Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 6791 (since 2010-04-19 03:21:04)

Showing comments 6791 - 6701
Page:

  • 'NYT' perpetuates myth Israel was 'fighting for its very survival' during 1967 war
    • "The answer is, she was hired expressly because of her willingness to obfuscate the truth and promulgate myths and lies. That is her job, and it has always been the job of the Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the Times.

      This is why it is imperative that we quit quoting the Times on this and many other subjects. Their publication is littered with so many lies and so much misinformation, we reference their writing at our peril. And by quoting them and pretending they are a reliable source, we only legitimize and enable their continued program of propaganda and misdirection."

      I love it when anti-Israel activists copy CAMERA techniques and rhetoric.

    • “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

      This old chestnut is from a Begin speech to Israel's war college. It is dishonest to quote this line to support the view that Israel did not face an existential threat in 1967 when the very next line of the speech is:

      "This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

      The rest of your piece doesn't prove your point either; saying Israel had the stronger hand hardly proves that Israel wasn't threatened.

      It's fairly clear that Israel took the West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai primarily as bargaining chips. Sinai they returned to Egypt as part of the Camp David Accords. Israel offered to return the land in exchange for peace almost immediately, and was met with the Arab League's three no's at Khartoum: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. While there was some settlement of the West Bank, there were 30 settlements built between 1967 and 1977, and a total of 5,000 settlers when Begin became Prime Minister, and they were created in strategic areas where fighting had been heavy to protect against further incursions. Begin greatly accelerated the process by giving support to ideological settlers. But the original motive was strategic and until 1977, solving the conflict with a land-for-peace formula would have been relatively simple from the standpoint of dealing with the settlements.

  • Salaita sues donors for 'injecting' themselves into U of Illinois decision, threatening to withhold gifts unless he was fired
    • LOL. Threatening to withhold a donation because the college has extended an offer is not tortious interference, and even if it were, you can't interfere with a contract that doesn't exist. CCR will get laughed out of court.

  • Shit dead rabbis say about gentiles
    • The ad is for a pamphlet of supposed writing by the Rebbe from 1991 and 1992, when he was about 90 years old. You can be fairly sure he didn't write them on his own. In any event, since Schneerson was quite well-known for receiving people of all walks of life and for the creation of a worldwide organization that serves Jews and non-Jews alike (whatever the views of the Chabadniks, they tend to be happy guys who treat everyone with respect and good cheer), the quote, which I can find no direct source for, is most likely not reflective of his actual views. Like many religious men, the Rebbe tended to analyze the world in binary terms, a Jewish one, and a non-Jewish one, and his focus was on the Jewish one. This makes him no different from many clerics. In practice, he was clearly a welcoming guy, and if you want to learn more about him, you can peruse Chabad's website, where I do not see very much reflecting this view.

      In any case, Phil, you join a long line of mostly neo-Nazis, and a few far-leftists who have taken Schneerson's very long career and corpus of works and emphasized a few quotes like this, almost certainly taken out of context, much in the manner that bigots like Pamela Geller take the statements of prominent Imams out of context to bash Muslims. I hope, for your sake, that no one uses this particular post as justification for violent attacks on Jews.

  • Netanyahu speech scandal blows up, and 'soiled' Dermer looks like the fall guy
    • "1. I am not sure Heinrich Himmler was further to the right than Abe."

      Are you also not sure whether the sky is blue, the grass is green, or whether the Pope defecates in the woods?

      "2. There is no doubt the concerns over Iran have been ginned up by Israel and her supporters. Is it naïve to know the truth?"

      There's quite a lot of doubt that they are the only ones to gin up concern.

      "Correct, it is about the power of the Israel Crime Family to extort, bribe, and blackmail the US congress."

      The Israel Crime Family? LOL. Because Congresspeople couldn't decide to support Israel on their own in the face of the Jewish conspiracy. LOL.

    • 1. Abe Foxman is not hard-right, and you know that. He's firmly in the center.

      2. "Maybe it would be a good thing if the issue were open to the American voters. They’d get to discuss how they feel about Israeli expansion and massacres and nuclear weapons, and their feelings would be echoed by politicians. We would have a deal with Iran in no time; and there’d be huge pressure on Israel to end the occupation."

      Are you really that naive? Do you really think Iran is just about Israel and no one else? Have you read nothing about how scared shitless Saudi Arabia is by an ascendant Iran? Did it not register with you that the President cut short a successful trip with one of the most important countries for the 21st century to make a 4-hour stopover with a high-level Congressional delegation in order to pay fealty to an absolute monarch in a state where women can't drive, dissenting bloggers are flogged and imprisoned, and thieves are beheaded? What do you think that that was all about? You are myopic to a fault, and you will overplay this issue as you overplay everything.

      At any rate, yes, this is the kind of thing that Dermer does, and yes, as messy and embarrassing as it is, it will almost certainly blow over with time, because at the end of the day, the US-Israel relationship is not defined by the personal relationship between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, and never has been. The benefit may be that Netanyahu loses the election in March, and you'll have a less easy target to kick around. If you stepped out of your left-wing activist comfort zone, you'd see the error of your analysis.

  • Surprise-- 'NYT' publishes straightforward report on Israeli human rights violations in Gaza
    • Your statistics are wrong. B'Tselem has been mentioned in Times reportage at least 11 times in the last two years. Adalah has been mentioned at least six times. Yesh Din has been mentioned four times. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has been mentioned twice. Breaking the Silence has been mentioned twice. The Public Committee Against Torture has been mentioned once. Rabbis for Human Rights has been mentioned once. That adds up to 27 mentions of Israeli human rights organizations in printed reportage (not blogs) over the last two years alone.

      The real question is whether there is any country in the world with as many homegrown human organizations per capita as Israel has, and whether the New York Times mentions the human rights organizations of any countries in the world as often as it does Israel's.

  • State Dep't says Netanyahu speech is not inappropriate, disrespectful, humiliating or embarrassing
    • The main person who worked on the report was Perle. The rest just contributed ideas. In any event, much as everyone wants to argue that the tail is wagging the dog here, or that this was just an idea cooked up by Ron Dermer, it is very much something that I would expect out of a Congress like this one, and it's wrong to minimize their role here.

    • " In the end, it will call attention to that earlier deadly combination of US neoconservatives and Netanyahu: when Richard Perle, Doug Feith and David Wurmser drafted “A Clean Break” for Netanyahu in ’96 calling for regime change in Iraq, and the next thing you knew Perle, Feith and Wurmser were working for the US government and we were invading Iraq."

      I'd like to know why you included exclusively Jewish names on this list and omitted non-Jewish ones like Charles Fairbanks and James Colbert, both of whom worked on A Clean Break.

      The notion that John Boehner is an insignificant tool here is beyond silly, and reminds us once again how people who believe this nonsense about Israel controlling US foreign policy will cherry pick the facts to support the ideology. It is within character for this Congress to break protocol to one-up the President, and they've been doing it for a long time. It is also within character for them to use Israel as a wedge issue to fundraise, which they did in 2012.

      And you ignore this in Goldberg's piece:

      "There is hypocrisy in the discussion of the Netanyahu-Boehner end-run. It is not unprecedented for foreign leaders to lobby Congress directly; the Arab states opposed to Iran do it all the time, and the British prime minister, David Cameron, lobbied Congress earlier this month on behalf of Obama’s Iran policy, and against the arguments of the Republicans."

  • French Jews, surrender to terror in the baguette capital and move to the land of legal terror!
    • I wonder if you would have said the same to Jews living in Germany in 1935 or Jews living in Poland in 1939. You're awfully callous and oblivious to your own privilege. Let me know when you've spent some time living as a member of the French Jewish community, which has been experiencing attacks on its members for at least the past 13 years.

      You make all of this hay out of a few thousand Israelis moving to Berlin, but somehow, when many more thousands (and a much greater percentage of population) of the 600,000 Jews leave France to move to Israel, all you can do is accuse them of "surrendering to terrorism."

    • I wonder if you would have said the same to Jews living in Germany in 1935 or Jews living in Poland in 1939. You're awfully callous and oblivious to your own privilege.

  • Hillel campaign to ‘thwart’ divestment exposed at University of South Florida
    • Not the point. Ben suggests that it's unethical for Hillel to advocate against a BDS campaign. He doesn't spell out why. It seems that the reason is because it's a Jewish organization. So I'm asking: is it similarly unethical for an MSA to advocate in favor of a BDS campaign?

    • "students have discovered that members of the USF Foundation Board have ties to Israel Bonds and secretly met with Hillel officials in a campaign to “thwart” a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) divestment campaign."

      Exactly what was secret about it? Does the USF and Hillel have an obligation to alert the press every time they have a meeting? Is this SJP's practice?

      You seem to think it's unethical for Hillel to oppose a divestment campaign. You don't spell out why. Is it unethical for a Muslim Student Association to work to support a divestment campaign?

      Let's get through the rest of your nonsense:

      1. The Board has 37 members and 8 officers. The vote was UNANIMOUS. You've talked two Board members. Is it your assertion that the two Jews you've highlighted voted for the entire Board?

      2. Chabad's big violation was apparently holding a Rosh Hashanah dinner for students off-campus instead of on-campus. Regardless, the notion that belonging to Chabad disqualifies a person from voting on a resolution related to Israel is as ridiculous, stupid, and bigoted as saying that belonging to a mosque disqualifies a person from voting on a resolution related to Israel.

      3. The Hillel students at USF apparently presented an extensive dossier to the USF Board. What work did you do to obtain a copy of that dossier and to evaluate its claims? Please detail.

  • Former Obama aide's thinktank calls for 1/4 of French Jews to move to Israel
    • Do you really not understand that this is not what I said?

      Regardless, you're wrong. Jews have a right to live in safety wherever they may be, as any minority would, and as international law dictates. Period.

    • Any more straw men here? Never ever heard anyone say ever that Jewish immigration to the US was banned or that restrictions applied exclusively to Jews. Once again, you're trading in nonsense.

    • Zionism's the ultimate act of assimilation, Zionism's the ultimate act of Jewish separateness... You people need to make up your mind which kind of bigots you are.

    • Whose sense of entitlement? Do you not believe that Jews should have the right to live wherever they wish?

    • I'm talking about private schools, clearly. The notion that giving kids a Jewish education is the same as endorsing segregation is nonsensical bigoted BS.

    • You're greatly distorting Ross's argument.

      There is a difference between the assimilation President Obama calls for and the argument against complete assimilation that Dennis Ross makes on behalf of JPPI. People need not abandon their identity, as many assimilated Jews have by learning nothing about their faith, intermarrying, and then raising their children with none of their heritage, or raising their children in other faiths (and yes, in most intermarriages between Christians and Jews where a religion dominates, it's Christianity, not Judaism). That is the kind of assimilation Ross is talking about. President Obama is talking about a very basic kind of assimilation that pertains principally to new immigrant populations. The vast majority of American Jewish community, with the possible of the ultra-orthodox, have certainly assimilated to that extent. In my view, America is a far less rich place when assimilation means subsuming your cultural and religious identity into some secular melting pot, rather than incorporating it into a diverse fabric. You seem to favor a completely false choice between a very secular form of assimilation, and a religious separateness, when the truth is that the great thing about America is that it is possible to be both religious and assimilated at the same time. You throw around words like Day School like they're implicitly bad; do you have an idea what Day School is and what Ross means? Or are you depending on people here to do the Annie Hall and imagine that day school students are all kids with peyes who dress in black suits and hats every day, instead of what Ross actually means, which is community day schools with dual curriculums that include high-quality private school academic educations and regular Jewish studies, where a high percentage of graduates go on to elite universities?

      And yes, when you belong to a religion of 15 million people worldwide, as opposed to one with 1.5 billion followers, and when your faith is practiced by 1.7% of a country's population, rather than 78.5% of the population, intermarriage is something you worry about a lot more than you otherwise would. It would be different if intermarriage was an exercise in sharing cultural traditions. But most often, it's the end result of an upbringing that is devoid of any real Jewish content.

  • 'NYT' and Matthews warn that Netanyahu speech to Congress could lead US to war
    • Actually, RoHa, there are a few parallels here. When Churchill spoke in 1952, there were significant differences between British and American foreign policy, particularly on Iran. Iran had just nationalized its oil industry, and Churchill wanted the Americans to take a much harder line than they were inclined to take. The NY Times reported that Churchill received a much more rapturous reception from Congress than Truman ever would have, even as they pointed out that Churchill's foreign policy proposals were significantly more hard-line than those of the President or the Congress.

      In the speech, which is quite interesting to read today, Churchill warned against interfering with the internal politics of other states, and voiced strong support for Israel, but cautioned that Israel had to establish friendly relations with its Arab neighbors.

