Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 548 (since 2012-01-04 23:34:53)

Showing comments 548 - 501

  • The world the settlers made
    • The lady from Efrat says of the Palestinians: “They missed their chance.” They didn’t miss it; they sold it – at least those in the WB did.

      Phil says it over and over, he shows more than one photo of Palestinian workers to drive home the point: It’s the Palestinians who are building those settlements. And they have been for 50 years. This is not slave labor; it’s paid. IOW, here’s a shekel, go slit your throat and the throats of your children. And they do.

      The Palestinians built those settlements for a price, what right have they to complain now about settlements? If they claim the land is theirs, then why would they build houses for Jews on it?

      I know, I know. The Palestinians are poor. They need the money. That’s the ole’ prostitutes’ rationalization. Give me a shekel and I’ll do whatever you want – maybe after a while my life will improve and I can move on to banking or politics. Americans often try to analogize from Palestinians to AmerIndians. Yeah, I don’t think so. How many AmerIndians debased themselves to the point of building towns for the white pricks who were running them off the land?

      The Palestinians missed their chance alright, when they began abetting the theft of their own land. Sometimes the victim really is the architect of his own misery. As long as the Palestinians voluntarily participate in the Judiazation of the WB, I have a hard time finding sympathy for them. Instead of stabbing a bunch of iJews and getting blown away themselves, why don’t the Palestinians just quit building the Jews’ houses and laying their infrastructure?

      Gaza . . . now that’s a different matter altogether.

  • Understanding the Partition plan
    • Thanks so much for this series, David. Having just discovered your website, I am in awe of the amount of effort you have expended on what many of us perceive to be the most frightening political threat to the species, and I’m talkin’ about the Samson Option and 400 surreptitious nukes controlled by the likes of Bibi, and the violent fundamental Wahhabis/Salafis running out of control all through the region. It is not an “optimistic” mix for the future of the world as a whole.

      A couple of questions:

      1) Your first article left off (just before the 400!! comments) with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – 1922. Your second article begins with the 1947 British summary on the cock-up referred to as the British Mandate. There’s 25 very interesting years in between that include a world war. We don’t get much info on what was going on in Palestine during WWII.

      You allude in this article to both Jews and Arabs supporting the British effort. But I thought the Nazis were supported by the Arabs -- that whole Desert Fox thing, which might have influenced the viewpoint of Truman in 1948 deciding whether to go with the Jews or the Arabs in the Palestine deal. Did WWII play no role in the debacle that took place in Palestine in 1948?

      2) Another historical point that is never discussed is the intra-Semitic demographics of those 1.3M Jews in Palestine at the time the Mandate ended. My impression is that they were virtually all Ashkenazi from Eastern Europe/Russia, who were never all that well integrated into their communities, as rumor has it. Why would one expect them to become integrated with Arabs? I mean, my understanding is that Irgun, Stern Gang, and the other Semitic terrorist groups in Palestine were comprised of Ashkenazi. I wouldn’t want them in my back yard either, and I get along with everybody.

      What fraction of the Jews in Palestine at the end of the Mandate were Sephardi? And my reason for asking it is that it seems the Sephardi did pretty well living next to and among Muslims after the fall of the Second Temple, and I’m thinking of their generally peaceful and mutually beneficial co-existence with the Arabs in N. Africa and the Moors in Andalusia in the Middle Ages (up until the Catholics started butchering them all in 1492). Did Sephardi Jews play a significant role in the Nakba? Were there Sephardi Stern Gangs? Is the analysis of this situation helped by considering differences in the histories and psychologies of Sephardi vs Ashkenazi?

      I guess another way to ask the question I’m asking is this: If I had a Helen Thomas magic wand and could make all the Jews in Palestine go back to “wherever the Hell they came from,” wouldn’t most of them end up in the Ukraine, Poland, Russia, etc.?

      3) When you study that map of the UN partition plan, it really is an attractive proposition from today’s viewpoint. Those two tiny points of continuity between both sides, are beautiful. Ports for both sides, access to the Jordan R. for both sides. The Jews got 55%, but most of the excess was sand. I can totally see the Arabs' point of view, but maybe it could have been another Granada . . . dreamin’ again.

  • StandWithUs invests nearly half a million dollars in ongoing anti-BDS lawsuit against Olympia Food Co-Op
    • Phan, you've done a great job in following this very important issue, particularly the back-story of StandWithUs aka Captain Israel. Looks like your work may be just beginning.

      The best case scenario that I see is that the Olympia Food Coop folks will now file for a summary judgment and the judge will throw the case out again -- but the standard is different for SJ than under the anti-SLAPP law, which is what the WA Supreme Court was concerned about.

      And the judge could still apply sanctions against these Zionists if he finds the suit was frivolous or has no reasonable basis.

      But this is likely to be a long haul for the OFC folks, and if the case gets into discovery, it will be expensive. The Captain Israel folks have all that money behind them that the US taxpayer sends to Israel then coming back to the Washington lawyers by way of Captain Israel.

      This is a very important case for the BDS movement. If readers here have some spare cash, I'm sure the Center for Constitutional Rights people could use some help. I'm not affiliated with them and don't know any of them, I would just hope they can stand up financially to the Zionists.

      Here's where you can find a copy of the WA Supreme Court's opinion:

  • Now Obama needs to 'compensate' Netanyahu -- NYT pipes Israeli propaganda (Update)
    • Agree completely -- this one stands out as a MW Top 40. The only down side is that now I have to wade through Rudoren's zio-shtick to get the full effect of annie's take-down.

      "...the operative word here ... is after." Great line. I gotta' stop laughing before dinner or I'll choke on my pizza.

      But what concerns me is that neither Rudoren nor Obama are the fat lady, and this thing ain't over 'til she sings. We have a long way to go before this preliminary agreement to agree in principle pending further talks and new deadlines can be considered a win for anybody. A long way to go. Deadlines come, deadlines go, IRI keeps digging deeper into the mountain. . .as any sane country would do having been threatened by the likes of GoI.

  • Israelis go to the polls today--and nobody knows who will win (Updated)
    • I'm having some heartburn over the headline. " -- and nobody knows who will win" implies that somebody should know who will win.

      Implying that somebody should know who will win further implies a rigged election.

      This is not Florida.

  • Dershowitz story is also an Israel story
    • CaD I tried to put up the link to the Palm Beach PD arrest affidavit last night, but it looks like Phil spiked it.

      He might think this police account of what Epstein did to those girls is just too sickening for a "family website."

    • Thanks, CaD

      I've been a guardian ad litem for kids, and this stuff just makes by blood boil. If you've read the May01.2006 affidavit of Detective Recarey for the arrest warrant for Epstein, you'll know what I mean.

      Let 'em grow up, fer chriz sake -- a sentiment I'm sure we can all agree on.

    • Thanks, CaD -- state court documents are not that easy to come by.

      Daily Mail keeps saying that Dersh filed defamation suits against Edwards/Cassell in "London and the US." They don't say what court. Those DM hacks get confused awfully easily.

      As noted above Dersh claims to be happy to be sued b/c it gives him the chance to depose Edwards/Cassell. But if Dersh had filed his own suit, he would already have the chance to depose them.

      As for his 11- paragraph declaration in the Jane Does case filed yesterday, here's a line by line take down -- the declaration is pathetic; e.g., he never denies being an eye-witness to Epstein's pediatric perversions.

      Dissecting Dirty Dersh's Declaration

      As predicted in the article, now that his sworn statement has gone public and he has his denials out there, Dersh will probably withdraw the motion to intervene in order to prevent Edwards/Cassell from deposing him in that case.

      It's the depositions that will rip this whole thing wide open. That and getting the US attorney's correspondence related to the non-prosecution agreement.

  • Dershowitz named in lawsuit alleging abuse of underage sex slave
    • Annie -- "plus video". That's funny, very subtle of you. Epstein is probably as famous for that YT as for his kiddie-sex. Asked in the very first question of a deposition if his penis is egg-shaped, he stormed out. And fair 'nuf.

      I've been deposed more times than I can count, but I've never asked or been asked anything so outrageous. I mean the question is so vague any judge would throw it out in the blink of an eye. I would have made them re-state the question w/ more specificity: Are you referring to an ostrich egg, or hummingbird?

    • You're right W.Jones, it's weird. And it's weirder if you dig down deeper than the MSM and BS have done so far.

      Court documents show that Bruce Reinhart was an atty in the US Attorney's Office in the South FL district when Epstein was being investigated by the FBI. The US attorneys offered Epstein a "non-prosecution agreement" (NPA), which is rare. USAO agreed to drop the investigation of Epstein and "co-conspirators" if Epstein pled to minor state charges.

      IOW, this was not a "plea bargain" because there were never even any federal charges. And that is what has everyone scratching their heads -- the FBI had good stuff on this pedophile and his "friends" for up to 40 charges of kiddie-sex and producing kiddie porn, why did they give Epstein an NPA and let them all go????

      IMO when a DA does something procedurally crazy that benefits the perp and the perp is filthy rich, check the DA's bank account.

      Funny thing about that: Reinhart was a US attorney involved in the Epstein case until he quit in 2008. Epstein's NPA deal went down in June, 2008.

      According to Exhibit "C" in one of these cases (Epstein v. Rothstein et al) Reinhart left the USOA's office and was hired by Epstein to represent Epstein's people. For instance, Reinhart represented Epstein's young "assistant" Sarah Kellen in a deposition.

      Reinhart also tried to intervene in the current Crime Victims' Rights Act case to set aside the sickening NPA deal given to Epstein. It is amazing to me that Reinhart is permitted to touch this case in any capacity.

      The other interesting but unspoken thing in this case is the "lop-sided demographics". The case has been, basically, the Jane Does' lawyer Brad Edwards pitted against Epstein, Dershowitz, Reinhart, Rothstein, Weinberg. Etc. Foxman undoubtedly sees Edwards as antisemitic. I don't think so. Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew are swimming in this mess somewhere, and they ain't Jewish.

      Jane Doe #3, Virginia Roberts, who is pushing this thing is now married w/ 3 kids and living in Australia. She's a brave, and now undoubtedly wealthy, lady. But I don't see a further payout for her in this action. The suit is against the USG to reopen the criminal charges, not against Epstein.

      The worrying thing to me is that JD#3 claims she was provided to a famous prime minister while she was a minor. Hmmm .... Barak (and I ain't talkin' Obama) was PM during this time, and he was a good friend of Epstein. Probably just a coincidence, eh? Tony Blair was on Epstein's buddy-list, too. Who knows? But one way or the other this thing is going to be huge unless these people can be shut up.

      Here's a link to Exhibit "C" -- it includes the original Dershowitz claims and a lot more.

  • Dempsey bucks Obama line by praising Israelis for Gaza tactics
    • @seafroid: The bots pay a lot for political influence and Dempsey had to throw them a biscuit. But the bigger picture is very disturbing for them. They lost a lot of friends in August.

      You gave a link to the DM, but just as apropos would be this link to the Independent: "Labour funding crisis: Jewish donors drop 'toxic' Ed Miliband"

      For those not following UK politics, Ed Miliband is a Jew and the current leader of the Labour Party, trying to boot David Cameron out in next year's elections.

      Talk about losing a lot of friends in August. After Operation Protective Dredge killed 2200 Gazans and the entire infrastructure of Gaza, Miliband was very critical of Israel and Labour was standing with Palestine, which, of course, carried an extra punch b/c Miliband is an alpha-dog Jewish politician.

      Every since then the UK press have absolutely ripped him apart over the dumbest things, and he is now barely hanging on as Labour leader. Long-time Jewish Labour donors are fleeing, including actress Maureen Lipman.

      Under UK elections law English politicians are only permitted to spend 19M GBP per party and large individual donors are very important. And so this is a small-scale version of what happens to US politicians who turn against GoI.

      Dempsey, no doubt aware of the power of the Israeli-controlled press, is just keeping his cards in play should he ever decide to become America's next Eisenhower.

    • the terrorist enemy “from Gaza” which curses, defames and abuses the God of Israel’s battles.

      Sounds like a load of Salafists' crap. Or, more particularly, the Salafists being Semites, too, it sounds like a load of generalized My-Guy-In-the-Sky crap.

      Here is the GoI battle plan, straight from Moses:

      When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for and shall serve you.

      But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all of its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your booty which the Lord your God has given you." Deuteronomy 20:10-14

      With all due respect, Colonel, in response to your theological position, your My-Guy-In-the-Sky of Israel's battles can suck my a**.

  • In and out of love with Israel: Tzvia Thier's story
    • These points on some Jews claiming exclusivity to the word "holocaust" are so well taken. I am especially annoyed when it is capitalized, as if the Jewish holocaust was "The" only one, and the mass deaths and suffering of other peoples don't really count. It's about as arrogant as it gets.

      Sure it's proper to refer to the Jewish holocaust, just as it's proper to refer to the AmerIndian holocaust, the Cambodian holocaust, the Lebanese holocaust, the Assyrian holocaust, the Armenian holocaust (even if Obama is too "chickenshit" to do so) . . . & etc. But there is no "The Holocaust."

      But many Jews -- and not just Zionists -- claim some sort of trademark right in "holocaust," whether capitalized or not. It's a brand. It's a way to control the message, just like defining "antisemitism" as any comment or thought that is not philosemitic. He who controls the lexicon controls the dialog.

      This Tsiva is one tough lady. Bless her. (I, personally, would have momentarily suspended all that John Lennon give peace a chance yada, pushed the sucker down the well, and put the lid back on it. At least my inner Walter Mitty would have.)

  • The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)
    • @talknic: Well, from at least the Roman era, without the help of the Zionist Federation, Jewish folk could and did hold Palestinian citizenship

      Beg pardon?? What, exactly, did "Palestinian citizenship" look like under the Crusader's occupation in the 12th c. AD, or under the Mongols in the 13th C., or under the Ottomans -- to name but a few.

    • These historical posts and comments are, IMO, the most valuable contributions to MW. This sort of research takes a lot of effort and is appreciated, and I include talknic’s contributions when I say that.

      GoI has survived largely by promoting a two-part emotional meme of 1) the miracle of Israel, which is a 2) tiny democratic country surrounded by enemies and terrorist groups. That tactic has to be countered by promoting a two-part historical reality that 1) the i-Jews stole (and are stealing) the Palestinians’ lands 2) by terrorism, duplicity, and illegal military assaults.

      Most Americans automatically side with GoI because Americans have a problem getting over a very high emotional barrier created by Munich, Achille Lauro, decades of Palestinian bus and market bombings, & etc. In the past there has been no way for Americans to understand that the excesses of violence by the Palestinians in the aggregate do not come close to the terrorism inflicted by i-Jews on Palestinians right back to the early 1940's. The Palestinian side of the historical story has been kept sub rosa by the MSM. Like, when was the last History Channel program on Irgun.

      Perhaps high-volume websites like MW promoting the historical perspective of scholars like David and talknic can overcome the massive failure, if not collusion, of the MSM to get out the Palestinians’ side of the story.

      A couple of comments on the post:

      “And please, everyone, stop calling it the pre-1967 border: it is not a recognized border, and it did not move an inch in 1967.”

      Thank you, David. I have been trying to drive that point home for years. “Green-line” or “1967 borders” – hasbara that everybody buys into and constantly re-tweets. The proper boundary recognized by the UN, the US, and every other country is the 1948 partition line and that’s what we should all be referring to. It’s also the minimum of what the Palestinians should be demanding, IMO.

      “Palestine has said that, in the interests of peace, Israel can keep the land stolen in 1948-49. This is a wise decision. The stolen land is fully integrated with the rest of Israel, and this situation is irreversible. ”

      I can’t agree with your soft position. Nothing that is man-made is irreversible. The fact that GoI has “fully integrated” Palestinian land means nothing about who has a moral and legal claim on it.

      If your neighbor builds his garage on your backyard and “fully integrates” that part of your backyard into his property, that doesn’t constitute or justify a transfer of ownership. Now, if you ignore the problem for 20 years or so, then the doctrine of adverse possession can be used by the neighbor to acquire legal title. This is why Hamas’ hardline makes sense.

      Also the “Palestine has said” clause causes me slight heartburn. Perhaps you could give us a citation of “Palestine” saying such a thing.

      As for your discussion of a wider view of border negotiations -- bingo! Maybe that map you base the post on ought to be completely discarded and the entire borders issue thrown wide open.

      I favor the well-known last-brownie approach to settling the dispute. When kids fight over the last brownie, many moms will make one of them cut it in two, and the other one then gets first choice.

      The world's powers should force both sides of this dispute to sit down at a table with a map of the former Palestinian Mandate. One side is given a pen and a straight edge and instructed to draw a straight-line border across the map anywhere they please. The other side then chooses the part that is theirs. Such a line would almost have to run generally E-W and north of Jerusalem but south of Tel Aviv. My guess is that most i-Jews would prefer Tel Aviv and Golan to Jerusalem, the Negev, and access to the Gulf of Aqaba, and most Palestinians the opposite.

      Just dreamin’ . . . The world’s powers are too stupid to take such a simple approach to the world’s most dangerous problem. Eventually, it’ll be solved by WWIII, in which case Dimona will glow for a thousand years and nobody will want the Negev -- or any of it.

  • SodaStream says it plans to leave West Bank for the Negev, but boycotters promise to not let up
    • annie, thanks so much for that extensive response. Sorry to waste your time.

      I disagree with your journalistic philosophy. Your reader should not have to "do some research" in order to be able to understand what you are saying. Some of your "facts" seem a bit dodgy, which is why I suggested sourcing them. That's why God gave us hyperlinks.

      Bedouins are not nomadic? OK. News to me. I'll pass that on to the UN and Haaretz, they haven't got the word yet:

      Since the 1970s, the State of Israel has been in active conflict with its Bedouin citizens. The Bedouin, who see themselves as nomads and the original inhabitants of the desert, live more or less where they see fit. The government, though, wants to place them in organized communities, which it says it the only way it can provide them with public services like education and healthcare.

      My point was that it would be lovely if you had provided some sort of sourcing for your assertion that Bedouins had title to the land that GoI took from them. The point is interesting both in that 1) you're asserting Bedouins gained title to the land and 2) you're asserting the land was then confiscated. Your readers should not have to go digging to confirm that information or to figure out where you it.

      Kelo is relevant in that it points out that even if the Bedouins did have title, they wouldn't be the first people in modern times to be removed from their homes by economic interests -- even our great, liberal Jewish mind on the USSCt supports that concept. Sorry if you didn't see my point.

      I don't think you're being disingenuous, but your answer about ScarJo is not making sense. The question was how could the attacks on ScarJo last January (2014) have been responsible for the SS move to Negev when construction on the new site began long before ScarJo ever came up? Your own timeline says that the SS decision to move/build was made at least as far back as 2012 -- two years before the ScarJo flap.

      IOW, SodaStream's ScarJo disaster may have busted the stocks but had nothing to do with the move. All you do in response to my confusion at your assertions is say the ScarJo attack launched BDS of SS into the media's attention. I agree. But that was AFTER the move had been decided and construction began. Google "non sequitur."

      You are justifiably proud of the effect BDS is having -- I'm with you 100% and admire you for being in this thing, sleeves-up. Wish I had your courage. All I'm saying is the SS decision to move was made years before ScarJo was ever mentioned, and before BDS ever had any effect on SS's stock price or income stream. I seriously doubt that SS stock started to tank in 2009 b/c of Code Pink's efforts -- SS didn't even go public until Nov.2010, and went up and up. A little research on the company's history would have told you that.

    • @annie: This is the same news we’ve heard repeatedly over the last couple years.

      We have??? The two links in your sentence both go to the same ToI page -- Feb13.2014. I don’t see any support there for the “last couple years” and I don't recall hearing this news or reading about SS long-term plans to move.

      So, SS has had the new factory under construction for 2 years??? Well, that means it must have been in the planning stage for a year or two before that. I’m lost. If moving from WB to Negev has been the SS plan for years, then how does BDS or the attacks on ScarJo get credit? I can see the effect on stock prices, but the stock crashed years after the decision to move must have been finalized and at least a year after construction began.

      But the BDS "victory" that is being promoted is that BDS put pressure on SS to get out of WB, and everybody called ScarJo a SuperBowl-soda-whore, and those tactics drove the stock price down, and that’s why SS is leaving WB. But apparently not. Looks like the move was part of a long-term plan.

      annie: So why are we hearing this now? Perhaps it’s because SodaStream stock is still floundering down in the low 20’s and has hardly budged all month.

