Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 7022 (since 2010-04-19 03:21:04)

Showing comments 7022 - 7001

  • 'Celebration of ethnic cleansing is intolerable': Baltimore JVP crashes 'Israeli Independence Day' party
    • I assume these same people will be flyering on July 4 to remind Americans that watching fireworks is the same thing as celebrating the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.

  • Accusations of anti-Semitism roil Stanford campus as student coalition denies discrimination charges
    • Put through, please.

    • Of course, there is no reason to disbelieve Molly Horwitz, and if 18 Jewish students corroborated her account and 1 SOCC student corroborated the SOCC account, people here would still support the SOCC account.

      And no, it is not appropriate to ask special questions to students based on their religious identity. If this were a state school, it would definitely be against the law, and my sense is that it's against the law for any school that receives federal funding.

    • "I wonder how many people would find it objectionable for a student who is a fundamentalist Christian, to be asked how his or her Christian identity would affect their position on gay marriage rights?"

      I would.

      "Even if they didn’t ask it, they probably should’ve done it."

      Krauss has always been one of the honest antisemites here.

      "What a starling coincidence. One week after the explosion of press generated from the UCLA judicial review — accusations of anti semitism “surge of hostile sentiment against Jews’ nationwide” that made it’s way into the pages of the NYT, Morning Joe, Huff Post — huge shitstorm on UC campuses across the state, allegedly, according to Molly Horwitz, (who’s mother happens to be an ardent supporter of Stand With Us), a panel from SOCC just happens to ask Horowitz the exact same question ???"

      Why are you surprised? Are you asserting that it would be surprising if students asked this question? Isn't that really what you want? To force Zionist Jewish students to be marginalized unless they support BDS?

  • Marking Memorial Day in Tel Aviv with Kahanists and Combatants for Peace
  • In defense of Cornel West's prophetic voice
  • If Not Now, When?: Jewish anti-occupation activism and accountability to Palestinians
    • "Whether the solution is two states or ten states or (as most of us in JVP tend to hope) one democratic and secular state,"

      Nice to see some honesty on that one. Really, everyone knows you're for a one-state solution. You don't have to hide it. If only you were honest enough to admit that calling for such a state is not the same thing as achieving equality or justice.

    • Oh please. You're clueless. J Street is comprised of smaller organizations that have been around for much longer. Get over yourself. Talk about posturing.

  • Dead End
    • You call for a moratorium on Holocaust remembrance (at a time of rising European antisemitism, no less), and Ayman Odeh does the right thing and calls on Palestinians to acknowledge the Holocaust. Seems to me you're no Jew of conscience. You're a Jew of madness.

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • I haven't lied at all. You refuse to accept the truth here, which is that the White Paper, which was promulgated in 1939, before the war started, was indirectly responsible for the deaths of many people, from the German Jews who could not go in 1939, to the Jews in Western Europe who could not go later. You offensively continue to blame the Jews for European sins, and it's horrible, horrible for you, horrible for this site, and horrible for the Palestinians, who are cursed with activists like you.

    • Lol. Yeah. I'm the one making the blood libel. You're unbelievable, man. Just unbelievable. It's sad.

    • He's suggested it elsewhere. I have no clue which JeffB comment you're talking about.

    • Zzzzzz. You got anything else, Professor, other than old discredited communist screeds about Zionists and Nazis and complaints about Begin that are 70 years out of days and weren't true when they were made 70 years ago? Kerry Bolton spends more time with fascists in a morning than Begin did in his entire life.

    • "ust the links alleging he was. he also provided a link written by bolton refuting this allegation. i thought neo nazis were proud of being neo nazis. why would he refute it?"

      Are you serious? Wikipedia article sets out his affiliation with fascist neo-Nazi parties in New Zealand. That's not something he refutes. The other link sets out his antisemitic views about Jews controlling the world. He's also written for CODOH, the Holocaust denial website, repeatedly. link to

      "it makes sense to refute the allegations in the bolton article would be to simply find counter narratives about what happened to those dead people. why not just prove he’s a liar by countering the allegations?"

      No, it makes sense not to dignify neo-Nazis and their websites. That HURTS the Palestinian cause. And that's exactly what you're doing. And as I've pointed out repeatedly, his sourcing is highly suspect and also unavailable. So that makes things difficult. But the honest thing to do is not to ask me to refute his nonsense. The honest thing to do is not to use neo-Nazi websites and rely on their bad sources for information.

    • No. I don't work on Wall Street. I'm in the public sector.

      I'm really not interested in discussing European Jewish history with you. It generally becomes an opportunity for you to miss the point and tell me about how much better Jews had it than Gentile peasants. Jews were very often restricted from owning land in Europe and forced to live in ghettos. That's when they weren't being slaughtered by their neighbors or being expelled and having their property stolen and sold off or being forced to convert.

      But again, you miss the point here. Zionism was about Jews being able to control their own destiny in a country of their own, after hundreds and hundreds of years of these expulsions, takings, slaughters, etc. That meant working the land with their hands, which, as Ben-Gurion said, meant a certain kind of dignity to Zionist pioneers, and indeed, working the land became a major part of Israel's identity, through the establishment of collective Kibbutzim and Moshavim. So you can read Ben-Gurion's statement ultra-literally, or you can read it as it was obviously meant.

    • "30,000 is not “hundreds of thousands”(your quote), hophmi. There were barely “hundreds of thousands’ of German Jews left in Germany in May of 1939 (when the British White Paper was signed) because the majority of them had managed to escape to other countries."

      This is tiresome. You stated that Jews were imprisoned in "the thousands." It was in the tens of thousands during Kristallnacht alone, not in the "thousands". You also talk about the emigrants. About 100,000 of the Jews from Germany emigrated to countries that Germany would eventually occupy, and most of them were killed, like Anne Frank. Nobody was in the dark about what was going to happen. Jews were systematically deprived of their rights between 1933 and 1939. And you repeat this abomination about Jews being unable to fulfill their quotas under the White Paper, which they were unable to do because Jews were unable to emigrate, not because they didn't want to. There were roughly 240,000 Jews left in Germany and Austria at the time of the Final Solution. 210,000 were murdered.

    • 1. "The Jewish Agency always had unused immigration certificates at its disposal, even after the 1939 White Paper policy went into effect"

      Unbelievable. You post an article from 1940 - AFTER THE WAR STARTED - which clearly says that the certificates could not be used because the Jews would wanted to use them were unable to secure travel. Just completely unbelievable that you would post this, from 1940, to suggest that the White Paper did not have the effect of condemning hundreds of thousands of Jews to death by denying them the ability to emigrate.

      When it became clear that the White Paper had condemned European Jews to certain death, and that the certificates were going to go to waste, the Jewish Agency looked for other ways to use them.

      2. The people who died on the Patria were NOT killed purposely. The Haganah put a bomb on the ship to disable it so that the British could not deport the passengers, and the explosion was larger than expected, and sank the ship very quickly. This was in the middle of the Holocaust. Your second-guessing of acts like this, meant to save the lives of Jewish refugees, is utterly abhorrent.

      link to

      3. You (mis)quote a CIA report that cites a "representative of the Jewish Agency" who says that 400,000 Jews in the Arab world may have to be "sacrificed" for the good of the Jewish community as a whole, and claim, based on this, that the Jewish Agency was not interested in their fate. But (a) the source you cite quote a representative, and says nothing about the position of the Jewish Agency Executive itself; (b) the source does not make clear whether sacrifice means leaving Jews to experience persecution in the Arab world, or eventually bringing them to Israel, and (c) the fact that Israel eventually absorb most Arab Jews suggests that whatever the actual position was, Israel ultimately did not leave Jews in Arab lands to be persecuted. I am glad, though, to see this rare acknowledgement that Jews in Arab countries were indeed persecuted.

      4. We're all familiar with statements of some Zionist leaders suggesting many European Jewish refugees postwar would be poor candidates for aliyah. Of course, Wiezmann's statement is little more than an acknowledgement of the limits of the resources in view of the land available and the money available to resettle refugees. This source is from 1940. (It's interesting, given other recent conversations here, that you don't include Weizmann's view endorsing partition.) In any event, it is in the most ardent bad faith that people would read Weizmann's statement as not "considering many Jews to be fit material for the Jewish community." Nothing of that sort is suggested here, and the great sadness is that Weizmann was very wrong; there were millions and millions more Jews murdered than he anticipated, and by the war's end, exceedingly fewer refugees than he had expected. In any event, Israel ultimately took in more DPs than anyone else.

      5. You persist again in bringing up old debates over the Evian Conference while omitting the context. The Jewish Agency was ultimately pessimistic about Evian because they were afraid that resettling Jews in the Diaspora would only perpetuate the misery Jews had experienced for centuries. In any event, the point could not be more moot today; most of the conference participants refused to let in any refugees, and the problem went unsolved. Again, to second-guess Ben-Gurion's views in 1938, on the eve of the Holocaust, when massive Jewish persecution was a reality in Germany and Austria, and was to be followed by the largest crime in human history, and when the true tragedy of Evian is that the countries would not act, is simply revolting.

      It's no small irony that today, as antisemitism again rears its ugly head in Europe, you criticize Israeli leaders for calling upon European Jews to emigrate.

    • I do not consider an obscure report (which, by the way, is not available on the internet) written by an antisemite partisan, to be a reliable source, and no self-respecting academic would. See, Mr. Fincham, the Associated Press is not the source of Kerry Bolton's claim. The report is. And the report is not reliable or searchable. If you'd like to furnish the report to us, or the AP copy it quotes, I'll be glad to take a look at it.

      Here is the wikipedia entry on Kerry Bolton.

      link to

      "Bolton was a co-founder of the Nationalist Workers' Party,[2] and was briefly secretary for the New Zealand Fascist Union in 1997,[5] in which he promoted the 'patriotic socialism' of 1930s Labour hero John A. Lee.[6] In 2004 he was the secretary of the New Zealand National Front[7][8][9] and spokesman[discuss] for the New Right group.[10][11] He was also involved for several years with the New Zealand National Front during the late 1970s and in 2004."

      He's a neo-Nazi, and it sounds like he's an adherent of Kevin McDonald's antisemitic theories about Jewish influence:

      link to

      See question 3:

      "Question #3: In Babel Inc. you have a chapter called ‘The Jewish Factor’ outlining the Jewish role in pushing globalization and multiculturalism. Presumably the Jewish motive to promote multiculturalism, as is argued by Kevin MacDonald in The Culture of Critique, is that Jews view traditional European societies with strong ethnic/cultural solidarity as an impediment to Jewish advancement and power. Weakening such cultures would thereby afford Jews a great ethnic advantage and lessen what they erroneously call “anti-Semitism.” How does the Jewish motive tie in with the globalist/capitalist/corporate motive? And is there any crossover seeing as Jews have a dominant position in the financial world?

      KB: Those who were previously usurers, old clothes merchants, market hagglers, or whatever, come to the fore when such traits are seen as somehow marks of success rather than traits of the underclass and the outcaste. In Western society Jews prosper from this cycle of Mammon, because the mark of citizenship is whether one pays taxes and functions as an economic unit. I think the Jewish capitalists and Zionists can have motives that are at times in conjunction with cosmopolitan capitalists and at times in divergent. Jewish interests are not always predicated on what is most profitable, but can be messianic. Kissinger and Soros, for e.g., have at times been in disagreement with Israel from the globalist viewpoint."

      But, you know, I guess it's completely OK for you people to quote the guy on Jews. It's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism, right?

    • Perfidy? Funny, that's the word one British MP used to describe the White Paper of 1939.

    • "First of all, Ben-Gurion is a shameless Zionist liar in the Alan Dershowitz mold. Secondly, this description is a parody of historical reality. Are you suggesting, for even a minute, that American Jews have historically been prevented from engaging in farming and other forms of manual labor? That Gentiles forced Jews to become Doctors, Lawyers, Financiers, Educators,etc? Well Hophmi, anytime you want to say goodbye to Wall Street and head west to become a migrant laborer living by the sweat of your brow, don’t let me or any other Gentile stop you! The very notion that Jews would have preferred to be peasants is ludicrous."

      Ben-Gurion is talking about European Jews, who were systematically kept from engaging in certain forms of manual labor, and contrasting this with the ability of Jews to work their own land in Palestine. He didn't say that Jews preferred to be peasants. He said Jews preferred the dignity of building their own country with their hands rather than being subservient to Gentile rulers who persecuted them. And yes, Gentiles restrictions on what professions Jews could pursue forced Jews into certain fields of work in Europe.

      Your antisemitic comment about Wall Street is duly noted. At the time of Ben-Gurion's statement, of course, there were not many Jews in Wall Street firms. Jews have been able to become more prominent on Wall Street since then, and, surprise, surprise, there are now antisemites like Keith and others who have come out of the woodwork to suggest that Jews are too involved in finance, and that there are too many rich Jews. It's typical.

    • Entry about Bolton on Wikipedia detailing his past as the leader of a New Zealand fascist party.

    • You're just wrong. 30000 people were sent to concentration camps after Kristallnacht alone. Just stop it.

    • Page: 70
    • I disagree. It's difficult to find most of these early documents. They're just old.

    • So I guess you regularly read the work of this neo-Nazi, David. One wonders why.

      Alas, most of the sources of this antisemitic article are a propaganda report published by the Mufti's Arab Higher Committee in 1948, which is neither a primary source nor a reliable one, and most of the rest are from another report published in 1970 by, surprise, surprise, the "Christian Nationalist Crusade." The writer of that report, Issa Nakhleh, is also the publisher of the "Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem," a work that -- surprise, surprise, again -- denies the Holocaust, calling World War II a "Jewish war." Nahkleh was also responsible for sending a letter to Senator Fulbright opposing Henry Kissinger's nomination for Secretary of State on grounds that Kissinger was a German Jewish refugees. He also published articles in the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial journal.

