Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2047 (since 2012-04-13 21:40:14)

Made in GDR, 20-something, socialist, pacifist, pessimist, atheist, anti-Zionist, LGBT rights supporter.

Showing comments 2047 - 2001

  • Netanyahu speech scandal blows up, and 'soiled' Dermer looks like the fall guy
  • Phila Inquirer publishes a lie: 'Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same'
  • When discussing Islam, which Islam and whose rationality? 
  • Jim Crow's polite sons
    • I already suspected that we have different definitions of unconditional solidarity. That's precisely why I wrote, "as I see it". What you refer to as unconditional solidarity is what I would call normal, healthy solidarity. I understand the expression unconditional solidarity as unquestioning obedience.

    • I think that unconditional solidarity is always dangerous. Of course, giving an example of every possible situation would take forever. That's why I try to explain it that way:
      As I see it, unconditional solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for equal rights would include approval of events like the Munich massacre. link to
      When 9/11 happened, Chancellor Schröder promised unconditional solidarity to the USA. In order to keep this promise, Germany participated in the Afghanistan war. A huge mistake!
      Unconditional solidarity means that you don't question the counter-measures of the victims. This is problematic, because victims of injustice can also be perpetrators of injustice, e.g. when injustice is fought with unjust means.

    • Nowhere in my comment did I claim that the author wrote this. I just gave an example of how dangerous unconditional solidarity is.

    • "My active support of the Palestinian struggle resonates with more integrity when I as a white person stand in unconditional solidarity with Black Lives Matter and Don’t Shoot Portland and all struggles for the dignity that every precious woman, man and child deserve."

      -> Unconditional solidarity is always dangerous. For example, unconditional solidarity with the Jewish victims of the Holocaust directly led to unconditional solidarity with the Jewish state of Israel. So, unconditional solidarity with a certain ethnic group can quickly cause further injustice.

    • "We need not a nostalgic stroll down memory lane, but a renewed, re-invigorated, impassioned and huge collective demand that Black Lives Matter, that when police kill, they go on trial like people in this church would."
      -> Well, the white policemen just follow the example of their black president. With his drone strikes against innocent Muslims, he sends the message that preemptive killing is okay. With his military aid to Israel, he sends the message that apartheid is okay. The policemen just do what their president does, i.e. practising preemptive killing and apartheid.
      You need to consider that policemen/patrolmen are at the bottom of the hierarchy of state employees. So, instead of bashing these small-time villains, you should try to catch the big fish. The system is rotten from top to bottom, not from bottom to top.

  • Obama won't meet Netanyahu during 'bizarre,' 'historic,' 'unprecedented' visit (Updated)
    • I am currently watching the documentary. It mainly deals with Israel-related anti-Semitism. At 33:00 a young Swede of Arab descent is interviewed.
      Reporter: "Why would you throw eggs at Jews?"
      Young man: "We want to retaliate for everything that happens in Palestine, all the murders."
      Reporter: "But we are Swedish Jews. We have nothing to do with Israel."
      Young man: "How do we know that? When we see a Jew, we think of Israel and everything that happens there."
      Reporter: "Is that what causes the problems?"
      Young man: "Yes."
      Reporter: "Does the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cause your reaction to the Jews?"
      Young man: "It is the only reason for Jew-hatred. It's the only thing that you think of. [...] I want to do something for Palestine, but I can't help anyone there."

    • Rob Lowe mocks Obama for meeting cereal-eating YouTube star and not Netanyahu
      Actor takes to Twitter to take sides in diplomatic snafu raging between White House and Republican-controlled Congress, Israeli prime minister.
      link to

      Controversial JPost columnist Caroline Glick considered for spot on Likud slate
      Glick has called for Israel's annexation of the West Bank, called Netanyahu 'immoral, irresponsible and stupid' in response to Gilad Shalit deal.
      link to

      Swedish reporter assaulted after wearing kippah to test attitudes toward Jews
      link to
      The article links to this interesting documentary: link to
      It's in Swedish, but when you are logged in, you can read Google-translated English subtitles.

  • Living in Israel isn't the solution to antisemitism
    • Dutch ex-minister: World peace if Israeli Jews move to US
      Herman Heinsbroek says it was ‘a historical error to give the Jews their own country’ in Islamic Middle East
      link to

    • "It will always be the continent of expulsion, blood libels, numerus clausus, ghettos and the Final Solution."
      -> Yeah, right! And Israel is totally different. Israel is pure perfection.

      "Freedom of speech is shrinking in Europe", Pfeffer concluded, "hemmed in on all sides by libel laws, political correctness, financial pressure and religious intimidation."
      -> And who is responsible for these laws? The law against the denial or trivialization of the Holocaust was passed at the behest of the Zionists. The law is used to silence people who say, "Never again to anyone!"

      "Muslims [...] have been in Europe for centuries and politicians and the press must stop acting as if we arrived yesterday."
      -> Sure, as soon as European Muslims stop acting as if they arrived yesterday. As long as they behave like unassimilated immigrants, they will be viewed as unassimilated immigrants.

      "We are here to stay."
      -> That's exactly what the Zionists say about the Jewish settlements in the West Bank too. Therefore, this statement sounds more like a threat by criminals.

      "Increasing numbers of Muslims have argued that Islam itself needs to become far more capable of both tolerating and accepting blasphemy in a non-violent way."
      -> Yes! As long as Islam is that intolerant, asking us to tolerate Islam is tantamount to asking us to tolerate intolerance.

      "90% of his election funding comes from American Jews, proving that a Jewish diaspora remains an essential support base for maintaining Israeli policies."
      -> OMG! That's even worse than I thought!

      "This Jewish feeling of insecurity is real and can’t be easily dismissed."
      -> But it should be dismissed, because it's paranoia. This Jewish feeling of insecurity is mainly caused by Zionist propaganda. Also, I assume that most British Jews are Zionists themselves. And supporting settler-colonialism does NOT make you popular. If British Jews want to become more popular, they need to stop supporting the Zionist apartheid regime.

      "British police have recently stepped up patrolling Jewish communities and soldiers in Belgium are guarding Jewish sites. The threat exists."
      -> The existence of security measures doesn't prove the existence of a threat. Just because there are security measures doesn't mean they are actually necessary. European states should not reinforce the paranoia of Jews by paying for their unnecessary security measures.

  • Diaspora Jews are not in 'exile,' they are at home
    • "If 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure."
      -> That's a weird statement. It's way too much pandering to one specific group. Immigration and emigration of all kinds of groups is normal. The Frenchness of France doesn't depend on the number of Jews, neither in one way nor the other. The number of Jews is only important to the ethnic nationalist state of Israel.

  • Gaza war blowback? Palestinian stabs 13 on Tel Aviv bus.
  • Netanyahu and Europe’s far right find common ground after the Paris attacks
  • #JeSuisUnJuifBritannique
    • @ Bornajoo
      "Foreskins Lament is on my list if stuff to read."

      -> The most surprising information in the book was this: When Auslander was a boy, he did some shoplifting. He thought that he was very good at it, because he was never caught. One day, however, he decided to wear a baseball cap instead of his usual kippah. And when he tried to shoplift, he was immediately caught. This made him realise that the only reason he was never caught before is his kippah. Shop assistants simply don't pay attention to Jewish kids, because they believe that they are too religious to steal.

    • @ straightline
      When I wrote "complete surrender", I had in mind that Palestinians either commit suicide or abandon their homes and emigrate.

    • @ Bornajoo
      "Their ‘crime’ was to take community business outside of the community. They were expelled and were lucky not to have been lynched by the mob that came after them."

      Wow, incredible! When multiculturalism turns into parallel societies, then that's a real problem.
      You should write a book about your experiences with the orthodox Jewish community. I am sure it would sell well. I really liked Shalom Auslander's book "Foreskin's Lament".

    • @Bandolero: +1

    • @ just
      "Perhaps the Palestinian woman was displaying a false bravado."
      -> I think what she meant was: Palestinians are harmless, peaceful people, but nevertheless the Jewish settlers have an extreme, irrational fear of them. The Palestinian fear of the Jewish settlers, however, is rational and justified.

    • @ Bornajoo
      Thanks for your explanations. Sounds a bit like the Amish.
      Questions: I assume that Reform Jews were rejected too, for not being Jewish enough!? If you don't abide by the community's rules, do they expel you?
      By the way, here's a study from 2011 titled "Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination - A European Report": link to
      The anti-Semitic statements are on page 57, the racist statements on page 59, the anti-Muslim statements on page 61. On page 80, the different hostilities are compared and it turns out that anti-Semitism is the lowest.

    • @ just
      The title is "360° Geo Reportage - Jerusalem im Morgengrauen".
      Here's the link: link to
      The woman was specifically talking about the situation in Jerusalem.

    • "The Jewish community where I grew up in Stamford Hill were more racist and xenophobic towards others than they were towards us."

      Were they anti-Gentile in general or were they hostile to a specific group of non-Jews?

      In a recent documentary about Jerusalem, a Palestinian woman said that the Jewish settlers are much more afraid of Palestinians than Palestinians are afraid of the Jewish settlers.

    • "It’s very hard to disentangle the ethnic from the religious."
      -> Perhaps it's hard for self-identified Jews, but it's not hard for non-Jews.
      What I wanted to express is that there's a difference between atheists who say "I don't want to date a Jew because we disagree on religion." and actual anti-Semites who say "I don't want to date a Jew because Jews are evil subhumans."