      Or . . . perhaps it’s because SS made the announcement 5 days ago.

      Besides, when is "now." I note that as of today (Nov04) the date on this post is Nov 2, but many of the comments are dated Oct30. Prof. Peabody???

      @annie: the land this industrial park is built on was confiscated from bedouins [sic], many of them still holding title

      This is the real story here -- land confiscation -- if it could be properly sourced. Bedouins “holding title” to land? Doesn’t sound like desert nomads to me.

      And for the record, confiscating private land for commercial purposes is not a tactic limited to i-Jews stealing Arab land. Recall that in Kelo v. New London (2005) the USSCt upheld the constitutionality of private corporations' confiscation of residential homes for economic development under “eminent domain”.

      That was a great “liberal” victory – Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer on the rare "left" side of a 5-4 decision. Unfortunately, they virtually gutted the 5th amendment and destroyed any remaining defense individuals might have against eminent domain fascists confiscating private property -- while Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O’Connor stood up for the property rights of individuals.

      And Ginsberg has the chutzpah say Citizens United was the USCCt's worst decision.

  • Update: Why did Netanyahu respond to chickenshit with 'grassy knoll' remark?
    • That's looking at it 180 backwards, just. The point is what Hebrew term did Bibi use and how is that term translated to English.

      Look at the context. The phrase "ceremonies on grassy knolls" makes no sense either within the context of the statement or as a threat. Whereas, "ceremonies on lawns" is a clear reference to being feted on the WH lawn when you're on the good side of USG, which is what Bibi was barking about.

      I mean, c'mon folks, if a reference to "grassy knoll" is to be taken as a threat against a president, the Secret Service would be knocking on every third door in the country.

      What's next? "Theater box?"

  • Malala and the Nobel Peace Prize: Why Rachel Corrie would never win
    • Bumblebye: I would have pointed out that Israel’s murder of Rachel ruled her out of the Nobel running.

      Yes, that's a better way to state it. Certainly. And for that reason Abu Mazen should be very careful should he ever be nominated.

      I note I misspelled "Corrie's". With the new MW website, once you hit the "Post Comment" button, there's no editing allowed. If your fingers are faster than your brain, beware. If they are both seriously sub-sonic, like mine, triple check.

    • I'm 100% behind any discussion that promotes what these young women have done and that keeps the public limelight focused on their bravery, but I'm not sure pitting one against the other is the best or fairest way to do that.

      Besides, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded posthumously. So no matter how admirable Correy's bravery and commitment to peace, she became ineligible the moment she was martyred.

      From 1974, the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation stipulate that a Prize cannot be awarded posthumously, unless death has occurred after the announcement of the Nobel Prize.

  • Under pretext of restoring calm, Netanyahu government is escalating Israel’s war on Palestinians in Jerusalem
    • The video is Exhibit "A" for the case that the boy was killed while in prison.

      I can see no mortal wounds. No blood at all. He is conscious and moving. Unarmed.

      The idiot's .45 is cocked, but with the cameras right it his face, he probably deemed it better to wait until they had the kid inside the prison. This is the way democracy works in Israel, and, of course, the family home will be blown up, probably pursuant to a court order. Just a freaking wonderful place. Americans must be so proud to support it.

      Speaking of proud Zionist Americans, here is Goldberg's latest in The Atlantic. Bibi is a "chickenshit" according to JG, in what looks like an opinion piece of why GoI needs to attack Iran ASAP:

      JG is insidiously toxic. The piece is interesting in that it indicates how bad the Obama-Bibi relations are, but it has Goldberg's pro-GoI zingers wafting through it like a kosher-fart on a crowded bus.

      But the fear inside the White House of a preemptive attack (or preventative attack, to put it more accurately) was real and palpable . . .

      It is true that Jews have a moral right to live anywhere they want in Jerusalem, their holiest city.

      Unlike the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, I don’t have any hope for the immediate creation of a Palestinian state (it could be dangerous, at this chaotic moment in Middle East history, when the Arab-state system is in partial collapse, to create an Arab state on the West Bank that could easily succumb to extremism) . . .

      What JG fails to discuss is what it may mean in terms of Obama's personal safety when he gets in the way of GoI. Would love to get Avner Cohen's take on that one.

  • British Parliament votes overwhelmingly to recognize Palestinian state
    • Boomer you, and Cole, are absolutely right to raise the point that more MP's did not vote for the resolution than voted for it. The numbers give context.

      But part of that numerical context is that those 364 MP's abstaining could not be bribed or badgered by GoI to vote against the resolution -- only 12 out of 650 (2%) voted against it. To me that is the most stunning numerical aspect of this vote. Had the resolution been brought before Congress, only 2% would have voted FOR it.

      The non-numerical aspect is more important. For those who followed the speeches leading up to the vote, it is clear that Parliament is having a deep, honest dialog on this issue. As one of them said, they have a responsibility to do the right thing because the UK screwing up the British Mandate is where the whole travesty started.

      If only Congress could have such honest debates on the issue, rather than the AIPAC-sponsored, shekel-driven drivel that has been the norm for 40 years.

  • The Titanic of the occupation -- SodaStream (Update)
    • I adore the graphic and whoever put it together. Brilliant.

      Also, annie, just noticed your twitter handle: anniefofani

      Is that as in "Banana fana fofannie, fee fi fo mannie?"

      "If the last two letters are ever the same, just drop them both and say the name . . . "

      As I recall, it was Alice and Bart who had an especially hard time with that song.

  • Malta sinking killed hundreds fleeing Gaza
    • Let's see if I've got you right, ivri. . . the Gazans occupy land that is theirs historically and is theirs in the eyes of the UN and all of the world, except GoI and USG. And your point is that if the Gazans want to remain on their land without being repeatedly attacked by GoI all they have to do is "just change orientation and leadership" -- presumably in a way that is acceptable to Israelis, who exist as Israelis only because they stole the land they occupy from the Palestinians.

      Those who believe might makes right, will likely agree with you. Those of us who believe that right will eventually prevail and the Israelis will pay the price of their brutal and bloody subjugation of the Palestinians will likely disagree with you.

      The history of Palestine will be determined by whether the Israelis can eradicate of the Palestinians before Americans wake up to what is happening.

    • This is exactly GoI's intended consequence of Cast Lead, Pillar of SomethingOrOther, Protective Edge, and whatever new one will come in mid-2015: produce so much killing and misery that rational Gazans are driven to consider drowning at sea as a valid alternative to staying in Gaza. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any single bomb or attack during PE killed that many Palestinians.

      The article doesn't tell us how many Gazans have fled since the attack began. But one senses that this operation is up and running big time. There were 300 in one boat? How many boats have already left?

      Those tunnels under Rafah will stay open as long as it takes to empty Gaza. GoI will put up neon "Exit" signs over the tunnel entrances next.

      Once Gaza is cleared, which won't take long, the IDF will begin pounding the West Bank. Picking off unarmed Palestinians one at a time is not that effective; besides, individual killings produce more blow-back than killing 1000-2000 at a pop.

  • Israel's tunnels aim to Judaize Jerusalem and are approved by Supreme Court
    • Holy wee-wee, Mondoweissians, am I reading this right??? Is Oren now attacking the settlements program?

      Speaking at the fourteenth International Conference of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya he is quoted as saying . . .

      Oren also sharply criticized the Israel's government's failure to handle the global BDS movement, in his words, naming it "a failure and a very real abandonment" of its own people.

      The solution to all of the above, he claimed, is for the political right to present its own "peace plan."

      "The time has come for the ideological Right to mature, and lay on the table its own diplomatic initiative," Oren said, "an initiative to end Israel's control over the Palestinian population [in Judea and Samaria]."

      "It is upon us to set borders which would include the maximum number of Israelis and holy places, as well as to maximize security arrangements," he continued. "Israel's leadership must make this courageous decision."

      Well, not so breath-taking after all -- GoI sets the borders and the Palestinians have no say. Oh, . . . the UN has already set the borders??? Screw them.

  • The proportion of Gaza's children who were killed should shock conscience of weapons-suppliers
    • Nazmi,

      This would be a very useful article and I would like to cite it in my own blog, but you give no source or authority for your numbers that I can see. This would be a far, far more powerful piece if we could see the source of your data.

      You purport to give accurate figures, but they are not consistent with other sources. For instance, you claim 2140 total deaths -- certainly an appalling figure. But Kate's figure in her Sep06 MW article says 2154.

      My point is not to dispute the numbers but to kevetch about unsourced "facts" -- particularly facts tabularized to make them look official and easier to sell.

      Where do these numbers come from? is a question any skeptical reader should ask.

      BTW, I caught the subtle joke in the headline, and I love it: "conscience of weapons-suppliers." LOL

      If weapons suppliers had a conscience, the serial genocide in Palestine would not be happening and the body counts in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Nigeria, . . . (name it) . . . would be near to nil. There are millions of Americans whose paychecks come from the blood of innocent people killed by American-made weapons.

      The BDS folks should be going rabid over McDonnell Douglas/Boeing, Raytheon, Colt, . . . A lot of the millions of American $$ per day to GoI you allude to comes right back into the pockets of union members (and politicians, of course) all across America.

  • Gaza goyim jailbreak
    • Phil and annie, thank you both for addressing this semantic point. I find these racial/cultural epithets fascinating.

      On one level "goy" is a bit of a spoofer -- like who really cares? And in an article about a mixed Jewish/gentile family, the word seems perfect. (BTW, I look forward to these reports from the annual family mash-up. I'm trying to figure out how I can marry into one side or the other so I can see the whole dynamic unfold in person. Great reality TV idea here.)

      But I, personally, don't know a single person who would be offended by "goyim"; although annie has said that she is. That tells me that maybe my friends and family and I are too provincial to get the (sharp) point of it.

      But there are interesting and more general issues at play in this subject. Like: is it more alright for the subjects of a derogatory term to use the term to refer to themselves? One of the reasons I loved Richard Pryor was the way he drove the word "nigger" into the ground. But he could do that and get away with it b/c he was; a) black, and b) very funny. Wouldn't have worked for Johnny Carson. By making it funny Pryor threw the word back into the face of people who use it malevolently.

      And I think that's the point with these types of dicey words -- what is the intent of the person using it? Often the intent -- Pryor's intent -- is to emphasize that there really are differences in races and cultures and those differences are always interesting and sometimes funny.

      But when the intent is obviously malicious, most often today it's the person using the dicey word that gets tarred. The repugnance with "nigger" is so strong and so universal today, I don't think even Pryor could get away with using it. I feel squeamish even putting it in quotes.

      My guess is most gentiles are as clueless as I am -- couldn't care less if someone called me a "goy" b/c I am oblivious to the fact that Jews may considered it a slur. I always saw it as a "soft slur," like "cracker," which is a pretty funny epithet when you think about it.

      And when I use the anagram "GoI" for Government of Israel, I mean absolutely no offense to Bibi . . . LOL. At least I don't derive the anagram from Government of Yisrael. That would be too obvious.

      NB: I would point out, for whatever it's worth, that the spell-checker for this blog doesn't recognize "goy" or "goyim."

    • annie, you've roundly criticized me for using "goyim" and yet you don't seem to have any problem with Phil's headline.

      Hypocrisy, double-standard, or myopia?

  • Tough Hillary Clinton says 'dreadful' pictures of dead women and children make it hard to get at truth-- Hamas is to blame
    • The Beinart take-down of HRC was excellent, particularly for those of us who can't keep up with the details of all of the failed "peace negotiations." Not sure why Axlerod's middle-finger tweet got all the attention.

      After digesting Beinart's piece it really becomes evident how tightly choreographed the Clinton/Goldberg "interview" was. They must have sat down together beforehand, possibly with Oren and Frank Luntz, to get all the talking points organized. John Oliver just did a piece ripping into The Atlantic, NYT et al. for their "native advertising" approach to "news." That's all the Goldberg piece was -- native advertising paid for by GoI.

      HRC has obviously made the calculation that mom 'n pop America has not yet rejected Israeli apartheid, either that or that GoI shekels coupled to a feminist flood of support will be enough to overcome the rising revulsion Main St. Americans feel w/ GoI's atrocities. Heaven help the Palestinians if she ever gets elected.

    • (On the other hand, the sum of the numbers on a roulette wheel is 666, as Sheldon Adelson must surely know.)

      I that with one "0" or two?

  • Librarians give New York subway riders a taste of Palestinian literature to protest Gaza assault
  • Israel shells another UN school-- and even the US is 'appalled'
    • But, but . . . hold on. Surely GoI has an explanation. They always do. (And it's always the same.)

      Perhaps you have seen Adam Johannes of Stop the War Coalition "quick guide to Israel's PR methods."

      1. We haven’t heard reports of deaths, will check into it.
      2. The people were killed, but by a faulty Palestinian rocket/bomb.
      3. Ok we killed them, but they were terrorists.
      4. Ok they were civilians, but they were being used as human shields.
      5. Ok there were no fighters in the area, so it was our mistake. But we kill civilians by accident, they do it on purpose.
      6. Ok we kill far more civilians than they do, but look at how terrible other countries are.
      7. Why are you still talking about Israel? Are you some kind of anti-Semite?

  • Tariq Abu Khdeir goes to Washington -- and finds surprising support
    • Ha, ha, ha . . . "navel threat." That would be very fuzzy.

    • Interesting . . . early this morning (Aug04) The Guardian ran a strikingly large headline to the effect that UK was reevaluating defense contracts w/ GoI. Now, a few hours later, the story is still there but buried in the small-print headlines -- ya' really gotta' dig for it and anyone who didn't see the original headline probably wouldn't do that. Here it is:

      Like the UK, the US also has statutory and treaty provisions limiting how arms sold to GoI can and can't be used. The primary statute is the Arms Export Control Act. I've reviewed these provisions and I can certify that bombing UN schools and refugee centers is not among the permissible uses.

      Given that these are provisions of treaty and federal law one would think they could be enforced by the courts, but it would take a lawyer who is a lot more clever and knowledgeable than I am to figure out how to do that and who has standing. Hostage, you there?

      When it comes to beating up on defenseless populations they have subjugated for decades, GoI comes across as a military powerhouse. It isn't. The image is 90% facade. IDF's fearsome tanks, for instance, cannot be built or operated without parts from the UK, US, and other nations. In fact, with no raw materials, Israel has virtually zero manufacturing capability. I doubt that it can even produce a single rifle without importing parts and/or materials. Its only navel threat is its Dolphin class subs, which are supplied by Germany, meaning they supply the parts, too. And so its navy stays forever at the teat of an arms-exporting mother-source. That is doubly true for its air force. As we have seen in the last week, even GoI's very local genocidal campaigns cannot be sustained without re-supplies from USG. And so it is the arms exporters who are the Palestinians' real problem.

      But because so many billions of shekels flow back to these mother-sources, unless they are directly and adversely affected by GoI's insanity, they will never cut off the flow of military milk. There are no principles in this world and no conscience. Every analysis of why governments tolerate GoI's war crimes must begin and end with: Cui bono?

    • That a meeting like this would be packed by Congressional staffers is one of the most hopeful news details I have heard in a long time. But how the hell can their elected bosses keep supporting this butchery 100%?

      This kid's mom, Shua, is so peaceful and calm. She is wonderful. She loves that boy. My blood pressure drops 10 points just looking at her picture. And then it rebounds when I think about what the West Bank Kheiders are going through. Don't forget the IDF/IOF ransacked their house soon after the American cousins left Israel.

      I would like to raise a mixed political/semantic question: When a psychopath Zionist advocates genocide of the Palestinians, and when that position is published by a leading Zionist news outlet, are they including American-Palestinians like these folks?

      I mean, when you think about it, when the NY Haredi nut-case, Yochanan Gordon, and the toxic Knesset racist, Ayrley Shaked, and the pestilential Israeli academic, Mordechai Kedar, and the Times of Israel all call for genocide of Palestinians -- aren't they also calling for this Tampa family's extermination?

  • The member of Knesset who called for genocide -- against the mothers of the 'snakes'
    • Shaked and Mordechai Kedar were both able to play the genocide card without using the "G"-word.

      Yochanan Gordon showed the world he is just as hateful as those two, but not as smart. Going viral with the "G"-word has gotten him absolutely disemboweled online.

      Even his own father dumped his piece, probably because it was such a grammatical travesty as to be an embarrassment to the entire tribe, who are rumored to be quite articulate.

  • The threat of sanctions worked against Israel in 1956 -- and it can work again
    • Under 22 USC 2754 -- the Arms Export Control Act -- the president can cut off supply of arms and munitions to a friendly state if the president finds -- and reports to Congress -- that the state is using US arms for other than "internal security" or "legitimate self-defense". There is also a 1952 defense treaty w/ GoI that limits what GoI can do with US arms/munitions, and it ain't killing kids.

      There was an interesting report to Congress in 2005 that summarizes the few times these provisions have been used against Israel. In 1982 Reagan cut off sales of cluster bombs after the egregious GoI attacks on Lebanon. Of course, that didn't stop GoI from dropping over a million of the things, some of which have still not gone off.

      Reagan also very briefly suspended delivery of F-16's to GoI after Begin attacked Iraq's Osirak reactor.

      Report here:

      Yeah, so what's Obomber done? After more phony, ineffectual whining about the Gaza travesty, he agrees to top up Bibi's munitions. Wouldn't want GoI to run out of mortar rounds, would we?? There are UN refuge centers waiting to be dusted. CNN:

      While there were calls on Israel to do more to protect civilians, the United States also agreed to Israel's request to resupply it with several types of ammunition, a U.S. defense official told CNN on condition of anonymity. It's not an emergency sale, the official said.

      Among the items being bought are 120mm mortar rounds and 40mm ammunition for grenade launchers, the official said. Those will come from a stockpile the United States keeps in Israel, which is worth more than $1 billion.

      Obama was a disingenuous, inept, flim-flam artist when he duped the country in 2008. Nothing has changed except that fewer (even on the left) are being duped. He will be seen as one of the worst, most spin-happy, spineless President's in the country's history.

      Here's his next flam: Once he talks Kiki Ginsburg into resigning from the USSCt, he'll resign from the WH and Biden will immediately nominate him to her seat. Obomber has the Senate set up so only a majority is needed to confirm judicial appointments, so he's golden. But only until Jan04; after that the Republicans will control the Senate. Remember where you heard it. . .

  • 9 things the American media isn't telling you about Israel/Palestine
    • "How many Israelis died for the US?"


      And however many it was, subtract the 34 Americans killed by IAF attack on the USS Liberty to get the net Israeli sacrifice for America. My calculator says -34.

  • How many would be alive today if Obama had not quashed Goldstone Report?
    • Obama certainly deserves his share of the spotlight in that Goldstone travesty, but don't forget that the House passed a resolution 344-36 opposing any endorsement of the Report by Obama. I cannot recall a single US politician who stood with Goldstone. Maybe if they had, Goldstone would not have buckled. He was a hero, now he's a tragic not-so-hero. But the solid front of American politicians against him and his report is one of the most explicit single messages I've seen making clear who calls the tune in the US.

      As I opined in a thread to Alex's Jul24 piece on the Gaza inquiry, the lesson learned from Goldstone is that a Jew cannot be given the task/honor of leading investigations of Israel. Not even fair-minded, objective Jews can resist the Zionist pressure, particularly when the pressure is directed at your children. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there were threats of violence from Shin Bet that we will never hear about. No doubt GoI learned how much damage such UN reports can do and they won't wait until the new report is written to create havoc with it.

      I suggested Roger Waters would be a good one to lead the new inquiry. Bansky would be a good candidate too, but he'd have to be incognito. Helen Thomas would have been the best of all. I miss that old girl.

  • Joan Rivers slams CNN and BBC coverage of Gaza -- 'you're all insane'
    • She's 81. Say whatever you want about what's between her ears and what comes out her mouth, she looks and moves and is as quick mentally as a 45 yo. As the lady in Katz's Diner said, I'll have what she's having.

      Note how she uses first person plural throughout in reference not only to being a New Yorker but also a . . . well, what?

      Rivers (agitated): "We say get out . . . of course we're gonna' do it." [W/ respect to responding to Palestinians w/ weapons in their homes.]

      What is this "we" sh*t? Does her "we" mean we Jews or we Israelis or we geriatrics, or what? I think the Dude referred to it as the "editorial we, man."

      It's a good question: when an American Jew says "We had no option but to attack Gaza." what does that pronoun mean? Do American Catholics or Buddhists use "we" when talking about Israel? Is GoI the 51st state? Don't think so.

      That tiny pronoun is an outer glimmer of one's inner apartheid.

  • U.S. casts lonely vote against establishing war crimes inquiry in Gaza
    • Syc: looking at what happen to Goldstone . . .

      Indeed. Let's look at what happened to Goldstone.

      When Goldstone excoriated GoI for Cast Lead and raised the specter of prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the Israeli politicians went off like anti-personnel mines on hot pavement. Peres called the report a “mockery of history.” Barak, who was responsible for the entire genocidal event, called the report “unconscionable.” Bibi called the Goldstone Mission a “kangaroo court.” Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz denounced Goldstone as an “anti-Semite.” A huge amount of pressure was put on the US administration to quarantine the report. Congress, funded and directed by America's Zionist Jews, tried to sink the report. In Nov. 2009 the House passed a resolution 344-36 to oppose any endorsement of the report by Obama. That's 10-freaking-to-one. The Israeli press and politicians were all over the resolution, like flies on the bodies the IDF left behind.

      And then the Zionists went after Goldstone's daughter, Nicole. Foxman called on Goldstone to repudiate his own report, saying: “I know you to be a proud Jew who serves on the Board of Trustees of Hebrew University and who has a daughter living in Israel," which was seen by many as a not-so-subtle threat against her.

      Eventually Goldstone scummed to the hateful invective of Zionist Jews -- who knows what sorts of threats he and Nicole received from Shin Bet. She was vilified publicly and I believe she ended up leaving Israel. In what at first looked like an April Fool’s joke, on Apr01.2001 Goldstone published an op-ed in the Washington Post. Taking an “if-I’d-only-known-then-what-I-know-now” approach, Goldstone walked-back his own personal conclusions in the GR that IDF had purposefully targeted civilians in Cast Lead.

      Well, what did he learn after the report was published that changed his mind? Recall that GoI resolutely refused to participate in the UN’s investigation. What GoI did instead was to have the IDF investigate themselves. And they did this behind closed doors. And they concluded – surprise! – that there were no problems. IDF did everything according to the book and the problem was that the Palestinians kept getting in the way of the IDF cluster bombs and WP shells. Like that pesky Halima family of 5 who were killed when the IDF dropped white phosphorus bombs on the family home. Or that al-Simouni family of 29 who were all killed in their beds late at night when the IDF dropped a bomb on their house.

      After reviewing the IDF’s investigation of itself, Goldstone was, apparently, alright with the IDF murders. For instance, that nasty bombing of the al-Simouni family was just a regrettable human error, said Goldestone in his WaPo piece, “apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image.” And so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut would say.

      No doubt that after Goldstone retracted his “anti-Semetic” criticisms of Israel, Nicole found fewer cold shoulders in Tel Aviv or Brooklyn, or wherever she was, and Goldstone proved himself to be the “proud Jew” deserving of Foxman’s assessment.

      But the Goldstone Report was not the product of just one man. It was the product of an intensive investigation and writing effort of an entire team – the Mission. Goldstone does not own the report he is named for any more than Amerigo Vespucci owned America, and Goldstone’s after-opinion of the Report is of no greater import than the opinion of any other member of the Mission or any member of the Human Rights Council, which accepted the Report. Nobody else backed off.

      Hopefully, the Human Rights Council has learned a lesson and will choose someone to lead the investigation of the present GoI war crimes who is beyond peer pressure of Zionist Jews. Maybe a Mormon. Or Roger Waters would be perfect.

  • Israeli strike kills four Palestinian children playing soccer on Gaza beach
  • Rachel Maddow ignores the story in Israel/Palestine
    • xanadou: hyping her irrelevant sexual identity which is often and inexplicably conflated with having a radical/progressive personality

      That is so well put. It brings to mind the 2011 incident where she accused PolitiFact for calling her out for total BS. She claimed the criticism was because "if you squint, I look like a man."

      See: "Maddow plays the butch card"

    • Well, don't be too hard on her. Show her a little patience. As soon as one side or the other takes out a LGBT, she'll really, really be all over it. Really.

      She sickens me almost as much as O'Reilly and his crowd of wing-nuts.

      But your timing was perfect, Michael. FAIR has just come out with some research that places Maddow at the absolute bottom of the barrel as far as diversity goes.

      The other disturbing, but hardly surprising, finding of the study that the most common category of guests for the cable pundits is other pundits. I think that's called a "circle jerk." It's one of the many reasons so many Americans do not have cable, do not have a TV, and smoke way too much dope. You can get more and better information gazing at your belly-button than wasting your time with Maddow and her ilk.

  • Israel's message to the Palestinians: Submit, leave or die
    • With all due respect, Jeff, I must say . . . this article deserves an enormous amount of just that: respect. I have waded through miles of MW posts over the years and this sticks out as being among the very best in terms of information content, tone, and logic. Thanks.


      Israel has in fact left us with only one workable, just and lasting way out: a single democratic state in Palestine/Israel that guarantees the individual and collective rights of all its citizens. This is what we must struggle for."

      The sad and tragic irony is that this seems to be awfully close to what both Herzl and Balfour suggested a century ago.

      But for the life of me, I cannot see how a single democratic state in Israel/Palestine can ever come to be. The Palestinian birth rate alone obviates any chance of that ever happening. Does anyone think the Zionists are going to allow majority rule in a land in which they are the minority? Not a hope in hell. Does anyone think that the Israelis will ever let a Palestinian majority control the Knesset, the military, and the nukes? Not a hope in hell.

      But then again, in 1965 most of us would have said there is not a hope in hell of a black US president in our life time. In 1980 most of us would have said there is not a hope in hell of black rule in South Africa in our life time. Even when there is no hope in hell there is still hope.

  • Boston transit authority pulls 'apartheid' ads-- for 'demeaning' Israel
    • Looks primarily like a contract issue to me, but it will be the 1st Amend that is used to beat MTA over the head. Good.

      Richard Colbath-Hess, Jewish co-founder of Ads Against Apartheid:
      “I’m Jewish . . . [a]nd, I don’t support Israeli apartheid.”

      I absolutely love this guy. That line HAS to be the basis of his next ad campaign. When that thought becomes the mantra of the majority of American Jews, Congress will change its tune and Bibi will go the way of Pik Botha and his hateful politics of oppression.

      Folks on the Red Line, Blue Line, and Green Line had been passing these signs for three weeks and probably weren't even noticing them anymore. Now -- Bam!! -- the whole issue grabs the blogosphere's attention all around the world. AAA's prayers have been answered by idiot AmerZionists who don't understand the meaning of free speech in America even after they got good and spanked by the Olympia Food Coop.

      Even the NYT is stomping on the Zionists for gagging free speech in the press in Israel. And a purty good middle finger op-ed by Robt. Mackey it is, too.

      I forget what happened to Geller's posters. Seems like there was some litigation or vandalism or something that brought that campaign to a premature end.

  • Three of six accused Israeli murderers said to confess
    • Very helpful compilation, Kate. Thank you.

      I note this point made by Harretz:

      What looks like the speedy solving of the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir of Shoafat is an impressive achievement for two organizations that have been severely criticized in the media over the past few weeks, the Shin Bet security service and the Israel Police.

      What was impressive about it? There were multiple eye-witnesses who identified both the white car and the black car. They gave the cops license numbers. There was video evidence, including 10 seconds showing clearly the faces of two of the perps. Even the Keystone Cops could have looked up license numbers in the database and made a bust in a few hours. And Harretz wants to turn this horrible story into a forensic victory for the Israelis? Doused with gas and set on fire . . . my God. Yeah, let's focus not on psychopathic Jews but on "impressive" cops.

    • Page: 5
  • Family of Tarek Abu Khdeir calls for his immediate release after brutal beating and arbitrary arrest
    • Yeah, it brings to mind that MW piece of about a year ago re: the US embassy's 'tude on helping Americans: Don't call us unless you're Jewish.

  • Real and surreal in occupied Palestine
    • Marc: The surreal is real.

      Yes, and in the never-never land of Israel, revenge is justice.

      Chana Rosenfelder at Israel Hayom, speaking for all Jews, apparently, or at least the males:

      But, at the end of the day, when a Jew says, “We want revenge,” what he means is, “We ‎want justice.”

      Sure, Chana, in the upside down world of I/P, the Khdier killing was not revenge; it was justice. That’s just the way God’s Chosen People do things, according to Zionists like her. Being the Chosen People means you make your own rules -- and due process isn't one of them.

      Here's Bibi's due process: in a blatant middle-finger salute to America’s principles of due process and presumption of innocence, Bibi ordered the destruction of the homes of un-indicted/un-convicted Aysha and Kawasme. Why? B/c he runs the place and that's the only reason he needs. The High Court has said as much.

      For the Aysha and Kawasme homes weren't the only ones in Hebron destroyed by Bibi this week. The Israeli High Court said: sure, it’s fine under Israeli law to destroy the home of Ziad Awad, who was convicted of killing an Israeli cop. After all, his wife and son must have known about the killing. This is what passes for due process for the Chosen People in Zion.

      From my Constitutional classes, the impression I have of the history of the Chosen People in America is that they have been very, very sensitive to due process. For instance, they were disproportionately active in defending due process through the civil rights dust ups, and they seem to be always conspicuous in the fight for individual liberties in the US, which, I take to be the point of this entire website.

      I dunno’ what went wrong with that lot in Zion. Too many of them from Russia, maybe.

  • Israel needs no proof to kill Palestinians for teens' death, Israeli colonel says
    • Hostage: With friends like him, Palestinian citizens of Israel and residents of East Jerusalem don’t need any enemies.

      Uh. . . we'er talking about the West Bank here, Hostage. Your comment is, like, total non sequitur. Carter's plain-language and persistent calling out GoI over Palestine is not equaled by any white guy in the world, certainly given his status as a former president. Your calling him an enemy of Palestinians is an example of how your pedantry tends toward sophistry.

      Get yourself a copy of Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." It has done more to turn the world against Israeli apartheid than any other single book or piece of journalism ever written -- and certainly more than all of the UN resolutions that have been passed into oblivion over the decades.

      But don't take my word for it, consider those wacko Zionists who sued Carter for $5M over his book -- Unterberg et al. v. Jimmy Carter (11 cv 0720), filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in February, 2011. They asserted that nobody has done more than Carter to "defame Israel" and to challenge its right to exist -- or, in my words, nobody has done more to call the Palestinian travesty a travesty. Zionist Jews attacking Carter because he attacked Israel as being apartheid is a very strong endorsement of my position, your irrelevant Muskie story notwithstanding.

      Note also that Carter has been regularly attacked by Uncle Abe Foxman, which is another very strong indication of Carter's stand against GoI.

      Or look at what the Palestinians themselves say. While pointing out, as you do, that Carter sees Israel's politics inside the 1967 line as a different issue from the issue of the right of Palestinian independence, the 2006 WSJ opinion of Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifida, support my position 100%:

      President Carter has done what few American politicians have dared to do: speak frankly about the Israel-Palestine conflict. He has done this nation, and the cause of peace, an enormous service by focusing attention on what he calls “the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine’s citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank.” The 39th president of the United States, the most successful Arab-Israeli peace negotiator to date, has braved a storm of criticism, including the insinuation from the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League that his arguments are anti-Semitic. [Bold added]

      You need to rethink your position on Carter. Unlike a UK journalist, an American politician knows he's playing with a deck stacked by the Jewish press and Jewish influenced Congress. Carter's tactic of dividing the I/P problem in two and attacking GoI harshly on Palestine while stroking them as regards their own "internal" affairs was brilliant. Reagan, Clinton, Bush, or Obama should be so brilliant -- or so honest. Enemy of the Palestinians, my tush.

    • Of course he does. He's the one writing half of the hasbara comments that appear here.

    • Chu, thank you. I was looking for a segue to this article by Robt. Fisk of the Independent. This is a must-read; this is the guy you are looking for.
      Independent Jul01.2014

      Fisk is one of the most highly respected journalists in the world. He has been on the Palestine/Israel beat since 1976 and has lived in Beirut since then. He was the first white guy to get into Sabra and tell the world about the Israelis' crimes. He knows more about the ME than Rudoren and all her NYT buddies combined.

      A clip from Fisk's article:

      But the obscene theatre of the Israeli-Palestinian war follows a script as scandalous as it is lethal. This week, the Israeli Prime Minister called the Palestinians who killed three Israelis “beasts”. So what? Didn’t Menachem Begin call Palestinians “two-legged animals” in 1982? And then Begin unleashed thousands of Israeli air raids against them – just as Netanyahu says that Hamas “will pay” for these latest deaths.

      And now President Shimon Peres says that Israel will “punish the villainous terrorists with a firm hand”. Yet how many media folk will recall today that this is the same Shimon Peres who as Prime Minister launched the 1996 war against “terrorism” which led directly to the mass killing at Qana? [Where GoI shelled a UN refuge camp killing over 100.] None. For the one thing which is forbidden in the Middle East is an institutional memory.

      Back in the 1960s, Israel launched air strikes against “terrorists” in Lebanon. Countless thousands of air raids later, they were still staging air strikes to “wipe out terrorism” in Lebanon or to “root out the evil weed of terrorism” (Begin) – the 1982 Lebanon invasion costing around 17,000 lives – and during the siege of Gaza (2008-9) with its more than 1,100 Palestinian dead and 13 Israeli dead (four killed by their own side). President-elect Obama was silent on that – but voluble today, when he condemned “this senseless act of terror against innocent youth”.

      This guy is pulling no punches. He writes as if he's a contributor to MW (only he doesn't quote NYT like it's the only news source in the known universe). Fisk and Jimmy Carter are probably the two best known people with the guts to call the Palestinian travesty a travesty.

  • What did Israeli officials know about the missing teens, and when did they know it?
    • Thanks, Sycamores. Much better explained than my attempt.

      Now I'm trying to run down the details of Jun13. Ynet claims the cops found the Hyundai at 12:30pm on that date. ToI claims GoI released the names of the suspects, but doesn't give the time.

      If they released the names of the suspects before they found the car, it would be very suspicious.

    • At this early stage after the gag was lifted one would expect some disagreement on the time line, and that Ynet piece is an interesting example. It says that an hour passed between the shooting and the car being torched.

      Horovitz & Ginsburg at ToI said the post-shooting timeline went like this:

      The killers then drove a further 10 minutes or so before switching vehicles. They abandoned the Hyundai i35, a relatively new vehicle, and set it on fire.

      Now the ToI piece seems to change every time I look at it, so no telling what it will say if you check it out, but that's a cut/copy as of 7am PDT, Jul01.

      Also, my GE places Dura at 31°30'22.07" N 35°01'33.83" E, which is well SOUTHEAST of Hebron, not north, as Ynet says.

      Dura is just 15 miles south via Rt60 from where the kids were picked up. How could it take an hour to drive 15 miles and why would they haul the bodies 8 miles back toward the scene of the shooting to bury them at Halhul?? There's plenty of empty land just 3 mi. east of Dura where the bodies would never have been found.

      But my point is this: All of this info can only come from IDF. If the journalists are getting stories that differ so drastically in such a major way, it's b/c the IDF is floating contradictory info. Maybe that's a result of "the fog of kidnapping" or maybe this is another al-Dura (the boy, not the town) situation where GoI moves in and destroys or confuses the evidence to the point nobody will be able to sort it out.

  • Missing Israeli teens found dead near Hebron; Netanyahu: 'Hamas is responsible and Hamas will pay'
    • Over 200 comments. Thank you, Adam, for keeping this thread open. This is one of the most important threads MW has ever published.

      It feels like we're on the edge of an abyss and the wall is beginning to crumble beneath our feet. By "we" I guess I mean everybody who cares about Palestine. Maybe I should say "they," meaning the Palestinians. They are the ones who will have to face off with stones vs. F-16's.

    • Yeah, Taxi, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is in order. But the GoI line is that the kids were kidnapped for exactly the reason you say, but when the bad guys realized the good guys made a phone call, the whole plan went south. One version has the kids being tapped while the phone line was still open.

      Someone above raised the question of how does one make a cell call while being tied up. [Sorry I'm too lazy to wade back through the comments.] It's an excellent point. ToI has reported that the bodies all had their hands bound. No idiot would have bound the kids' hands after they were killed, so if they were tapped while the phone call was live as according to IDF, then the 2 min. phone call had to be placed by a teenager packed into the back of a small car with two other guys all three of whom had their hands tied.

      This is never-never land, as in never happened.

      I took a lot of heat here for being skeptical about the Nakba murders, and I'm still skeptical. We have yet to see the autopsy report; just "leaks," and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. I am equally skeptical about how this triple murder went down, meaning I am skeptical that there was a triple murder. When unanswered questions are accumulating faster than answered ones, any conclusion is premature.

    • frankier: Surely, the mainstream media are not making this connection that would, somehow, put things in perspective.

      It does seem obvious, doesn't it. I wrote in a comment to Marc's Jun15 post:

      Personally, I am struck by the symmetry of three Palestinian boys being shot and three Israeli boys nearly the same age disappearing almost exactly 1 month later. I like symmetry; it makes things symmetrical, as George Bush might say.

      Times of Israel has put up a very detailed timeline that had to come from GoI.

      Already things are not making sense:
      1. The three kids were put in the back seat of a tiny Hybudai i35 at 10:15 pm.

      2. At 10:25 one of them makes the call to the cops, lasting 2:09. How in hell does a kidnap victim packed into the back seat of a small call with the kidnappers in the front make a call that lasts 2 minutes?

      3. The kidnappers realized the call was made and immediately tapped all three kids.

      4. Afraid the cops knew the gig was up, at about 10:37 they put the bodies in another car and torched the Hyundai. Why? If they thought the cops knew the ID of their car, why torch it and let every IDF stiff in Palestine know exactly where it is?

      5. They continue to Halhul (5 mi. south of where the kids were picked up) and bury the bodies on land owned by family of one of the alleged kidnappers. Now we are completely in never-never land. What Palestinian would be stupid enough to kill three Israeli kids and plant the bodies on, say, their uncle's land? I mean, what would be the point? Of course, if you were IDF looking for a place to plant diversion bodies, that's exactly where you'd dig.

      We will never -- not in 1000 years -- know who those bodies really are. Does the IDF have three Palestinian bodies they could claim were the Israeli kids? Now there's a sick understatement.

  • One killed in protests as Israeli army takes control of Ramallah city center for first time since 2007
    • Allison: both the Israeli army and Palestinian Authority police attacked Palestinians on the streets of Ramallah in a coordinated effort

      So, who is the idiot here? Bibi? Or Abbas doing his step'n-fetch-it? This is like MLK helping Bull Connor hold the fire hose. The "unity government" is DoA.

      RT is reporting their offices in Ramallah have been ransacked by IDF. Dumb move. Millions of Americans recognize that RT is one of the few reliable news outlets for news on Israel.

      This statement is telling:

      The IDF said Sunday that the raid did not specifically target RT’s office. Rather the Hamas-linked Al-Quds TV channel was the target, due to its “inciting hatred against Israel and advocating terrorism,” the Israeli forces said in a statement.

      The IDF publicly claims the right to be judge, jury, and executioner in shutting down free speech. We know that's the way they operate, but to come right out and say it -- chutzpah. Due process? What's that? It's only the corner-stone of civilized nations. Somebody get Pam Geller on the line.

  • What evidence is there that teens were abducted?
    • just, I find that photo creepy, too.

      I was even more creeped-out by the CNN interview w/ Siam Narawa and the way he was smirking while talking about how the bullet passed through his son's body and ended up in the back-pack.

    • pitor: It is a bit hard to see what kidnappers could learn from disclosed details that they do not know.

      Assuming the kidnapping was authentic, the phone call means at least two things:
      A. the kid had a live phone w/in reach of a tower.
      B. the kidnappers didn't know the kid had the phone.

      But the international press publishing the fact that the call was made eliminates "B" -- b/c the kidnappers then learn that of their victims has a phone. That in turn eliminates "A" b/c the kidnappers would obviously find the phone and either run the battery down playing Angry Birds or destroy it -- either way there is no hope of tracking the phone.

      Mind you, this is not a guess as to what actually happened. It is part of the reason for thinking the kidnapping is a fake. If it were real, no authorities with the collective intelligence of a kumquat would ever advertise to the world that the call was made.

    • piotr: at 10:30 pm one of them made a phone call, conversation took 2 minutes, he whispered “we are kidnapped”, not clear what took the rest of the time, on hold? he did not say by whom or in what kind of place they are

      This point has been noted in other threads and it's a durn good one and raises some interesting questions in my mind, which is where most of my questions arise.

      First, note that nobody has said that the ONLY thing the kid said was "we are kidnapped." Obviously, if the call was 120 seconds long there would have been time to communicate a considerable amount information. The fact that all of that information has not been published means absolutely nothing. Authorities never, ever reveal publicly all of the information they have on abductions -- to do so would be insanity. Unlike a murder where the damage is already done, in a kidnapping the worst is potential. Only an idiot would release any information of this type.

      For instance, by letting the kidnappers know about the call they would know that they missed the phone. The phone should be sufficient to lead the rescuers directly to the kids. Every freaking cell phone in the world now has GPS capability, and, apparently, can be tracked by NSA or GCHQ, or GoI spy services. So why would GoI tell they kidnappers that they know one of the kids has a phone that is live?

      And so I find it curious that the fact of the phone call was leaked at all, never mind its content. There would be absolutely no value in the investigation of letting the world know the call was made, and yet releasing that information could put the victims in a very bad situation. So why would GoI drop that info-bomb and jeopardize the lives of the boys? No legitimate authority would ever release the fact that a call was made. So my bogus-sniffing radar is on high alert here.

      Seems to me that if you want to legitimize a false-flag kidnapping, you would want to give the world a juicy morsel of verifying "information." Having "leaked" that the boy made a call and said "my butt is kidnapped," or words to that effect, how could anyone then deny that there was, in fact, a kidnapping??

      And the post-unity timing is just waaay too perfect. Hamas??? C'mon, how big a presence does Hamas have in the WB? GoI wouldn't even let the Hamas members of the new gov't into the WB. The place was not suddenly flooded by Hamas kidnappers as a result of the unity government. The only thing that changed was the need for GoI to de-legitimize Hamas, and, hence, the unity govt.

      But if not Hamas, why does Abbas get into his step'n-fetch-it with Bibi over this and suggest the PA has evidence of Hamas involvement? Afraid he'll end up in a terminal lock-down like Arafat?

  • Kidnapped
    • Oooookay, Tax. Now not only are we bashing the sh^t out of the victims, we'll bash the sh^t out of their parents, too.

      And, by logical extension of your opinion, in those horrible kidnap cases like the Ariel Castro case in Cleveland where the victims disappear without a clue, we'll blame the victims and their families b/c, hey, anybody but the actual kidnapper must be responsible.

      By characterizing teenagers hitch-hiking as "a serious case of child-neglect," you indicate that you are totally out of touch with 1) what it means to be a teenager, and 2) what raising a teenager is all about. Sure, keep them locked in their bedrooms.

      You're just looking for some way to deflect attention from the obvious: this was most likely a tit/tat for the Nakba killings. Even MK Hanin Zoabi has all but acknowledged that.

    • annie: but it’s so normal for israel y hasbarists to apply the “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks approach” to their crimes it seems only fair we apply it.

      Um . . . annie. I think you're being taken in here. That BS from "Abierno" suggesting he has info that this is a Mossad op is just him throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, and you are the wall -- and it is all freaking sticking. Just like your rumor that one of the kidnapped kids was special forces and another was a paratrooper.

      Maybe pull back a little bit here and try some of Aretha Franklin's O-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-I-T-Y. Oh, hold on . . . I got the letters wrong. But you know what I mean -- tighten up on your objectivity filter a bit so these clowns don't take you for a ride.

      R-E-S-P-E-C-T, that's the one. And I do.

  • Israeli army seals Hebron, saying Hamas is responsible for abducted teens
    • @Allison: While the Israeli Defense Forces and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said today that they have evidence Hamas is responsible for the abduction, the Palestinian Authority has indicated that Hamas did not carry out the kidnapping.

      ToI is reporting that the PA is moving away from Hamas on this issue.

      1) If Hamas is found to be guilty, the unity pact is over.
      2) Referring to an unnamed PA official: "The assessment in Palestinian intelligence circles, the official went on, is that Hamas, or a faction within Hamas, is responsible for the kidnapping, as Netanyahu has charged."

      It raises the question, with all of the talk about taking GoI to the ICC, if these kids turn up dead and were killed by Palestinians, could Palestine be dragged before the ICC? I mean, is there a certain status-threshold to be considered criminally liable as a country?

  • Missing!
    • @a blah chick: “It would be irresponsible not to speculate.”

      Of course. But there are rules here, too. I mean, you can take this speculation thing too far, eh?

      For instance, the ground rules here are that no speculation is allowed that would in anyway implicate the Palestinians or represent them as anything other than victims. That would be "irresponsible."

      All speculation must point to GoI, IDF, IOF, Bibi, Michael Oren, Scarlett Johansson or Sharon. Nevermind Sharon.

      Personally, I am struck by the symmetry of three Palestinian boys being shot and three Israeli boys nearly the same age disappearing almost exactly 1 month later. I like symmetry; it makes things symmetrical, as George Bush might say.

      But don't get me wrong, I would never suggest a tit-for-tat reprisal by Palestinians, who are blameless. Or, if not blameless, then justified.

    • MDM: One of the ‘boys’ allegedly abducted was 19. By just about any standards, that makes him an adult. He would certainly be old enough to serve in the IDF.

      Yes, sir. Or ma'am. Conscription age is 18. Maybe he was on leave, or maybe undercover.

      I think you're on to something. The other two were 16 yo. And upthread annie tells us one of the three was a special forces guy and another of them was a paratrooper (not sure I know the difference). Or at least, that's what she said she read.

      So I think it's all coming together. Surely, this has "IDF" written all over it.

      I know, I know . . . quit calling you "Shirley."

    • annie: "i read yesterday one is in the special forces and another is a paratrooper. "

      Uh . . . Eyal Yifrah is 19, Gil-Ad Shaer is 16, and Naftali Frenkel is 16.

      So what you're putting down here is that one or both of the 16 year olds is either in the special forces or is a paratrooper. Assuming at the very least a year for basic and specialty training, they would have enlisted at 15.

      Seem unlikely, eh? Conscription age in Israel is 18.

  • What the MLA vote showed: Israel is losing the battle for liberal support
    • America's Zionists, are losing the battle for liberal support? Well . . . hang on, in this short but sharp analysis of Cantor's defeat, American Conservative writer Scott McConnell reckons that America's Zionists are losing the battle for conservative support as well, and I think that is far more significant.

      Until America gets a Republican president and congress that is willing to spank GoI for its mischief and demand an end to apartheid, Americans will just keep coughing up $8 million/day. Liberals alone are powerless to stop that, even if they were smart enough to want to.


      But it may be simply that conservative southern Republicans are beginning to get tired of neocons telling them they have to prepare to fight another war. Antiwar Republican Walter Jones won his North Carolina primary earlier this spring, standing strong against a major media assault by Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel. Now, in an election result that stunned political observers more than anything than happened in their lifetime, Cantor goes down before an underfunded Tea Party candidate.

  • Death comes to downtown Ramallah
    • ritzl, thanks for the link to the link to the video of the sandbag being shot by the 2nd Amendment freaks.

      Ha, ha, ha, I got such a laugh out if it. It absolutely exemplifies why they call those 2nd Amendment morons “hollow points.” The guy takes a 50 lb bag of sand, sets it on the ground, wraps it w/ bullet-proof protection, and then shoots it. I am 100% certain there will be no Nobel Prize awarded for this study.

      If you notice, he shoots the protected bag at or below the center of gravity. And surprise, surprise – the bag doesn’t fall over – proving??? Well, proving that if you shoot a bag of sand at or below the center of gravity with an M193 round nothing happens. And, now, just how do we extrapolate from this brilliant sandbag demonstration to the young man, Nawara, being shot in Beitunia?

      If you want to rely on the type of demonstration these hollow points carried out to prove your point, you would have set the 50 lb bag of sand on a table that was 4 feet high. Then you would have to remove the two rear legs of the table to simulate a bipedal target with it’s center of gravity 4 feet off the ground, which is what Mr. Nawara was. Then you would have shoot the bag in the upper 1/3, well above the center of gravity, comparable to where Mr. Nawara was shot. And I’ll let you figure out for yourself which way the sandbag would fall.

      We know the round that hit Nawara was moving at 2500-2700 ft/sec when it hit him b/c that is the velocity at which the IDF standard M193 round yaws and fragments when it hits a target, and the leaked info from the autopsy says they found fragments in his heart. His heart was destroyed – literally, unlike the way the hearts of all of us who have watched the CCTV versions of the event have been destroyed figuratively at the thought of such premeditated cruelty. It is a small bullet, but a high velocity one, and the kinetic energy of an object is a function of its velocity squared, which is 2700 x 2700. So from a pure Newtonian point of view I have difficulty with your assertion “What direction he fell in has absolutely nothing to do with the direction of the 5.56 bullet.”

      But the point I was making was that it is not correct and not fair at this point of our knowledge to assert that there is no evidence that could be used to support an alternative explanation, and the funny fall is one such piece of evidence. I am not saying that Nawara’s odd fall proves anything, but it is evidence that will be interpreted more than one way by an objective person. Your position that the fall is irrelevant is biased thinking from someone who has already jumped to his conclusion as to who the guilty party is. If the autopsy report says the entry wound was in the chest, then your analysis of the fall will obviously be a closer approximation of its relevance than mine.

      As I indicated above, my personal suspicion is that these two youngsters were executed by IDF/IOF. But there is a lot of information still out there that could flip that suspicion, or solidify it into a conclusion.

      My main concern is that this incident not fade away without a proper investigation; I only wish more people here at MW shared that concern.

    • Cliff, to suggest that there is no evidence that Palestinian's fired the live round is not 100% correct.

      According to leaked information, the autopsy report will establish that Nawara was killed by live fire. And we would almost have to extrapolate that finding to Salemeh, whose body was not autopsied. (Interestingly, next to nothing has been said about the first guy shot, Azzeh, who survived and is doing well. There should be no question regarding the type of ammo causing his wounds. So I don't know what's going on with that.)

      But the Nawara autopsy virtually takes any "rubber bullet" theory out of contention, at least as far as the fatalities go. I think it also takes Oren’s “doctored video” allegation out of contention.

      So now the Israelis have no option but to spin this thing as a Palestinian-on-Palestinian killing, as Brian seems to be doing. It's all they have. As outrageous and ridiculous as the allegation is, it has this one huge piece of video evidence supporting it: Nawara fell forward.

      At the moment he was killed, Nawara was diddy-bopping through an area he must have known to be a live-fire zone. He wasn't running, or dodging, or under any apparent stress. He was just walking. He knew that he was in a live-fire zone b/c Azzeh had just been shot there 44 minutes earlier, according to the time stamps on the CCTVs.

      One would think that most people would not be so carefree walking through a live fire zone. So Nawara's demeanor -- like all of those around him -- is odd in itself, but I don't think it's evidence of anything one way or the other necessarily. It's just one of many oddities in these videos.

      What is highly relevant is that Nawara was walking roughly N to S and he fell forward -- toward the S, toward the IDF/IOF positions. This suggests he was shot through the back from the N. If that is true, it would be very damning evidence against the Palestinians.

      First, it would mean the whole CNN "bullet-in-the-backpack" clip was play-acting BS.

      Second, there were no IDF to the N, only Palestinians. (This is particularly evident in Yisrael Puterman's video, which shows the whole area and how protestors were coming and going from the N, while IDF/IOF were deployed to the S.) A rifle shot from the N would virtually prove Nawara was shot by a Palestinian; one from the S would virtually prove it was the Israelis. Seems to me, it comes down to where the autopsy says the entry/exit wounds were.

      This vital point will be resolved by the full autopsy report but the info may already be out. I believe the Harratz report by Gili Cohen and Jack Khoury had some details indicating massive damage to the heart and the exit wound, but I failed to cut/copy that report when it was published on Jun11 and now it's firewalled. If anyone can get to it, it's here:

      This Jun12 Guardian report by Peter Beaumont is the most detailed I can now find. It says the autopsy will confirm that Narawa was killed by a bullet entering next to his nipple and exiting through his back. That would absolutely seal the case against the Israelis.

      In any event, I question the wisdom of some who employ hyperbole like saying this was a “spray of bullets.” That is factual nonsense and is not helpful in determining who is responsible.

      Assuming, as I think we almost must, that all of the injuries came from live fire, there were three rounds fired over a period of 2 hours, according to CCTV time stamps – Azzeh @ 13:00; Nawara @13:44, Salemeh @ 15:00.

      The two closest rounds were 44 minutes apart. Hardly a “spray.” The “spray of bullets” meme distorts a very, very important point. These were kill-shots and they were expertly placed, particularly if they came from the parking lot 250 meters away. This is not about a couple of unlucky kids walking into a spray of automatic fire. It is about an execution, times 2.

      I'm almost never sure what my point is, but in this case I think it's that Nawara's autopsy potentially seals the case against the IDF and turns Oren and the IDF mouthpieces into liars and laughing stock. OTOH if the report says that the exit hole was in Nawara's chest, it will seal the case against the Palestinians and relegate them to that deepest of PR hell-holes – “killing their own” – along with bogeymen Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad. Now that we know without doubt that it live fire, the direction from which it came means everything.

  • Tell FIFA to dump Israel now, urges international campaign
    • annie, my last comment was directed to talknic and his accusation that my question was "hasbara."

      Unlike talknic, I do not consider your style as "usual ad hominem". You and I have been at odds frequently over the years, and while your tone is often a sort of gentle-snarkiness, I have never considered it ad hominem. I consider it "feedback" b/c you get to the substance of the issue, whereas tn typically merely throws out his puerile "hasbara" insult without having anything worthwhile to add to the conversation.

      I apologize for being vague as to whom I was directing my comment.

    • Very helpful and very insightful, nic. As always. Maybe you could drop you're typical ad hominem long enough to take a shot at answering the actual question. Here, I'll give it to you again:

      If IDF unloaded 10 rounds into the feet of a Palestinian footballer just last March, then why isn’t that story the first thing out of the mouths of those who want to ban Israel from FIFA?

      It's an extremely valid question. If you call that "hasbara," either you don't know what the term "hasbara" means or you're too far down the bunny-hole to know what's valid and what isn't.

    • I must admit I am utterly confused by the lack of continuity between this report and annie's report of Mar05.2014. Of all of the egregious reasons to boot Israel out of FIFA what could be more egregious than the IDF targeting Palestinian football stars by shooting them in the feet and ending their careers? I mean, that story is freaking EXHIBIT “A” in the whole case against Israel and it is completely ignored here.

      Just last Mar05 annie wrote:

      On Jan 31st, without warning, Israeli forces attacked two young Palestinian athletes on their return home from football training in al-Ram in the central West Bank. They shot them repeatedly in the feet, unleashed attack dogs that mauled their arms and legs and dragged them hundreds of feet on the ground, beat them and broke their knees (video). The youths, cousins Jawhar Nasser Jawhar, 19, and Adam Abd al-Raouf Halabiya, 17, will never play competitive sports again. . . “Ten bullets were put into Jawhar’s feet. Adam took one bullet in each foot”

      And annie linked to The Nation, Amnesty Int’l, and a US State Dept news briefing. Here is al Jazeera’s report on the shooting:

      When I read annie’s account I says to m’self: Well, that’s the end of Israel in FIFA, and good riddance. I mean, to borrow a phrase coined by the Obama administration poet-in-residence, Joe Biden, this was “a big — bleep— ing deal.” That incident alone should be more than sufficient reason to make the case that Israel has no business being allowed to participate in ANY international sporting organization, and yet I do not see a single word about it anywhere in this article and I do not see Rajoub or Fryde or Lee referring to it.

      So what’s the deal here? Was that Mar05 incident a fake? Is it off the table? Has it been erased from blogosphere’s collective memory just like the two Nakba day killings soon will be?

      If IDF unloaded 10 rounds into the feet of a Palestinian footballer just last March, then why isn’t that story the first thing out of the mouths of those who want to ban Israel from FIFA? Somthin’ is not makin’ sense.

  • Let it go
    • IM, J.J. Goldberg's piece of Jun06, "Diaspora to Israel: We need you to change" is also very interesting in light of Phil's concerns.

      Goldberg begins by citing a new GoI $53M hasbara initiative aimed at diaspora. Nothing new there. Then, by way of contrast, he cites a 6-month study by the Jewish People Policy Institute about what diaspora Jews really want to hear from GoI.

      From Goldberg's summary of the study:

      The third theme, perhaps most alarming, was fear that Israel isn’t sufficiently alert to the damage its behavior does to its standing in the world — and, consequently, to Jews’ own standing and security in the countries where they live. . . Here’s a particularly striking passage: “[A] chief finding of our report is that a majority of Diaspora Jews expects Israel to uncompromisingly deploy Jewish and universal humanitarian values with respect to the rights of its minority citizens.”

      If I may be so impudent as to try and re-state Phil's concerns in Goldberg's words, what I understand Phil to be saying is that US Jews have to accept that GoI will never "uncompromisingly deploy Jewish and universal humanitarian values with respect to the rights of its minority citizens.” It is just not going to happen.

      Consequently, unlike other Americans, there comes a point in every sentient American Jew's life when he/she has to make an irrevocable decision between supporting what is right and buying into the Israel-as-my-homeland meme. It is not possible to do both.

      Eventually, Americans will come to see Israel as being inimical to America's interests and a military/nuclear threat, IOW as an enemy. Then things could get very difficult for American Jews who support Israel. And I'm thinking of the 18th century when tens of thousands of British subjects in America -- many of them high-ranking political and judicial figures -- had their property confiscated and thousands were hung b/c they refused to deny their allegiance to the British crown. I'm thinking of the 20th century when virtually all Japanese Americans were persecuted, imprisoned, and had their property confiscated as soon as Japan became an enemy. I'm thinking of the 21st century and the Islamophobic vitriol that arose out of the ashes of the WTC and fueled not just thousands of attacks on American Muslims, but the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims.

      Maybe "American" Jews who carry the Zionist dream in their hearts should not let it go. Maybe they should act on it, pack up, and re-settle where their heart is.

  • Houston stadium security detains soccer fan for waving Palestinian flag as 'racial slur'
    • It was Hostage who characterized this situation as on involving private property:

      Yes, the civil rights act applies to private property that affects interstate commerce and prohibits discrimination or denial of equal access,

      So you need to beat up on him over that point. But I think he's pretty much right on the private property point. It's not as simple an issue as, for instance, your living room.

      And he observed: It doesn’t really matter who owns it.

      And he's probably right there, too. B/c she doesn't have a free speech case in either instance. If she was on a public sidewalk, or a public park, or some other place where public discourse is expected, it would be different.

      The Houston stadium is run by a private concern. It was built by a private concern with a small percentage of public money, as these things are almost always done. That does not make it a public facility for free speech issues. The Houston Sports Authority provided public input in putting the package together and contributing to the construction costs, etc. If a government housing authority contributes to building your apartment with public money, that apartment is still private property when you move in.

      As I said, it really doesn't matter if it is a publicly owned facility as far as the free speech analysis goes. Hostage is wrong in his free speech analysis. Being a public facility is not what determines whether one's speech can be censored. A courtroom is a public place, too, that doesn't mean anyone can stand up and wave a Palestinian flag or Israeli flag or sit in the public stands w/ a KKK hood on.

      I admire Buthayna and her courage, and I agree with her message; I'm just trying to make the legal point that so-called "freedom of speech" does not mean the carte blanche right to say anything you want, at any time, in any manner, in any place. That doesn't mean one shouldn't say what they feel needs to be said, as Buthayna did, it just means they may not find any protection in the US Constitution when they get shut down.

      Freedom of speech is a limited right, and I don't see that her rights were violated in this case. Hostage is trying to make this into a legal case it isn't. There is no 1983 case here at all, so far as I can see. There is no discrimination in shutting down her political speech in a non-public forum. I think they handled it pretty well. In Israel, she'd be in administrative detention.

      I realize this is another pearls to swine situation, but I think the points raised are interesting and worthy of the back and forth in spite of talknic's typical ad hominem attacks when anyone says something he/she doesn't understand or agree with.

    • Unfortunately, Hostage has this one scrambled. The USSCt has clearly stated that there is no inherent right of free speech on private property in the US Constitution.

      The Commerce Clause has nothing to do with it. This is not a Heart of Atlanta case – nobody barred Buthayna from attending the game b/c she is Palestinian. If 1000 people had been waving Palestinian flags and the cops singled out just her, she might have a case, but it would be a discrimination case, not a free speech case. There is no free speech case here.

