)
    • But if Hamas had accurate missiles, could they send a rocket to kill Netanyahu or some Israeli general, or for that matter an Israeli corporal sitting in a house, and kill 20 civilians who live in that home including children? Would that be okay?

      The fact that this hypothetical seems so absurd, yet is an authentic mirror image to Israeli military policy, highlights what a bizarro world we live in.

  • Elie Wiesel plays the Holocaust trump card in Gaza
    • Thanks for the link, Donald. The column is great, and shows that Hitchens's output from 9/11 to his death was such a precipitous decline in reason and simple human decency. He was quite good on this subject for many years until he seemingly turned on a dime.

  • Who broke the ceasefire? Obama blames Hamas against the evidence
    • Donald, I was just about to post a similar comment when I saw yours. "Barbaric" is an absurd term to describe this event, even if Hamas had violated the cease fire by attacking IDF soldiers on the Israeli side of the border, none of which seems to be true. The most the Administration can muster about hundreds of dead Palestinian children is "heartbreaking." In fact, when the IDF kills Hamas fighters in Gaza, that is considered praiseworthy; why should the reverse be "barbaric"?

  • Peter Beinart demolishes Gaza hasbara
    • thanks, tree, and I always find your comments thoughtful and interesting. I'll see if I have the techno-savvy to fix this

    • tree, Hostage's suggestion is great in general, but here, ckg (above) was kind enough to supply a link to, where the article also appears

    • Very true, Donald. US public enthusiasm for Gulf War I and Afghan and Iraq wars was just as high initially. It's human nature more than something unique to Israel

    • You are right about both, ckg.

    • Thanks ckg. The haaretz version was available to me yesterday despite the paywall, and I thought they were making it available to everyone.

  • NY Times reports source of UNRWA school attack is unclear even though Israel said they did it
    • It seemed to me that Israel was unsure which lie it should use to explain this atrocity - Hamas rockets falling short of Israel; or we returned fire from the vicinity, accidentally striking the school. In conformance with its nature, the Times gave conditional credit to the Hamas rocket story put out by Israel, a story so implausible that it would have been ignored, or perhaps mentioned but shredded, by the same reporters had a similar excuse been put forth by less "worthy" party. But since Israel said it, the Times concludes that there is doubt and uncertainty over the origin of the shelling.

  • U.S. neoconservatives also share blame for Central America child refugee crisis
    • James, thanks for reminding us of that particularly awful episode in our glorious history. The recollection that sums it all up for me is Jeane Kirkpatrick, our UN ambassador, on Nightline saying that we were training a Nicaraguan exile army to invade because Nicaragua was reinforcing its military to defend against the invasion. This idea of aggression against others for the crime of defending themselves against our agression has always been a mainstay of imperial propaganda.

  • State Dep't says Israel has a right to defend itself, but can't say the same of Palestinians
    • So what is it that you want? More dead Israeli civilians?
      hophmi, you are repeating a deeply dishonest line of argument that has been made innumerable times in response to complaints of Israel killing civilians. It is designed to portray those who object to Israeli mass murder as hoping for dead Jews. It is inexcusable.

  • Video: Diane Sawyer misrepresents photo of Gazans in aftermath of Israeli bombing as Israeli victims of Palestinian missiles (Updated)
    • I don't think there is any question that it was an error rather than deliberate, but the nature of the error speaks volumes. The photos themselves of massive devastation and the people depicted could not have been mistaken by anyone with the slightest familiarity with the conflict as Israelis. The people who made this mistake - including Sawyer herself - are so utterly clueless that it is unfathomable that they present news on national TV. It is as if they showed Netanyahu speaking in Hebrew and misidentified it as Abbas speaking Arabic.

  • 'Jewish' or 'Israeli' -- NYT, BBC, and CNN make different word choice
    • hophmi: "it’s not a subject on which I’ve said a great deal here." "I have not talked about it much, something I readily acknowledge."

      Actually, hophmi, in 6300 comments, you have never remotely suggested your opposition to home demolitions. You haven't talked about it at all, not once. Then, when "just" questions you on your newly-stated position, you call him asinine. I have strongly criticized Palestinians who commit lethal indiscriminate attacks upon Israeli civilians, even settlers who have crossed a moral line by living where they should not. If you have truly long opposed home demolitions, the absence of any criticism over several years and 6300 comments is quite an oversight on your part. You shouldn't blame others for bringing it up. In fact, it's quite odd that when you said it that demolitions were understandable, you didn't add your personal condemnation when it would have been timely, even advisable, to do so.

      Perhaps it might now be appropriate to clearly state what actions regularly taken by the Israeli government and military you are opposed to, and avoid similar situations in the future.

    • hophmi, in over 6300 comments on this website, you have mentioned demolitions in five, including the two in this thread. In none of the previous three did you remotely imply that you were against demolitions. In one of them, you implied you were in favor:

      "Announcing new settlement expansion every week, demolitions, confiscation, beating, skunk water and so on. As an American, do you like it?"

      No. As an American, I understand that if America had faced one-tenth of the terrorism Israel had, what America would do would be far worse than that.

      In other words, you said that it was understandable that Israel engaged in home demolitions, because America would be far more brutal with one-tenth the supposed provocation faced by Israel. Until now, that was your clearest-stated position on home demolitions. Now we find out that you have "long been against" them and that you are "sure [you]'ve expressed that opinion elsewhere," that is, other than the 6300 comments on MW. I guess it's all just's fault for asking asinine questions, and mine for exposing your previous statements.

  • Caught in a lie: E-mails prove right-wing pro-Israel donor Adam Milstein gave money to California student candidates
    • hophmi, your own dishonesty is truly breathtaking. I have no doubt that your efforts to defend this creep have persuaded absolutely no one.

    • hophmi, you don't say what is wrong with my math test analogy, but I can tell you what is wrong with yours. Milstein gave money to Hillel with instructions to pass it through to Bruins political parties which was running two candidates for office. For him to deny that he gave money to either candidate or either party is deliberately dishonest. If you gave money to your brother with instructions to pass it on to the local Democratic Party that was running a particular candidate, your denial that you gave money to the candidate or the party would be deliberately dishonest as well.

      You ask: "And if there’s absolutely no bar on his giving the money direct to the party, why would he bother going through Hillel in the first place?" Ask him. He's the one who solicited donations in this manner and made one himself. I don't know why he used this artifice, other than to be able to make the dishonest denial he later made.

      "Milstein alleged the email might have been doctored with." He was talking about an email addressed to him. If he did not get it, or if he got it in a different form, he could have said so. Instead, he suggested it might be "contaminated," whatever that means - an unauthorized leak?. He might as well have said he may or may not be wearing a red shirt while talking with Alex. He tried to imply some fabrication without actually making that accusation. He's a complete dirtbag.

    • Woody, assuming he followed his own instructions to other donors, he gave money to Hillel and noted it earmarked for Student Government leaders. Since he gave the money to Hillel, his statement that he did not give money to Avi or the Bruins orgs is technically accurate, though the equivalent of a lie, as in my math test hypothetical. Anyway, I don't think the two of us have a big disagreement here.

    • hophmi, your defense of Milstein's misrepresentation of the truth is absurd. Technically, you may be correct that Milstein did not "lie," if you narrowly define that word as saying something that is entirely untrue. However, his denial to Alex was a deliberately misleading half-truth that is the equivalent to an outright lie, or even worse because of the calculated deception involved. Milstein clearly wanted Alex and Alex's readers to believe that he did not donate money earmarked for this election campaign when he did. He gave money to Hillel to turn over to Oved's political party to use to get its candidates elected. His denial that he gave money to the candidates or the party was calculated to deceive. Oved himself thanked Milstein for his "generous donation," making no allowance for the illusory distinction behind which Milstein later hid.

      Maybe an example would help you understand. Imagine a child who says excitedly, "Dad, I got a 100 on my last math test." Later, the Dad finds out the test score was indeed 100, but it was out of 200, and was a failing grade of 50%, not a perfect score. Would you say the child lied or told the truth? That is precisely the childish prank Milstein played here, and the one you defend.

      Your defense of this blatant dishonesty notwithstanding, where do you find any evidence to support your speculation of fabricated emails? Or would you defend yourself by saying you did not suggest fabrication, but only noted that when you said "One wonders whether these emails were fabricated," it was technically true because you were the "one" wondering.

      Finally, was it really necessary to explain all this to you? Seriously?

  • Jeffrey Goldberg leads the charge on latest BDS smear: Presbyterian Church divestment is anti-Semitic because David Duke supports it
    • Yes Ron, Dersh loves to falsely accuse others of acts he actually engaged in. This insane paragraph is a mirror image of what he did with Joan Peters's book. He also recently said that Egypt ran Gaza as an "open air prison" between 1948 and 1967, precisely repeating the true accusation of how Israel treats Gaza today.

    • The usual brilliant article from Phan: comprehensive research, impeccable logic, and perfect tone. I would only add that Alan Dershowitz has been a consistent exploiter of the David Duke endorsement smear. Here he is on Walt/Mearsheimer -
      link to - and on Norman Finkelstein - link to

      And here is a beauty about W/M from Dersh's appearance on Morning Joe:

      link to
      It’s going to be rebutted and responded to, but I never thought I would live to see the day when a Harvard dean would essentially copy from the David Duke Web site. And if you look at the report, it’s 80 pages, there is not a paragraph that is original in it. Every paragraph virtually is copied from a neo-Nazi Web site, from a radical Islamic Web site, from David Duke’s Web site. You see parallel citations, parallel arguments. They come from Web sites such as, which is a neo Nazi Web site.

  • 'About 60,000 Americans were murdered' by Palestinians in Israel, says Shmuley Boteach
    • Yes he did and those magic 3 words were added to the piece after this post was published. No indication of the correction of course nor even what he means by equivalent. Of course your point about a million americans is quite valid. An exhaustive criticism of the rest of Boteach's piece would be exhausting

  • After ADL says opera is 'biased' toward Palestinians, Met cancels broadcast, citing rising anti-Semitism
    • That is an excellent point, Ismail

    • I was planning to see this opera live (not that I'm a regular patron) but when I saw it would be simulcast I figured I might choose to save the couple hundred bucks. Now that the simulcast is canceled, my first thought was to see it live after all. I am a little ambivalent about rewarding the Met's capitulation by buying tickets, since I also think people should buy tickets rather than boycott the opera. I'm just pissed at this awful decision, and hope it will somehow backfire on those who pressured the Met.

  • Sunday morning macabre
    • I think this clip is very valuable, precisely because the things this guy is saying are so downright silly. I would think that any Zionist would be embarrassed by this interview and would claim that he's a stupid twerp, a bad apple. But he is actually articulating not only the truth that Israel bestows upon him the "right" to move to a different continent and assume superior rights over an indigenous population, but also the fundamental principles underlying the state. Rarely are these principles articulated by someone so ill-equipped to do so, someone who lays bare the injustice of the entire situation.

  • Fire Thomas Friedman
    • The hoi polloi does not award Pulitzers and TF has 3 of them. The Times itself is an elite publication. However, I do see your point that he is warmly received as someone who can explain and simplify. Why more people do not see through this fool is beyond me.

    • It baffles me how this guy remains such a "respected" pundit. Perhaps he does a great impersonation of an intelligent, insightful person. His best columns are ones that are inconsequential but at least inoffensive. Of course, there is zero chance that the Times would accept James North's sound advice.

  • Settler leader Dani Dayan given yet another platform in the NY Times
    • I see, Yonah, you're probably right, but the way it is written gives the appearance of neutrality. It could have put "Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria" in quotes, followed by "as the settler movement refers to what is more commonly known as the West Bank."

    • TwoRedDogs, I strongly suspect that Dayan authored that self-description, but you are right - the Times did not have to leave it unchanged. Can you imagine a bio of Marwan Barghouti saying he has been unjustly imprisoned by the Zionist entity?

    • Shmuel and Donald, no doubt you are both right about the attractiveness of Dani Dayan to the Times. Moreover, the way he camouflaged his recent op-ed's message with patronizing concern for Palestinians' welfare, which fooled some of the commenters there and even briefly confused Donald, surely seemed refreshing and different to Times editors. Dismantle the wall and checkpoints and allow freedom to travel? Sounds positively revolutionary if you ignore the quid pro quo.

      That being said, the Times's fascination with and even promotion of Dayan, for the reasons you stated, is quite one-sided. Edward Said was not only an Ivy League professor of comparative literature but also a music and opera critic who had a close personal friendship with Argentine/Israeli pianist Daniel Barenboim, not to mention a body of analysis on Israel and Palestine that dwarfs Dayan's in both quantity and quality. I don't recall seeing any mainstream media fascination with him, despite his obliteration of the stereotype of the Palestinian activist. For that matter, isn't Omar Barghouti a choreographer? Should we ask the Times to do a profile of his contributions to the field of dance?

  • Chris Matthews and David Corn defend Israel against 'slander' of apartheid
    • michelle, I get what you're saying, but there is a world of difference between de jure and de facto reality. In the US, everyone is guaranteed equality under the law; while no reasonable person believes that actual de facto equality is the rule in this country, or even that the law is fairly and evenly applied to all, at least the law makes such a guarantee. In Israel, by contrast, the government explicitly treats even its citizens differently based upon their ethnic background, not to mention the millions of non-citizens over whom it rules. If any country treated its Jewish population the way Israel treats its non-Jewish population, there would be vigorous international condemnation, and rightfully so.

    • Excellent points as usual, Donald, and excellent example of the logical fallacy. Whenever someone says to me that discrimination against Arabs (or Muslims) should not be called "racism" because Arabs (or Muslims) are not a race, I ask what they would like to call such discrimination. Acceptable?

      As many commenters here already have noted, assignment of different rights and privileges based upon ethnicity is unacceptable, regardless of the relative percentages of the advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Period.

    • Henry, it's a tough call. I'm sure you weren't the only one who flagged it, but it looks like the moderator was asleep at the wheel while Sullivan's desk saw the problem as soon as Jim Holstun complained. The reason I let it go is that if I were trying to embarrass Israel and its supporters with a faked homicidal lunatic comment, I couldn't have come up with anything better than this.

    • This comment is still up this morning. I chose not to flag it because I think it should stay up to show how morally perverted some people can be, but I'm quite surprised that it survived the night.

    • I never quite understood the significance of the magic moment, which either already has happened or will happen shortly, that non-Jews outnumber Jews between the river and the sea. Before that time, Jews were in complete control of all the land and the people, with non-Jews divided among various groups, ranging from second-class citizens with inferior civil rights to those suffering under military occupation with virtually no rights at all. Nothing changes when the magic moment is reached. What difference does it make whether the Jewish population is slightly over or under 50%, or even whether it is 20% or 80%? The system that doles out rights and status to different groups depending upon their ethnicity/ancestry/religion would be unthinkable in the US and would merit condemnation if imposed in any other country.

  • US is 'pushing privately' on settlements, as reporters point out nothing has ever come of that

Showing comments 1754 - 1701