    • @ Laurent Weppe
      "Many will simply answer 'I am that family member'."
      -> I already know the linked article. However, just because the percentage of intermarriages increases doesn't mean that non-intermarried Jews approve of intermarriage. So, these are two separate issues.
      The linked article says, "Intermarried Jews are far less inclined to support Israel." I think that Jewish rejection of intermarriage is not actually about ensuring Jewish continuity but about ensuring Jewish settler-colonialism.

      "Take away the ghetto, and Jews prove to be as enthusiastically exogamous as any other group with similar opportunities."
      -> LOL. When the ghettos were removed in 1945, the first thing that Jews did was to ghettoise themselves by founding the Jewish state. Ethnic nationalism is the ultimate form of self-segregation. Also, Israel has no civil marriage in order to prevent intermarriage.

      Here's a documentary about Jewish life in Germany:

      A German-Jewish woman is interviewed (34:05). She says that she lives in her "little, self-chosen ghetto" and has almost no contact to non-Jews. Keep in mind that only 0.2% of people in Germany are Jewish. So, when a German Jew has almost no contact to non-Jews, then this is not just a happenstance but requires a high degree of active avoidance and self-segregation. Later in the documentary, another German-Jewish woman is interviewed (1:23:30). She says that Jewish mothers in her community play matchmakers and try to marry off their sons to Jewish women in order to ensure that their grandchildren are Jewish, too.

      Here's the book "How to Prevent an Intermarriage" by Rabbi Kalman Packouz:
      link to

      Head of Anti-Assimilation Group Appeals to Zuckerberg:
      Benzi Gopstein, head of the Lehava Organization, sends a letter to Mark Zuckerberg over his marriage to a non-Jew.
      link to

      Dear Emuna: Revisiting Zuckerberg’s Intermarriage
      "Aish HaTorah has been at the forefront of the fight against intermarriage and assimilation for almost 40 years. [...] Mark Zuckerberg is not to blame for his decision to intermarry; we are. [...] Intermarriage is a tragedy for the Jewish people. The current rate is appalling – and unbearable."
      link to

      An Open Letter to Zach Braff:
      link to

      The Case For Dating Shiksas: Why One Gay Jewish Woman Dates Outside of the Tribe
      "I worry my mother for one reason, and for one reason only: as a queer observant Jewish woman, I adamantly refuse to only date Jews. [...] But the downside to social progressiveness is that I, too, am now expected to marry a nice Jewish girl."
      link to

      "which should have been bloody obvious to anyone with the bare minimum understanding of human nature."
      -> I understand human nature, but I also understand the power of Zionist propaganda.

    • "When peace is being talked about, with real plausibility, anti-Semitism in Europe dies down."
      -> Talking peace with real plausibility? Has this ever happened? I don't think so. There's only one kind of peace that the Zionists would agree to, namely complete Palestinian surrender.

      "I was amazed that 80% of the CAA survey of the general public rejected the statement: Jews’ loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people."
      -> Yes, that's indeed surprising.

    • "the survey reports that only 10% agreed with the statement: I would be unhappy if a family member married a Jew."

      I'd love to know how British Jews would respond to the statement "I would be unhappy if a family member married a non-Jew." Chances are that anti-Gentilism is much more widespread among Jews than anti-Semitism among non-Jews. However, surveys and mainstream media always only focus on the smaller problem.

      Does the survey give a definition of the word "Jew"? Are Jews defined as an ethnic group or as a religious group? If Jews are defined as a religious group, then I - as an atheist - would indeed be somewhat unhappy if a close family member married a Jew ... or a Christian ... or a Muslim ... or some other religious person.

  • Why do Muslims object to depictions of their prophet?
    • "The problem is that there are Muslims killing people over these depictions, and it seems that the general response of organizations like CAIR is not to affirm that non-Muslims are not required to follow Muslim practices, but to re-emphasize that Muslims find depictions of the prophet offensive."
      -> I agree with hophmi here.

    • @ Krauss
      "I never cease to amaze at the level of which people who would never defend Christian fundamentalists crawl before Islam."
      -> I agree. I don't vote for right-wing parties, because they suck up to Christians. However, I can't vote for left-wing parties anymore either, because they suck up to Muslims. I wait for a party that doesn't suck up to any god botherers and that stands up for secularism.

  • Jews around the world know 'deep in their hearts they have only one country, Israel' -- Netanyahu
    • “Why move to country whose belligerent actions are partially responsible for the growing lack of security among Jewish communities in Europe and other places?” ~ Orly Noy
      -> I disagree. It's not the Jewish state's crimes that make non-Jews angry at European Jews. It's the European Jews' support for the Jewish state's crimes that make non-Jews angry at European Jews. If the CRIF, the Central Council of Jews in Germany and other Jewish organisations distanced themselves from the Jewish state's crimes instead of supporting them, then European Jews would be just as safe as non-Jews.

    • German-language SPIEGEL article about how problematic it is for women to get divorced in Israel:
      link to
      U.K. anti-Semitism report highlights disturbing trend - among British Jews
      link to

      The report is based on two surveys . In the first, carried out by the respectable polling company YouGov, a sample of 3,411 British adults were asked to respond to seven statements regarding Jews by stating to what degree they believed or disbelieved the statements. The CAA deems each statement to be anti-Semitic. [...]
      While there certainly has to be vigilance against forms of Jew-hatred, the CAA seems to be over-diagnosing the illness. This eagerness to see the anti-Semitism in Britain, which inarguably exists, as much more widespread than it really is, comes across in the second survey in the report, conducted directly by the organization among 2,230 British Jews. The survey was done over social media and though the CAA tried to widen its reach through the email lists of a number of large Jewish organizations, you don’t have to be a statistician to realize how such a sample is far from representative.
      Putting methodology aside, the headline findings that 45 percent of British Jews feel that “Jews may not have a long-term future in Britain” and that they and their families are “threatened by Islamic extremism in Britain” should cause concern. But then, those are subjective feelings: What relation do they have to the actual situation on the ground?
      The last finding in the survey is that 56 percent agree that “the recent rise in anti-Semitism in Britain has some echoes of the 1930s.” If the majority of British Jews and the authors of the CAA report actually believe that, then it’s hard to take anything they say about contemporary anti-Semitism in their home country seriously.

  • It's not the cartoons-- a contrarian perspective from a Muslim cartoonist
    • @ American
      "if you want to champion attacking people’s religions as ridiculous then they have the right to attack your homosexuality as unnatural and freaky as their opinion also."
      -> That's not quite the same. First of all, sexual orientation is not a choice. Religion, however, is a choice. Second, you confuse rights with opinions. As I have already stated several times, I don't deny Muslims equal rights. Most Muslims, however, deny gay people equal rights. And that's the problem. They demand tolerance from others while not offering tolerance to others. Here's an election poster of the German-Muslim BIG party that promotes denying gay people equal rights: link to
      I really don't mind that most Muslims are of the opinion that homosexuality is a bad thing, but I do mind that most Muslims want to deny me equal rights. As long as most Muslims aren't even willing to respect my RIGHTS, I don't see why I should be willing to consider their FEELINGS regarding their prophet.

    • "So you think the stuff in Charlie Hebdo was criticism."
      -> Yes, of course. The cartoons are accompanied by articles, which provide context.

      "I’m sure many Muslims looked at Charlie Hebdo, and thought 'Now there are some very acute and well-reasoned criticisms of Islam, worthy of further discussion'"
      -> I think that many Muslims and people like you choose to judge the magazine by its covers and deliberately ignore the messages and explanations in its articles.

      "I’d love to make a graphic novel out of your comment archive, Lefty, as a form of criticism!"
      -> Lucky you, I'm a tolerant person and won't kill you for it. So, I am more tolerant than the people you defend.

    • Thanks lysias. Perhaps I should have written something like "perceived race". Then it would have been more obvious what I mean.
      Also, the same applies to African Americans. They were enslaved because of their race. Mooser seems to think that the mere mention of race is racist.

    • @ Kris
      "I have the right to tell the grocery store clerk that the big hole in his earlobe, a new piercing, is ugly, but why would I deliberately offend him?"
      -> That's not comparable. As far as I know, nobody has ever committed a crime in the name of his piercing and nobody has ever denied gays or women equal rights in the name of his piercing. So, other people's piercings don't pose a danger to my rights. That's why I couldn't care less about other people's piercings. With religion, that's completely different.

      "Apparently to Muslims, part of respect is NOT depicting their prophet."
      -> If Muslims don't want to depict their prophet, then they are free to refrain from it. As a non-Muslim, I totally respect the Muslims' right to not draw their prophet. Likewise, Muslims have to respect my right to draw their prophet. Muslims can't expect non-Muslims to adhere to Islamic teachings.

      "If you respect someone, you don’t try to offend him."
      -> True! But whether I respect someone as a person, that depends on the individual. I have no general respect for Muslims as a group, or Christians as a group, or Jews as a group, or atheists as a group. Of course, I respect other people's rights. However, as an atheist, I don't see any reason to respect - or adhere to - other people's religious beliefs.
      You say that I should respect other people's religion. However, to many religious people, homophobia is part of their religion. Do you expect me to respect that, too?

    • "Charlie Hebdo was going bankrupt a few years back so they switched from being equal opportunity offenders to targeting Muslims because that sold copies of their magazine."
      -> Refraining from equal opportunity offending doesn't make you a bigot. I'll explain my opinion in form of examples.
      Scenario A: The Charlie Hebdo journalists feel equal contempt for Zionism and ISIS. However, they decide to only publish anti-ISIS cartoons and to remain silent about Zionism, i.e. neither anti-Zionist cartoons nor pro-Zionist cartoons. The reason: The journalists know that the existence of their magazine depends on the money of Zionist readers/donors.
      -> In this scenario, the journalists are not bigoted because they reject Zionism as much as ISIS. It's just external circumstances, which are not their own fault, that force them to refrain from speaking out against Zionism. You shouldn't demonise people for not biting the hand that feeds them.
      Scenario B: The Charlie Hebdo journalists are opposed to ISIS but approve of Zionism. That's why they don't just publish anti-ISIS cartoons but also pro-Zionist cartoons.
      -> In this scenario, the journalists are bigoted because they don't understand that Zionism is as wrong as what ISIS does.

      "Freedom of expressions means the government cannot put you in jail for what you say but that doesn’t mean people can’t call you out on your bigotry."
      -> That's undoubtedly true! But this is not the problem with the attack on Charlie Hebdo. The problem with the attack is that a certain group of Muslims refuse to understand that freedom of expression means that disagreement is not a justification for murder. So, please, don't try to change the topic.

    • "We cannot make offensive art illegal if we want to live in a free society, but we can examine the context and power structures under which bigoted cartoons are created and hopefully come to the conclusion that cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammed will just be considered one of those socially unacceptable things you just don’t do."
      -> Nope! The conclusion should be exactly vice versa. Mocking Christianity and Judaism should become as socially acceptable as mocking Islam. Because progressive, rational people realise that religion is ridiculous.

      Being a (former) victim group does NOT exempt you from being criticised!
      Being a minority group does NOT exempt you from being criticised!
      This does not just apply to Jews but also to Muslims.

    • "The Islamophobic cartoons in Charlie Hebdo are the American equivalent of white people drawing cartoons of African Americans as monkeys or Germans drawing cartoons mocking Jewish suffering during the Holocaust."
      -> That's not comparable. Muslims are not a race. Black people are a race. Jews were persecuted by the Nazis because of their race, not because of their religion. The Jewish equivalent to cartoons about Mohammed would be cartoons about Moses, not cartoons about the Holocaust.

      "The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the descendants of colonizers, felt that printing cartoons mocking the beliefs of former colonial subjects was somehow a funny and cool thing to do."
      -> By referring to the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo as "the descendants of colonizers", you hold crimes against them that they didn't commit. This is intolerable! Also, it's the same silencing tactic that the Zionists use: "You are the descendants of Nazis. So, how dare you question anything that the Jewish state does!?"

      "Trying to satirize prophet Muhammed in a cartoon just makes you look like an ignorant jerk."
      -> No, it makes you look like a rational person who rejects superstition.

  • Netanyahu crashes Paris unity march, French gov't fumes
  • Why I am not Charlie
    • @ Daniel Rich

      "But no child chooses its family."
      -> True! However, we don't talk about children here. This is about adults. And adults are able to overcome former parental indoctrination and choose their own religion.

      "one can [f.e.] link to offensive material and explain why one thinks it’s offensive"
      -> Linking to it serves the same purpose as republishing it. So, that's fine by me. I only have a problem with the claim that republication of a content implies approval of that content.

      "But how can Europeans claim to be all about ‘Freedom of Speech’ when certain things can’t be mentioned and are punishable by law?"
      -> Well, these laws were made by the politicians, not by the people. The politicians are the hypocrites. The people are not. If you asked the people about their opinion on a law against Holocaust denial, I am sure that most of them would disapprove of such a law.

      "When you use tracers in your clip, you can see where your bullets are going… I, on the other hand, know exactly where you’re shooting from. You see, it works both ways, that’s the perfect nature of balance."
      -> I have no idea what you mean by that. Why do you talk about guns?

    • @ philadelphialawyer

      As the author of the above article correctly points out, you can support Charlie Hebdo's right to press freedom and at the same time reject Charlie Hebdo's cartoons.
      Likewise, you can support equal rights for Muslims and at the same time reject Islam. Islamophobia = denying Muslims equal rights/treatment. Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, however, merely mock Islam. They do not advocate denying Muslims equal rights/treatment. Therefore, they are not islamophobic.

      What makes me angry is that a lot of self-declared progressives have double standards. For example, when you bash Christians for their homophobia, the progressive replies, "I totally agree with you!" However, when you bash Muslims for their homophobia, the progressive replies, "How dare you say that!? That's islamophobic!" As a true progressive, I understand that homophobia is always wrong, no matter which god is used to justify it. The problem is that there are so many faux progressives, who let Muslims get away with virtually everything - under the pretext of protecting them from Islamophobia. These faux progressives are just like PEPs, who let Jews get away with settler-colonialism - under the pretext of protecting them from anti-Semitism.

    • @ Teapot

      I understand what you mean, but I disagree with you.

      "To me it seems that there is a lot of racism going around disguising itself as religious criticism."
      -> You argue like a Zionist. Many Zionists claim that anti-Semites disguise their hatred of Jews as criticism of Israel and that therefore criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. However, this logic doesn't work.
      Even if there are some Jew haters who disguise their hatred of Jews as criticism of Israel, this doesn't make criticism of Israel anti-Semitic.
      Even if there are some Arab haters who disguise their hatred of Arabs as criticism of Islam, this doesn't make criticism of Islam racist.
      Misusing accusations of racism to silence criticism of Islam is as wrong as misusing accusations of anti-Semitism to silence criticism of Israel.

      "I’ve experienced not even half as many islamophobic incidents as some of my Arab and Desi friends have."
      -> That's not necessarily because you are white. Correlation does not imply causation.
      In Germany, there's the white Salafist Pierre Vogel. And he is just as unpopular as his Arab counterparts.
      link to
      When the German TV presenter Kristiane Backer converted to Islam, she got a lot of negative reactions.
      link to
      This shows that negative reactions are caused by rejection of the religion, not the race.
      I am an atheist who rejects all religions equally. I prefer a moderate Muslim to a fundamentalist Christian and a moderate Christian to a fundamentalist Muslim. I prefer whoever is more moderate. The thing is this: A female Muslim without a headscarf LOOKS more moderate than a female Muslim with a headscarf. A male Muslim without a "Salafist beard" and without Muslim head covering LOOKS more moderate than a male Muslim who wears these things. So, when you get fewer negative reactions than your friends, this could be a reason.

      "But even though it’s been many years since I converted, to some people I am still not a real Muslim."
      -> In my opinion, converted god botherers are even "creepier" than native god botherers, because converting to a religion requires more determination than simply keeping the religion your parents chose for you.

      "Someone with an Arab name on the other hand is often automatically considered a Muslim."
      -> Well, most Arabs are Muslims. So, it's just a logical assumption based on statistical probability. It does not mean that people equate Arabs with Muslims.
      When I tell non-Germans that I am German, they often assume that I am a Christian, simply because most Germans (60%) are Christians. There's nothing wrong with making logical assumptions. I don't get angry when people mistake me for a Christian. I just correct them.
      When I meet new people, I assume they are non-religious unless they wear religious clothing or symbols or mention their imaginary friend.

    • @ philadelphialawyer

      "The 'reader,' if he or she is truly interested, can certainly access the cartoons at issue here."
      -> If you believe that Islamophobia is like anti-Semitism, then you should understand that this is a serious accusation that must not be made lightly. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of you to simply claim in an article that these cartoons are islamophobic and not provide any evidence. And the best evidence are the cartoons themselves. Besides, you should give your readers the possibility to judge for themselves by at least linking to the cartoons. Otherwise, your readers have to suspect that you have something to hide, that the cartoons aren't actually islamophobic, and that your accusation is just a smear campaign.
      So many people have become victims of smear campaigns that no accusation can be taken at face value anymore, whether it's the accustion of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism, or homophobia. A credible author provides evidence for his accusation and at least links to the material that his article refers to.
      Without any republication or links, the cartoons would NOT be easy to find for people who don't speak French. And most people in the USA or Germany either don't speak French at all or don't speak it well enough. And even most of those people who can speak French well enough are probably too lazy or not interested enough to search for the cartoons themselves. Instead, if they are gullible, they simply believe the accusation of Islamophobia without even having seen the cartoons in question.

    • @ philadelphialawyer

      "Well, since that is his main point, I fail to see why you felt the need to write a long critique of his post."
      -> I already explained all this in my previous posts. Just because I agree with what you call his "main point" doesn't mean that I agree with his reasoning.

      "I am NOT a Palestinian, or a gay person, or an African American, or a Holocaust or Nabka victim. Not as a matter of fact nor as a matter of metaphor."
      -> If you don't want to side with the victims of injustice in form of a metaphor, then you are free to refrain from it.

      "But, merely republishing them, without that disclaimer, is to agree with them."
      -> Nobody republishes Charlie's cartoons without any context. The cartoons are always attached to an article that explains the author's opinion.

      "Moreover, in this case, the mere publishing is itself an insult, and so even with a disclaimer, you are reproducing the harm done by the offensive material."
      -> Your statement implies that offensive material is inherently harmful, but that's not the case. For example: If you publish a cartoon that hightlights Christian homophobia, then homophobic Christians feel offended. If you publish a cartoon that addresses Jewish settler-colonialism, then Zionist Jews feel offended. So, offending people's feelings is inevitable in order to achieve justice. Censoring yourself for fear of offending someone's feelings is indeed cowardice. As soon as you speak your mind, you are at risk of offending someone's feelings. If you want to consider everyone's feelings, then you can't say anything anymore.
      Respecting people's rights is more important than respecting people's feelings. So, standing up for the right to press freedom (in form of republishing the cartoons) has priority over the feelings of Muslims.

      "I think this is the real reason you are carrying on like this. Because you actually agree with the cartoons, with intentionally offending people on the basis of their religion, and, that being the case, you, along with those you defend, demand that everyone else do the same."
      -> I neither agree nor disgree with the cartoons. Actually, I don't find them good or funny. Also, I have no desire to INTENTIONALLY offend people on the basis of their religion. What I have a problem with is when god botherers use their religion as justification for denying other people equal rights, e.g. Christian homophobia, Jewish settler-colonialism, or Muslim misogyny. And the Muslim terrorists denied Charlie equal rights. That's a huge problem. I am so sick of all those religious nutjobs who think that their own religious FEELINGS are more important than other people's RIGHTS.

    • @ talknic
      stupidly promoting hatred and bigotry
      -> Actually, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons speak out against hatred and bigotry.

    • Page: 20
    • @ philadelphialawyer
      Regarding republication of "offensive content": I just remembered that Mondoweiss too republished an offensive cartoon despite disagreeing with its content. Here it is:
      link to
      So, clearly, republication does not imply approval. Republication of offensive material can have an educational purpose. It can help the reader understand the situation better. It can also allow the reader to make up his own mind. For example, I am always upset when I read in an article that someone "shouted anti-Semitic slurs". I am upset because this is a very vague phrasing. Who knows how the author defines "anti-Semitic"? Therefore, I would prefer a republication of these so-called "anti-Semitic slurs". Then I can form my own opinion about the situation and don't need to rely on the author's assessment. As we all know, there are people who even categorise the statement "Israel commits war crimes" as anti-Semitic.

    • I agree that Muslims should not be expected to distance themselves from crimes committed by other Muslims. However, I think that Muslims should voluntarily speak out against these crimes simply because they are crimes and speaking out against crimes is the right thing to do. Also: If Muslims don't bother to speak out against the crimes committed by other Muslims, then they have no right to whine when non-Muslims don't bother to speak out against the Islamophobia of fellow non-Muslims.
      Besides, speaking out against a crime is NOT the same as apologising for that crime. For example: I condemn the Holocaust. However, I will never apologise for the Holocaust or be ashamed of the Holocaust, because an apology or shame would imply culpability.

    • @ philadelphialawyer

      "Because, um, he doesn’t agree with it? And because folks are more or less demanding that he say he does?"
      -> I don't mind at all that the author has no desire to say or write "Je suis Charlie". However, his reasoning is ridiculous, i.e. taking the slogan literally when it's clearly meant figuratively.

      "Moreover, the real condemnation here is on the notion that one HAS to say 'I am Charlie,' or else, by implication, one agrees with the attack or is a coward, etc."
      -> Nope. As I already stated in my previous comment, this notion doesn't actually exist.

      "It seems to me that one can condemn the attack while not at all agreeing with Charlie, much less claiming to actually 'being' him."
      -> Of course, you can condemn the attack without agreeing with Charlie. Nobody expects you to agree with Charlie. Again, the hashtag or slogan "#JeSuisCharlie" is NOT supposed to be taken literally. Using the hashtag does NOT mean that you actually are Charlie or that you agree with everything that Charlie has ever published. It simply means that you condemn the attack on Charlie. Some person who condemned the attack came up with that hashtag and then it was adopted by others who condemn the attack. This hashtag is just a simple tool to make the condemnations trackable. The literal meaning of the hashtag is pretty much irrelevant. So, there's no reason to bitch about it.

      "To repost the cartoons does, in fact, show that one agrees with them."
      -> No, it doesn't! You can republish the cartoons and then explain in the accompanying article that you disagree with the content and only republish it as a symbolic act against censorship.

      "If someone were killed for publishing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, am I obliged to repost those protocols?"
      -> This analogy doesn't work. A book is very different from a cartoon. Besides, as far as I know, the book is anti-Semitic and not satirical. The cartoons, however, are satirical and not islamophobic. Also, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are not comparable. Hating Jews as a "racial group" is not the same as hating Muslims as a "religious group". Your race or ethnicity is not a choice. Therefore, it's not okay to hold it against you. Religion, however, is a choice. Therefore, you can be held accountable for your religious beliefs. Also, there are rational reasons to reject (a certain) religion, but there are no rational reasons to reject a certain race. Making fun of a religious group is justifiable, whereas making fun of a racial group is unjustifiable.

      "Why can’t the author support the right to offend Muslims without offending Muslims himself?"
      -> As I already said, republication of a content does not imply approval of that content. Also, if you condemn the attack on grounds of press freedom and then engage in self-censorship, you contradict yourself. Besides, deference to religious feelings is ridiculous because religion is ridiculous.

      "In France, one can legally ridicule Islam, but one cannot legally question the Holocaust."
      -> Correct! However, that's a different problem. Also, these two things are not comparable. The Holocaust was not about Jews as a religious group but about Jews as a racial group.

      "No one is obligated to say 'I am Charlie' nor is anyone obligated to publish the cartoons in question. And not doing so is in no way indicative of support for the attacks or inconsistent with condemnation of them."
      -> We agree on that. So, what's your point?

    • Tweets by Anthony Shaw ‏(@AnthonyShaw_):
      "This is why Israel exists. #Paris #JeSuisJuif"
      link to
      "If you tweeted #JeSuisCharlie but won't tweet #JeSuisJuif today, I think we can all work out why."
      link to

    • Tweet by Ben Shapiro ‏(@benshapiro):

      "If you tweeted #JeSuisCharlie but won't tweet #JeSuisJuif today, I think we can all figure out the reason."

      link to

    • I disagree with most of the article. The article is a clear case of overanalyzing.

      "To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not the same as to become them."
      -> I assume the author is aware that the length of tweets is limited. Because of this limited length, hashtags need to be short. Therefore, it really doesn't make sense that the author places such disproportionate emphasis on the literal meaning of the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie. I wonder: Why does the author have such a strong desire to badmouth a simple expression of solidarity? The hashtag figuratively expresses that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on our value of press freedom. This is as clear as daylight. When JFK gave his famous speech in Berlin, the author of the above article would probably have taken the phrase "Ich bin ein Berliner" literally and complained about the fact that JFK wasn't ACTUALLY a citizen of Berlin.

      "The message today is, I have to agree with what you say, in order to defend it. Why else the insistence that condemning the killings isn’t enough? No: we all have to endorse the cartoons, and not just that, but republish them ourselves. [...] If you don’t agree with what Charlie Hebdo said, the terrorists win."
      -> Nope. You misinterpret the message. Nobody demands from you to endorse the cartoons. People just ask you to republish them as a symbolic act against censorship. Republication of a content does not imply approval of that content. Or as some Twitter users would say, "RTs are not endorsements."

      "I refuse to post them because I think they’re racist and offensive. I can support your right to publish something, and still condemn what you publish."
      -> The author understands that supporting the right to Holocaust denial is not the same as denying the Holocaust. However, he fails to see that ridiculing god bothering is not the same as denying god botherers equal rights. As far as I know, Charlie Hebdo has never advocated denying Muslims equal rights. Therefore, the newspaper is not islamophobic (or racist). Freedom of religion does not mean that everyone is obligated to like religion. God botherers have to respect my right to dislike their religion and to express my dislike of their religion in speech and writing. Charlie Hebdo has never denied Muslims any rights. It's the Muslim perpetrators who denied Charlie Hebdo its rights. So, clearly, the author's indignation is directed at the wrong people. Before I get accused by the political correctness police, let me remind you: Mentioning that the perpetrators are Muslims does NOT mean that I blame all Muslims.

      "I am offended when those already oppressed in a society are deliberately insulted. [...] This crime in Paris does not suspend my political or ethical judgment, or persuade me that scatologically smearing a marginal minority’s identity and beliefs is a reasonable thing to do."
      -> France is not Israel. In France, Muslims are NOT oppressed. Also, I am a supporter of equal rights and equal treatment. Equality of Muslims includes that their religion is ridiculed in the same way as other people's religion. You have to take the bad with the good. You can't pick and choose. Muslims who can't deal with this should leave France and move to a country that rejects equal treatment and that gives their religion preferential treatment.

      "When a rabid Islamophobic rightist killed 77 Norwegians in 2011, most of them at a political party’s youth camp, I didn’t notice many #IAmNorway hashtags."
      -> As you said, this was in 2011. I assume that back then Twitter was less widespread and/or used in a different way than nowadays. When it comes to the Internet, 3 to 4 years are a long time. Therefore, the Twitter reactions to these two incidents are not comparable.

      "Charlie Hebdo and its like never treated Muslim immigrants as individuals, but as agents of some larger force."
      -> Well, god botherers view THEMSELVES as agents of a larger force, i.e. as servants of god. If anything, Charlie Hebdo simply adopted their viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that. I would say that god botherers are indeed agents of their respective sky daddy. However, they are also individuals, because they interpret the words of their respective god and prophet differently. Christians disagree greatly on what it means to be a good Christian. Likewise, Muslims disagree greatly on what it means to be a good Muslim.

      "So all Muslims have to post #JeSuisCharlie obsessively as penance, or apologize for what all the other billion are up to."
      -> From the article, I can see that there is only one person who actually expects Muslims to distance themselves from crimes committed by other Muslims. And this person, Tarek Fatah, is a Muslim himself. So, the author's claim that (non-Muslim) people demand from Muslims to speak out against the attack is pretty much made-up. And he uses this made-up claim to distract from the actual crime (= the attack on Charlie Hebdo) and the actual problem (= Islamic fundamentalism). Very disappointing.

      Aamer Rahman: "As a random Muslim I'll apologise for this Paris incident if random white ppl will apologise for imperialism, drone attacks and Iggy Azalea."
      -> The killer drones are NOT sent by a white person.

      For the record, I did not post any "Je suis Charlie" messages or pictures online. Not because I disapprove of this symbolic act but simply for reasons of laziness.

    • Maximus, I totally agree with you! These double standards are outrageous.

  • Is Abbas’ war crimes bid against Israel a big bluff?
  • Israel should pay 1.4 million Palestinians to leave Gaza, Moshe Feiglin says
  • Sony email chain on behalf of Israel joined Russell Simmons and Michael Lynton with rightwing Zionists
    • "There are hate crimes against heed [sic] happening in almost every major metropolitan city, now including the US."

      What does "heed" mean? Probably "heebs"!?
      How can such dumb people be so successful?

    • Marnie: Makes me think of Gwen Stefani with “Hollaback Girl”

      Thanks for mentioning. I knew that the spelling of "Hollacast" looks familiar but I couldn't remember what word it reminded me of.

      Why can't rich guys spend a few dollars on a dictionary?

      Russell Simmons was in a relationship with German model Hana Nitsche. I wonder if they have ever discussed the conflict.

  • Ads Against Apartheid hits LA with Mandela campaign
    • OT: Not sure if someone else already posted this, but recently Jewish-Israeli actress Natali Cohen Vaxberg was interviewed by German journalist Martin Lejeune. She spoke about how one of her appearances in Germany was cancelled. She also gave her opinion on how Max Blumenthal and David Sheen were treated by German politicians and German media.
      link to
      By the way, I think that her English sounds really cute.

  • PA to seek UN Security Council resolution giving Israel two years to end the occupation
  • Israel has no answer to BDS, Barghouti tells packed hall at Columbia
  • Lieberman unveils racist peace plan: Pay Palestinians to leave Israel
    • OT - I just read this article on the SPIEGEL website: link to
      Tuvia Tenenbom in Israel: Jewish self-hatred, German self-righteousness
      Israeli-American Zionist Tuvia Tenenbom just wrote a new book titled "Catch The Jew". He travelled through Israel/Palestine to interview different people about the conflict. He played different roles in order to get honest answers from the people. When interviewing Palestinians, Tenenbom pretended to be a German. (How dare he!) He refers to Jewish anti-Zionists as self-hating Jews and to pro-Palestinian Germans as anti-Semitic.

  • The Minds of Others: An interview with Max Blumenthal
    • Mooser, the term "Jewish power" does not imply that ALL Jews are powerful. It only means that the powerful people are Jewish, e.g. Sheldon Adelson or Haim Saban.
      In the same way, the term "Jewish settler-colonialism" does not imply that ALL Jews are Zionists.

  • 'What is your religion?' question surprises two American visitors to the occupation
  • Israel lost the British elite after Gaza onslaught, UK ambassador says
    • @ American:
      What is a Stolperstein?
      Look here: link to
      They are a nice idea. However, putting them on private property without permission is unacceptable.

    • No idea. However, I side with the house owner. It is an impudence that the organisation put the Stolpersteine on his property without bothering about the law or asking for permission. The organisation's behaviour reminds me of the Zionists' behaviour. They, too, believe that because of the Holocaust they are above the law and can do to other people's land whatever they want.

    • You are right, eljay. However, if he is a Zionist, don't expect me to feel sorry for him.

    • OT: A landlord in Berlin wants all seven "Stolpersteine" to be removed from the sidewalk in front of his house. He argues that someone could slip on these tiles and then hold him liable for it. The thing is that the organisation that put the "Stolpersteine" into the sidewalk didn't bother to check if they are on private or public property. Now, the landlord found out that they are on his private property and therefore he demands from the organisation to remove them. He added that the persecution and murder of Jews by the Nazis are not his fault. The organisation, however, refuses to remove the "Stolpersteine" and/or to relocate them to public property. The organisation claims that the "Stolpersteine" are monuments and that monuments are not relocated. The article says that the house owner probably has the right to demand removal.
      link to

    • I just read some other articles about the incident. More details:
      The incident happened on Sunday evening. The tourist is a 22-year-old man. At first, the four men came his way and walked past him, then they turned around and followed him a short while. Then they suddenly attacked him, best and kicked him several times. Afterwards, they fled. The tourist has injuries at the hand and the head. He received outpatient treatment at the hospital. He told the police that the men said something to him in German, but he couldn't understand what they wanted from him. The men are referred to as "strangers". No mention of suspects, arrests, or witnesses.
      link to
      link to
      Again: My comment that perhaps the men heard him speak Hebrew (e.g. on the phone) is pure speculation. Perhaps the men didn't even know that he's from Israel and just beat him up because they were in the mood and he looked like an easy target.

    • OT: I just read on a German news website that four men beat an Israeli tourist to a pulp at a station in Berlin. According to the article, the tourist doesn't speak German, did NOT wear a kippah, and was NOT robbed. The police investigate if the incident had a "political motive".
      I assume that the four men heard him speak Hebrew and therefore thought that he's a Zionist.
      link to

  • US Jewish voters have more favorable feelings about Netanyahu than Obama
    • i don’t think someone from west germany should preach to the eastern europeans who seek a good life in germany that they should leave the past behind.

      Yonah, if you had looked at my profile, you would know that I am from the East. Besides, holding someone's nationality against him in order to try to deny him the right to speak his mind is contemptible.
      Jews in Germany benefit from preferential treatment while claiming that nothing has changed since the Holocaust. This pisses me off. They need to stop terrorising us with their paranoia and start behaving like normal people.

    • Oh, Yonah! You are misusing Nazism to justify Zionism, like so many of your fellow Zionists. Puke, puke! There is absolutely no justification for settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing.
      By the way, Jews who are too dumb to distinguish between past and present shouldn't be living in Germany.

    • American, I totally agree with you!

    • "So Peter Beinart is little more popular in the Jewish community than Omar Barghouti."

      That comment made me laugh.
      I really wish there were such a survey with German Jews. My guess is that they are even more Zionist than US Jews.

  • Why I confronted Gregor Gysi
    • Hi jd65!
      I like your video and I tweeted about it. The documentary that you mention at the end sounds very interesting, too.
      Regarding the David Sheen quote, we will have to agree to disagree. The words "let alone" and "especially" sound like singling out to me.
      In her latest article, German-Jewish anti-Zionist Evelyn Hecht-Galinski sides with Sheen and Blumenthal and complains that "non-Jews want to explain to [her] what anti-Semitism is". Such a way of thinking really upsets me. I mean, she is a smart woman. Therefore, it should be easy for her to factually explain the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism without playing the Jew card. Instead, her argumentation is something like this: "German politicians and journalists are non-Jews. That's why their definition of anti-Semitism is incorrect. I am a Jew. That's why my definition of anti-Semitism is correct." Zionist Jews argue along the same lines whenever I explain to them that anti-Zionism is NOT anti-Semitic. They respond that I, as a non-Jew, have no right to tell them what anti-Semitism is. So, what many anti-Zionist Jews have in common with Zionist Jews is that both groups claim that Jews have a monopoly on defining anti-Semitism. I think that it harms the credibility of anti-Zionists when anti-Zionist Jews use the same silencing tactics that we complain about when they are employed by Zionists. Anti-Zionists shouldn't resort to the same cheap tactics as Zionists do. We are better than that.

    • RoHa, just a quick inquiry: What did you smoke?

    • Nurit, it's terrible enough that you stalk me on Twitter. Now, you are here on Mondoweiss. Please shut up and leave us alone. We aren't buying your hasbara anyway.

    • "It is contemptible that any person, let alone a German, would baselessly slander a critic of Israel as spreading anti-semitism, especially when that person is Jewish or even Israeli."

      I really have a problem with this statement. Why are you singling out Germans, Jews, and Israelis? You are using the same silencing tactic as the Zionists do, i.e. a German must never ever disagree with a Jew (because of the Holocaust). Zionists regularly claim that non-Israelis don't understand the special threat that Israel faces and that therefore non-Israelis need to shut up.
      Of course, what Gysi did was wrong. However, it wasn't wrong because he's a German and you are an Israeli Jew. Your respective nationality has nothing to do with that. So, there's no reason for emphasising it. Anti-Zionists believe in equal rights and equal treatment. This means: Being slandered by a German should not be regarded as more terrible than being slandered by a non-German. Slandering a Jew or an Israeli should not be regarded as more terrible than slandering a non-Jew or a non-Israeli.

    • One of Max Blumenthal's talks in Germany:
      link to
      link to
      Further videos are available on the same channel.

  • Dempsey bucks Obama line by praising Israelis for Gaza tactics
  • A visit to Auschwitz
    • I have never been to Auschwitz, but I visited Mittelbau-Dora twice and Buchenwald once.

      "But that’s the thing about that place, everything seems just plain and ordinary, in spite of the enormity of the acts that took place there."
      -> I totally agree with that observation.

      "Our guide kept saying that those 'sentenced to death' were murdered in these spaces. I kept thinking that no one really was sentenced to death, not in the way I understand the term. What went on there was a nihilistic orgy of death. Nothing resembling due process resulting in a sentence of death took place there."
      -> To Europeans, due process doesn't make any difference in this context. Either way, it's murder by state and a violation of human rights. A so-called "due process" doesn't make murder by state any more acceptable.

  • UCLA Hillel partners with PR firm to fight BDS movement
    • Elliot: "The Zionist establishment understands that they cannot win the debate with SJP. They are fighting a rearguard action. In desperation, they turn to the 80% ignorant young Jews."

      Right! These e-mails are VERY telling. Zionists rely on ignorance, anti-Zionists rely on education. Zionists use PR, anti-Zionists use the truth.

  • 'Another Jew!' Speakers at 'Klinghoffer' rally blame Jews for promoting anti-Semitism
    • @ eljay & Talkback

      Thanks! Now I see. In Phil's article, it sounded as if the opera depicted Palestinians as evil murderers of Jews. That's why I didn't understand why the Zionists dislike the opera.

    • "I don’t know the opera, I probably shouldn’t ask, but I’m confused… How is the opera ‘anti-semitic’?"

      Oh, good! I am not the only one who is confused.

  • 'NYT' can't keep its story straight on anti-Semitism in Germany
    • OT: Moshe Zuckermann introduces his new book in Berlin (German-language videos):
      link to
      link to

    • My thought exactly, eGuard!

    • "Other forms of anti-semitism are sometimes anonymous graffitis like “Against the Judenrepublik” (jewish republic) which are quickly overpainted."

      I had to look up "Judenrepublik". At first, I thought that this word refers to Israel. Then the slogan would have been anti-Israel, not anti-Semitic. However, it turns out that Germany is meant by that. Strange.

    • It's actually about pudding. The high price of the pudding is a symbol of the high living costs in Israel. See the German-language articles here:
      link to
      link to
      One of the article says, "In Israel, one of the richest countries in the world, 20% of its inhabitants live below the poverty line." And remember, BILD is a conservative newspaper. It's unusual that it writes something negative about Israel. So, apparently, the situation in Israel is so bad that even the conservative media can't turn a blind eye anymore.

  • Sweden's recognition of Palestine will license activists
    • "Recognition of a Palestinian 'state' in a fraction of Palestine actually negates the rights of most Palestinians and conflicts with the Palestinian right of self-determination."

      Yes, that was my first thought exactly!

  • Encounter at a post office
  • On the use of provocative analogies (Nazism, fascism)
    • @AbigailOK

      "They will be the very last part of the globe to see and then utter the likeness of zionism and nazism."

      Actually, that's not true. I don't have the links right now, but I remember two surveys which show that 40 to 50% of Germans agree with the statements "Israel does to Palestinians what the Nazis did to Jews." and "Israel conducts a war of extermination against Palestinians." Furthermore, there was a study about the perceptions of European Jews. A high percentage of German Jews stated that they hear the Nazi comparison very often.
      The mere fact that the Nazi comparison is included in surveys indicates that it is so widespread that it can't be ignored anymore.
      Germans usually don't talk publicly about their opinion on Israel. However, just because Germans don't state publicly that Zionists are like Nazis doesn't mean that they don't think it or don't say it privately.

      "Whoa, it might remind some of their background or past."

      I don't quite understand this statement. Present generations of Germans don't identify with Nazi-era Germans. Old Germans, such as my grandmother, were only innocent children when it happened. They had nothing to do with Nazi crimes. Therefore, the Nazi comparison does not evoke painful memories. The only thing that my grandmother remembers is how US soldiers came and wanted to confiscate the cameras from Germans. My grandmother said, "When the soldiers asked for our camera, my sister was stupid enough to admit that we have one and to give it to them."

    • The German YouTube channel "publicsolidarity" posted a video of anti-Zionist protesters. It shows how the police denied them entry to the rally against anti-Semitism. The protesters are from the German groups "Jewish voice for a just peace" and "Non-Zionist Jews".
      link to

    • Look at the photos of the audience. There are Israel flags everywhere. The chancellor is speaking now. She constantly equates negative criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. For example, she said that it is scandalous when German Jews are attacked for defending Israel.

    • OT: Right now, there's a big rally in Berlin against anti-Semitism. It was organised by the Central Council of Jews in Germany. According to German media, there are thousands of participants. The mayor of Berlin, several ministers, the Chancellor, and the President give speeches.
      You can watch a live stream here: link to
      The logo of the event has a blue Star of David, then it says "raise your voice" in white letters and "Nevery again Jew-hatred" in blue letters. I find the choice of colours very suspicious and disgusting. Blue and white, just like Israel's flag. I assume that the Central Council intentionally picked them to suggest that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. It's a Zionist propaganda event that is supposed to distract from the real problem, which is Zionist settler-colonialism. There will even be a 45-minute special report about this event on German TV.
      The right-wing publishing house Axel Springer put a huge logo of the event on the wall of their building. See here: link to

    • For example, suppose the French resistance to the German occupation in the 1940s, lacking any other effective means, had sent rockets into Berlin, resulting in German “retaliation” that killed hundreds or thousands of French civilians.

      The analogy isn't quite correct.
      Germany wasn't built on French land. So, Frenchmen sent rockets into other people's land.
      Israel, however, was built on Palestinian land. So, when the Palestinians in Gaza (most of them refugees from the area of Israel) send rockets into Israel, then they merely fire rockets into their own land.

    • It is sufficient for Israel’s purposes merely to impose great suffering on the Palestinians, so as to deter or crush any resistance to Israel’s ongoing colonization of Jerusalem and the West Bank and the continuing repression not just of Hamas but of the Gazan people as a whole.

      There are two reasons why Israel doesn't commit outright genocide. The first reason is the one that you mentioned: Bullying is sufficient in order to get rid of the Palestinians. The second reason is that Israel fears punishment by the international community. It is necessary for Israel to be more subtle than Nazi Germany, because otherwise Israel risks getting the same response as Nazi Germany.
      So, what I am trying to say is that the Zionists hate Palestinians as much as the Nazis hated the Jews. They are equally evil. And it's only for tactical reasons that the Zionists refrain from treating the Palestinians in exactly the same way as the Nazis treated the Jews.

  • I quit my job at the Jewish Community Center over a pro-Israel rally and they called me an anti-semite
    • KEITH - "MaxAJL who used to comment (and contributed posts) was rather quick to play the anti-Semitism card. He considered any mention of Jewish power and influence as anti-Semitic by definition."

      I haven't heard of that dude before, so I can't comment on him.
      Since (1) Zionism belongs to Judaism, (2) Israel is a "Jewish state", and (3) many wealthy Zionist donors to US politicians are Jewish, Zionist power is also Jewish power. Without Jewish power and influence, Zionism wouldn't be as successful as it is now. Pointing out this fact isn't anti-Semitic. It would only be anti-Semitic if someone blamed ALL Jews for Zionism. How can people have an honest discussion about Zionism when they shy away from mentioning Jewish power and influence, one of Zionism's secret to success? Therefore, it doesn't make sense that there are anti-Zionists who demonise any mention of Jewish power and influence as anti-Semitic.

    • MOOSER - "By calling ourselves Jewish, we aid Israel in making the distinction between Jew and not-Jew ... unless one is willing to make plain and visible at all times one opposes it."

      I agree! If I were a Jew, I wouldn't dare to be visibly Jewish for fear of being mistaken for a Zionist and being berated for Zionist crimes. I would only mention my Jewishness in the same breath with my anti-Zionism. However, I am glad that I am spared from such a situation. I think that Zionism turned being Jewish into a burden. I already mentioned this in one of my previous posts, but on a YouTube show some German Jews complained that one of the first questions they get when coming out as Jewish is, "What's your opinion on Israel?" Obviously, they don't want to hear this question because they are Zionists and find it increasingly hard to come up with excuses or justifications for Zionist crimes. They even claimed that asking a non-Israeli Jew about his opinion on Israel is anti-Semitic.

    • "It is the arrogance of the Euro-centric mind and it needs to be squashed."

      OMG! You must be kidding. It's the USA that plays world police and sends killer drones around the world to commit mass murder of Muslims. It's the USA that protects the criminal, settler-colonial state of Israel from punishment by the UN. So, it's US arrogance and Zionist settler-colonialism that need to be squashed.
      This Jew's problem isn't his Europeanness but his Zionism. Zionists are evil or deluded, no matter where they come from. Besides, the mere fact that Charlie happens to be Mizrahi or partiallly Israeli doesn't automatically make her an expert on Zionism. A lot of Israelis are very ignorant.

    • GC - "Many of us just plainly refuse to be labelled gentile or goy or even non-Jew and whatever othering that seems to be accepted within the jewish community."
      -> I don't mind being referred to as "non-Jew", but only if it's relevant to the context. The words "gentile" or "goy" are unacceptable in any case. When Charlie condescendingly refers to non-Jews as "gentiles" and tells them that they need to behave in a more Jewish way (because the non-Jewish way is apparently inferior), then it's no wonder that people react negatively. And then Charlie misinterprets these negative reactions to her comments as "anti-Semitism". That's why there's so much anti-Semitism in her opinion.

      GC - "And how do black christians differ from white christians or are her friends only white christians?"
      -> Right! I found this mention of her Christian friends' race really weird, too. People who put so much emphasis on race creep me out. I am suspicious of them.

    • KEITH: "M.J. Rosenberg is an extreme example of this phenomenon of reckless accusations intended more to intimidate than to discuss."

      Right! But he's not an anti-Zionist. He's a "liberal" Zionist. That's why his paranoia regarding anti-Semitism doesn't surprise me. In Charlie's case, it does. If she's rational enough to see that Zionism is unjust, she should also be rational enough to see that anti-Semitism has almost died out and that - to the extent that it exists - it is mainly caused by the crimes of the self-declared "Jewish state". So, if there's anyone to blame for anti-Semitism, then it's the Zionists.

    • "The Jewish connection to Israel goes beyond race and ethnicity and is part of the Jewish religion."

      So what? The Bible is not a land register. Besides, there are also a lot of non-religious people who self-identify as Jewish for whatever crazy reason. What's their connection to Israel?

    • "Being Jewish means being critical and anti-authoritarian."
      -> Really? Apparently I am Jewish, too. If that's actually your definition of being Jewish, then you seem to believe that non-Jews are uncritical and pro-authoritarian.

      "I’ve had somewhat of a rough time being Jewish, having lived in many places that I can confidently call anti-Semitic."
      -> I highly doubt this. I can't take such a statement at face value anymore. Perhaps you are one of these people who automatically attribute every negative experience to anti-Semitism!? Can you give some examples of the "anti-Semitic incidents" that you experienced?

      "I will always be proud of being Jewish."
      -> Being proud of a happenstance is stupid.

      "There is a lot of anti-Semitism in the contemporary anti-Zionist movement."
      -> A lot of!? You must be kidding. And I have always thought that only Zionists are paranoid when it comes to anti-Semitism.

      "Moving forward, I encourage all of my friends, Jewish or gentile, to live in a more Jewish way. That is, always question authority."
      -> Non-Jews should live in an Jewish way? Seriously? Stop equating "being Jewish" with "questioning authority". That's an insult to non-Jews. And using the term "gentile" is insulting, too. You are way too Judeo-centric.

      "And remember that Zionism is not Jewish."
      -> Whether you like it or not, Zionism is Jewish. That's a fact. During an interview in Germany, Judith Butler stated that "Zionism belongs to Judaism".

  • Did LA pro-Israel group conceal right-wing identity from Hollywood celebs and media?
    • OMG! I just read the statement. They actually dare to use the word "justice". Also, I sent a tweet to Sarah Silverman.

  • Ceasefire deal after weeks of fighting in Gaza promises easing of blockade
  • Our new look
    • I don’t find the categories ”Activism” etc to be very helpful. Many articles don’t fit neatly into the categories, and there’s often overlap.

      Yes! That's why the categories are useless. If you look for a certain article, in which category should you search? One page with all articles listed in chronological order is much more useful.

    • I guess quoting will become a bit more work in future to put away the javascript auto attachment ” – See more at: URL”

      I agree!

    • simply scroll back chronologically to be sure to catch every story [...] the labels like “Israel/Palestine” at the top of the stories aren’t clickable, I have to go back to the corresponding labels near the top

      YES! YES!

    • Yes to an adjustment to the inconsistent moderating system please.

      I agree. And the edit function needs to be back.

    • I am too frustrated by the two day limit to enter any comment – what’s the point?

      I totally agree. To me, the comments on this site are at least as important and enlightening as the articles. That's why I think that there should be equal emphasis on articles and comments.
      What I also miss are the direct links to comments. Previously, when I clicked on the date of a comment, I got the link to the comment.
      Furthermore, I miss the list of articles sorted by date. When I visit Mondoweiss after a few days of abstinence, then I like to see all recent articles in one list without having to click through the categories. I have never actually used the categories.
      The invisible highlighting of texts sucks, too.
      The new design looks better, but looks aren't everything. I miss the functions of the old design.
      As I already stated in previous posts, I would really like to be able to rate comments.

  • 'Common Dreams' website traps Hasbara troll spewing anti-Semitism
    • What do "ct" and "ff" mean?

    • @ Annie

      the pro israel groups on campus go to great lengths to place minorities in leadership positions within their college groups to represent them. using race as a calling card, whether as a troll, an advocate, an impersonator, or a as a way to defame, is calculated. just as recruiting christian zionists is calculated.

      And I bet that the supporters of affirmative action (reverse discrimination) totally fall for that. This makes sense because Zionism is reverse discrimination too. A minority rules over the majority.

      we’ve gotten many comment attempts of this variety at MW, they do not get thru moderation which is very time consuming. and sites who do not moderate become targets if they ever start getting traffic.

      I am ambivalent when it comes to moderation. On the one hand, I understand that it's necessary on this site. Without moderation Mondoweiss would be overrun by Zionist commenters and normal discussions would become impossible. On the other hand, moderation is very often used to silence non-mainstream voices. Moderation becomes censorship. Recently, there was a discussion on German TV about when negative criticism of Israel turns into anti-Semitism. You know, the usual crap. The live show was accompanied by an Internet chat, where viewers could post their opinions and questions. I wrote about a dozen comments, e.g. about how the Zionists misuse Jewish symbols and Jewish history. Only two of my comments made it through moderation. And one comment was shortened.
      I wrote: "Why isn't the actual root of the conflict mentioned on the show? Namely the Nakba, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists."
      Moderated version: "Why isn't the actual root of the conflict mentioned on the show?"
      Apparently, mentioning the Nakba was taboo. However, I saw that some other commenter managed to get his Nakba comment through moderation. So, I guess it depends on the respective moderator. A lot of commenters complained about the pro-Israel bias of the moderators. The chat was pointless, because one camp was almost entirely silenced.
      I have a suggestion regarding moderation: Only moderate the comments of new commenters or of commenters who are known for breaking the rules. When a commenter has achieved a certain number of decent comments in a row (e.g. 300 oder 500), let his comments pass automatically without moderation.

  • Amid fierce debate, members of German think tank take a stand on Gaza
    • WWII German guilt is a major reason for this.

      I don't think so. That's just a pretext the politicians use to silence the people. The actual reason is arms trade.

      According to a 2012 poll commissioned by German magazine Stern, 60% of Germans said that Germany had no special obligation to Israel. 33% believe that Germany has a special obligation to Israel.
      link to

      Here's a 2007 survey: link to
      Question: Do you think that nowadays we still need to feel guilty about Auschwitz?
      No. -> 74 %
      Yes. -> 20 %
      I don't know. -> 6 %

      So, clearly, German guilt is a myth. And it's very unlikely that politicians feel MORE guilt than the people.

    • Other nations, like the italians, french or greeks have huge demonstrations to fight for their rights, have you ever seen one in Germany?
      Yes, I did. For example, there were demonstrations for Snowden, for Gaza, for gay rights and also against gay rights. However, it's true that in France it's much more common that people take to the streets.
      Perhaps Germans believe that demonstrations are for the most part pointless because politicians ignore the will of the people anyway. Germans tend to be pessimistic. American-style optimism is seen as naive.
      Just take a look at this: link to
      According to a representative survey, 63% of Germans reject a delivery of arms to the Kurds. However, our government plans to do it anyway. Sigh. There is no hope.

      In my opinion the jews at MW fight more for the rights of the palestinians than all the german press together.
      The German press is not the German people. Western mainstream media, in general, don't fight for the rights of Palestinians.
      For Jews, fighting for Palestinian rights is much easier because it's harder to accuse them of anti-Semitism.

      What I find in this land...
      Where in Germany do you live?

    • I can understand the Germans being so reluctant and cautious to make any stand against Israel, considering the unfortunate history

      Really? I don't! If people understand that putting Jews into ghettos and slaughtering them is wrong, then these people must also understand that putting Palestinians into ghettos and slaughtering them is wrong too. That's only logical.
      Besides, by refusing to speak out against Israel (Zionists) because of German history (Jews), our politicans equate Jews with Zionists. If any anti-Zionist equated Jews with Zionists, our politicians would immediately accuse him of anti-Semitism. Total double standard: It's only anti-Semitic when anti-Zionists do it.
      So, don't let Germany (or Israel) get away with Zionism because of former Nazism. One doesn't excuse the other.

  • Video: Gaza forces young Jew to overcome 'giant hostile ferocious backlash' of her community
    • "I could not fathom that the Jewish people… could do anything bad, and if they did they must have had a justification for it."

      I just read this article:
      How To Talk to a 10-Year-Old About Gaza
      link to

      Worse, people accuse Israel of a genocide. That hits home. My immediate reaction is to completely and utterly reject any possibility of truth. No Jew would or could ever do anything so horrible. A holocaust is the anti-jew.

    • I'm not sure I could bring myself to touch one.

      LOL. Same here.

  • Question for the American Jewish Establishment: Where does Zionism end and Judaism begin?
    • What happened when a German put an Israel flag on his car
      I'd like to share this report written by a pro-Israel German and published on a German-language Zionist website:

      Monday, 11th August 2014, Berlin-Neukölln
      For reasons of solidarity with the Jews who live in Germany and who were subject to anti-Semitic attacks over the last days and weeks, I put two small flags on my car. One German and one Israeli with the Star of David. That's how I drove to Neukölln to an appointment with my medical insurance company.
      I didn't only receive irritated looks but also insults while waiting at red lights, such as "Jew pig", "murderer", "motherfucker". I locked the car doors from inside. All in all, the occupants of three following cars filmed and photographed me. At a crosswalk, teenagers of Turkish or Arab descent spat on my car. If the traffic lights didn't turn green, they would have torn off my flag. In a street, I saw shops with "Free Palestine" T-shirts on the pavement. A note was attached, "10 EUR as donation for Gaza." Further shirts that show maps without Israel. Before I entered the building of my medical insurance company, I removed the flag from my car. [...] A further appointment in Kreuzberg. I avoided driving through the Kottbusser Tor because of the long waits at traffic lights. Fear.
      On the roadside, three Arab boys, between 10 and 12 years old. They stopped dead in their tracks and pointed at the flag. They berated me. One of them pointed at me and moved his other hand to his throat. I kept on driving. A man with a full beard stopped dead. Then he ran square to me and shouted, "You are dead!" The traffic lights turned green.
      I felt like in enemy territory. [...] Before I drove home, I stopped by a falafel shop. The owner greeted me with the words, "What kind of crap is that? Fuck off!" Okay. [...]
      When I arrived at home, I was angry, desperate, bewildered. I can simply drive home, remove the flag, and be a "neutral" German. But what about the Jews, the Israelis, who are threatened on a daily basis? They can't do that. How must it have been in 1933 when your home country turned into enemy territory?
      I suggest that everyone does this test or a similar test. Put on a kippah, wear a Star of David, or a black coat. And then you can experience the diversity, the dovishness, and the tolerance of Islam. Alone. Without protection.

      link to

    • Where did that happen?

      link to
      Attempted arson attack on synagogue in Wuppertal
      Incendiary material was put in front of the entrance of the synagogue. A resident called the police when she saw burning items in the street near the synagogue. Two of the three suspects were arrested. One is Palestinian, the other is Syrian. Furthermore, unknown persons wrote the slogan "Free Palestine" on the wall of the synagogue. Interior Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia Ralf Jäger emphasised, "We must not tolerate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in any form anywhere in our society."

      link to
      Arrests in front of the synagogue in Essen
      On Facebook, there was an announcement of an attack on the synagogue in Essen. At the night the attack was supposed to happen, police arrested four men who arrived at the synagogue by car. 14 further suspects were arrested. Since mid-July, security measures for synagogues in the Ruhr area have been increased because of the pro-Israel and anti-Israel demonstrations. The policemen that guard the synagogue in Essen wear bullet-proof vests and carry submachine guns.

      link to
      At night, a drunken man from Algeria shouted "race-baiting paroles" in front of the synagogue in Aachen. Police arrested him.

      In 2011, the German-Zionist website haOlam wrote about a "massive anti-Semitic attack" and a "picture of devastation". What had happened? The panelling of the wall in front of the synagogue in Stuttgart was damaged.
      Photos here: link to

      Ronan Farrow Daily 08/11/14
      Anti-Semitic attacks on the rise?
      link to

    • Israeli Independence Day was celebrated side by side Purim and Pesach. American and Israeli flags where hung side by side in the synagogue

      It's the same in Germany. And then our politicians and media wonder why some pro-Palestinian people attack synagogues.

      I was handed the usual synagogue flyers and announcements, as well as six talking-points on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, such as Hezbollah hides behind civilians while Israel distributes leaflets to warn civilians before bombing. A prepaid postcard was also distributed, addressed to President George W. Bush, thanking him for supporting Israel.

      Wow! Incredible!

      I suppose you could say, the Jewish community ‘lost me’ on Israel. During that war in 2006, all the Jewish organizations I was involved with urged me to support the current policies of the Israeli government.

      During that war, historian Tamar Amar-Dahl decided to renounce her Israeli citizenship and to acquire German citizenship.

      “legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel”

      This is an abiding theme in German media, too. You know, because of "German history". By constantly asking how much negative criticism of Israel should be allowed in Germany, German media indirectly equate Jews with Israel and turn German Jews into Israelis.

      Hopefully the Jewish establishment will come to terms with their antiquated views about Israel.

      I certainly hope that, too. However, I wonder why there is so much focus on what non-Israeli Jews think about Israel. This sounds as if the discussion about Israel's crimes should only happen among Jews and non-Jews should shut up. As if our opinions don't matter.

  • How to respond to thoughtful people who can't help saying 'but Hamas'
  • Israeli soldiers carved Stars of David in homes in Gaza, report Blumenthal and Cohen
    • At the rate Israel commits war crimes, it may become as despised as the swastika.

      Yes. I already view the Star of David as a provocation. When I see it, I get aggressive inside. Because it reminds me of Israel's flag and Israel's crimes.

    • Some German dude has a political show on YouTube and he just did an interview with Max Blumenthal:

    • My concern is that we hold Americans to account on Islamophobia when they conflate murderous ideas of radical Islamists with Islam. We expect them to make a distinction between the religion and extremists who cite that religion.

      This is not comparable because the circumstances are totally different:
      Most Muslims are not terrorists, whereas most Jews are Zionists.
      The major Muslim organisations in Western countries distance themselves from Muslim terrorist groups, whereas the major Jewish organisations in Western countries defend the Jewish terrorist state.
      Western governments do not recognise Muslim terrorist groups as representatives of "the Muslim people". However, Western governments recognise Israel, refer to Israel as "the Jewish state", and frequently conflate Jews with Israel by claiming that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.
      So, the difference between Muslims and terrorists is MUCH more obvious than the difference between Jews and Zionists. Therefore, I expect people to understand the difference between Muslims and terrorists. However, I am not willing to blame people for failing to see the difference between Jews and Zionists.

  • Accounts of Israeli war crimes in Khuza'a, Gaza pile up
    • Results of a survey in Germany about the Gaza war.
      (7th August 2014)

      "What should Germany do in the Gaza war?"
      69% - Stay out.
      10% - More support for Palestinians.
      6% - More support for Israel.

      "Who is to blame for the Gaza war?"
      64% - Israel and Hamas.
      15% - Israel.
      14% - Hamas.

      link to

  • On the Frontiers of a Divided World: Reflections after the 2014 Helix Project
    • this program that offers students-Jewish and non-Jewish-an opportunity to learn
      How great that the program doesn't exclude non-Jews! Very much unlike Birthright.

      we face the reality of towns that were once 60-90% Jewish and are now 90-100% Polish, or Lithuanian, or Belarusian
      I find this phrasing quite problematic because it's like saying that Jews can't be Polish, or Lithuanian, or Belarusian.

      Standing on the site of the Warsaw ghetto, hearing Israeli Hebrew spoken around me, I thought about Gaza.

      The victory of the Zionist idea is a victory for the failure of belief in humanity, it is a complete victory for hopelessness. [...] If the dream of socialism becomes true, then there is no one to run from.
      So true!

  • Tunnels-to-kindergartens propaganda Netanyahu peddled to NYT and CNN is exploded by Israeli news site
  • US branch of the Jewish 'family' owes the homeland 'unconditional love' -- Rosner
  • Where you can donate to help Gaza -- Updated
    • Thanks. I will look at what amount is on my PayPal account and then make a donation to The Jerusalem Fund.

  • "There's nothing exceptional or heroic about a Jew standing against Zionism'
    • I remember the video with Lucas Koerner.

      I recognise the State of Israel, and its right to exist

      That's an empty statement. The problem isn't that a state called "Israel" exists. The problem is what kind of state it is, i.e. a Jewish (supremacist) state. Graham Hancock didn't write that he recognises Israel as a Jewish state. I have no idea if he left out "as a Jewish state" intentionally or unintentionally.

  • 'Dear American Jewish community, It's time to talk about Zionism'
    • Ronan Farrow Daily (08/01/14) praises liberal Zionism.
      Ezra Klein MSNBC policy analyst and editor in chief of and Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson Center, who’s advised six secretaries of state on the Middle East, join Ronan Farrow Daily to discuss the shifting attitudes toward Israel.
      link to

  • 'The unity is stronger than ever': Report from historic march on Qalandia checkpoint in solidarity with Gaza
    • Interesting interview with Saeb Erekat on "All In with Chris Hayes" yesterday:
      link to
      Chris says that he is very much in favour of a two-state solution. However, he wonders if there is still support for such a solution.

  • U.S. casts lonely vote against establishing war crimes inquiry in Gaza
    • All In With Chris Hayes 07/24/14
      Ted Cruz’s Israel opportunism
      With Cruz’s criticism of the FAA’s ban on flights to Israel, he’s seizing the opportunity to show the pro-Israel GOP base that he’s their guy.
      link to
      Did a third intifada begin tonight?
      As the death toll continues to mount in Gaza, thousands of protesters marched from the West Bank to Jerusalem, where they clashed with Israeli security forces. Chris Hayes talks with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, one of the founders of the Palestinian National Initiative party, and NBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin.
      link to

  • Israeli forces shell UN school where displaced Palestinians gathered, killing at least 9
    • RT: "Breaking the Set" hosted by Abby Martin
      Roots of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Who is Instigating Who? | Interview with Alison Weir
      link to
      (particularly 7:50 to 10:15)

Showing comments 2047 - 2001