      Most of these free speech on private property cases are about shopping malls. In Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins [annie? that you?] the USSCt held that the US Constitution does not give individuals the right to freely express themselves on private property – IOW, so far as the US Constitution goes, private property rights trump free speech rights.

      Pruneyard also held that states, through their individual constitutions, can provider broader free speech rights than the US Constitution and may permit free speech to trump private property rights. That’s what happened in Pruneyard -- California had a constitution that was read to give people freedom of speech in some types of private property, the kind that is amenable to "public forum" activity. A mall food court was given as an example. Sidewalks and entrances were not.

      Unfortunately, almost no states provide this expansive free speech trumps private property provision, and certainly not Texas. The controlling Texas case appears to be Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz. 940 S.W.2d 86 (1997) Freedom of speech does not trump a private property owner’s right to control what is said on his/her property. Here:

      In fact, my guess is that b/c a sporting event is not an intended forum for public discourse, there’s likely no state in the country in which Buthayna would stand a snowball’s chance on a free speech argument, likely not even a public stadium.

      Here's a readable summary of this complex constitutional issue.

      BTW -- Israel won 4-2.

  • Some important details: Ben Ehrenreich on the Nakba Day shootings
    • Ellen: "It is two signatures short shy of reaching the needed 100,000 for submission." No, it has two signatures and 99,998 more are needed.

      Ellen: "Even if the UN conducted an investigation into the killing of these two boys, what good would that do?"

      Palestine is in a far different position now than even a couple years ago. As a non-member observer state to the UN, if an UN investigation found that IDF gunned down Nurwara and Salameh, it would put Palestine in a very good position to take charges to the ICC.

      This event is not particularly shocking compared to what American cops and SWAT teams do, like throwing a stun grenade into a baby's crib. But this case is international and could be prosecuted as a war crime.

      But even if, as you say, nothing happened as a result of a UN investigation, I think a petition with 100,000 Americans' names on it would be very, very significant nevertheless. At at that point this case would certainly get a lot of media attention and it would send a signal to both GoI and EU.

      But, WTF, a petition to deport Justin Beiber got over 270,000 signatures. And this one has, essentially, zilch. I wonder how many MW folks went to the trouble to sign the JB petition.

      By advertising the petition only on MW I was testing how sincere people here are about actually doing something. I would have thought there would have been at least 100 needed to put the petition on the WH webpage. Ha, ha, ha, . . . hypocrisy.

      Thanks for bringing up the 2004 Iman Al Hams case. I had not heard that one. I think it is the worst, even worse than the Corrie case. Horrible and sick.

    • Sorting these details out is so important. Thanks Ben. I’ve got a few points.

      Point 1:
      I did not find any graphic at the Guardian link Ben provides.

      The parking lot Ben refers to is clearly visible on GE. And that is consistent with the witness on the DCI vid who says the fire came from the parking lot.

      This kill-site is 31°53'07.96" N 35°10'30.32" E – the parking lot is at 31°53'01.19" N 35°10'37.75" E

      It really helps to review the Yisrael Puterman video to get a good look at the area. GoogleEarth doesn’t do StreetView of the WB.

      Point 2:
      It is ludicrous to show a snip of a video of an IDF guy firing a gun and then say, “Yep, that’s the one the killed the young man.” That goes for the CNN video and the EoZ video talknic shows. Those clips don’t mean a thing.

      Point 3:
      @ Ben: “. . .with the sort of extension that is attached to the barrel of an M16".

      Those are not M-16's in the videos. They are M-4's. You can tell by the vertical forward hand-grip.

      Point 4:
      talknic’s analysis of the blood – yep, that’s blood OK. I don’t think anyone ever doubted that. It’s the volume of the blood that’s in question. That’s about as much blood you’d expect if the guy got hit by a plastic or rubber bullet, or a knee-knocker. That pathetic trickle of blood would properly be taken as evidence that this second guy, Salameh, was not hit by a 5.56mm round, i.e. was not killed by an M-16 or M-4.

      What talknic needs to do is some gamma correction on the pavement so we can see the two pools of blood there. That would be extremely helpful.

      Point 5:
      talknic is confused on a number of points.

      In his May24 response to me at 1:17pm he said with respect to Salameh, who was shot in the back:

      “Who said here was an exit hole? He was wearing a satchel on his back. The bullet would have been slowed by the satchel and whatever it contained , not slow enough to stop him from being killed.”

      Huh? Sure, I guess one can make up any sort of facts one wants to fit one's pre-formed conclusions. But this is getting pretty extreme in the fiction dept, and there are at least a couple of reports from the doctors saying that both victims had entry and exit wounds.

      I have seen about 4 videos of this guy before he was shot. He stands out with his green flag. I don’t know what satchel talknic is talking about. I don’t see any satchel on this guy. The first guy, Nurawa, had a black backpack.

      Allison Deger reported on MW that the second guy, “Mohammed Awad Salemeh Abu Thaher”, 22, from Abu Khadem was killed just before 2:00 pm from a bullet to the lower abdomen. But the time on the CCTV clearly shows 14:59 when he hit the ground. One minute before 3 pm. So who knows what’s she’s reporting. But if Thaher/Salameh was shot in the lower abdomen, then why is the guy with the tiny trickle of blood on his fingers holding Salameh’s chest?

      Point 6:
      talknic then jumps to the “satchel” carried by Nurawa. In the CNN vid, this is not a satchel, it’s a backpack in which Nurawa’s father says he found a round that he hold up to the camera. The round shown on the CNN vid is absolutely a pristine 5.56mm round. No doubt. And I pointed out that those rounds fragment when they hit a body, but that round doesn't even have a scratch.

      talknic responded to my concern by saying, in effect: “See . . . the round is intact, so you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

      “Here’s a pic of the ‘baby’ that killed the first victim after passing through his chest through his body link to No sign of fragmenting. Here’s a pic of the neat hole it made in his satchel link to”

      Yeah, well my point was that the 5.56mm round the father held up for the cameras could not have passed through a target and into a backpack and been stopped by a book without fragmenting and being pretty well beat up. IOW, . . . hello . . . maybe something is not adding up here.

      Point 7:
      @Ben: “. . .Abu Thaher, who was shot about an hour later, and was standing in the middle of the road”

      The guy’s name was originally reported by Rudoren of NYT and Khoury of Harretz as Thaher. It was later corrected to Salameh. Deger says it’s both. The guy has been buried for days, you would think there would be some agreement on his name by now.

      Thaher/Salameh was definitely not “standing in the middle of the road.” The CCTV shows he was only about 10 feet from the front of the building and under the shadow cast by the roof. He fell down in almost the exact same spot as Nurawa.

      Point 8:
      It would seem to me that unless people thought an investigation would reveal a hoax, everyone on MW would be jumping up and down demanding an investigation. Without an investigation this will just become another al-Dura incident that was never resolved. Like that situation, the IDF will come in w/ bulldozers and flatten the whole place and all the evidence in it.

      On May23 in another MW thread on the Beituna killings I posted a link to the White House “We the People” petition site for and asked folks to sign a petition that asks Obama to seek an investigation by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

      In spite of all the hand-wringing by MW regulars over this incident, it is disappointing to note that not a single MW reader has signed the petition. I have not advertised the petition anywhere else because I wanted to see what sort of response I got from MW. Zilch.

      Yeah, OK, let’s all get upset about what horrible things the IDF does to Palestinians, but when it comes to actually doing something simple to help establish what happened, well . . . f*%k it, I’m too busy. Very disappointed, but not entirely surprised.

      The petition is here:

  • Israel tries to blame killings on Palestinians as int'l outrage builds
    • Good eye, talk.

      But there are other marks on the wall that seem to come and go from photo to photo. There is a very clear mark on the solid stone part of the wall just to the right of the fifth block up. It is not seen in other photos.

      Allison's rubber bullet picture is dramatic but unless it's a fraud I don't see the relevance. Does it make the point that IDF was shooting rubber bullets? OK, that's exactly what THEY say. If the bullet slowed down enough to be caught on a DSLR then it was not going to hurt anyone seriously, even if it did hit them in the head. As the photos show, they guy supposedly hit does not even fall down.

      And, yes, one can see a very tiny amount of blood on the fingers in the close up of Salameh, so something must have hit him. But I've seen more blood from that from a burst blood-blister. Salameh was shot through the back, which means the exit hole was in the chest. And the place where the guy's hand is is right over Salameh's heart, presumably over the wound. There should be blood gushing all over the place if the bullet pierced his heart. A 5.56mm round is, basically, a .22 and you'd think it wouldn't do much damage or leave much of an exit hole, but those babies are designed to tumble and fragment when they hit the target. They leave a sizable exit wound. So, what's up with that?

      Both of these kids fell down on nearly the same exact spot on the pavement, judging by the roof line shadows. And there are at least a dozen views of that spot, even the next day. No blood stains can be seen. Nuwara was shot in the chest, exit wound in the back, and he rolled over onto his back. Blood should be quite visible on the ground once he was carried off.

      Finally, the still shots clearly show Nuwara holding his head off the ground, but both of the camera o1 and camera o2 CCTV views seem to show him with his head on the ground and not moving after he rolls over on his back. I cannot make that discrepancy make sense under any scenario.

      Your careful analysis of these images suggests that you agree that the truth of this matter lies not in the emotionalism, accusations, and denials, but in the details of those still photos and videos.

      BTW, here is a video made by Yisrael Putermane on the following day from the same place . It shows long views of the whole area and the surround buildings, and gives an excellent feel for where the IDF were. The shooting was almost certainly at: 31°53'07.96" N 35°10'30.32" E

    • JWP -- well said.

      And I couldn't help but notice that your message would be just as true if the target of your rant was changed from "Israel" to America's cops -- you know, the way they behave before they realize someone has taken a video of their unprovoked tazing, macing, beating, or killing.

      . . . astonishing arrogance, smug, lazy, complacent blowing off of any demand for a coherent, responsible, serious response tells you all you need to know about the entrenched racist assumptions inherent in everything they say – the casual, indifferent assumption about their presumed superiority and privilege which entitles them to do anything they want to others, and offer no apology or the slightest recognition of their own obligations or liability.

      The political, racial, and ethnic motivations are certainly different, but there is a common grain of evil in the make-up of millions of individual humans in all countries that controls the finger on the trigger.

    • MW readers who are concerned about the Beitunia killings may want to support a petition on the White House "We the people" web site. A total of 100,000 signatures need to get consideration, 99,999 to go.

      The petition: We petition the Obama administration to . . .

      Request the UN to initiate investigation of the deaths of unarmed Palestinian teenagers in the West Bank on May15.2014.

      There is strong video evidence, including a report broadcast by CNN, that two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were gunned down by Israeli soldiers near the Ofer military prison in the West Bank city of Beitunia on May15.2014. We ask that President Obama instruct US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power to request that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights immediately initiate an investigation of the these deaths to determine whether they were extrajudicial killings and violations of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
      Created: May 23, 2014

  • CNN airs evidence Israelis used live bullets on Palestinian protesters
    • This is going huge in a number of directions.

      Just think what sh*t CNN must be taking from GoI right now. Maybe even US State Dept. Good on them for stepping up to this.

      In contrast to the al-Dura case, the video evidence here is enormous. The freaking IDF shown firing!!! Note that the CCTV's show at least 3 guys with some very serious video gear right in the faces of the dying young men. So there is a lot of video evidence out there somewhere. But that CNN footage is a forensic gold mine. For instance:

      That is almost certainly a 5.56mm slug, probably from an M-4 or M-16, the father holds up. And if you look at the view of the IDF supposedly firing that round at about 02:00 in the CNN vid, those look like M-4's. But they look to me like they have adapters of some sort that would be consistent w/ the IDF plastic bullets that are also fired from this type of weapon. My point being not that it is or isn't but that the evidence is RIGHT THERE! The weapons experts will sort it out.

      The biggest problem I have is that I know those 5.56mm rounds are designed to fragment when they hit the target. For one to pass through a body, fail to fragment, hit no bones, and appear magically intact in a backpack is . . . well, it's a miracle, eh? But, again, thanks to CNN at least we have video evidence to hand to the weapons experts.

      Screw Leiberman and all the other Israel-firsters. This incident screams out for an investigation. Including autopsies.

  • 'NYT' runs fair story on horrendous killings
    • "One objection: In the second paragraph, Rudoren uses the phrase “edited and promoted” to describe the video:"

      I 'm no NYT maven but I don't see Rudoren's comment as unfair. Below are the two original CCTV videos, there is one with respect to each incident and both of them show a view from opposite directions, which the DCI video does not. Surely what DCI presented was an edited version of what was avaiable.

      I don't see Rudoren's truthfully pointing out that the video DCI shows is edited as an accusation by NYT that DCI did anything bad or dishonest. If Rudoren hadn't said that, then surely someone would beat up on her for not pointing out that the DCI version was only a slice of the whole potato. DIYD,DIYD.

      First video:

      Second video:

      I also note that there is a lot of confusion as to the names of the young men. At least NYT tries to sort some of that out in their erratum.

  • New video shows Palestinian youths killed by Israeli army on Nakba Day posed no threat to soldiers
    • tree & talknic
      Thanks for giving this some thought. Good points. I still say no way one is going to freeze even a rubber bullet w/ handheld camera.

      What I'm reading is that IDF uses rubber and plastic bullets that range in muzzle velocity from 75 to 1250 m/s. The older British rubber bullets developed for the Irish Troubles may have been slower. Even at the slower velocity of 75 m/s the bullet would be traveling too fast to freeze. In 1/1000 sec it would travel 7.5 cm, leaving just a long blur of buggered pixels. That bullet is not stretched at all. In fact, that bullet looks like (the other?) holes in the walls.

      People who freeze bullets in mid-air say that if the bullet moves more than a few mm, it's a blur. They use strobes giving effective shutter speeds of 1/2,000,000. Even if a rubber bullet is 100x slower than a standard 5.56mm, which it isn't, that would still be a shutter speed of 1/20,000. Don't think so. Maybe you could catch a blur, but not something as distinct as that image.

      The Nature article talknic links to is quite helpful as it relates to the Palestinian situation. But it points out the rubber bullets are ineffective beyond a range of 50 m. You can see this whole thing unfold from both directions in the YT vid I link to below -- no way the IDF was less than 50 m away. They are not even visible and the building isn't much more than 50 long -- you can see hundreds of meters.

      In the vid from camera 02, you can see the whole process of them carrying Nuwara away and there is no indication anyone got hit in the head with anything.

      Here's something else you might check me on. The Nazzal photos show the young man, Nuwara, on the ground and holding his head off the ground. The video shows him motionless with his head on the ground. Not sure what's up there.

      And when you look at those vids, try to imagine where Nazzal would have had to have been to get the angle he did. It's an interesting forensic problem, piecing all the views together.

      Here's the CCTV that shows the incident from both directions.

    • Who's next? Well, I'll take the bait, at the risk of getting lynched by this MW mob. I agree that the images are very upsetting, but no matter how upsetting something is, there's always room for skepticism.

      A couple of points: There are other reports -- the Guardian for instance -- that point out that the IDF was only about 200 yards away in a parking lot, probably what the man in the white shirt was referring to. That is not the sort of range you need a sniper. If that kid was shot by an IDF live round, it would have most likely been by an M-16 or some version thereof, which is what the IDF carries. As one with more than my share of experience with combat and M-16's, I can pretty much guarantee you that a person who is hit in the chest w/ an M-16 round a) does not fall forward toward the shot, b) is very unlikely to put his hand out to catch his fall, and c) leaves copious amounts of blood. A fatal shot to the chest is pretty much going to knock the victim off of his feet and leave a gaping hole. And so the skeptic in me says notes that that was a very unusual fall and that bullet wounds bleed.

      We can see in the film that there were three cameramen at the ready who rushed up to where the young man was lying, so there should be some very clear video footage out there somewhere showing either his chest wound or the exit wound. If anyone has a link to that close-up footage, please post it and we'll put this issue to rest.

      Second, catching a crystal clear picture of a bullet in mid-flight in ambient light with a standard camera? BS.

      Most digital camera shutter speeds are no faster than 1/4000. With a bullet traveling at 600m/sec, it would travel 150 millimeters in that time -- you wouldn't even see the blur. Those photos of bullets in mid-flight like the ones you see in your NRA monthly magazine are normally taken with the shutters fixed open (or at a very slow speed) and strobe lights with incredibly fast triggers that produce a virtual shutter speed of, like, 1/2,000,000 sec. There may be newer camera gear with digital shutters that fast, but I've never heard of any.

      Here's a discussion on photographing bullets at home using commercially available strobe or flash triggers:

      My point is, no news guy with a handheld digital camera is going to catch a bullet in mid-flight. And so that photo with the bullet circled causes me to think in terms of photoshop. If that offends you, well . . . you'll just have to be offended.

      I agree with you folks that the "pallywood" comments don't help. OTOH legitimate comments about there being no blood visible are valid. Maybe there's an explanation. Would love to hear it. That's what intelligent discussion is about. But skepticism is not hasbara. It's about some people having a high threshold for being duped and demanding that very serious allegations like these at least comport with common sense.

      But having said all that, just so annie and the others don't start calling me a GoI shill, here's a YouTube that talknic made of my analysis of IDF photoshopping the Mavi Marmara debacle that proves my cred as an anti-habarista who thinks the IDF are a bunch of dangerous dicks.

      OK, so let the echo chamber rip . . .

  • Crashing the Party: Activists educate pro-Israel festival about the Nakba
    • Somehow I don't see the "huge." At first glance it seems rather banal to me: just another condescending, dick-Israel firster. I don't recognize him as being a politician or entertainer or anyone whose opinion matters to anyone. This is about as dog-bites-man as it gets.

      But note at 00:25 how he asks: "And we haven't given anything back?" That 1st person plural is lethal. He is certainly not referring to "we Americans." I don't think he's referring to "we Jews." The context is pretty clear that he means "we Israelis" because he's talking about the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

      Maybe it being so banal is what makes it so huge -- America is full of people who think of themselves as "we Israelis," probably before they think of themselves as "we Americans."

      I also had to hit "pause" at the question about who had Israel won its independence from. The guy with the grey kippa had to pause, too.

      I don't know that I've ever thought about it. He said from Britain. WTF?? . . . that was the US, not Israel. When was Israel ever a British colony? When did they ever have a tea party that could later be used as a label for Rovian right wing-nuts?

      When you think that question through seriously, it makes you realize what a misnomer "Israel Independence Day" is. Calling the Israel Declaration of Independence a declaration of independence was just aping the Americans to suck up to them. Hasbara from day one. It is a declaration of sovereignty. Sovereignty is not the same as independence.

      Here's the English text:

      Seems like it's the Palestinians who need a declaration of independence. Maybe with the new government they'll stop fighting with each other long enough to write one.

  • Report: Germany cancels military subsidy deal with Israel following breakdown of peace negotiations
    • Two quick points:

      First, not to be overly picky, but I am certain that the plural is "goyim."

      Second, this is a Jew v. Muslim problem. You've got chutzpah trying to blame us goys goyim. We're the ones getting fleeced to the tune of $8M/day. It's the American Jews who are putting the money in the pockets of politicians. AIPAC doesn't stand for American Goyim Political Action Committee.

  • The NYT and the NSA: Abramson and Baquet have different journalistic values
    • Yeah, who wants to be labeled racist and an anti-semite? You'd have Uncle Abe and Al Sharpton both chewing on your tush.

  • This just in: Glenn Greenwald was never bar mitzvahed
    • "People here are too committed to their own individual attitude towards the Jewish identity discussion to allow a dissection of the issue or the dynamics involved."

      You got that right. And the other obsession I've noticed on MW lately is eljay's donkey fellation theme, which keeps coming up in these threads, no pun intended. I think what we need to dissect is his "issues" and "dynamics." Who knows, we might find therein the hidden door to the "Jewish identity." It's gotta' be down there somewhere. Lemme' have another look.

    • Secular diaspora. I love it. Aren't we all.

    • hence the name the “chosen” people,

      I'm writing a book on the curious history of the Jews and nuclear warfare titled "Chosen to do what?" But I think you've just answered that question. I can move on to a different subject.

      thanks, wes

      btw, I see Phil has finally broken to ice on Abramson, so skip those other snide remarks of mine.

    • Could someone here offer a little cultural background for the three or four of us goyim who still check out MW occasionally?

      I have a pretty good idea about the BarM ceremony because I recall how my Jewish buddies used to talk about it when I was a kid. What I don’t have a feel for is the intra-cultural blow-back for not being BarM’d, or whether most Jews would find it offensive or repulsive or whatever. I mean, I’ve never really thought about it. I presume it’s like baptism for a Christian, but with more Hebrew and a bigger party. Most Christians could care less if another one isn’t baptized -- it just means they're going straight to Hell, which is not a reflection on them as a human per se. Of course, the hard-core, snake-handling, fundamentalists are another thing, and I suspect Judaism has its hyper-ritualistic counterparts. But, still, I have never heard anyone criticize anyone else for not being baptized – or even asked. I mean, "Are you baptized" hasn't been used as an opening line in the nightclub scene since the Middle Ages.

      I presume that Jewish reprobation for being non-BarM’d falls only on Jewish men, and Jews don’t hold it against us goyim. IOW, it’s a Jew-on-Jew reprobation. But how seriously is it taken? I mean, are there Jews that take it so seriously that they would not let a non-BarM’d Jew in their house? Is it as objectionable, say, as not being “genitally circumscribed?”

  • Boycott on the horizon if Starbucks buys stake in SodaStream
    • ritzl, you raise a really interesting distinction there. It's the distinction between the "B" and the "D."

      annie's vision is: "Well, hanging at the local cafe might feel different if there is a picket line outside."

      IOW boycotting not the primary producer [SODA] by refusing to buy the goods [sodamaker] made in the WB, but boycotting an investor who has no direct connection to the WB and is not selling coffee or mugs made there. That is a secondary B to achieve a D or to try and prevent the investment in the first place.

      If international sanctions vs. GoI were in place, a forced divestment approach might work, but your local joe-fiend is not going to take notice until that happens. It's probably selective memory because I was part of pickets against U. of Virginia and Harvard to divest from companies operating in S. Africa, but it seems to me that most of the S.A. fight in the US was on the divestment battleground. But by then there were already international sanctions against S.A. (A much larger and, ultimately, successful approach was the international ban on the Springboks rugby team, but that will never work against GoI. The closest Israelis come to international sports is shooting Palestinian soccer stars in the legs.)

      Screaming for divestment makes for a big stink, sure, and sometimes it's all you have. Boycotting Caterpillar, fer instance, is not going to be that effective because not many of us are in the market for a bulldozer. The only way to put pressure on Caterpillar is to go after those who invest in it, and I don't see that happening anywhere. Personally, I don't think a grass-roots demand for divestment is going to work until international sanctions are in place, especially against a company so loved as Daddy Starbucks. You might as well boycott Microsoft for selling Windows to the apartheid Israelis.

    • Personally, I think not. And on a number of levels.

      This is likely just the latest in SODA's program of leaking stories about some big company about to snatch them up. They're still trying to claw back the stock's price to pre-SuperBowl level. Pepsi was the latest, I think. Punking the public to pop the stock prices is just part of SODA's business plan, and that's a lot of "p's" in one sentence.

      Second, BDS squaring off w/ Daddy Starbucks? Can't imagine a more obvious fail in the making. I mean look at MW's favorite punching bag, ScarJo. After all the BDS brouhaha, ScarJo flipped off Oxfam and moved on w/out so much as a look-back. Getting Oxfam off of her list of things to do just freed up more time to do her ambassador thing for SODA.

      Did BDS give her a spanking? Don't think so. Captain America came out a few weeks ago, is still busting the box offices big time, and nary a single theater boycotted, at least so far as I have heard. BDS gets blown out of the ring by a 112 pound air-head actress, and they think they're going to take on Starbucks?? Don't think so. Nice thought, tho'.

  • From Sheffield to Palestine, by bicycle
    • Wonderful, passionate, young people who light up the world with their ideals and move the species upward notch by notch . . . gotta' love 'em.

      Rolling into Israel by way of . . . Lebanon? Once Bibi gets the clipping of this article in his morning briefing, Sara will likely face administrative detention when she arrives. Or maybe he'll dispatch Mossad to throw thumb-tacks in her path along the way.

      I definitely dig the emphasis on targeting individual organizations, like JNF. Anti-Zionism is too big, too diffuse -- like a bowl of Jello it just jiggles when shaken without any change in shape. The movement needs to set up specific targets. Foxman/ADL come to mind in this regard. Once the black movement focused on the likes of Montgomery, Bull Connor, University of Alabama, etc. liberal whites began to see the point. Foxman is the AmerZionists' George Wallace. Northeastern U. is, apparently, the AmerZionists U. of Mississippi.

  • Tony Blair's Middle East speech: dangerous and anti-Muslim
    • Oh, gosh. Now it's ziodonkey fellater. My vocabulary list is growing by leaps and blows with this post.

      A ziodonkey is not something I have ever come across, but I'm betting one can spot them b/c they are circumscribed -- which is to say, of a delimited class.

      Or perhaps ziodonkey is a political analogy for, say, Chuck Schumer, which would suggest the existence of zioelephants and their fellaters. What a gag that would be.

    • I couldn't get that vid of the SNL piece to run. But the following link was hot.

      Very funny. Incredibly clever the way they pulled the skit and then made it available online so that the story became about censoring the skit.

      Uncle Abe Foxman is such a piece of art. The Cliven Bundy of the Israel-first movement. Even LiveLeak is afraid of him. Note their all-caps caveat, which really means: WE ARE NOT THE ANTI-SEMITES HERE, SNL IS

      Censored: Chuck Hagel SNL Skit, Israel Love Fest...Hilarious
      Chuck Hagel SNL Skit....for the ones who get their panties in a bunch....THIS IS AN SNL SKIT AND IS MEANT TO BE HUMOROUS....IF YOU DONT HAVE HUMOR DONT WATCH IT

    • In spite of having made my share of sporting trips to Tijuana while in the Marine Corps many years ago, I honestly have to admit that I was not aware that term existed. "Donkey" I was aware of.

      Thank you, eljay, for your erudition and for raising the standards of this blog.

  • The Jewish community must not embrace Ayaan Hirsi Ali
    • OK, Don. Great reply. Let me take it point by point.

      Point 1
      Having emphatically dismissed the theory that Ali was set up by Brandeis, you obviously subscribe to the only viable alternative: Brandeis was too freaking stupid and incompetent to do their due diligence to check who they were inviting to receive a very prestigious award and speaking opportunity.

      I'm willing to agree with you on that. No problemo.

      Point 2
      D: So a person couldn’t be Jewish and hate Jews

      That is correct. A person who hates Jews cannot be Jewish. His mother may be a Jew, he may wear a kippa, he may be foreskin-challenged -- but he is not Jewish. Ask your rabbi, assuming he doesn't hate Jews.

      Point 3
      You are putting words in my mouth, a clear indication of one's propensity to speak deceit to truth. Tsk, tsk.

      I have not argued that courage gives anyone license to do anything. And as for preaching hate, in America one is not required to be licensed in order to preach hate. Anyone can go ahead and do it without a license and that's a 1st Amendment bonus for living in America. Geller, Foxman, Dershowitz, Oren -- they all have a right to spew hate if it suits them. Don't like it? Leave. Please.

    • Seems like we're missing the issue here. What was the point of extending the invitation to Ali just to yank it away? She was obviously set up by Brandeis to try and embarrass her. Here's their explanation according to the LAT:

      “And we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world. That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values. For all concerned, we regret that we were not aware of these statements earlier.”,0,7940815.story#ixzz2yiAmy7v3

      Like, we regret to inform you that we didn't know who the hell we were bestowing the honor on because we are too stupid to do a little due diligence. WTF?

      Brandeis was just toying with this woman and they come out looking like idiots.

      RR: Let’s pretend that the antisemitic speaker is himself of Jewish origins,

      "Jewish origins???" Kind of ambiguous here, eh? If you mean he's hypothetically Jewish, go ahead and say so. Then what we've got is the prototypical, hypothetical antisemitic Jew, which, I think, logically doesn't exist anymore than a misogynist feminist, unless you are using "semitic" in its broad and proper sense to refer to all the descendants of Shem -- Jews, Arabs, Palestinians, Assyrian Christians, yada yada -- it's a long list. I guess in that case, that hypothetical Jew could be selectively antisemitic if he, say, dissed Assyrian Christians. Abe Foxman would be OK with that.

      BTW, this Ali lady is a very, very impressive and courageous woman, particularly considering how apostasy is considered punishable by death by a lot of these violent "pigheaded" radical Muslims -- and that is not merely a "pigheaded, unsophisticated stereotype about Islam.." Just ask the Saudi blogger Raif Badawi who's 600 lashes sentence for "propagating liberal though" was overturned in Dec.2013 and he is now awaiting a hearing on an upgraded sentence of stoning for apostasy.

  • Is the U.S. quietly imposing travel sanctions on Israeli officials?
    • And now RT is reporting that GoI's Foreign Ministry has closed down its ministries all over the world and canceled the Pope's visit.

      Now, that's encouraging. Maybe the GoI Ministry of Defense will close down next.

    • "In recent weeks, a number of Israeli news publications have reported an increase in the denial of visa requests to Israeli youth, military, and intelligence officials."

      Is this part of Obama's program to get resolution on the peace negotiation?
      The next step should be to revisit Fullbright's attempt to force DOJ to register AIPAC Foreign Agents' Registration Act.

      Excellent article, Mike.

  • Scarlett Johansson parrots SodaStream CEO in attack on Oxfam
    • Haven't we driven this ScarJo thing into the ground? Who cares if SJ talks to Birnbaum?

      The SuperBowl is over, the ad's done with and forgotten, both SS and SJ made out big time by all the poopaa.

      The conversation on MW is beginning to sound like a bunch of beauty parlor patrons whose understanding of world events is limited to what they find in Entertainment Today. Surely the bandwidth could be used for something more meaningful, and yes, I know, stop calling you "Shirley."

  • Bill supporting God-given Greater Israel comes to New Mexico
    • Thanks, Alex. This article has bumped me up to a whole new level of incredulity at the power of the Israel-firsters. I am not appalled easily, but here I am.

      I can get my mind around the way they could control Congress with their bribery otherwise known as "lobbying." That is just the way the American system is built, and everybody knows it and it seems to be OK with the slugs that comprise the American grass-roots. And the zios only need 300 or so votes in Congress to control the whole, disgusting shebang, starting with Lindsay Graham and John McCain.

      (Lindsay Graham. Hmmm. Tell me it's just a coincidence that S. Carolina was the first state to take up the flag of zionism.)

      But how does this work at the state level? I mean does AIPAC or ZOA or whomever have enough cash that they can put shekels into the pockets of a majority of state lawmakers for all 50 states? There must be 5000 of them, all tolled. And what then? Does this thing go down to the next level -- local government? OK, Brooklyn, sure. But what about Richmond, VA, or Omaha, NE? Do these zionists have the resources to control governments at all levels? Does this zionist rot of the American system of federalism have no limits?

      Then I'm thinkin' maybe this is good. My experience is that people get far more passionate about what their state lawmakers are doing than what their federal ones are doing. If the dialog takes place x50, there will be a lot more noise. But there has to be the dialog and that requires anti-zionist activists in each state to be on the alert and start ringing the bell as soon as this crap comes to town, otherwise the "people's representatives" ( ha, ha, ha) will be selling them out to Israel behind their backs. (I don't know if Mississippi has any anti-zionist activists. Or West Virginia. Or . . .)

  • 'NYT' reporter treats boycott as immoral and anti-Semitic, reminiscent of Nazis
    • @Phil: They are boycotting Jews because of the way they treat people under occupation when they boycott settlement products, the supposed focus of this story.

      Um . . . maybe I’m confused. I’m having a problem with the first “they.” I am not boycotting Jews at all. Period. I am boycotting zionists.

      I am certainly not boycotting Jews “because of the way they treat people” because that “they” refers back to “Jews” and Jews as a group are not – so far as I can tell – treating people badly. If Jews are included in the people I am boycotting, even as a majority, their being Jews is irrelevant. Zionists is relevant – Jews, Christians, Hindi – I’m boycotting them all if they are zionists. Even Cub Scout zionists I am boycotting. There is no point in distinguishing the demographics of zionists; to do so is, in fact, misleading and it gives Uncle Abe Foxman an opening.

      You almost have to do a Venn diagram to sort this out. Sorry, I don’t know how to include figures in comments. I’ll try a verbal Venn.

      The big circle, Circle #1, is labeled “People boycotted”, but it could be labeled “They.”

      Circle #2, is labeled “Jews.” It lies mostly outside of Circle #1 with a portion inside. The portion lying inside Circle #1 is – by definition -- Jews behaving badly. (“Badly” being locally defined in reference to treatment of Palestinians.)

      And then there is Circle #3, which is labeled “zionists.” This circle lies wholly within Circle #1 and mostly within Circle #2, but with a bit sticking out of Circle #2 to represent the goy-zios.

      The part of Circle #2 inside Circle #1 that is not occupied by Circle #3 represents non-zionist Jews who are acting badly. These are Jews who just want to mess with the Palestinians because they are Arabs, or Muslims, or for financial reasons, or whatever. My guess is that there are more of them than anybody really talks about, including Scarlett.

      All of Circle #1 that is not occupied by Circle #2 is non-Jews who are acting badly – which includes 300 million goyim Americans who are funding this cluster f&*k with their tax money.

      Circle #4 is that relatively small but noisy circle that is isolated from all the rest. It is labeled “People trying to set this mess right.” You will not find Rudoren, Abramson, Sulzberger, or the Gray Lady inside Circle #4. They are all inside Circle #1.

      So, why aren’t we boycotting them?

  • Congress is next battleground over boycott of Israel
    • That is a very interesting thought, although I read Harry's statement as not so much a constitutional statement but as saying we're not pouring US blood down the Palestine privy. I wonder whether there were any contemporaneous establishment of religion arguments by Harry or anyone else against using US force to support GoI. That would be fascinating.

      I had a friend who was in the British forces in Palestine, and -- whew! -- you talk about someone who hated Zionists. If Harry had sent US soldiers to Palestine when the UK pulled out, and if Begin and Sharon had butchered them the way they butchered the English lads, we wouldn't have an Israel problem today. Probably wouldn't have an Israel. Certainly not an AIPAC. Harry's "ziophilia" had its limits.

      SQ raises the issue of standing to file a 1st Amend suit to challenge US aid to the Jewish homeland. I would think any US taxpayer or association of taxpayers would have standing to seek a declaratory judgment in USDC that the 1st Amendment prohibits US tax money from being used to support any religious state government anywhere in the world.

    • Tom, whoa -- that HR 3830 baby sure expands Congress' role in trade negotiations, but I don't agree with your reading when you say: "This Bill enables any member of congress to enter into international trade agreements."

      I think what you are referring to are two provisions that force the president to "accredit" so-called "designated congressional advisers" and "designated congressional advisory groups" as official advisers to trade meetings. As per example Section 4(b)(3):

      Accreditation.--Each Member of Congress designated as a congressional adviser under paragraph (1) shall be accredited by the United States Trade Representative on behalf of the President as an official adviser to the United States delegations to international conferences, meetings, and negotiating sessions relating to trade agreements.

      IOW, the House wants its own members at the trade negotiations. But that does not allow any member of Congress to "enter into trade agreements." I'm not sure where you're reading that part; maybe I missed it. If so, please sort me out.

      A trade agreement is a treaty. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution reserves to the president the right to make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

      The bill seems to be an attempt to inject the House into the constitutional oversight role w/ respect to trade treaties. Can't believe the Senate would buy it. Can't believe any president would sign off on it. Can't believe any USSCt would sanction it. Actually . . . I can't believe Camp, Sessions, and Nunes wasted their time on this ante-statutory stool-sample.

      For those with time to waste, it's here:

    • Yes, I like the sound of this. If AIPAC backs this loser bill, it would be another nail in AIPAC's coffin, which is filling up with nails. If it fails to back it, it would still be another nail in its coffin.

      There is another First Amendment issue with respect to GoI, but it never gets any mention so far as I have seen – that’s the separation of religion and government. Taxpayers’ money – and that includes local taxpayers and local taxes – cannot be used by any government at any level to promote any religion or any religious practice or ritual. And that makes sense to me, not that I'm a big Jefferson fan.

      So how does the USG give $3Bn/yr in financial succor to the Jewish Homeland without supporting Judaism, and, hence, violating the 1st Amend? And that doesn’t include the interest Americans pay on their own money until GoI accesses it.

      I don’t see how, under the 1st Amend., the USG can support any Muslim state, either. If a country commits to being a religious state, then that should make it constitutionally disqualified from receiving US taxpayers' money.

      US taxpayers should not be bilked out of their tax money in order to support other countries’ religions. Does the USG support Rome? God, I hope not . . . I would throw a 1st Amendment hissy-fit.

  • SodaStream stock sinks, and Bloomberg cites 'sanctions over Jewish settlements'
    • seafoid, I read your comment to imply that SODA is reselling Palestinian water as its soda product. Uh . . . no.

      SODA is not sucking up millions of gallons of water a year and selling it in Bloomberg monster drinks for consumption by fat New Yorkers. You’re thinking of Coke and Pepsi, as in “Sorry, Coke and Pepsi.”

      Coke and Pepsi and Nestle – not SODA – are the ones destroying local communities’ water sources and turning Americans into diabetics. That’s an American business model. The fight over water in central Michigan has been horrendous.

      That’s SODA’s point, and that’s a point I think we should all agree with. SODA doesn’t destroy communities to get to their water source – the SODA idea is that the customer uses tap water – i.e. locally sourced water. Putting aside their plant location choices, I think their basic idea is something worth supporting.

      I would love to see them shut down the WB plant and become a bit more empathetic to the Palestinian’s plight, because I would buy their product if they did. I think Johannson’s “Sorry, Coke and Pepsi” should be the world’s mantra. If you think annie is tickled pink about SODA’s stock-plunge, think how the CEOs of Coke/Pepsi/Nestle must feel.

      Chairman of Nestle, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, on this issue: “access to water is not a public right.” T-bone Pickens was right, water is the new oil. And these international conglomerates are not content with destroying just rural communities in central Michigan.

      Here’s the effect of Nestle extending its devour-all-you-can-while-you-can business model to Pakistan.

      In the small Pakistani community of Bhati Dilwan, a former village councilor says children are being sickened by filthy water. Who’s to blame? He says it’s bottled water-maker Nestlé, which dug a deep well that is depriving locals of potable water. “The water is not only very dirty, but the water level sank from 100 to 300 to 400 feet,” Dilwan says.

      link to

      Of course, Pakistanis are not Palestinians, and so . . . screw them. We’ll all give Nestle a bye and roast SODA.

      By beating SODA into the ground, who benefits? Coke. But why is nobody here looking at Coke? Coke also exploits the WB settlements: Shadmot Mechola in the Jordan Valley and the industrial zone of the Golan. So, where is the MW call for a boycott of Coke?

      Here are some fun facts re: Coke’s Zionist bona fides:

      In 1997 the Government of Israel Economic Mission honored Coca-Cola at the Israel Trade Award Dinner for its continued support of Israel for the last 30 years and for refusing to abide by the Arab League boycott of Israel.

      In 2008 Coca-Cola tasked the Israeli venture capital Challenge Fund to locate suitable investments in Israel with a promise of “a blank cheque.”

      In 2009 a Coca-Cola sponsored award went to Israel’s Lobby AIPAC for its lobbying of the Senate to reject of the UN call for “immediate ceasefire” and endorse the continuation of the Israel military assault on Gaza.

      In 2009 Coca-Cola hosted a special reception at the Coca-Cola world headquarters to honour Brigadier-General Ben-Eliezer. Ben-Eliezer is a wanted war criminal, during the Six-Day War his unit was responsible for the execution of over 300 Egyptian POWs.

      link to

      I think we’re making a big mistake if we lump SODA’s Zionist issue in with the water resource issue and keep our fingers crossed that SODA will go broke and Johannson will develop a case of wet leprosy, as seems to be the majority sentiment here. There’s a baby in that bath water.

  • Rep. Grimm threatens to throw reporter off Rotunda balcony
    • amigo, just tell them to Google "Tammany Hall." The essential players haven't changed, except that more rabbis are, apparently, paying to play.

      If I ever get to Eire, I'll shout you dinner and we'll resolve some of these prickly issues.

    • amigo: "As an Irishman and a Catholic, I resent your inference."

      The reference was to those who are: 1) Irish-American, 2) Catholics, and 3) NY pols. Your resentment is based on you identifying with 1 out of 3 -- I really feel for you.

