Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 6654 (since 2010-04-19 03:21:04)

Showing comments 6654 - 6601
Page:

  • You're on a roll, Mr. President, now abstain from vetoing the Palestinian bid to the UN Security Council
  • On eve of University of California honor, Bill Maher defends anti-Muslim hate speech in Vanity Fair interview
  • JVP offers bold universalist Hanukkah message in the wake of Gaza slaughter
  • Obama hired Clinton as sec'y of state by reaching out to Israel supporter Hoenlein -- NYT
    • You'll believe anything anywhere as long as it fits your agenda. Do you really think Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State just because Malcolm Hoenlein have her a call. Are you really that naive?

  • Omar Barghouti: What Mondoweiss Means To Me
    • I'm not sure exactly how you define propaganda machine, Bryan. I hear all this stuff about the big Israeli propaganda machine. I think the United States probably has the biggest one. But really, I need a definition of what makes the Israeli propaganda machine "good" or "large" or "masterful." Otherwise, let's see the claim for what it is - a propagandistic one to cast Israel as the big Goliath and the Palestinians as the David. We know how well that plays on the left. The Palestinians have a huge propaganda machine, ably assisted by large media organizations like Al-Jazeera, and that machine has been essential over time in promoting the idea of a Palestinian national identity separate and distinct from its pan-Arab identity and creating a worldwide contingent of gushing hearts who think Palestinian terrorism is not terrorism.

    • "Few other oppressive regimes have mastered the propaganda machinery to the level that Israel has. "

      LOL. Classic Pallywood: building monsters that do not exist. Don't sell yourself short, Omar. You're quite good at propaganda; your movement has worked long and hard at it.

  • Memo to Sen. Warren: More young Dems want US to side with Palestine than Israel
  • Yes, Virginia, there is a liberal Zionist
    • Total nonsense written by the head of a tiny org that was always afraid to speak up, even when Jews were being slaughtered.

      And of course, Sean McBride chimes in with his usual antisemitic comments.

  • Caroline Glick melts down with European diplomats
    • Again, totally missing the point. Nikita Krustchev was a head of state. Caroline Glick is an op-ed columnist.

    • Oh please, talknic, this is ridiculous, even for you. Edwin Black has refuted your nonsense about "collusion." It was an attempt to rescue refugees. That you would judge it 80 years after the fact shows what a depraved nincompoop you are.

      The White Paper of 1939 was issued in response to Arab pressure and the Intifada of '36-'39. It was not a reiteration of the 1922 policy. It restricted Jewish emigration and banned the sale of Arab land to Jews. You're wrong on this point, completely.

      The Zionists did not fight the British after the war. A small segment of them did.

    • Because every person knows only one other person. Are you an idiot, or just stupid?

    • It really is disgusting to have to deal with this ridiculous question about what Zionists did to save Jews during the Holocaust. There would have been hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees to Palestine had the British not promulgated the White Paper of 1939 under pressure from the Arabs, cutting immigration to a pittance at the absolute worst time. In addition, Zionists fought alongside the British in World War II.

    • "if one (jpost) is going to host a conference specifically on and for diplomats, to put forward a hostile employee in a coveted position on a panel that does what any normal person would consider being the very opposite of diplomatic than they should expect criticism. "

      I continue to find it highly ironic that you're complaining about the civility of participants on a panel.

      "to throw a conference for and about diplomacy and treat the guests and diplomats to this kind of rhetoric and presentation is the antithesis of diplomacy. "

      She's not a diplomat, Annie. The other guy is. She's an op-ed writer. She doesn't owe any duty of diplomacy.

      "and because she’s a managing editor of the post she represented the establishment she works for and there was not a trace of diplomatic in her presentation and participation from what i can see here hops."

      Again, she doesn't have a duty to be diplomatic, and Israelis are plain spoken people. They're not into all of this protocol.

      "and of course she is privileged. anyone who has a regular column and a mainstream publication with wide readership is privileged."

      Is that privileged? Are Palestinians with widely read columns in Al-Hayat al-Jedida privileged?

      "i took the screenshots to enhance and make clear what i see when i encounter her on video. she’s rare bird in that her extreme expressions portray her contempt. that’s somewhat rare for public figures and i am fascinated by this quality about her as well as many of her extreme viewpoints."

      Yes, she wears her heart on her sleeve, no question.

      - See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

    • "How else would you describe her demeanor?"

      She's an angry lady, Annie. I'm sure she's lost a number of friends and family to terrorism, as most Israelis have, and she obviously is an emotional person. She's like an Ann Coulter-type figure in Israel. You love the easy targets. And you have a huge blind spot here. If a European said to a Palestinian version of Caroline Glick that what the Palestinians really needed to do was to stop throwing rocks, you'd get the same response. It's arrogant. It's patronizing. And it's sadly typical of European diplomacy.

      Here's another angry lady: link to youtube.com

      And another: link to youtube.com

      It's a conflict. You know as well as I do that for every Caroline Glick video, there are one hundred of Israelis having perfectly calm discussions with diplomats and others, whether they agree with them or not.

      "it would be one thing if she was disadvantaged in some way but she is not, she is privileged and in a position of power. "

      What privilege? Is Israel a large, rich state in the middle of Scandinavia? Do its people live in complete security like the Danes do? In the Danish diplomat-Caroline Glick discussion, it's the Dane who is in the privileged position (and who has some responsibility to act with decorum and restraint), and not Caroline, the ultraconservative Jerusalem Post columnist who has never hidden her vitriol or her contempt for effete Westerners who would dictate policy to Israel.

      "i said nothing about her as a woman per se"

      You obsessively save screenshots of her and talk about her face. I think you're being misogynistic; but at the very least, you're being juvenile.

    • You're all about civility now, are you.

      Believe it or not, Israelis do get tired after a while of rich countries who live in secure neighborhoods, mistreat their Muslim minorities, and spent a couple of centuries raping and pillaging around the world, targeting it for criticism, and ignoring the ills of countries they depend upon for oil.

      And Annie, Caroline Glick is an op ed columnist, not the Israeli ambassador to Denmark. She owes the guy no particular courtesy. Israelis are not into formality or Western conceits of political correctness. You can count me as one of those who wish the Israelis would be more diplomatic, but the notion that the guy is owed some special courtesy because he's a diplomat is anachronistic. This is 21st century, not the court of Henry VIII.

    • I don't like Glick either, Annie, but I would never write a misogynistic post about her looks.

  • Liberal Zionists seek to strip Naftali Bennett of freedom to travel in hope of saving two-state solution
    • So all of Israel is an illegal settlement now. Another sign that your movement had nothing to do with international law.

    • It is a stupid idea. I hate all four of these guys, particularly Feiglin, but an idea like this will only give them a bigger platform in the hard rightist community.

      I am against BDS, in all its forms. It is antisemitic.

  • 'Racist, fascist bullshit'-- Marcel Ophuls exposes Islamophobia in Israel
    • Considering your history here, Keith, one would think you'd be careful about tossing out accusations.

      I was quoting Lenni Brenner, who talked about Judaism disappearing in America. Do you have a response to that? Or are you going to hit me with more straw men accusations?

    • "with the implication three of four insist there was no antisemitism without once offering even one example of any of these people claiming there was no antisemitism."

      You really have to stop reading into what people say instead of reading what they actually say. You do this all the time. I said nothing remotely like this. My response was to the argument that these Jews involved in the BDS movement were not self-hating, not that they deny antisemitism today.

      "then you throw in Atzmon for effect (knowing very well max has accused him of anti semitism) "

      Ah, Max accused him of antisemitism. That makes it all better.

      Actually, I didn't throw Atzmon in for effect. I've read some of Atzmon's writing and have listened to him interviewed. Atzmon main argument is to blame Judaism for the ills of the world, and certainly for the ills of the Middle East. It's not that far off from Israel Shahak's writing, and Israel Shahak's stuff used to appear here all the time. And as much as it's great that Max Blumenthal had the moral backbone to condemn a guy who is a crystal clear antisemite, no question about it, a lot of people here can't seem to do it. Last I checked, Max speaks for Max, not for BDS.

      So Annie, you're the one who's the massive FAIL here. As usual, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the problems in the Stalinville that is the BDS Movement, because you apparently think that acknowledging antisemitism within your movement delegitimizes it. It's sad, but not surprising.

    • Well, it's hard to escape the fact that at least three of four tend to come from a radical political tradition with a bad record on antisemitism. Shlaim I'm not sure. Finkelstein and Epstein are basically red diaper babies, and Pappe is basically the same thing. Pro-Soviet radicals used to insist that there was no antisemitism in the Soviet Union, and they continued to insist on that point into the 1980's in books like Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. When your vision of Judaism is synonymous with your vision of secular collectivism, and amounts to a negation of Judaism, it's a small step to antisemitic bigotry.

      Critiques of Israel by Jewish radicals have long strayed into bald anti-Jewish critiques that would be labeled as antisemitism if anyone else made them. Israel Shahak's writing on Judaism is like that. Gilad Atzmon's writing is just a more extreme version of this tendency, and it's clear that several here agree with Atzmon's reviled views.

      This site has strayed into that territory by publishing jeremiads against circumcision, calling it barbaric, and has published other critiques of Jewish life, calling for an end to Jewish day school education on grounds that it is "segregationist," but never publishing any call to dismantle any other religious educational institution that I know of. This site doesn't ask for assimilation to be respected. It strongly supports assimilation, and its concurrent effect of reducing the vibrancy of Jewish identity. I will never forget attending the book launch of Alexander Cockburn's "The Politics of Anti-Semitism." Lenni Brenner spoke and said that people should not worry about Jewish influence, because the American Jewish community was assimilating at a rapid rate, and in the future, there would be far less American Jews. The audience applauded, loudly. Less Jews sounded like a great thing to them.

      If there's an intellectual distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, it is obscured by the reality that antisemitism is rampant within the anti-Zionist movement.

    • You're an American colonist. Does your experience matter?

    • "what an exercise in ethnic supremacy it is to talk to Israeli Jews and American Jews about this problem when there are articulate Palestinians who have deep experience of Zionism. - See more at: link to mondoweiss.net"

      And what a exercise it is in privilege and supremacy for a coterie of Western leftists to opine on Israeli policy when the people living in that country have a deep experience in the region, and a deep experience of Palestinian nationalism and Palestinian terrorism.

  • 'Our Liberation Will Not Be Complete Until Everyone’s Is': A report from the American Anthropological Association boycott debate
    • The case you wrote about was a case in which Columbia College dropped one of two sections of a class a part-timer was teaching because of enrollment issues. Other than that, I see no consequence that the guy suffered, and it's hard to argue that the reason was political if the guy is still teaching the same class. In any event, they restored the class to him after some protesting. Again, it's an exception, not a rule. Just check through course catalogues. See who's teaching what in political science and history on this issue.

      "you’re out of your mind. i suppose you know there is a lawsuit right now because the admon is refusing to hand over docs and records. i’m not really into rehashing this today. you’re full of crap tho. "

      You're not real good with hard evidence, Annie. All there is is a couple of emails between the Chancellor and one large donor. That's not evidence that Salaita's non-hiring was donor based. It's evidence that the Chancellor met with a donor to discuss a matter of interest, which college admins do all the time.

      And yes, I know all about the lawsuit. Perhaps you know that lawsuit is a lawsuit, not a finding of fact. It's a common tactic to make baseless innuendo about missing documents. They're "missing", so you fill in the blank with what you wish to be true.

    • I don't think that's the reality. There are plenty of non-tenured faculty who have expressed their views on this issue. Your assertion would have validity if pro-Palestinian faculty were few and far between. But they are not, including in areas like Middle East Studies, where their academic work focused on Palestine issues before they became tenured. You can point to an instance here and there where someone had an issue. The Peterson case at Brooklyn College is the only one I know of where a graduate student faced trouble, largely because the school's in Brooklyn, and it didn't hurt his career at all. But the only logical conclusion, given how common pro-Palestinian faculty are in the humanities, is that pro-Palestinian politics helps professors get hired, not the other way around.

      Salaita's case is one of those exceptions that proves the rule. Salaita was hired by another pro-Palestinian faculty member, Robert Warrior. Salaita's pro-Palestinian politics was not in any way a secret. His hire fell apart when he made the choice to make inflammatory comments that many read, with justification, as antisemitic. Those who opposed his hiring have not argued that pro-Palestinian professors should not be hired. Cary Nelson certainly has not made that argument.

      And it's crucial to point out that Salaita's entire argument is unsupported. There is no evidence that Salaita's non-hiring was because of donors, and every member of the BoT at UIUC, including James Montgomery, who voted for Salaita, has refuted that claim. Salaita made his choice. He's unrepentant. He should live with the consequences.

    • I disagree. I don't think they have any trouble, as evidenced by these academic association votes.

    • OK. It's better for Salaita if the main issue is faculty governance. I had long proceeded from that POV until fairly recently., since there are many outspoken pro-Palestinian profs who manage not to be antisemitic and not to get non-hired.

    • Yes Annie; both statements sound ridiculous. You can't artificially separate institutions and people, because people make up institutions. And the only reason it's being done here is probably to avoid civil rights lawsuits, since it's against the law to discriminate based on national origin.

      You can't say that you're boycotting everything Israeli, and then say that it doesn't mean you're boycotting people. Institutions are comprised of people. It's a distinction without a difference.

    • "i agree hops. i thought i made that clear when i stated it doesn’t mean they would necessarily support academic boycotts of Israel"

      You said that it logically implied that they were likely to. In this case (I have spoken with a couple of these folks), I don't think that's true. I think the primary motivation of most who support Salaita is based on faculty and tenure issues, and not on the boycott, even if some of the movers behind Salaita's cause are people who support BDS.

    • Support for Salaita is NOT the same thing as support for a boycott.

Showing comments 6654 - 6601
Page: