Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 6940 (since 2010-04-19 03:21:04)

Showing comments 6940 - 6901
Page:

  • Emails show Missouri museum canceled 'Ferguson to Palestine' event under pressure from Jewish group
    • Who's vetting events? The JCRC is a representative Jewish organization, and so is the ADL. Why wouldn't a community organization reach out to them if they were planning an event involving Israel?

      "considering the jcrc requested the museum notify the local police to assure their presence and the peaceful demo this is a tables turned comment. see how you like that? i don’t see you objecting to jcrc’s request. calling it racist. why not?"

      Why is it racist? Did JCRC advocate contacting PD because of a single race of people? Funny how you're always playing up the presence of Jews in the BDS movement, and then defining it in racial terms, as if everyone in it was Muslim. Criticism of the BDS movement is not racist.

    • given their collective histories, it’s to be expected of local Jewish Community Relations Councils to pull this crap, but unless the museum is a jewish museum (it isn’t) directors should be vetted for bias before holding these positions."

      So you support asking them special questions if they're Jews?

    • oldgeezer: "You have a great career opportunity in making up fake quotes."

      Uh, quote is right here in this thread.

      "
      pabelmont March 27, 2015, 11:51 am

      I like it that this is in the local newspapers. All BDS work and all educational work w.r.t. Palestine must educate Americans about our skewed society where Zionist opinion (always characterized wrongly as Jewish opinion) carries weight and pro-Palestine or anti-Zionist opinion is negligible. (I think we should notify the local PD about EVERY Zionist meeting including an awful lot of Sabbath meetings in synagogues. these are people who threaten others and those others might show up and be hurt!" See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

    • "hops, do your homework before making foolish statements like this. the event was already posted on the museum’s events calendar (before it was removed) and it was advertised in posters around town. with the name of the event clearly posted in the headline, using the word “palestine”."

      Did my homework. My view is the same. The notion that the museum is unwilling to hold events on Palestine is simply belied by the facts here.

      More antisemitism on Mondoweiss: "I think we should notify the local PD about EVERY Zionist meeting including an awful lot of Sabbath meetings in synagogues. these are people who threaten others and those others might show up and be hurt!"

    • Well, it's pretty standard that when you partner with another institution, you don't change the subject of the event at the last minute. It is clear from both articles that the Museum is open to programming featuring Palestinian voices, and it is not at all accurate to say that those voices need to be approved by JCRC or ADL.

  • 'New anti-Semitism' on college campuses is largely blowback against orchestrated Israel advocacy
    • What shameful garbage. You complain that in the UC Davis case, there is no evidence that BDS students painted swastikas on the Jewish fraternity building. Then, you assert, with no evidence, that the reason Rachel Beyda was illegally questioned about her membership in the UCLA Jewish community was because of Adam Milstein. There's no evidence that the student council at UCLA knew anything about Milstein or had Milstein in mind when they questioned Beyda.

      Moreover, it is disingenuous to claim that antisemitism on campus is "blowback" against students who exercised their First Amendment right to oppose divisive BDS and Israeli Apartheid Week programming on campus. One thinks that these authors would never make such a bigoted claim about another minority group.

  • Washington 'sits shiva' for the 2-state solution
    • I think that the way things are going in the Middle East, the President will have very little political capital if he doesn't build public support for a deal with Iran. The flaw with Obama is that he has big ideas, but lacks the ability to build solid public support for them. This Iran deal is typical. Making a deal with a country that finances terrorism all over the Middle East, and is basically at war with US allies, seems less and less logical with every passing day. You can't make foreign policy based on wishful thinking; that was the error Chamberlain made in Europe; he thought Hitler's aggression could be wished away. Obama may be making the same mistake here; if Iran is bent on establishing control over the Middle East through Shia proxies, we should not be cutting a deal with them; it's simply not in our national interest.

  • American Jews are taking back their power from Israel
    • You are, as usual, engaging in magical thinking, and vastly overstating your case. It's in your interest to do so, I suppose, but it's silly to argue that this debate will lead to more support for the BDS movement. There has been a debate between two-staters and one-staters for 40 years, and the two-staters have recovered from the disappointment of Oslo. It is not new. This is a correction to the ascendency of the right-wingers.

      But Jews will not sign on en masse to the BDS movement, which, at its core, is rife with Jew-hatred precisely because it has taken on the bad psychopathologies of the Middle East rather than tempering them with the liberal values of the West (and that is the reason that it has led to increased antisemitism), and offers no real solution to the conflict in the Middle East other than a self-serving, naive utopia that will lead to bloodshed. BDS continues to be marginal, and continues to have no effect on American public opinion.

  • I want my country back
    • You mean the Father Coughlin claim that Jews care more about their own than the country that they live in?

    • "Iran has not launched any war in over 200 years."

      You can't be serious with this nonsense. It is fighting proxy wars all over the Middle East. That's indisputable.

    • Just amazing how Mondoweiss's reaction to NY Times reportage mirrors the reaction of rightist Zionists. You read something that doesn't fit your extreme political perspective, and rather than deal with it, you just give up your subscription.

    • "It is a US newspaper. "

      It is a "Memo from the Jerusalem." If you read the NY Times, you understand that a "Memo from" column is usually an analysis/human interest column written by a foreign correspondent about the place that they cover that is not just straight reportage.

    • "that’s stating WH criticism has been “unrelenting”. when the reality is this is the very first time obama has dared to say he’s reassessing the options. "

      C'mon Annie. The White House and the State Department were publicly criticizing Israel just about every day for a week. That's unprecedented.

      "momentary disavowal?"

      You really don't seem to understand that the piece is covering the reaction of the Israelis, not the reaction of people at Mondoweiss. In any event, yes, I would describe answering "indeed" to a journalist question about whether there would be a two state solution, a question that followed up on Netanyahu's comment that he didn't think the conditions were ripe for it, as a "momentary disavowal." Actually, I didn't think it was a disavowal at all. If I say that I hope for peace and that I'll work for peace, but that I'm pessimistic about it happening anytime soon because of geopolitics, does that mean that I don't want peace? You're pessimistic about the Israelis withdrawing from the West Bank without outside pressure. Does that mean that you have disavowed your view that Israelis should pull out of the West Bank?

      You really believe that Obama wasn't planning to launch this "reassessment" before Netanyahu made his comment to the NRG reporter? I have a bridge to sell you.

      "who? which one of netanyahu’s “virulent Jewish critics” praised his apology"

      I assume Rudoren is referring to politicians to the left of Netanyahu.

      "he calls the president unrelenting! the nerve."

      Yes, the nerve of actually discussing how Israelis feel about the Administration's reaction. I mean, in Mondoweiss land, what mainstream Israelis think and feel are never important, because it might, gasp, present them as human beings, rather than as evil demons.

    • " I didn’t want to extrapolate beyond what I’d seen before my eyes. But this piece suggests that the lobby is imbedded in the New York Times itself, that our leading newspaper sees it as its job to support Israel when the president is seeking to reassess his relationship with the country– supporting a rightwing racist foreign leader over the president. "

      Or it's just an article giving the perspective of mainstream Israelis, which, true to form, you simply can't deal with. Phil, you can't play both sides. Anyone who has read the Times over the past week cannot honestly conclude that it sees its role as supporting Israel over the President. It hasn't supported Israel editorially or journalistically; it has, if anything, served as a mouthpiece for the Administration's anger over the past week.

  • Why did Herzog run scared? He fears the Israeli people
  • A response to Michael Douglas
    • " Criticism of Israel doesn’t necessarily indicate an anti-Semitic motive or hatred of all Jews"

      Who said otherwise? Not Michael Douglas. It's simple. Antisemitism is antisemitism, whether the antisemite claims Israeli policy as a motivator, or makes some other excuse.

  • New York Times published piece about Netanyahu’s racism, then rewrote all of it
    • Or they wrote an update story early in the day, and then folded that story into a larger one later in the day. Oh well, Ben will make what propaganda he can out of these things.

  • Who can save Israel now?
    • "A big clue was the 95% who cheered the massacre last summer."

      The only thing it means is that when your population is being attacked by rockets, you'll favor your government doing what it can to stop the rocket attacks. If you don't understand, buy some rockets, give them to your enemy, and have him fire the rockets at your house for a few weeks.

    • And Ali Abunimah should watch his mouth. If he's going to say that he's happy about the election of Netanyahu because it showed the toxicity of Israeli society, he's just inviting people to say that the election of Hamas in Palestine was great because it showed the toxicity of Palestinian society.

    • You know what the nice thing about a stable democracy is? There will be other elections, and no one election is defining.

      The notion that because Netanyahu made a racist appeal at the last minute and won means that Israeli Jews as a whole voted for the racist appeal is self-serving and silly. The plea was to co-opt hard right voters who were set to vote for other parties. The reality is that Netanyahu, who presides over a significantly more moderate Likud than he did two years ago, and Lieberman, and Bennett make up about a third of the Knesset. Yachad, a Kahanist party, didn't pass the threshold. The rest of Israel voted for centrist and left-wing parties who emphasized social issues, ultra-orthodox parties that focus on funding for the their schools and welfare, or the Joint List.

      Liberal Zionists will grieve over the election, and then regroup and do what people do in functioning democracies - find a way to win.

  • Netanyahu won. Now what?
    • Again, the risks of elevating Israeli voices that represent no actual constituency.

      "Israel has always prepared itself psychologically and economically to being isolated. "

      That's why the first world leader to congratulate Netanyahu was the Prime Minister of India, with whom Israel is developing a close trade partnership. That's why every tech company in the world wants to be somewhere in Israel. Come on Avigail. Give up the agitprop. Israelis are not leaving en masse, and they're unlikely to, and they are not all Netanyahu.

      Leftists always like to say that the sky is falling and that the election of right-wing leaders is great because it will show the world just how much the sky is falling.

  • Oberlin students highlight plight of Palestinian political prisoners with week-long installation
  • Day 2 at JVP: Anti-colonial visions, border fences and the right of return
    • Wow, bourbons at fancy hotel bars, scrambled eggs for breakfast, and people talking about how land ownership is a construct.

      How many Palestinians would agree with that sentiment?

      I can't wait for the finale, when the grand movement for Palestinian rights, who is always criticizing the Jewish Establishment organizations for the lack of Palestinian voices at their conferences, ends its conference with that great Palestinian, Angela Davis.

  • 'We aim to shape the democratic and moral alternative in this country' -- an interview with Ayman Odeh
    • "hophmi has made it very clear that when it comes to Israel what matters most to him is…no, not justice, accountability and equality, but “Jewish State”."

      You know, you don't listen. I do support Israel as a Jewish State. But I also support a democracy and the advancement of the Palestinian minority in that state, and I believe both can easily exist at the same time, and so do many Israelis. And I take a lot of flack for that belief from others in my community. I support the work of the New Israel Fund; the latest campaign against them is because they were the recipient of State Department grant. The grant was for a program dedicated to the advancement of Bedouin women in the Negev, so I've been asking people who criticize the New Israel Fund whether they oppose the advancement of Bedouin women in the Negev. Yesterday I spent time defending Uri Zaki on twitter from well-heeled rightists who called him a kapo because he used to be B'Tselem's director in North America. He's running on Meretz's ticket, BTW.

      If Avigdor Lieberman was the first person to propose raising the threshold, or if Israel's threshold was unusually high, it would be one thing. But there have been lots of proposals like his, and Israel's threshold remains among the lowest in the world, and I knew (or at least I hoped) from day one that something like this would happen. That's why I support it. You have to form these coalitions to advance your political aims, and in the past, the low threshold not only created general chaos, but it resulted in this kind of destructive factionalism that emphasized small differences rather than big commonalities. The smaller parties have wisely jointed together to advance their aims, and not only has it given them a political foothold, but it has spurred Palestinian-Israelis to rejoin the political process for the first time in a long time. I hope the List holds together in the future.

      And David, I'm not a plant. Please stop with that nonsense. I post here because I want to, and because my habit to post places where I feel my perspective is underrepresented, rather than in places where everyone already agrees with me.

    • "Oh, Hopmi, you know perfectly well that the reason they raised the threshold was to get rid of the Arabs parties and the pesky smaller Jewish parties like Shas."

      I know nothing of the sort, and your comment betrays a complete ignorance of the Israeli political system and of parliamentary political systems in general. Shas is not a small, pesky party; it has 11 mandates in this government, has had as many as 17 in the past, and has a reliable bloc of voters. So a 3.25% threshold will make no difference to them.

      The Arab parties were certainly not the only parties near the margin of the threshold (Meretz, Hatnua, and Kadima were all below 5%, and UTJ was just above 5%), and the reason the threshold was raised, not just by Lieberman, but by the entire Knesset, was because of the destabilizing effect very small percentages of voters could have on the Israeli political system.

      "Also it was not a forgone conclusion that the Arabs parties would unite. I believe that at first Hadash said they wouldn’t join."

      Yes. Maybe you shouldn't listen to unrepresentative voices who have been on the margins of Israeli politics for 25 years for advice on parliamentary politics.

    • So maybe you want to walk back the alarmism you displayed a year ago when Israel raised the threshold to a still-low 3.25%, and you all complained that it was a plot to disenfranchise the Arab vote, because the Arabs were split amongst four very small parties that were all around the threshold. I said back then:

      "I think that’s a little misleading. Israel has one of the lowest thresholds in the world, even with the change. There is no question, at all, that having such a low threshold has led to a lot of political instability. There are a lot of analysts who think that the higher threshold will strengthen Arab political involvement by forcing either the creation of a large enough coalition to meet the threshold (as opposed to three or four Arab parties) or by spurring the Arabs to join one of the larger parties, much as the settlers joined Likud and now enjoy more power there than they did when they were spread out over smaller parties."

      Seems to me the analysts were right. The Arab parties joined together, and now have a joint list that has far, far more power than the four small tiny parties did a year ago.

      Not every Palestinian-Israeli will vote for the joint list; they're not a monolith. But enough will to give Arabs in Israel leverage that they have not had before. At worst, Odeh will lead the opposition, and at best, they'll be part of the government. Either way, it will be a positive thing for Israel in the long-term.

  • 'J Street' leader promotes Israeli 'change' coalition that could include politician who called for beheading Arabs
    • Why don't you grow up? It's a coalition system. The idea is a put together a governing coalition. It's not to satisfy leftists in the diaspora who think that politicians should eschew alliances with those leftists who hate Israel don't approve of so that they can sit in the opposition and watch rightists rule the country.

      You don't eschew alliances with antisemites. Anti-Israel activists go on Iranian state TV. You do nothing to combat bigotry in your own ranks. And you fancy yourselves idealists. Why should politicians who actually have governing responsibility be held to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

  • Barney Frank says Israel and AIPAC lobbied Congress to support Iraq war
    • This appears to be a very skewed version of events. According to the comment section of an article written by the students who organized the JVP Shabbat at Wesleyan, most kids who attended the service were not Jewish, and the comments themselves are overwhelmingly negative, not positive.

      link to wesleyanargus.com

      It is tendentious to suggest that pro-Israel students are "avoiding dialogue" when JVP is calling for the censoring of Zionist speakers on campus through BDS.

  • We may not have Netanyahu to kick around anymore
    • "Ferguson has undoubtedly helped the Palestine movement. "

      Please document this claim. I see no data to support it.

      "A young multicultural coalition will be pushing Palestinian rights"

      Not after they leave campus they won't. Not any more than they'll be pushing Tibetan rights. Remember that movement? How's that cause doing? And Tibet has far more support amongst the American public than Palestine does; roughly 3/4 of Americans believe Tibet should be independent of China, far more than the 40-45% that support a Palestinian state.

      "And folks will say, Give peace a chance. But can an Israeli Zionist government make any real concessions?"

      Gave the Sinai back to Egypt. Check.
      Made peace with Jordan. Check.
      Withdrew Israeli troops from Gaza. Check.
      Signed two Oslo Agreements, and withdrew from Palestinian population centers. Check.
      Settlement blocs are easy land swaps, and Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert both offered to give them up. Check.

      So there's no reason to believe that a center-left Israeli government can't make peace. Of course, if your worldview is that Israelis are all evil, then it will make you a bad analyst.

  • UC Berkeley Israel group wants to ban imaginary word rhyming with intifada as 'triggering, terrifying'
    • "hops, since this word (intifada) is, allegedly, so traumatic for some of the jewish students i was just wondering if they’d complained about it before. is there any history of the word being rejected on campuses."

      I have no idea. I do know that the concept is that students should be warned before encountering material that contains ideas that might upset them emotionally. So I assume someone was upset by the use of the word Intifada, which to many Jews could mean the murder of their family members, as it did particularly during the Second Intifada.

      I personally agree with the AAUP and think the whole idea is silly and that students need to learn to grow up, instead of being treated like small children. However, if we're doing this for one group, we have to do it for everybody. So I'm asking a simple question: does Phan (or anyone else here) buy into this notion that students deserve to be forewarned before encountering material that deeply affects them emotionally, and if so, do they believe that Jews who may have lost family members and friends to the First and particularly the Second Intifada deserve the same right as everyone else to that kind of warning.

    • "an imaginary fear"

      An imaginary fear? Is that what it is when Jews are killed in the streets of Europe and swastikas are painted on Jewish frat houses? Did I imagine that?

      "Imagine how terrifying it is to be pregnant and Palestinian in the remoter parts of the West Bank, rather than in a university in the first world suffering hasbara fail."

      Imagine how this is the United States, and not the West Bank, and you don't get to shoot Jews in the West because you don't like what other Jews are doing in the East.

    • "That this orchestrated hysteria and intimidation is just a big joke? That the death threats and vilification on the Stand With Us Facebook page are funny? Silly? No big deal?"

      Oh, please. Pro-Israel people have gotten plenty of death threats on their facebook pages over the years. So far, nobody has gotten killed on campus for BDS activism. So let's stop with the BS argument that StandByUs is responsible for every yahoo with a social media account.

      "This is typical Zionist intimidation which you are shamelessly trying to misrepresent. Your comment is a perfect example of you defending the Zionist tribe, facts be damned. You are one sick puppy."

      Blah, blah, blah. You're projecting, as bigots are prone to do. This sort of thing is par for the course on campus, where triggers are all the rage.

    • The bigger question is: does Phan oppose the concept of triggering in general or just when it applies to the Jewish community? Because clearly, there is a movement on campuses to give students warnings regarding materials that may "trigger" emotional responses. It's pervasive enough that the AAUP condemned it last year. So I'd like to know Phan's opinion on that, and whether he believes that triggers that affect a Jewish community are less important than triggers that affect other minority communities on campus.

      link to aaup.org

    • No one will ever be able to prove that to someone like you. Whatever. You're the equivalent of a climate change denier.

    • It's quite amazing that you managed to write this much about this story.

      Bears for Israel is being silly, as are others who make a big deal every time the word Intifada is used. Antisemitism on campus has Jews extra frightened right now, particularly in California. #Intidafa #Shmitifada

  • Senator who spearheaded letter to Iran got $1 million from Kristol's 'Emergency C'tee for Israel'
    • Another example of David Duke politics here at Mondoweiss. When you disagree with the policy decision of the Republican party, blame the Jews. Because if a few Jews support it (even if a substantial minority of the country does), it must be Jews who are responsible for it. And if the media don't report it your way, it's the Jews in the media who are responsible, right?

  • Paris university reverses decision, allows Israeli apartheid event with Blumenthal
    • It is true that a square has four sides. That's an objective statement. It is not true that small cabal of Jews controls the foreign policy of the United States for their own interests. That's an antisemitic smear. It is common on the far-left on sites like this, and it is common on the far-right, amongst people like David Duke. I have no trouble talking about elites in the Jewish community. I have a problem with people who take that and suggest that not only are these elites in control of our country, which is ridiculous enough, but that they exercise that control not in the American interest, but in their own interest as Jews. That's garden variety antisemitism that mimics the antisemitism of the 19th and 20th centuries, and it is common to David Duke and Max Blumenthal and Phil Weiss. It is why Phil Weiss lost his job at the NY Observer, and it is why Max Blumenthal should not be given a campus platform.

      You can't deal with this reality because it's too uncomfortable for most of you to think that you might have gone over to the dark side here.

    • Always nice when people own up to their bigotry.

    • Unfortunately, it's not a game. These views, which posit that there's some Jewish conspiracy to control the United States, have become part and parcel of the BDS movement. They are almost identical to those of white supremacists like Duke. They mimic very old antisemitic tropes. And they are untrue. And until they are examined, and rejected, by the BDS movement that promotes them, I will continue to point out the similarity. Left-wing and right-wing extremism have conspiratorial beliefs in common, including their beliefs regarding the power of Jews to influence world events, and their belief that Jews act for themselves, apart from others in their societies. Those views have a home here at Mondoweiss and in the BDS movement.

    • Look, David Duke hates other people besides the Jews, and maybe Max doesn't. But their views on the Jewish community are too close to be ignored.

      There are plenty of Palestinians and other Middle Easterners in Paris to preach to students without Max playing convenient Jewish prop a la Pablo Christiani. Advocating for the Palestinians is perfectly OK. Bashing Jews to do it is not.

    • Page: 69
    • "Weiss and Max Blumenthal, SJP and JVP are like the intransigent white Southerners and the Ku Klux Klan"

      When it comes to the things they say about Jews? Yes. I've posted some of things that Duke said. How are they different from what Weiss and Blumenthal says?

    • Again, there's a rise in antisemitism throughout Europe. Max Blumenthal directly contributes to that every time he shows up by making the same kind of arguments David Duke does. It's not surprising that some would connect the two. There's really not much difference between the far-left and the far-right.

    • The point I tried to make is that Max Blumenthal isn't being permitted certain platforms because the views of the extremists in the anti-Zionist community bear more than a passing resemblance to those of white supremacists.

      I have clearly hit a nerve here, Annie; in fact, nearly everything David Duke said in his interview with Ray Suarez for Al Jazeera about Zionists being a small minority with disproportionate power in the United States that they wield to injure other Americans could have been taken verbatim from this site.

      Duke: "We have many, many Jewish organizations, very powerful organizations in this country working for what they consider to be the Jewish agenda or the Israeli agenda."

      Mondoweiss would agree with that statement; it has accused the American Jewish community of dual loyalty many times.

      Duke: "I believe the Zionists control the country. They literally control the top financing of the Republican and Democratic Party... the largest political financiers in America absolutely are Zionists."

      Mondoweiss has said as much by claiming that the only reason Netanyahu spoke in Congress and that Democrats attended was the role of Jewish money and Jewish presence in media and politics. Commentators here have said this far more explicitly, and you have let many of their antisemitic comments through.

      Duke: "[Zionists] look at themselves a distinct people not only to Europeans but everybody else on the planet. And it's a very ethnic-oriented organization."

      These are both sentiments expressed many times here by posts purposely conflating notions of chosenness with notions of superiority.

      Duke: "Every major Jewish organization in America, such as the American Jewish Committee, which is, in fact, a worldwide organization and as far as Israel's concerned, they have programs to prevent Jewish intermarriage."

      Again, a point made many times here exactly the same way Duke makes it; rather than contextualizing Jewish campaigns for in-marriage as simply an attempt by a very small people to preserve their religious traditions, it is presented as a belief in Jewish supremacy.

      Duke: "The most powerful lobby in the American government, by far, over any domestic lobby, certainly any foreign lobby is AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee."

      Definitely something Mondoweiss would agree with.

      Duke: "The reason they have this power is not because they are the only people with smarts. It's because they are very tribal. They support each other. They network with each other. They give each other a true privilege, and that's the true privilege in this country. Harvard — 25 percent of the student body at Harvard is Jewish … if 98 percent of European-Americans can't get similar to their percentage of the population in the leading institution of America, is that white privilege? "

      All points made here at Mondoweiss. Jews are tribal, and their support of Israel is tribal, and Jews use their networks to advance themselves and keep others down. Phil has claimed that he and many of his generation have benefited from such networking. Phil has also argued here that there are too many Jews at Harvard precisely because of that kind of networking. After all, Jews are 3 out of 4 Democrats on the Supreme Court, right? Must be that tribal networking.

      Duke: " If European-Americans still had a country where the media was controlled by our people for our interests, truly the majority interest of this country, we had a financial system that was in our own interest and we have a government in our own true interest, I don't think Israel would even exist. "

      A version of points made here at Mondoweiss. Jews use their money to influence our government to support Israel, and they've replaced the European-Americans (read WASPs) as the elite. Phil has made this point many times.

      Duke: " But we can only preserve America, and the Palestinians and the other peoples of the world can only be free if we, ourselves, in America and Europe are free again from this tiny minority that controls our lives."

      Mondoweiss says all of the time that the so-called Jewish elite he talks about should be replaced.

      There's no qualitative difference between the ideas of David Duke and Phil Weiss. They're the same.

      link to america.aljazeera.com

    • Try number 3, and I suggest you put it through and stop censoring opinions that you find difficult:

      [...]

  • It was a bad week for the Israel lobby
  • 'NYT' reports 'surge of hostile sentiment against Jews' nationwide -- on what basis?
    • Just can't accept that your rhetoric is hateful, can you? No, no, you guys couldn't be bigots. Even in a situation as obvious as this you can't acknowledge the pervasiveness of antisemitism.

  • Netanyahu speech was 'very dark day for American democracy' -- Matthews
    • "Bill Kristol is doing his utmost to get that war, citing a Fox News (i.e. dubious) poll:

      Stunning poll results on Iran: 65% willing to use force to stop Iran from nukes, 84% call Obama-type deal bad idea.”"

      The poll is not exactly dubious; the spinning is. Most Americans have favored using force to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon for years now, but the question basically presumes that an Iranian nuke is a foregone conclusion. The 84% number is in response to a question about whether Americans think that allowing Iran to get nukes after the supposed 10-year period ends is a good idea. Obviously, most think that's bad idea.

      The polling on this issue has really been very consistent over the past few years. Most Americans support negotiating with Iran. Most support using force to stop Iran from getting a nuke if Iran is close to a nuke. Most Americans are pessimistic that negotiating will yield an agreement. So, Americans don't want a nuclear Iran. They would use force if it were clear that Iran was about to have or had a nuclear weapon. They want to try negotiating, even though they're pessimistic that it will work.

      Although I was against Netanyahu coming here, I don't share Matthews' view that this will really establish a precedent; the situation is really too unique, and it took a confluence of a lot of different political dynamics to make it happen. Netanyahu spoke before Congress for a number of reasons. First among them is that he speaks perfect American English; if he did not, no one would ever suggest that he was competing with Obama. Churchill wouldn't have spoken before Congress three times if instead of English, he spoke French. This sort of thing is unlikely to happen again unless we're talking about a British Prime Minister or another Israeli Prime Minister who speaks English as Netanyahu does or as Golda Meir did.

      The notion that Netanyahu is a threat to the independence of American foreign policy is silly. At the end of the day, Obama will do what he wants, and at the end of the day, Congress will do what it wants. And the reality is that the hyperpartisanship that led to Netanyahu's invitation is the threat, not Netanyahu. And I think just about everybody, outside of the antisemitic types who think that the Jews control the world, understand that. The notion that Congress has never taken on the President in the foreign policy realm is ahistorical, and indeed, it's somewhat ironical to see leftists complaining that Congress is attempting to undermine a sitting US President when they've called for years for Congress to reign in the President in the realm of foreign policy.

      As far as war with Iran, I think at some point you guys have to admit that you've been beating this horse for a long time, and so far, it hasn't happened. This blog is a foil of sorts for Netanyahu's oft-repeated claim that Iran was close to a nuke; you guys always claim Israel is close to going to war.

      The reality is that Israel doesn't want a war and America doesn't want a war; if Israel wanted a war, it would have happened by now. What Israel wants is the same thing Winston Churchill wanted in 1952 - a harder line, which means tough sanctions, and no centrifuges. In order to get that, Netanyahu plays bad cop. But a war is just not going to happen. Israel isn't close to united enough to support such a war, and Americans will not support it either.

  • Pelosi blasts Netanyahu speech as 'insult to intelligence of U.S.', Amanpour calls it 'dark, Strangelovian'
    • "Christiane Ahmanpour called the speech “dark, Strangelovian” in its hysteria about Iran as Nazi Germany. "

      Are we mentioning Amanpour's ethnicity and possible bias, or is that only important if the journalists are Jews?

  • Bipartisanship is dead, as Netanyahu, AIPAC, and GOP square off against Obama over Iran
    • "We all know that Zionist Democrats and “liberal” Zionists are half-hearted in their support of Obama’s Iran policy. "

      We do? I know plenty of liberal Zionists and Democrats who support negotiating with Iran.

    • The problem, Taxi, is that you can't find a way to be anti-Israel without being pro-Iran. And that's why the United States in the end won't abandon it; the alternative is so much worse.

    • My head won't explode, but I don't anticipate that most Americans will become antisemites anytime soon. Israel is not responsible for America's problems any more than the Vatican is.

    • You can't wish your problems away. You're confusing polling on Israel, (47-17 pos/neg, consistent with historical numbers), with polling on Netanyahu, which is negative because press coverage about Netanyahu has been negative.

      Bipartisanship is injured (needlessly, in my view), but it is very far from dead; if it were, Elizabeth Warren would not be interested in stating her pro-Israel bonafides, and every Democrat who is choosing not to attend the speech would not be making clear that their protest is not a reflection of how they feel about Israel, but how they feel about John Boehner.

      There have been many differences between the United States and Israel over policy, whether the policy has been AWAC sales or settlement policy, and there have been differences for many years. And there will be differences in the future. But as I've said so many times to you, the relationship is much stronger and deeper than these conflicts, and it will endure in the long run for that reason and because there are no better alternatives.

  • Rightwing rabbi seeks to pit Power against Rice on Iran ahead of AIPAC speeches
    • "Oh hum, Bibi’s doing what the Jewish Establishment everywhere does, pushing the envelope, seeing what he might gain?"

      Thanks, Father Citizen Coughlin.

  • Netanyahu's speech and the American Jewish condition
    • Please do. The claim is well-supported by easily-accessible sociological data.

    • "What Eastern European peasants? The Jews as a group were city folk and tradesmen, not peasants."

      Many of the Jews in the Pale of the Settlement were desperately poor, and most of what became Israel was made up of very poor people, whether they were people from the Pale of the Settlement, Holocaust refugees, or refugees from other countries in the Middle East. Zionism, in any event, was primarily a reaction to the historical persecution of Jews, and to the failure, even when Jews assimilated and became a part of the European elite, of Jews to escape further persecution, which eventually culminated in the Holocaust, when about six million Jews, rich, poor, middle class, religious, non-religious, were murdered en masse.

      I'm aware of your obsession, Keith, with making the point over and over again, that Gentiles in Europe suffered as well as Jews. You do it every time the issue of historical European antisemitism comes up, and no one here, including me, has ever denied that most Gentiles in Europe in the Middle Ages and later were poor peasants because of the feudal system that prevailed in Europe over the centuries. It's a pretty common tactic among the neo-Nazis/white supremacists - to answer any and every narrative about the historical persecution of a minority group by talking about the persecution of white Christians. I see through it, and I will continue to call you out on it. Grow up.

    • "Can you provide proof of what was stolen from Jewish community"

      Sure. Here's an article about it from the Forward. link to forward.com

      "Even more peculiar is the display of Jewish objects owned by the Vatican. The Vatican library has an extraordinary collection of Jewish manuscripts from the Middle Ages, many of them illustrated and many of them acquired forcibly. Although the library makes them available for traveling exhibitions and is generally forthcoming about allowing scholars to see them, none is on public display at the Vatican Museums themselves."

      Read more: link to forward.com

    • "so why the anonymity hops? too afraid, weak and powerless to spew your accusatory ad hominems in an identifiable way, always hiding behind a mask as you stalk phil?"

      Phil knows who I am. Curious that you ask me for my identity, but no one else here. And really, really bad faith on your part, since you allow through ad hominem comment after ad hominem comment that violates the rules and do nothing but target me personally. You really are a piece of work, Annie.

    • " they wouldn’t use their acquired power in the intelligentsia to actively harm the other 97% of the population."

      Thanks, Grand Wizard. Remember, it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism.

    • Mooser, by all means, enjoy your retirement. Clearly, you're doing very little with it.

    • Or maybe Christian European society was not hospitable to Jews, Mooser.

    • "Kids are brainwashed with a mixture of chosen people/everyone’s an anti semite/out to get you as soon as they get the chance. "

      Well, I grew up in one of the largest Jewish neighborhood in the United States. And while there are certainly some people who think this way (and who could blame them given the last 150 years of history), they are basically limited to right-wing religious Jews, who are a minority int he American Jewish community.

      "Zionist parents, Jewish schools, Summer camps and visits to Israel, Auschwitz and hanging around almost exclusively in each others’ company."

      Comparatively few Jews, even orthodox ones, travel to Auschwitz, but learning about the Holocaust is obviously a major part of Jewish communal learning, since, most Eastern European Jews either have a relative who was murdered or know someone who does. This is part of the Jewish people's history.

      "They have an irrational attitude of defiance, of perceived threats that don’t exist and they seem to lose all empathy for anyone else on the planet who isn’t a Jew."

      That's simply untrue in my experience. The Jewish community I grew up in was a religious one. I attended day school. The day school I attended, like most Jewish day schools, had an extensive chessed (community service) program.

      "Jews are the eternal victims and at the same time somehow perfect people who can do no wrong . "

      I've never once heard another Jew suggest that Jews are perfect people or that Jews are "eternal victims." The fact of the matter is that Jews have often been victims in Western history.

      "Hophmi makes me laugh. In Hophmi’s world, Phil Weiss is not allowed to be a decent human being by pointing out that Israel/Zionists are treating the Palestinians in a very bad way."

      As usual, you don't read. I've never said that Phil has no right to criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What I have taken issue with is the matter in which Phil criticizes American Jewry, particularly his overall critique of the American Jewish community as a privileged elite that does not have America's best interest at heart. Regrettably, Phil's ranting often mimics classic antisemitic tropes. It is quite common for people who belong to minorities that have long histories of persecution to internalize that persecution and to regurgitate it. Phil does that often, in my view, because he is uncomfortable with who he is. He has trouble embracing the idea of Jewish political consciousness unless it is identical to radical political consciousness. He has trouble embracing Jewish practices to the point of pillorizing others who choose them, even as they respect his choice not to adopt them. He pillorizes his people for being "chosen," and then insists on holding them to a much higher standard than everyone else when it comes to the exercise of power and national sovereignty. He takes his insecurities and advances them onto everyone else.

      "Stop the horror, the terror and the injustice and we’ll all go away, promise!"

      I don't believe you, not for a second. You won't go away until Israel no longer exists.

    • "Serious and destructive abuse of power by a group of people to benefit a group of people is morally wrong, regardless of which group of people does it."

      But Kathleen said Jews do it. Just as generations of antisemites before her have. And just like past generations, she offers not an iota of proof that her assertion is accurate. Mooser, predictably, changes the subject to Zionism. But Kathleen didn't say anything about Zionism. She talked about Jews being for themselves before they're for the country they live in. That's how antisemites talk; that's how they've always talked. And I keep thinking of all that American Jews have contributed to American society, and I wonder how people like Kathleen could be so stupid, let alone so hateful.

    • "The angle that Phil didn’t mention is finance. The last 4 heads of the Fed have been Jewish. 1 dollar out of every four earned in the US goes to the top 0.1%. Many of the big hedge fund managers who pay themselves tens of millions are Jewish. ..Meanwhile ordinary Americans haven’t got pay rises for years. Labor repression is real."

      And here we go. Antisemitism - the communism of fools. There are wealthy Jews, and they are keeping down "ordinary Americans." It's just amazing how this filth keeps repeating itself.

    • "However I believe what most people resent is the abuse of power. Serious and destructive abuse of power. Generally only operating for the welfare of one group of people. "

      Again, this is such a classically antisemitic trope; Jews care only about Jews and not about the people in the countries in which they live. This bigotry has such a long history, and it's so completely tendentious to anyone who knows anything about the American Jewish experience or American Jewish history. This is only ever an argument you hear used against minority groups, whether they are Jews, Catholics or African-Americans. It's anti-American and it's bigoted.

    • What can I say? It's the truth. Glad to oblige you.

    • Thanks again, Father.

    • Thanks, Father Coughlin.

    • Well, Phil just wrote a post asserting that Jewish power is a problem, and you think it's great. So you seem to think that Jews have too much power, and you seem to resent that.

    • This analysis is nothing new. It is typical of Phil's writing, which suggests, as it always does, the Phil has internalized anti-Jewish hatred, and like those secularist Jews in Europe who looked down upon their brethren or converted to Christianity to escape their Judaism, Phil adopts the classic tropes of the self-hater. The key point here is that he quotes Gilad Atzmon's views, shared by some commentators on his site, that Jews control the world, ostensibly to illustrate the challenge of criticizing the Jewish community, and he missed the irony, which is that his critique amounts to the same claim.

      There are, of course, the mistakes. Zionism was not a response to the elite Jewish condition. It was a response to antisemitism of non-Jewish elites, and the failure of those non-Jewish elites, even in a time of emancipation and enlightenment, to offer basic protection for their Jewish populations. Those who believed in it most strongly were not European elites, but Eastern European peasants, who wished to shuck off perpetual discrimination and poverty at the hands of Christian brethren and to exchange it for a better life.

      There are several clear American national security interests in maintaining a strong alliance with Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and more importantly, it is only stable country in the region. It is the only one that reflects anything approaching American values. It is the only one where people can speak freely, and do. It is the only one where democratic elections are routine, rather than American-engineered one-time events. It is only place where gay people are not kept in the closet or thrown off of the buildings and stoned to death. It is the only place in the Middle East where Americans can go to conduct joint research in any number of fields, including military technology. It is the only place America can count on, and for that reason alone, the amount of change possible because of a tiff between two leaders is extraordinarily limited. America doesn't have other choices in the Middle East, and common sense, not to mention polling, shows it again and again. Who is America going to ally itself with? Iran? A country that brings people out into the street to wish it death? Saudi Arabia? A country where women don't drive? It won't happen, because if it did, America would be a worse place and a less great country.

      It is astounding that anyone could look at the Middle East today and conclude that any meaningful share of the problems there are traceable to Israel. It is nonsense. Sunni and Shia Muslims do not war with one another because of Israel. Libya is not in pieces because of Israel. The radical clerics that constitute Al-Azhar University in Egypt are not there because of Israel. ISIS does not exist because of Israel. Bashar al-Assad isn't murdering his own citizens because of Israel. Omar al-Bashir didn't commit genocide because of Israel. These things are happening because the places in which they are happening have been troubled societies for a long time, and this is how they are choosing to resolve their problems. And in too many cases, to justify the horrors that occur there, they blame others. And unfortunately, there are many, many more of them than there are Jews in this world, and if you repeat the big lie enough, it has an effect. Because people in the region are seen as victims of Western machinations, left-wingers have picked up on these themes, and they too repeat them. They're wrong, and history will be brutal to them for it, just as it will be brutal to them for opposing US intervention in Bosnia and Serbia and for favoring the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

      As he has forever, Phil offers nothing but anecdotes (read: stereotypes) to support his analysis. Jews are all over the media, and this is why Israel comes in for less criticism than it should. Except, of course, when it is criticized. By Jews like Anthony Lewis. By non-Jews like Charlie Reese. By Jews like Tom Friedman. By non-Jews like Zbigniew Brzezinski. But the media is Jewish for Phil, because the stereotype serves his political outlook and feeds his insecurity with power and supposed privilege.

      Phil compares treatment of Jews to treatment of Catholics. He fails to mention, of course, that there are more than five times as many Catholics as Jews in the United States, several dozen times internationally, and financially, the Catholic Church is second to no institution in opulent wealth, some of it brazenly stolen from elsewhere around the world, including the Jewish community.

      He posits a Jewish establishment that he says took the place of the WASP establishment, a nonsense point that he can't begin to prove, and that is laughable given the stark difference in size, influence, and history between the two. He says Jews are here and Jews are there, and then he blames them for a lack of diversity in the same breath as he notes that the same institutions have fostered diversity. So when he can attribute negative characteristics to this supposed Establishment, he does so. When he talks about positive developments, he does what he can to make sure and not give the Jewish community he says is so elite any credit for them.

      Self-hatred is a disease. It is a sad disease borne of many generations of persecution, but it is a disease. And Phil is afflicted with it, as many Jews have been in the past. And it is usually the self-haters who cause the worst damage to the Jewish community, precisely because of how small it is.

      American Jewry, and the American-Israel relationship will survive the Phils of this world. American Jews, long a positive force in American society, will continue to be, far into the future, and Israel will endure, far into the future. The Phils will fall away, as they always do.

    • So Annie, you believe Jews have too much power and you resent it.

  • Hillel's segregated lunch counter
    • "Tell me, Oh powerful one, what you intend to do when anti-Zionists “cross certain lines”?"

      They just won't be permitted the platforms afforded to them by Jewish institutions. Nor should they desire them, for that matter. The Jewish communal tent is really quite large as far as minority communities go. It takes quite a bit for us to exclude someone from it. But I can't see the purpose of providing space for critics who have no interest in being part of our community, except insofar as it provides them with a platform to spread their radical politics and to bash the community relentlessly. There are many places for them to do that with our subsidizing of it.

      As far as controversy goes, the Jewish communal tent is really quite large. We have many critics of Israel inside of it, albeit not anti-Zionists who endorse full-on boycotts and engage in demonization. Catholic organizations tend not to be very welcoming to pro-choice voices. The African-American community is not especially welcoming to critics of affirmative action. Mecha isn't going to invite a speaker who believes undocumented immigrants should be deported en masse. CAIR isn't going to invite Muhdi Jasser.

    • It's not secretive. It's just not what most kids go to Hillel for, just as most Catholic kids don't go to Catholic Fellowship to talk about abortion.

    • " What is the point of an Anti Defamation League that stands behind the torture of children or a Hillel, (named after a Jewish “saint” known for his erudition, wisdom and goodness) that supports carpet bombing ?"

      Don't know. What's the point of a CAIR that cannot condemn Palestinian terrorism?

      In any event, you'll have to ask all of the victims of hate crimes who have benefited from the hate crimes legislation ADL worked hard to pass throughout the country, or the students on campus who primarily attend Hillel to celebrate Jewish culture, and not for Israel activism, what the point of these organizations are, because I can assure you that they'll see a point. Despite your ignorant ranting, these organizations are not primarily concerned with Israel.

    • "BDS does not boycott people, and so not for their opinion."

      Really? So I can expect BDS to invite Zionists to share their point of view?

    • Yes, I mean people like the President of the Palestinian Authority, the founder of Rawabi, and a substantial portion of the Palestinian business community. Oh, I'm sorry, Cliff, do you really expect people to believe that a couple hundred NGO's is the same thing as popular support? It isn't true in the United States, and it isn't true in Palestine. But you're a Westerner, Cliff. You know better, right?

    • I am hopeful that National SJP will now drop their ban on Zionist speakers and Palestinian dissidents who disagree with BDS, such as human rights activist Bassam Eid, and follow the lead of the Harvard Hillel by inviting speakers who dissent from their point of view on Israel, particularly since most members of SJP are ignorant about Israel. Will you join me in this call, Phil?

  • Thanks to Netanyahu, Israel support turns into a political football
  • Right-wing bomb thrower David Horowitz behind anti-SJP posters
    • In jail for what, exactly?

    • "The campaign, called “Jew Hatred on Campus Awareness Week,” represents the latest pro-Israel tactic to try to squelch Palestine solidarity activism."

      Is it? Polling shows that 54% of Jewish college students have personally witnessed or experienced at least one antisemitic incident on campus. So I guess now any campaign against campus antisemitism is going to be spun as an attempt to "squelch Palestine solidarity activism." #Jewishlivesmatter I know, I know, you're all taking the survey with a grain of salt, because, you know, it doesn't fit your political worldview.

      "Horowitz is a right-wing bomb-thrower who frequently targets Muslims."

      That he is. But he's indistinguishable from left-wing bomb-throwers who frequently target Jew under the guise of "anti-Zionism," and there are many in the Palestine solidarity crowd.

      And what exactly makes this poster anti-Muslim? There is nothing on that poster of his identifying the people on it as Muslim (and Palestinian and Muslim are not interchangeable terms), and SJP is not a Muslim organization. So it must be that reason it's anti-Muslim is that racists will look at the poster, find that its iconography fits their preconceived anti-Muslim stereotypes, and act accordingly. Or maybe it's hate speech because depicting Muslims or anything that looks like Muslims, negatively, is now hate speech. Perhaps publishing pictures of ISIS beheadings is hate speech.

      Of course, by the same logic, posters negatively depicting Israelis or targeting major Jewish organizations are anti-Jewish.

      "He suggests that students hold film screenings, speaker events and teach-ins."

      Don't see anything wrong with that; the way to combat bad speech is with good speech, and to Horowitz's credit, he made clear that he did not favor shutting SJP down.

  • Kerry says Netanyahu was wrong the last time he pushed war for the U.S.
    • And also, gimme a break. Kerry voted for the war. That was not Netanyahu's fault.

    • "The best of all this is Kerry’s strong suggestion — can this be accelerating? — that we only went to war in Iraq because of Israel’s push"

      Kerry criticized Netanyahu's support for the Iraq War. You've turned that into "we went to war only because of Israel's push" something that is not remotely implied by Kerry's statement; Netanyahu wasn't even Prime Minister in 2003. So you're lying now.

  • Hillel accuses BDS activists of ‘colonizing’ student groups
    • LOL. The notion that this is example of intersectionality just shows how these fashionable humanities terms will be manipulated to suit political needs, and how students will mimic their professors. Intersectionality posits that all forms of oppression have to be studied together, rather than isolation. It has little to do with political coalition building to advance a partisan agenda, which is, well, just old-fashioned politics. In fact, the idea that huge amounts of resources should be spent obsessing over one conflict in a world full of much more serious human rights violations is the opposite of an intersectional approach that focuses on all forms of oppression, rather than just one, as the anti-Israel movement does.

  • Israel gives out 'security Oscars' at the UN to Iran, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia and PA
  • Netanyahu speech is 'destructive' of 'bipartisan, immutable relationship' between US and Israel, Rice says
    • "This couldn’t be better for the American people. I don’t think Humpty Dumpty lobby can be put back together again."

      Only if you believe that the American people benefit from coddling a country like Iran. They don't. Neither do the Iranian people, who will now have a tougher time dislodge the radical regime in Iran.

      The pro-Israel community in the United States will suffer a little, but as long as the anti-Israel community in the United States remains essentially marginalized as the latest fashion of the radical community, it won't make much difference. Ultimately, those in the pro-Israel community are far better organized and far more effective than those in the anti-Israel community, and they have the vast majority of Americans behind them.

  • Israel turns off power to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the dead of winter
    • The Shmika Stream is close to the northern part of Gaza. Habesor is close to the Southern end. The couple of blocks where people were evacuated in Gaza is near Habesor, and as I've already pointed out, there was flooding in Israel in the same place.

      Again, this claim about the dams is an old propaganda chestnut. link to jta.org

      The Daily Mail has apologized for reprinting this old nonsense:

      "An earlier version of this article stated that Israel had opened river dams in the south of the country, causing flooding in the Gaza strip. In fact, there are no dams in southern Israel and the flooding was caused by rain and drainage issues. We are happy to clarify this."

      link to dailymail.co.uk

      Can't get much more definitive than that. But you guys routinely fall for this stuff.

    • Just concede this one, Annie. This is a common claim the Palestinians make, and only the Palestinians make, and it's always immediately debunked as nonsense. That's why no one outside Ma'an and other Arab outlets have picked up this story, not even Al Jazeera.

      It rained. There was flooding in Israel too, right around the same place. link to ynetnews.com

      There is nothing in this report about Israel "opening" the check dams (not sure how you'd "open" a check dam in the first place, since it's often a barrier of rock), and a number of references to how the area floods seasonally.

    • Yes, the $218 million verdict, which will never be collected, is all about the money. You got it American. The families of dead Jewish victims of terrorism - they just care about the money. LOL.

    • "Plus, Israel opened dams near the border of Gaza on Sunday morning, flooding the valley causing hundreds of Palestinians to evacuate their homes. "

      Are we still repeating this discredited nonsense about the dams? Here's a good activity: Find the dams Israel supposedly opened to cause all of this flooding.

      I'll save you the trouble: there are no dams in southern Israel. This nonsense about dams is an old lie that is repeated by Palestinian authorities every time there is flooding in the Strip. The Strip is on the water. When there's a lot of rain, there can be flooding, just like every other place on Earth that is near water. Want to bet the 40 homes (which is what, a couple of square blocks?) that were evacuated are right near the coast?

      Contrary to what you may have heard, the Jews do not control the weather.

  • Israel's new Asian allies
    • "As Israel grows more and more as a powerful military supplier to various nations like India or. Korea or Japan it will be forced to grow less and less disengaged from the defense and military establishments of West . "

      LOL, exactly the opposite is true. The more Israel diversifies its portfolio by developing trade with the developing world, the less reliant it will be on the bloated, stagnant economies of Europe.

      " The current atmosphere of enmity between west and Israrl will spread to every area. "

      I doubt it. The Europeans have no real interest in an ongoing atmosphere of enmity between the West and Israel. While they may sanction settlement products, it will likely go no further than that, and, in any event, settlement products are tiny part of the more than 30 billion Euros in trade between Israel and the EU. Israel is an OECD member, and eventually, in a decade or two, it will accede to the EU itself. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. The movers and shakers in Europe have no interest in boycotting Israel - they are far more likely to want to take part in its tech industry, as Intel, Microsoft, Apple, and many others have.

      "Meanwhile India can and will face same problem but much worse that Europe is worried of- ‘ homegrown’ terrorism – for support to Israel and support to Israeli manufactured wars . "

      India has had a terrorism problem for a long time, and it has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with Islamic radicalism emanating from Pakistan. Like an increasing number of countries, India is not willing to give in to radical Islamist blackmail by avoiding a productive relationship with the Israelis. Just compare the places where Islamic radicals operate to Israel. Why would you choose the Islamic radicals over a first-world economy?

      "How could a ” little shitty country ” like Israel can survive on some bad blood based domestic and foreign tension that affect SE Asia ?"

      Because Israel isn't a little shitty country. It's a successful and stable liberal democracy, Haters are gonna hate, and the Israelis learned a long time ago that the haters aren't really worth their time. All they have to do is look at the carnage and barbarity in the rest of their region to see why.

      "Israel will not survive the disengagement from US. US unless remain only superpower can’t guarantee succeess of Israel."

      Many would have said the same about a country in a much worse financial, political, and military position after 1959 - Cuba. Alas, Cuba, which was a third-world country in 1959, showed everyone that it was possible to survive without the help of the United States. Israel's position is infinitely better than Cuba's was.

      See, the problem is that when your entire political program is based on hate, as the anti-Israel program is, you tend to lose, and you tend to be a bad analyst.

    • LOL. Seafoid just compared the anti-Israel movement to a mafia hitman.

    • "ut don’t assume the other 66%, the ones who would like the american gov to be neutral, don’t pretend for one minute if they were asked to pick a side they would favor israel 29-2. there are a lot more americans who support palestine than 2%."

      That's certainly true. There are basically two types of polls on this issue. The CNN poll offers neutrality as an option, and the results are consistent with historical figures. The poll you're talking about asks people to choose a side. There is plenty of polling available where Americans were asked which side they sympathize with more, where they had to pick a side. Gallup released the latest version of that poll a couple of days ago. In February 2014, Americans favoring Israel outnumber Americans favoring the Palestinians 62-18. In February 2015, the latest poll, Americans favoring Israel outnumber Americans favoring the Palestinians 62-16, and this poll was taken at the height of the brouhaha over this speech. link to gallup.com

    • "Meanwhile, a CNN poll found that two-thirds of Americans, and three-quarters of those under 50, believed the US foreign policy should be neutral between Israel and Palestine."

      Oh please. This polling is consistent with historical polling on this issue. It's nothing new. The same poll found that of those who favored that the US take a side, the pro-Israel community outnumbered the pro-Palestinian community 29-2. You're not going to move US policymakers if 2% of the population supports your cause.

      "The fall-out is spreading to the US Congress, where for the first time Israel is becoming a partisan issue. A growing number of Democrats have declared they will boycott Netanyahu’s address to the Congress next month, when he is expected to try to undermine the Iran talks."

      Not a single one of those Democrats has said that they're boycotting the speech because they want to make a stand for the Palestinians.

      "Instead, Netanyahu has begun looking elsewhere for economic – and ultimately political – patrons.

      In doing so, he is returning to an early Israeli tradition."

      The tradition of doing what every other head of state does by forming alliances with other countries? I didn't realize that that was a tradition. I thought it was what countries were supposed to do.

  • The 15 billion dollar deal that will make or break Israel's regional hegemony
    • Another example of how hatred of Israel is prioritized above progress for other countries in the Middle East.

  • Inflammatory posters at UCLA call Students for Justice in Palestine 'Jew haters' (Updated)
    • So Annie, perhaps you can detail for me what it's like to be a Jewish student at UCLA, or in general at campuses where BDS is in fashion.

      And no, Annie, the notion that a campus is friendly because Jews make up a substantial part of the student body doesn't hold much water.

      And save your presumptuousness about how Jews are supposed to feel and what is "Jew-friendly." You would never say something similar to an African-American or a Muslim. The Jewish student who was given a hard time about being Jewish by members of the student council at UCLA wasn't given a hard time because of her political positioning,

    • For what should be obvious reasons, Mooser, I'm not revealing my personal information here. You'll have to take my word for it, and if you don't, I really could not care less.

    • Jews on campus don't owe anyone anything.

    • Yes and yes, which is why I've been merciless on people in my community that engage in it, why I supported the Park 51 project, why I've posted several dozen screeds on social media taking on people like Pamela Geller and why I participate in Jewish-Muslim outreach.

    • "I’m interpreting the results of the ‘survey’ with a heavy dose of kosher dead sea salt. ‘Anti-semitism’ is in the eye of the beholder~ never more than now."

      I would expect nothing less here. You guys have a long history of either acting as apologists for antisemitism, denying it is a serious problem, and engaging in it.

    • Perhaps Alex can get out there, do some real journalism, and find out who actually put up the posters.

    • " You are engaging in the debate tactic known as “minor point rebuttal”."

      I'm afraid not. The major point here is that there is no evidence that Bruins for Israel was behind the posters.

      "For example, in your third link one might raise the question, “Should a known member of the KKK be allowed to sit on a panel that judges racial discrimination cases?”"

      You've just compared being Jewish to being a KKK member. I guess your analytical skills aren't all that good.

      "Your analyses are shallow because you ignore half of reality."

      I'm afraid that when it comes to reading sources that dissent from one's own perspective, it's you JWalters, who is found wanting, not me.

    • "Uh , Uh, hopknee beat jeffy to it."

      I didn't justify it at all; don't put words in my mouth. Once again, you're caught in an hypocrisy. There is no evidence that Jewish students put up these posters, and certainly no evidence that they were put up at the instigation of the Jewish community on campus.

      It's amazing to me that people like Annie are arrogant enough to believe that they know what it is like to be a Jewish student at UCLA. I posted a story from this week detailing how a Jewish UCLA student was, completely illegally, given a hard time by student representatives simply for being Jewish; it was so bad that a faculty member had to intervene in the meeting. You don't know a damned thing, Annie, until you've walked in their shoes. I'd really like to know Annie's basis of knowledge on the lives of Jewish students on campuses, particularly campuses like UCLA where they've been made to feel ostracized over the Israel-Palestine issue. I don't think she has a clue, and I have a feeling that she could not care less.

    • "oh sure, nobody at bruins would do a thing like that or any other student. right. they slink around in the middle of the night and post this inflammatory crap and hide."

      Like the people who put swastikas on the Jewish fraternity at UC Davis?

      link to nbcbayarea.com

      Maybe whomever did this should emulate the students at Durban Tech [South Africa~ed.], when they called for Jews to "de-register." Did you report on that?

      link to newsweek.com

      Or maybe they should be more like the UCLA Student Council Members, who suggested (illegally, by the way) that Jews could not serve in UCLA Judicial Board positions because they could not be impartial. Did you report on that?

      link to dailybruin.com

  • Netanyahu flips off Harry Truman
    • You mean, -gasp- Zionists were rational political actors?

      The people who argued to Truman that the United States should vote for partition, like Clark Clifford, were not fifth-columnists. They were people who felt it was in America's best interest to vote in favor of people who had set up a democratic state-in-waiting and who had been part of the Allied Forces during World War II against people whose leaders were Nazi party members and who had done nothing to create state institutions of their own. Only bigots refer to them as fifth-columnists and pretend that only Jews supported Israel in the beginning.

      Oh well, history is made, and there are always malcontents like you who can't accept it.

    • Lol. The Jewish State was the UN's term. It is crossed out because the new state was called Israel, rather than "Jewish State," not because Israel wasn't a Jewish state.

    • "The truth is: Israel never would have come into existence without the United States."

      It's always ironic to me when a leftist acts like the child of a privileged rightist, but there it is. In case you forgot, 33 countries voted for partition, including the Soviet Union. Israel itself got no weapons from the United States during its War of Independence. It had to scrounge around Europe for them. And who knows? If the Arabs hadn't been bickering amongst themselves, they might actually have been able to overcome the people they outnumbered 100 to 1. All of these are reasons Israel came into existence.

      You're demagoguing, as usual.

  • Jewish groups that blindly support Israel make US and European Jews potential victims of violence -- Avnery
    • Then you're an idiot. Only an idiot would believe such aberrant nonsense.

    • So someone shoots up a kosher supermarket and the reason is the role Jews played in Algeria?

      Why Jews? Why not French government officials?

      Because the entire theory is BS, just like everything Avnery writes.

      It is antisemitic to blame Jews for their own persecution. Period. And if your argument is that because a member of a religious group does something you don't like in one place, other members of that group should die in another place, then you're just making an argument for why Westerners should slaughter Arabs and Muslims en masse. Disgusting. Disgusting and shameful, Phil.

  • How two Palestinian Americans plan to PIVOT the world
  • One-state 'fantasy is very dangerous' because it cannot tell us what the military looks like -- Manekin
  • Americans oppose Netanyahu invite 2-to-1, but Dershowitz is all for it
    • "Of those who do support picking a side, the majority, 29%, back Israel, while only 2% support Palestine…"

      This is the only part that matters. You can pass all the Mickey Mouse radical chic student resolutions in the world, but as long as you can't get even 5% of Americans to support you, you're a complete failure.

  • Closed-door debate on divestment by U of Toledo student gov't to include officials from Jewish Federation
    • "So anti-Zionism is equated with anti-Semitism, when many Jews have long opposed the program of Jewish nationalism on other people’s land."

      Many African Americans, including Malcolm X, opposed integration. Does that mean defending Southern segregation wasn't racist?

      The vast majority of the Jewish community supports Israel's right to exist. Denying that right means opposing the consensus of the Jewish community.

  • US and Israel divorce rumors over Iran
  • Wide array of groups congratulate UC Santa Cruz for hosting Angela Davis on 'Ferguson to Palestine'
  • Stanford petition misrepresents resolution to divest from occupation
    • Great analogy, Jeff. That's exactly what it is. As usual, when Annie tells you to "come up with a better argument," it's code for, "I don't wanna deal with logic."

    • What a morass of tendentious dissembling by BDS activist Professor Palumbo-Liu.

      "The pro-divestment resolution does not aspire to “resolve” a “complex geopolitical issue.” Its sole aim is to stop Stanford’s financial involvement with companies that aid and abet illegal practices, practices that do great harm and damage to a captive population. Period. "

      C'mon, Professor. Surely, you can admit that these resolutions are tactics in pursuit of a greater goal of resolving the conflict in the Palestinians' favor. If you can't even admit that, then you're either purposely obfuscating your aim, or you're being extremely naive.

      "The “current state of affairs” is again a diversion from the single target of divestment—divestment aims only at distancing Stanford from a set of practices roundly and multiply condemned by international law, as the many documents from sources such as the United Nations, provided within the resolution, prove."

      But, again, you seem interest in only address international law as it pertains to Israel, and there is no record of the activists behind the resolution launching similar campaigns to deal with any other human rights situation in the world, including those of Israel's neighbors, and those of Israel's adversaries, like Hamas, so, surely, you can acknowledge that many people read resolutions like this as attempts simply to support one side to a two-party conflict, and not as a statement in favor of international law enforcement.

      "There is absolutely no evidence that those supporting divestment do or would sign onto BDS."

      So this resolution is not supported by the BDS movement? What does the D stand for again?

      "Indeed, if they did one would assume they would press for a boycott as well."

      So, the group pushing for divestment does not support a boycott? You certainly do.

      "But the anti-divestment side provides no evidence whatsoever for the claim that BDS does not aim toward a peaceful resolution."

      Simply point me to the sources where the BDS has condemned Palestinian suicide bombings and advocated peaceful negotiations between the two protagonists. Heck, point me to a place where the BDS movement has specifically defined the right to resist, read by everyone in the region as a right to kill Israeli civilians, as only encompassing non-violent tactics.

      Alas, your argument contradicts itself. First you say that divestment isn't about a solution. Then you say that divestment isn't BDS. Then you say that BDS is about a peaceful resolution. Which is it? It's whatever is most politically expedient for your argument, professor, right?

      "The rhetorical move that ends the paragraph is again an attempt at guilt by association—but the distance between a group of American university students and a reputed (and unnamed) portion of the leadership of an organization in Israel-Palestine is so great as to not have any logical weight."

      Are you serious, professor? Are you now asserting that the entirety of the leadership of the BDS movement is based in Israel-Palestine? Can you support that assertion with facts? Does most of the money to organize the BDS movement in the United States come, in fact, from the Middle East? I'd love to learn.

      Are you also arguing now that BDS supporters like those at Mondoweiss are wrong to associate a student divestment petition with the BDS movement? If it's wrong for anti-divestment advocates to associate a student divestment petition with the BDS movement, logic dictates that it's wrong for BDS activists to do so as well.

      "One possible reason for the rejection of “peace initiatives” is that Israel itself has violated the terms of such initiatives repeatedly and with impunity."

      So, your argument now appears to be that because Israel "violated a ceasefire" because of the murder of three settler youths by Hamas activists, Hamas retroactively reputed all peace initiatives in its founding Charter.

      "72 Israelis killed. Of whom only 6 were civilians...This vast disproportion bespeaks the ardent and systematic effort on the part of the Israeli government to collectively punish a population, destroy its infrastructure, and terrorize its civilian population. "

      Did only 6 civilians die because Hamas didn't target civilians, or did only 6 civilians die because Israel actually builds bomb shelters rather than weapon smuggling tunnels? Is the targeting of civilians not a crime unless civilians actually die? I'd say that the disproportion bespeaks the efforts Israel makes to protect its civilians, and the stupidity of Hamas attacking the civilians of a country with a real army.

      "Finally, to mention that other countries engage in human rights violations as a pretext for our remaining complicit with Israel’s violations is bizarre."

      It is? I think it's called consistency, Professor. If you want to avoid being a hypocrite who obsessively criticizes one small country but remains relatively silent on much worse human rights problems around the world, open your mouth and address those examples with the fervency and vitriol that you direct at Israel. It's just logical, Professor, if indeed you do care about human right in the way that you say that you do.

      "Nowhere in the document is there any assertion whatsoever that “all the blame” for the conflict lies with Israel. "

      No? Then please point me to the section of the resolution that recounts Palestinian violations of international law, and to those BDS movement leaders, or divestment petition leaders who will say publicly that blame lies on both sides.

  • 'She dedicated the whole of her young life to helping those in need of freedom, justice and peace': American hostage killed in Syria remembered for work in Palestine
    • She also worked with the Save Darfur coalition, but I notice that you're not highlighting that part. More important to talk about societal racism in Israel than it is to talk about the enslavement and genocide of Africans by Sudanese Arabs.

  • Dear Mr. Netanyahu, please don't cancel your speech
    • In any event, you're engaging in wishful thinking, Pollyanna. While Netanyahu's speech may be damaging to the pro-Israel community, it will not be nearly as damaging as you think, because the US-Israel relationship is based on much more than the lobby. That's the part you don't get, because you think it's all about the Jews.

    • Will you also be noting Kayla Mueller's work with the Save Darfur movement and her activism against the enslavement and genocide of Black Africans by Sudanese Arabs?

Showing comments 6940 - 6901
Page: