Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1132 (since 2014-03-09 16:46:25)

Showing comments 1132 - 1101

  • 'Someone is paying Trump to do it' -- Pompeo elevation shows neoconservative lock on foreign policy
  • There are only two kinds of Jews, Schumers and Feinsteins
  • Zionism, anti-Semitism, Israel — and the UK Labour party
  • Nine reasons Israel is not a 'progressive paradise'
    • @eljay

      Maybe you can answer this question.
      How come Mondoweiss supports freedom for Palestinians, but doesn't support freedom for the Kurds?

    • @eljay

      "Israel may very well be the most progressive country in the Middle East, but that does not make it an unqualified “progressive paradise” or, for that matter, a “moral beacon” or “light unto the nations” state."

      Well look who's got some man-sized stones! Thank you eljay.

      And you are right. Israel is not an unqualified "progressive paradise", nor is she a 'moral beacon" or "light unto the nations".

      Great. Now we can move on.

    • I don't know who you are, but you don't have balls either.
      That must be a requirement to join the Mondoweiss/BDS cult.

    • @Assinev

      Okay. Than you should have no problem naming a Middle Eastern country more progressive than Israel.
      Spit out the name of a country. Any country.

      %^$# loser!

    • Dunno.

      How about answering my question?

    • @Maghlawatan

      "Sudan is more progressive than Israel."

      Darfur Sudan? Al Qaeda Sudan? Omar Bashir, the indicted genocideairre, Sudan?
      Clitoridectomy and Infibulation Sudan?

      BTW. Sudan is in Africa.

    • @Mister

      The answer to my question is the name of a country in the Middle East.

      Any other answer is bullshit.

    • @JohnO

      Your definition of progressive is satisfactory. Whatever countries you want to include in the Middle East is fine.

      Just name a country in the Middle East that's more progressive than Israel.

    • If you can't answer my question, then don't comment.

    • If you can't answer my question, then don't comment.

    • If you can't answer my question, then don't comment.

    • Hamza,

      Where in the Middle East is there a more progressive country than Israel.
      Be honest.

  • 18-year-old fisherman killed by Israeli forces off the coast of Gaza
  • Mohammad Tamimi: 'They beat me into confessing'
  • Israelis disfigure Damascus Gate with steel watchtower
  • Sentenced to 65 years for helping Palestinians: Read an excerpt from Miko Peled's 'Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five'
    • @Bonfire Annie

      Think what you want about Algemeiner, but their article linked actual court documents that prove their arguments.

      Maybe some of the second trial's evidence shouldn't have been admitted, but that's the trial judge's call, and the appellate court agreed with the district court judge. The appeal to the US Supreme Court failed.

      No trial is perfect. I suspect the Holy Land Foundation defense team made mistakes as well.

      I don't know why the first trial got hung up. Do you?

    • @mooser

      "What about the fruit from a poisoned tree "

      That's 4th Amendment stuff, illegal search and seizure.

    • @pgl10

      You said:

      " “After the first trial, the defence discovered that the prosecution had sent a hundred pages of documents and three videos into the jury room which had not been part of the evidence. It argued that this meant that as a matter of law there should not have been a retrial: the case should have been dismissed."

      Not according to the 5th Circuit Appeals Court, which held that;

      The defendants also argued that at the first trial, the mistrial was induced by the government’s own misconduct in allowing certain demonstrative exhibits and non-admitted exhibits into the jury room, which allegedly tainted the verdict. This included “approximately 100 pages and three videotapes.” The Fifth Circuit held that the mistrial was not caused by this conduct, since there was no evidence that sending these exhibits into the jury room was anything other than accidental, and defense counsel did not raise concern when a juror referred to this evidence through a note to the judge.

      pgtI10. You running the risk of getting sucked into the I/P vortex and becoming a Mondobot 'useful idiot'.

      Get out while you still can.

    • @Kaisa

      "As I see it, everything what comes to the conflict of I/P is political: "

      Black and white. I get it.

      Kaisa. Have you ever visited the region? Lived here?

    • @useful idiot

      What I said was:

      "But I can also tell you from experience, that the facts of the case must be closely scrutinised before rushing to judgment.

      Here is a copy of the 5th Circuit Court’s decision upholding the convictions. I recommend you read it carefully."

