Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4601 (since 2015-02-22 04:31:38)

No particular traits

Showing comments 3100 - 3001

  • Why a Texas rabbi keeps losing a debate over Israel with a white nationalist leader
    • The pitiful figure of the of a liberal White-Jewish nationalist cutting short his bleating upon receiving a glowing tribute from a conscious White nationalist --that was so predictable.
      Zionists nowadays don't even know what they are and what they stand for. This guy was totally unable to recognize his twin brother until his nose was ground on his own doo-doo.

      We've already had two generations of people who grew up in the Zionist Jewish bubble. Cut off from critical teaching of history, critical news, critical thinking --and at the same time ready to pretend being one of the general American public, ready to defend principles that were never taught to them in the Z bubble. I don't think that the Rabbi here is a moron. He just never was taught, between his all-Zionist environment and his tribally restricted schooling, that Principle 1 says: "Principles don't admit racially grounded exceptions".

  • 'NYT' bias amazes: long article about online incitement in Israel/Palestine only blames Palestinians
    • John 66,

      No I wouldn’t. The US doesn’t have one predominant race. I don’t think the statement was racist with regards to Israel either because Israelis are not a race.

      Ah, but you wouldn't because you knowingly use the racists' misleading "definition" for racism (and a peculiarly American version of it, at that.) As expected.
      In the civilized world, racism is the term consensually used for prejudice against members of groups sharing a given characteristic at birth. Not necessarily what some laymen call "race".

      Just one example: the criterion of "being born to a Jewish woman" is totally racist.

    • John S,

      I assume that in your country, too...

      Before you start again with that nonsense of your "Homeland" being not the US but some alien planet, you should let us have your duly notarized oath of renunciation of US citizenship. It's more BS otherwise.

    • “Jon s” will never lose his faith in sport uniting Zionists and anti-Zionists."

      Stranger things have happened with sport. Back then, it did manage to unite the spectator mob, the lions and the latter's food, after all.

    • But we’re not going to leave , this is our home.

      So what kind of totally irrelevant detail are you "opposing", if you don't oppose the essential point --the mother of all other disasters you guys created?
      You. Are. Not. At. Home.
      Your home is in the US --unfortunately for the rest of us.

    • Mooser says

      I always wonder what real Israelis think of people like “Jon s”. The people who always keep the downhill door open if aliyah becomes an up-hill struggle.

      But who isn't like John S, anyway? I don't know about downhill doors but I know about at least one, or often two or more citizenship rights, often with the corresponding passports. Plus the US guarantee to take up any refugees.
      As for those who won't consider using the way out, it's a whole nother story.

    • Mooser,

      Both of these from the same Connecticut person, out of the page you linked:

      "For an individual, homeland usually means the country where you were born, or grew up in. Your native land.

      "I'm not "squatting on Palestinian land"... I'm living in my homeland, which is also the Palestinian homeland."

    • Catalan,

      Of course you don't see the difference between importing players (or workers) and getting invaded by teams that belong to other planets, all for the political convenience of politicians circumventing all rules. Of course not, nothing to see, move on.

    • John S,

      next phase of the European League.

      European League? What the devil are Oriental hill-dwellers, complete with Bedouins, doing in a European league?

      Hofer, Le Pen & Co's success is absolutely not surprising if Europe forces its people to accept that much absurdity.

      Zionists are not content to invade Palestine, now they must also invade Europe.

  • Defending Ellison, Jewish writers publish 'apartheid' description of Israel in 'Slate' and 'Washington Post'
    • Joe Mowrey,

      Fact is, the moment we don't fully concentrate on Palestine here and start talking about anything else, of course US warmongering and aggression rears its rather ugly head, as there are no anti-war Democrats, and none among the Republicans either. Also an impression that the few who were so before Obama and will again start making noises about war in general, now that a surprising Republican has been elected, will again be shamed by their party representatives (who will be pushing Trump for more war.)

      But then we do sorely need everybody to support the Palestinian side and at least do a little boycott.

  • I hereby chuck my right to Jewish national self-determination
    • Reb Feldman, no need to sweat so much trying to find a word; perhaps a hint about the English language may help: the word is genocide. No need for special designations.

      The English word is established by the work of Raphael Lemkin, of Yiddish mother tongue, so I hope you don't start yelling "antisemite".


      Meaning what the Nazis did to different people in the war and you guys are now doing to the Palestinians, starting 1 year before the Convention was approved.

    • OK, Annie. I take it that denying legitimacy to the Zionist invasion is irrelevant for many here, while many are doing their best to establish it as a given.
      Always good to know who one's talking with.

    • Donald Johnson,

      I haven’t ... tried to look it up, but I assume the majority of Israeli Jews were born there. It is therefore their home.

      How so? The American system of automatic citizenship by being born on US soil is not necessarily the law everywhere. It is not (not at all!) automatic in the Zionist entity either, if you're not "Jewish" and your parents non-citizens according to the illegal Zionist administration. Just try it.

      Same about several other countries, European and not.

      The only ones who can decide about the system to adopt are the collective Palestinian people, who are not consulted.

      Also, on a pragmatic level if you want to win support from the outside world and from some Israeli Jews you would push for equal rights for everyone.

      That's being done by many (an extremely valuable effort) in the framework of a(n im)possible compromise solution but it does not interfere with the basic rights of the Palestinian people and cannot limit Palestinian self-determination.

      I If you prefer the supposed justice of a mass expulsion
      I see you heard Eljay's mendacious statement. I always say that only a proper, representative plebiscite would answer the question of who the Palestinian people, as a collective, agree to host. Period. I gave a couple warnings for those who did not follow closely enough the decolonization era events.

      then you should oppose the BDS movement, because they call for equal rights for everyone and model themselves after the anti apartheid movement.

      Boycotting and calling for sanctions is what anyone can do on his own. The "official" BDS movement is free to have its own bylaws even if it is being called by people working under Zionist occupation, within reach of both the Zionist army and the puppet administration, even if local operations only seem to target nothing but pre-67 occupation.
      I have nothing against collaborating with it, but only if each participating party makes its objectives clear. No reason for opposing it, but a lot of reasons for continuing it and applying it to more targets, too.

      Also, "equal rights" is a strange term for normalizing the domination by armed, US-supported genocidal invaders over the disarmed sole owners of the sovereignty. Such a fiction may be useful as a compromise, though: the devil is in knowing what means you have to wring a compromise from US+Zionists. Good luck.

    • Eljay,

      I would like to see no violence. You, on the other hand, seem to relish the thought of violence.

      False, read more carefully.

      You’ve said you want to expel

      False. Submit their status to plebiscite --that's the law.

      from geographic (pre-Mandate) Palestine 92-95% of all Jews

      Not "Jews", stop that despicable Zionist trick.

      currently in geographic (pre-Mandate) Palestine.

      Calling Palestine "Palestine" does some strange damage to your throat.

      But you haven’t said to where you plan to expel them.

      I'm not expelling anyone. The message you're responding to and other explain why none of them would have any trouble relocate comfortably.

    • Mooser,

      If I am not mistaken, almost all Jewish Israelis are free to leave Palestine if they want to.

      Who are the "almost"? I just can't imagine --wait, wait, don't tell me! The Almost is called Mordechai Vanunu.

    • Eljay,

      If you say so

      Yeah, as "go on saying that I am me, I'll just humor you if you say so."
      Not only I say so, you say so in your next sentence:

      I haven’t pretended than a transition away from Zio-supremacism and colonialism to secularism and equality will be easy or peaceful.

      So lemme see: you have no major problem with the same violence if it is necessary for what *you* call secularism and equality, *your* darling that's worth untold destruction and death; you are, however, indignantly opposed to what you call

      forcibly dismantling the state of Israel... and driving out of the Levant 92-95% of all Jews currently in it.

      Besides, of course there can be no driving out a population infinitely more fanatical than any French colons in Algeria --lemme see how many of those invaders you call "Jews" are voluntarily remaining as equals with the fellaheen. And of course you again ignored what in my message contradicted your use of the word "expel" and the statement in it of the fact that all the invader riffraff have somewhere to go comfortably enough.

      Anyway, now we have your priorities absolutely clear:
      - No forcible dismantling of the Zionist entity
      - but yes, if necessary forcible imposition of democracy and secularism, whatever that may mean in Palestine (which you are afraid to name for fear of intruding on whatever portion of Zionist conquests are legitimate *to you*.)
      - Avoiding at all costs to drive out (even by giving them the scare of equality) the invaders and murderers, who all have somewhere to go (don't forget the American guarantee) because they are "Jews",
      - The collective will of the invaded population (and in fact that of the blood-thirsty supermajority of the Herrenvolk, too) is to be ignored, and a referendum bitterly opposed, for fear of offending the dream of "democracy and secularism."

      I am glad to finally having got you to spell out what your ludicrous 'UN-legalism', forbidding travel to Palestinians in their own country, was based upon.

    • Eljay, insisting:

      If transforming Israel from a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” into a secular and democratic Israeli state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally and holding the state and its (war) criminals accountable for their past and on-going (war) crimes

      against the will of the owners of the place, on the owners' land, acquired illegally and by ongoing atrocities. You see your Hollywood-image of "democracy" and "equality" of invader and invadee as being some Holy Cow, to be imposed willy-nilly on those who value their land and customs, or anything else different from your own fixation, and that, precisely,

      is “Geo[r]ge Bush / Samantha Power democracy”

      then in this instance at least I support “Geo[r]ge Bush / Samantha Power democracy”

      You didn't have to confirm.

      I prefer that to a “plebiscite” that involves forcibly:

      ["Why do you assume things will get done peacefully? I certainly don't, although it would be nice if things could get done peacefully." said a certain Eljay, when challenged about his objection to my "forcibly"
      so make up your mind]

      – dismantling the state of Israel;

      So, you will bestow "democracy" on the lucky local yokels without dismantling the racial-supremacist, constitutionally genocidal state abusively called 'Israel'. This starts sounding more and more like a Broadway musical.

      – driving out of the Levant 92-95% of all Jews currently in it.

      The "Levant"? We're talking about Palestine. I know, it all sounds far away.

      Anyway, who said it's that bad?
      A plebiscite doesn't "involve" necessarily any of that. Seeing that you have a magic wand that convinces Zionists to comply, just lift the military occupation and all repressive measures, guarantee implementation of the results, and ask nicely. None of us know for sure the outcome of a plebiscite as none of us know the outcome of all-out regional or world war.

      I'm sure the generous and legendarily hospitable Palestinian people would agree to keeping a larger percentage of Zionist invader offspring (not "Jews").

      What I'm way more certain of, though, is that the invader Zionists, having become the kind of population they are, will either use their 2nd or 3rd passport or the US invitation if they have any brains, or shoot it out if they have none.

    • eljay,

      Why should they have American-style or Zionist-style “democracy”?

      Because forcing people to put up with their (unsayably stronger) invader and murderer in the name of "democracy" with nary a plebiscite goes in the category "Geoge Bush / Samantha Power democracy".

      What have these babies been so bitterly fighting for these 100 years? What you think of as "democracy", worth sacrificing other people's all --or full control of their country?

      There aren't three camps in this war: either the colonial invaders and their genocide, or the owners of the land.

    • Eljay,

      You're the one who will need a hell of a lot of luck in getting anything done "peacefully" with the Zionists.
      But preaching normalization only serves the purpose of trying to keep everyone peaceful with US-imposed "democracy" talk --while the genocide progresses. Has nothing to do with peace.

    • Eljay,

      Still typical: you can't even imagine that justice means restitution of their entire country --except in liberal-interventionist cloud-cuckoo-land. Once they have American-style or Zionist-style "democracy", what would they do with their country anyway?

    • Eljay,

      I protest the lack of justice, accountability and equality and I want all three applied to I-P.

      Your liberal democracy-exporting enthusiasm is touching, but "justice" sure don't belong in there for the owners of all Palestine. What have they got to say, anyway?

    • Eljay,

      Although the geographic region of Palestine did once exist, for almost 70 years the geographic regions of (Partition-borders (P-b)) Israel and Palestine have existed and the right of self-determination belongs to their respective inhabitants

      I see that we fully agree! The way I describe your stance is that you (as well as a few others on this site) aim to legitimize and "normalize", as they say, the colonial rape of Palestine on behalf of its invaders; ordering the Palestinian people, unconsulted as a collective, to "get over it", the recommendation coming this time from the "anti-Zionist" side. You do protest --only at its "excesses", sentencing the owners of Palestine to better camouflaged slavery and US-imposed illegality.

      This is not a concession to the reality of the moment, a temporary bump in the road: you see it as a definitive settlement of all claims --unilaterally imposed by the invader and its imperial protector.

      If this were the attitude of the Palestinian resistance and its other "supporters", there would be even much less of a reason for the Zionist entity to ever even dream of any concessions: they certainly don't need any.

      The only thing the "normalizers" seem to be even more insistent about may be establishing some legitimacy for the violation of the UN Charter and other similar instruments, in the name of "international order" dictated by imperialist powers. Can I call that the UN-US Golden Calf?

      It's not an unusual view; in fact it is dominant, at least in the US. With friends like these...

    • Eljay,

      A small logical problem, past your perfectly valid introductory sentence.
      Hard to get what kind of nationality "bureaucratic nationality" is, but even assuming it as meant for "administrative", the problem becomes obvious with


      - Israel, the bureaucratic nationality is Israeli and preferential immigration must be granted equally to all people up to n-generations removed from the geographic region comprising Israel.

      where the population of origin (whose n generations may have preferential rights) is indicated as being the illegally settled initial Zionist invaders, as opposed to


      - "Jewish", the bureaucratic nationality is "Jewish" and preferential immigration must be granted equally to all people up to n-generations removed from the geographic region comprising "Jewish".

      But the population of "bureaucratic nationality" of origin A is itself population B.
      To make it clearer, the only title of A to self-determination (on other people's land) is being from "Jewish", none other.

      It's not as if you were unaware of the howling illogic of this memorable mental pretzel, either. In fact, as you just posted the following

      Small examples of Zio-supremacism successfully wiping Palestine off the map and pushing it into the sea

      As you know that the initial Zionist arrival intended just that, you can't have been unaware that no self-determination can be imagined for any Zionist invasion whatsoever --not even by dubbing it "bureaucratic".

    • Today there is a Jewish majority in Israel with a common language and culture. Those six million Jewish Israelis have rights and they need safety and protection like the citizens of any country.

      Sure they do, each one of them in his/her/his parents' (often multiple) countries. In the exceptional case of a lapsed protection, in the US that has guaranteed such protection.
      Not in Palestine, except for genuine war refugees. Descendants of legitimate Palestinian Jews are local anyway.
      Anyway, the only ones that have a say about that are the Palestinians, collectively and in the absence of duress. Meanwhile, whoever feels like s/he'd prefer to live peacefully can emigrate anytime to any of a number of desirable destinations, unlike Palestinians. And they do; a lot.

      The Jewish Settlers on the West Bank also have rights that need protection even if you don’t like how those rights have been accrued.

      These rights haven't been and cannot be accrued. These invaders are not protected persons under the current law --why do you think they are under military protection and why do you think they are military siege personnel themselves? The only solution is to pull them out while the going is good.

      Also, how come these are "Jewish" settlers? They may personally be Jewish, I wouldn't know, but the religion is not a body of law regulating invasion. They are Zionist settlers; their religion or absence of it is totally irrelevant.

  • ADL's Greenblatt is the one who needs to express 'contrition' for accusation of Keith Ellison
    • You should talk. What drug have you invented and introduced successfully on the market? Ziocaine is the best anesthetic, not only a local anesthetic as the name would suggest but a surprisingly general, nay global one that reaches everywhere and never fails to work. With it, one just forgets all the pain of the world except the one one is professionally supposed to whine about.

      Fleming for penicillin and Mooser for Ziocaine. Remember these two names.

  • More than half of US aid 'to entire world' goes to Israel and it ignores our warnings on settlements -- Kerry
    • Maghlawatan,

      The US has just elected a narcissist with the attention span of a gnat.

      The gnat seems to remember what got him elected well enough, consistently over 18 months or so. He just reaffirmed his basic know-nothing-like commitment to avoiding war when you can talk. And sell stuff, of course. And of course limitedly to some instances, not including Palestine (duh), but that's still something.

      The Zionist nightmare is an American leader having to choose between A and B. Which to dump. B is Israel.

      You don't seem too familiar with how it works in these here States --and it's not Tel-Aviv (or the Jerusalem Extraterritorial Zone) that calls the shots re Zionist policy. There can be no such American nightmare except if the pitchfork-holding villeins so despised by the liberals decide that enough is sufficient. They are not on the record yet for having done that.

      BDS won’t kill Israel. Events might

      BDS by itself won't of course, its benefit is mainly educational for the Western public (if, that is, it stops being seen as the US liberals' reserved incestuous domain.) It has great potential in that regard but little else.

    • Walters,

      Perhaps. But now that you mention Lincoln, even this most sanguinary of early US presidents would have pretended to be blind if Fort Sumter had been attacked by the Zionists. He would have been briefed by LBJ.

    • Sibiriak,

      Count me in, too. I'm all for the two state thing --anything but continuing as is.

      And it is exactly what I was saying: the conditions for lifting sanctions will be that "Israel take concrete steps".

      The concrete steps won't be unilateral and immediate total pullout incuding all civilians, restitution of water and all natural resources, RoR to all originating within 67 lines, non-ingerence in Palestine militarily guaranteed by sufficient neutral country armed forces and by fully-fledged Palestinian armed forces, payment of reparations and what is usual in a case like this.

      "Concrete steps" will be starting talks and having "talks" for another 20 years while the genocide continues. If the popular pressure in Europe is huge (it ain't) then they may request "concrete results" i.e. another Oslo accord. Period. Remember, these are sanctions and conditions to friends and family of the imperialists. In fact, to their very rulers.

      I have before me my dad's 1945 model Borsalino felt hat, misshapen, dirty, stinky and full of the grease, smoke and sweat of the years in-between. I'll eat it all without oil and vinegar if any "sanction" is different.

    • Sibiriak,

      I may be retarded but I am not stupid to the point of expecting any working sanctions directed at the Zionist entity with the current political constellation. Some nonsense, make-believe maneuver is of course possible in Europe, to throw a bone to the masses but not worth wasting time or imaginative power on it. Empty talk. If it comes to that, of course they'll find some pretexted conditions for the boobies. Like changing the labeling codes for the post-67 occupied area produce, etc.

      The point being that conditions for the sanctions absurdity by US and an EU that is no longer anything but an appendage will be handled like Libya and the Ukraine for the foes, while the "sanctioned" friends (and most particularly masters) will only get encouragement and a comedy for the gawkers. If you believe in any of the "conditions" on comedy, go ahead.

      Sanctions on the Zionist entity with real effect are only imaginable in a totally different political constellation. For the moment being, all we may expect is toothless --already private boycott actions are still mainly toothless and are mainly directed to post-67 occupation only.

    • Xanadou,

      That is indeed the international definition.

      I wouldn't say that the Zionists have been directly on the hook before 11/1947, though. The responsibility lay fully with Great Britain.

    • Daffy Jr.,

      Oll Korrekt. It can only get worse.

      Except if (yarright) we stop looking at our own navels and get a very widespread education campaign up and running among the people liberals don't talk to. In which case I realistically foresee not a change in foreign policy but instead extreme repression inland. Which also falls under "only worse", I suppose.

      No way of predicting how the world turns after that, though. It sure won't stay the way it now is, that's for sure.

    • Watan,

      Who were you responding to? Not to my posting, for sure.

    • Sibiriak

      International sanctions must come with specific conditions

      You mean the way we used them on Iraq, Libya, Iran... ?
      As for sanctions against Russia, they preceded the Minsk agreement as far as I know.

    • I don't see it as a "despairing opinion", but recognition of a pressing need to readjust resistance support to large-scale, general-population action in the US --where it counts.

      The genocide has been going on nonstop since 1967, at least according to the international convention definition; since the start of the first Intifada it has picked up speed and the turkey shoots make it full-blown. All it needs to equal other industrial-scale, famous ones is a slight push on the gas pedal. The Zionist never let anything get in the way of wailing --that's not a serious objection.

      As for the megaspiv: you hit your head on the right nail. Not himself anytime, of course, he's an ultra-Zionist as an adopted Jew but the people who can turn around US policy are his electorate. They are the ones who must be fully informed and indignant. Not something that "liberals" and tribals with their PC ways have even an idea how to.

    • You're right, Walters:

      It reminded me of the conversation an employer has with an employee, giving them one last chance before firing them. The offenses are laid out specifically and clearly. If the employee does not then make a course correction, that’s the end. The employer can truthfully say they gave the employee every chance.

      That's what it sounded like.
      But there won't even be a finger-wagging, let alone a hammer coming down after these words.

    • Ossinev,

      Many different administrations have been "pointedly signalling".
      Obama cannot return the middle finger courtesy.
      Also, “well we did warn you time and time again and you simply gave us the middle finger – you fully deserve all the s..t which is now hitting your Zionist fan” is unfortunately fantasy, not supported by previous history. Nothing done by the Zionists, including a successful genocide, will ever hit that fan unless US policy turns around (or the US is defeated.)

    • Right. Let's count on Goldberg (according to Phil Weiss a soon-to-be-ex-Zionist, yarright) and Kerry (antother ex, who protested against war with in the time of the dinosaurs, soon-to-be-ex-VIP) to mention something so simple.

    • Pabelmont,

      Kerry has already annexed Jerusalem and of course Syrian territory.
      But he is right in one thing, it all depends on not numbers but government commitment. In this case, certainly not the local government.

    • Mr Weiss,

      This is further evidence for my prediction that Goldberg in his new incarnation as liberal American editor in the footsteps of the abolitionists will become an anti-Zionist.

      There is no evidence of it anywhere in the paper. If anything, his pushing the story that the X00,000 shtetlers cannot be evacuated is evidence of rabid Zionism preparing for annexation and faster genocide. Also, your linked article provides no evidence but personal opinion (prediction.)

  • Obama would have overwhelming support from US public to allow UN establishment of Palestinian state
    • RoHa
      Its owners do. They're the same owners as those of the US. The peons are non existent, as usual.

  • US Senate quickly passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
    • Sibiriak,

      So what’s the point then about banging on and on about such an unfeasible, impossible, fantasy-land, international-law repudiating plebiscite?

      How many thousand times do advocates for the legality of a genocidal colonial invader have to hear, without ever satisfactorily answering, that it's the initial absence of a plebiscite (besides the alien invasion itself) that repudiates international law and deprives of legality its very existence?

      The point is world public opinion and mass support, not paragraph-chewing in a frenzied attempt to legalize colonial conquest and worse.

      Is the banging disturbing your normalization attempt?

    • Sibiriak,

      Exposing more and more how you guys are in fact helping Zionist propaganda in an effort to divinize UN illegality and compromises:

      Indeed, but it’s too late now, as talknic correctly stated. Way, way, way too late.

      A plebiscite now to completely reverse history? “Not doable”, you say. No kidding. A total fantasy.

      Of course it's not doable under the current conditions, so the first thing is to *establish the right to it in the mind of the peoples across the world*.

      To replace the Zionist-fed general idea, currently established as (a) "the Zionists have a right to the country they are somewhat legitimately in but too aggressive" with the rights-based idea (b) "the invader bastards are there totally illegally, only by the grace of the English and Americans, so they should be begging the Palestinians to let some of them stay, not the other way 'round".

      This is not a matter for lawyers but for public opinion. Are you lawyer-playing guys really so blind you refuse to understand the humongous difference between the two ideas above in mobilizing support and get a real boycott going (and later the intervention which will be absolutely necessary considering that these babies are divine-fanatic Zionists, not Afrikaners)?

      A plebiscite including a group of people OUTSIDE of a UN member state, not citizens of that state, to strip away the all the legal rights of citizens of that UN member state?

      To the cult of the US-dominated UN as a religion, it looks sacrilegious, of course. For whoever is not part of the unconditional religion, such a demand is the only way to establish the total illegality of a partition imposed by the colonial powers in violation of the UN Charter.

      Again, key word is "in the mind of the global public", not in the despicable world of goddam lawyers and member nation rulers who wet their pants when the US farts. The Zionists have understood that more than a hundred years ago and you guys still don't get it.

      Also, with an illegal foundation there are no "legal rights of citizens of that UN member state" but an a posteriori arrangement, and its legality must be denied every step of the way if you want to negotiate anything.

      In the absence of the Oslo abomination, a PLO that was not a US puppet did understand that this position, the universal appeal of right vs. might, was an effective negotiating tool. A Quisling committee living under occupation cannot even think of talking about rights, of course.

      When negotiating, the response to "it's too late, it's already happened" is "they should have thought of it when they started it; the right thing is to undo it and popular opinion across the world does support right over might --let's see if there's any room for you guys".
      Not "Oh shucks, forget it then."

      Not that I expect you to deviate from the theory of time limits for the right to exist of colonial invader states (already rejected by a huge decolonization movement), but you may want to stop grossly misrepresenting other people's positions. Agreed, it is fun but it doesn't help understanding.

    • Watan,

      Bulgaria moaned about it all right for some 400 years and fought for it. Nobody denied its right to exist, not even its imperial overlords that it fought against. Bulgaria was on its own land.

    • Hughes,

      But that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong for there to be a state with other Israeli characteristics, such as being called ‘Israel’, extending from river to sea or having an actual Jewish majority

      All three points directly violate all international norms, including the UN Charter ratified by all only 2 years earlier, but they are not wrong? I have trouble following.

    • Sibiriak,

      That border can only be changed via negotiations, and there is no requirement that such negotiations ever take place. This has been affirmed in numerous UN resolutions and made...

      Of course there is no requirement... by whoever wrote a vote proposal negotiated by some colonial powers. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that it can be renegotiated. Hence it is not any country's borders but just an armistice line maintained by naked force and a fake Oslo agreement.

      Also, of course, "negotiating" only means having credible and sufficient armed threat. Nothing else.

    • Sibiriak,

      It certainly looks like not doable before getting rid of the entire occupation, nohow.

      They should have thought of it when they started the partition nonsense. Now there is no stopping whatever will happen.

      Except perhaps turning around US policy entirely, and that means tackling the general US population instead of pandering to antisemitism-hunting liberals and tribals.

      The question is simple: Do you agree to the presence of Zionist invaders, as equals, anywhere on Palestinian soil?

    • Philemon,

      Israel is sooo history

      Theoretically perhaps, I wouldn't know.

      What I know is that the genocide is proceeding and the Palestinian people will soon enough be decimated to the same degree as the Seminole and the Apache. It's the Palestinian people who will soon be history.

      Also, the US of A is still alive and very much kicking, and all this respecting of "Israel"s non-existent rights and attention to its wants and attending to invaders' personal needs and such is not helping to inform enough Americans to turn the US around.

    • Sibiriak,

      But rejecting international law, which is indeed quite flawed in many respects, is not going to help the Palestinian cause.

      Agreed. Never a truer word: the Partition is howlingly illegal; it is a flagrant violation of the US Charter by the colonial powers. It must be undone.

      Get a plebiscite of all Palestinians, without the invaders, and you'll be closer to international legality.

    • The "right to exist" debate is not senseless at all.

      "States are not the sorts of things to which rights apply" is just a sentence a lot of people repeat without further thinking.

      In fact, you rightly corrected that somehow by saying "I suppose you could legitimately ask if it ought to exist or not", which is exactly the same as asking if it has a right to exist. Language is a bitch.

      Establishing a state by colonial conquest, enslaving and expelling the owners of its sovereignty is totally illegal after the string of treaties that confirmed it from the 17th to the 20th centuries; most importantly of all it is an obscene, howling violation of the UN Charter. Add the similar violation of the right to self-determination of colonized peoples. This can only be expressed as no right to exist for any state so formed --at least after the UN Charter if not for international law prior to that.

      Still about language:

      How can anyone assert that an entire country has no right to exist, a formulation that, given its wholesale and categorical nature, can’t help but bring the nazi holocaust to mind?

      That would be playing kind of a silly game, replacing "state" by "country", so as to introduce the weeping strings section, what with 'categorical nature' and 'can't hep but' and, ohmygod, 'holocaust'.

      But see, it's not "country". It is "state", meaning in any kind of usage an organization, a machinery to keep the power in the hands of well-defined people, and to regulate the life of its inhabitants and neighbors (in the case of the US, to torment all of humanity.)

      The country remains, the dogs of state pass. Palestine is the country and has seen quite a number of states. No need for trademarked holocausts to make that state unexist (as opposed to the genocidal practice necessary to make it exist.)

      So, as per UN Charter as the last of many successive foundations of international law, so-called "Israel" has no right to exist. In any case not without formal and universally recognized assent by the owners of the country --the Palestinian people.

    • Eljay, if it came down to only "denying Israel the right to exist" or accepting it, in any shape or form, they cannot find fault with you.

  • Despite Israeli restrictions, surfers in Gaza hope to join global competition
  • Jimmy Carter's proposal to recognize Palestine is dissed by all the usual suspects
    • Ossinev,

      ( the ones who refused to die or emigrate and who have continued to breed in their hundreds of thousands ) who sooner or later will be turning to the US and the rest of the world and saying you patently didn`t pressure the Israelis into giving us a Palestinian State, and now it is simply with the settlements a complete impossibility so we want equal rights and full citizenship in the land between the river and the sea alongside the other residents and not the Apartheid system which Israel will de facto be applying.

      You said a powerful mouthful there. All correct, except "turning to the US" and saying things is worth what? You know who the US of f*ckn A is (and who Europe belongs to) (and who commands in the US)? Saying all you said and more, and a token, will take you all the way to the Bronx, as the idiom ran before electronics. A successful genocide of the Palestinian people won't make any impression over here. The only thing with even a feeble chance is not turning to the US but turning the US ship, only possible with a huge information movement directed at the general population. *Especially among the unhip "conservative" working class*, much more receptive than trendy middle-class Dims or Pukes. Or a war that hurts us so bad we can't even stand up. Having grandchildren, I don't like the second idea.

  • New anti-Semitism legislation may stifle campus activism for Palestinian rights
    • Mooser,

      It's all well and good to provide comic relief in the persona of "Grover", to lighten up our difficult days in this here valley of tears, and many thanks. You may, however, give your sockpuppet a minimum of logical thought to make him understandable.

    • Genesto,

      Sure, free speech is always intolerable. An abomination to be nipped in the bud.

  • 'Make this my dream as well' -- in historic appearance, Palestinian offers one-state vision to a NY temple
    • Jesse,

      Are you the guy with the R-rated tree? No? Well, no harm in asking.

      Anyway, I wasn't really talking to you.

    • Just a mo, Jesse.

      You mean that's Park Slope, Brooklyn, that these guys were trying to convert?
      The penny only now dropped --I'm always slow.
      No surprise they got humiliated. Of course you guys will steamroll them.

      What's so hard to understand about working with the general-American population, not religion-segregated enclaves?

  • The link between Israel's forest fires and the 'muezzin bill'
    • How do you explain to a totally clueless person that it is a matter of national dignity, that noise ordinances are a pretext, that atheists and Zoroastrians and Yezidis and Christians have already reacted to the imposition, that people who have cursed the ezan from the day it was on loudspeaker have already pledged to defend it, that the churches have promised to start blasting the ezan if the mosques are prevented...

      So, as long as the Yahoo includes the synagogue sirens in his ordinance, the sleep of Zionist invaders being sacrosanct, should he continue to pretend he is in Switzerland and try to provoke the Palestinians into one more bloodletting --this time within the 67 lines? Do you realize what you are saying?

    • Sure, Eljay. It's simply a matter of noise ordinance. Modified to give a pass to the Sabbath sirens, but pass that.

      After all, the noise is plainly obnoxious; as PM Netanyahoo said, it would not be tolerated by noise ordinances in France or Switzerland, so that should be a universal norm. Noise is noise anywhere in the atmosphere, no?

      Where do these Ayrabs think they are, anyway? Did we sacrifice so much to deport them and pack the place to end up hearing the loud reminder that they are still there? Who do they think they are, owners of the country?

      So the right thing to do is a noise ordinance in the hope to mobilize every single Palestinian against the invader again, including the many thousand of them who would be happier than anyone to get rid of both calls and prayers. Then start repressing them, pretexting the riots, and do a serious mowing inside the green line, too. Break their backs for a while.

      Simple application of noise ordinances. Prefiguring a total-equality state packed with armed and Zionist invaders who believe they won the place "back", strictly equal to disarmed, wronged owners of the place, who continue thinking that they are the owners.

  • Deborah Lipstadt's double standard on white nationalism and Jewish nationalism
    • It will certainly not be heard by Hophmi that Yoni Falic seems to never imply appeals to authority but gives references for the reader to research by himself.
      Except the reader Hophmi, who doesn't take anything without appeal to authority.

      Hophmi may also want to reconsider his practice as a provocateur against the right to privacy. This certainly should have been reason enough for suppression of that post.

    • Hophmi has been exceedingly clueless for a longish time but this gets the cherry:

      what about Islamic nationalism?

      Nobody told poor Hophmi in his Zionist bubble that the "Nation of Islam" is a very small sect of Americans revolting against American conditions.

      Nobody told poor Hophmi that Islam officially and harshly opposes nationalism --seeing it as the antithesis of the Ummat the collective of believers that should not be divided by nationalism.

      Nobody told poor Hophmi that Islam, or any other religion, is unlike how his Ziowashed mind imagines the Jews, i.e. as a racial characteristic.

    • Donald,

      some people who are white supremacists are also Jew haters

      My point entirely, thanks. The combo is not a necessary condition. In fact, while White racism is still a huge problem (not necessarily where the current Dim madness sees it, though), "Jew-hating" as you put it is less than marginal. In fact, all the professional witch hunters hardly ever turn up with anything worth writing home about.

      With "Islamophobia" the trouble is with the label itself, coined by the promoters of the racist persecution --and gullibly adopted by the liberal crowd. It has nothing to do with enmity to Islam (which I also practice.) It is directed at anyone, atheist, Christian, Zoroastrian, Yezidi, etc. with an origin in what is now called the Middle East and somewhat beyond, period. Sufficient to justify murders, etc.

      Of course pieces of garbage like Harris &Co are out there pretending to a selective opposition to Islam while propagating racism. That doesn't mean that opposition, even violent, to any religion as long as it is effectively directed to the superstition is illegitimate. In fact, it is sorely needed.

      The same applies to "antisemitism": if it is enmity directed to the birth characteristics of a group, it is plain racism. If it is racism directed at being born to Jewish or nominally Jewish parents, well it is racism and does not deserve a separate word for it.

      If, on the other hand, it is directed at the superstition or the practice of religion, or to tribal practices unrelated to religious belief, it is kosher as criticism there is not directed at a characteristic at birth. Of course, this could be used as a pretext for what is really racism (as it happened in 15th C Iberia or 19th C Bessarabia etc.) but I don't think we are hearing of any significant number of such cases. In fact, seems like many if not most people accused of "antisemitism" are of Jewish origin or even religiously Jewish.

    • This is not to negate the reality of a growing number of Palestinian supporters who are truly anti-Semites i.e. white supremacists.

      You amaze me. Why on earth would White supremacists be antisemitic? Excepting marginal phenomena like the Falasha or the Chinese Jews, all flavors of Jewish are what even believers in the existence of races will define as typical Caucasian. Especially the Central and Eastern European variant that dominates in our climes.

      As for negating the reality of "Palestinian supporters who are truly anti-Semites", you're damn tootin' I negate it.

      Kindly define exactly what you mean by "anti-Semites" first, or just answer: do you mean plain racism, i.e. directed at an inborn characteristic, or directed at anything acquired, like religion, that is perfectly OK to oppose?

      And please bring clear proof of that.

  • It is time to imagine how one state-- one person, one vote-- will work
    • Mooser,

      I know that. That's why I used the phrase "Keeping Zionism alive".

    • Watan,

      They could have bought the Palestinians off in the 50s while they had all that support



    • Watan,

      Israel is too weak for a peace deal. It’s too weak to end the Palestine question

      What the hell are you talking about? When did it ever indicate an intention to "end the Palestine question" as you call it? The only way it can agree to end it is by successful genocide. It is powerful enough for that.

    • Maghla Watan,

      Israel is actually very weak.

      If it were very weak, as you say, there would be no point in keeping it in the one-state. Erasing it would be the single logical action.

      It is just as weak, or as strong, as the US. No point in perpetuating illusions.

    • Wow, the tremendous acrobatics people will get into in order to justify keeping the Zionist entity alive!
      Keep the "IDF", eh? "Serving the people", of course; good one, that.

      One Zionist reanimation trick stumbling on the heels of another.
      Last it was Zionist participation in BDS.
      Now it is decreeing a one-state Zionist entity with a JVP-drawn constitution from Jersey (New) --wonder what they'll invent next.
      The sad part is the number of people falling for it.

    • It isn't so much the vocabulary as the whole hybrid structure. It is in fact a deliberately made-up language using Yiddish/Slavic as pattern for this creole. It is a "conlang", constructed language inasmuch as it was deliberately engineered by Eliezer Perlman, later Ben-Yehuda, but not made up from ground up, like, say, Esperanto (interesting contrast between this rabid nationalist/invader and his internationalist co-citizen Zamenhoff, who developed Esperanto.) It was developed as a weapon to make people abandon their modern tongue, mainly Yiddish/ German or Russian at the time, within one generation. Many consider such an act as despicable if not criminal.

      Also, the fact that it was no one's mother tongue (biblical H. having been a dead language like Latin for some 2,000 years) it necessarily had to go through a second, post-construction phase of being developed for most of its content by a crowd with many different substrata: for a long time native speakers were a tiny minority and the continuous development still relies heavily on a very large proportion of non-native speakers. So "revive" really means creating a whole nother language than the classical one.

      I am not a Semitist and so can't argue in detail but we have a couple very knowledgeable people among MW commenters; Falic for example.

    • How it will work?

      If history is any kind of guide, it won't work without justice. The Palestinian people, owners of the land and the sovereignty over it, are not very likely to see as justice any solution, be it as well-intentioned as it may and subscribed to by many Palestinians, too, if they have not been consulted in a plebiscite that excludes the invaders but includes all Palestinians including the uprooted. In the absence of occupation and other duress.

      It is up to the Palestinians to collectively decide if they want to bestow their citizenship on their invaders, or if they want to give up their exclusive ownership of their sovereignty.

      Not up to some American lawyer --or Palestinian lawyer, or any person.

      Just remember Algeria. All your projects are certainly very valuable. Justice should come before that.

  • 'Tis the season, to boycott!
    • Sandrallap,

      It all leads back to my hypothesis of what force is a major factor in all of this… hate.

      Well, duh! If you don't want to be hated, there are a couple Commandments: Thou Shalt Not Invade, Thou Shalt Not Intrude, Thou Shalt Not Steal Land, Thou Shalt Not Commit War, Thou Shalt Not Commit Genocide. Simple. One gets hate for a lot less than that.

      You can complain about it at "the wonderful groups Israel-loves-Palestine and Palestine-loves-Israel"; they look designed for just that, Myriam. Sounds like a site where it won't have the effect of the cartoon cat in the night one throws a perfectly good shoe at out of exasperation.

    • Sandrallap,

      Star Wars, Start Reck...

      Right. That's just the kind of bullshit we needed right now.
      The ancient zookeepers, who decreed "Do Not Feed" the ehm... exhibition material, seem to have had a reason for that.

    • You just overwhelmed me.

    • Once again, this is about legitimacy, period, of any Zionist presence in Palestine after the Z announced their hostile intent. Keyword "any". In the mind of the general public, not the Zionists'.

      While we are at it, also note that there is a way larger justified Jewish presence than many realize, ie the refugees from Nazi occupation in a British-administered area, 1933-1945. Not to be confused with Zionist invasion.

    • Sibiriak,

      Who ever said to oppose a (mythical) retreat of the Zionist entity, be it so small? Or a non-directly occupied Bantustan? Or, even better, a *really* independent Palestinian rump state on part of their land (fat chance as long as the US is a significant power)?
      No one.
      Of course all UN resolutions should be implemented.
      I'm all for it.

      All that can be done unilaterally, without even consulting any Palestinians.
      Where did you get the crazy idea that I oppose it?

      What I am opposing is how you guys insist that Palestinians give up their rights forever and stop talking about it. I keep reminding you guys that no peoples I know of have stopped asking for justice as long as they keep alive, that international law is not the same as violation of the laws by colonialist powers, and that without the required plebiscite it all continues to be happening without proper authorization. No matter what progress is made (good chance having even an inch of it realized without either bloody wars or regime change in the US...) that will continue to be required. And I bet my last red cent that resistance will develop and continue in some form until then.

    • How the hell would I know, Mooser?

      All I know for sure is that it has to happen before the Z manage to find a way to finish their genocide. And whatever happened in places I heard a lot about --meaning the Nazi occupation and Algeria and places like that. It got organized without airfields or such under conditions yet harder than in Palestine. We all heard some about those, but there is no way of extrapolating with any confidence. Except perhaps that one has to get rid of the influence of the occupier's puppets before any action picks up steam. Or that a major rearrangement in the international strategic alliances and wars is always possible.

      Now, how does that interfere with asking ourselves what is right? How does that kind of question about unknown means manage to convince the US to oblige the Zionists to compromise? Upstream from that, how do we get any change in US policy without very large-scale information of the US population-at-large, not just the usual suspects? Do we have to have all the answers on the future of the resistance to know how to behave wrt the US?

    • Mooser,

      All correct. No objection.

      Only this is not because of what the Zionists are going to do about it. They should be worried about legality... It is about the idea that seems to be implanted in the minds of a majority, including many anti-Zionists, that the initial settlement and the 1948 state / or then the 1967 green line are legitimate (while they object to enlargements over that.) How can one make the case for Palestinian rights to deciding for the entirety of the territory, including the invasion, while admitting a total nonsense of a legitimate initial state?

      So either it's an invasion, or the initial settlement and state are legitimate, in which case it's just a question of overreaching. No talk of Palestinian rights.

    • Annie,

      Let's close this: boycott can be exerted by any single person or organization. Some have this goal, others another. I have been boycotting all my life and approve any gesture, including those by the BDS "official" movement (and including those by Zionists who want to limit the damage by calling attention to a difference between post- and pre-1967 and similar stuff.)

      The official BDS movement now, related to Palestinians who have to work non-clandestinely practically in captivity, under Zionist occupation and PA supervision, can define its own goals and it is one piece of the movement.

      Boycott supporters outside the official BDS will have opinions unpopular with Zionists, of course. These opinions will be used by Zionists to try and smear all boycott practitioners. Of course. So what? I may advocate one thing, others another. Let them smear, as if they wouldn't do it otherwise. Official BDS cannot dictate my position and cannot stop me from continuing my boycott anyway. It's the open discussion of such positions that will educate the American public re Palestine. Not limiting everything at 67 borders or 48 borders. Reducing debate to authorized argument plays into the Zionists' hands.

    • Annie,

      Wasn't there an "if" at the start of what you are quoting? I think the full sentence was:
      "The fear that if some liberals believe that BDS wants to throw out the Zionist invaders it will be bad for BDS seems to be what directs your thought."

      I don't know why you would truncate a sentence to make me say the opposite of what it obviously says; probably because of speed reading again. Of course boycott does not intend the destruction of the Zionist entity nor can it achieve any such thing any time --its main benefit is educating the American public --provided each participant states his political position clearly: if one shows any Zionist presence as legitimate, that is *not* educating the American public.

      As for "Israel like it or not, legitimate or not, agree with it or not, already exists", let's not be absurd. Lots of things that existed are no longer. That is not even an argument. If you believe that, why are you trying to change anything?

      you chose to translate it into “dedicated to … should remain”

      No, that was clearly applied to recognizing Zionist presence as legitimate in the absence of a Palestinian plebiscite --general and without duress.

      Of course I know that the newer boycott action, now under the BDS initials and specifically organized, is organized following an appeal by, and together with, some Palestinians working under Zionist occupation. Of course any boycott action is welcome, be it so small. Provided one openly and fully discusses Zionist legitimacy.

      I have no idea the specific shape that the will of the Palestinian population will take, of course not. One thing is sure, neither overt resistants under Zionist occupation nor such who approve witch hunts that prioritize so-called "antisemitism" over resistance are likely to be reliable.

    • Hughes,

      Might is not right and rights are not created, so surely not inherited, by wrong, by force or by fraud, though they can, I think, be created by agreements that end conflict.

      Exactly. You'd think it should already be clear to everyone.
      It all revolves around the question of who exactly is entitled to make that agreement, though.
      That is all-important because of a matter of collective resentment, not a question of morals or so (I suppose having to do with reams of stuff written on psychology of the masses etc. but irrelevant here.)

      One example we are supposedly all familiar with: Marshal Pétain made such an agreement with the Nazi occupier. We all know how well that was received by the local yokels, conferring it the definitive legitimacy that only the collective mind can ratify: exactly 0 seconds. The Oslo agreement between the USandZionists and their Palestinian puppets was just such an agreement, too. The local yokels didn't give it better legitimacy, past the first moment of confusion.

      If you go over the moments in history you like reading about, check your statement about the "need for grace, forgiveness and accepting less than is due, or ‘strictly’ due" increasing with time. Everything I have seen shows that the bitterness and humiliation being felt more strongly is instead increasing with time. The continual atrocities and humiliation visited by the Zionist invaders since before 1947 will not increase a desire for grace, I suppose.

      Re offering a compromise, well there I think you are inversing the roles; it's not the invader but the owner of the place who should be offered a compromise and be fairly allowed to approve or reject it. Be that as it may, it's all moot as 70 years exceed any reasonable delay to know if the Zionists will ever compromise to reason over ideology. The answer from even the most liberal is still No.

      Thank you for defending me; it shows your fairness but I don't think I need to defend myself before aspersions coming from people dedicated to legitimizing the idea that Zionists should remain in Palestine against the express will of its owners. You see the general hostility to even mentioning the matter of permission.

      It looks as if the Palestinians will have to continue to be genocided until they agree to foreign liberals making them equal to huge numbers of armed invaders in their own home, as opposed to being slaves and undesirables in their own home (no matter that the King ain't listening.) It's kind of an improvement, so who needs to consult the local yokels?

    • RoHa,

      Well said.

      As for:

      Would it not be better for the secular Israeli Jews to give up this nonsense, and start thinking in terms of citizenship in a state for all its citizens

      One has to observe that all incoming Zionists have their own citizenship and passed the rights to it to their local offspring. The new citizenship is more of a "vanity" citizenship, valuable to them only insofar as it is tethered to their particularism nonsense and opposition to the local nationality. For the overwhelming majority of course, not the few marginal cases. Compare to the other side.

      If, say, St. Nicholas decided to operate a major miracle once more and created a state with effective equality, I'd open a book for betting on the percentage of uninvited Zios who would accept to stay vs those legging it.

    • Sibiriak,

      I certainly don't care about you guys' lofty moral philosophizing, so trying that line won't work.

      Just a couple things that don't fit with your blah:
      - How many peoples in history have just put up with a very major injustice and held their peace forever? Take any example at random. Kurds, say.
      - Nothing against any compromises, as long as the rights are not given away. BTW, anyone who expects any compromises from the Z please stand up.

      The fear that if some liberals believe that BDS wants to throw out the Zionist invaders it will be bad for BDS seems to be what directs your thought. Not a good basis for discussing essentials. Politics are made based on clear positions. If you keep that attitude, there is no way BDS can contribute in any way to educate the US public (an objective that is anathema to JVP and Co., too.)

      Your concern for the invading Zionists is touching, too. Certainly to your credit, but I don't see them reciprocating. They seem to know much better than you that they are in a war they started.

      Be it as it may, the net result of what some are doing here is to further entrench the propaganda-fed general impression among the general public that the Zionist invader presence in Palestine is in some way legitimate.

    • Talknic,

      Too late. Israel like it or not, legitimate or not, agree with it or not, already exists.

      Lame, lame. The Byzantine empire and old South Africa also existed. What exists can be made to unexist.
      Anyway, if you don't want to touch the existent why are you trying to change anything to the statu quo of the Zionist entity?

    • Mooser,

      I’m not sure “creole” as a disparaging simile for Modern Hebrew is appropriate. Or fair to Creole. But other than that…

      Well, it's not disparaging and it is a purely technical expression. It is used by some linguists for Modern Hebrew because of a number of its characteristics, as I have explained elsewhere. As I already said, I am not a Semitist; that's why I rely on work by specialized Semitists, some of whom do use the term creole to describe this language.

      The term is not uncontroversial technically speaking, as it might be a stretch to call MH at its first generation a pidgin, while it certainly has a good amount of the characteristics of it.

      Just one mention, at random:
      And for completeness a short opinion to reject that hypothesis:

    • Annie,

      Never mind "graceful" or "intuitive"; I'll happily leave both to you.
      To the substance. When something so blindingly obvious is totally ignored by the poster, the obvious has to be hammered in.

    • Eljay,

      Given your dream of effortlessly and bloodlessly wiping Israel off the map and pushing all non-indigenous Jews out of the Levant

      Now you're almost entering propaganda.
      I always, religiously almost, take pains to indicate that Palestinians include 5(-8)% of Jewish Palestinians!
      Most of the time I write anything about it, I specify that and specify that one acceptable definition of the population admitted to the plebiscite must be all (descendants of, where applicable) Palestinians, including Jewish or Satanists or whatever, in the country as of the time the Zionist bandits declared their intention to invade to overturn sovereignty, i.e. 1897.
      Michael here responds to it if his facts are correct.

      Nobody invited the invaders to the "Levant" but themselves and HMG. Not anyone else's problem.

      Then, again, when have I ever said I believe in any of it being ever doable "effortlessly and bloodlessly"? What a totally insane idea!

      Having anything positive done there is totally impossible without sufficient application of force. The amount to be applied will be proportional to the fanaticism of the most rabid Zionist.

      Meaning I expect the injustice to explode in a very big way, with many international actors. The only alternative to it is a successful genocide of the Palestinians, which is proceeding as we speak.

      Believing that the Zionists will just give up and compromise even if we suddenly dump them is ludicrous.

      Believing that Zionism is governed out of Tel-Aviv or wherever, instead of directly from NY and DC, is just as crazy: talking of pipe dreams, having the US Government change course re the Zionist entity is the most improbable pipe dream of all.
      But have it your way, as what I say there is controversial now.
      What is absolutely certain, though, is that your nice dreams are a total impossibility; even in the case of a compromise being agreed by the Zionists, it will be a compromise on the side of the Palestinian people.
      Look up the word "compromise". Any agreement in the absence of due plebiscite still will not mean that it is just and legal forever without that plebiscite approval.

    • || echinococcus: Certainly. Except all I am doing is challenging you and Talknic to bring a Palestine plebiscite approval in due form to your inane, colonial legalisms. ||
      OK, well, knock yourself out.

      Always useful to clearly define positions.

      As for your dream of Zionists retreating without application of force to any of your dream "two state solutions", good luck in cloud-cuckoo-land. Besides, it remains without any proper approval from the owners of the place. Meaning, it is a realization of the Zionist invasion and racial supremacist takeover project with some limitations.