  • Living in Israel isn't the solution to antisemitism
    • Yes, poking fun at the established facts of an historical event is different than poking fun at a religious belief. People who poke fun at the Holocaust tend to be antisemites, and antisemitic Europeans have a history of murdering Jews, and as much as the French preach this laicite nonsense, a couple more attacks like Charlie Hebdo, and the place will really turn on its Muslims. There won't be another march. There will just be a lot of National Front supporters cutting down Muslims in the street. That's why Europe has anti-Holocaust denial laws, much as I personally oppose them on principle as violative of free expression and as encouraging people to speak in euphemisms rather than in frank language. Europe understands on some basic level that it is prone to this brand of extremism like, frankly, the rest of the world is. We are seeing that play out again now; a radical left party in Greece has allied itself with an antisemitic rightist party to govern a country where an overtly neo-Nazi party polled at more than 10%. We all know this script. When Syriza inevitably fails to pull Greece out of its financial mess, what do you think will follow it? The same is happening in Spain. In France, more than a fifth of the population would make Marine Le Pen President. In every country on the continent, Muslims and Jews face some kind of discrimination. So, you'll pardon me when I hear nonsense about how Europeans have moved on from their past mistakes. The cancer of hatred is still there. It's just been in remission for awhile.

    • Oh no. It is quite enough for me to point out the utter hypocrisy and moral cretinism of white people in ex-colonial power states referring to OTHER states as historical mistakes and calling for their peoples to leave. Ah yes. All from the safety of Christian Europe. It is disgusting.

    • Really? Was it? Maybe it was a mistake to allow Germany to exist after World War II. Maybe your country should be carved up and ended. I mean, your country started two World Wars and murdered tens of millions of people in cold blood. What right does it have to exist, let alone style itself the richest and most powerful country in Europe?

      You're a little too privileged to refer to other countries, least of all countries that came into existence partially because of the horrors past generations of your countrymen visited on others, as "a mistake."

    • Yes, well said, if you like people who've internalized their persecution.

    • "Is it a false comparison to say that if you can insult the prophet Muhammad, you should be able to poke fun at the Holocaust"

      Yes, for a number of reasons:

      1. It assumes that the problem is poking fun at Muhammed. The problem is depicting Muhammed in any fashion at all, which radical Islamists have made clear is forbidden.

      2. Poking fun at a religious figure is very different than poking fun at an historical event.

      3. The comparison assumes that European cartoons never poke fun at Jews. That's simply untrue.

      4. The comparison omits the fact that the people calling for banning depiction of Muhammed regularly publish anti-Jewish cartoons in their newspapers.

  • Palestine, an Islamic issue?
    • LOL. Looks like another uncorroborated EI story. There's no assault on the video.

      And by the way, Ahmed, Muslims are allowed to go to Israel, whether you or the EI mafia want them to or not.

  • 80+ Cartoonists And Comics Workers Tell Comics Industry: 'No Business As Usual With Israel'
    • Oh please. The PA and Hamas arrest journalists all the damn time. Let's see a single statement from one of these useful idiots criticizing them.

    • Yes, by all means: Let's boycott the only state in the region where cartoonists actually enjoy freedom of expression on behalf of a dictatorship where they do not enjoy freedom of expression. Makes all the sense in the world.

  • To counter radical Islam, we must confront our own hypocrisy
    • "One of the main talking points revolves around Western support for Israel."

      So what? One of the main talking points of the gun lobby in the United States is that possessing firearms is part of our history. Should we allow everyone to possess assault weapons because of this talking point?

      "Pictures of dead families in Gaza feature heavily on radical Islamist internet forums. "

      I'm sure that they're far more common than pictures of dead Muslims beheaded by Saudi Arabian authorities or Nigerians murdered by radical Islamist group Boko Haram or Israeli Jews murdered in suicide attacks. Does that mean that we should encourage this line of thinking, where the only dead Muslims that are important are the ones killed by Jews or Christians?

      "We are the ones who will make peace in Palestine.”"

      Do you believe that argument? You certainly seem intent on enabling it.

      "we are showing a double standard to the world."

      So, if we criticize Israel harder, we will not be showing a double standard to the world, is that it? Maybe it would be better to increase criticism of all human rights violators, including Venezuela, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and everywhere else, instead of focusing on one country.

      "Imagine a terrorism campaign in London or Paris where 500 children were killed. "

      That's a tendentious comparison, but it's exactly the one terrorists make. The 500 kids killed in a dense area where the leadership decided to fire rockets into the civilian area of a well-armed country are not the same as 500 people dying in a massive terrorism attack in London. It's the difference between collateral damage and the deliberate targeting of civilians, and it's a difference terrorists intentionally blur to bleed the hearts of Westerners like you.

      "Groups working for a boycott of Israeli goods through initiatives such as the BDS movement or by putting pressure on their governments to take a firmer stance are often faced with accusations of anti-Semitism."

      That's because so many of the people involved in them are antisemites. That's something the majority of the BDS movement either refuses to face up to or tacitly encourages.

  • Netanyahu and Europe’s far right find common ground after the Paris attacks
    • Again, this is tendentious nonsense. Promoting Jewish emigration because Europe is unsafe is not the same thing as promoting the ethnic cleansing of Jews by making Europe unsafe. You're confusing victim and aggressor, yet again.

  • Obama cites donor pressure re Iran, but 'NYT' won't tell you what he means
    • Because only the Jews support a hard line on Iran, right? No one else but the Jews have ever given money to a member of Congress in order to support a hard line on Iran. Certainly not Christian conversatives. I mean, that could never happen. If it happens in the Middle East, the best thing to do is to blame the Jews, right?

  • On CNN, Boteach lectures two prominent Muslims about freedom they 'enjoy' in US and Israel
  • 'It's the political problem Black bodies pose for the US state and Palestinian bodies pose for the Israeli state': NYC panel looks at militarized policing in the US and Israel
    • This whole thing is a total lie. It's a cynical attempt to drum up support for the Palestinian cause by attempting to cast the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as racial. And it's transparent. And it's an overreach.

      And no, the ADL is not freaking out about it. No one outside the cult cares, and most people see it for the cynical ploy that it is.

  • Why do Muslims object to depictions of their prophet?
    • "And then you lose me. Are you suggesting that:
      – no Jewish college students are white and privileged;
      – there are no white Jewish college students;
      – attending college not a privilege; and/or
      – you prefer the “classic” look when it comes to offensive, racialized cartoons of Jews?"

      I am suggesting that depicting Jewish college students as "white" and depicting pro-Palestinian activists as "people of color" is a disingenuous attempt to cast the conflict as racial.

      There have been offensive anti-Jewish cartoon in Arab and Muslim newspapers for a long time now, and it is inevitable that this sort of hate literature would seep into the work on Western activists. Katie Miranda is no exception.

    • Meanwhile, I'm waiting for Phil Weiss to post something about Raif Badawi. link to amnesty.org

    • "No one here seems to understand that Muslims love and revere their Prophet, and are very hurt by ‘cartoons’ showing him with a bomb in his turban, or naked, or whatever."

      I think people understand that Muslims love and revere the Prophet Mohammed. I think they also understand that some Muslims are offended by satirical depictions of the Prophet. What people do not understand is why they have to follow Muslim teaching on depictions of the Prophet, apparently, in some circles, on pain of death.

      "There is no way that Prophet Muhammad would condone the current killings of innocent people, or Muslims committing suicide in order to accomplish this – suicide is explicitly forbidden in the Qur’an. There is a hadith which says that the Prophet had a vision of his Ummah (community) in the future, and cried – he must have seen some of the things that are happening now."

      I'm sorry, but this is all really beside the point. Regardless of whether the Prophet himself would condone killing or not, it is clear that many invoke his name and believe that he justifies violence. That may be a small minority of the worldwide Muslim community, but 5 or 10% of a religion of 1.5 billion people amounts to a tens of millions of people, and take it from a Jew - when a member of a minority group does something bad, the majoritarian group will judge their entire community rather than just the person.

      I would say one thing. Offensive depictions of Jews and others are rampant in the media of many Muslim countries. A few years ago, Egyptian TV presented a miniseries based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I've seen almost zero condemnation of this stuff by the same Muslim organizations who criticize depictions of the Prophet and zero condemnation from the leaders of Muslim countries who are pushing to codify international bans on insults to religion through the United Nations. Lot of people see this as more than a little hypocritical.

      People also see as hypocritical the defense of these perspectives by self-styled progressives, like Katie Miranda, who draws offensive, racialized cartoons depicting Jewish college students as white and privileged, and dismissing their concerns about safety as overblown, and posts on a blog that blame Jews for the Iraq War.