      These are Kerry Bolton's sources. His article is antisemitic garbage, just like he is, and your reputation as an academic whatever-you-are should suffer for your citation of his work in any respect. But you seem to be a regular reader of that neo-Nazi website; you cited them in another Mondoweiss piece. link to

    • "The King-Crane Commission reported that:

      —it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified. For a “national home for the Jewish people” is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine”"

      It is true that the King-Crane Commission opposed the creation of a Jewish state in 1919. It is also true that, whatever sympathy they may have had for the "Jewish cause," they were biased against Jews, at least in part, since their recommendations also include this: "The places which are most sacred to Christians-those having to do with Jesus-and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them." They seem not to have been as concerned about the governance of Jewish holy sites by Christians and Muslims.

      Other sources Hostage cites are notable for how wrong they were about Europe. Sylvain Levy complained about Jews seeking a state in Palestine when they were asking for equal rights in Europe. We all know what equal rights in Europe became between 1933 and 1945.

      As he always does, Hostage selectively quotes from Ben-Gurion's op-ed, which argues that after World War I, Arabs in the Middle East achieved independence in a land mass larger than Western Europe, and that Jews had no other place that they could call home. In that context, Ben-Gurion opposed partition. Ben-Gurion also wrote that "It was never the wish of Jews to dominate the Arabs" and noted the joint economic cooperation between Jews and Arabs. Nothing in Ben-Gurion's article suggests that British force was the only thing that would stop the Jews from taking over all of Palestine. All Ben-Gurion did was acknowledge that the British had the military power to impose a solution if they wanted, much as the Nazis could impose their will. Ben-Gurion also agreed that the British should govern the holy sites of the Old City, but rejected the plan's proposal to make the entire city, which by then had a substantial Jewish majority, an international city. Ben-Gurion was writing in a world where Adolf Hitler was ascendant, and at a time when Jews in Palestine were suffering through an Intifada. It is no wonder that he found the Partition Plan unjust.

      Hostage likewise selectively quotes Ben-Gurion's testimony to UNSCOP, and again draws unwarranted conclusions from it. Here are some highlights:

      "The homelessness and minority .position make the Jews always dependent on the mercy of others. The "others" may be good and may be bad, and the Jews may some time be treated more or less decently, but they are never masters of their own destiny, they are entirely defenceless when the majority of people turn against them..."

      Ben-Gurion also complained about the racist Land Transfer Regulations on 1940, which effectively prohibited Jews from purchasing land in 95% of the Mandate.

      Ben-Gurion also mentions the effect of the 1939 White Paper:

      "Just before the war we applied to the Colonial Secretary for permission to bring over 20,000 Jewish children from Poland and 10,000 youth from the Balkan countries. Permission was refused and those 20,000 Jewish children and the 10,000 youth were put to death. There were times when Jews could still escape from Nazi-occupied territories, but the gates of their National Home were closed by the Mandatory Power and they were sent to their death in Dachau and Tremblinka. I do not know whether you remember the case of the "Struma." It was a small ship which left Roumania at the end of December 1941, with 769 refugees. Roumania was then under Nazi occupation. The position of Jews there, as in other Nazi-occupied countries, was desperate. Jews, old and young, women and children, were herded into good-strains and dispatched to unknown destinations, which meant death in gas-chambers somewhere in Poland. On many occasions, they were collected in the streets and machine-gunned on the spot. In the city of Jassy alone 8,000 Jews were assembled in the marketplace and machine-gunned in cold blood. Whoever could do so tried to escape to the sea. The "Struma" was a cattle-boat which had originally been built for navigation on the Danube. The 769 refugees who managed to reach it did not care very much about the amenities of sea-travel; to get to Palestine or not meant life or death. The trip from the port of embarkation in Roumania to Istanbul took four days. The passengers were not allowed to land in Turkey, as they had, no visas either for Turkey or for their final destination. All the efforts of the Jew• Jewish Agency to get permission from the Government for them to enter Palestine were of no avail. The Agency was not even allowed to allot certificates in their possession to these unfortunate people, the reason given being that they were enemy subjects. The agony dragged on for more than two months. On 18 February, the Government agreed to allow children below the age of 1 to land, but it was already too late. The boat had to leave Istanbul. On 24 February, the "Struma" went down with 764 passengers. The refugees of the "Struma" were not the only direct victims of the White Paper, nor did all the refugee victims who came in ships die by drowning."

      Here is Ben-Gurion on the notion of Jewish privilege:

      "Perhaps the most amazing statement made in that memorandum is the representation of the Jews as a "privileged group" as against the Arabs, who are shown as hewers of wood and drawers of water. It would be interesting to know what are the special privileges accorded to Jews in Palestine. Is it that, as His Excellency the High Commissioner has mentioned the other week, that the Jews pay 70% of the taxes while the Arabs get approximately 70% of the services? But the real mischief of that statement lies rather in the second part of the sentence, denying us the privilege of being "hewers of wood and drawers of water"; we consider this as a great, true privilege. It was denied to us in many countries and many generations, when we were forced to live only in the cities, and in the cities we were confined to a limited number of occupations. We were forcibly divorced from work on the soil, and if there was an ideal, in addition to the love for our country, which animated the tens of thousands of Jewish youth who came to Palestine, it was the ideal of becoming hewers of wood and drawers of water, to do all kinds of hard physical work with their own hands, to live by the sweat of their brow. What distinguished the Jewish community in Palestine from Jewish communities in the Diaspora, is precisely that fundamental change in our economic structure, that the great majority of our people here are people who are doing hard manual work in the fields, in the factories, at sea and on the roads. In a Jewish community of some 600,000 there are more than 170,000 organized workers, men and women: that means more than one organized worker for every four persons, including the aged and babies. It is the pride of the Jewish Labour Movement in Palestine, that it raised the dignity of labour in a country where work is despised."

      Ben-Gurion also discusses the binationist vision of Hashomer Hatzair.

      I can find nowhere in Ben-Gurion's testimony a call for a Jewish state to created in Palestine by force and to be administered as a trusteeship. He rejects the trusteeship idea as unworkable:

      "What a single Mandatory cannot do, a joint trusteeship will be able to do far less. Intensive development and large-scale immigration require a dynamic administration, constant initiative, quick decisions and continued action. An administration taking directives from different governments can hardly perform a task of this nature."

      While Ben-Gurion suggested that if a separate state for Palestinian Arabs was necessary, that they could seek it elsewhere, in the vase tracts of land set aside for Arab self-determination after World War I, he also went out of his way to talk about Jewish-Arab cooperation in a Jewish state, in the context of an extended argument for why, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the culmination of the persecution Jews faced in Europe and the Middle East as a minority population dependent on others for safety. This context is, of course, omitted completely from Hostage's account.

    • "um your chronology is off the knowledge of the nazi deathcamps didn’t happen until late in 41 and the genoicide your refering to as the holocaust didn’t start until than either. "

      By 1939, hundreds of thousands of German Jews had already been killed or imprisoned. The White Paper cut off one of their main avenues of exit. This is why the Guardian called the 1939 White Paper a "death sentence" for tens of thousands of Jews.

    • "The idea of “Arab ethnic exclusivity” seems a bit dodgy, in the face of the fact that most Middle Eastern Jews historically were Arabs . . ."

      And Jews in Middle Eastern countries were ok as long as they paid fealty to Arab rulers. Once there was a Jewish state, ie, once they developed political consciousness, they were unwelcome and suffered greater persecution, whether they supported Israel or not. That's not tolerance, and that's not protection. That's subjugation.

      "In short, you are saying that the conflict comes from pre-Zionist anti-Jewish attitudes, rather than from Zionist plans and actions."

      There is no question that quite a bit of the Arab hostility to Israel comes from pre-Zionist anti-Jewish attitudes.

    • "the palestinians aren’t required to accept people into their country who are hostile to them. "

      The Palestinians didn't write the White Paper; in fact, their leaders rejected it because it didn't restrict Jewish emigration entirely. In 1939. The Guardian, the paper you all know and love, denounced it as a death sentence for tens of thousands of Jews. Seems to me that the Guardian was exactly right.

    • "Mr/MsHughes, thank you for that information. Just a note on Jews and the Holy Places – have you seen the following article which describes some very nasty behavior in 1948 and 1967"

      Have you seen the rest of what's on Kerry Bolton is a neo-Nazi and a Holocaust denier who used to be the secretary of the New Zealand Fascist Union. But you fell for it , yet again. Maybe, perhaps, this brand of antisemitism is a problem in the anti-Israel movement.

      link to

      link to

    • "I read recently, but can’t recall the source, that the German public was well aware of Zionist efforts on behalf of the British and may have been a major source of the outbreak of antisemitism in Germany and Austria in the 1920s and 30s."

      Der Sturmer?

    • I don't know why you had trouble finding the Resolution on the net. You offer no evidence to show that it was suppressed; it is from 1921 and the older resolutions are hard to find as well. Here is an entire report from the 12th Zionist Congress. link to

    • You see no Jew hatred in a document restricting Jewish immigration on the eve of the Holocaust promulgated by the same people who cut deals with Hitler? Then you are truly obtuse.

      Stop apologizing for the Mufti. Most Palestinians don't, and neither should you.

    • I thought the author was answering all comments. He doesn't seem to have answered mine.

    • So I guess you're in favor of all of the white people leaving the United States of America and giving the country back to its Native American indigenous population. Good to know.

    • Gotta love the extremists. Only they would say that entire pro-Palestinian set of pieces should be suppressed because the author favors peace between Jews and Palestinians.

    • Or simply, the Carlsbad resolution suggests that Zionists have always vied for peace, and it is their Arab neighbors who have been unwilling to make peace with them.

    • Why is my comment still in moderation?

    • And therein lies your bias. Zionism, as proved by documents like the Carlsbad Resolution, is in no way racist.

    • 1. To mention the 1939 White Paper without mentioning the Holocaust is more than a little obtuse. And typical of the myopia of anti-Zionist historians. It is nor possible to understand one without the other, and it is disingenuous to omit the Nazi ties of major Palestinian leaders, and the Jew hatred that was a part of the reason the White Paper was drafted.

      2. There is nothing embarrassing about the Carlsbad resolution. Zionists have always been willing to live in peace with their Arab neighbors. Theirs Arab neighbors have always rejected any organized Jewish presence in the region as a threat to their Muslim and Arab ethnic exclusivity. That is why, even when they were treated relatively well, Jews were still second class citizens in the Arab Middle East.

  • Netanyahu played 'decisive' role in Senate bill aimed at stymieing Iran deal
    • Iran also said that it wanted sanctions lifted before anything happens. This is how people stake out negotiating positions. I'm sure, given that Iran is apparently a rational power, that they understand that the United States, just like Iran, has a domestic political system. If the ayatollah is bent on signing a deal, it needs to mollify Iranian hardliners. If the pro-Iran lobby NIAC is unhappy, so be it. I think the bill actually makes a deal more probable, rather than less, because I don't think the President would sign it if the situation were otherwise.

      The notion that this is an example of "corruption" is laughable, and the case against Menendez has nothing to do with Iran, in my view; Menendez is from New Jersey, which has a dysfunctional political culture, and there have been rumors of corruption since he was in Congress.

      Overwhelmingly, Americans want Congress to have a role in affirming any agreement the President makes with Iran. That's why the bill has bipartisan support, and why, ultimately, the White House will sign it. While the Executive Branch is paramount in foreign policy, Congress involving itself in foreign policy matters where there is this much public interest, and frankly, this much risk, is nothing new. It's called democracy.

  • Just like the Nazis, Iran 'plans to exterminate six million Jews' -- Netanyahu
    • Just - I don't think I care what you think is beneath contempt.

    • "Iran funds terrorist attacks all over the world?"

      Yep. link to

      "hophmi, you are the one who hates America"

      LOL. I'm rubber, you're glue, and Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism.

    • "Repeatedly? No. "

      LOL. You're in denial, friend. Iranian leaders have been saying this for year. What the heck is "Death to Israel" supposed to mean?

      "Holding a conference on the Holocaust is not automatically Holocaust denial. "

      Really. Again, LOL. Who showed up? link to

      I just love the way people here defend the worst of Iran.

    • So which part of what Netanyahu said is wrong, Phil? Has Iran not threatened to annihilate the Jewish state repeatedly? Has it not held Holocaust denial conferences? Have there not been moments in the past when do-gooders have valued paper agreements over common sense? Iran is a totalitarian state ruled by a cleric. It funds terrorist groups and terrorist attacks around the world. Why is that reality absent, completely, from your analysis? Because it's too hard for you to contemplate? Because you hate the United States more than you hate Iran? Because you think your Judaism requires you to support Iran? These are questions you should answer, rather than reverting to silly accusations of fascism.

      One doesn't need to agree with Netanyahu to understand his argument. I don't agree with him, but I don't think opposing the Iran deal is fascism.

  • No Palestinians need apply to program on 'Palestinian issue' at Center for American 'Progress'
  • Obama got Senate to reject 'two of Netanyahu's demands' on Iran (but the 'NYT' won't touch that angle)
    • "Gather all the pennies you can, find some London bookmaker and double–down on Helen Mirren winning best actress, and Woman in Gold winning best picture, 2015."

      Really? Again, you allow this antisemitic garbage here. Yes, Jews who control Hollywood are in a conspiracy to undermine the Iran deal by creating Holocaust movies two years in advance starring Helen Mirren, which will, despite bad reviews, win Best Picture. You guys are sick puppies.

    • "As I’ve said before, Obama shares a significant part of the blame here. It was he who jumped on the sanctions bandwagon in 2009, no doubt because of his short sighted desire to demonstrate his tough guy credentials, and now he’s hamstring by a trap of his own making. . .I am a big supporter of this deal."

      Then you should have been a big supporter of the sanctions, without with this deal would not have happened.

    • "Polls show that by 2-1 Americans support a deal with Iran and oppose the Congress’s inserting itself into negotiations."

      Which ones? Americans overwhelmingly support Congressional oversight on the Iran deal. 4-1. link to

  • Obama's long & passionate Monday with Saban, Foxman, Hoenlein and other Jewish leaders demonstrates power of Israel lobby
    • "Last year two Haaretz writers said that the influence of American Jews over imperial policy fulfilled the caricatured belief contained in the notorious anti-semitic Russian forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

      And you seem to take the analogies seriously, as is your wont. That's telling.

      How long are you going to continue to complain about how the media isn't covering the Israel lobby while posting stories from the media covering the Israel lobby?

  • 'United States of Israel' has compromised U.S. 'sovereignty' on Iran policy -- Gideon Levy in D.C.
    • "frankly hops, the way you’ve phrased your question is transparently deceptive."

      I'm sure you think that you have a clever comeback here, but no, it's not transparent if you actually read Levy's columns. Levy constantly complains about his treatment within Israeli society, which is repeatedly represented by him (in the public column he's had forever) and by people here to be closed to perspectives like his. Does Levy (or any other visible columnist who is a dissident, and who promotes himself as a dissident) expect to receive no response? It's a little childish to write as Levy writes and then to complain that he receives nasty letters as a result, as if this were in any way limited to Israel. I mean, come on. The guy writes for a prominent international newspaper with at least two others who share a lot of his perspective, Rachlevsky and Amira Haas. He's written for Ha'aretz for well over 30 years and he lives in Tel Aviv. Nu, who's coming after him? Only people in the West seem to actually buy this guy's persecution complex, because it doesn't seem like anyone in Israel really does.

      I'd say that for the newspaper columnist today, three things are certain, regardless of political perspective: death, taxes, and hate mail.

    • Phil, if you know, how many non-Zionist Israelis have been killed or seriously injured because their political views? Yitzhak Rabin was one; he was assassinated by an extremist. Ze'ev Sternhall was physically attacked. But that's about it.

      In India, multiple heads of state and high ranking officials have been murdered for their political views. In the United States, four Presidents have been assassinated, and virtually all of them have been targeted for assassination.

      Gideon Levy loves to complain as if he were the only radical columnist in Israel. He isn't. The only difference I know of between him and other radical columnists in Israel is his endless nasty streak; he writes these nasty columns bashing his fellow citizens, and he loves to give speeches abroad doing the same thing; abroad, of course, he's a celebrated Pablo Christiani. He has a vested interest in claiming that he's under threat. There is nothing at all significant about some commentator who claims that a guy like Gideon Levy is a traitor. You can find similar discourse about Barack Obama any day of the week in the right-wing blogosphere, and, I bet, about any number of figures throughout the world.

      Somehow, Dimi Rieder and Noam Sheizaf, and many others write leftist criticism of Israeli society, and live there at the same time. Somehow Sefi Rachlefsky writes in Ha'aretz from a post-Zionist and sometimes an anti-ZIonist perspective. Somehow, Dov Kheinin keeps getting elected to the Knesset. So maybe Israeli society is not as sick as Gideon Levy claims that it is.

  • Israel could reduce anti-Semitic violence by not calling itself the Jewish state, Finkelstein says
    • OK. I'm all ears. Substantiate the claim that "most" of the violence between "Jews" and "Palestianian/Palestinian solidarity" activists has been committed by the "Jews." Hard data, please, and relative to size of respective said groups. No anecdotes.

    • Can you substantiate that claim, Shmuel?

    • Not that I want to feed the snake here, but I think Jon S is referring to the observance by Jews of laws regarding both sexual activity and hygiene, which may have set Jews apart from their neighbors in that regard. Why Mooser is so exercised about this, I have no idea.

    • If you're worried about legacy admissions, then worry about legacy admissions. Jews have benefitted very little from it. They've been admitted to Ivy League institutions in real numbers from maybe two or three generations, and until the 1960's, they were admitted in the face of discrimination, rather than benefitting from any alleged institutional bias in their favor.

    • And here, we have the Christ-killing accusation. But it's only anti-Zionism, folks, only anti-Zionism. ,

    • Antisemitism at Mondoweiss, everyone. Jews control the economy and use their "power" to "control the discourse and silence competing voices" and they discriminate against Gentiles.

  • Faithwashing: the Muslim Leadership Institute and the academic boycott
    • "it’s my recollection that the jewish interfaith people backed out of the interfaith dialogue with the presbyterian church after they divested from companies profiting off the occupation, not the other way around."

      "The Jewish interfaith people"? I don't know who they are. I know that I haven't backed out of any interfaith conversation because of the choice of some institution to endorse BDS. And I also know that most Muslim organizations will not participate in dialogue with Jewish organizations that don't already endorse BDS. Of course, if you had a clue, you'd know that these conversations are not always based around large institutions.

      "but wasn’t it ruet who developed the “red lines” on acceptable speech and dialogue? no discussion of apartheid, no discussion of the non violent resistance of bds?"

      You mean Reut? I'm sorry, does Reut speak for all Zionist Jews, now?

      "about people in the sjp community and in the BDS movement on campuses have been smeared as anti semites – by the organized hasbrats? – and purely for political purposes? you don’t find that horrifying?"

      Depends on the situation. As someone who has fought against that particular tendency in my own community, yes, it's sometimes horrifying, in the same way smearing everyone who criticizes Islamic extremism as Islamophobic is horrifying, in the same way that smearing people who favor "Happy Holidays" as anti-Christian is much more horrifying. Often, however, it's completely justified. I can't help it if there are a lot of people in the BDS movement who don't understand why accusing Jews of using financial and political power to undermine the United States (as opposed to simply arguing that a certain policy is wrongheaded without impugning the motives of the proponents) is antisemitic. That these sentiments are oft-repeated by BDS activists, or Jewish activists in the BDS movement, does not make them any less hateful.

    • "you’re just gonna have to learn how to put up w/ the pushback. quit whining!"

      I put up with it just fine, as one little guy against the swarm here. As long as you're a moderator, you should be following the commenting rules. You do know about the commenting rules, right? But you don't, and that's unfortunate, and very typical. How many of Mooser's non-substantive comments have you put up today? Just curious. I see he's been posting them in bunches. I bet you put through every one as soon as they appear.

    • "n-n-n-n-no. i don’t make that claim. i’d sorta like nothing better than dividing the zionists from the non zionists."

      Oh, come on. Stop dissembling. Half the dialogue here is about dividing the Jewish community into "Jews of conscience," and everyone else.

      "it’s not a requirement. but frankly, i’m not sure how mutual respect and understanding can happen between an oppressor and the oppressed. they’ve been dialoguing for decades haven’t they, while settlements, lawn mowing, slaughters, imprisonment and bulldozed homes continue."

      So now Israel is oppressing all Muslims?

      "a chance to experience zionism? israel? uh huh. you mean like normalizing the occupation?"

      "let’s just call it what it is hops, faithwashing."

      How is it "normalizing the occupation" to visit Israel? I'm fascinated with these facile slogans that pass for arguments here. If I visit East Los Angeles, do I "normalize poverty?" If I visit a police station, do I "normalize" police brutality? If I visit India, do I "normalize" caste discrimination? If I visit Iraq, do I "normalize" ISIS?

      Same with the attachment of the word "washing" to everything. Especially by people who apologize for terrorism and do not apologize for antisemitism.

      "no i’m not. if this was about judaism and islam you could do it right here in the US. it’s political, it’s about normalizing zionism, that’s why it’s taking place in israel. it’s a ruse."

      It is? How so? A ruse for what? Are MLI members a day old? Are they unaware of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do they live under rocks? Are their staff incapable of researching the Hartman Institute? Yes, it's an e-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-e ruse. Bring MLI members to Jerusalem. Show them Jews are not people with horns. They'll automatically become Likudnik Zionist. You know what a ruse is? Telling people you're for human rights and justice and then refusing to condemn Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians. That's a ruse.

      "i look on the bright side, you’ve got a tiny handful of american muslims heading off to israel for the zionist experience, and bds is having a pied piper effect across campuses all over the US, including american jewish youth. "

      Pied piper. That's a great way to describe it. Children following an evil idea that leads to their eventual death. link to

    • "what mooser said “Must be a ‘covert outreach’ thing.” is not what i would consider a personal attack nor harassment."

      Then you don't understand the meaning of the term, or you purposely do not read things in context. Mooser is a clown. I ignore him 95% of the time. Where I have drawn the line in the past is his serial attempts to try to get me to divulge details about my personal life, and he is not the first to do it here. And yes, after a while, even I get tired of his constant and obsessive needling, which you lovingly enable by putting through I don't how many comments regarding my participation in Jewish-Muslim interfaith work.

      Phil agrees with me, by the way, that I put up with a lot of nonsense here; I've written him a number of times, and he's always been a gentleman. I think he's repulsed by a good deal of the commentary here.

      "in fact, there’s a very public campaign to smear all pro palestinian activism on american campuses as anti semitic! "

      That's nice. It has nothing to do with me. I would never say that all pro-Palestinian activism on American campuses is antisemitic.

      "so please, nothing like that is happening to you here. you can’t dish it out and then scream foul when the information you provide is used against your argument."

      OK, Annie. It's just a coincidence that you have maybe three Zionists who post here regularly, and that, in clear violation of the commenting rules, you allow through dozens and dozens of non-substantive comments that do little but attack us in personal terms. It doesn't surprise me that you have blinders on, and it doesn't really bother me very much; I've spent enough time around radical activists to know that many of them are very, very angry people, especially when they are Westerners. Feeling perpetually disenfranchised and feeling like no one in society ever listens to you can make you really upset, just as it does most two-year-olds. Phil, by the way, is not in that group.

      So, with all due respect, don't lecture me about "taking it." I've been here a long time and I've taken it better than anyone here does. As I've said many times, if I wanted to take it easy, I'd go somewhere where everyone already agrees with me, like most people here have done.

    • "Or maybe they think that there’s an advantage in creating a deep crevasse within the american muslim (as well as arab christian) community"

      You mean, you're not for creating crevasses in American minority communities to advance a political aim? Just what are you doing with the American Jewish community?

      "If they were truly interested in merely promoting mutual respect and understanding in the Jewish-Muslim relations in North America, i’m sure they could find a way to do it without requiring members of the american arab community to disrespect that call."

      I see. So I guess Muslims interested in promoting mutual respect and understanding with the Jewish community could find a way to do it without requiring members of the American Jewish community to boycott other Jews.

      And by the way, who is requiring anybody in the American Arab community to disrespect anything? Nobody put a gun to the head of the people in MLI and forced them to go.

      "Unless, of course, the the Hartman Institute is not primarily interested in promoting mutual respect and understanding. Improving Jewish-Muslim relations in North America at the expense of Muslim relations in North America, is rather transparent."

      Is it? How so? Israel is an important thing for Jews. Hartman offers a chance for Muslim American leaders to experience it. Again, no one is holding a gun to their heads here, except maybe people like you, who threaten to smear them if they don't toe the BDS line. It seems as though the only people messing with Jewish-Muslim relations are people in the BDS movement, who oppose such dialogue unless it endorses BDS.

      "more like improving zionist-muslim relations. or is there jewish anti or non zionists participation?"

      Are anti-Zionists (a small minority of the Jewish community) now permitted to go on Hartman Institute trips? And do they wish to go?

      "there’s a conflation here of judaism w/zionism"

      LOL. And you're conflating Islam with BDS by suggesting that Muslims and Arabs should not violate its picket line.

      Again, no one forced these guys to go.

    • "so i take it you don’t do real outreach. on account of you getting a kick out of blowing your own horn., albeit anonymously. but you’re still here blowing your own horn."

      You really are a piece of work. You allow Mooser to harass and bully me, and then you do things like this. Just wow. I don't think I know many people who act with this level of bad faith.

    • I'm sorry, I just have to note that no fewer than three times here, in the space of 20 comments, Mooser harps on this point about my affiliation with Jewish-Muslim dialogue groups:

      "Mooser April 8, 2015, 3:59 pm
      ” Good approach for becoming a closed-minded fool.”

      Hophmi, this would be a perfect time to tell us the names of the two “Muslim outreach” organizations on which you say you serve on the Boards of Directors. Anybody can see that, in addition to being the number-one diagnoser of Jewish self-hatred, you are also the Outreach King.
      C’mon Hophmi, show these guys what real outreach looks like."

      "Mooser April 8, 2015, 9:02 pm
      BTW, mentioning “The Phils will Fall Away” and Hophmi’s “Board of Directners of Muslim-outreach” positions sure produces a paucity of Hophmis.

      What a modest fellow."

      "Mooser April 9, 2015, 10:33 am
      Thanks, Walid, for linking to that. Ever heard of a guy who is on the Boards of Directors of two Muslim-outreach organizations, but can’t tell us his name, or the name of the organizations? Must be a ‘covert outreach’ thing."

      So in the span of about 30 hours, three separate comments, none substantive, all personal attacks on me that violate the comment rules and are meant to harass me and have me reveal personal details about my life, were put through by the moderator. I think there's something wrong with the moderator who allows this cyberbullying to go on, and with the person who feels the needs to obsessively harass me like this.

    • Mooser: Real outreach is not something people involved tend to talk about publicly, because Jews like me face harassment from people like you on the radical left and from Zionists on the radical right and Muslims involved in outreach face harassment from similarly radicalized people in their own communities, and if they live in the Middle East, they often face serious danger at home. Although there are exceptions, in my experience, the people who do real outreach are not the kinds of people who love to blow their own horns. And no Mooser, I am not the "outreach king." There are many, many Jews and Muslims involved in outreach of some kind.

      Because you're so interested in my personal life: My participation in Muslim-Jewish outreach is with Muslim communities in New York. I am on the board of a new organization called the Jewish-Muslim Volunteer Alliance, which does joint Jewish-Muslim volunteering and holds an annual Iftar dinner each year, and I also sit on the board of an institute within the American Jewish Committee that does Muslim-Jewish outreach, and has done work with Imam Khalid Latif of NYU, mentioned above. Many of the Muslims we work with tend to be people who came from South Asian families, but there are a significant number of Arab Muslims involved as well.

      I also have close friends involved with the Muslim-Jewish Conference, an international organization based in Europe that brings young Jews and Muslims from around the world together each year in Europe, often at great risk to the Muslims, who are often afraid to talk about it in their home countries, and the NYU Building Bridges program, which is a joint program between NYU Rabbi Yehuda Sarna and Imam Latif, who are the chaplains of their respective communities at NYU. Despite what you may read here, not all Muslims are on board with the idea of avoiding working with Jewish organizations, and not all Jewish organizations restrict their institutional work with Muslims to those who are "Arab Zionists" or some brand of disgruntled Muslim apostate. Perhaps you can simply get it through your heads that Jewish organizations like AJC and ADL are really much bigger than their position on Israel, and that there is a huge range of perspectives within the Jewish communal world on all of this stuff, rather than taking the myopic view that everyone thinks the same in the American Jewish community and Israel advocacy is somehow all they do because this is all that you're interested in because this is the only thing you see on TV. It's always funny how all of you criticize the MSM, and then fail to consider how you yourselves might be negatively affected by its proclivities.

      Some of my friends, who know some of the MLI participants, are horrified by the way people in the Muslim community and in the BDS movement have smeared them for political purposes. These are good people, who simply reject the idea that they should live their lives by the dictates of Palestinian NGO's, radical Western activists, and other Muslim NGO's who wish to segregate Muslims from most Jews, whether they sympathize with the Palestinians or not (and most do). As usual with this conflict, it seems impossible for people to criticize an idea without trashing the people who may disagree with them.

      Donald: "I’m not sure why anyone needs to go to Israel in association with a group that supported the bombing of Gaza. One can learn the various Israeli points of view without giving legitimacy to people who are comfortable applauding for war crimes."

      I don't think so, Donald. I don't think anyone can fully appreciate the various Israeli points of view without actually visiting Israel and speaking to people there (because you might just learn why people who have to run to bomb shelters every five minutes might support military action against people who fire rockets at their countrymen), and regardless, I certainly don't think that people deserve to be harassed and smeared if they choose to go. Perhaps you can think for a second and recognize the irony of saying that people shouldn't affiliate with an organization that supported the bombing of Gaza when the BDS movement has repeatedly failed to condemn Palestinian terrorism. All you're doing is guilt-by-association, and the truth is that your problem is with these guys visiting Israel at all, not with their visiting on the Hartman Institute's dime.

      "If MSM is what one reads/watches then ALL they hear is the Israeli pov~ from Israelis, American Zionists, CUFIs, US politicians, newspeakers and editors."

      Yeah, that's a nice well-worn cop-out, but it's nonsense; hearing government officials or American advocates is not a substitute for talking to actual Israelis just like hearing Iranian officials on TV is not a substitute for talking to Iranian people and listening to American officials on TV is not a substitute for talking to actual Americans. As I said, the same MSM focuses on Israel obsessively, which leads people here to think that large Jewish communal organization focus on Israel and nothing else, when the reality is that Israel advocacy is a small part of their work.

      Walid: The people in MLI are not "Arab Zionists." The people you're talking about are generally apostates, some of whom converted to Christianity and now work for Christian evangelical organizations as Pablo Christiani types. The people involved in MLI are Muslim leaders who are interested in seeing things for themselves in Israel. You're just going to have to come to grips with the fact that not every Muslim, and this is particularly true for Muslims outside of the Middle East, practices the same brand of politics as you do. The way people like you are treating MLI participants is exactly the way you accuse the Jewish community of treating Jews who are either liberal Zionists or non-Zionists.

      Perhaps, Mooser, you can detail your outreach work for us now.

    • Ah yes, the BDS red lines. Exclude all Zionist perspectives, prohibit Muslims from seeing Israel for themselves, and defame those Muslims who refuse to have people like Sa'ed Atshan think for them. But the same people argue that Hillel should be wide open.

      "For hope, I often turn to Jewish people of conscience in Israel and around the world, including those in Jewish Voice for Peace in the US, that have been partners in the global Palestinian solidarity movement."

      For hope, I turn to people who already agree with everything I say. Good approach for becoming a closed-minded fool.

  • Hurt by the Israel lobby, Obama kisses it goodbye
    • "Israel is anti progressive"

      Try something other than the "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach, Seafoid.

      The claim of most Israelis today is that they have a functioning democracy in the Middle East, where there aren't any other functioning democracies, not that they're entitled to the land because of the Bible. There is zero question that Israel is the most progressive state in the region.

    • Yes, perhaps. Perhaps I should also ask why the United States also supported the Shah. Perhaps.

      In any event, it remains the case that Iran is run by theocrats, and that the most robust defense of Iran comes from the radical left. It remains the case that anti-Israel activists regularly rely on Iran state press, much like radical leftists relied on Pravda during the Cold War.

    • "Hurt by the Israel lobby, Obama kisses it goodbye"

      Once again, you're engaging in magical thinking here that is the mirror image of the thinking of rightists who say that the President is anti-Israel. I don't know how many times the President has to demonstrate his support for Israel for you to believe that he means it. It's clearly a difference of opinion over tactics, not a difference over whether Iran should have nuclear weapons.

      I don't know why, Phil, you and others are so supportive of a theocracy that is anti-progressive, antisemitic, and anti-democracy. You quote their media, and you carry their water. You accuse others of being PEP, progressive except for Palestine, but that's a lot better than what you are, PEME, progressive except for the Middle East. Maybe you're not progressive at all. Maybe you just oppose a mostly secular Jewish state, but not religious states in general, since you apparently have no criticism to offer of Iranian theocracy.

    • "thus creating a level playing field & removing any need for Iran to have them."

      Your analytical skills are deficient if you seriously believe that Israel is the only reason Iran wants nuclear weapons (which, by the way, the vast majority of Mondoweissers claim that they're not pursuing in the first place).

  • 'NYT' addresses pro-Israel donors' influence over Congress
  • Double standard in US political culture: BDS is fine for Indiana, not Israel
    • Apples and oranges, Phil. Indiana faces no threat from gay people. Israel faces a threat from terrorism in the Middle East. People understand the difference, even if you studiously do not.

  • DEAL!
    • I guess you guys should call yourselves PEI, Progressive Except Iran. Of course, most of you are not progressive to begin with, so that's probably a misnomer. No, you should just call yourselves SFA, Soldiers for the Ayatollah.

      Don't understand why any progressive would support the Ayatollah regime, which suppresses the will of its own people, kills dissident, discriminates against minority faiths, and fund terrorism all over the world.

  • Netanyahu to stage hunger strike against world peace
    • "The move is widely popular in Israel where a Channel 2 poll taken Monday shows Jewish Israelis are against world peace almost 6 to 1"

      Wow, that's really funny in a region where there is war in just about every other place but Israel.


  • Video: Max Blumenthal on the ways Zionism exploits anti-Semitism
    • "“indigenize” an Israeli Hebrew word? What does it mean? It’s not a word, Hophmi, and it’s not any kind of a recognized political or social process relevant to Zionism."

      Ask Max Blumenthal. He's the one who used it. But I think the meaning is pretty clear, and I think it's pretty racist, since half of the Jews in Israel are not Ashkenazim.

    • "black people aren’t expelled from the black community for being anti affrimitive action."

      Oh no? How many times has Ward Connerly or John McWhorter spoken to a mainstream African-American organization, or a campus Black Students Union, in the past decade?

      "most jews are zionists do to the implicent threat if they have a differing opinion. your own hatred of gilad atzmon is case in point."

      Another vote for an extreme antisemite. Seems we have a lot of Atzmon fans here at Mondoweiss.

    • Sorry, here are some Atzmon quotes for Mooser, Giles, and whomever else who is misguided here:

      "Sadly, we have to admit that hate-ridden plunder of other people’s possessions made it into the Jewish political discourse both on the left and right. The Jewish nationalist would rob Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in the name of world working class revolution."

      "Were Jewish Marxists and cosmopolitans open to the notion of brotherhood, they would have given up on their unique, exclusive banners and become ordinary human beings like the rest of us."

      "I do not consider the Jews to be a race, and yet it is obvious that “Jewishness” clearly involves an ethno centric and racially supremacist, exclusivist point of view that is based on a sense of Jewish “chosen-ness.”

      "The endless trail of Jewish collective tragedies is there to teach us that Jews always pay eventually (and heavily) for Jewish power exercises. Yet, surprisingly (and tragically) enough, Jews somehow consistently fail to internalise and learn from that very lesson."

      On antisemitism:

      "The remarkable fact is they don't understand why the world is beginning to stand against them in the same way they didn't understand why the Europeans stood against them in the 1930s. Instead of asking why we are hated they continue to toss accusations on others."

      More here:

      link to

      But you know, he's just an anti-Zionist. LOL.

    • "All the zionists gutted the levant, alienated the Arab world with their ever expanding borders, and yet somehow feel as though they are the victim of it all. It’s such a boring story where the aggressor plays the eternal victim."

      All the Zionists gutted the Levant? Really? The Zionists gutted Turkey and Jordan and Cyprus?

      If the Arab world was a peaceful place where countries regularly lived in peace, it would be one thing. But Arab countries have long warred with one another over land. Iraq attacked Kuwait over land. Jordan attacked Israel and occupied the West Bank. Egypt attacked Israel and occupied the Gaza Strip. Don't tell me about how offended Arab countries get when people "expand borders." It's not the expansion of borders the Arabs get upset about. It's the fact that the Jews have political power that upsets them.

    • "they should have done it on an island or an uninhabited place. "

      You really are unbelievable. What island? What uninhabited place? Maybe the French should have established their country on "an island or an uninhabited place." Maybe the English pilgrims should have established their country on "an island or an uninhabited place." Amazing that you don't seem to understand the privileged position you occupy that permits you to make ignorant, racist and callous statements like this. I mean, for G-d sakes, you live on colonized land. Maybe you should get the hell out of the Bay Area and turn it over to the Mexicans who should own it. Maybe you should acknowledge that Jews have always lived in the Middle East, that the Zionists bought the land where they set up their kibbutzim, and that telling people who have now lived in Israel for generations should have gone to some "uninhabited place" is deeply racist and, taken with Blumenthal's call for Jews to leave Israel, is probably genocidal.

      The six million Jews who live in Israel are NOT LEAVING, Annie. Ever. You'll leave the Bay Area first.

    • "I was surprised and disappointed by Max to hear him label Gilad Atzmon as a real anti-Semite."

      You'd probably be surprised to hear David Duke labelled as a real white supremacist. But apparently, statements comparing Jewishness to racism are difficult for you to understand.

    • Actually, it does when the man making it has called for Jews to indigenize or leave.

    • "Now I think Atzmon is too strong in his criticism, but in any case, do you actually think that he is inciting against people for being Jews?"

      Are you serious?

    • This is a meretricious argument. Most Jews support a Jewish state. That much is true. So, although it may be technically true that there's no Jewish consensus on Zionism, it's the same as saying that there's no African-American consensus on affirmative action. Are there African-Americans who oppose affirmative action? Yes, a few. Do many, if not most African-Americans read a bit of anti-black racism into vociferous anti-affirmative action arguments? Yes.

      It's the same with Israel. Are there Jews who oppose Zionism or Israel's existence as a Jewish state? Yes, a few. Do many, if not most, Jews read a bit of antisemitism into obsessive anti-Zionist arguments? Yes. Is that the same thing as saying that Zionism and Judaism are equal?

      The Chinese analogy is also meretricious. There aren't many Chinese people in the Middle East. There were tens of thousands of Jewish in the Arab world, most of whom lived as second-class citizens in the Middle East in the pre-Zionist period. It's a little of Norman Finkelstein's old bit about if grandma was a baby carriage, would she have wheels? It really doesn't matter what would have happened with the Chinese. There are six million Jews there now, and they're NOT LEAVING.

  • Tipping point?
    • This is not a tipping point. This is the Guardian making a mountain out of molehill because they have a very strong editorial bias against Israel. Edwards, regardless of her position on Israel, has little chance against Van Hollen.

  • Philosophy prof who likened Palestinians to 'rabid pit bull' ignites protest on CT campus
    • Yet again, you're applying a double standard.

      When Steven Salaita posted on twitter that he wished all West Bank settlers would go missing, among a number of other tweets that both dehumanized Israelis (the man said Israel has a "dead soul," for G-d sakes) and made Jewish students at UI feel uncomfortable, you defended what he said and pooh-poohed the feelings of those students who said that his comments made them feel uncomfortable, and you parsed his statements to suggest that he didn't really mean the plain meaning of what he said.

      Not only did Salaita not take the offensive tweets down; he stood by them, said he didn't have a damn thing to apologize for, and received a national speaking tour from his academic colleagues.

      Here, you're condemning a professor who said nothing more offensive than Salaita did. The professor's comments have turned out a thousand students to protest - on what basis? In the Soundcloud excerpt you posted, students said that Professor Pessin's comments MADE THEM FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE GOING TO CLASS because they were dehumanizing. Unlike Salaita, Pessin actually took the post down when a student told him that he felt offended by it. You can't have it both ways. Either you're for free speech on campus or you aren't. Either you're for making students confront uncomfortable, disconcerting ideas, or you aren't.

      Posts like this show what you're really for - making sure your political viewpoint is heard on campus, and that the political viewpoints of those who disagree with you are censored.

  • 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

    • "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

Showing comments 7022 - 7001