      Useful Idiot. Have you read the 5th Circuit Decision yet? Comment on it.

    • @Qualtrough

      The FBI had been wiretapping the phones and faxes and meetings of these guys for five years BEFORE Hamas was designated a terror group. The wiretaps continued long after Hamas was so designated. The Government had a strong case against the Holyland Foundation even w/o the Israelis, who had raided PLO offices and taken mountains of PLO files.

      Please read the 5th Appellate Court Decision I linked, supra.

    • @moo

      Why don't you change the pace and contribute substantially to the discussion. Your ankle biting really is a bore.

    • As a practicing trial lawyer, I admit, that with the gift of hindsight, the verdict, and sentencing, seems unfair. But I can also tell you from experience, that the facts of the case must be closely scrutinised before rushing to judgment.

      Here is a copy of the 5th Circuit Court's decision upholding the convictions. I recommend you read it carefully.

      Remember, jury trial are never simple and clear. Juries and Judges are human beings, and not perfect or always fathomable. That's why most criminal cases are 'plead out'.

    • @pgtl10

      He said 'political prisoners'. Smuggling cellphones is not a political crime. Being a member or associate of an outlawed terror group is not a political crime. These are only two examples. I'm sure if we examined, in depth, some of the other criminal charges, we would likely see that the charges are not 'political' either, though many probably are 'political'.

      Case by case. Case by case. Isn't that more reasonable than a blank, conclusory statements.

    • @Kaisa

      Where's the missing context, Kaisa?

      One lawmaker, now serving time, was videoed smuggling cell phones to prisoners. The other lawmaker is a member of the PFLP, a designated terrorist organization.

    • They knew full well that they were funding a designated terrorist organisation.

      You don't hand a loaded gun to a child.

  • 14-year-old girl forced alone into Gaza is another example of the Israeli occupation's cruelty
    • @Ossinev

      There is no exception, 'fellow traveler'. Terrorism is terrorism.

    • @Eva

      No. What's dehumanising is murdering people for no reason, whether it's planting a terror bomb, or stabbing a rabbi to death. Your taking somebodies life without care for who they are or what they've done in their lives.

      Terrorism is the most egregious from of dehumanisation.
      But Eva, Kay and their fellow travellers can't admit it. Won't admit it.

    • Sixteen years ago, the IDF wrote numbers, in ink, on prisoners, a practice that was immediately stopped.

      A 'one off', sixteen years ago, fool.
      Sixteen years ago.

    • @Blockhead

      "in the Jewish state of Israel, non-Jews have no rights that a Jew is bound to respect.
      This means that they have to be regarded as less than fully human."

      Tell that to all the Israeli Arab MK's sitting in the Knesset and to the Israel Arab Justice sitting on the Israeli Supreme Court.

    • Ghana was not harmed. A bureaucratic error was made, and quickly rectified.

      "it is almost surprising that she had no number tatooed on her forearm,"

      A sick, sick, sick projection.

    • @claptrap

      An unusually weak canard. Hackie.

      Jews were supposed to be settled in Palestine, pursuant to San Remo. HMG violated the letter and spirit of the Mandate by limiting Jewish immigration in the late 1930's.

      And BTW. Everyone but Mondoweiss knows that the African migrant issue comes down to one thing, money.,7340,L-5079254,00.html

    • @looser

      Free 'cradle to grave' healthcare, a quality educational system, low unemployment, safe streets, a free press. All Israel.

      Looser. Take up the challenge. Name one country in the Middle East, more progressive, more free and democratic than Israel.

      Name it, or STFU.

    • Jonathan Cook lives in Israel, reaps all the benefits, while incessantly criticising Israel with impunity.

      When they know that no one is listening, I bet he and his wife praise Israel for allowing them to raise their family in safety and security.

  • Worldwide mobilization marks Ahed Tamimi's 17th birthday
  • 'We are proud of her': Palestinian teenagers on the importance of Ahed Tamimi
  • Naked justice
    • @Hackhack

      " The US didn’t veto the resolution."

      Correct. The US vote in favour, was in President Carter's words, 'an error', and Ambassador McHenry stated in the Security Council immediately following the vote, the U.S. considers Resolution 465 as recommendatory rather than binding.

      That means non-binding. Non-binding.
      Hackie. You're a laughing stock.

    • @Oldgeezer

      "The second answer is definitely yes. I don’t know the answer to the first question as I’m not aware of Palestinian laws prior to Israeli invasion and occupation but if one doesn’t exist then Israel is negligent in not passing Israeli laws making it illegal."

      There were no Palestinian laws prior to Israeli invasion and occupation, because Israel occupied territory illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948. Prior to the Jordanian invasion the law was the Mandate of Palestine, 1920, who Articles including, but not limited to:

      ART. 2.

      The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

      ART. 4.

      An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

      The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

      ART. 6.

      The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

    • @Talkback

      UN Resolution 465?
      The one the US Secretary of State disavowed three days later?

      Still ROFL.
      God, you guy's really do need Hostage back. This Talkback joker can't hold a candle.

    • @MHughes

      I accept all you've said.

      My points, succinctly, are these, and they reference international law.
      Many aspects of the State of Israel's involvement in the settlements, are illegal. Many aspects of the State of Israel's involvement in the settlements are legal.

      Many individual settlers are living legally in Judea and Samaria. Many are living there illegally.

      There are 50 shade of grey. The issues are not simply black and white, as Mondoweiss would like us all to believe.

    • @Hughes

      "The argument that there is nothing illegal about the settlements because they exist because of voluntary moves by individuals was one of the products of the famous Levy Commission"

      Hold your horses, Hughie. That's not what I've said. That's not what I asked.

      If you can't answer my two questions, than don't presume what I think, and don't distract by conflating questions of individual rights, or the lack thereof, with the legality of the settlements. One thing at a time. Fair?

    • @musmus

      " Now he will tell us that “affimative duty” requires Israel to protect those “individual citizens” who move into occupied territory, because they are Jews.

      Bright lad.
      No, we're not at the protection level yet, but consider this, doesn't the Occupying Power have a duty to build roads, hospitals and infrastructure for the people living in the Occupied Territory?
      So if individual Jews have moved into an apartment building in Hebron, shouldn't that building be attached to the electrical grid, the water system, etc.?

      Remember that Jews had been living in Hebron during the British Mandate, and for several hundred of years before that.

    • @Annie
      @ talked out

      I am not referring to a State's duty not to transfer it's citizens, I'm asking whether international law prohibits an individual citizen from moving to an occupied territory and whether that individual's State of origin must, by law, act to prevent the individual from entering the occupied territory.

      Answer(s). No and no.

    • @Annie

      May questions are simple, and you answer should be simple too. Yes/no, simple.

      And when I say individual citizens, I mean any individual citizen.

      My question did not use the word 'supporting'. When you answer my question, than we can address your question. Not before.

      If the collective wisdom and knowledge of Mondoweiss can't answer my very simple questions, then you guys may have a problem.

    • @talking out your hat

      "f Israel allows one or half a million Israeli citizens to settle in occupied territories. It’s prohibited."

      Okay. None of you savants can show that there is a law prohibiting individual Jews from moving to Judea and Samaria. Where's Hostage when you need him, and you folk desperately do need him.

      Lets kick it up to the next level. Does a State have a international law based 'affirmative duty' to prevent it's individual citizens from moving into a disputed or occupied territory?

      Who ever answers first gets a gold star.

    • @Ami goo

      "Is she an which case she is a co conspirator in a war crime."

      With regard to whether the crime of “conspiracy” is a recognized violation of the laws of war, Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer, held:
      [N]one of the major treaties governing the law of war identifies conspiracy as a violation thereof. And the only “conspiracy” crimes that have been recognized by international war crimes tribunals (whose jurisdiction often extends beyond war crimes proper to crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace) are conspiracy to commit genocide and common plan to wage aggressive war, which is a crime against the peace and requires for its commission actual participation in a “concrete plan to wage war.”

      So with no further ado, Ami goo is going to pull his foot out of his mouth.

      'Maestro. Strike up the band'!

    • @Annie

      I asked you to put on your thinking cap, not the Mondoweiss standard issue dunce cap.

      I said, 'individual Jews'. What law prevents individual Jews from moving to Judea and Samaria?

      No show us how you can shine.

    • And BTW.
      Geffen has totally apologised for his comparing Shirley Temper to Hannah Senash and Anne Frank.

      As for Joan D'Arc, she claimed that three Christian saints spoke to her and told her to kill the English occupiers. Joan is either a liar, or a religious loonie tune.

    • @Annie

      Time to put on your 'thinking cap'.
      What law prohibits individual Jewish Israelis from buying land and settling in Judea and Samaria?

    • @Annie

      "he was guilty of being an illegal colonist raising his family on stolen land."

      Is his wife equally guilty of raising her family on stolen land?

    • @Haddock

      Who drew first blood in the I/P conflict?
      Who bloodied who, and when?

      Innocents. Please. Was the rabbi murdered while driving his car last week, 'innocent', or was he guilty of being a Jew?

      Answer, please. Haddock.

  • Norman Finkelstein's new book on Gaza is a meticulous account of Israel's crimes
    • SJP and Ali Abunimah have made Finkelstein persona non grata on college campuses.
      Therefore, it is they, who are comparable to the utterly loathsome Alan Dershowitz, who did the same to Finkelstein.

    • Does Professor Finkelstein delve into the cause of the Gaza War? The kidnap and murder of three innocent boys by Hamas?

      Does Professor Finkelstein consider how many Gazan deaths could have been avoided had Hamas accepted a unilateral ceasefire proposal? A ceasefire that Israel accepted.

      Yes, Professor Finkelstein is correct, Prime Minister Netanyahu knew that the kidnapped boys were probably dead but continued the military search operation in the West Bank anyway. But what difference does that make? Israel still had to search the West Bank for the boy's killers.

      Although Hamas started the war and Hamas continued the war when they refused a ceasefire
      in the Mondoweiss-BDS-Finkelstein echo chamber, all the blood is on Israel's hands. All the blood save the blood of the three innocent Jewish boys that Hamas slaughtered like lambs.

  • Braying donkeys
    • @gamal

      'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner'. 'Tricky Dick'.

      Jeez, Gamal. You must ancient to remember them.

      Speaking of dinner, when you go to eat at the Early Bird Special, order a 'nice piece of fish'.

    • @mooser

      "Uh-oh, I think “Jackdaw” is threatening to stop commenting. What will we do?"

      I don't know about everybody else, but you'll have to find somebody to new to stalk.

    • @Mooser

      "you will do anything, even spend hours at Mondoweiss to avoid the company of Israelis, and speaking Hebrew."

      Try as I may, I can't avoid Israelis. I married one.
      Try as I may, I speak Hebrew badly. Still, I have a Hebrew tutor and I attended the local Ulpan for six months.

      Now Mooser. How many Israelis do you know? And for that matter, how. many Palestinians?

      Ultimately, you judge a man by the company he keeps( or the lack thereof).

    • @Annie

      Okay. Now we're getting somewhere!

      Since we now know that it was Eljay who added brackets and 'military government', does anybody besides him believe that BG meant 'military government' when he said 'we', because it is less than clear to me what he meant.

    • @eljay

      I asked a reasonable question. You can't or won't answer my question, so, this discussion has ended.

      As far as Konrad Lorenz goes, I could care less that he was a Nazi. I respect the quality of his research, and I don't care if he hated Jews. I'm obviously used to Jew haters.

    • @JohnO

      Last time I ask you, “John, did you ever invite Palestinians into your home to break bread?

    • @gamal

      And, I might add, I have been invited into Arab homes and broke bread there. Nice folk!

    • @eljay

      I can read. I asked who put the brackets and 'military government' into the quote?
      Please provide us with that answer. Who is explaining, and editing, what BG had said?

    • "Do you actually realize how racist you are? Just replace “Palestinians” with “Jews” and you sound like certain Germans in the 1930s.

      This isn't about me and racism, it's about Jews and Arabs living side by side, while third parties (ahem) who live thousands of miles away sit safely at their computers trying to tell us what to do.

      None of you interact with Arabs on a daily basis. I do.

    • @twitback

      "Are you going to shoot into my face? "

    • @eljay

      Who placed the brackets and added 'military government'?
      That's not what my translation says.

    • @eljay

      Right. If the Arabs were complacent donkeys, the martial law restrictions could be lifted.
      If the Arabs weren't complacent donkeys, BG's argument, than restrictions must remain.


    • @LHunter

      "Not sure I have ever read anything so racist and from a leader of a country at that. Psychologists call this “Projection.”"

      Sheesh. Last time for me.

      Ben Gurion was not speaking for himself, he was speaking in the voice of his political opponents in the Knesset, who felt that the Arabs had been cowed (can I say that?) by martial law. Ben Gurion didn't believe the Arabs were complacent, and that they would rise in revolt as had happened in Algeria.

      Martial law had been imposed on Israel's Arabs because of 'infiltration' by refugees, and a low intensity border war with Israel's Arab State neighbours. It's generally agreed, that the martial law restrictions went on for longer than was necessary.

    • @alltalk

      "Nazism is Nazism, even if carried out by Jews.””"

      That's true. And Nazism is Nazism, even if carried out by Europeans and Arabs.

      "Put a bomb in the Jewish Agency Buildings
      Wipe the Synagogues all off the earth,
      and make every damned son of ZION
      Regret the day of his birth.
      From the lambasts hang all the RABBIS
      But hang HERZOG highest of all
      And when you have hung all the Jewboys
      Then blow up their damned Wailing Wall...
      You will find you are down as the Heros
      Of the last and the greatest Crusade
      And then you will all go to HEAVEN
      And we all charge our glasses,

      Flyer circulating in Jerusalem, 1948, and anonymously signed "AMO"--Arab Military Organisation, and adjunct of the Mufti's Arab Higher Committee.

      --John Roy Carlson, Cairo to Damascus(1951).

    • @John0

      The Palestinians I see daily; municipal employees, service people and pharmacists, seem happy enough.
      John, did you ever invite Palestinians into your home to break bread? Ever, John?

      Be honest.

    • @squawkback

      "id you oppress any Palestinians lately? Or did you get slapped by one of their teenage gir"

      Stay on topic, you pathetic hack.

    • @amigo

      "No , you made the claim that he didn,t , so you prove it."

      Read the Haaretz article, moron.

    • Disprove what I just said about BG and the donkey quote, or shut your hole.

    • Hatim Kanaaneh is disingenuous in the extreme. He cherry picked the donkey quote and takes it completely out of context. Mondoweiss laps it up this swill.

      Just what did Ben Gurion REALLY say about the Arabs being ‘donkeys’?

      First off, he wasn’t calling any Arabs ‘sub human’. Being Gurion spent close to his whole life among Arabs; workers as well as effendis, and nowhere in his many writings does he come close to calling any Arabs ‘sub human’. Ben Gurion spent a good part of the 1930’s in secret dialogue with Arab leaders, including the Mufti. See Ben Gurion and the Arabs, by Shabtai Teveth.

      The ‘donkeys’ remark was made in the context of a political discussion about whether to lift martial law restrictions off the Arabs of Israel. Some MK’s were for the removals, Ben Gurion opposed them.
      What Ben Gurion was saying is that some MK’s believed that the Arabs in Israel had been beaten down into quiescence, like ‘donkeys’, and that the martial law restrictions could now be removed.
      Ben Gurion seems be saying the opposite, that the Arabs in Israel are not beat down ‘donkeys’, loyal to the State. That the Arabs were resentful and vengeful and would violently rise up against the State the moment the restrictions are removed. Not donkey like behaviour at all.
      I see donkeys every day, and they are placid beasties.

  • Norman Finkelstein's 'Gaza' is an exhaustive act of witness
    • Does Professor Finkelstein delve into the cause of the Gaza War? The kidnap and murder of three innocent boys by Hamas?

      Does Professor Finkelstein consider how many Gazan deaths could have been avoided had Hamas accepted a unilateral ceasefire proposal? A ceasefire that Israel accepted.

      Yes, Professor Finkelstein is correct, Prime Minister Netanyahu knew that the kidnapped boys were probably dead but continued the military search operation in the West Bank anyway. But what difference does that make? Israel still had to search the West Bank for the boy's killers.

      Although Hamas started the war and Hamas continued the war when they refused a ceasefire
      in the Mondoweiss-BDS-Finkelstein echo chamber, all the blood is on Israel's hands. All the blood save the blood of the three innocent Jewish boys that Hamas slaughtered like lambs.

  • What MLK's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' tells us about Ahed Tamimi in a cold Israeli cell
    • @ Mooser

      "Sure, because Zionism is going to be the big exception to all colonial projects. "

      No. The big exception was the partition of The British Crown Colony of India into India and Pakistan, which also occurred in 1947.

    • @talkhack

      Your sacred, inviolate Palestine was created by a handful of British military men and bureaucrats after a lunch at the Treaty of Versailles. This group, whose notes were recorded, didn't give a shit about the Arabs or the Jews. Their first and foremost concern was to create a buffer state between their Suez Canal and French Syria. Some bible pounder was called in and told the group that the Jewish homeland should run from Dan to Beersheba. The group's collective response was, 'Where's Dan'?

      Oh Palestine, my Palestine!

      Please. Your ignorance is pitiful.

    • @talkbackside

      "To be exact. On the day that the violation of the territorial integrity of Palestine was recommened by the UN after nearly a decade of Jewish terrorism"

      A decade preceded by a decade of Arab terrorism.

      A violation of territorial integrity that most of the world accepts today as the best chance for peace, a 'two-State solution'.

      You do want peace, don't you.

    • @gamal

      Whether a fatwa is binding or non-binding isn't the issue.
      Thousands of jihadis answered the call and joined the Holy War. The fatwa had to have played a part in the decision of the Arab States to go to war against the Jews in May, 1948.

      As for the jihadis, the were 100% certain that Allah would grant them victory over the Jews.
      Some of the jihadis were blessed by their village imams and carried with them amulets that they believed would protect them from 'all manner of lead and steel'.

      Lo. The trinkets didn't work.

    • @gamal

      On the 2nd of December 1947, three days after the UN vote, the ulama – the chief scholars of theology – of the University of Al-Azhar, in Cairo, perhaps the most important arbiters and authorities in the Sunni Muslim world, declared a “worldwide jihad in defense of Arab Palestine ”.
      In the course of the war, the Ulama of Al-Azhar periodically renewed the fatwa and call to jihad. “The liberation of Palestine [is] a religious duty for all Muslims without exception, great and small. The Islamic and Arab governments should without delay take effectiove and radical measures, military or otherwise,” pronounced the Ulama at the end of April 1948.

      On the day of the Egyptian Army invasion of Palestine, 15 May, Muhammed Mamun Shinawi, the rector of Al- Azhar, declared: “ The hour of “ jihad ” has struck ... A hundred of you will defeat a thousand of the infidels ... This is the hour in which ... . Allah promised paradise ... “ And in December 1948, on the eve of the final bout of hostilities between the IDF and the Egyptians in the Negev and Sinai, the ulama of Al-Azhar renewed their call for jihad and cautioned the Arab kings – this was directed at Abdullah, King of Jordan, who was suspected of colluding with the Jews – against deviating from “ the way of the believers.” Otherwise, they faced “damnation.”

    • @Annie

      Of course I not denying that, anymore than you'd deny that Arabs weren't engaged in terrorism before 1947.
      The fatwa was made in response to the UN partition resolution, not in response to terror attacks.

    • @talker

      The fatwa demanding jihad was first proclaimed in November 1947, BEFORE the civil war, and BEFORE any massacres and BEFORE an expulsions. To wit; your self defence claim is frivolous.

    • The words used by Balfour, and codified by the League of Nations, were, "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine.

      Like it or lump it.

    • "These same gatekeepers also refuse to publicly denounce Zionism as a racist ideology. "

      Racist ideology!
      Wanting to return to your home makes you a racist? LMAO!

      What would you call the ideology that declared a holy war on the Jews in 1948? Non-racist?

    • You guys can rationalise till your blue in the face, but that won't change the facts one iota.

      Dr. King visited Jerusalem when it was occupied by Jordan, but Jordan forbid King entry to the Jewish Quarter.

      King was forced to cancel his visit to Israel in 1967 due to the outbreak of the war, but he promised his hosts to try and return the next year. He was assassinated in 1968.

      King supported Israel in her struggle against Egypt in 1956.
      During Israel’s 1956 war with Egypt, he wrote: “There is something in the very nature of the universe which is on the side of Israel in its struggle with every Egypt.”

    • King knew a bigot when he saw one.


    • “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” —Martin Luther King, Jr.

      King was a full-throated supporter of Israel. Sorry guys.

  • Vic Mensa's searing piece in 'Time' on Israeli oppression is prefaced by clunky disclaimer re anti-Semitism

Showing comments 1132 - 1101