Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2241 (since 2010-03-21 11:32:36)

Showing comments 900 - 801

  • Throwaway line in 'NYT' story suggests that Israel is pressuring U.S. on war with Iran
    • Jon Stewart was keeping the war on the agenda Tuesday, and just that. No mentioning of Israel. Least funny section candidate for this year. He had to use Fox News seriously to make a point.

  • Israel's national theater to bring 'Merchant' to World Shakespeare Fest in May
    • This is the London 2012 run up to the Olympics. No objections allowed. So expect snipers, dressed in 16th century Venetian outfit and part of the backdrop. Already the London performing arts are a bit nervous for protesters, so the Hebrew spoken checkpoints and cages at the entrance will add to reality and put it nicely in modern times.

  • Dumb as rocks ('Washington Post' says giving Palestinians access to quarries will 'advance the peace process')
    • Ross writes that only when new quarries are opened, there could be Palestinian owned. That is, a new one can be Palestinian, or Israel could own a new one and "give" an existing one to Palestine. Today and in the end, Israel will own ten.

      Direct link: link to

  • Spouse of 'NYT' correspondent calls on Israeli gov't to wage 'war' on int'l threat to its image
    • So Hirsh Goodman [...] moved from South Africa (where he opposed apartheid), to Israel.

      How did he oppose Apartheid? Goldstone did too, we are told. When did he move, and why?

  • VIDEO: Activists protest massive new Shu'fat checkpoint
  • Israel's mythological borders: an interview with Rachel Havrelock
    • A note about the interview/transcript edits by David Zlutnik.

      I’ve seen most of the video multiple times. Read some of her published pages. Only now I’ve read Zlutniks “edited transcription”. To me, his transcription does not sound like her story on the video. Like something in between is missing. Or added.

      Why is the title here changed into Israel's mythological borders? The book's title is quite different, and if the title be changed, it should better be about "biblical borders". Anyway, the book is called River Jordan: The Mythology of a Dividing Line. I think introducing "Israel" into the title does not help the interview as a clarifying intro. It might help sales though.

      She wrote, 2007: "My Home is Over Jordan: River as Border in Israeli and Palestinian National Mythology" -- Don't expect people be allowed to cross Home Over Jordan river westward though. That's not her thing.

      2009: “Pioneers and Refugees: Arabs and Jews in the Jordan River Valley" -- Sounds like another Joan Peters try for "Arabs just migrated there". Like, a river without people for peoples without a river.

      Anyway, her chapters should be well-versed by now. Enter the interviewer/transcript editor.

      Factually: he does not write about her “Eastern border” gaffe. On video, when talking about the ME region, in her talk and mind Jordan river is about an Eastern border (i.e. the Israeli/West Bank border, but not the State of Jordan border to which it is a Western border). While Jordan valley is about as much as her professoral chair. So far for her “regional” "stateless" thinking. The editor left this out, unchallenged. Also factually, she says Britain “promised” two states “during WWI”, quad non. He left this out unchallenged.

      Rachel Havrelock (RH): How is it that in both Israeli and Palestinian national traditions that the Jordan is a central border that seems to define […]. Huh?

      Allow me to comment. How is it that in both Israeli [who what? Not Jews/Jewish? Palestinians included? Arabs included?] and Palestinian [no Arabs included this time?] national traditions [both Israeli an Palestine national aspirations are only some hundred years old, sure you do not mean say Jewish and Muslim?] that the Jordan is a central border [a “central border”? Is not a “border-border”? Now was it central, or was it a border? For Irgun Jordan river was central and NOT a border. For RH, Jordan river is, by her POV, the “Eastern border”] that seems to define […]. Glad the interviewer clarified this.

      Well again and again and again: this river, being a border or not, did not define any nationality she mentions in her book and will mention in her life. Even to her it is the current EASTERN border of a land she wants to eh see expanded freely. The interviewer should have clarified this. Start asking questions, don’t manipulate the transcription.

      Transcript: RH about European anti-Semitism ca 1900 (pogroms, Dreyfus). Not in the video. Does not support her biblical claims about Jordan river and borders and national aspirations.

      Not transcript, not video: not asked nor written a single word about Palestinian or Arab national aspirations.

      People of Los Angeles, take care. There is something with the bread you are given here.

    • Hostage, I am sorry for distrusting and even smearing you here re "1%" and such. Writing 3rd person is of the same low level and worth and extra sorry. Topping this is being late with this excuse, in internet time this page has died already.

      If I were that right, I could have pointed it another way. Hope this site allows me some other conversation with you.

    • (warning, I am entering the hairsplitting department) So I studiously ignored what Prof Havrelock actually said about the irrelevance of the national myths and those ancient borders?

      I concluded here that if she wants to erase Jordan river border, then the Eastern ex-border is open to cross for Jewish "needs". (She does not rule out national projections at all, just national states). It was you who concluded "So Jordan and Mesopotamia are no longer relevant", which is not what I concur with.

      For having to split hairs over such wordings and what she said, I blame her. We are stuck with her weasel talk and cloud reasoning. I pity her students.

    • I get the idea by now. I stand corrected (I) that the borders were drawn by oil interests, even in the western part of the ME for the Mosul-Haifa pipeline corridor, and by European powers. The corridor is visible in the maps, the part of Jordan protruding eastwards to Iraq. And I stand corrected (II) that areas East of Jordan river were part of a "Palestine" by British drawn borders, and that Jordan river was used as one in Ottoman times (III).

      This main point stays: Havrelock suggests repeatedly that only the post-WWI, British drawn line in Jordan river is the source of nationalistic ideas. But even right after WWI, Zionism was a force that created nationalism, and it did so from Europe as a colonizing idea. She keeps putting "Jewish and Arab nationalists" together, as if they were on one side of the table opposing WWI Powers. Jewish nationalism came from Europe, not from the Jordan border. It is colonial. Irgun has Jordan river in its flag, both banks and the Mosul-Haifa oil corridor crossing. Jewish nationalism is not born by the Jordan border.

      So she asks: How did this Jordan River end up as a contested border by Israelis and Palestinians. And: And so these [British drawn] borders became the ones that are so contested and so sensitive within the I/P conflict. But no, the prepositions are not correct. Especially Jordan river, her book title, is not. As Hostages details point out, it is contested indeed as a border, but elsewhere in a minor fashion. It is not part of I/P. Actually, she herself says both peoples are on the same side of the river. Why she does not refer to borders like Green Line, Apartheid Wall, Gaza Strip nor West Bank borders as being “contested” and “sensitive” to prove and illustrate her point we do not know.

      Another problem that arises from her approach (and, I might add, by us looking only at the post-WWI documents and negotiations) is that she skips some 90 years of other developments. As if, aside from British drawing their lines and ultimately leaving, nothing happened. No UN 1947 partition, no 1967 war, no Golan Heights, no West Bank, no settlements: nothing else made borders contested or fueled nationalism. And, by referring to biblical times, she skips another few millennia in which nothing happened. So, there is only bible time, Mandate time, Today.

      As I noted elsewhere here, she suggests to drop the borders, but not the nations. Then, its going eastwards (not westwards). And all this on biblical reading.

    • If only she was as precise and correct as you are.

      Balfour wrote "national home for the jewish people" and about "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the [...] rights of existing non-Jewish communities". This was the British Foreign Secretary writing in 1917. It fully covers her own suggestion to strive for a mixed peoples region. And it is British. Now in her story (British drawn borders are problem borders) this doesn't add up, and she left it out.

      Peel and Woodward made proposals not promises for two (possible) states, in the 1930s. While she does say, at 6.40, that the British made such "promises" "during WWI" (so I think here you are wrong). I do mind her being this incorrect in a topic she wrote a book about.

      Hostage, So Jordan and Mesopotamia are no longer relevant you conclude in a paragraph, and convincingly. But it is not what she claims. She claims to talk about the "Middle East", sometimes zooms in into Jordan valley, then flips to the subregion with the "Eastern" border of Jordan river. First of all, her flipping between regions lacks good reasoning. Now, if she wants to erase Jordan river as a border, how can she leave out of view the Eastern side of that border (say the Eastern Jordan valley, in Jordan) ? This is way too sloppy reasoning by the professor. And I am not convinced that her book will be more clear.

      If I understand her well, she wants to get rid of those borders that delimit national projections (Jordan river foremost). Then there are no borders to fight or negotiate about: problem solved! Meanwhile she wants to keep national aspirations and claims on areas. These areas might well be across the Jordan, because that is not a border any more. But not a single word on how these areas (which of course have borders and are based on national principles) are governed. Just live together, as her bible wrote, is all she says.

      The "resource needs" are looked after, there will be "enfranchisement of Palestinians and a system of a just distribution of the resources". So this is what should convince Arabs and Palestinians to jump in? She only uses a religious bible (her chair) as a base for inter/national law, and from there projects a general ruling on those who do not live with that bible. Apart from rejecting those British borders, and introducing "Palestinians" and "needs" by herself, she does not step out of her religious bookshelf to test or improve her own idea.

      And the easiest chapter she could have written, she forgot. At this moment there is a country that already has multiple people and religions, a country that has declared not its borders. Partly based on laws from the bible she knows so well, including those on nationalistic governed areas within those non-borders. Easily fluiding into neighboring areas, already across Jordan river as she proposes, though not allowing people flowing in the other direction. That country, professor Havrelock, is Israel. Why do you propose a solution that already failed in real life?

    • Yes, she knows about Nakba. This is what she wrote in 2007:
      The year 1948 is synonymous with the Nakba,
      the great disaster that befell the Palestinians

      "Befell": passive sense. It fell on them from the sky.

      link to

    • Already the area West of the Apartheid Barrier, there is 8.5% of the West Bank (must say, including East-Jerusalem). link to

      And the Apartheid roads only take very little space. good to reduce these figures.

      Finkelstein says (1.46.45): "Those areas constitute 1.5% excuse me [NF] 1.9% of the West Bank". But these are areas the Palestinians were willing to trade (swap with Israeli areas).

      And exactly what is Hostage trying to convey here? Why is Hostage using this very selective number?

    • piotr: one should not doubt that she [Havrelock] knows the topic

      I do doubt. She did not even read the Balfour declaration. She mixes up regions, she mixes up powers (British, European, colonial), she forgets Jordan state as being even probably related to the Jordan river border, and in the video she did not bring a single point forward from a non-Jewish (non-Zionist if you like) angle.

      On second thought: I do not doubt. She does not know about the topic. Either by choice, by ignorance, by lack of critical comments, or by something else.

    • Hostage: Israeli settlements occupy only 1 percent of the West Bank

      Really? And using only 1% of the aquifier? Occupation only takes 1% of the time of Palestinians at checkpoints? wrt East-Jerusalem, they occupy only 1% of the housing? Without a question mark: I can understand that settlers occupy only 1% of Hebron.

    • I have listened to the video, multiple times. I have transcribed major lines of interest below, and added some notes.

      Three general notes:
      - Havrelock mixes up related terms at will, and so useful to her arguments. For example, she states that the British wanted to export oil to Europe. British are not that stupid. But by the process she smears Europe with her British Cause of Evil by Drawing Lines.
      She mixes:

      British -- European -- colonial
      Arabs -- Islamic -- Palestinian
      Jewish -- Zionist -- Israeli
      Jew -- Zionist -- Israeli
      Middle East -- Region (Israel and Occupied Palestine) -- Region (Israel, Jordan, Occupied Palestine, Syria) -- Region (now including Persian Gulf States/oil)

      - She habitually puts “Arab and Jewish nationalists” together opposite the British/Europeans (see also 1.33).

      - Author/filmer David Zlutnick left out two gaffes I noticed (A gaffe, in politics, is when someone accidentally speaks truth).

      0.24: How did this Jordan River end up as a contested border by Israelis and Palestinians? No State of Jordan involved then in this dispute. So their side of the Jordan border must be undisputed (See also 2.35).

      0.41: The British ousted them [the Ottoman empire] in WWI. Havrelock starts her reading only after WWI (see also 6.55). While in fact, everything she proposes re non-borders and coexistence existed during centuries of Ottoman rule.

      1.01: These nation states that we talk about today (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon) are ultimately products of these European discussions. Agree. Note that Israel is in the list. Israel is a European enterprise.

      1.14: The most important driving force [for the European or British handling of the ME] was the burgeoning oil economy. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel: no oil. Nowhere does she even hint on why or how their borders, especially the booktitle Jordan river, relate to this oil thing.

      1.33: During this period of time [aftermath of WWI] Jewish as well as Arab nationalists disseminated geographic ideas, political systems, …. Jewish nationalists (aka Zionists) operated from Europe in every sense. The were part of the British/European/colonial powers.

      1.58: When the British drew the lines, including the Eastern [sic] border at the Jordan river. I thought she was talking about the Middle East region. But now she flips back to a subregion for which Jordan river is an Eastern border. What about the subregion for whom it is a Western border? (Gaffe, not in the transcript)

      2.05: Arab as well as Jewish nationalists became very certain about where their desired homeland lay. Yes. Until then Arabs did not know where they were living. The British had to point that out for them.

      2.12: It’s neither the bible, nor Islamic traditions.
      Yes. Since Islamics cannot read or write, they only have tradition, you know.

      2.35: And so these [British drawn] borders became the ones that are so contested and so sensitive within the I/P conflict.
      It was the British who introduced the “contested borders”? What actually are contested borders in I/P: Jordan river (Brit made), partition 1947 (not Brit), Green Line (not Brit), Golan (not Brit), Apartheid Barrier (not Brit), Gaza prison (not Brit)?

      2.50: The Zionists in 1919 drew a map [of biblical Israel] that in the East went to the Hijaz Railway [running North-South Damascus-Medina, approx 10-20 mi (25 km) East of Jordan river].
      I am getting your point.

      3.25: [1921, British draw the Jordan border] and the mainstream Zionist movement drops the East bank tradition.
      And Havrelock wrote this book to recover that area.

      3.57: This imperial construction ultimately determined the national aspirations of Jews (or Israelis) and Palestinians.
      “Jews or Israelis” – just call them Zionists please. It is an insult to Jews, and to Israelis who have Palestinian nationalist aspirations.

      4.35: I propose a regional approach.
      Sometimes she does. Other times, she does local approaches. Or Zionist approaches. Whatever. Best to read as a warning: “Zionists are approaching the whole region”

      4.53: stopping [with old nationalistic approach] and actually looking, who lives there and where they are [sic] and what their resource needs are.
      She introduces “resource needs” (see also 5.45). What, wherefrom is this? Last time “needs” were used, it was by Israel in the Clinton negotiations (Israel liked to talk about Palestinian needs, not Palestinian rights).
      Also, why does she say this? It is wholly out of the context she put up so grandiose. I cannot read anything else but a payoff to peoples she wants to live “peacefully” together “side by side” with Jews. But let’s not pay too much.

      5.00: Instead of aspiring a fixed separate Israel of a fixed separate Palestine [spoken spittingly], let’s admit, it’s a fluid place with all kinds of population mixtures, […] people are living side by side in the same place.
      Population mixtures, sure. Her solution is already practiced by Zionists. And exactly those Zionists, and only they, after centuries of Ottoman coexistence, started the unmixing of people. It’s Nakba, Apartheid, Havrelock.

      5.45: Full enfranchisement of Palestinians and a system of a just distribution of the resources.
      “resources” given to Palestinians. If they ask nice? Oh, by the way, will the Jordanians get anything when you cross the river?

      6.15: Borders are the construct of British Empire to help get oil to Europe.
      Britains getting oil to Europe? Why would they? It should go to Britain. (Interestingly, Britain invaded Iraq in 1914 – 1914 I say -- to prevent the Germans from getting the oil. Expect or add the name Churchill when googling)

      6.44: The British during WWI made grand promises to Jewish as well as Arab nationalists.

      6.55: So that they [the British] could maintain these promises for a Jewish state and a Palestinian state.
      A “Jewish state”? Read the 130 words Balfour wrote. Promises for a Palestinian state? This must be why she is laughing and grinning all the interview through. (Gaffe, not in the transcript).

      7.02: Partition didn’t work in 1938, 1947, it brings us to the occupation from the 1967 war.

      7.26: That [1990s-on US investments in I/P] did not relieve the burden of the occupation on the Palestinians, that did nothing to assuage Israeli fear of being under attack.
      Israeli “fear of being under attack”. What a victims they are. Having to invent and keep up a fear – occupying is not that easy.

      7.56: Ancient Israel was very fluid.
      Yes it was.

      8.53: [disavowing] the idea of a discrete land that ends at the Jordan river.
      See the Irgun flag.

    • You asking, that changes matters. I will post shortly, in a new comment. Conclusions remain: she is a Zionist, and wants to cross Jordan river.

    • I don't think this is why she brings it up.

    • (Actually, I had prepared some twelve timed quotes from the video, two of them not in the transcript, but when I finally submitted them I was logged off and they were lost. I prefer not viewing this video once again. What a Zionist troll she is.)

    • In short: it's all the British' fault, they "promised a Jewish state" (she didn't read the 130 words by Balfour; btw this is not in the transcript), 2SS didn't work because Israeli still live in "fear" of an attack (poor victims; not the Palestinians: they actually live under attacks), earlier borders like partition 1939, 1947, 1967, Green Line did not work (well, maybe that is because Zionists every time already behaved according to this proposal), and Palestinians and Arabs (she doesn't know the difference. Hey, this is no-border thinking! Out of the box!), in the region Jordan river is an Eastern border (btw not in the transcript), Palestinians and Arabs will get their "needs" and "resources" (must say, that could be an improvement), "Jewish and Arab nationalists" alike were involved in the British Mandate (forget that the Jewish nationalists -- sure there must be a name for them --, operated from Europe and were part of that European, imperialistic, colonizing powers).

      Nothing new for Zionists: Lets cross the "Eastern border" Jordan river, up to the oil regions that the British so stupidly did not include in To Be Stolen And Occupied Palestine.

    • Annie, a different ways to look at things?

      So what is new? Israel undeclaring its borders? Israel fluiding out of the Partition Lines before the '48 war, Israel fluiding into the West Bank, fluiding all over Jerusalem: brilliant new thoughts.

    • Hostage: So some of the “Palestinians” have also disputed the legality of that boundary. Thank you for clarify this, and well sourced as always. So that dispute was sort of settled then in 1945, three years before Israel was created.

      Why does she bring it back into dispute? Why does she say it is disputed in present tense?

    • 4:51 [to determine borders I propose to look at] who lives there and where they are and what their resources needs are

      Well, associate professor, where people live today is not a good measure is it? Why not look at where they actually came from? And how they obtained that "where"? Ever heard of Nakba? And the "needs" trick was played by Israel to Bill Clinton. We know by now what Israel thinks Palestinians need.

      Why not talk about international rights and human rights. That is the Need.

  • Report: 'Joker' scratched Tel Aviv-- in BDS victory
  • Riots over gender segregation. And silence over Palestinian segregation
    • hophmi: I think maybe you can’t read English very well (assuming it was the same of the hophmis as this one today)

      Did you even read the title, hophmi?

    • hophmi: what about discrimination against women in the Arab and Muslim world, Allison? It’s a much, much bigger problem there than it is in Israel.

      The biggest country in "the Muslim world" is Indonesia. Now exactly what problem is there with discrimination against women, hophmi, and how so much bigger than in Israel?

    • hophmi: discrimination against women in the Arab and Muslim world is a much, much bigger problem there than it is in Israel.

      Of course it is bigger elsewhere. Within "the Israel world", discrimination against Arab women does not exist. "Against Arabs" does it.

  • Netanyahu gets to play Superman in case of 7-year-old harassed by orthodox Jews
  • Right-wing attack group caught fabricating quotes in effort to smear critics of Israel
    • The Hasbara Buster: ... when you hate too much

      I don't think they "hate" in this. SWU people are trained and payed to look at the world this way. Long term. They know exactly what they are doing (i.e. smearing, not discussing). It's just, they got away with it, way too long. Just asking for the facts made them fade.

  • Ben-Ami: I advocate for Israel, Palestinian groups should advocate for Palestinian human rights
    • Let me sum it up:

      -apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, fresh water system, public health, what have the Zionists ever taken from us?
      - Peace?
      - Oh peace. Shot up!

    • So, a liberal says he's a Zionist.

      Oh and by the way, what he said sounded more like "You know, go luck yourself" or so.

  • Swiss museum cancels competition after prize-sponsor Lacoste rejects Palestinian artist
  • Bias in the Great Library at Alexandria?
    • Walid writes ;-) the library also keeps an Arabic translation of Mein Kampf

      I'll say: Also donated by Israel to the Alexandria Library.
      Enter eee: "We're not that kind of people. Israel found it in 1948 in a house".
      I say: so Israel gives presents that are stolen goods?
      eee: "No, we have lived there for thousand years. It was ours".
      I say: ???
      eee says: "you are anti-Semitic".
      Israel says: "See, Alexandria also collects Mein Kampf. We in Israel don't have these books".

    • Next step: Israel claiming Alexandria library keeps harboring the Protocols

  • Bed Bath & Beyond flash mob: Stop selling illegal Israeli settlement products
    • hophmi: Creative? They keep doing the same thing over and over again.

      Have you seen this bridal ceremony before in BDS? Heard these lyrics before in BDS? Heard the well articulated arguments? No. Now, this is another creative bright new BDS promotion. Like.

  • Busted by Goldberg, Klein now says commas caused war in Iraq, not neocons
    • Kathleen: Klein ... Is that a liberal zionist?

      Whatever. A zionist he is. And Phil expected his ilk to liberate Palestine.

      Klein, as quoted: ... barbarians turn out to be Jewish, [...] especially since Barack Obama became President

      See, it's his fault.

    • Weiss, only yesterday: And Klein is a liberal Zionist! link to

      And pop goes the "liberal Zionist". He adds eight paragraphs of hasbare distractions (send in the Christian Evangelicals!). All within 24 hrs -- that I had not put my money on.

  • Klein: Ron Paul is surging because he opposes another neocon war for Israel
    • Weiss: And Klein is a liberal Zionist!

      Even better: this way some Zionism is saved! Can't leave that to Ron Paul, can we? Where would we be without liberal Zionism.

  • Obama's rabbi sidekick is opposed to 'too many Arabs' in Israel
    • Obama: [and] you [liberal American Jews] helped liberate Soviet Jews. Without these efforts I probably wouldn't be standing here today.

      Soviet Jews put Obama there?

  • Has NYT become an 'existential threat'? Oren says Friedman column was 'dangerous'
    • Oren: 'Israel lobby' implies [...] a Zionist cabal.

      Note that he did not dare to mention the word "Jewish".

  • 'Silly messianic superstitious nationalistic ... waste of Judaism' (Did Hitchens abandon these ideas?)
    • A "lie" would be an isolated thing. It looks more like a career step. Connecting the dots: his mother hiding her Jewish background (outside of the familie that is) to get him into the English establishment, Christopher "discovering" in 1987, moving to the US, then outing as a neocon when the time was right, then earning a US passport and Bushes' White House invitations. I think I get the red line in his career.

      And complaining that he can hear the BBC pronouncing "Wolfowitz" the anti-Semitic way. link to

    • Hitchens, at 0:12: My mother wanted to go, be a zionist, I tried to talk her out of it. It's been a thing in my family.

      Then why "discover" only in 1987, long after her death, that his mother was Jewish (as he described in Hitch-22)?

  • Important tantrum: Netanyahu adds 'NYT' and Thomas Friedman to growing list of enemies
    • Now NYT is to stand up.

      I hope they don't remove the Page Three girls, especially since they wear these awful diamonds and watches this month (That's why, The Sun, I don't buy you).

  • Video: army brutalizes demonstrators in Cairo
  • Assailed on Facebook for Tel Aviv gig, British musician Joker appears to back out
  • Is portrait of Mark Zuckerberg in 'The Social Network' anti-Semitic?
    • Weiss: Zuckerberg ... purely with jewish materials: does that include the Phillips Exeter t-shirt you mention? The dealing with the Winkelvosses is a jewish asset?

      And didn't you write WASPs are caricatured too, so it's more like everything is caricatured in this movie?

    • Brilliant answer to the task: "prove anti-Semitism in a movie of your own choosing".

      Like, altering "WASP" into "gentile", not smearing only spreading the smell ("... anti-Semitic? Well it comes close"), and referring to "those goyim" as you saw it in your time (not 2003): all good tricks. Next task is a step up: the same proof, now about "Casablanca".

  • Liberal Zionists (at last) say non-Jews have a right to criticize Israel
  • 'Christopher Hitchens's loathing for Israel...' --John Podhoretz
  • Iraq-- I'm sorry
  • Give it up to Hitchens!
  • Friedman line, 'Congress is bought and paid for by Israel lobby,' is shot heard round the world
    • Now let me get this straight. There is a jew, right, called Tom. Now he is a jew, and he writes in the New York Times. He writes like: Israel lobby has bought US Congress time & applause. And then the Internet says: eh, problem.

      MondoPhil. Again and again I say: Jews won't save Palestine.

  • When the late great creator of 'the Joker' took on the dastardly Elliott Abrams
    • Below the Abrams post, this comment was allowed through:
      December 14, 2011 at 3:09 pm
      Martin Gray responds:

      Like the other Kapos in Jewish history – Soros, M.J. Rosenberg, Beinart – Friedman joins a group more despicable then the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood. Tom, we get where you’re coming from, and believe me, we’ll deal with it and you in time.

  • JNF board member resigns over eviction of Palestinian family in Silwan
  • David Remnick erases Norman Finkelstein
  • What are they smoking? Wiesenthal Center lumps Abbas appearance at U.N. with 'neo-Nazis and crackpots'
  • The never-ending double standard
    • RW: deaths of dissenters and children ... of a different character ...?

      That is what Israel keeps saying: those deaths are collateral to the big War of the Witties.

  • Liberal pundits and Democrats are stifling conversation on failed peace process, AIPAC's power, and push for war on Iran
  • IDF kills Palestinian protester and tweets '#Fail'
  • The lobby blinks! Democratic insiders throw Josh Block under the bus
    • Ben Smith, in the link What's 'anti-Semitic'?, refers & links to the EUMC's Working Definition of Anti-Semitism (a draft really).

      UEMC (European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) does not exist any more since 2007, and is now called " Fundamental Rights Agency", Vienna.

      Also, it is NOT a "formal European definition". It is a "working definition (draft)", and has been degraded not promoted since.

      JSF has even pointed out that this "Working definition" is anti-Semitic in itself.

  • Mustafa Tamimi has died
  • Gingrich says Palestinians are an 'invented people'
    • eee: The Palestinians self determined themselves as a nation.

      Top that, Richard Witty. (Anyone seen him 'round lately?).

  • Israeli soldier shoots protester in face at close range with teargas canister
    • Frewddy V: you are not insulting. But if you keep listening to the BBC unchecked, I will be.

    • Freddy V, now about some details:
      curses from God ... the volcanic eruption in Norway.
      Dunno about that, you could mean Iceland? God has his own agent in Norway, called Breivik. Or, a more direct relation with Israel: the anti-Semitic thing with Norway is through the salmon. As they teach at kindergarten (1:10 for this detail).