      As one who was raised in an Irish-American Catholic family, has a surname with an Erin-green apostrophe, and who lived in Boston long enough to have a pretty good idea what E.Coast ethno-centric politics is about, I'll respectfully stand my ground on this one, amigo.

      Sounds like you're bending over backwards to find a PC issue to whine about. Maybe you should go after annie's line (which gave me a chuckle, btw):

      "A Catholic who prays every Sunday in church gets the loot from a rabbi?"

      Éire go Brách!!

    • Good one, annie. I was waiting for you to get Michael Grimm in your cross-hairs. MW has been one of the best sources on this scary guy. (Unfortunately, MW's search engine is so hard to deal with anymore, trying to do the back research is a waste of time -- i.e. 500 hits and no way to sort them chronologically. . . hint, hint.)

      One of the best articles on this Grimm creep is a 2011 New Yorker piece by Evan Ratliff.

      Ratliff's piece and Grimm's most recent violent outburst on camera gives one the impression that this Tea Party zio-monkey is, like, in perpetual 'roid rage.

      "What's the story on these accusations of you shaking people down for campaign contributions?"

      "STFUp or I'll break you in half and throw you off this balcony."

      "OK, never mind."

      Somebody needs to transition this violent thug out of Congress and, even better, out of society, perhaps with the help of a multi-count indictment.

      Not that the voters of Staten I. suffered a great loss when Grimm beat McMahon:

      "But Israel was plainly a factor in the race. McMahon even signed a letter calling on Obama to commute spy Jonathan Pollard’s sentence. But McMahon won the Jewish vote in the district."

      Sounds like good ole' American hard-place-and-a-rock democracy at work. Give a traditional Irish-American Catholic NY pol the scent of a few shekels and he'll follow it anywhere -- and here's proof x2.

      Grimm's ace in the hole in that election was actually the one in Guillani's backside, the one Grimm had his head stuck up. But Grimm had to have significant financial resources to get that far. Given his wobbly career trajectory, it's really hard to see how he got from being an incendiary FBI turd being investigated for pulling a gun on his date's husband in a busy NYC restaurant to US Rep for Staten Isl.

      This is an interesting question, for if you juxtapose Ratliff's piece and the current NYT series on Christy's people, you get the sense that there is an underworld in US politics of ex-FBI agents and ex-US prosecutors turned pols. The reason that's interesting is b/c Ratliff points out that the Justice Dept/FBI has access to hundreds of millions of dollars -- mostly forfeited drug money -- that is used to pay off tens of thousands of criminal-informants to entrap people.

      That's a huge amount of money, and if a small percentage got siphoned off into a campaign here and there, who would know? Worse, who would prosecute? Anyone who has ever heard the names J. Edgar Hoover or John Connolly knows how filthy the FBI is. And if AIPAC were to tap into this underworld, they would have access not just to votes in Congress, but to information on every congressperson who doesn't vote the way they "should." Anyone who assumes J. Edgar Hoover's tactics died when J. Edgar Hoover did would be naive, and I'm thinkin' Franklin/AIPAC scandal here.

  • Scarlett Johansson not only abandons Oxfam but throws it under the bus
    • I agree that Phan is one of the best writers on MW, but not this piece.

      Sure, SJ makes me want to puke, too. And I wouldn’t drink a SodaStream if I was dying of thirst in the middle of the Negev desert and had to choose between it and a pint of camel piss. But this hatchet-piece by Phan is uncalled for, even though everybody in the echo-chamber seems to be eating it up without calling him out on the factually anemic fantasy piece it is.

      SJ’s statement:

      She and Oxfam have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

      Phan calls this line"

      “—an unconvincing assertion since Oxfam has never taken a position on BDS.”

      What a sorry non sequitur. Why, pray tell, does Ox have to have a public position on BDS in order for there to be a genuine disagreement w/ SJ over the issue? Phan implies that the only “genuine” disagreements are those that are based on publicly held positions. There is no way Phan could know what disagreements SJ and Ox had or didn’t have.

      My guess is that sometime over the last few weeks Ox people made it clear to SJ that they support BDS, and she made it clear to them that she doesn’t. That seems to me like very reasonable and mutual grounds for saying ciao. As a result of such a disagreement she could have decided it was a bad match, and they could have decided it was a bad match. That’s the way I read her statement. Why is that “unconvincing”? Where’s the bus in this? And who is Phan to jump in here and start telling the world that SJ didn't take the one-way walk over BDS as she claims?

      Phan goes on to assert that b/c “Oxfam has never taken a position on BDS” that means that SJ left Ox in order to “throw Oxfam under the bus.” What rubbish. SJ is not the one who went public on the Oxfam issue. If she was getting burned over it and decided to preempt them on pulling the plug, that is not throwing anybody under a bus. She was the one who was about to become bus-fodder, which is what Phan and everybody else on MW were waiting for.

      Phan seems to be operating under the mistaken idea that because it was SJ and not Ox who terminated the relationship that a bus was involved. I would love to have seen his article if Ox had ended the relationship . . . ha! Would he assert Ox throws Johansson under the bus? Yeah, I don't think so. It would have read more like: "Oxfam dumps Johansson on moral grounds over BDS, no bus involved."

      She was smart to preempt them, and that's what 's pissing off people on MW, judging by the comments to this piece. Everybody here was salivating at the prospect that Ox would dump her, but she deprived the vultures of the pleasure.

      More Phan funny-logic:

      “Johansson implies that she was being forced by Oxfam to honor the Palestinian BDS call.”

      There is no such implication in her statement. Saying that you have fundamental differences with someone over an issue is not an assertion that the other person is forcing you do to anything. What rubbish, Phan.

      Phan normally does much better than this, but we all have our bad days. Sorely disappointed.

  • Watch the Scarlett Johansson SodaSteam ad banned from the Super Bowl (not for the reasons you'd hope)
    • If that ad is supposed to be sexy, I gotta' get my testosterone levels checked.
      If it's supposed to be funny, I gotta' get my hearing checked.
      If it's supposed to be funky, I gotta' get my mojo checked.

      . . .less bottles. A second-team Budweiser Clydesdale has more brains than this chick.

      Birnbaum: I'm disappointed as an American.
      Yeah, me too. . . . I'm disappointed that the country has spent 60 years funding your freaking GoI apartheid system.

      BTW: Does this guy have dual US-GoI citizenship? I guess that qualifies him for Vice-Chair of the Fed.

  • Truman always opposed a religious state, but caved to 'fanatical' Zionist lobby
    • Agreed – America needs this historical discussion badly. MW writers and commentors are very knowledgeable on the details of this subject, but most Americans don’t have a clue what “AIPAC” means or where it came from, much less “AZEC” or the Jewish Agency. BTW, I loved the old UN map of Palestine. I hadn't realized that there were tiny points of connection between the Palestinian parts.

      As welcome as a book on the subject is, what we don’t need is Judis wading in and whitewashing Truman’s moral cowardice and his abysmal contribution to the mess the world is now in. Judis’ approach is to balance Truman’s public record of unmitigated support of Zionism (by acquiescence) against his private musings and personal correspondence. Judis would have us judge Truman by what Truman claimed to believe and not by what he did. Hope I can be judged by that standard when someone writes my bio.

      Yeah, Mr. Judis, convince us of what a moral giant Truman was when, for the sake of the Jewish vote, he turned his eyes from the Palestinians being butchered and robbed of their land. And while we’re re-writing the Truman story, let's include a chapter on how he privately told Beth how much he really loved Japanese children but was “pressured” by the military to turn them into radioactive bacon-bits.

      And as for the whitewashing, one is forced to question Judis' candor and/or competence in view of his deleting from this discussion Truman’s most famous quote on the Palestinian Question:

      "I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."

      That statement set the tone for America's view of the ME for 60 years and counting.

      Thank you, very much, Harry, for your leadership and your moral stand. -- signed AIPAC.

      Let me count the ways that Judis’ own words undermine his attempt to present Truman as a paragon of morality, and instead of the Machiavellian zio-junkie he actually was:

      1. That part of the proposal infuriated the Zionists who successfully lobbied Truman to withhold his endorsement of the [Morrison-Grady partition] plan . . .

      2. Thus, after having given in on Morrison-Grady in August 1946, Truman withdrew and turned his attention elsewhere.

      3. But after visits from Democratic officials worried about Jewish support, lobbying from a major Jewish contributor, and the threat of a Zionist ad campaign against the Democrats, Truman gave in and issued a statement of support [to the Jewish Agency partition plan].

      4. Truman’s political advisors warned that the [Zionist] rallies would be used to denounce the president. Truman once again gave in and agreed to recognize the new state that evening.

      5. Truman, who was sensitive to criticism from the British, insisted that he was immune to political pressure on Palestine, but he gave in, and failed to endorse the proposal he had helped to design.

      6. Truman, after tentatively backing a plan that would divide Palestine into parts roughly proportionate to the Jewish and Arab populations, agreed to help win support for a partition proposal that gave the Arabs only 40 percent of the lands.

      7. In each case, however, Truman backed down under pressure from the Zionist lobby.

      I mean, how many times can one person "give in" on doing what is right and exchange Palestinian lives for votes?

      Judis himself makes the case that Harry Truman was precisely the Zionist hawk history paints him as – that label is supported by every step Truman took or refused to take at that incredibly horrific and vital junction of Palestine’s history and future. To say Truman wasn’t an Israeli Hawk because he privately admitted to his friends he 1) didn’t have a clue what was going on in Palestine and 2) needed the Jewish money/votes to win re-election is ludicrous, if not duplicitous. Truman was the original Israel-firster -- he wrote the book on taking shekels and votes from American Jews and giving GoI what it demands.

      I wonder if AIPAC funds Congress and the WH with bitcoins yet. Harry would be pleased.

  • Calls grow for Oxfam to drop Scarlett Johansson following her defense of Israeli occupation
    • To whomever authored this post -- thanks. A lot of solid information here we really need to see to understand this cluster fk called SodaStream and its modus operandi.

      If memory serves, it was not so much the sanctions [there weren't any] or the boycott of SA that brought down that apartheid. It was Harvard et al. liberal institutions divesting in SA investments. When you get Harvard to divest in Israel, the earth will shake, the wall will crumble, and Sharon will roll over -- paralyzed, dead, whatever, he will roll over. And that will be the end of . . . . . Harvard.

    • There 'ya go, Dan. And the Coen bros, too. At least SJ didn't refer to Arabs as camel fk'ers and collect a $1M "best Jews in the world" prize for doing it.

      Get off my fk'ing planet, with your racist, Zionist crap Ethan and Joel. Goodman, you're out the door, too. Of course, when we complete this Zionist purge of Hollywood, the only actor standing will be Mel Gibson -- if you call that "standing."

  • Deconstructing Scarlett Johansson’s statement on SodaStream
    • That is so beautiful it brings tears to my eyes: grammatically mangling a sentence about having no brains. People who make their living being directed on what to say and how to say it are masters at extemporaneously demonstrating their single-digit IQs.

      Me and SODA, we're a real team alright.

  • Scarlett and Oxfam chat over Palestinian land loss
    • Talk about a work of art, did you see this ToI piece on the fiasco?

      Get this: the rationale for the SODA plant being where it is . . . (wait for it) . . .

      the factory’s location is in an area which [sic] will likely be incorporated into Israel in any future deal.

      Well . . . sure, that makes it OK then. And the reason the land will be incorporated into Israel?? Well, because the factory is there. Round and ‘round we go on the tautological merry-go-round of GoI “logic.” Must be driving Abbas and Kerry nuts by now.

      ToI also raises the precedent of Oxfam booting ambassador Kristin Davis for endorsing Ahava, an Israeli company operating in the WB. Apparently Ahava digs up and packages Dead Sea mud and sells it to rich Zionist women in NYC and London who are deluded enough to think that putting Dead Sea mud on their face will soften their Jay Leno jawline. It looks like Ahava is privately held – would have been interesting to see what long-term effect Oxfam/BDS had their stock price.

      Here is Alex’s Nov2012 MW piece on Ahava.

      Oxfam booting SJ would sure be a bonus for BDS. But not nearly as helpful as tens of millions of football-loving Americans (who couldn’t find Palestine on a globe if it were circled in red) looking at the SODA commercial next Sunday and saying “Look at that chick’s jawline!! She could use some Dead Sea mud on that. What’s the deal with that boycott, anyway?”

      Raising consciousness – even in the Velveeta/nachos crowd – is what BDS is all about.

  • NY Mayor tells AIPAC: 'Part of my job description is to be a defender of Israel'
    • Shuki – well over 1M?? I don’t think so, not unless you count LI and NJ as part of NYC. You’re talking the metropolitan area, a lot of which is outside de Blasio’s influence, meaning they are not his “constituents” or voters. Check your numbers.

      Regardless of how far out on LI they live, Jews have money, and that is the point here. Money – not votes, not “constituents.” That is always the point with Jews and AIPAC and American politicians. How many Jewish constituents does John McCain have? And how many Mexican-American constituents? Which group’s ass does he suck, aka truckle? (You’re right, annie. Great word.)

      Even if we take your inflated number, it’s only about 13% of the total NYC pop. and an even smaller % of the metro. What % is Muslim? How about Hispanic? Irish? Italian? Jews and Asians have about the same size of the demographic pie in the metro area – which has the most political clout with pols like de Blasio?

      My point being that by sucking up to AIPAC de Blasio is not pandering to voters; he’s pandering to donors.

      These “progressive” Democrats who come busting in, promising a new approach – they're really just the same-old-same-old. They’ll say what they have to say to get the votes, and do what they have to do to get the money.

      A flock of Democrats will replace a mess of Republicans. It won’t mean a thing. They will go in like all the rest of ’em. Go in on promises and come out on alibis. -- Will Rogers

      de Blasio:

      "City Hall will always be open to AIPAC," he said. "When you need me to stand by you in Washington or anywhere, I will answer the call and I'll answer it happily 'cause that's my job."

      By "job" he means the job AIPAC is paying him to do, not the job the people of NYC elected him to do, which is why the speech was sub rosa. When he makes that city-hall-is-always-open offer to the American-Ethiopian Political Action Committee, I’ll believe in the great Democratic progressive agenda. Until then, it's just another round of hope-a-dope.

      Very interesting expose' Phil, Goldenburg, and whomever carried that recording out of the AIPAC meeting. AIPAC will likely go after you all for copyright violation, which would be a great lawsuit. You could depose AIPAC and find out how much they paid de Blasio for the speech, which is to say for access to city hall.

  • Update: 'Blood bubbles' -- mainstream media turn on SodaStream and Scarlett Johansson
    • Thanks, Hostage.

      I figured it'd be something like that. Maybe an "archeological site" turned into rental property.

    • When Mike said:

      The ultimate point is: Who should have sovereign ownership over the land.

      I thought:

      Good. Somebody gets it.

      When he said:

      When a nation with more nukes than England, and the means to deliver them, reaches this point, it is dangerous.

      I thought:

      This guy is good.

      When he said:

      Scarlett Johannsen is not pretty. I do not like that Jay Leno Jaw of hers.

      I thought:


      When he said:

      On top of that, there is a moral fact: Israel has a claim on the land.

      I thought:

      Wow, this crazy Zionist is so far out there he must have a huge, blue Star of David tattooed on his face.

      I mean, if you’re going to come dancing into MW and argue that Israel has a valid claim of sovereignty to the West Bank, you gotta’ be draggin’ brass ones, brother.

      But I think you’re touching on a legal point that has merit and is being ignored.

      According to the DM article linked to by annie, SODA is saving about 70% on rent by being in the WB. Now, that raises the question of who gets the 30% that’s paid? I mean, who has title to this land and the right to collect SODA’s rent?

      If the settlers or other Israelis are getting the rent b/c they have taken the land or title to it away from Palestinians, then I’m going to be cheering with everybody else on MW when SODA’s stock flat-lines below $1.

      BUT . . . if the land is held by Palestinians and SODA is paying them the rent, then what BDS is doing, essentially, is telling the Palestinians who they can and cannot rent to. IOW, that situation would mean you have one group of Palestinians trying to control another group of Palestinians’ land. I don’t think so . . . that would be a question of sovereignty, but not a question of Israel’s sovereignty.

      This issue of Palestinians who profit from the occupation has always been a sensitive one, for without them there would be no settlements. When you see the photos of those very modern Jewish settlements and you know durn well that Palestinians were paid to build those beautiful homes and in some cases – E. Jerusalem according to one story – Palestinians sold the land to Jews, well . . . it sort of makes the whole all-Palestinians-are-victims POV go out the window. Some Palestinians are doing OK with the way things are going in the WB. Abbas comes to mind first.

      Same thing w/ SODA. If they are leasing from Palestinians who have good title to that land, then it’s none of BDS’ business. It’s about a legitimate land owner’s right to rent to whomever they want.

      But if the factory is built on land stolen by settlers, or if the access roads are built on land stolen by Israelis, or if there are any other elements of coercion, then Ms. Johansson needs to use whatever small amount of cerebral cortex she may have to rethink her position. I’m not sure what she does about her jawline that disturbs Mike so much, probably b/c it came from her father's side.

    • annie: “what’s miley cyrus got to do with this? did she make some reference i missed?”

      Yes, ma'am, you apparently missed a major news item. This thing has everything to do w/ Cyrus viz Johansson

      Cyrus famously said she didn’t need a 70 yo Jewish guy to tell her how to run her career. Johansson is pretty obviously being handled by 70 yo pro-Israeli Jews. The contrast could not possibly be more striking.

      Now let’s watch the trajectory of their careers. My guess is that they will both plummet to the ground w/in 18 months, but for completely opposite reasons.

      Cyrus b/c, as Mel Gibson will tell you, you don’t ruffle Jewish feathers in show business.

      SJ b/c, well, as you so perfectly said “It’s game on.” There’s BDS blood in the water and I doubt whether her stable of 70 yo Jewish handlers are going to be able to avert a PR disaster – for SJ or SODA.

      Personally, I don’t twerk (except in the shower), but Cyrus is OK w/ me. Another of the 21st c. mavens at destroying entertainment decency standards and making huge money doing it. She shocks me most of all by proving – hey – you don’t actually need a Jewish handler to shake your ass and get rich. Simply being more crude than Madonna & Gaga is enough. Cyrus could be a wrecking ball to the whole entertainment paradigm if she’s not cut off soon.

      Johansson, by comparison, is a bubble brain – in more ways than one. Stewart just had her on his show and I puked 45 seconds into the “interview.” I don’t even know if he asked her about SODA, which was the only reason I watched. This woman couldn’t navigate her way from the limo to the curb w/out help. Everybody is attacking her personally for blowing SODA’s bubbles, but she’s just a puppet for the 70 yo Jews pulling her strings.

      annie: “most people don’t care if she’s jewish or not, i don’t anyway.”

      You are so right, and that’s such an important point. The world doesn’t love it’s entertainers b/c they are Jews or aren’t Jews, or Catholics, or gay, or any of that. Nobody cares -- except the agencies and producers -- and when they do care, it's in a good way. When I found out (only recently) that Jimmy Durante was a Catholic, I was shocked and a little disappointed that one of my favorite “Jewish entertainers” was a Catholic, not that I have anything against the Pope. Durante was just more lovable when I thought he was different ethnically than my boring family, particularly my uncle, who also had a big nose and played piano. And who didn’t love Danny Thomas just a little bit more b/c of that Lebanese thing? Or Ricky Ricardo for being Cuban?

      OTOH, I don’t admire Jon Stewart more or less b/c he’s a Jew; I just wish he’d stop reminding us. It’s good for us all to make fun of our own ethnicity now and then – which Thomas and Ricardo did – but not 3 times a week.

      I don’t think admiring SJ more or less because of her bona fides was Citizen’s point. Today Jewish bona fides don’t get you public adoration, they get you access to the stage.

      Cyrus may be crude, she may be disgusting, but she got to where she is by her (Disney-period) talent and her (post-pubertal) butt and brains – she obviously doesn’t need a 70 yo Jewish agent to tell her how to get from the limo to the curb. Not so for SJ. Too bad for her that her agents are Israel-firsters who can't read the writing on the Wall.

  • Jon Stewart plays 'Let's break a deal' with AIPAC
    • Krauss: Where was he a week ago, when it mattered much more?
      His winter break?

      In trying to understand Stewart's softball approach, you are missing a basic point: Comedy Central = Redstone. He can only go so far or they'll replace him with John Oliver.

    • Jesus Christ . . .? Did he leave a comment, or is that the rhetorical Jesus Christ?

      The difference between annie's take on the JS piece and the zionist H'Po's take is telling.

      Ross Luippold at the H'Po embeds a clip of part of the piece but Hulu won't play in Canada so I don't know if comments on Israel/AIPAC are edited out or not.

      But they are certainly edited out of the text description of Stewart's main points. Luippold notes Stewart's surprise that Democrats would support sanctions, but Luippold paraphrases Stewart's explanation as: "difficulties caused by various interests in the Middle East." No names named, not Israel, not AIPAC, not even (the rhetorical) Jesus Christ.

      H'Po, AOL . . . maybe they should have a little BDS comin' their way.

  • Europeans with 'no legitimate claim' to America wiped out indigenous people -- 'totally different' from Israel (Harris)
    • David Harris? . . . blank. Is he the guy who was married to Joan Baez, and who spent years in prison for refusing to register for the draft while Joan and Bob Dylan rolled in the hay together and made huge amounts of money singing anti-war songs to poor hippy kids?

      I could not finish Harris' HuffPo BS, my tummy was taking a tumble. And I'm not defending his POV, so all you anti-Israel Edward Scissorhands put your hands back in your pockets, but . . . I think one point he makes is indisputable: the 20th century history of Israel really does beggar belief. Nobody in their right mind in 1900 would have believed the trailer to this movie had one been available. For a bunch of clothes-on-their-backs migrants to Palestine to have evolved into a nuclear power and a menace to the entire world in not much more than half a century almost leaves one with a sense that it was preordained -- manifest destiny in the Middle East.

      And that thought is unsettling. I mean a bunch of rabid zionists arising out of nowhere, now sitting on hundreds of nukes -- at least 2 of which are thermonukes -- in the land of Armageddon suggests a very serious question: Chosen to do what?

  • Former US citizen, former Israeli ambassador, Oren gets job at CNN
    • just: Thank goodness for MW and other outlets on the internet.

      Your "ugh" is going to get a whole lot more emphatic given Redstones' increasingly successful litigation to neuter net neutrality. When people wanting reliable information on the latest Israeli apartheid outrage have to wait 30-45 secs for MW to load while all the pro-zionist sites load in less time than it takes to say "Gut shabbes," we'll understand too late what this net neutrality fight is all about -- zionist domination of all media.

      As Oren and every regular reader of MW knows, the Internet is the zionist propaganda machine's worst nightmare. Somehow the zionists have to get control of it the way they have control of the MSM. It they can't, and soon, they're doomed.

      UGH . . .

  • Sharon's debris
    • Well, there's always the mirror problem, eh?

      Maybe the real tragedy here is not the wall, or Blair, or Bush, or Sharon, or even Netanyahu. Maybe it's that we're the ones who let them get away with their outrageous behavior.

      If those of us who are opposed to zionism had been as adamant in opposing Sharon as Sharon was adamant in destroying the Palestinians, there wouldn't be an apartheid Israel today. There are a lot more right-minded people in this world than there are zionists.

      In fact, Americans have more than enough power to shut down the whole zionist enterprise. Without America's support, Israel would be about as welcome at the UN as a dog food ad at a pony show.

      Whenever I see something on Sharon, I think of that "Bulldozer" moniker, and whenever I think that, I think of Rachel Corrie, and that just reminds me again of how freaking useless most of us really are in resolving this travesty.

      To paraphrase Will Rogers' famous quip about dogs going to heaven, I don't know where Corrie went, and I don't know where Sharon went, but I want to go where she went.

  • Scarlett Johansson for SodaStream: 'Set the bubbles free' but keep the Palestinians bottled in Area A
    • ritzl, it's the Jon Stewart effect. That guy just cannot shut up about it. He reminds people that he's Jewish so often, he should just wear a yarmulke and quit with the I'm-a-Jew jokes already.

      When will we get to the point that religion is a personal matter and not a means for classifying or characterizing people?

      BTW, Johansson was on Stewart's show last week. I have never seen more empty space between two ears in all my days. I had to shut it down after about 90 seconds. I'll BDS that ninny w/ no loss of sleep at all. Giving up on the Coen boys was the hard one.

  • On House floor, Gohmert says Blumenthal is anti-Semitic Jew who'd welcome another Holocaust
    • @Gohmert: We’re not thinking straight in this town

      He sure got that right.

      Arutz is reporting Obama has announced he has picked Fischer as Fed vice-chairman, but the headline is

      Fischer to Serve as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve

      As if Congressional approval is either not necessary or is a foregone conclusion . . . and that would be right, too.

      Why don't the Americans just turn their government over to the Knesset and avoid the middleman -- the voter.

  • What if Obama wanted to transfer Miami to Cuba so as to lower percentage of Jews in U.S.?
    • No, no, no -- speaking on behalf of all of my Canadian friends, neighbors, and compatriots: Keep NYC and all your other dirty cities.

      We could use some more Jews, tho'. Not Zionists, Jews. Send the good ones, like the ones on MW, and we'll give you some of our best tar sands crude, guaranteed to rot your pipes.

      When Jon-boy Pollard gets out, keep him.

  • Questioning Obama's nerve, Oren imagines 'massive' bombing campaign to 'flatten all of Iran'
    • Rozeb: Contempt expressed for US in this interview by interviewer & interviewee striking

      Oren said: "There are differences of public opinion, where in the United States you have a lot of war-weariness, and actually support for the interim agreement [with Iran]."

      Consider the arrogance of that word "actually." It's the most telling word in the entire interview.

      "Actually" emphasizes the incredulity of this Zionist prick at America's balking to bleed and bomb for Israel -- as if to say how dare Americans have the chutzpah to support a peace initiative over a war Israel demands.

      We get a lot of talk about how Americans should be better informed on how $8M/day of their tax dollars is going to GoI. What they really need to be better informed about is how Zionists like Oren dream of acquiring the Levant with American blood. And it's certainly working out that way. Getting Assad out of the way will be a big step. Then Iran. If they can keep the Shia and Sunni fighting over control of the Levant, and if they can keep the Americans in their current state of dumb acquiesce, they may be able to pull this off.

    • Boy, am I with you on this one.

      If Kerry can get the Green Line back and the IDF out of Palestine on the condition that US forces take over the role and the UN administers Palestine, I'll re-enlist.

      Ok, ok, . . . wet dream, I know. Just sayin'.

    • As per above, my reading is quite different.

      Once Assad said, "Here take the CW's," Obama would have to be a total fool not to take him up on it before taking him out. CWs was all Assad had. Once they're gone, he's gone.

      99% ??? Would love to see that reference. I don't think the US public has ever been in 99% agreement on anything, least of all taking out despots.

    • Bombing was scotched? I don't think so. It was put on ice, but the ice is melting as the clock tics.

      Remember the goal here for USG and GoI is regime change, and that is going to be a lot easier once the CWs are out of Assad's hands. Just like it was a lot easier after Saddam pulled back on the Scuds prior to 2003 and Gaddafi gave up his nuke aspirations in 2005. Middle East despots who suddenly make nice with the USG to avoid being attacked have never fared will so far as I know.

  • Should dual citizen of US/Israel be vice chair of our Federal Reserve Bank?
    • Hostage -- not at all clear on where you are going on the tax angle. Are you saying Cruz has to pay Canadian tax??? I don't think so.

      A kid leaving Canada at 4 and living in the US thereafter is not a resident of Canada; therefore, no Canadian tax is payable on income earned in the US.

      A citizen of Canada who is not a resident of Canada is treated no differently from other non-residents -- that's my understanding. If you're not a resident of Canada, you don't even file a return.

      The US forces non-resident US citizens to file a return and a Form 555 to disclose non-US income merely b/c they are US citizens. I don't believe other countries do that. If you don't live in Canada and don't earn income there, you aren't taxed by Canada, even if you are a Canadian citizen.

    • @Citizen: The impact of Israel on the nature, the character of the US since JFK was killed and Johnson took over is just HUGE.

      Isn't that an interesting juxtaposition: JFK's assassination and the sudden rise in the influence of GoI in US politics. GoI control of Johnson was demonstrably complete by the time of the Liberty, 1967.

      Is it fair to say Afroyim reversed 200 years of US jurisprudence on the issue? It was, essentially, a 14th Amend. case. It was also a 5-4 reversing a 5-4, which is not all that uncommon and hardly indicative of undue Israeli influence. And it was not a dual citizenship case per se. Afroyim got his passport pulled because he voted in an Israeli election.

      The idea that Congress can write laws to destroy individuals' citizenship is pretty scary to this ex pat. I see Afroyim as correcting a gross error made by USSCt in Perez. And I hope some USSCt will eventually correct a bunch of gross 5-4 errors made since about 1990.

    • Sorry, Kraus, but your analogy is dead wrong.

      It completely breaks down because Carney as a citizen of Canada is also a citizen of the British Commonwealth. His allegiance is to the Queen, for the head of that British Commonwealth is the Queen whether you are a Canuk or a Limey.

      If you want to concoct a counter-argument based on a valid BoE analogy, you'll have to wait until England appoints, say, a Russian, or a German, or a Frog to head the BoE. Or an Israeli.

      I think the point with the Fischer appointment is that this is what really explains the sudden triggering of the Senate "nuclear option." It wasn't Obama failing to get a gay appellate court judge appointed; it was this issue coming down the pike.

  • Kerry wants to imprison West Bank with massive security fence along Jordanian border
    • annie, predictable as vinegar in a dill pickle jar – when anyone offers the slightest sour comment about the Palestinians you will jump right in. Thanks for being there.

      The Palestinians are victims, as I say. (And I, personally, think you should use upper case in “Palestinians” out of respect.) They are getting beaten up on badly, we all know that. It has to stop, we all hope for that. But the Palestinians are not perfect, or faultless, or beyond criticism, least of all the likes of Abbas and Arafat. The ability to see only black (Israel) and white (Palestine) is one of the mass mental defects that complicates analysis of this entire problem.

      @annie: “denis, why are you using a 2003 link to rebut talknics [sic] 2005 blockquote?”

      annie, do you see a date on taklnic’s [please note punctuation] 2005 blockquote? Did you think I was actually going to buy a NYT subscription in order to read the crap talknic is throwing around in an attempt to divert the point of my comment? Do you think I was going to buy a FT subscription or sign up with them to read yours?

      talknic twisted the conversation into a funk about Arafat . . .whatever. I prefer not to be drawn into some loser pissing-match over whether Abbas and Arafat have skimmed funds from the Palestinians. T’nic refuses to deny that assertion, so we’ll go with it as true. The rest of the world knows it. Here is what the Palestinians themselves think. (Note the date is 7 years AFTER t’nic’s link – I know that’s important to you.)

      Palestinian Public Opinion Poll (44) by PSR Jul10.12

      (3) Domestic Conditions:

      Positive evaluation of conditions in the Gaza Strip stands today at 22% and in the West Bank at 30%

      Belief that there is corruption in public institutions in the Gaza Strip stands at 57% and in the PA institutions in the West Bank at 71%

      34% say there is press freedom in the Gaza Strip and 21% say there is press freedom in the West Bank

      25% say people in the Gaza Strip can these days criticize the authorities without fear and 29% say people in the West Bank can criticize the PA without fear

      Perception of safety and security in the West Bank stands at 55% and in the Gaza Strip at 58%

      Positive evaluation of the performance of Ismail Haniyeh's government stands at 38% and Fayyad's at 36%

      Level of satisfaction with the performance of president Abbas stands at 49%

      @annie: “and just to be clear, are you saying kerry’s offer is more a reflection of arafat/abbas/fatah (or palestinian) graft/greed rather than abiding by israel’s will. i’m not quite following your pt.”

      annie, if you can handle the NYT and FT, surely you can handle my simple assertions. I am a simple person, I speak simply, sometimes I drool.

      Please go back, have another look at my comment. The elephant I have identified (which, being an elephant and such, it should be quite evident, which is why I use the elephant analogy) is this: What the Palestinian negotiators will or will not accept in these talks is determined by and large by the cash the Palestinians get from the US taxpayer, which is substantial, almost $2Bn in 2008.

      These negotiations have been one rolling, 60 year-long, cluster f&ck for the Palestinian people. Not coincidentally, the “leaders” of the Palestinians have become very wealthy over the last 60 years while the people have suffered economically. Notwithstanding t’nic’s paywall link to NYT, there is still $200M missing from Arafat’s accounts. I mean the dude is almost 10 years dead and they’re still looking for the money he stole.

      Contrary to t’nic’s irrelevant 2005 paywall link, here is one from Oct.2013 regarding a report by the European Court of Auditors. They are making the same point I am making. Excerpts for your benefit and t’nics:

      EU investigators who visited sites in Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank noted “significant shortcomings” in the management of funds sent to Gaza and the West Bank.

      These disturbing revelations followed closely on the heels of a report in Ma’an News on 10 October claiming that the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) anti-corruption commission - established in 2010 - was working to retrieve PLO-owned land registered to individual PLO leaders - according to commission chief Rafiq al-Natsheh.

      Natsheh’s remarks were made after comments by him in the Jordanian newspaper al-Dustour the previous week that PA officials were moving deposits from Jordanian banks to foreign accounts.

      “If suspects accused of stealing public money (are moving funds abroad), that falls within our jurisdiction, We will ask these countries to help us restore the stolen public money, Transferring money anywhere (abroad) will not prevent us from calling suspects to account and restoring that money,”

      According to al-Natsheh, some of the money and property - which was supposed to be have been deposited into public accounts when the PA government was established in 1994 - still remains in private hands.

      In the mean time Abbas, whose term ended 2009, refuses to allow the Palestinian people to hold general elections.

      Now, anyone who tells me these “palestinians” [your spelling, annie] ain’t crooks is full of t’nic’s “red heifer sh*t,” whatever that means – ask him/her. And anyone who says that the Palestinian people have not been getting consistently screwed at these negotiations for 60 years while the Palestinian leaders have gotten filthy rich, is double full.

      Just sayin’.

    • t'nic, I know, I know. You are in total denial that any Palestinian would ever filch a dime. After all, they are the victims.

      Just to be clear about your position, are you denying that Abbas has not skimmed any $$$, or are you just trolling?

      You do the research -- and just to get you started on the road to reality, simply Google "palestinian authority graft" and you will be rewarded with boat-loads of evidence as to what bunch of crooks the PA bosses are.

      Here is the real headline on the 2003 IMF Afarat investigation:

      IMF audit reveals Arafat diverted $900 million to account under his personal control

      @t'nic: "Otherwise I might end up ‘concluding’ that you’re simply spouting red heifer sh*te!"

      Beg pardon? Are we talking about a red cow, or about red "sh*te"? You've lost me.

      You have not addressed my point, which is that Abbas' goals are not about what is right, but about revenue. Camp David, Oslo, Dayton, . . . all about revenue, not rights. Once the Palestinian people realize that, they will see that their goose is good and cooked. And that ain't no red heifer sh*t.

    • Ignoring the elephant in this room, ain't we? It's called $$$ talks.

      While the discussion on MW so often focuses on the $8M/day the US taxpayer sends to GOI, he/she also sends the PA a good chunk of change -- about $110 per West Bank resident per year (vs $460/person/year sent to Israelis). Of course, Abbas and his buddies pocket the lion's share of what Ma and Pa Ten-forty send them, but, still, pull US tax money out of the PA and it will slide back into the horrible recession that marked the 2nd Intifada. Just look at Hamas, which gets zilch USD.

      And the reason I say it is, Kerry's position may look absurd from the POV of what is right, or what is fair, or how to solve this mess long-term, but look at the alternative from an economic POV (including Abbas' personal bank accounts) before concluding it'll never happen.

      Sure, Abbas said that although the Palestinians need USD, they won't be pressured by the US economically. Right . . . as if they haven't been pressured economically by the US for 60 years.

      When the US was in its hopey/changey mode in 2009-2010, there might have been some reason to believe that a guy with Hussein for a middle name would be the person to do the right thing in Palestine. Forget that. Americans are still too far removed from hating the zio-Jews enough to change the politics sufficiently to make a difference. Until that shift happens, nothing will change for the better in Palestine.

  • 'Huffpo' shames pro-war Democrats, blames AIPAC (and gets lectured by Foxman)
    • It’s interesting, all Uncle Abe can hope to do now with his public rants is try and keep the choir together, and, maybe, justify his $700,000 salary, although my guess is that if you could examine both sets of books closely enough you’d find that ADL is funded largely by GoI.

      There was a time back when the KKK was still hot when Uncle Abe could expect a steady stream of scared new converts to his toxic, racist, zio-semetism, but those days are long gone. Now he turns even KKK-hating gentiles livid, and he is an embarrassment to fair-minded Jews. His dwindling choir is all he has. I might even wager that the percent increase in ADL’s membership for 2013 is less than the percent increase in MW’s subscribership.

      But that doesn’t mean ADL doesn’t still have a lot of clout. Although it seems to be part of our collective POV here that AIPAC is the group most effective in working the controls of Israel-firster politicians like Menendez and Kirk, my guess is that ADL has far, far tighter control by means of dirt they have on these pols. Recall the 1993 ADL scandal in San Francisco where ADL offices were raided and the FBI found its own files on the ADL computers along with dossiers on over 9000 individuals and groups. Those files were just released in Nov.2013 on a FOIA request by the Israel Lobby Archive.

      But did Uncle Abe get busted???? Here the way ILA puts it:

      However, like San Francisco District Attorney Arlo Smith who failed to prosecute the ADL for invasion of privacy, tax evasion; or indict Tom Gerard and Roy Bullock as unregistered agents of a foreign government, the FBI investigation was suddenly stopped in its tracks.

      They’re sitting on a mountain of dirt on SFPD, FBI, prosecutors, local pols, national pols – who’s gonna’ bust them? We're talkin' the J. Edgar Hoover program for eternal immunity here, except it probably ain't eternal in the literal sense. At least I hope not.

  • Coen brothers and Bob Dylan went to Zionist summer camp
    • "Most of the [Camp Herzl]'s programming, like swimming or softball . . ."

      Brings to mind the greatest Jewish kid-camp ever, which was not explicitly identified as Jewish:
      Hello, muddah. Hello, faddah. Here I am a Camp Grenada . . ."

      Alan Sherman introduced a whole generation of us baby-boomer, non-Jewish Americans to the plight of our Jewish contemporaries struggling with their own cultural straight-jackets, the same way Cosby helped us white kids identify with the black ones.

    • @jon: Walter also says that he’s “shomer-fucking-shabbes”

      I don't know, dude. I mean I hate to get in a pissin' match with you over the BL script, but you gotta' understand, this is, like, scripture to some of us. We don't want people messin' with it.

      So in spite of it being shabbas today, I dug this out for you. I'm goy anyway, so it's no big deal. Here's the verbatim script passage, which is Acts 7:27 in my BibLe.

      I told that kraut a fucking thousand times I don't roll on shabbas.

      It's already posted.


      Who gives a shit, Walter? What about that poor woman? What do we tell--

      C'mon Dude, eventually she'll get sick of her little game and, you know, wander back--

      How come you don't roll on Saturday, Walter?

      I'm shomer shabbas.

      What's that, Walter?

      Yeah, and in the meantime what do I tell Lebowski?

      Saturday is shabbas. Jewish day of rest. Means I don't work, I don't drive a car, I don't fucking ride in a car, I don't handle money, I don't turn on the oven, and I sure as shit don't fucking roll!


      Walter, how--

      Shomer shabbas.

      Later the Coens pick up this line of "thought":

      What's your point, Dude?

      His million bucks was never in it, man! There was no money in that briefcase! He was hoping they'd kill her! You throw out a ringer for a ringer!


      Shit yeah!

      Okay, but how does all this add up to an emergency?


      I'm saying, I see what you're getting at, Dude, he kept the money, but my point is, here we are, it's shabbas, the sabbath, which I'm allowed to break only if it's a matter of life and death--

      Walter, come off it. You're not even fucking Jewish, you're--

      What the fuck are you talking about?

      You're fucking Polish Catholic--

      This would not be 1/10th as funny if the Coens weren't Jewish. This is the Richard Pryor approach of getting us to laugh at our differences, and maybe appreciate them more.

      Maybe Goodman threw an extemporaneous f-bomb in there between shomer and shabbas, but the Coens have a wicked reputation for enforcing every single word and punctuation mark in their scripts.

      But even if so, it it was "shomer-fucking-shabbas," that is not an insult to shomer, shabbas, or Jews. It's a means of adding internal emphasis, like "big fucking deal," a phrase immortalized by our esteemed vice-president, whose mouth is as foul as Joel and Ethan's.

Showing comments 548 - 501