-
-
- ‘Forward’ piece on destruction of Palestinian neighborhood fronting Western Wall … 13
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by … 17
- Bradley Manning rally to feature, Ellsberg, Ann Wright, Dan Choi, … 3
- Another ‘NYT’ piece buys Israel’s al-Dura report– which PA spox … 0
- Jewish philanthropies stay away from org dedicated to Yiddish culture … 22
- Reporters Without Borders on the Israeli al-Dura investigation: ‘the nature … 6
- Obama’s secret wars in Muslim world make Americans vulnerable 24
- ‘Al Jazeera’ reposts Massad piece, after censoring it 4
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 2240
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 1716
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1698
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 1368
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1358
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 809
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 442
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 87
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 87
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
-
- RT @drones: Attorney General Eric Holder: We've drone four Americans, three by accident. Oops. http://t.co/R5NrBGPJfQ, 12 hours ago
- RT @grassfed: MT“@BPFF_Festival: #Palestinian film "Omar" by Hany Abu-Assad, receives 5 min standing O at #Cannes: http://t.co/xvCDQDwuDP” …, 15 hours ago
- ‘Forward’piece on destruction of Palestinian neighborhood fronting Western Wall not embraced by all ‘Forward’ readers http://t.co/a8nvXYynM6, 16 hours ago
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by requiring tourists to obtain military permit http://t.co/vNUagVufkS, 17 hours ago
- Bradley Manning rally to feature, Ellsberg, Ann Wright, Dan Choi, Sarah Shourd http://t.co/C1C7G1DXJ6, 17 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- ‘Forward’ piece on destruction of Palestinian neighborhood fronting Western Wall is not embraced by all ‘Forward’ readers (13)
- tree: For example :The Hurva synagogue. We’ve covered this before, jon, but maybe you missed it. The Hurva...
- New York City Council official urges Brooklyn College to hire ‘professor from Israel’ (35)
- Djinn: For the same reason Australia’s PM appointed a specific “liaison” between her office and...
- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle Eastern Jews (39)
- Hostage: Massad aside, what Shasha is talking about seems way worse in the Christian world than in the Jewish one!...
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by requiring tourists to obtain military permit (17)
- German Lefty: I just found this latest BBC poll on the views of different countries’ influence:...
- Sumud: I look forward to adding this piece to the other materials that have been sent to the proper authorities in...
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… immense’ (39)
- tree: It is mistaken to claim that “Jews were at the forefront of the civil rights movement” as if all...
- Press Release: Isabel Kershner chosen to reveal future Israeli exonerations (13)
- Djinn: I’d say it’s more a case of knowing that it doesn’t matter how stupid the lie, there will...
- Israel blocks UNESCO fact-finding mission to investigate assaults on holy places in Jerusalem (4)
- Sumud: I don’t think they withdrew from UNESCO, rather they said the would withhold funding, and there were...
- Obama’s secret wars in Muslim world make Americans vulnerable (24)
- ‘Forward’ piece on destruction of Palestinian neighborhood fronting Western Wall is not embraced by all ‘Forward’ readers (13)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
This is what Larry Derfner on 972+ writes. First he throws the report out of the window for being nonsense -- but for one conclusion he finds useful for what he himself "believes":
The ironic thing, though, is that the Kuperwasser Committee’s minimal finding – that there’s no proof Israeli soldiers shot the al-Duras – is absolutely true. [...] more likely -...] the al-Duras had been shot accidentally by Palestinian gunmen [...] That’s also the explanation I believe. Again: whitin one paragraph from "Committee’s finding is absolutely [sic] true", then move on to "believe"?
Larry in the end gets selectively picking a "absolutely true" thing from the report, after he had destroyed it's base totally. What is this? Then he changes that "truth"'s conclusion: from "there is no proof for an Israeli killing" to "Palestinians did it themselves". That is *not* what the report concludes, dude. Then he goes on, because it was the "easiest to accept", that his belief clears Israel of the terrible, almost certainly false accusation [...] deliberately, demonically gunned down .... Now it is back to "almost certainly" why repeat that "false" in the conclusion you derive from it? You call this reasoning? Did you get a nip of the kool aid too, Larry?
One moore thing, Larry. Within days of the shooting Israel teared down the whole construction that was the background of the shooting. Glad you found "no evidence" any more. Sure, Israel does not gun down a 12-year old. Sleep well.
link to 972mag.com
A curious thing. According to Mayer, in The New Yorker, the documentary was aired on [Monday] November 12, 2012.
But at 17:35 in the broadcast, Diane Rehm cites a statement from WNET: "WNET aired the Alex Gibney documentary "Park Avenue" as scheduled on Nov. 13, 2012." (Tuesday).
That is a full day off. My bet is WNET shifted their timeline afterwards -- once more.
Transcript (quote is at "10:24:01")
link to thedianerehmshow.org
Yes. Mondoweiss is right.
So, the study was broader (more options), but the map here only pictures the race question.
So for instance during the year 1967, another 400,000 Palestinian became refugees.
Only recently did I discover note that 1967 had it's own Nakba. Palestinians removed from the West Bank included refugees from 1948, who were expelled twice.
So Beinart called for justice for Palestinians. Strange I did not hear that as his top point, over the last two years. Anyway, it extracted not a single consequence from him. No deeds, and not even in his knotty wording was there a follow up. He does not ask consequences from himself, not from his children, not from his audience.
He is an Israel Firster. And uses his children (what a prop he cooses!) to prove his own correctness.
pabelmont: if he really said that Israel need not be concerned with what’s good for USA’s Jews (and other Jews)
He said. I linked. I transcribed. Why the 'if'?
Applause for Beinart? Only when compared to Dershowitz. Don't forget he's a Zionist. And a bad one.
Today Beinart says this: We have a right to decide what is best for the United States. That is not what he said earlier.
A year ago, speaking on the 2012 Presidential Conference (the same conference Hawking now withdrew from; Beinart is not invited this year), Beinart said this in his opening lines: link to presidentconf.org.il
"What does diaspora Jewry expect from Israel?" is the wrong question. I think we in the diaspora have the right to give our opinions about Israeli policy, but I don't think we have the right to expect that Israeli leaders should make their decisions about Israeli policy based on what is good for us [diaspora Jews]. Take, hypothetical situation, let's say Israel were to attack Iran. You can imagine a situation in which Iran retaliated against US troops in Afghanistan, oil prices spike, the US went into recession, and it lead to an increase in anti-Semitism in the United States. So perhaps it would not be so good for the Jews in America. But I don't think we would have the right to say to Israeli leaders that therefor Israeli leaders should put our [US Jews?] interests ahead of what they perceive to be the interest of the state of Israel.
In other words: First he does not want diaspora Jews to defend their homeland (e.g., US) interests vs. Israel. Then he advocates Israel to put its Israeli interest above US interests (not just US Jews' interests). Attacks on US troops in Afghanistan, high oil prices and a recession don't matter? He is an Israel firster.
When everything else fails, call anti-Semitism.
The good news is, that Dershowitz had to retreat to that last line of defense.
About the +972 piece by Noam Sheizaf. He writes: While I myself have never advocated a full boycott, ...
That may be so, but we cannot know. More important is, that under current Israeli anti-BDS law he is not able to write the opposite (i.e., to support BDS). Any Israeli writing about the boycott should add:
Disclaimer: This article was written under Israeli law that prohibits discussing BDS.
MW: It hasn't just been the right-wing that has lashed out at Hawking. Liberal Zionist Haaretz writer ... [too]
Lesson 1 in understanding the I/P situation: All Zionists Are Rightwing.
[Shurat HaDin] called on Hawking to "pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet" which enables him to communicate because the chip was designed by a Israeli lab.
There is this anti-BDS law in Israel, against promoting Boycott, with a very low treshold for proof. So now any good lawyer can claim & win damages from Intel for producing hate speech.
Mike_Konrad: Israel is surrounded by a hostile sea of Arabs (whether you admit it or not)
Apart from the self-proving fallacy (how convincing), Israel can take away such perceived hostility by itself. Read BDS basics for an explaination on how.
hophmi: It’s the Guardian. If the yeas didn’t have it, I’d be shocked.
No. It is internet, hophmi.
miriam6: clearly nothing of this mattered when they invited him. Peres would have smiled. But only now you come up with this.
Why does The Guardian use this wording: he has been bombarded with messages from Britain and abroad as part of an intense campaign by boycott supporters trying to persuade him to change his mind?
Having sit through an hour of "debate" at Martha's Vineyard (linked), I heard these quotes (stresses, verbal, by AD):
1:02:20, AD: ... and everybody knows, everybody knows that Ma'ale Adumim is gonna remain [sic] part of Israel. Nobody thinks that Palestinians are gonna get these enourmous appartments complexes overlooking Jerusalem. Of course they remain [sic] part of Israel.
1:07:40, AD: I am not here to justify the occupation. I am against it. I am against civilian [sic] settlements. In 1973 I submitted my first petition against [name inaudible] which resulted in my rabbi in the synagoge, in front of my mother at rosh hashanah, calling me a traitor to the Jewish people. So I get it from the right and the left equally as well.
Clearly he is contradicting himself: being against settlements since 1973, and of course Ma'ale Adumim can stay Israeli. This is not a straight lie, as the whoppers are, but dishonest it is.
Still, in there are two plain lies, I marked. "Ma'ale Adumim is gonna remain part of Israel"; really, it is not part of Israel, so what is to "remain"? And the lie "I am against civilian settlements" (what would "uncivil" settlements be then, and why does he support them? Are they what they are today?). So allows some military settlement/presence/occupation which he said he is against.
Maybe he is in the right place. The peace process is primarily an entertainment thing.
Weird that the investigators did describe the intervention by Hillel director Drukker and CUNY staffer Morales pushing six "Jewish" Hillel Israel advocates in, but did not check this against "whether Jewish students had been granted equal access to and participation in the event" (the complaint!). As if they have not reread their facts before drwaing conclusions.
From the report: E. The intervention by Hillel
Nadya Drukker is the Director of the Brooklyn College Hillel. Typically, she does not encourage Jewish students to attend pro-Palestinian events. However, she does like to have a few poised and articulate Jewish students attend so that these students can prepare and ask challenging questions and also so that they can report to her what was said at the event. These students are instructed not to be disruptive and to hand out flyers only after the event. She asked [Melanie] Goldberg to fill this role at the BDS event. [...] Drukker told Goldberg that Morales [Vice President for Student Affairs] said she would add a few students of Drukker’s choosing to the list so they could attend the event.
Three notes:
1. So actually Hillel's Drukker does send Jewish students to these meetings, and her "not encouraging" is factually contradicted.
2. Drukker had names put on the RSVP through Morales' intervention. Why was she given preference for "her" choosen names?
3. Melanie Goldberg was send by Hillel and the flyering was prepared by Hillel. Goldberg must feel great doing the shoppings for Drukker. After all, she is "majoring in journalism".
Oh, and arriving twenty minutes late at a meeting you are send to to ask ''challenging" questions: how serious can you be.
Actually, by their own admission, they were handing out flyers ("fact sheets"), although only between them four. That is not allowed. The expulsion is correct.
RJL: ... gets beaten up by someone of Middle East descent
That would be a Jew, then?
re Blank State: maybe hooligan is an understatement.
This is what Amir Ofek from the Israeli Embassy in London wrote about these terrorists/brutal murderers/merciless youths/(and voluntary confessing Palestinians): Israel does not mistreat detained Palestinian children
link to guardian.co.uk
(Only in the end he arrives at the content: admitting that the UN says "We're not saying offences aren't committed – we're saying children have legal rights." Well, Ofek writes, torture, huniliation and solitary confinement are not allowed in our law so that does not happen.)
And later Ofik says in The Lancet: Establishing juvenile tribunals with special safeguards for minors is just part of an evolving system. But it cannot happen overnight.
link to thelancet.com
Bottom line: Israel says: it does not happen, and we are improving it but cannot change it overnight.
"Hey, we shouldn't boycott settlement goods. It'll hurt job prospects for Palestinians!"
Or one could respond: "Good point, we'll boycott the whole of Israel instead."
Title does not cover topic I think. Why 'forget' "SodaStream"?
hophmi, you are obfuscating. The legal claim was: "harassment based on his protected characteristics of race (Jewish) and religion or belief (Jewish)" (para 11).
The judgement was: none of the ten claims constitutes such harassment. Anti-Zionism or criticising Israel is not dicriminating, it is part of a democratic process.
Conveniantly, you missed that point of the title. But if you know a case of anti-Semitism in the Union you could win, please step up. Star-lawyer Julius and his 29 witnesses could not.
RJL: Whatever the details of that court ruling, ... -- you still don't get it, do you?
The court (Tribunal) explicitly says that those "Jewish" ties to Israel are not part of Jewish religion or race, so they are not protected by harassment law or discrimination law. They are part of political (free) speech.
Indeed the statement is about this case. But its meaning is wider: it also says that the claimants could not make that distinction themselves.
Neither can you. The JCPA link you give has this opening line: Anti-Zionism has become the most dangerous and effective form of anti-Semitism in our time. Exactly that is what the Tribunal has rejected, exactly that is what the Zionist claimants got wrong. Good luck in English court.
hophmi: The legal claim failed.
It did.
Haaretz: The panel [...] accepted UCU’s version of all the events in question, and found that most of the claims were no longer valid in any case, due to a change in the laws.
Wrong, in fact it is opposite. First there was the Race Relations Act 1976 (which would check for direct or indirect discrimination, "on grounds of’" race etc.). It was replaced by Equality Act 2010 (which would test for acts "related to" race etc, so this is a less strict requirement, and it helps Fraser's case).
First of all, the change of law in 2010 did not "invalidate" older complained acts. Complaints of harassment happening before 2010 would have to be checked against the earlier law. Now only complaint no. 5, happening in 2009, survived the earlier shift of actually possibly being harasssment for the Next step taw. That complaint failed under the old law, and could survive under the 2010 law had that one be applicable.
The Tribunal then stated that complaint no. 5 was entered late without reason (18 months where 3 months was the limit). See paragraphs 170-176 in the judgement.
Here is the Employment Tribunal's judgement: link to judiciary.gov.uk (45 pages).
In short: the complaints were brought before an Employment Tribunal, as they were claims of harassment by an 'employer' (that is, by the Union of which Fraser is a member).
The Tribunal threw all ten complaints out, most of them because Fraser was found not being harassed (he was merely disappointed -- as can happen in politics, or he was not even related to (!) or present at (!) the act of supposed harassment). The complaints were judged to be political discussion in a open society. Not a single fact of anti-Semitism was established.
In the paragraphs the Tribunal indeed made some devastating comments about the low quality of witnesses (29 were called by Fraser), about using law for political ends, about the gargantuan scale of the case, about the dubious behaviour of star-lawyer Julius, etcetera. It is good reading.
1986? Then they created Hamas.
hophmi: Can it be a flawed democracy? Absolutely.
No need to use vague words. We are talking a racist democracy here.
pearl jam or BDS
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.nl
In German: Ich habe es nicht gewußt.
... and their liberal apologists
Of course this includes liberal Zonists, like Beinart.
Brookings: What is the U.S. doing to help Arab women?
There is a pattern. First they start talking about "liberating" women somewhere somehow, then they start a war. Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Palestine (But never: Bahrein, Qatar, Saudi Arabia).
yrn, you think the Gestapo was about denying entry?
A bit strange, Mondo, you do not articlise the UK conclusion in the case Ron Fraser against UCU. It killed a lot of false claims of anti-Semitism. Ten.
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.nl
From the UNICEF report:
In the majority of cases, the principal evidence against the child is the child’s
own confession, in most cases extracted under duress during the interrogation.42
Sometimes the child is implicated in a confession given by another child. In some
cases the children unknowingly sign a ‘confession’, written in Hebrew, after being advised that ‘confessing’ is their only way out of the military detention system. (p.13)
link to unicef.org
Ofek: Instead of looking up to superheroes or sports stars, they are encouraged to revere “martyrs” in explosive jackets.
Hamid Daqqa, 13. Killed by Israel, wearing a Real Madrid shirt (numbered 23, Özil).
link to maannews.net
Thanx Alex. And still, still, something smells. Isn't it this: no Palestinian in sight?
Sigh.It is the 'liberal Zionist' thing.
Ahmed Moor, title: Obama allowed Zionists to feel cool again
Without "liberal Zionists" this would not happen.
Good point.
This, and the question why he is hailed all over the internet. (Answer to both: liberal Zionist).
MWL In 1999, in a NYT Magazine piece called "The Irrelevance of a Palestinian State," the freethinking Lewis publicized visionary statements by Meron Benvenisti that there was one country between the river and the sea. Lewis could see that the two-state solution would not insure Palestinian right: ...
Wow. Already in 1999 you say? Breathtaking indeed. Eight years after Oslo. Twelve years after the first Intifadah. 32 years after the '67 Occupation (with its own Nakba). 51 years after Nakba. Then: In 2002, while embracing the Zionist dream, he stated that ... So he was a bright enlighted Zionist for a full three years. For that span of time, indeed, he deserves a statue.
Another difference between the two pieces is about the "tent" concept. Shayshon: We in Reut advocate for a broad tent approach.
Well. According to Dalit Baum here, on the plane was discussed: Reut's red lines (or bans, by US Jewish organisations), sabotage ("misunderstood" he says) and other tactics, and his quote that “BDS does not differentiate between Israel and settlements” (as an objection -- would it make a difference then?).
None of these points, quite major in the discourse I'd say and contradicting the broad tent-image, is in his Open Zion piece.
That bot piece is tough reading, and even worse on reasoning. Remember that it is on Open Zion, the current successor of J Street as "liberal Zionist" home base.
Reut's Eran Shayshon: Yet my travel companion [Dalit Baum] and the boycott campaign destructively radicalize the discourse about Israel, harming the moderate Zionist left by undermining the credibility of their cause.
Well, mr. Shayshon, if credibility is undermined ... get a better one. Are you still crying at home over some truth you ran into?
Putting the two accounts together: he lied he did not recognise you.
Yes, annie, already on my first viewing I noticed that weird word 'mistake':
... apologise to Turkey over mistakes that lead to the death of activists on a flotilla. An MSNBC quote.
By the way, nothing about the American killed on the Mavi Marmari.
This happened last week in a UK court regarding accusations of anti-Semitism. All ten claims were thrown into the sewer.
link to ucu.org.uk
And a commented overview:
link to newleftproject.org
And another question still unclear: MJ, why only fight anti-Semitism that is ... among the “pro-Palestinian network” (i.e, non-Muslims & non-Arabs)?
Anti-Semitism by Muslims or Arabs is acceptable then? And, while we are at it, among anti-Palestinians, liberal Zionists, Zionist Christians too? They all get a pass?
mjrosenberg: I think that some non-Jews and non-Muslims use “support” for Palestinians as cover for Judeophobia or plain old fashioned anti-Semitism.
Nice reasoning. It allows you to throw around the accusation without having to prove anything. Let me tell you: that is not "fighting" it. That is "inventing it" where it is not.
mjrosenberg: the “pro-Palestinian network” (i.e, non-Muslims & non-Arabs)?
Nor in reality, nor in the piece by stevehynd this exclusion is made. The opposite is more true: stevehynd clearly claims that he was triggered by a piece about "Muslim anti-Semitism [in Britain]", and later on he quotes from it. Also he writes about (among a dozen of topics from around the world and a dozen from history) Palestinians. So no exclusion by him.
Then I do not think stevehynd's piece is that smart. He does not come close to actually pointing to anti-Semitism. He cannot tear the words "Israel" and "Jew" apart. One reasoning goes like this: ... [is] not anti-Semitic in itself but a line of thought that when combined with vocal criticism of Israel’s actions in the occupied territories, can too often lead to anti-Semitism. In another piece (on David Ward MP, he links to) he accepts and understands the gest of what was said, and still keeps rubbing the mud. In the comments he writes: I don’t think there is anything inherent about wanting the abolition of the state of Israel and being an anti-Semite. But, and this is one very big but, it would seriously raise my suspicions. These positions clearly keep the door open for him to smear anti-Semitism by association. Exactly that is what we want to get rid of. For this, stevehynd is unable to show us a lead.
link to stevehynd.com
link to stevehynd.com
So Wolf Blitzer wrote a book about Pollard: Territory of Lies: The Exclusive Story of Jonathan Jay Pollard: The American Who Spied on His Country for Israel and How He Was Betrayed (1989). "Betrayed" is good for a book title, but unclear is by whom Pollard was betrayed.
Note that Pollard was recognised by Israel only in 1995. Blitzer was Jerusalem Post correspondent, and is a zionist (no further qualification needed).
This wrote a commenter on Amazon, in 2009: The story Blitzer tells of Jonathan Jay Pollard is actually also Blitzer's own story. The sympathy he shows for Pollard is a American zionist's sympathy for other zionists who put the safety and well-being of the United States completely under the feet of Israel.
link to amazon.com
Who published the mistake in the first place?
Many reports say something like: A reliable Hebrew speaker near the press pool said that the heckler was shouting about Jonathan Pollard, ... very soon after it hapened. So far for reliability. Now who in the press pool ran to the telex with it?
Philip Weiss: I am told that Wolf Blitzer propagated the Pollard error. Not sure if he's corrected it.
The heckling happened at 10.50 AM ET on March 21 (04.37 PM Israel time start of Obama's 50 minute speech; then about 13 minutes in).
Wolf Blitzer had the heckling as an item, at 02.12 PM ET (see the link). His video with the heckling moment has superimposed the text ''... Pollard ...''. Then he showed a two minute Pollard documentary, also noting that he (Blitzer) had written a book about Pollard in 1989.
At 06.44 PM ET the item was posted on the CNN site. There is no update or correction.
link to situationroom.blogs.cnn.com
Where from? They asked for Anne Frank signs. You blame the kids?
There was this deal: we deliver the presidency, you succumb. Now, Obama, kneel for Netanyahu (we got your wife).
Philip Weiss: Who is driving this conversation now? Anti-Zionists, non-Zionists.
Liberal Zionists do, still, Phil. Now please go back to the issue, and forget about your internal American tribal stuff. No Palestinian is waiting to hear the outcome of these quibbles.
Donald, his congratulation denies your assumptions. If Haber wanted to say what you suppose, he should have written so. Remember, the next sentence by Haber is: All parties [involved] behaved admirably, and the school should be proud of alums like Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Blumberg.
Haber completely misses the essense of the issue: the free false accusation of anti-Semitism. Instead, Haber is aggrandising his own development into wisdom (in a non-similar situation) over the actual damaging behaviour by Blumberg. Blumberg is supposed to "grow" at the cost of Mearsheimer.
Here is another case of such anti-Semitism (it ain't what it used to be):
Stephen Sizer is a blogging vicar in the Anglican Church. As a Christian can go, his blogs are anti-Zionist. So. A year ago he was accused of anti-Semitism for linking to a page on a website which also had dubious pages (elsewhere). The accusation was made by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and now it is in a judicial(!) process of the Anglican Church. He might lose his job.
link to stephensizer.blogspot.nl
Side effects are that dozens of interesting people have written supportive letters about him (for him), also on his site, and that I have read a lot of Sizer's Christian viewpoints on today's Israel.
The opening paragraph by Jerry Haber, omitted here, is worth reading too.
Jerry Haber: I would like to congratulate [...] Mr. Blumberg himself, for doing what he felt was right and acting responsibly according to his convictions.
Blumberg acted responsibly? He tossed out (twice) the accusation of anti-Semitism without having an argument for it. How is it to congratulate someone on a prejudiced "conviction"?
Another fine point from the minutes (see the motion debate link):
The Hon. Paul Green: A number of members have spoken about their visit to Sderot. As a father of six children I could not imagine sending my children to a school with a playground that had cement caterpillars filled with bombs and expecting my children to find shelter in 15 seconds. Members of the delegation took a bus trip [...] and saw the remnants of a school that had been hit by a bomb, which was a sobering experience. It would be frightening for any parents to send their children to schools or to parks not knowing whether they would return.
Mr David Shoebridge: Was that when you were in Gaza?
David Shoebridge notes that children in Gaza have kidney stones because of the freshwater situation.
This is new to me. Repulsive.
Weird: the in screen time (top right) jumps. What happened?
Hear! Hear!
After about 6:00 the comment says "We've been advised to avoid the disputed West Bank" (disputed yeah, BBC. There is a better word for it). But it does not say so about Golan Heights: "Now it is Israel" (not even disputed? Sure, BBC).
Is it written by UN or IDF? Just read paragraph 5 (page 3), of the "Background". Clearly the topic of research was chosen to be the period of 14-21 November, IDF operation PoC (named the "crisis"). The paragraph is about what happened before that week, as a lead up.
First action mentioned is a November 10 attack by Palestinians (noone killed, four military wounded), then the Israeli attacks 10-12 November (4 killed, 40 wounded, all civilians), then back to a November 10 attack by Israel. Then it jumps back to January 2012. The rockets from the Gaza strip are counted and noted in the report, but none of the Palestinian killed in that same period is. The first mentioning of a Palestinian killed was on November 10.
Nowhere is explained why the topic is limited to the operation PoC period, nor why the background is started with an incident on November 10. The incidents are listed out of chronological order (why?), and no precise times are added (why not?). There is no mentioning of Palestinian deaths in the "background" period (which ultimately seems to start in January 2012).
For example, on November 8, Israel made an incursion into the Gaza strip. It killed 13-year old Abu Daqqa who was playing football at the time. link to maannews.net
Unbelievable. So the paragraph (page 14) mentions two situations where civilians were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket (stated twice).
Then in the Summary of findings, the very last paragraph of the report (48; bolding added): Furthermore, several Palestinians were killed by rockets launched by the armed groups that fell short and landed in the Gaza Strip.
So what first "appeared to be", within two pages mysteriously has become a "fact".
Obsidian: The exculpatory evidence was there all along.
Where? Not in the UN report. Not in the media reports. Where?
The first block quote here is from the UN HCHR report. The concluding sentence ends with: ... were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel. It has a footnote that says: 69. Case monitored by OHCHR. That's all. Not the beginning of an evidence here.
The next sentence makes the same allegation in another situation: ... of what appeared to be ..., this time even without a footnote (however unclarifying it might have been). One wonders who has fed the High Commisioner's Office.
Then the very next paragraph (40) starts with: According to media reports .... Clearly this time they did read the papers. Why not in paragraph 39?
The good news is: no one can call Beinart brave or smart any more.
These are the labels Beinart uses:
pro-Palestinian left (2),
anti-Zionist left (2),
anti-Zionist,
far left,
left,
old left,
New Left,
leftists,
the anti-globalization movement.
That is nine names. After this, there is only liberals left on the left. As in: after Beinart rounded them up in one corral for an occasional reasoning, the liberal Zionists can claim that this empty land is theirs.
In the HPR piece, second paragraph: Half of our organizers and speakers were Jewish and/or Israeli.
Now that is a killing argument.
Maayan Iungman: The [Israeli] society teaches you that [Israel] is the only place for you and you're not welcome in other places.
This is called hate incitement. Clearly it is institutional in Israel.
War criminal? WC? In the process, Tony Blair WC let Pinochet go. War criminals, friends amongst each other.
AbeBird: Anti-Semites blame Israel
You still haven't got a clue, do you?
You mean Jerry Slater's piece was not satirical?
Friedman pops this story when his creation was over all the Hagel pages for already two weeks? He did not notice it before?
More likely he is volunteering to take the flak for an AIPAC plant. His story is contructed afterwards.
We should write "Jewish state" in quotes, allways. It is not a serious thing,.
Neal M. Sher is legal advisor at "L.D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights under Law" (LDB). Also in the legal advisory board is Joel H. Siegal. In March 2011 and in August 2011 Neal and Siegal together filed civil claims against the board of UC Berkeley (including chair Mark Yudof) as attorneys for student Jessica Felber. The complaints went nowhere and were withdrawn last summer.
LDB director is Kenneth L. Marcus, who has spend years trying to get some sort of discrimination against Jewishness into the "Title VI" (against racism at education institutes). In a video from May 2012, Marcus complains that his work (at the education board) was not continued by his successors there after he left in 20004.
As of today, there have been no claims of anti-Semitism recognised as under Title VI.
link to youtube.com
Indeed. Wasn't there a movie dialogue that ended like:
She: "... but I am not that kind of a women!"
He: "We have already established what you are. from here we are only haggling about the price".
Proser: Time and again, we have sought peace with the Palestinians. Time and again, we have been met by rejection of our offers, denial of our rights, and terrorism targeting our citizens.
He said this within weeks after the attack on Gaza last November, when over a hundred civilians, including children, were killed by Israel.
Another Proser quote: ... where a demilitarized Palestinian state will recognize Israel as a Jewish State.That’s right. Two states for two peoples. That is Apartheid, hophmi.
link to timesofisrael.com
Not exactly, hophmi. He talked about Islamic terrorism. Ambassador Proser has no problem with settler's terrorism, or pre-Israel Zionist terrorism.
Dersh in Open Zion, Feb 6: When I agreed to give that talk, I was told that the event was being sponsored by Hillel alone. (quoted above).
Dersh in the Guardian, Feb 8, on that same UPenn speech : I was informed, and believed until now, that the event had been sponsored by Hillel and the Jewish Federation. That is not "Hillel alone". link to guardian.co.uk
Dersh changes his writings, once more.
So we understand Alterman teaches at Brooklyn College: But when I taught my classes Wednesday, I could find no evidence of any controversy [about the coming BDS event] at all. [...] When I inquired of my students in two separate classes if anyone had any thoughts or feelings they might wish to share, I got no takers. Everything was business-as-usual.
Sure, Alterman must be the right teacher to start a mini-BDS discussion in his classrooms. But then, he already knows: The purpose of the BDS movement, plain and simple, is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. After this, it is not strange that noone in his classes wants to discuss the BDS topic. He clearly is ingnorant of the fact that it was exactly the McCarthyesque bullying (by his co-liberal co-Zionists) that had threatened the free speech out of his classroom.
And Alterman better had raised his support(-but) for free speech BEFORE the showdown.
Let's not forget this brave hero: Elihu Richter, [...] one of the three dissenting members [i.e., three who objected the outcome] of the project’s advisory committee, thinks otherwise. “I warned [Wexler] all along, ‘You don’t want to become another Goldstone,’” Richter said.
Hebrew university can be proud of this member. By now Elihu Richter will have communicated Wrexler's childrens school routines and their bar mitzva dates to his masters.
Beinart: Under apartheid, because South Africa’s government ruthlessly prevented racial and ethnic mixing, group identity flourished while national identity did not. When Jews looked at South Africa’s flag and national anthem, they saw Afrikaner symbols, not ones they could embrace as their own. [...] In South Africa, therefore, Jews focused the emotional attachment they did not feel toward their own country on Israel. And this made them even more Zionistic than Jews in the United States
Jews were being set Apart really? Jews were, like, on the right side of Apartheid? Jews were Aparted so they had to become Israel Firsters? Their flag and national anthem there showed strange symbols (unlike these other flags in the world we must understand), so they turned to Israel?
Beinart is trying to separate South African Zionists from Apartheid.
Both Stephen Levin and Letitia James only withdrew from the threatening Fidler letter (leaving 8), I could have read. Both are still on the two Nadler letters.
So there is the funding threat by 10 (9) City Council members (signed Fidler ea, Jan 29). Stephen Levin withdrew.
Then there are the two "Nadler" letters (Jan 31 and Feb 6).
In the Feb 6 letter, two names have disappeared:
Assemblyman James Brennan
Former Comptroller Bill Thompson
What happened? They grew a spine in 7 days?
NYT, opening line: ... the political space for discussing Israel forthrightly is shrinking. How great it was?
I note that the threatening Lewis Fidler letter was sent Tuesday Jan 29. And now a whole week later NYT knows what the temperature is. They stepped in just right in time right for the right party. How brave they are.
Time's earlier post on the Hagel grilling, by Winslow Wheeler (Feb. 1), did not note this at all.
This is how much Wheeler saw and did not report: How ironic that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) should use intimidation to corner the cowering Hagel into professing he could think of no senator that was intimidated by the Israel lobby.
Having seen that sort of intimidation for decades as a Senate staffer (both from senators and lobbyists), it was a sad moment indeed in the annals of the Senate to see a witness not stand up to the tawdry tactics; a historic moment for pride as a citizen it was surely not. [emphasis added]
Nor pride as a reporter, we can add.
link to nation.time.com
More fun with Grenn Greenwald (GG), who wrote Saturday and Monday in The Guardian (one cannot expect to read such in US press really).
1. GG really engages in his own comment section. In his Guardiuan CiF Saturday post, about 1/50 posts are his. And always killing an argument that, eh, went astray.
2. GG already defaced Alan Dershowitz (AD) in his update, Saturday. AD=liar. AD actually has appearead on a stage AD claims to opposes today. That was Saturday 2 February 2013 15.35 GMT. Read the GG--AD emails GG linked to!
3. Then Alan Dershowitz on HuffPo posted: 02/01/2013 2:17 pm [HuffPoUS time=US time]. This was his title:
Does Brooklyn College Pass the 'Shoe on the Other Foot' Test?. "Shoe other foot fitting" is, of course, exactly mirroring what GG already has proved AD being guilty of. AD knew what was coming: he wrote the emails himself.
4. Fun: GG got some 1200 cmts on his Saturday CiF post: a serious lot for the Guardian. At HuffPo, Dershowitz got ... 17 comments (where Obama's Skeet Shooting picture has 36.211 cmts).
Glenn Greenwald has a follow up this morning, about the political blackmail. Note that he is invited to give the Konefsky Lecture at Brooklyn College, and has promised to withdraw if BC gives in in this one.
link to guardian.co.uk
Great piece indeed. In an update, Dershowitz is caught contradicting: I would oppose a pro Israel event being sponsored by a department, while Dershowitz actually has spoken at exactly such an event at PennU last February. Single speaker: AD. Topic: BDS.
Peter Beinart is only usefull in US domestically. He has not helped a single Palestinian in his life. He is not an Israel Firster. Worse: he is a liberal Zionist. That is: a Zionist. Please stop applauding him, MW.
Again and again, Mondoweiss, I ask: what does Jewishness has to do with his
So Ron Paul said: You've heard President Morsi's comments about Zionists and Israelis being blood suckers and descendants of apes and pigs
Actually, Morsi did not say that. The MEMRI translation (is it trustable this time?) says (1:18): These occupiers of the land of Palestine know - these bloodsuckers, who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs.
Even better: for a politician, opposing war and occupation is a honorable position.
link to youtube.com (total time 4:42)
What’s their strategy going to be?
- Don't mention we're Jewish (argh, failed)
- Keep the Palestinians out.
- Keep BDS out.
- Continue peace talks.
- Change resumes .
"bold", Philip? Note that they spoke out ... one day after the election. Another "Zionism light". Keep understanding that they only want to keep Israel for themselves, by themselves. They dare not mentioning Apartheid, 1967 border, one-state. This is what they have for the Palestinians: a Jewish (yes, see below) charity. ("Here's a treat. Now go away or I'll do the trick again").
They are clear about one thing: you need an Israeli passport to join. particular the [....] Jewish community - they really tried to keep the word out, but in the end couldn't hold back any more. Such a let go I coin A Fartheid.
As Israelis living in the US, we have responsibilities: creepy.
As leaders of the social justice protests in 2011, we [Israeli's] ...? These protests were led by Israelis?
Avi, indeed. Best overview of the results I have seen & learned from. And describing nicely the deceitful position of the U.S. liberal Zionists. Spinning and twinning: an Israeli electorate that, like its counterpart in the United States, ...
All fine, Mondoweiss. Now what is the Israel policy or political party that fits US liberal Zionism? What?
Hostage: Correction: He said that he thought it was wrong to assassinate Ahmed Jabari. Full stop.
No, not full stop. He said But ....
Hostage, a lame misquote you did. (To the reader: he left out ... the Israeli investigations?.)
As for the timeline: note that he got the material about very grim events relating to the idea that Israel was deliberately “going crazy.” [...] Children who were shot. Piles of bodies of civilians during operation Cast Lead (2008/2009). He's sitting on it for four years. He never thought that Channel 10 News (his employer) could "work on it". Nor Haaretz. Did he offer it to Goldstone? The Israeli investigations? Nope. Instead, he went on to produce a hasbara promotinal movie.
In the opening statement he says: [one can] simply tell the public what it wants to hear. But I always chose to tell the truth. [...] I saw where it was all going, and said so.
In the closing statement: I still have the material in a closed room. I didn’t give it to anyone.
Hostage, he gave his "but" motivation. So he says: were his but-criterion met, the killing would be OK. No other conditions are mentioned. As for logic: case closed. Then you introduce two might be's that are not in the article. That is speculative only.
Sincere you say? This is what he says:
I thought it was wrong to assassinate Ahmed Jabari [the head of Hamas’ military wing; November 2012]. Not because he didn’t deserve to die. He deserved to die. But the method of eliminating some top person and thinking someone better will replace him is wrong.
So extrajudicial killings of political opponents are OK, but only to have a better (better for Israel) negotiator in place. I bet he is not-crying all his way to his bank.
A doom-laden interview? The man is so full of himself, there is no place left for his ego. First thing he jetted to get more personality space was, long time ago, journalistic integrity.
Nowhere in the Haartez interview does he actually show he profoundly changed the way he sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
During cast lead Shlomi Eldar did the live telephone conversation with Izzeldin Abuelaish, a Gazan father who had just lost three daughters. After that he went on to make his feelgood movie "Precious Life" (Look how Israel helps children!). This is what he says now: You know, it took me two or three weeks to realize that people who saw that broadcast cried not because of the conversation, but because they saw my face.
Also, that he was an immigrant that lived in a West Bank settlement makes him a sort of fringe figure (to the American NYT reader; not in Israel though). Ordinary "Jews", you get it, would never do such things.
Finally, we know the difference between Zionists and liberal Zionists.
Roger Cohen in the NYT wants no Right of Return for Israel, and Bennett denies it for the whole West Bank too. link to mondoweiss.net
So Richard Cohen had to show his colors, bringing him in the league of frontpeople Tom "my moustache" Friedman and Peter Beinart.
Now in the US there is this liberal Zionist scolarship, as opposed to say neocons. Now can someone explain what is the current parallel variant in Israel of this typical American policy group? Which Israli political party, with at least 1 seat in the polls, has this attitude? Please do so before the elections. The hypothesis to check is: there is none.
David, you could very well be right. I don't have the book at hand. Still, "different version" fits the pattern.