      Next: ... the Palestinian plight isn’t widely covered in the UK. The two biggest news companies are the BBC, who are pretty good, but have a strict policy of impartiality.
      I object to the "pretty good BBC", and BBC being "impartial". Compared to Murdoch/Fox maybe, but that is not enough. Like, the compass of the Titanic is useless too by now. I recall: after the Gaza attacks (2008-2009, white phosphor on children, 1300+ dead, Goldstone), BBC-chief Mark Thompson did not allow broadcasting the grand Humanitarian Aid fundraiser for Gaza. And on the Mavi Marmara, BBC Panorama passed through the Israel Navy hasbara talk unedited, while breaking a promise after interviewing an attacked passenger (Jane Corbin sure can hold a mike).

    • Freddy V: thanks for giving this background. Still, I have little patience with once-believer's logic as you wrote here. To me, "ex christian zionist" does not sound like a free mind yet. I have left the habit long ago: start reasoning from point-in-time X. MY reflex question was: what was that jeep doing there in the first place? The issue did not start when the armoured jeep and the protesters met by coincidence.

    • Freddy V orig cmt 3:48: Throw stones at the IDF, expect them to f*ck you up.

      Now, there is not much more I want you to say. At all.

    • Freddy V 3:20: For the record, I’m an ex Christian Zionist.

      And off the record you are ... still waving the blue-and-white apology flag.

    • Gellian 4:15 pm: Should they just stand there and allow themselves to be stoned?
      Gellian 8:18 pm: I’m not on the Israelis’ side

    • The slingshot connection that IDF has published looks like a fake. There is no slingshot on the pictures, and why would IDF keep a piece of evidence on a bed?

    • Gellian: I do [...], but

      Classical trick.

  • Karen Greenberg's evasion
  • Is Ethan Bronner whitewashing rape by a former Israeli President?
    • hophmi, save your anger. Soon another ex-president of Israel will face court. Interview platform options and other distractions you mention will be governed by that court, the ICC, in The Hague.

  • Israel isn't good for the Jews anymore
  • State Department says Amb. Gutman was 'speaking on his own'
  • Gutman is right: Anti-Semitic incidents in England spiked after attacks on Gaza and flotilla
    • eee Did attacks on Americans in the UK spike after the US attacked Iraq? No. ??? Yes.

      Locally it is called "7/7", but your paper might have missed it. "Americans" to be understood as "species/sectarian/Nation of Neocons", which come in denominations like Americans, Londoners, Ashkenazis, Zionists and Liberal Zionists.

    • hophmi: there is ... serious antisemitism in Europe

      Which is off-topic, again.

    • Hatred is hatred, and needs to be condemned

      The piont you missed is: why calling in anti-Semitism, when there is no reason.

    • I don't trust CST, not even if they help. In October, CST pushed UK Minister May to throw Sheikh Raed Salah in prison. Raed Salah was kept from speaking in Parliament building, for reasons still unclear (The Guardian).

      Just 17 minutes after receiving a report on the activist, prepared by Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust, a UK charity monitoring antisemitism, Faye Johnson, private secretary to the home secretary, emailed about a parliamentary event Salah was due to attend.

      So this is a European institute, crying anti-Semitism without substantiating, having someone jailed and thrown out of the country: same old pattern. Let's not leave the definition of anti-Semitism to Zionists.

  • Israel trades $100 million in frozen PA funds for nuke-ready submarine
  • Welcome Annie Robbins as Writer at Large
  • Beinart says Israel must give citizenship to Palestinians under occupation
    • Only in a true democracy.

    • Many of us who are actively pro-Israel have met Palestinians.

      hophmi is a plural? And when did they meet Palestinians (sure it was more than one btw?)? In the Army? Border Control? Settler price tagging? And where did you meet: was it on occupied, stolen, confiscated or unilaterally withdrawn from area?

      But alas, I take it as an improvement that you don't write "Arab" any more.

  • Will Palestinian woman's humiliation by border guard warrant condemnation by NYT or Tablet?

Showing comments 900 - 801