    • So what? Israeli Jews keep killing people just to steal their land and just because the Palestines exist."

      Because they're Jewish, or because it's a land conflict? Because it's a land conflict. These are two competing national groups. Don't tell me that national groups have never fought over land before. Europeans did it for a millennium, and they were all Christians.

      "Whats the difference?–dead is dead."

      Yeah, what's the difference? I mean, why analyze anything? And of course, we should never, ever, ever, ever criticize anything strain in Islam that might provide religious justification for something like this, or suicide attacks on Jews in Israel, or Daesh's persecution of Christians, because every time we do, we're "Islamophobic" and "attacking Islam" no matter how many times we say that it's not Islam that we're attacking.

      I remember how after 9/11, people like you didn't want to talk about root causes, and you said "What's the difference?-dead is dead."

    • "But we have the same objections to depicting Jesus and Moses.”

      But radical Islamists don't kill over those, do they?

      I find this all beside the point. I've heard few people argue that there is anything wrong with Muslims holding a belief or observing a cultural tradition against depicting the prophet Mohammed. If I had a piece of Islamic Art in my house, and a Muslim friend were coming to visit who was sensitive about depictions of the prophet, I would cover it or take it down.

      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. Haredi Jews who airbrush women from haredi newspaper photographs because they practice extreme modesty aren't killing people who depict women in the newspaper. Sabbath-observant Jews do not walk into Gentile homes on the Sabbath and scream at them about turning on lights and watching TV.

      The closest analogue I can think of are radical Christians who shoot up abortion clinics. But even there, we would probably not follow up an abortion clinic shooting by writing detailed, sympathetic articles about why Christians find abortion offensive.

  • Sadness and anger as 4 Jewish victims of Paris attack are buried in Jerusalem
    • "Just so telling that these same Jewish mourners could not feel the same empathy and compassion towards the several thousand Palestinians that their military slaughtered this past summer."

      Save your tendentious demagoguery, Kathleen. Palestinians celebrate in the street when Jews are murdered in Palestinian suicide bombings.

    • In an otherwise-good piece, you neglected to give the reason for the charge. The families were offered a free burial in the multistory graves where many Israelis are buried because of lack of cemetery space. They refused, and insisted on burial in-ground.

  • It's not the cartoons-- a contrarian perspective from a Muslim cartoonist
    • " Jewish congressmen and women were in favor to do this with one notable exception being the late senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone, RIP) "

      So when a Congressperson votes who happens to be Jewish, that person does so as a Jew, and this is the same thing as the Crusaders?

      Gimme a break.

      "Jews have a history of killing Muslims and stealing their land and wealth since the Balfour Declaration."

      Because they're Muslims, or because there's a conflict? And how many Jews have been killed by Muslims? (Thousands.) How many Jews living in the Arab world had their wealth plundered precisely because they were Jewish?

    • I have no clue what you're talking about, Mooser. There is no record of Jews killing Muslims and stealing their wealth. That's untrue, and blatantly antisemitic.

    • Who killed Wellstone? He went down in a small plane. It's been known to happen.

      Another conspiracy theory, I guess.

      No wait, it was the Mossad working with Al Qaeda, right?

    • Actually, it's an interesting question. How do most Muslims see the satire in Hebdo? Are most Muslims actually offended by it?

    • "Algeria was considered part of France. Its conquest and the early part of French rule involved the deaths of a large part of the Algerian population., according to my source Alastair Horne. The French then ruled it much like apartheid SA. You know this, so I don’t get your point."

      The French haven't been in Algeria in half a century. France is not now persecuting Algerians or Muslims. So it is not the same thing as Germans drawing cartoon of Jews during the Holocaust or of Americans drawing cartoons of Black people during segregation or slavery times.

      Katie's repeating lefty agitprop.

    • "historically Christians and Jews have been murdering Muslims and stealing their wealth for centuries."

      Please detail how Jews how been murdering Muslims and stealing their wealth for centuries.

    • "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."

      How? Where are Muslims enslaved or persecuted in the way African-Americans were in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century or like Jews during the Holocaust? Not in France, for sure, even though there is societal discrimination.

      This is not some small religion of a few million people. This is major world religion of 1.5 billion people and nearly five dozen countries. In many of those countries, Muslim majorities persecute minorities and newspapers publish bigoted cartoons about them. In others, radical Islamist groups wreak havoc, like Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, Mali, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and many others. You can't just blame everything on Western imperialism, Katie.

      "The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the descendants of colonizers"

      Who? Was Ahmed Merabet shot in the head because he was a descendant of French colonizers? Was Georges Wolinski, who was descended from a Tunisian Jewish family, a descendant of French colonizers? Was Elsa Cayat, who had been received antisemitic phone calls for months, killed because she was descended from French colonizers? Was the kosher supermarket attacked because of French colonialism?

  • Netanyahu crashes Paris unity march, French gov't fumes
    • If people are moving to Israel from European countries, it is not because Bibi Netanyahu is telling them to do so. It is because they are frightened and feel targeted. Bibi Netanyahu could say anything, but people would not pick up and move to Israel if they felt safe in France. These are people who are proudly French. But they feel frightened, and they feel like the situation is only going to get worse, not better. We can talk about anticolonialism until the cows come home, but it doesn't make much difference if your schools are being shot up, your family is regularly harassed in the street, and your government does little more than pay lip service. It is breathtakingly obtuse to talk about anticolonialism to people whose children are called "dirty Jew," and who are descendants of Holocaust victims and survivors, and, in the case of those from North Africa, may have faced persecution there.

    • Not worth it in this case. Mooser cited the Ten Commandments. Let him present a source that says Jews have killed people because they made graven images.

      This is PC run amok. It's ridiculous. There's nothing at all racist or Islamophobic about pointing out that there's something wrong with killing people because they drew a cartoon depicting Mohammed. Obviously, most Muslims do not think this way, but the radicals who do should be condemned for the extreme religious fanatics that they are.

    • Mooser, I know of no case where a Jew went and killed someone because they made a graven image. Your example is ridiculous and completely beside the point.

    • "Nice of Bibi to encourage the old anti-Semitic suspicion about Jews’ loyalty – or lack thereof – to their nations. "

      If France has antisemitic suspicions about the loyalty of French Jews, that's their problem, not Bibi's. The French should worry more about the safety of their Jews than about what Bibi says.

    • "Jews practice openly all over Europe"

      You're ill-informed. There isn't a synagogue in Europe that doesn't require police protection. Jews are told to avoid walking down the street with their heads covered, and in Paris, there are no-go neighborhoods for Jews.

      When I can enter the Grand Synagogue in Paris without going through security, or enter the one synagogue left in Vienna without going through twenty questions from the behind-bulletproof-glass guard about every aspect of my Judaic practice, or enter the orthodox shul in Berlin without going first through two plain clothes security guards outside, and a metal detector inside of a building just to get to the courtyard, or enter the synagogue in the Jewish quarter of Rome without a tour guide and a warning not to take any photographs for security purposes (because like the synagogue in Vienna, the synagogue in Rome was attacked in the 1980's) then I'll say that Jews can practice openly.

    • Because religion deserves to be criticized and satirized just like anything else?

      Because the argument of the terrorists is not that satirizing religion is wrong, but that depicting the Prophet in any fashion is offensive?

      Does Hebdo's depiction of Catholic Cardinals having an orgy bother you as much as the depictions of the Prophet do?

    • How is re-publishing a satirical cartoon depicting The Prophet Mohammed wearing a Je Suis Charlie shirt and saying "All is Forgiven" a "manifestation of I-love-Israel"?

    • Boo-hoo. So Francois Hollande was unhappy Netanyahu was there. Big deal.

      In other news, Alex Kane thinks that if two people think the same thing for completely different reasons, they're equivalent. You know, if one guys believes Jews should leave France because it's unsafe, and another guy believes Jews should leave because the guy hates Jews, they're exactly the same.

      Alex Kane is failing that morality test in the name of political advocacy. Or he's just really dumb. But since I've met him, I'll be generous and go with the former.

  • A tale of two tests
    • David and Teju are practicing exactly what they accuse people like me of practicing: whataboutery. But both are moral failures. They compare terrorists who seek to kill as many people as possible with casualties that occurred as collateral damage during war.

      And what is with this new trend of referring to human beings as bodies?

    • The morality test is whether you can tell the difference between a liberal democracy defending its citizens from rocket attacks and the terrorists who perpetrate the rocket attacks. You fail. All of you.

  • Don't let's go to the war of civilizations again
    • "As Andrew Sulllivan pointed out, people lose their jobs for saying anything that is vaguely critical of Jews in France"

      People keep repeating this, and it's untrue. ONE cartoonist at Hebdo, ONE, lost his job for an crude antisemitic parody of the child of the President of France. If there were no other antisemitic caricatures in Hebdo, that would be one thing. But there have been many other nasty depictions of Jews in Hebdo. No one else has lost their job over it. Dieudonne continues to perform throughout France. He's an antisemite. He hasn't lost his job. Perhaps his expression today of solidarity with Charlie Coulibaly will do the job. link to independent.co.uk

      I'm curious as to why a condemnation of radical Islam should result in a comment about the peacefulness of Cairo (which is not as peaceful for Coptic Christians as it is for Sunni Muslims, link to huffingtonpost.com). Do the people in Cairo practice the same religion as the people who killed the journalists at Hebdo? In my view, they do not; your juxtaposition of the two suggests that they are related.

      In your many articles about violent Jews in West Bank settlements, have you ever bothered to note the peacefulness of 99% of Jews who live everywhere else in the world (or the fact that comparisons of any kind between the dynamics of a faith of 1.5 billion and a faith of 15 million are ridiculous)?

      "Zionists killed 500 children in Gaza last summer because they were the wrong religion"

      This is abject nonsense. You're purposely turning a conflict over land into a religious conflict, and you're ignoring any possible reason that Israelis and Gazans would fight with one another other than religion. The Israelis bombed Gaza because of the rockets that were fired, in violation of international law, into Israeli civilian communities. That was the reason. If the rockets had been fired by Jews, Gaza would have bombed. If the rockets had been fired by Christians (and perhaps some were) Gaza would have been bombed. If the rockets had been fired by an international coalition of kumbaya koala bears, Gaza would have bombed.

      I don't think your obsession with Zionism is primarily because you're a Jew. I think it's primarily because you're a leftist, and leftists today find far more solidarity with terrorists in the Gaza Strip than they do with liberal democratic values.

  • Media obsesses over 'free speech' in Charlie Hebdo case while ignoring Israeli targeting of journalists
    • Dershowitz is essentially correct. France has been allowing groups like ISIS to ransom its hostages for years, and in past decades, like other European countries, they took an accommodating position toward Arab terrorism, such as the plane hijackers.

    • Wonder what Ben has to say today, now that the terrorists took hostages at a kosher supermarket and killed several more people.

      In any event, Ben's sourcing is ridiculously bad. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 4 journalists were killed during the Gaza War over the summer, not 15. link to cpj.org

      Ben and PEC might understand that if their sources were not radio stations run by Hamas (Al-Aqsa) and Islamic Jihad (Al-Sawt).

      In any event, according to the Press Emblem Campaign Ben cites, 19 journalists were murdered in Syria, 12 in Pakistan, 10 in Iraq, and 9 in Ukraine. I don't recall the media focusing on these numbers either.

      A radio or TV station is not per se an illegal target if it is used as an instrument of warfare. For instance, radio stations were essential in the perpetration of the Rwandan genocide. Al-Aqsa TV, for instance, has long been an instrument of anti-Jewish incitement.

      Even if everything Ben wrote were accurate, it's especially instructive that Ben ignores all of the details of what happened here. The terrorists in Paris carefully planned out their attack so that the maximum number of Charlie Hedbo staff would be available to be murdered. Charlie Hedbo's crime was publishing derogatory cartoons depicting Mohammed, not firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas.

      Again, this kind of knee-jerk anti-Israel cultism hurts the Palestinian cause.

  • The Israel lobby rallies inside the Republican Party
    • You seem to be skirting this part:

      "The diminished Democratic skew among American Jews in recent years is slightly more pronounced than the same trend among all Americans. "

      There have been shifts in the American Jewish community like this in the past, particularly in 1980. I wouldn't read much into it.

  • 'NYT' reporter says Palestinians must make 'concessions... they have long avoided'
    • Do you ever actually read the whole article, or just the parts that support your view? The thrust of the article was that Palestinian efforts internationally are putting pressure on Israel.

      "And late in the piece there is this sop to Israel over possible war crimes charges"

      How is this a sop? It's merely a statement of the complementarity principle. The ICC cannot step in when national investigations have taken place or are ongoing.

  • Dershowitz story is also an Israel story
    • I'm sure you believe that. So what you're saying is that your cause is no more worthy than the one you pillorize.

Showing comments 6791 - 6701
Page: