Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2152 (since 2010-03-21 11:32:36)

Showing comments 2152 - 2101

  • Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza's children?
    • So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic, you conclude halfway.

      Thanks for sharing your thinking capacity with us, however limited it is. So if you see a Gazan child talking about Israel and the bombing ("the first anniversary of the conflict" huh?), your first thoughts are "Nazis" and "pogrom". If you see a Gazan child your first worry by Pavlov is anti-Semitism. This is what keeps you awake. But please, next time solve your inner wresting first before you bother us with arm-chair moralism.

      I too think of "Nazis" and "Warsaw ghetto" and "pogrom" quite easily, more so since about one year. Especially when I hear a Gazan child saying "jahud", or anything else. Actually, already when I see a Gazan child -- dead or alive. When I see the word Gaza.

  • Palestinian toddler killed in settler price-tag attack
    • I object to the use of the word price tag without the "we understand"-quotes. (nudge nudge, wink wink). Using it plain says the author agrees with the de-terrorised meaning.

      Even better: no need to use those words at all. There is no reason to follow the terrorists' preference. There are better words. For example: terror, contra-peace terror, settler terror, racist violence, jewish occupiers terrorism

  • MSM avoids central Pollard question: Did Israel trade secrets to Soviets for emigres?
    • What is CNN saying about this?

      Their David Starreporter Wolf Blitzer was quick enough and wrong enough to push Pollard on the news agenda when Obama was in Israel. (While the heckler was not referring to Pollard at all). link to
      Note that Blitzer calls the judgement "stunning", but Pollards treason is just "some" documents.

      Already in 1989 Blitzer, then working for The Jerusalem Post and a card-carrying Zionist, published Territory of Lies, downplaying the damage Pollard did.

      Before, Wolf Blitzer worked for AIPAC.

    • Lee Smith is no Seymour Hersh.

    • Citizen, as I read it: it is about Kerry's dictum: "If Congress rejects Iran deal, Israel will be blamed". Lee Smith spins this into these accusations: 1. So Kerry says that pro-Israel lobby money buys Congressional votes. 2. Kerry saying so is accusing Congress people being beholden to Jewish and Israeli interests, that is anti-Semitic..

      Quit simply, it is Lee Smith who is making (introducing) the Israel=money and Israel=Jews steps, and from there unescapable "concludes" that Kerry is anti-Semitic. All this in the opening paragraph.

      Then Lee Smith goes on to bring Pollard into his "argument". First he describes Pollard as a someone who only stole your car because you left the keys in it: it was all CIA's and Weinberger's fault and Pollard is the victim. Then, inevitably, he "concludes" that because Pollard is a Jew, those who want him in jail are anti-Semites.

      Next Lee Smith makes a sensible point about the timing (as Peter Feld notes): Obama's administration opens up talking about Pollard's release exactly now during the Iran-deal discussion, with this intended effect: while the dual-loyality issue is on the table because of the anti-Iran-deal lobbying, those calling for a Pollard-release are showing their wrong loyalty by supporting the one who betrayed his country (US) for Israel. So the tar is the same: opposing the deal and supporting the Pollard-release is anti-US. Why are you against your country?

      This is what makes it confusing: Lee Smith spins both wrong-loyalty accusations as anti-Semitism, while Peter Feld notes that it is brilliant politics by Obama: no politician can support Pollard now. Being against the Iran-deal is the same as supporting the traitor!

  • Time Warner executive moonlights as speechwriter for Netanyahu
  • Focus on Jewish Democrats as key to Iran deal raises 'loyalty' issue
  • Congress needs to stand up for American people's interest over Netanyahu's
    • I have no idea what you want to say.

    • So Beinart writes (or is it Nikles?): Israel and the Saudis [together] have a different interest [than the P5+1 countries]. For Israel and the Saudis, the primary goal has been to keep sanctions in place indefinitely in order to cripple Iran as a regional competitor.

      A bit too simple. There are some simple mind checks for this:
      - By itself Saudi Arabia does not have to fear a nuclear Iran. Never had. S.A. better keep an eye on Israel.
      - "Iran competitor", "Iran as a regional rival". In what exactly? Something economics? Conventional warfare? How is Iranian nuclear bomb "competing" with anything Saudi Arabian? A vague and cheap diversion from the nuclear threat issue.
      - Why should only Saudi Arabia care about this? Why not in this list: Bahrein, Qatar, Syria too? And more to the point: why no true neighbors of Iran in the list of two countries? Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia: all might have more reason to fear Iran.
      - When did Saudi Arabia enter this position? Some years ago maybe, but not the decades Israel is there.
      - btw, writing "Israel and the Saudis" is weirdly incongruent. Why?

      All in all, it is obvious that Saudi Arabia was dragged into this diplomatically by some foreign countries. Sure it would be much harder for Israel to be the only one from the region. That 'convincing' S.A. might well be happening during arms sales talks.

      So, saying that "Israel and the Saudis" are on the same page is "wishful reasoning" a.k.a. hasbara. Beinart (or Nikles) is still wiggling for the Israeli deal sabotage by being this simplistic. Then again, anyone writing about "nuclear" and "balance" should mention the non-NPT Israeli nuclear arms.

  • 'If we don't take out Iran,' it will reenact the Holocaust in US and Israel -- Steven Emerson to Times Square rally
  • There are 326,000 children near Tel Aviv who won't be hearing Caetano Veloso
  • Press can't justify red carpet for Oren tract and blackout for Blumenthal's 'definitive account' of Gaza
    • ivri: conflicts between Muslim groups and others.

      Says it all. And as diaspOra notes, it is insulting us.

    • While Oren say that Jews in the media are not pro-Zionist enough.

      So it is, reading Oren: "not enough pro-Zionist control, so not anti-Semitic enough".

  • Nine reasons Obama is going to win on Iran. The first: Netanyahu
  • Not everyone is allowed to have a 'Good Life in Germany'
    • Merkel’s behaviour is nevertheless an honest one.

      Not quite accurate. It is revealing her mind indeed, as in: for once, she lost her PR shield. This may also be called a gaffe: when a politician unintendedly tells the truth. All this is not "honest" as in: not lying. Let's not make it a compliment for a politician when he/she does by exception what is common for non-politicians: not lying.

      Two more worrying remarks by her exposed her mindset: she said "Africa" as if Lebanon is in Africa. And when the presentor noted quite correctly that it was not about the girl "doing a good job", Merkel snapped back that she knew that. In other words: Merkel was deliberately diverting, and did not like to be caught on that.

  • Angela Merkel makes a 14-year old Palestinian girl cry by telling her she is not welcome in Germany
    • Best analysis so far (in German): Merkels Disconnect

      link to

    • And if we say ‘you can all come here,’ ‘you can all come over from Africa [sic],’ we can’t cope with that.

      Well, in 1948 and in 1967 Lebanon, Egypt, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Jordan, Syria did.

    • Merkel could have added: and when you're back in Lebanon, we'll give Israel the weapons and support to bomb your new place. Was it Shaba or Shatila?

  • 'NYT' discovers elephant in living room: 'Pro-Israel billionaires'
    • Oren: Still, there was no gainsaying the books’ impact on the academic and policy-making worlds from which his administration’s attitudes sprung.

      Easy to believe the book was read in these circles. But how exactly did it end up in those attitudes? What was the discernable effect on actual policy and policy making? Does Oren describe this? (My bet: no he doesn't, its another smear).

  • Israel detains and deports American Jews because they are Black
    • Ben Norton ... suggesting that Israel is a white country that systematically discriminates against Black people.

      Suggesting? What else does the quote "Eretz Yisrael isn’t a country for cushim" prove? Why should anyone have go to New York to have this Hebrew word being explained away?

  • The people love the Iran deal -- to judge from 'NYT' letters
    • Thomas Friedmans wind vane knowledge:
      First he shows off that he was in the White House for an update on the deal (he tells us five times). Obama told him he did not agree with the Friedman column two weeks ago.

      Now Friedman steps back by saying: Personally, I want more time to study the deal, hear from the nonpartisan experts, listen to what the Iranian leaders tell their own people and hear what credible alternative strategies the critics have to offer. (Really, only now you are interested in new alternative strategies?) Sure, Tom: two weeks ago you knew it all without having read anything, and now it's a fact and you don't know what to say about it. Obama exposed you for what you are.

      link to

      btw, spotted this sentence construct:
      the president said: “With respect to ...” said the president.

    • Wow NYT really did change their headline!

      Not only that, it looks like they started adding "NYT Picks" that are applauding the deal. Late. (Is there a tracking available for these NYT tricks, btw?).

  • Crisis for the lobby: Clinton bucks Saban, AIPAC doesn't know what to say
  • 'We should seize it' -- Obama announces Iran deal as 'new direction' for the Middle East
    • Few NYT comments mention "Now it's time for Israel to join the NPT". But more candid, a lot of comments say: "Israel wants war, and won't get their way". Good.

  • Abe Foxman says goodbye to an America of secret Jew haters
    • hpmi: the right of Jews to define themselves, including, if they wish, as a national grouping. You forgot to add: ... at the cost of others.

  • Et tu, Michael Oren?
    • Ian Berman: Kris, Yonah is right. Lidice is not comparable.

      It IS comparable, as Berman himself shows in his second sentence ("far worse", "far less"). Maybe Berman wants to say: "it is not the same".

      Anyway, Yonah was not about comparision (he'd loose that right away, and he knew). Yonah asked: if such rhetoric is helpful?. To which the answer is: yes, Yonah, very helpful. First it shows analogy and other clarifications, second it shows reference to the same moral scheme, and third, we know that Yonah has no response. Very helpful.

    • if the anti-Israel crowd doesn’t like Oren’s book. False hoipe. It's the Goldbergs, Gordons and Wieseltiers that don't like his book. How tov is that.

      On the other hand, this site is enjoying the book. It will expose and extent the devide in US Jewry. It pays pro-Israel opinionators with their own coin: unbased smears & accusations of anti-Semitism. It shows Oren as the liar and a war-monger he is.

      link to

      Bring on the popcorn: next act!

  • 'If you challenge Israel’s security, you challenge America’s security. Plain and simple' -- Clinton
    • Isn't it common knowledge that Americans will not elect an un-authentic candidate, ever? What is her message by character? Lying is fine, swift boat subversioning, too-slick advertising, all acceptable. But seeing Hillary will produce the response: No, I'll vote for that other one.

  • Lies, smear, and two-steps -- Why did organizers really cancel the Feis?
    • an elephant in my pyjamas

      Was it in there with you, like sometimes a bug is in mine? Or did he sort of took the pyjamas all for himselves? (Was it a he?)

  • Michael Oren cannot hide his disrespect for Jewish Americans
    • Oren: Many Israelis — the world’s only Jews without a compound identity —

      Israelis are Jews? Tally one more antisemitic remark.

      Or is it a Palestinian in Jaffa that has a compound identity, stuffed upon him or her by this Israeli? This long-term two-passport Israeli Oren -- does that not count as compound?

  • Roger Waters to Caetano Veloso: 'I implore you not to proceed with your engagement in Tel Aviv'
  • Oren's memoir reveals Israel's elite is hyper-sensitive to U.S. criticism
    • Simon edited out the entire content of what Oren said.

      That's called journalism. And no, not everything was out. Oren's aim for censorship was aired.

  • Activists call on Oprah Winfrey to distance herself from Leviev over human rights abuses
    • re yonah friedman: I’m saying that maybe 25 pamphlets were handed to Israeli soldiers, [...], but not one gazan received such a pamphlet

      So he did write and publish it. Coming from yonah, I take that as a confirmation by a trustworthy source (in this case). And so he did distribute them to the IDF: judges with a gun. Why would an Israeli soldier not follow up on that moral mud? How do you know Gazans did not receive a bullet for this?

      (By the way, how can one distribute pamphlets into an actively shooting and bombing army? Can I do that too?).

  • My journey from Zionism to Palestine solidarity
  • Oren's criticism of US Jews earns his book five thumbs down: 'slinky,' 'self-aggrandizing,' 'twists reality'
  • Israeli leader turns on US Jewish journalists Friedman, Wieseltier, Remnick and Silvers for disloyalty and anti-semitism!
  • Netanyahu likens BDS to Nazi Germany
    • I am confused. Is "Nazi" supposed to be a worse accusation than "anti-Semite"? As in, in diplomacy you can only step up accusations.

  • Dershowitz spills the beans: Supreme Court's Jerusalem case impact on Iran deal
    • honpie: you believe everything Dershowitz says you state while you quote annie opening with: "He's wrong, ...".

  • Untold Stories: First-ever US Nakba Museum opens in Washington DC
    • Memory and hope it says. We are in the mental interbellum of reality then. Worth crying.

      I applaud this creation.

  • A Jewish reporter in Gaza responds to Jane Eisner
  • Notes from the Munayyer-Beinart debate
    • David Samel: Yousef did keep calm, but it was the clarity and logic of his arguments that won the day. Bolding added.

      The "but" is journalistic laziness - at best (there is no contradiction. The 'but' says: "I've let you talk, I didn't listen, now I will say what I want to say"). In this case is shows the reporter's plain bias. You should have written: "and".

      David Samel, you are insincere.

    • David Samel: eGuard, it seems to me that you are misinterpreting everything.

      That's your mental problem then. I pointed out, by your paragraphs even by numbers, and by your grammar of active/passive writing (plus, of course, that praise-all-over-the-place) that this piece again shows Mondoweiss's religious approach to this Zionist-but-hey-its-a-Lib.

      I say (and I can quote this in two & ten years): it's those "Liberal Zionists" like Beinart that are the obstruction to justice, peace and freedom. NYT fell here, MJRosenberg to follow, Peter 'Racist Apartheid Zionist' Beinart next. Don't blame me for your latency in this.

      And, of course, any professional reporter would check Beinart for his behaviour wrt the three murderous attacks on Gaza. You did not.

    • Annie,

      First of all, I thank & compliment MW for publishing my MW-critical comments.

      (Annie, you did not engage with my last paragraph. Always a testing point is: what did he/she write about & during the mass-murdering attacks on Gaza (08/09, 12, 14)? Beinart fails that test).

      Sure Mondoweiss did quote that old one from Beinart's dark mind multiple times even. But hey, when publishing 1000 articles about His Royal Liberal Zionist, there always will be five or ten quoting that. My point is that Mondoweiss has never rejected Beinart for saying so in 2010 (and he never retracted). Not even in the debate review here. Time Mondoweiss starts using his middle name: "Peter 'Racist Apartheid Zionist' Beinart". (Alli Abunimah/EI never takes him as a serious talking partner. Whether Munayyer was triggered by Ali, I did not claim and is quite irrelevant).

      MW gives Beinart the oxygen to delay any improvement. Again in this piece. David Samel about Peter RAZ Beinart: paragraph two/fifteen: As a speaker, he was impressive and occasionally brilliant. [...]. Paragraph five/fifteen: But enough of the praise (that's 4/15 of praise then. Now I'm expecting the burn-down). Par 6-7-8: nothing died. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 'utopia', 12 'utopia' rhymes with blabla, 13 'B. is surely right', and of course 14: B. is given the initiative by Samel, even when he does not answer question. Munayyer never (never) gets this privilege of initiative/active form. Then, to conclude it, paragraph 15/15 opens with: Beinart made one of the best presentations imaginable ... (I add, vomiting: ..., still did not win a single argument, but gets his MW approval and exposure and oxygen once again).

      This MW-helps-Beinart approach should end. At last Mondoweiss did understand that it is time to distrust NYT at face value (not just Rudoren), which greatly improves this site. Now it's time to drop that free-talking, never-pay-for-an-opinion Peter RAZ Beinart.

Showing comments 2152 - 2101