Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2243 (since 2010-03-21 11:32:36)

Showing comments 2243 - 2201

  • Settlers gawk as Palestinian woman lies dying at checkpoint (Update)
    • How many straws needed to break Apartheid back?

      I find the ei approach, as linked, more journalistic. What in the MW angle do I not get?
      Oh, and btw Egypt govt is razing Rafah (pop 80,000 - before). No reporters allowed in.

  • Department of Projectile Vomiting
  • Israeli citizens for boycott call on Reykjavik to stand by its decision
    • Intro: The Israeli committee Boycott From Within issued ...

      Another MW approach illustrating: only boycott if you're Zionist. Non-jews need not reply.

  • Everyone's kicking AIPAC now that it's down
  • Long Island synagogue marks High Holidays with thanks to Israeli soldiers in Gaza war
    • Why doesn't Israel take care of its soldiers?

    • per Keith, above: M J Rosenberg who commented on Mondoweiss that “I could, if I wanted to, find hundreds if not thousands of anti-Semitic statements here.

      This MJR is revered on this site as a liberal Zionist, but at the end of the day he'll throw around smears of anti-Semitism around by the dozen. And never, never a proof or backup. I'd swap him for Alison Weir. You know, not about who you hang around with, but about what you do yourself.

  • Israeli gov't used my image for propaganda purposes without my consent
  • AIPAC is going out with a whimper not a bang
    • Patrick Clawson is an American. This video is from September 2012. I have to clean up some vomit over here.

  • The Star of David is fair game
    • In recent times Islamic fundamentalists have avoided symbolic use of the crescent.

      Also, never ever, did millions of muslims in Spain or Indonesia use the crescent as symbol for their religion.

      Note that the symbol moved from (Ottoman/Turkish) state symbol into religious symbol in places. The opposite direction of the sixpointer.

  • Why do Jewish legislators carry more weight on Iran Deal?
    • Q: Why does Wasserman Schulz not cry as an American mother? Why doesn't she want her children being safe in the US?

      A: she's an Israel firster.

    • I praise Wasserman Schultz. I might laugh at the video and you might laugh at it because you made the journey long ago, but it’s obviously causing her genuine anguish, and she’s going to get brickbats for it.

      Wasserman Schultz need not to be praised. Her "anguish" is part of her political position, the position she always choose herself. There is no outside force landing on her. Don't forget how far she made it and how much she made out of it exactly by embracing AIPAC.

  • Obama gets Wasserman Schultz-- and salutes her 'homeland' with a Netanyahu valentine
  • The Iran Deal is an African American achievement
    • Phil: The new Israel lobbyists, liberal Zionists, are willing to work with American interest types and progressive groups.

      Horrifying. Why would those Zionists be less discriminatory? Being PEP is OK? First Phil describes the sensitivity to racism by the Black Caucus, and then suggests that "liberals" are free of racism? Recognise the leopard spots: Zionist firsters.

  • BDS is here to stay: Message to a CT synagogue
    • The title of the Forward piece: Excommunicating Pro-BDS Jews Is a Huge Strategic Mistake. (emphasis added). In other words, the wise men want to include pro-BDS'ers to kill BDS. Nothing "here to stay" at all.

      For example, they write: BDS movement ... does not support an Israel that is Jewish as well as democratic and secure. "democratic and jewish" - they still don't get it.

      Given the secretive and manipulative setup, I am astonished that JVP lent their name to this framing. JVP should have opposed the whole setup more vigorously. Since they did not do so, I strongly propose that JVP leaves the pro-Palestinian community.

  • 'Turning point' -- Obama defeats Netanyahu and 'destroyers of hope' on Iran Deal!
  • Pro-Israel Jews have 'inexcusable prejudice' against Obama -- Sandy Berger
    • Your alternative reading is not a proven mistake.

      But let me tell why Phil did not react: it has to do with Pavlov's wolf that yelled "anti-Semitism" too often, drooling.

    • Who Pollak, jayn0t? Out of the blue, he throws in the Most Irrelevant & Unrelated Statement of the week: AIPAC’s loss proves that the so-called “Israel lobby” was never as strong as antisemitic conspiracy theorists said it was. (Looks like Pollak has that extra key on his keyboard as a shortcut for this bird dropping.) Anyway, he says that it doesn't exists and that is it less strong -- at the same time. Why hasn't he resolved this contradiction out before writing?

      The update note proves we should not have spend any time on this. Even Pollak hasn't.

  • Obama and the Zionists
    • Why doesn't anyone notice, MW home office especially, that conflating "Jews" with "Israel" is racist, especially anti-Semitic?

  • Jewish solidarity activists remember Gaza one year later in NY
    • Central to the protest was a recognition of the complicity of the United States in Israeli policies

      JVP only started supporting BDS (partly at that) after the attacks on Gaza (three major ones in six years). JVP only wants "recognition" of the 48, '67 Palestinian refugees' rights (instead of materialising say a Right of Return). And, of course, JVP assumes the prerogative to decide & smear that you are anti-Semitic because you have contact with people they don't like.

      I get the impression that Robyn Spencer is not brave, but is being vetted & used.

  • A year after Shipman lost his Yale job for speaking out on Israel's actions, some Jews say the same thing
    • John O: The great Daniel Barenboim

      This is how great he is: he wants Gaza people be bombed one week only, not four.

    • Phil Weiss: The fact that so many Jews can address this question without any career damage, and it’s kryptonite for a non-Jewish clergyman (of considerable experience and gravity) is a sad reflection on the American discourse. In fact, it’s a form of ethnic discrimination. OK then. Forget about the minor qualifications (lack of 'experience' or 'gravity' would allow such treatment, you say?).

      Let's move ahead: Is this fact supported by Mondoweiss or is Alison Weir invited to write a piece here? JVP was. By now, in this case not taking is position is a position too.

  • Videos: 'Vanity Fair' story about anti-Semitic pogrom in Paris is falling apart
    • Why need to ask, tokyobk? Why suggest it is by opinion, not a definition? What are you wrestling with?

    • Here is a press overview (in English). link to

      Not a surprise: "[objecting politician] Danielle Simonet was labeled anti-Semite".
      Paris City Council: "Canceling it would be giving in to radicalisation".
      Left-leaning(?) La Liberation: "Let's not mix up things. No knee-jerk reaction against anything Israeli. Tel Aviv is a city not Israel. If there is one place in the world where there is yearning for freedom, for peace, that's Tel Aviv". In other words: don't mention the war.

    • hophmi: The same people ... denied that France had an antisemitism problem when Marie Brenner first wrote about it in 2002 [sic]. ... to do anything about it.

      The point in this article (you clearly did not consume), is that the "anti-Semitism" Marie Brenner invented does not exist. Now the working hypothesis on her 2002 2003 claim is: back then, she lied too.

  • Omar Barghouti on Matisyahu: 'Perfectly reasonable to oppose performance by any bigot'
  • Churchill, Iran & 'Duck Dynasty': Mike Huckabee brings his presidential bid to the Israeli settlements
    • Don't forget Churchill was voted out of office within two months after WWII ended in Europe. And India left the British crown as speedy as possible.

  • 'Administrative revenge' -- settlers are believed responsible for arson targeting family on outskirts of Duma
    • The title says: ‘Administrative revenge’ (quotes included, fwiw). That is an euphemism for 'price tag attack'. Which in chain is an euphemism for terrorist attack. But the word "terror" does not appear in the title. And the euphemism is not ever defined as "terror".

      I maintain that the euphemisms is the language of the terrorists. Consider writing: "The terrorist attacks (they themselve call it 'price tags') ...".

      Final mental check: how are other groups treated in similar situations? (But don't bother to mention. Would be just as bad, not an excuse).

    • ..even worse, why are you diverting to another terrorists language diversion saying admin revenge, in the title even? WHY? Stop it.

    • Again. Don't write Known as “price tagging”. Ever. It is the language of the terrorist you are using. Quite mean, it is 'known as' because you and you again keep writing it this way.

      It is "terrorism" plain and simple. (Possibly racist motivated, or Zionist motivated. Whatever). But just don't write "price tag" as an euphemism without saying the non-euph term.

  • If I Were an Israeli Looking at the Iran Deal (to the tune of 'If I Were a Rich Man')
  • Roundtable on the Palestinian solidarity movement and Alison Weir
    • Thanks, worth reading. The non-facebook is at link to

      It confirms that it is a smear campaign by JVP and Campaign. Importantly, Alison Wier points out that JVP and Campaign exclude the topics Right of Return and Apartheid from their policy.

      It also further proves that the accusations of Weir being "anti-Semitic" are even thinner that we learned before. What a shame.