      In any case, including not only your daydreams but also today's harsh reality, your position is the exact application of the Weitz project: you continue to forbid unrestricted access of Palestinians to the entirety of Palestine.
      15 or so % slaves and many more subjects under the one of most brutal occupation regimes since WWII, without free communication, all applauded by the Zionists, their allied powers, and a public including Messrs. Eljay and others.

    • Eljay,

      Note: the Weitz quota, named after Joseph Weitz, then head of the Jewish Agency who wrote the project, is a maximum of 15% of the population allowed to be Palestinian (in Zionistese, "Arab") with second-class "Israel" citizenship under the racial laws, who under colonial fake-legality would also lose all significant contact with the remainder of Palestinians, the latter to be deported either to neighboring countries or to heaven.
      Your interpretation of the armistice line, or of the "two-state" diversion may be aligning with that.

    • Eljay,

      Since you’re no more Palestinian than I am, your opinions are just as worthless as mine

      Certainly. Except all I am doing is challenging you and Talknic to bring a Palestine plebiscite approval in due form to your inane, colonial legalisms.

    • Sandrallap,

      I happen to be against settlers moving into the West Bank

      My suggestion had nothing to do with banks --or any shtetlers separate from other Zionist invaders.

      Repeat, any Zionist invader's presence anywhere in Palestine is illegal. Palestine is the entire area covered by the late British mandate as of 1947.

      If you want to legalize any presence of such invaders, starting with the date in which the 1897 Zionist Congress in Basle declared its intent to occupy and take over the sovereignty of Palestine, you need to bring a valid, collective assent of the Palestinian people, for example in the form of a proper plebiscite. That does not mean collaboration by your own puppets.

      In "calm, respectful, rationality", as long as the owners of the place insist in not inviting you people and you don't have that plebiscite, the right thing to do by you guys is to go back to your respective homes.

    • Eljay,

      You are confirming now that you are defending the totally illegal Zionist invasion as legitimate, against Palestinians, and you are also using the maneuver of the Weitz quotas against the Palestinians, trying to forbid them access to parts of Palestine:

      My inept legalisms suggest that (non-Jewish and Jewish) Israelis should not have illegal access to not-Israel, and (non-Jewish and Jewish) not-Israelis should not have illegal access to Israel.

      Not only that, but you are also presenting the invader and the invadee as equal in rights.

      You even have the nerve to include the invaders within the populations with a right to determine the future of Palestine:

      If (when?) at some point in the future the eligible voters of secular and democratic Israel and not-Israel vote to unite their two countries into one, my inept legalismic suggestion will be moot.

      and you seem not to realize that there are not two states in Palestine but a single one with absolute power over all Palestinians. Your fictions are non existent and irrelevant.

      In summary, your inept legalisms detached from any respect of the Palestinian right to self-determination, in deference to old-fashioned colonialism, contribute to legitimate the idea of a Zionist bridgehead state in Palestine, continue to dangle the illusion of a never-to-be-agreed Palestinian Bantu state as a pacifier, and bar parts of Palestine to diverse artificially created fractions of Palestinians.

      If I were Palestinian, I would prefer frank enemies to friends like this.

    • Sandrallap,

      Invaders cannot be choosers. You (yes, you too) can murder and rob as much as you want but yiu cannot make the invader and the invadee trade places. So "repulsive" applies to the entire invader side and yours has no right to say a single word against the Palestinians.
      No doubt they contain a lot of objectionable characters. Including many Zionist-US puppets and traitors. You invaders, however, have no right to make negative noises about any one of them.

    • Mooser,

      How the hell can you be jolly with a totally sacrilegious comma staring at you?

    • Sandrallap,

      I don’t think it’s feasible for all of the world’s Jews to relocate to Israel

      You don't say. It is still totally illegal for any non-Palestinian Jew or Buddhist or anything to invade Palestine without express authorization by its owners the Palestinian people.

    • Eljay an Talknic,

      The inept legalisms at a desk recognizing a legitimate Zionist entity as per colonialist dictate drive you logically to ban Palestinians from access to part of Palestine.

    • Sandrallap,

      Bullsh|t. First off, this here is Palestine, a territory belonging entirely to the Palestinian people --and that does not include the invaders. So compromise is fine, but it has to come from the invaders if it wants to be credible. Not in any case from the wronged side. Second, compromises by the Palestinian people cannot be a definitive abandonment of any of their more comprehensive rights.

      No Zionist is going to ever make any concessions. Over a century is enough to learn that. In an attempt to give a little longer lease on life to he Zionist abomination, "Liberal" Zionists will cry and writhe and write long texts like the proposal above. They have been doing that for some 70 years. But every time the intent has been unmasked as that of talking about talks and projecting about projects, not to mention all the enslaving arrangements with US/Zionist puppets. No Zionist has ever made any concessions worth looking at, even in theory. We'll see about the Zionist proposal summarized in another article.

      Meanwhile, as we know what Zionist words are worth, it's not up to the Meistervolk to dictate any terms --they have to start with significant, generous unilateral gestures.

      Any action is unlikely to be believable short of general and equal citizenship, abolition of all Jewish supremacist laws and regulations, dismantling of the Meistervolk internal security apparatus. How is one to see anything less as believable?

      Also, all dispositions remain at the mercy of the next administration if Palestinians are not allowed (and financed) to arm and train themselves to a level equal to that of the Meistervolk population and its state organization. The nukes will have to be destroyed immediately, too. Can you imagine any accord while the threat posed by "Israel" against its neighbors continues?

  • A conversation with Miko Peled
    • Jones,

      Certainly JVP leadership discussed its vile attack against Peled with its own leadership. According to defector reports, though, this kind of thing is decided by the governing bodies alone, the rank and file are not consulted.

      Very acute observation, that on the likeness between the JVP leadership witchhunts and the complicity of "antiwar" liberals in crimes against peace and war of aggression. Piecing together different info, it looks as if many of the same actors are part of both.

    • Reb Feldman,


      I seek to prove that his language doesn’t help them.

      For seven years, if not longer, you sought to prove exactly the same thing with regard to any and everything that is not entirely favorable to Zionist theft and genocide. It's not as if you were starting.

      Do you really think all the people except your team are morons? Really?

    • Jones,

      Possibly the best characterization of this thinking is by Rashers:

      Whilst I freely confess never to having studied logic in the academic sense, the statement doesn’t make sense.

      in other words , it is not based directly on linear logic and an element is missing.

      The only way I could imagine it being interpreted so is the following sequence:

      Action A (atrocities) by subject Z causes reaction B (antisemitism) against Z.
      Subject Y shows reaction C to Z.
      Ergo subject Y showed reaction B.

      Which supposes that all action C is ipso facto reaction B because they are directed at the same object.
      Too ludicrous to even discuss, at least in this world, not in a parallel-logic one.

      But still, Hughes has a point. Not in logic, but in logically foreseeing the next line of illogical Zionist attack.

      The fact is that anything you do or don't do will attract a Zionist attack anyway, so what the hell?

    • But Annie, your posting was crystal clear and was not misunderstood.
      I just went on to the next chapter: even though there can be no "hate", as the good Reb Feldman says, I still want to claim and establish my right to hate his political ilk as much as I want. Considering the peculiar American institution of obligatory hatelessness and smiles.

      Sorry for not having made that clear. Peace.

    • Miko peled... has hijacked the thread.

      ...the thread titled
      "A conversation with Miko Peled"
      no less.

      A real Perfessor of logic you are, Reb Fredman. This must be one of your towering summits!

Showing comments 3100 - 3001