Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 6405 (since 2010-04-19 03:21:04)

Showing comments 6405 - 6401

  • Pro-Israel Facebook page is titled, 'Death to Dianna Buttu'
  • The killing fields
    • I guess 150,000+ civilians dead in Syria is the price of the Alawite haven. Or the price of the Sunni Iraqi haven. No, wait, that was like 1,000,000 dead.

    • Page: 64
  • Oren's charge that networks showcase Palestinian dead at behest of Hamas is 'obscene' -- Penhaul
    • It's not sick and twisted at all. And I watched the clip. Penhaul was on his high horse responding to a straw man. It is very clearly Hamas's strategy to build international support for the Palestinians by drawing Israel into conflict where there will inevitably be civilians killed. Journalists go where the fighting is. Oren didn't claim that journalists were showing dead bodies because they wanted headlines. He claimed that Hamas wanted to draw Israelis in to kill civilians to make headlines. He's blaming Hamas, not the media.

    • "I think that any reporter and any of our colleagues would believe that it was obscene to suggest that we are showing the bodies of wounded, the dead and the dying, to make headlines. "

      Oh, PLEASE. Penhaul must be kidding. There is no question that this stuff sells, whether it's in Gaza, Iraq, Rwanda, or Somalia.

      If people can't acknowledge that #Hamas benefits from the showing of these civilian casualties on television, then either they're stupid, or they're extraordinarily naive.

  • Raising money for Israelis being bombed in hospitals and schools, NY synagogue has not one breath for Palestinian dead
  • 'Israel is wrong by any moral standard' -- Robinson says, as US media pile up
    • You may think her silence is eloquent, but his point should be well-taken by any honest observer. There's nothing eloquent about her silence, and nothing good journalistically about showing dead children in a school and neglecting to report that the UN has repeatedly admonished Hamas about placing weapons in UNRWA schools.

      Every terrorist organization knows very well that dead civilians help the cause. Unfortunately, most journalists unwittingly play along.

      You guys are worse. You're openly encouraging Hamas to do what they do.

  • On ‘Death to Arabs’ in Jerusalem & Tel Aviv
    • You struggle to understand why a few people in Israel might have been radicalized by living in an atmosphere of rocket fire and suicide murder in the last 20 years? Maybe you should struggle to understand why the fascists who rule Gaza have decided that the best thing for their people is to launch rockets at Israeli cities.

      I guess you're not much of an anthropologist. If you want to learn about fascism, you're really in the wrong part of the Middle East. You can go to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Iraq - you should be able to learn about fascism in any of those places.

  • 9 Reasons why Israel is under rocket attack 
  • Something you can do, wherever you are
    • "The moral of the story: it appears to me that the horrific images we’re all seeing from Gaza are starting to have an effect, and more and more people are seeing through the politicians’ rhetoric about “Israel’s right to defend itself” and coming to understand the sheer viciousness of the Israeli onslaught"

      Not really. link to

      link to

      And yes, the unfavorables always tick up when there's a war. But American support for Israel remains stable, and most American think Israel's military response to the rocket is reasonable or not enough. And favorability for the Palestinian Authority is down in the last five years.

      The same number of Americans believe military aid to Israel should remain the same or go higher as in 2011.

  • Dear American media, I’m asking you to simply tell what’s happening in Gaza
  • Finally, Israel is alienating the US mainstream media
    • It's funny how Israelis die and you people ask who benefits, as if to suggest some conspiracy theory. But when I suggest, based on Hamas's own propaganda, and its practice of telling people not to evacuate, that they want dead civilians on TV to gain public support, you profess ignorance.

      No one outside the cult is fooled by this, talknic.

    • I'm not cracking up, Donald. I'm being cynical, just like a lot of people here. You're being naive if you can't acknowledge that these graphic pictures on TV are a part of Hamas strategy. It's Max Blumenthal who said Jews who weren't willing to indigenize should leave. Besides being a genocidal comment, it also raises the question of what indigenize mean. Perhaps it means that to be a part of the region, one has to take on the bad habits as well as the good ones. Israelis do not generally parade their dead for the TV cameras. Hamas does, and so do others in the region. But perhaps to be more like them, Israel should start, so that CNN will have something compelling to show on television, since, apparently, it's not notable if a Hamas rocket hits a kindergarten. No, there needs to be dead kindergarteners for there to be media interest. Build a great, technologically advanced society, cure disease, invent stuff, screw that. Make great food, show people great hospitality, show people how peaceful prayer is in the Al-Aqsa mosque, show them Birzeit University, screw that. Where are your dead people?

    • Please document said shift in US public opinion. I think it's a fantasy.

      There are a lot of pictures of dead Palestinians kids on the air, and every one of those deaths is a horrible tragedy. Americans are not used to seeing this on the air because, when the US was killing 100,000 civilians in Iraq, and 30,000 civilians in Afghanistan, the media was not covering those stories.

      But, yes, this is exactly what Hamas wants. Lots of pictures of dead kids on TV. That translates into money and political support. It is, after all, the organization that says it loves death as much as the Israelis love life.

      Israel experienced many years of suicide bombings. I can't recall graphic pictures of the bodies of dead Israeli kids or adults being shown on TV very often. I guess they just don't do that sort of thing. Maybe it's because they haven't "indigenized" enough.

    • I notice Mondoweiss has ignored the latest attacks on the Jewish community in Paris.

      link to

  • Israeli military destroyed el-Wafa hospital even though it knew there were no weapons inside
    • I will be proud to tell my grandchildren that I stood up to be counted when extremists, whether they favored the terrorists of Hamas or the terrorists of Yitzhar, tried to impose their will and keep people at war.

      I will also tell them that I stood up to people in my own community, whether they were self-hating Jews or outward-hating Jews. Both are dangerous groups of people who hurt everyone, no matter how well-intentioned they think they are.

    • I'm glad my writing brings you so much pleasure, Mooser.

      But I'm not the closed-minded one here.

    • You're mixing up Geneva I with Geneva IV, talknic. I don't know whether you're doing it intentionally or not, but I'm talking about Geneva IV, Article 19, which discusses civilian hospitals. The law with civilian hospitals is that if they are being used for military purposes, they forfeit their protected status.

    • No, I'm not talking about field hospitals. I'm talking about civilian hospitals, as is the Geneva Conventions in Article 19. Part of the problem with the Geneva Conventions is that it they were not written with urban warfare in mind, and so determining the answer to the question of what to do when militants break international law by operating in civilian areas and using hospitals as cover is not very easy. Much as a civilian hospital may be hard to re-situate, the question is what happens when the hospital is misused for military purposes. I don't think there is any disagreement that if a civilian hospital becomes a military command center, a weapons depot, or a place where combatants are firing out of the windows, it forfeits its protected status. The question is what happens when combatants are firing rockets from the hospital's vicinity so that they can benefit from the hospital's protected status.

      That is a question Article 19 cannot easily answer.

    • No one is lalalaing Shingo. It's a tragedy that it had to happen, and it's a war crime for Hamas to shoot rockets using a civilian hospital for cover. We just place the blame on different parties. But it's definitely a tragedy.

    • Yeah, strange that I don't spend every waking moment here.

      I'm not drawing a legal conclusion either way. Allison's presentation of the law of Article 19 is much simpler than the reality and some of it is wrong. These things go case by case, first of all. So you'd need to do an investigation of where the militants were firing from, what courses were available to Israel to address the problem, what challenge the hospital presented, and so on. One thing I can say with some confidence - the framers of Article 19 did not anticipate those situations where militants were firing from highly urbanized areas, right next to hospital buildings.

      Obviously, Israel came to believe it was a legitimate target, and its behavior was consistent with Article 19 requirements to warn the hospital in advance so that it could be evacuated, which Allison admits in her article they did, communicating at length with the hospital director. Allison's point that there was no weapons cache in the hospital is certainly something to be considered, assuming it is accurate, but it is not dispositive.

      But really, Maximus, be honest. If the hospital were being used as a launching pad, you'd still criticize bombing it, wouldn't you? The Independent essentially did. It headlines an article today claiming that Ron Dermer justified bombing hospitals on twitter. You have to read the article to find out that he said that bombing hospitals was justified if Hamas was using them as launching pads, which is a perfectly justified under international law.

      I haven't seen Allison Deger say once that firing rockets in civilian areas is a violation of international law, but it is. The fact that she hasn't said it reminds me again that your cause is political, and has nothing whatsoever to do with international law.

    • Article 18: "In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives." 100m is not very far.

      Article 19 contains no provision requiring that an attack from a civilian hospital be imminent in order to render its protected status forfeited.

      You misread the provision regarding caches of weapons. Article 19 says that a hospital may not be targeted if it has a cache a weapon because it treats soldiers and thus, holds their arms for them while they are being treated. You imply that a hospital can be used as an ammunition depot and still retain protected status.

  • The heart of the problem with Israel: The mass expulsion of the Palestinian people
    • "Israel has every right to protect its own people in its OWN territories."

      Thanks for recognizing that Israel has a basic right of self-defense to protect its citizens. Since Hamas rocket have been fired at about 80% of Israel's civilians, all inside the Green Line, I'm glad you now approve of Israel's decision to defend itself by addressing the problem in Gaza.

    • "And quite simply, the only way you can think that – that you can excuse the Nakba– is to believe that Jewish lives matter more than Palestinian lives."

      Quite simply, that's nonsense. The argument that driving out the Palestinian population was necessary to Israel's creation is that had it not happened, there would have been a civil war and the Jews would have been massacred, as Arab leaders then were threatening to do. It has nothing to do with valuing one life over another.

      The BDS movement, by denying Israelis any meaningful right of self-defense, value the lives of Palestinians over the lives of Jews. They are incapable of loving Jews as anything but downtrodden victims.

  • Israel is in a pickle
    • Do you think that if you repeat nonsense enough it will become true?

      Can you tell me why Hamas should have any role in negotiating a ceasefire if it is the overwhelmingly defeated party? The victorious party dictates the terms of the ceasefire, not the other way around.

      You can bray on about how Israel is massacring civilians, but if that's true, they're doing a terrible job. Countries massacring civilians do not have a ratio of 1 person dead for every 8 targets. Guernica is a good example of what massacring civilians is, where 1600 people were killed in one day, and where bombs were purposely dropped on a day when people were outside. That is not what is happening here.

      Like Arab dictators, autocrats, and terrorists, you claim victories that are not there and do the people you purport to advocate for a grave disservice by helping to empower the despots who rule them.

      I pray that Hamas plays no role in crafting any ceasefire agreement. The Palestinians would be greatly served if they were totally defeated.

  • Jet Blue incident shifts from anti-Semitic story to anti-Palestinian one
    • Sorry you don't know the word, Mooser, but an analogue (also spelled analog) is "a person or thing seen as comparable to another."

    • "but then advocating for israel is becoming less ‘typical’"

      It is not any less "typical" than it was in the past. The difference is that there are louder, shriller, smashmouth pro-Palestinian activists to contend with. And there are a lot more of them in the threads here than "desperate smashmouth" Israel advocates. The polling shows, however, that there is no change in American support of Israel.

    • This is exactly what bigotry is, taking the actions of one person and generalizing them in this way.

    • "I’d say she’s typical of the more extreme pro Israel supporters."

      She's extreme. That's what I'm saying. By definition, she is not typical.

      And she has more than her fair share of analogues in the pro-Palestinian movement.

    • "I think the story is significant because the 7E/9C argument is now everywhere in the U.S. and will be reflected more and more in the mainstream. And the argument is obviously a different one from the one we used to have. The Palestinian participant has the upper hand. Israel is becoming delegitimized; and its advocates are becoming desperate, afraid, and smashmouth."

      Do you never cease trying to build mountains out of molehills? This is one crazy lady who decided to shout abuse at a Palestinian person. She's not reflective of the Jewish community in any meaningful way. That you would suggest otherwise is obscene.

      There is zero to support your contention that this is in any way reflective of the "mainstream." There is zero to support your idea that this has something to do with the delegitimization of Israel, as if ten years ago, no one would have listened to some abused Palestinian lady, or as if this woman represented all pro-Israel people.

  • The trojan horse of liberal Zionism
    • Ben-David did not accuse the Israelis of deliberately firing on children.

    • "Rubbish, 80% are civilians. Including infrastructure targets does not change that Hop."

      You're misreading what I wrote. First of all, 80% civilians is Hamas's number. Second, my comment was not about comparing civilian and militant deaths. My point was that taking into account total deaths, civilian and militant (around 200 right now), the ratio of death to target is well under 1 to 8.

    • "‘Knocking on the roof’ is being called by some a war crime. It’s not a gentle knock/warning. And where should people ‘evacuate’ to, hophmi? They don’t have a nearby shelter or safe room……It’s a terror tactic, followed by massive destruction and death."

      In the vast majority of bombings in Gaza, no one has been killed. So I'm not sure what you're referring to. The IDF does precision bombing, so I assume the IDF expects people to simple to go away from the target.

      If knocking on the roof is a war crime, that goes to show just how useless international law is. If the target it legal, how could it be a war crime to warn the people who may be inside the target to leave? Would it be better if they didn't knock?

      Of course it's not gentle, Just. The idea is to get the people out so that they don't get killed.

    • You posted this quote from Gaza's Interior Ministry:

      "First, the ministry call[s] all our people not to deal or pay attention to the psychological warfare carried out by the occupation through rumors that broadcast across his media and delivering publications and communications on the phones of citizens, and the lack of response for each of these means, which aims to weaken the domestic front in light of great steadfastness of our people to face the aggression"

      What is it that you think they were referring to? They're referring to Israeli warning.

      And what did the Arabic say? Ynet seems to think it said something even more clear than that.

    • Talknic, your quote says exactly what I said. What did the Arabic press release say?

      link to

      "Gaza's Interior Ministry called on residents to ignore the IDF's "knock on the roof" procedure – wherein the Israeli military fires a small round to signal residents to evacuate their homes before a strike.

      "We call on the people to not cooperate with these messages, not leave their homes, and continue their lives."

      According to Hamas' Interior Ministry, "The IDF phone messages were intended to cause panic and weaken the home front." The announcement contained hotline numbers that Gaza residents were invited to contact "if the need arises."

      Hamas demanded locals to refuse the calls to evacuate their homes – some of which have hidden caches of rockets in their basements – out of the assumption that Israel would not strike residential homes, especially not in population centers.

    • "Seems to only and often happen when the IDF slaughter Palestinians. Otherwise it’s terrorism and purposeful targeting of Israeli civilians with un-guided home made rockets.

      Say… if they’re un-guided….."

      If they're un-guided, what, exactly?

      The launchers haven't made much of a secret of where they expect them to land, or did you forget that? Maybe you also think that sending unguided missiles into civilian areas is ok as long as they're unguided.

    • "just, if Hophmi is going to snag a better spot in the Zionist hierarchy, he has to build up his resume? And how better? When asked, “And what have you done for the Jewish people, Hophmi” in his big job interview, he will proudly present his Mondo archive!"

      Mooser continues to assert that I derive some kind of financial benefit from my activity here. I do not, for what must be the thousandth time. I find these repeated attempts at defining me this way amusing. Most people who know me have no idea I post here, and the ones who do know think I'm wasting my time talking to people this closed-minded and in the case of some, unremittingly nasty.

      I'm here for a couple of reasons. The first is to learn what there is to learn from people with a different perspective, particularly with regard to Judaism in America and its meaning, which, much as disagree with Phil's view, is nevertheless part of an ongoing discussion in the mainstream of the Jewish community. The second is to test my perspective on Israel against the criticism of others. The third is to follow the growing trend of antisemitism in the pro-Palestinian movement, which I believe is a major problem for Jews and Palestinians alike.

    • "I suppose their word is the only ‘gospel’ you’ll ever believe in, eh, hoph."

      Not at all. But I don't reject it immediately as you do, because as I said, the numbers prove beyond any shadow of the doubt that the IDF is minimizing casualties. 1600 targets; about 200 deaths, and that includes everybody, civilians and militants. Seems to me that if the IDF is looking to kill people, they're doing a very bad job.

      "Wouldn’t the international journalists at the hotel have been reporting that they had in fact, seen/heard rockets launching from nearby?"

      William Booth said that there have been rockets fired from near his hotel before. Is your standard that the IDF, in the middle of a war, has to wait for Hamas to fire a rocket before hitting a target?

    • "It’s funny, hophmi has been uncharacteristically quiet these days. When it comes to children being shelled on beaches, or disabled women being murdered, he has nothing to say."

      Not at all. I just don't operate under the illusion that every civilian death in war is a purposeful murder of some kind as you do.

    • "This retired naval officer would like to know how you mistake small children playing soccer on the beach for Hamas fighters."

      So, I'm guessing in your time in Navy, you never heard of anyone missing a target or hitting something they didn't intend to hit. Never happened, right?

    • "yeah, because hamas fighters hang out on the beach playing soccer in the middle of the afternoon. or doesn’t the israeli navy have binoculars?"

      Maybe the Hamas fighters were nearby, and it was a misfire. But Annie, as I said, you already believe that the IDF is evil, so no matter what, you're going to accept whatever explanation seems most evil. That's who you are. The IDF never makes a mistake, right? Because war is perfect in every way, and every Palestinian victim is killed on purpose. Because Israelis are evil people. And also because you need it to be a murder for your cause.

      It's your logic - the Zionists control the Western press and do lots of hasbara, but they purposely fire on children in a place where all the journalists are staying because they are evil and purposely target children, even though the macro numbers suggest exactly the opposite is true. It's important to make them look at evil as possible, because then, you can argue that it's ok (or something you can't condemn) when terrorists fire, completely on purpose, on Israeli civilans.

      So, for Annie Robbins, the game is to find whatever explanation is necessary to support the view that the IDF is evil.

      "Now that the Israeli narrative about Palestinians using civilians as “human shields” has been thoroughly debunked"

      By who? It's no narrative. Hamas has told people to disregard Israeli instructions to evacuate, and they fire their rockets from civilian areas. Both of those are true facts. William Booth, the Washington Post's reporter in Gaza, said that Hamas militant have fire rockets from close to his hotel in Gaza City.

      "They denied the awful abduction of Mohammed"

      Oh please. You're lying. The vast majority of Israelis did not deny that Mohammed Abu Khdeir was killed by Jewish extremists.

    • You seem to think that Israel has to kill zero civilians to prove it minimizes casualties. Less than 1 in 8 targets have resulted in a death, civilian or militant, so far, and this is in one of the world's most densely populated places. So I'd say the numbers speak for themselves and prove that the IDF goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualties.

      The IDF has said that the navy misidentified the kids on the beach as Hamas fighters, who have fired rockets from that area before. link to

      If you believe that all Israelis and all IDF soldiers are evil people, then you're going to try and argue that they were purposely targeting children, because the IDF is evil, after all, and evil people would purposely target children for no reason, and would do so right in front of dozens of journalists there to cover the story, because, hey, they are JUST THAT EVIL.

      If you're honest, then you're going to take the most reasonable explanation, which is that the IDF made a mistake, as is common during war.

    • Ah yes. One leftist cites the book of the another leftist in service of defining any movement that does not agree with the BDS movement as a Trojan horse.

      Yes, by all means, keep pushing the perspective that Jews and Palestinians should not coexist with one another unless it's on the sectarian terms you set out for them.

  • Watch: New Yorkers pierce through pro-war gathering with chants of 'stop bombing Gaza now'
    • Resistance is justified = terrorism is justified = killing of innocent Israelis is justified.

      Those are supporters of terrorism waving those pro-Palestinian signs, and as long as they keep doing it, the blood of the Palestinians in Gaza is on their hands.

  • Violence outside Paris synagogue falsely attributed to anti-Semitism (Updated)
    • link to

      "Several thousand demonstrators walked calmly through the streets of Paris behind a large banner that read "Total Support for the Struggle of the Palestinian People".

      But clashes erupted at the end of the march on Bastille Square, with people throwing projectiles onto a cordon of police who responded with tear gas.

      The unrest continued early Sunday evening as police announced six arrests had been made.

      A small group tired to break into two synagogues in central Paris, a police source told AFP."

      link to

      "Police also blocked off a group of protesters from entering two synagogues, according to AP. One of the synagogues was attacked during a service, with worshippers briefly blocked inside. Police successfully pushed back the protesters, and those stuck inside were then able to leave, according to a police spokeswoman."

    • It's not BS at all. A mob from the protest did surround a synagogue. There's a question as to what the role of the JDL was, whether they were instigators or not.

      Unlike the protesters, who seem to have your support and support of most of the pro-Palestinian community, the JDL has no mainstream support in the Jewish community.

      So, you know, anytime you want to just come out and say that what the protesters did was wrong, or that marching down the streets of Paris with a large missile is inappropriate, you go right ahead.

    • You're simply giving the pro-Palestinian POV here, which blames the actions of mob on a few JDL members. These are people who marched down the street with a large mock missile.

  • Federal official fires gun at pro-Palestine demonstrators following scuffle in LA
    • "he’s aligning them as a rhetorical device which just inflames and already inflammatory situation."

      You read an awful lot into a one sentence comment, and I really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm conflating? You're the one complaining about the police, which has nothing to do with pro-Israel protesters, and you're trying to blame the pro-Israel community for the excesses of a police department with a long record of police brutality. I'm complaining about a riot in Paris that was so bad that the Jews had to barricade themselves inside of a synagogue to stay safe. This website ignored the riot. This website ignores virtually all excesses of the pro-Palestinian community, which is getting more and more violent because people like you simply refuse to do anything about it. You either ignore them, underplay and apologize for them, or make up some conspiracy theory about how it was someone else's fault.

      You, as usual, simply reject any and all information that might be contrary to your point of view. The Jewish Journal publishes an account of the incident, and, of course, you say it's "highly partisan," as if you weren't highly partisan.

    • Continue to live in denial. Meanwhile, this happened:

      link to

      And #Hitlerwasright was trending on twitter today.

  • 'American Jewish voices are most critical in the world' (to end idea that Jewish lives matter more)
    • "The media in America is zionist owned/controlled… FACT."

      "Americans, and especially Jewish Americans, make Israel’s crimes possible by bribing US politicians, giving military aid to Israel and protecting Israel from UN punishment."

      Antizionism or antisemitism? You make the call. Maybe you should leave Germany, German Lefty. Your comments may violate German anti-incitement laws.

  • Israeli leaders incite hatred against Palestinians and are shocked when people listen (and act)
  • Terrifying tweets of pre-Army Israeli teens
    • "That’d be says you hophmi. I’ve never made any such claims. Making false accusations only shows YOUR deceitfullness. I asked for honesty. Seems you’re incapable!"

      I wasn't addressing you specifically. I think you can acknowledge that it's common to argue that the conflict is unequal because the casualties are much higher on the Palestinian side.

    • "Gazans haven’t been allowed the materials to build bomb shelters to run to. They certainly don’t have any defense against Israeli missiles, warplanes, war ships, drones et al"

      All the more reason they shouldn't be lobbing missiles into Israeli civilian areas. What do they expect will happen? Perhaps this is exactly what they expect. Perhaps Hamas understands that nothing sells the Palestinian cause like dead Palestinians, and that the world will ultimately choose to support dead people over people trying to keep their civilians from being dead. I mean, you're always around here that what Israel lacks is dead civilians. So many less dead civilians in Israel; it's unfair, says you. It's lopsided. When Israel loses a few thousand people, THEN we'll concede it has a point.

      "What would you do if, after being given completely gratis more than half your territory for a state that state then illegally dispossessed you, razed your home, farm or village, illegally acquiring by war, illegal annexation, illegal settlements and illegal facts on the ground a further 50% of what had remained of your rightful territory?"

      Although I do not accept all of your historical assumptions here (the Palestinians did not attack the Ottomans or their feudal landlords before the Jews arrived), I'd be upset. I've never said otherwise. Would I support people lobbing rockets over the border? I doubt it. Not when it becomes clear that the rockets accomplish nothing and just get a lot of people killed on my own side. And I think most Palestinians in Gaza probably think similarly at this point, which is why Hamas popularity is on the wane.

      "It’s a territorial conflict"

      That's what I've always maintained. You seem to think it's a colonialist conflict. That I do not agree with.

    • "You don’t live in a conflict zone either Hophmi so stop with the moralizing."

      I've met kids from Sderot who certainly do. They're highly traumatized by what they've had to put up with for the past decade. I suspect Annie knows exactly what I am talking about. Her posturing here does not fool me for a second.

    • This one is from the page of one of the teens Sheen shamed.

      @OrelPery WHY HITLER!!! WHY... WHY DIDN'T KILL ALL THE JEWS??? @Menantum @davidsheen— Rusiti Nusret (@zet_ova) July 11, 2014


      @Menantum @OrelPery @davidsheen Hi zio hoe . I wish you racist scum die soon— Bosnian on Tour (@StopNWO_BiH) July 11, 2014


      @davidsheen @MissMukhabarat @OrelPery I wish a double painful death to jews.— Muhammad Kashif (@mcashiph) July 10, 2014

    • "uh huh."

      Well, Annie, when you have to run into a bomb shelter every year because the same people are trying to kill you by throwing missiles into your town, we'll see if this is still your reaction.

      "less reasonable perhaps, but i was never a flaming racist."

      You live in California in North America. You're very privileged not to be involved in any ethnic conflict.

      You are not blessed with even the remotest understanding of human nature.

    • "I wonder how many of those were by Jewish extremists posing as Muslims in order to incite more hatred"

      Yes, that's it talknic. There's no way any Arab or Muslim could have these sentiments. I'm sure in the hole you live in you've never heard of it.

    • No, not at all. I've told my friends on the right for a long time now that this was going to happen if there was no solution to the conflict. These teens were born in the mid 1990s. They are likely no more than two degrees of separation from someone who was killed in a terrorist attack. Their childhood has been marked by stays in bomb shelters, particularly if they're in southern cities like Sderot or Ashkelon. They have little day to day interaction with Palestinians. Does it surprise you that some of them have negative views like this? Your children would be the same way if their country was repeatedly attacked by the same people and they were in bomb shelters every year or two.

      My point in posting these is that whatever racism you can find among Israeli teenagers, it is dwarfed by the deluge of antisemitic remarks you can find posted on twitter by Arabs and Muslims, in English no less. Everything I posted was tweeted in the span of maybe an hour.

      I can also send you tweets from Israelis (much more representative ones) who do not hold views remotely like this. But I'm sure you get the point.

    • Maybe this is antizionism to you, Shingo.

    • Some more:

      #Jews will surely be the most wretched on the judgment day,they had God's word and they forsake it and killed innocents #Gaza— Owais mir (@OwaisabdAllah) July 11, 2014

      The most brutalized race on earth #Jews are no the most powerful and most cruel people in the world. Ask ppl in #gaza they tell u all.— MR_Kascino (@Muktarsaeed) July 10, 2014

      The #Jews at @ABC Got Caught in what the Jew does best. Revising the Truth. 3000 yr experience! غزة # #Gaza— RyanR ريان (@Messrologist) July 10, 2014

      #Jews are animals. They screech like their monkey ancestors when sirens ring because Allah put such fear into their hearts. #Israel #Gaza— Colonel Ghazi (@ghazishami) July 9, 2014

    • Another:

      I could have killed all the #JEWS, but i left SOME of them "To let let YOU know 'WHY' i was killing them". -HITLER— #FREE_GAZA (@greatabka) July 11, 2014

      And another:

      Oh you Muslims Do not like them for a second,they do never like you #jews— Fifa_boss_safana (@_safana_) July 11, 2014

      And another:

      #Jews #ZionistIsrael remember hitler?— Ar-Rff Ibn Rml (@TunRaffy) July 11, 2014

      And another:

      The entire game plan of #Jews and #Khawarij in #ME explained in this map of #Greater_Israel. link to— S.M.Salman Farooq (@SMSalmanFarooq) July 11, 2014

      And another:

      DO NOT justify the crimes of #Khawarij and #Jews because Bashar-Al-Asad is a criminal as well! link to— S.M.Salman Farooq (@SMSalmanFarooq) July 11, 2014

      This is all in the last hour ALONE.

    • Guess what, David? I put in a search for #jews. This is the very first thing that came up:

      #Hitler Left Some #Jews Alive So the World Could See Why He Killed the Rest... #GazaUnderAttack #FreePalestine— Awais Ahmed (@Awais911) July 11, 2014

    • So you went on twitter and found a few racist girls. Good for you, David. I mean, in the twitter world, one expects to find civil, genteel writers who are in the mainstream of their societies. You must have put a lot of work into it. I mean, Arabs understand that, right? They never tweet anything unkind about Jews or Israelis. It's never happened, and that's why you had such trouble finding it, right David? And if it did happen, it is, of course, only an isolated incident and not at all reflective of anything or anybody, because if someone were to say it was, you'd accuse them immediately of extreme Islamophobe.

      I'm so happy that you've found something to occupy your time, David.

    • Don't call it antisemitism unless you want to be inaccurate. Antisemitism is a German term invented by Wilhelm Marr. It has nothing to do with Arabs. Anti-Arab would be appropriate.

  • State Dep't says Israel has a right to defend itself, but can't say the same of Palestinians
    • So what is it that you want? More dead Israeli civilians?

      I'm not aware of the military principle that says that when an enemy is firing you, you should wait until x number of your people are killed before you respond.

  • Video: How to destroy your SodaStream machine
  • 'Jewish' or 'Israeli' -- NYT, BBC, and CNN make different word choice
    • "In other words, you said that it was understandable that Israel engaged in home demolitions"

      Yep. That's different from stating my position on it. So, LIKE I SAID, it's not a subject on which I've said a great deal here. I'm against home demolitions as a policy to deter terrorist on moral and political grounds. I do also understand why Israelis feel they have to do it. Last I checked, I'm permitted to understand something that I'm against. I live in a country where one terrorist attack was responded to by launching two wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people. So I can understand why a country might take an extreme step like a home demolition when it faces an ongoing threat of terrorist attacks that are broadly supported by the population where the terrorists come from. I can (wait for it) similarly understand the despair of Palestinians who support suicide attacks against Israelis, while also condemning it as abhorrent, just as Ehud Barak does. The difference between me and most of you is that I have long tried to understand both sides, and you are mostly about hating one of them.

      People here can't seem to do that, to condemn something even when they can understand the motivation.

      Since this is a place where all most people do is sound off on how much they hate Israel, I'm more inclined to offer a perspective that is supportive of Israel's choices, or a perspective that seeks to place them in some kind of meaningful context. In places where people hold more nuanced positions, and particularly in fora where people are at the other end of the spectrum, sounding off about how much they hate Arabs or Palestinians, I'm far more critical than I am here. It is the dynamic of the argument. Even here, however, I have, where needed, corrected mis-impressions people have about my POV, such as here, where Joe Mowrey implied that I supported home demolitions of Palestinian terrorists, which I do not.

      When you live in a world with no nuance where all you do is put people in black and white categories and assume everybody is either a devil or an angel depending on how much they agree with your POV, you're prone to making mistakes about what people actually think.

      ". I guess it’s all just’s fault for asking asinine questions, and mine for exposing your previous statements."

      No, you're just being a jerk, David. a real jerk. You've found nothing in my statements showing that I'm in favor of home demolitions. You operate in such bad faith that when I do take the opportunity to say I'm opposed to them, you take the opportunity to question how often I've stated my opposition to them here, and actually look through my comments to prove that I have not talked about it much, something I readily acknowledge.

    • "Looks like you struck a nerve with hophmi when you exposed his most recent BS."

      In the cult, this is BS, of course. In the real world, Just is just being a self-righteous jerk.

    • "Could you please help to locate even one example of when you wrote that you are against the deliberate demolition of Palestinians’ homes by Israel?"

      Just, instead of asking asinine questions like this, why don't you just take it for what it's worth. I don't ask you for a history on every position you take. I have long been against home demolitions (they are wrong, stupid, and unnecessary), and I'm sure I've expressed that opinion elsewhere, but it hasn't been something I've focused much on.

    • Are you against home demolitions as I am, Joe?

    • The NY Times is squeamish because it mentioned that the perpetrators of the Abu Khdeir murder were Jewish in paragraphs 2 and 3 instead of paragraph 1?

  • State Dep't says it 'remains shocked' by Abu Khdeir beating
    • "Anything is possible with these Israelis, and they are so devious. "

      Yes, they're so devious that they arrested the perpetrators of the Muhammed Abu Khdeir murder in under a week and defined them as Jewish terrorists.

      Meanwhile, the murderers of Eyad, Gilad, Naftali remain at large.

  • Caught in a lie: E-mails prove right-wing pro-Israel donor Adam Milstein gave money to California student candidates
    • "hophmi, your own dishonesty is truly breathtaking. I have no doubt that your efforts to defend this creep have persuaded absolutely no one."

      Your nastiness, bad faith, and inability to understand the argument is unfortunate.

    • "it means realizing you’ve lost the argument is part of the growing process. perhaps a developmental stage you missed out on. less politely, a sign of immaturity."

      Good advice for people here, including you. Thanks, Annie.

    • "I would have called him back up. He refused to do speak with me on the phone a second time."

      OK, thanks for the clarification. I was involved in student elections in college to some extent when I helped manage a student campaign and litigated a case involving a student who was accused of a campaign finance infraction. My college had very strict limits on fundraising, and I'm generally surprised to learn that student government candidates can do any outside fundraising. I would favor a ban on outside fundraising at colleges, period, and spending limits, as mt school had.

      In the absence of these bans, it's a fair assumption that all candidates engage in outside fundraising, and to selectively target individual students like this is abhorrent.

      "hophmi, you don’t say what is wrong with my math test analogy"

      The problem with your math test analogy is that in your case, the child is simply lying. Here, Milstein is not lying. There's just a difference between direct giving to a candidate, and giving to an organization that supports a candidate's party.

      "Milstein gave money to Hillel with instructions to pass it through to Bruins political parties which was running two candidates for office. For him to deny that he gave money to either candidate or either party is deliberately dishonest."

      No, it isn't. He did NOT give the money with instructions. He put a memo on his check. Hillel was not required to use the money in any way.

      " If you gave money to your brother with instructions to pass it on to the local Democratic Party that was running a particular candidate, your denial that you gave money to the candidate or the party would be deliberately dishonest as well."

      No, David, you're just wrong about that. There's a legal and substantive difference between giving directly to a campaign and giving to a party, and another one between giving to a party and giving to an issues advocacy organization.

      "He’s the one who solicited donations in this manner and made one himself. I don’t know why he used this artifice"

      Well, maybe because Jewish alumni usually give back by donating to Hillel, not to student elections, and if Hillel is involved in political activism on campus, as other campus groups are, why not support a Hillel political initiative? I'm sure Avi Oved is not the only pro-Israel, or anti-BDS candidate running here. But I guess he's a convenient one to focus on, since he's Jewish and has a Jewish name.

      "He tried to imply some fabrication without actually making that accusation. He’s a complete dirtbag."

      Or maybe he was addressing the fact that it was illegally obtained, or maybe he resented a reporter who is simply interested in helping people censor pro-Israel voices on campus on behalf of his employers in the BDS movement. Maybe he really doesn't care much about Alex Kane. Who knows?

    • " Didn’t your parents ever teach you how to lose gracefully?"

      Didn't yours ever teach you how to argue using actual English words?

    • "I think Hophmi has his Soda-stream set to “Ziocaine”."

      There's a good example of a non-substantive comment that does nothing but throw a barb at me.

      Hey Sean, I got another job for you. Look up how many times people have used the term "Ziocaine" here, and see how many times they've directed it at me. Then see how many times their comment was one sentence or less.

    • "You’re crazy"

      Watch it...Sean might search for how many times you've used that term and speculate on what it might mean.

      "The email said, in essence, send these two money, they need it immediate for their campaign fund."

      I believe the email asked them to contribute to the party.

      "This isn’t about Alex’s journalism"

      For me it is.

      " it’s about the fact that Aved and Millstein appear to be absolute flat-out liars, but because they’re pro-Israel Jews, you’re defending them, regardless of the facts."

      Nope, I'd have the same response if these were BDS activists and the shoe was on the other foot. Any more assumptions?

      "There could be many reasons, including administrative convenience. "

      Administrative convenience? What's more convenience than giving directly?

      "But the point is, that the emails simply belie the suggestion that this was some innocent email to donate to Hillel."

      I don't think anyone made that suggestion. By the way, has anyone looked into how much Milstein has given to Hillel in the last few years?

      "LMAO. Oh, he fully sustained these."

      He didn't, but really, people like you are why he publishes in places like this. You'll believe anything he says, no matter how shoddily he puts it together. That's the problem with advocacy journalism. It's corrosive.

      "Then he can produce what he is claiming is the originals. "

      OK. In a court of law, the accuser has to produce the original, not the accused.

      "I think that an organized campaign to make a public university in the USA have “allegiance to Israel” is much, much more disturbing."

      I think it's far more disturbing that the BDS movement is trying to censor pro-Israel voices on campus, and makes little secret of it.

    • "hophmi, your defense of Milstein’s misrepresentation of the truth is absurd. "

      I don't see how. If I give to the local Democratic Party because I like the candidate they're fielding for Congress, I didn't give directly to the campaign, even though the candidate was my motivator. Same goes for a donation to a 501(c)(4), which I think is the closest analogy here.

      Did Alex call Milstein back and confront him with this allegation that he gave Hillel money to avoid giving it directly, like, you know, journalists are supposed to do? And if there's absolutely no bar on his giving the money direct to the party, why would he bother going through Hillel in the first place?

      Alex is not exactly telling the whole story here either; he's not doing his job as a journalist.

      Your analogy does not hold up, not in a world where people regularly give to organizations that support political candidates, rather than the candidates themselves, and the difference is importance.

      The lesson here is that Alex needs to ask more follow-up questions and do more investigation before he makes accusations that he can't sustain. In other words, be more of a journalist, and less of an advocate.

      "where do you find any evidence to support your speculation of fabricated emails?"

      Have you ever once asked this question of people who allege instances of fabrication here, like, you know, when they claim Israel fabricated the murder of three teenagers for political gain? Forget it, don't bother answering. Milstein alleged the email might have been doctored with.

      In any event, it should disturb you just a bit that someone made this story by leaking private emails.

      "Finally, was it really necessary to explain all this to you? Seriously?"

      No, because I understand exactly what you are saying, and it is still wrong.

    • "who is wililng to support their cause "

      Which is Bruins United, the party they asked Milstein to support.

      I know you think using the term "money laundering" is ok here, but it really is not. Money laundering is a legal term. Everyone agrees that nothing illegal occurred here.

    • "Nonetheless, this matters for a couple of reasons: transparency about where your money is coming from; conflict of interest concerns (is Milstein giving money because Oved says he will defeat divestment resolutions?); anti-Muslim donors; and outside money in student politics, which raises a lot of questions."

      If you were concerned about conflicts of interest, you'd look into where the money is coming from for students and candidates advocating BDS. BDS is a national and international movement. Many of its adherents are antisemitic. Some of its donors identify with Islamic fundamentalist movements and Middle Eastern dictatorships. It is not homegrown at UCLA.

      " Milstein lied. You can spin it anyway you want, but he lied. He donated the money to Hillel with the express purpose of it going to Oved and other Bruins United party members."

      I'm sorry, Alex, but he simply did not lie. Here's what you wrote: "For Milstein’s part, he denies giving money directly to Oved,[Bruins for Israel], or [Bruins United]."

      That's true. He did not give money directly to any of these entities. He gave it to Hillel, which is a big organization at UCLA. And although he told other donors to earmark the checks for "UCLA Student Government Leaders," that is a far cry from showing that they were meant to go to any group specifically. Bruins United is not the only party on campus, and not all of its members are pro-Israel. Indeed, when Oved originally solicited Milstein, he was running for INTERNAL vice-president against a pro-BDS Bruins United candidate. It is for the internal election that Milstein apparently contributed money.

      It's not at all surprising that Hillel is involved in Bruins United, because they were one of the founding organizations of Bruins United, along with a collection of campus Greek organizations, and the campus Democrat and Republican clubs. link to

      Oved held a Q and A with the Daily Bruin on July 4. He told the Bruin that the email thanking Milstein was sent in his capacity as a Hillel intern, and that the thanks was for Milstein's donation to Hillel. Hillel contributed money to the party (and not directly to Oved) in 2013 during the internal elections.

      link to

      You just don't have all of your facts straight, Alex, and if you did, you would see that Milstein simply did not lie.

    • "Yes, there is. He denied giving the money to the Islamophobe, yet he did, laundered through Hillel. That’s a lie."

      No, he denied giving money to the campaign. It is simply not a lie. It is the same difference between donating to a pro-Obama PAC and donating to Obama's campaign.

      I say to you again, just because you identified a couple of Jewish kids with Jewish-sounding names does not mean that they were the only candidates that Hillel supported. Step outside your bigotry for a second and maybe you'll see that.

    • Protests too much. Please explain that to the BDS students who continue to try to censor pro-Israel voices from their communities.

    • What spin? The guy gave money to Hillel to donate to pro-Israel candidates for student government. He did not give to candidates directly. There's simply no lie here.

      There is no doubt in my mind that if Alex Kane were a Zionist reporter who asserted that CAIR gave money to a pro-BDS candidate because they gave money to the campus SJP generally earmarked for student elections, you'd make the identical argument.

      And I, being the honest one here, can say that I'd have no issue with it because THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST IT.

    • "So Hillel 'launders' the contributions to disguise the true source"

      Again, if you can simply point me to the rule that says that candidates are required to disclose donor lists, I'll listen to you bray on about ethics.

    • What's the lie? I still see no evidence that the guy did anything other than what he said he did - donate money to Hillel.

      I see a request from a candidate, and an email from Milstein encouraging others to give to HILLEL, not the candidate's specific campaign. Hillel may have a fund for donating to any candidate they feel adopts policies that reflect Hillel positions. Hillel is an on-campus group. Is it your position that on-campus groups should not fund candidates they perceive to be in their interest? Should SJP not give to and raise money for pro-BDS candidates?

    • The ethical taint? What is the ethical taint here? He did not break any rules. The only ethical taint is this witchhunt targeting pro-Israel, and only pro-Israel students.

    • It appears that he donated the money to Hillel, not directly to the campaigns. Moreover, UCLA candidates are not required to disclose their donors.

      One wonders whether these emails were fabricated, or, in the alternative, who violated the privacy of the candidates by hacking into their email accounts.

      Will you be investigating the source of funds for pro-BDS candidates?

  • Israeli police and media collude to marginalize coverage of Muhammad Abu Khudair's murder
  • Child's beating in Jerusalem brings unprecedented coverage of Palestinian experience to U.S.
    • "Report back when the NYT is run by Palestinians"

      Who runs it now?

    • Thanks justice. Little children are usually people who have trouble dealing with perspectives other than their own, and they shout and scream like the little children that they are when they are challenged. That's a good description of how many people here relate to me, including you, apparently.

Showing comments 6405 - 6401

Comments are closed.