      It is the unbased accusations of anti-Semitism that lie at the heart of this train wreck. A practice common at Mondoweiss allows too. And then, Weir writes: (it has recently come out that even Mondoweiss refused to publish a review [of Weirs book "Against Our Better Judgement"] by a contributor).

    • re part 1: duh. A lot of blahblah. You know you did introduce the money-buys-position thing.

      re part 2: you're trying to catch me on the "deadline" thing (something about a youth camp experience or so). That conveniently evades the answer to: what is the MW position in this? That it takes so much time to get an answer pulled out published (I even had to ask for it) does not make it irrelevant.

    • annie: pull out all your funding?

      How come you think about funding in this topic? Does that actually relate to the MW judgement & opinion on whether Weir is anti-Semitic? Tell!

    • re Bornajoo citing: “The people I [Barghouti] know and trust in the Palestine solidarity movement all say “good riddance” to Weir, including the most prominent leaders. Omar Barghouti, on a webinar hosted by JVP this week, commented directly on the controversy: “As a movement that is inclusive and anti-racist

      So the in the first part Barghouti was blindly following others, without own judgement. The second part, webinar, is generic and not a comment at all on Weir. In other words, Omar Barghouti did not judge and you should not count him in the "Weir is anti-Semitic" camp.

      And you say Ali Abunimah only tweeted about this, that does not count as an argued stand.

      Another two names that do not convince. The list of anti-Weir voices is being made up of non-arguing people (we can include Jennifer Hitchock). Sort of voting.

      Guilt by association, guilty for associating.

    • Can you give the Barghouti and Abunimah links? Could be interesting. I know Jews Sans Frontieres also ran with JVP's witchhunt, but the Levi9999 rants and character attacks are more of the JVP-approach.

    • MW can start with publishing the motivation for picking these three pieces. Were these the best available? Or was Jennifer Hitchcock's added to indirectly discredit the JVP position (it really looks that way, but why state so this indirect way?)

      Hithcock's reasoning is laughable: She is careful to usually say “Zionists” instead of “Jews” See: If I replace "Zionists" with "Jews", her piece is anti-Semitic. Proof!

      And: ... so it seems that there is something to the claims against her, despite the vocal protests. What is this? US Campaign said it, so it's true? Conclusion by decibels? Why does Hitchcock not build a reasoning herself? Not a single one in her whole piece.

      Next: For example, her 2009 article Well, this is the only example provided that keeps being mentioned. Because it's the "best" (I'd say: only) example? It is from 2009, and the jury is still out on whether it is anti-Semitic. But just mentioning it is enough as proof, for Hitchcock.

      Hitchcock then states: This [2009] article is just one example of many that point to a larger pattern in Weir’s work. Quite simple: no you have not shown a 'pattern', and no there there is no pattern.

      Also: Not all of her work and associations suggest antisemitism. Wow, let's thank Hitchcock for this respite! A kind person, to include this statement (after all her factfree smearing). By the way, did she write "suggest"? Does she admit the 'anti-Semitic' issues are suggestions only? Then I ask: who does the suggesting, and who is taking the bite?

      Hitchcock does exactly what is the problem with this McCarthy attack: no facts, smearing & reasoning only. What a level.

      Instead, I suggest reading Amith Gupta link to (it was available before this MW post. Why not included here?).

    • OK, Mondoweis. Time's up. Enough comments to make up your mind. What is it for MW?

    • Page: 22
    • Not for the first time I strongly suggest that accusations of anti-Semitism published on Mondoweiss must be based on facts - or else the comment is moderated to the bin. This could be a comment-rule. Would clean up this site greatly.

      I want to extend this rule to MW postings.

    • Lyn117: I honestly think Allison Weir has some latent or subconscious anti-semitism - See more at: link to

      See, why having to prove anything? We better go by the lyn detector.

    • Preston Enright Weir wrote her pieces to defend him [Atzmon]

      Well, JVP and US Campaign combed six years of Weir's activity (possibly more), but did not include this in their arguments.

    • annie: action ... not being taken solely by jewish people.

      No, not solely. As in: "It's not only Schumer opposing the Iran deal. Cory Booker might do too (and you know: he's black!)"

    • "eto"? Is not in the three original posts. It only hits by " rhETOric". But hey, annie, you diverted again. My Q is: why should a jewish org judge on such nill fact? By now, I add that the mixture of "anti-Semitism" and "racism" is another sign of sloppy reasoning. And, more importantly: disgusting smearing. Disgusting. I'm not surprised that even "liberal Zionist Beinart" loving Mondoweiss has not chosen side.

    • All together, again it is the Jewish organisation who wants to say who is allowed to talk. On behalf of Palestinians.

    • Mooser, back in time when it was about Gilad Atzmon, you were crisp and clear, all over internet.

      But now wrt Weir you retrack into semi-detachment? semi-cynicism? semi-judgement? Please explain your joke.

    • What a smear. What a despicable campaign. Flimsy arguments. Guilt by association. And JVP nor US Campaign did notice they were misguided.

      This person talked with Arabs: link to

  • Israeli Banks flipping out over looming European boycott
  • The enemies list
    • It shows humpy is having a bad week. Can't even think or write clearly. Don't underestimate: unhumppy must keep Zionist anti-Semites apart from his regular anti-Semites. Plus there are his anti-Semitic Pavlov dogs.

      But surely this unhappy humpy is brewing something that will solve all anti-Semitism forever. Let's give him a few days. If is solves Schumer, it's worth it.

    • Vanessa Redgrave

      Hajo Meyer

      Asad AbuKhalil

      Tony Greenstein

    • She did not snap. She answered to the point.

  • Photos: New Yorkers rally for, and against, Iran Deal outside Schumer office in midtown Manhattan
    • Where is Colin Powell when you need his advise?

    • The closing paragraph Perhaps everything is safe ... is piotr's, not PT's. I was wrongfooted by its return to fear & distrust pose.

      The arguments in the piece, against Schumer's "concience", are strong. Schumer clearly distorts the facts of Deal into a big lie, FP explains.

    • Another Jewish organisation claiming that an Iranian A-bomb on the US will only kill the Jews. Hophmi will not have slept these days. So much anti-Semitism everywhere.

    • So the pro-Schumer lot were instructed not to use the words "Israel" or "Jewish". They are left speechless.

  • Celebrating Hiroshima, WSJ columnist insinuates US should nuke Iran
    • Dropping the bomb is a harsh but possible method of stopping proliferation

      Time to force Israel to sign the NPT. These guys are lunatics.

  • It's not bigoted to call out the Israel lobby over Iran Deal
    • About hophmi and his anti-Semitism. Let's check where "Jew" is introduced. The title says "Israel lobby", and all subsequent comments by Annie are about Israeli politics and the actual AIPAC/Netanyahu lobby. Up into her conclusion, quite explicitly, about Schumer.

      No, the jump from "Israel" to "Jews" is made in the quoted papers (Tablet, NYT, WaPo, etcetera), time and time again.

    • To submarine = to sink.

    • hophmi, it was Netanyahu who uses "the Jews" as an argument in this.

  • Shocker: 'NYT' runs front page press release for AIPAC warning Obama to cool his jets
    • Indeed, straightline, I [Fallow in The Atlantic] am explicitly not suggesting that the headline was a conscious effort to present Obama as an antagonist of AIPAC and, by extension, of Israel. ..that everything we do, we’re doing in a hurry ... do what comes first to mind

      Why would "hurry" be an excuse, and tossed out beforehand? Does NYT themselves claim so, while not correcting? Why the "everything"?

      In a hurry or not, journalists work by intuition. The headline shows NYT's.

  • 'NYT' turns settler murder of Palestinian baby into occasion for 'soulsearching' by Israeli Jews and Jews only
    • James North: The pricetag attack on a Palestinian family by Jewish terrorists

      Again: writing pricetag humanises, normalises and understates what it is: a terror attack. There is no need to use the language of the terrorists.

  • Palestinian forced to strip to underwear before attending briefing at Israeli Embassy in Washington DC
  • Defying Obama on Iran deal, Schumer cites Hamas
    • I happily stand corrected: Yiddish is a dialect &tc. Am I right that the remaining question now is: how is the Hebrew "guardian" meaning related to the Hochdeutsch "skimmer" and/or "vagabond"? Is the Hebrew stemming from another root word, or is it loaned from Yiddish in modern Hebrew?

    • High German, of which Yiddisch is a part -- You are kidding, right? Yiddish is "part of" German"? Better guess Yioddish is derived from German (that is, the other way around). Of course, a Yiddish meaning may have be added later.

    • About his name. Nothing Yiddish. According to Wikipedia link to

      Schumer is a Middle Low German word meaning "good-for-nothing" or "vagabond".

    • Rush, hopmi. Another anti-Semitic jab you should point out: Mr. Schumer is Congress’ most influential Jewish member. In the NYT.

      link to

    • hophmi Has anyone here called them “Christian traitors?”

      That is not your point, hompi. You are still to convince us that it is anti-Semitic to say a Jewish traitor is Jewish.

    • Lately, Shumer was very welcome in Jon Stewart's finals.

  • Israel vs the Violin
    • The BBC report by Tim Whewell, "Saving Gaza’s only grand piano", is sickening. Whewell keeps asking "making music is haram" (disallowed in Islam), without bothering to look it up himself or even consider the facts that entering his ears as he speaks.

      And there he is again, Daniel Barenboim pushing himself into music from the occupying country, to solve the occupation by so generously allowing children to make music - as a diversion from something he dare not name. If he had a heart, he could have let ten children more make music: he just had to raise his voice in time, a year ago, and prevented just one rocket being fired from Israel. But no. I bet his name was not on the sponsor list when the BBC asked Gazan Govt permission to enter the Gaza strip, he typically creeps up afterwards.

      Instead, last year he wrote "the fear with which my fellow Israelis live today: the constant sounds of rockets being fired ...", and "In this conflict, we [Israelis, Palestinians] are all losers". (Of course, he wrote this on July 24, when most of the killing was done. Not on day one).
      link to

      About the 2008/2009 Israeli attacks on Gaza: "Palestinian violence torments Israelis". and of course "Israel has the right to defend itself". After one week.
      link to

      Barenboim is the Dershowitz in music.

  • Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza's children?
    • German Lefty, no need to reframe words. The title says what it says. And everything after "So" is a conclusion, his conclusion. That's called language. If he meant something else, he should have written something else.

      Robert Cohen is showing a pattern turning a major issue into overindulgence in Jewish paranoia
      link to

    • Dear Mondoweiss. Please drop Robert Cohen. Already last January, he turned a world-wide topic into his pet mouse minded issue.

      link to

    • diasp0ra: I reject outright this baseless accusation of anti-Semitism, and it’s actually quite low of you to even suggest that.

      Hear, hear. And the bigger issue is that Mondoweiss publishes it.

    • German Lefty: Otherwise, the BBC would be accused of: ..

      By whom? By another false armchair moralist like you or Robert Cohen who did not have to pay a child (your child) for the Israeli attack on Gaza?

      German Lefty, why are you occupied with the BBC-Cohen-anti-Semitism angle? Say after me: The Jewish State Killed Over 500 Children Because They Were Not Jewish. Repeat: The ... Jewish ... State ...

    • Taxi: Over indulgence in Jewish paranoia expressed in articles such as this one is the very reason I’ve been turned off from visiting MW

      Thanks, Taxi. Well said.

    • Thanks Tony. I suggest Mondoweiss swaps this comment with Robert Cohens post.

    • re German lefty: 1. I wrote "Zionist mind", you misquoted me. Can't you read? 2. "So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic" is exactly what Cohen concluded. If you did not see that, indeed you might have read a different article. 3. "I agree that the title is totally tabloid level. However, ..." -- Nothing tabloid. It is Cohens title. It proves what I claim, and it answered your question. Having to start a 'however' spin - I'm not interested in you washing clean Cohen (why does he do that himself btw?). 4. Great to learn that Cohen "voluntary" read Max Blumenthal. Quite an offer for his kind of mind. Other Zionist minds must be enforced to read it. 5. For the rest: have nice day, take a cigar in your armchar. 6. This piece by Cohen is Zionist minded. If you think Tony Greenstein says "the same as Cohen", go try licking yourself up to him with that. I'd love to read Tony's reply.

    • The title.

      First state Gazan children are anti-Semitic. Then spend the rest of the day pondering and smoking in your armchair whether you will forgive those children. (But no. His conclusion is: So perhaps the children of Gaza are antisemitic). I prefer Tony Greensteins comment, below.

    • Note that the title Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza’s children? conveniently prevents Robert Cohen having to answer the more primary question: what anti-Semitism?

    • Robert Cohen: another Zionist mind unaffected by the Israeli Jewish state terrorism on Gaza. Noted. Next.

    • 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 2243 - 2201