Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 193 (since 2010-10-23 14:08:25)

joemowrey

I am an anti-war activist, a prisoner rights activist and an advocate for Palestinian rights.

Website: palestinetruthcoalition.com

Showing comments 193 - 101
Page:

  • Congress needs to stand up for American people's interest over Netanyahu's
    • Lots of magical thinking in this article. Congress hasn't stood up for the interests of the American People for decades, if not centuries. They stand up for their own interests and the interests of their corporate pay masters. Also, the author opens with an endorsement of his thesis from Peter Beinart, then moves on to reference Pat Buchanan. Ho Hum. Could he find any sources more unreliable than these two clowns?

      "When will voters get the message?"

      That's about the only thing this author gets right. Of course, the voters aren't ever going to get the message. If they did, they wouldn't be voting, they'd be overthrowing the government instead.

  • Crisis for the lobby: Clinton bucks Saban, AIPAC doesn't know what to say
    • Evidence of something that hasn't happened yet? No. But history is it's own evidence in this case. How many times has the U.S. brokered a lasting peace deal with anyone? How many wars of aggression have we initiated? I say the odds are very much in favor of the scenario I suggested.

      Just ask any Native American about how well our government honors its treaties/agreements. Ask any of the fourteen countries we have bombed since 9/11 just how interested in peace we are.

    • link to informationclearinghouse.info

      This article by Tony Cartalucci is a reminder that this "deal" with Iran is quite likely little more than a fuse for the eventual war of aggression which will be waged against Iran by the U.S./Israel. They have to have a "deal" in place which Iran can then "violate" (by means of a false flag operation carried out by U.S./Israel) to justify the aggression.

      It's difficult to believe there aren't more commentators pointing out this very likely scenario. Historically, the U.S. has a nearly perfect track record of not making peace with anyone. We don't co-exist, we dominate and destroy. Think about it. Then tell me we should believe this situation with Iran will be any different.

      The optimists are kidding themselves. My money is (and has always been) on a war of aggression with Iran sooner or later. Any other outcome would be so far out of character for the U.S. it strains credulity to suggest it.

  • Abe Foxman says goodbye to an America of secret Jew haters
    • Thanks for catching that, Boomer. As much as I appreciate Phil's work, at times he seems to suffer from a serious case of cognitive disconnect when it comes to Obama.

  • Oren's demands make Israel's liberal apologists squirm
  • Israeli lawmaker wants to force foreign-funded NGO officials to wear stigmatizing i.d.'s
  • After a hard week in the news, Israeli gets valentines all weekend from NPR
    • "I get a lot of my news from NPR."

      Great article. But just as a reminder, what you are getting from NPR is not news. It is propaganda. And not just on the subject of Palestine. Across the board NPR is a source of misinformation and corporate/government spin. If it were giving us anything else, it would be defunded in a jiffy.

  • In NY, a Palestinian and Israeli detail forgotten war in Gaza -- 'wiping families off the planet'
  • Goldberg predicts 'civil war' between American and Israeli Jews as Israel is 'defined as an apartheid state'
    • Thanks to Kris and eljay for pointing it out. But I have to add my observation just to be sure no one misses it.

      "Obama by inclination respects universal human rights."

      Seriously? The man who sits in the oval office every Tuesday and signs death warrants to be implemented by the Drone assassination squad? Phil does a lot of thoughtful and careful analysis, then he comes off with a zinger like this. Obama is a war criminal and a mass murderer. Human rights mean absolutely nothing to this sociopath.

  • 'New York Times' cites Palestinians as 'demographic' threat
    • "Today in a news article,..."

      "News" article? Hardly. Rudorin doesn't engage in journalism or reporting. She is a paid propagandist. This was just another of her propaganda pieces disguised as news.

      Thanks, as always, for your careful reporting (actual journalism!) calling the Times to task. But language referring to its content is important. Call a spade a spade. Call propaganda propaganda, not news.

  • 'Heart-wrenching, harrowing, transfixing' -- NYT needs to end blackout on Blumenthal
    • "...the Times is playing into its own irrelevance..."

      Unfortunately, the Times is not irrelevant at all. It is perhaps the most effective propaganda tool the Zionist movement has. Not to mention the Times infamous service to our corporatist government and the machinations of our criminal Empire. The notion that the Times "needs to do" this or that creates a legitimizing paradigm for this propaganda rag.

      Rather than beseeching the Times to do what is obviously beyond the scope if its intent, we "need to" reject and discredit this organization at every turn, otherwise it will continue to be regarded as an acceptable source of information.

  • Tell Congress Now: Israeli military detention is no way to treat a child
    • Seriously? This writer is suggesting that writing a letter to your Congressperson is going to make a difference. Haven't we grown far beyond that kind of naiveté by now? If not, then we are surely doomed.

  • Sheesh: A conservative response to the special relationship
    • With all the problems the F-35 has (Business Insider has called it a "historic $1 trillion disaster") Israel may get just what it deserves by asking for more of these lead anchors. Ain't the irony grand.

  • 'NYT' public editor faults paper for failing to quote Jews who support BDS
    • A good propaganda outlet always throws a bone or two to the unwitting to make it appear as if they are "balanced." That's all these statements by Sullivan amount to. The powers that be at the NYT can now say, "See, our pubic editor is there to provide a check and balance to our coverage."

      One doesn't have to be too cynical to imagine Sullivan's remarks were orchestrated and strategized at the highest levels. She would never have had the nerve, nor in the end been allowed, to voice such criticism without thorough prior review.

  • The 'New York Times' is now a pro-Israel weapon. Who decided that, I don't know
    • "The New York Times is now a pro-Israel weapon."

      And North is only just now realizing this?

      The NYT has been little more than a propaganda rag for decades. They support, without shame or question, the corporate agenda as well as the Zionist agenda. They lied us into war with Iraq and they are in the process of lying us into war with Iran and possibly even war with Russia. If you read their absurd "coverage" of the situation in the Ukraine, it is clear that the Times is our version of Pravda.

      Maybe, just maybe, writers like North will finally accept this fact and quit referring to the Times as an actual journalistic outlet. It is not. The only time it should be mentioned or quoted is with the clear qualification that it is a propaganda tool, not a nesw outlet.

      Sorry to be so smug. But a whole lot of us have been trying to point this out for a very long time. No one seems to want to hear it.

      It's sort of the same thing as how so many people keep pretending the U.S. is a functional democracy. It is not and has not been for a very long time now.

  • 'Most reactionary government in Israel's history' -- when will liberal Zionists hit bottom?
    • "But Beinart wrote a book about the crisis three years ago, The Crisis of Zionism. And how long can a crisis last before a movement must make a realistic choice, and give up the old ways of dealing with things?"

      Don't worry about Peter. No doubt, he has another book in the works. Beinart knows how to cash in on his Zionist views no matter which way the wind blows. And notice how it always seems to blow particularly hot and hard towards Peter's bank account.

      Thanks for this excellent compendium of the latest views, Phil.

  • 'NY Review of Books' says Tony Judt didn't really mean it when he called for the end of a Jewish state
  • Sanders is leftwing on economic issues, but sees Israel as up against ISIS
    • He is also very purchasable on defense spending. Note his support of the F-35 fighter jet and his tireless efforts to have it based in Burlington. His excuse is something along the lines of "Well, it's going to be approved anyway, so I might as well get some jobs for my constituents out of it."

      Also note his vote to approve huge cuts in the Food Stamp program. Again, he had some sort of "Oh I had to compromise for expediency" type excuse.

      Look closely at his voting record and you will see he rarely if ever votes outside the Democratic Party line unless it's a "safe" vote, one he knows won't cause a bill to actually be passed.

      His claims to be a Socialist are dubious at best, in my opinion. He's been feeding at the public trough for decades now and really hasn't accomplished much beyond making a lot of noise when it's safe to do so.

  • David Horowitz to OSU: 'Jews didn't expel the Arabs in 1948' and 'the occupation is a huge lie'
    • No one who can marshall this kind of hatred and venomous hypocrisy should ever be taken lightly. There are many who believe and follow this "clown." Hitler was a "clown" too. Horowitz is very scary and we ignore him and people like him at our peril.

  • Obama's role model to journalists -- Dorothy Thompson -- turned against Zionism and was silenced
    • Thanks, eljay. I was hoping someone would point this out. The irony is this author using Obama to pin his article. And more so, implying that the room full of toadies who comprise the White House press corp are actually journalists.

  • Non-Jewish Israelis remain faceless, nameless, voiceless in 'New York Times' coverage
    • Once again, this writer is working on the assumption that Rudoren is a journalist. She is not. She is a paid propagandist. Big difference. She doesn't need reminding that Palestinians exist. She knows it full well. Her job is to obfuscate that reality whenever possible. If she must mention Palestinians at all, it is best they be nameless, faceless "others" that Jews must fear. To suggest that they are regular people who can be inconvenienced by the conventions of the theocracy in which they live is not her job.

  • In defense of Cornel West's prophetic voice
    • Kris,

      See my post below for information about West's Speaking fees. At $40,000 a pop, I'm thinking that's as good a reason as any for West to apologize for shilling for Obama in 2008. (assuming he got paid for those appearances. I couldn't verify that.) Our prophet is making more money in one evening than I make in a year. I doubt he has given back any of the money he made "speaking the truth" for Obama during the campaign.

      Maybe he could send some of his extreme wealth to the victims of Obama's global assassination rampage. That might earn him some forgiveness from me.

      You? You I forgive! :) Unless of course you're getting paid big bucks to speak truth to power. Myself, I don't know what to do with all the money I make standing up for what's right. Maybe lunch at Hardy's.

    • Here is a link to a site that quotes West's speaking fees as ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 per speech.

      link to speakers.com

      He made dozens of appearances in support of Obama during the 2008 campaign. I can't find any reference as to what he charged for those gigs. But one can imagine he didn't do it for free. Or if he did, I doubt he was taking the Greyhound and staying in a Motel 6 during his travels. We all need to make a living. But $40,000 for a one night stand? Really?

      If this is what it means to be "disciplined" for speaking the truth, I want in on some of that discipline.

      We need to be careful we don't idolize people beyond what they deserve. Sure, West has some wonderful things to say. But he rakes in an extraordinary income for the effort. Often times, our modern day prophets turn out to be profiteers as well. That's the world we live in.

    • West was one of many who gave unquestioning and unflagging support to Barack Obama during his 2008 campaign. Any principles and ideals West possessed were set aside because West wanted a black President, no matter what the cost.

      How come there were so many of us out there who could see through Obama's faux-progressive veneer from the very beginning? That's because we were color blind, preferring instead to look at what the man said and did rather than at his racial back ground.

      Look where this has gotten us. We are currently engaged in more direct and proxy wars than at any other time in our history. We assassinate people all around the globe with robot drones. The wealth gap (which of course impacts minorities more than any other demographic) is the largest ever.

      West's current criticisms of this criminal administration are too little to late. An apology for his willful ignorance and lack of moral fortitude in supporting Obama in 2008 would go a lot further in bolstering my opinion of West. The truth was pretty obvious. Like so many alleged Progressives, West chose to ignore it.

  • Rand Paul greeted by neocon opposition, in $1 million ad calling him 'dangerous'
    • Rand Paul is dangerous. But not for any of the reasons given by the neo-cons. He has said that if the Tea Party were an actual party, he would join and run under their banner. In my opinion, this guy is a nut ball of some proportion. And if we think social services in this country are underfunded now, wait till a libertarian gets his hands on the Federal Budget.

      And to borrow from the title of one of Phil's other articles today, who cares what Chris Matthews or Bill Kristol thing about ANYTHING. Talk about nut balls....

  • The epic season of spinning Iran deal begins!
    • I'm with you, HarryLaw. U.S. Influence on the IAEA is only one of the areas where our arm twisting and belligerence will make it nearly impossible for Iran to adhere to this or any other deal. As I've stated in comments on other articles here at MW, it's likely this deal is being set up as a trigger to justify an attack on Iran.

      And as has been pointed out elsewhere, we probably don't need a justification; we'll do whatever we want, as always. But if we have triggers like this in place it will give our impending illegal war of aggression against Iran at least some air of legitimacy.

      It's a con being implemented by the shepherds of Empire. Not the first. Not the last. With the U.S. track record of war mongering, deception, and instigation of illegal wars, it's difficult, if not impossible (certainly not advisable) to believe any of this alleged diplomacy is sincere.

  • How Obama won on Iran
    • Annie, as RoHa pointed out, I wasn't suggesting Iran would actually violate the agreement. I was suggesting that we would make it look like they had to justify an attack.

      One thing we can agree on for sure. As you say, if the U.S.wants to make war with Iran, we can just make war with Iran. As much as I wish it wouldn't happen, I believe that it will, eventually. Only time will tell. Let's hope you are right and I am wrong.

    • In that case, as I suggested in my comment, there will then be an automatic trigger in place for war with Iran when they "violate" the agreement. It is a win win situation for the war mongers.

      Remember how excited everyone was when Obama allegedly "avoided" war with Syria? We saw how long that little bit of peace making on the part of our Nobel Peace Laureate lasted. He did that because he knew we would be initiating a proxy war with Syria via the ISIS scam eventually anyway. Regime change there by hook or by crook. That was always the plan.

      These guys are masters of the long con. They will get their war with Iran, one way or another. Bet on it. It's all a part of the Project for a New American Century. Lybia, Syria. Next up, Iran. It may not happen until the new administration in hired, but it will happen.

    • IMHO, this deal is more Kabuki theater on the part of ObamaCon, the Wizard of Guile. The odds of this deal making it past our Congress are little to none. Obama knows this. But putting together this sham "framework" which has no chance of ever being finalized makes him look like a good guy. After all we've seen this con man do over the last 6 years, does anyone really believe he and his gang of warmongering thugs are actually interested in peace, with Iran or anyone else? Really? We are talking about an administration which is currently engaged in more direct and proxy wars than any other administration in the history of our country. Suddenly they are ambassadors for Peace? Think about it.

      If by some long shot this or any other deal with Iran is ever put into place, chances are it will be little more than a trigger for an actual war. Because no matter how one-sided and degrading such an agreement would be for Iran (and this framework deal is bizarrely weighted against Iran) the U.S. and Israel will find a way to make it look like Iran is in violation of it at some point.

      Ten bucks says there will eventually be an unprovoked attack on Iran by either the U.S. and or Israel. History has shown repeatedly that the U.S. rarely if ever opts for peace when war (no matter how irrational or destructive) is an option.

  • Philosophy prof who likened Palestinians to 'rabid pit bull' ignites protest on CT campus
  • I want my country back
    • Thanks, Annie, for another simple and well-reasoned analysis of hophmi's hasbara.

    • "But this piece suggests that the lobby is imbedded in the New York Times itself, that our leading newspaper sees it as its job to support Israel..."

      This is not new news. It just takes some people longer to admit than others.

      Maybe we are done now using terms like "journalist" to refer to anyone writing about Israel for the Times. The NYT is purely a propaganda outlet (and not only on the issue of Israel) and those like Rudoren who write for the Times are simply paid lobbyists.

  • Bill Maher justifies Netanyahu's racism by saying U.S. has done much worse
    • To Donald, Maximus and Peeesss:

      My bad. I can see I did a lousy job of trying to make an awkward point. I was suggesting that his racism may stem from a dissociative disorder which could be a result of his Zionist ideology. He can't rationally accept the nightmare that Zionism has created in Israel, so he projects his hatred onto the "other," in this case, Arabs/Muslims.

      But yea, he is a disgusting racist. No doubt about it. And my suggesting he is probably a "good person" was not a well thought out remark.

      I've tried for years to come up with an explanation as to why many otherwise rational people (people that I know personally and know aren't evil monsters) become such bizarre zealots when it comes to Israel and Zionism. They totally lose sight of reality. The mental illness theory is me grasping at straws in an attempt to understand the inexplicable.

    • Maher is someone who, like many Zionist zealots, demonstrates what can only be described as a form of mental illness when it comes to his views on Zionism. He is decidedly progressive on many issues, but when it comes to Israel and Zionism he operates under the influence of a complete psychological disconnect from reality. The truth does not matter. You could make yourself blue in the face trying to explain the reality of the situation in Palestine to him and he would deny or deflect every fact, no matter how much proof was presented to him.

      I suspect he is a very good person who is genuinely disgusted by many of the human rights abuses that go on around the world. Yet, there is likely no horror or transgression that Israel could commit which would penetrate his emotional firewall and seem wrong or immoral to him. His racist attitude is the only way he can justify this cognitive disconnect to himself. As long as there is a "them" to blame, he can ignore his own conscience and intellect. If it is right for Israel, it is right. Period. Any other perspective would be unattainable for him in his current state of derangement.

      It does seem that in order for Zionism to be illuminated from our culture, an actual program of re-education and deprogramming would have to be implemented for large numbers of people who support Israel and the Zionist ideology. They do not have the emotional or intellectual ability to react or respond rationally to the truth when it comes to Israel because they suffer from a type of dissociative disorder.

  • Pelosi blasts Netanyahu speech as 'insult to intelligence of U.S.', Amanpour calls it 'dark, Strangelovian'
    • And why, exactly, are we quoting Pelosi as if she is some sort of defender of truth and justice? She is rabidly pro-Zionist; one grandstanding sound bite doesn't change that. The same could be said of pretty much all those in Congress who didn't attend the speech. None of their Kabuki theater outrage being expressed concerning Bibi's deranged blathering changes anything. It's hypocritical posturing of the most despicable kind.

      Pelosi, a war profiteer and corporate shill, was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States." In fact, we should all be saddened by the insult to our collective intelligence which is demonstrated by the behavior of each of these bozos we call "leaders."

  • Thanks to Netanyahu, Israel support turns into a political football
    • Yes, a very solid point. In addition, Obama knows full well that his posturing will make him look like some sort of "Progressive" while having little or no impact on the long term policy or strategy of the Empire. He's doing a lot of this now that he is a lame duck. He wants to leave behind him the same illusion he has maintained throughout his presidency, that he is some sort of "liberal" politician. The memory-challenged U.S. public won't remember all the cave ins he made concerning Israel ,nor all his support for the continued ethnic cleansing and carnage taking place in Palestine. What they will remember is him "standing up" to Netanyahu.

      Nonsense. Just more Kabuki theater by ObamaCon, Wizard of Guile.

  • Is flying a nationalist flag ever a progressive act?
    • Brilliant article. Nationalism and capitalism are the root of the problem, not the seed of a solution. Religious fundamentalism is an important part of the equation too. Human evolution, or devolution as the case may be, is a perpetual class struggle involving the oppressor versus the oppressed. That overriding paradigm crosses all national, ethnic and religious boundaries.

  • White House suggests Israel is lying about Iran talks-- as Obama officials shun Netanyahu
    • The irony never ends. The U.S. accusing Israel (or any other country for that matter) of lying? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Before we rejoice too much about this latest play on the part of the Obama administration, just remember that Obama and his gang of thugs are world class liars themselves and pretty much everything out of their mouths about Iran is a lie or a twisting of the truth.

  • Warren supporters can't talk about Palestine
    • I think the days when politicians can claim ignorance of the core issues concerning Palestine are long past. The truth is out there. A few hours on the internet and Warren could have all the information she needs. One does not have to be immersed in the subject to be aware of the obvious injustice of the situation and the human rights abuses being perpetrated by Israel. I suspect Warren takes the position she does on Palestine precisely because of her interest in the money she can receive from supporters of Zionism, and also to avoid the wrath of the Israel Lobby.

      If she is indeed completely ignorant of the realities of the situation in Palestine, is this someone we want to be holding public office, in particular the Presidency?

  • I misremember Iraq
    • Thanks to Mondoweiss for posting this excellent analysis. The responses to this article so far give us an opportunity to see that many of the commenters here at Mondoweiss are just as well informed about the machinations of U.S. Empire as they are about the lies and deceptions inherent in the Zionist movement.

      Now, if only the masses of asses here in the U.S. would learn from their own history. But noooo....Libya, Syria, Ukraine. All examples of Iraq 101 being replayed to the willfully ignorant citizens of our lost nation. And once again our co-conspiritorial corporate media rises to the occasion by parroting and amplifying everything the warmongers spew out.

      The voices here at Mondoweiss provide a glimmer of hope in an absurd, Orwellian world.

  • Netanyahu is a paper tiger
    • I think it is very important to point out that Mondoweiss has certainly been a factor in the gradual change taking place across the board on attitudes toward Israel.

      Thanks to everyone at Mondoweiss, editors and commenters, for always taking a courageous and principled stand on this issue!

  • Drones over Auschwitz and Gaza
    • "...but from the 1967 war, when Israel started out fighting Egypt, Jordan and Syria for its very survival..."

      And there it is. That little lie salted in to Rudoren's article in the NYT, now innocently quoted here at MW by Mark Ellis. And since it's from the mighty Times, how may people might read this and take it as the truth? Well, okay, not many MW readers, but how many other places will this lie appear throughout the media echo chamber and suddenly become uncontested fact?

      That's how Rudoren does Propaganda 101. She is quite adept at this technique, whereby an article which she will be able to claim was a critique of Israel actually winds up spreading disinformation far and wide. No one does it better than the NYT.

  • Catnip and civilians -- a report card on the 'New York Times'
    • Sorry. I can't accept the idea that these two propagandists deserve "praise" for their recent articles. What, one article each which sort of exposes the truth about Israel's war crimes (with plenty of qualifications and spin, of course) out of how many previous and yet to come articles which will be filled with lies and misinformation?

      Rudoren's supposed praiseworthy article is little more than an assignment for Propaganda 101. She promotes the lie that Israel was under some sore of existential threat in 1967, justifies their war of aggression based on that lie, and salts this little tidbit of propaganda into the NYT archives for future use by other Hasbarists.

      Kershner comes a little closer to actually writing a piece of decent journalism. But of course, as Slater points out, she then tarnishes the effort with a blatant lie at the end. Again, a nice bit of salting for later use of a lie by other's who will quote the mighty NYT as a source of legitimate information.

      Praise? Nah. These two should one day be brought before a Truth and Justice Commission, (along with many of the other spin doctors at the Times who write about U.S. foreign policy and use lies to promote our wars of aggression) to account for their misdeeds.

  • Zero (0) Palestinians quoted in 'NYT' piece on rift between US and Israel
    • "To me it reads like a dispatch from the Israel lobby."

      Again, not to belabor the point (okay, I love to belabor this point), any article with Judi Rudoren's name on it (and pretty much any article on the subject of Israel in the NYT) actually is a dispatch from the Israel lobby.

  • Since when is the Southern Poverty Law Center a pro-Israel organization?
    • Here is a link to a video in which Maddow gives us the stock, Zionist propaganda line on Israel. Don't watch it on a full stomach.

      One can't, of course, account for what goes through a person's mind, but given the depth of her knowledge of foreign policy issues overall and her extreme level of intelligence (as I understand it, she has a genius level IQ) my personal opinion is that she is purposefully misinforming her viewers, as she does on so many subjects. It would be difficult to imagine she is unaware of the actually history behind the lies and spin she regurgitates here.

      Like so many talking heads, she is a millionaire propagandist first and foremost, serving up just the necessary amount of infotainment mixed with the occasional factoid to keep her willfully ignorant audience enthralled without ever risking offending her corporate sponsors and pay masters.

      It's sad. At one point during the Bush administration, her radio show actually provided a modicum of truth and resistance to the power elite. She was staunchly antiwar. But that was before the Dems got into office and Rachel got the big promotion to prime time and the huge seven figure salary. Now she is little more than a shill for the Corporate Dems and a huge apologist for the war-mongering Assassinator in Chief who occupies the White House. Clearly she knows who signs her paycheck.

  • 'Great American villain' Henry Kissinger faces citizen's arrest inside a Senate hearing room
  • Netanyahu speech could allow Obama to 'take on the Jewish lobby' as he took on Cuba lobby -- Indyk
    • I have to agree with hopmi on two points. First, "We have a deep and abiding alliance with Israel, including security and intelligence cooperation. It’s not going to change, regardless of the posturing."

      Second, as to the matter of Israel and the U.S. and shared values. Indeed, both countries share many of the same values, such as a complete disregard for international law and even the most basic standards of human rights and social justice when it comes to advancing their own interests. And both countries share a willingness to kill vast numbers of innocent men, women and children by dropping bombs on them and starving them using barbaric economic and political sanctions. Both countries also engage widely in extrajudicial assassinations. Both countries imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. Both countries share a core notion of exceptionalism which has poisoned the moral underpinnings of their nation's society and culture.

      We share lots of values we can be proud of.

  • 'NYT' perpetuates myth Israel was 'fighting for its very survival' during 1967 war
    • Another fine example of the kind of blatant propaganda practiced by Rudoren and the Times. This is propaganda 101, a clever and often-used technique. Drop a few criticisms of Israel, or salt an actual fact or two into your article, then surround it with false justifications and outright lies. This accomplishes three objectives.

      First, it gives the appearance of "balanced" coverage. The Times can point to these articles and say, "See, we criticize Israel." Second, it excuses and even justifies crimes committed by Israel with the old "They had no choice" defense. Third, it promotes a mythology which can then be quoted by other news sources and taken as fact because, after all, it's from the NYT. The writer is knowingly seeding misinformation for future use.

      One of Rudoren's predecessors, Ethan Bronner, was also particularly skilled in this technique.

      It's articles like this that completely discredit the notion that the Times only slants its coverage of Israel because of the pressure it receives from the Right. No one bullied or pressured Rudoren to tell this lie or use this misinformation technique. She did it on her own. And if there is some suggestion that Rudorin doesn't know the truth about the 1967 war (an idea which is truly impossible to believe, given the fountain of information available to her on this subject) then the next question has to be, how could someone this ignorant of the facts be allowed to serve as Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the Times?

      The answer is, she was hired expressly because of her willingness to obfuscate the truth and promulgate myths and lies. That is her job, and it has always been the job of the Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the Times.

      This is why it is imperative that we quit quoting the Times on this and many other subjects. Their publication is littered with so many lies and so much misinformation, we reference their writing at our peril. And by quoting them and pretending they are a reliable source, we only legitimize and enable their continued program of propaganda and misdirection.

  • 'The New York Times' throws another sop to lovers of Israel
    • "they get them to change the wording"; "these guys (probably) threaten lawsuits and such. they are really rude, pushy, threatening and well funded."

      Sorry, but this doesn't strike me as a legitimate defense of the Times. Even if one is willing to ignore the obvious propagandistic nature of their coverage of Israel (and foreign policy in general), what does it say about any so-called journalistic organization that they are willing to slant their coverage to accommodate a few loudmouths? One could and should expect more from what is allegedly one of the most powerful and respected newspapers in the country.

      I''m usually right there with you on your views, Annie. But IMO you've got this one wrong. The Times' campaign of misinformation is deliberate and well orchestrated. It's not about caving in to pressure groups. It's about advancing a very carefully crafted agenda. Again, just my take on the situation.

    • "The New York Times still feels more pressure from the right than it does from the left."

      Seriously? North expects us to believe that the reason the NYT is a Zionist (and Corporatist) propaganda rag, with Judi Rodoren as their star Zionist propagandist, is because they are under pressure from the right?

      The NYT willfully engages in the most transparent and disgusting forms of yellow journalism and blatant propaganda because the owners and editors want to. And Judi Rudoren has proven time and time again that she is an extremely skilled spin doctor who crafts misrepresentation and misdirection into every piece she writes. She is a liar for hire.

      North needs to get a clue.

  • Can we just retire the phrase 'relative calm'?
    • Even better, how about we retire the NYT and any and all references to it? Especially as concerns creatures like Kershner and Rudoren. They are just two among many shills writing for the Times who with any luck will one day be brought before Truth and Justice Commissions (okay, so I'm an optimist) for their "work" supporting the many war crimes of the U.S. and Israel.

  • Don't let's go to the war of civilizations again
    • Brilliant article. Almost!

      Why in the world taint this excellent analysis by using a quote from the master hypocrite and war criminal, John Kerry? It's like using a line from Charlie Manson, who may well have said some true stuff in his lifetime. But would we quote him on anything for any reason?

      There are so many other honorable and dependable sources which could have been used to point out that "the Palestinian conflict is a material source of terrorist violence." John Kerry?! Oh, please. Can we just stop already with legitimizing characters of his ilk by making them part of a rational discussion?

  • 'NYT' reporter says Palestinians must make 'concessions... they have long avoided'
    • "The New York Times should have provided this context, so we could judge how well these investigations are likely to go."

      Once again, a writer who assumes that the NYT is something other than a blatant propaganda tool. Why we continue to legitimize this rag is beyond me. The only thing that should be written about the Times, the only time it should be quoted or referenced as concerns Israel or any foreign policy issue, is to point out the lies and misinformation that are its stock in trade. North does this, but then he reinforces the notion that the Times is an actual News source by suggesting that all we need to do is remind them that they should provide a context for their propaganda smears. This is particularly true of any thing written by Judi Rudoren. To even suggest that she is a journalist is offensive. Her articles are so absurdly transparent as to be downright criminal. She should be ridiculed and dismissed out of hand.

  • Couldn't there be just one 'NYT' columnist who was critical of Israel? (No)
    • Again, to reiterate, my objection to the NYT is not because they don't "think like I do." It is because they actually print lies that promote war and racism. Your snarky remark suggesting that I only read those that are my "replicas" is uncalled for. You have no idea what I read. Please leave the personal attacks behind.

      And what is clear to me is that if an attitude which refuses to legitimize lies and blatantly destructive propaganda were to become common, the world would be a better place. We can still support alternate points of view and alternative levels of bias. But we should insist on at least a basic level of truth in journalism. And we should certainly shun publications who lie us into wars. The Times, like any newspaper, is entitled to its own opinion and perspective. But they aren't entitled to their own set of facts.

    • The point being, there are lots of places we can get good coverage of genetics, and other such issues, without supporting a publication which lies us into wars and blatantly supports a racist, apartheid regime such as exists in Israel. I think we can agree that the Times attitude and perspective on Zionism goes far beyond the notion that "everyone has a bias." Sure, everyone has a bias, including me. But I don't fabricate stories that foment racial hatred to promote my bias.

      And please, I respect your comments here at MW, Krauss. So I would appreciate it if you wouldn't resort to personal attacks on me. You have no idea how "well-read" I am. In fact, I am quit well-read and well informed. Thank you.

    • My advice: Quit reading the NYT. Quit quoting the NYT. Quit referring to the NYT as anything but a blatant tool of corporate and Zionist propaganda. Anything short of this only legitimizes that disgusting rag which is not fit to line my garbage can.

      There are so many other sources of information available to us. Why do we persist in engaging with the Times? I'm mystified.

  • Fireworks in Ramallah, as Abbas signs treaty to join International Criminal Court
    • As CloakAndDagger points out below, signing these letters is a far cry from acting on them. Abbas is a snake in the grass. He works for Israel and the U.S. Everything he does is calculated to postpone any advancement for the Palestinian people. I hope no one is going to hold their breath waiting for him to act. And even if he does manage to take some kind of action, the hurdles are many and he knows this in advance. As usual, he can look like he is doing something without there being any possibility that anything will come of his actions.

      Suggesting that it is better that Abbas forced a vote too early (one he knew he would lose) so that he could then sign these treaties is somewhat disingenuous. He should have waited to call for the vote, AND signed the treaties. Why are people implying that it was an either/or choice?

  • Palestinian resolution fails at the Security Council, U.S. votes against 'staged confrontation' at the UN
    • Absolutely. This creature Abbas is and always has been a traitor to his people. He works for Israel and the U.S. We can only hope there is a special place in hell for him one day.

  • Sony email chain on behalf of Israel joined Russell Simmons and Michael Lynton with rightwing Zionists
    • Yes. Eleven million is often used also. The reason we only hear about "the 6 million" is because of the Zionists' exclusive focus on the Jewish victims, which totaled approximately 6 million. The loss of memory about the other 5 to 6 million says a lot about the exploitation of the Holocaust by Zionists for their own, Jewish-centric purposes. Remember, for hard core Zionists, only Jewish lives are important.

  • You're on a roll, Mr. President, so abstain from vetoing the Palestinian bid to the UN Security Council
    • This is the second article here at Mondoweiss to imply that Obama's policy change toward Cuba is some sort of enlightened awakening and that somehow this now means he will change his tack toward Palestine. Sorry. Reality encroaches once more.

      link to dissidentvoice.org

      Here is a link to a fine article from Ron Ridenour. There are others our there. The fact is, the change in policy toward Cuba is nothing more than a change of strategy to accomplish regime change there and install (re-install, since the dictatorship which ruled Cuba before the Castro "revolution" was a U.S. installed puppet theater) a government friendly to U.S. Corporations.

      So unless a change in policy toward Israel might somehow benefit the corporatocracy, it ain't gonna happen. Certainly not as a result of some sort of "enlightenment" on the part of our war-mongering sociopathic Assassinator in Chief.

  • NY Times says a Palestinian majority would 'endanger Israel's democratic ideals'
    • I can always be counted on to point out that the NYT is a blatant propagandistic enterprise, not just as concerns its biases on Israel, but as concerns it's international and foreign policy coverage as well. This begs the question, why do we keep writing about it, quoting it, and pretending it is a legitimate news organization? This is a waste of time and a useless intellectual exercise that only enables the Times' often criminal program of disinformation.

      Can we just stop now?

  • We're all anti-American now
    • Thanks Phil. The awakening process can be a long a painful one. I laud you for your continued process over the years. But as Keith points out, you have a lot of catching up to do.

      You might begin by not congratulating Feinstein for doing what she took an oath to do, protect and defend the Constitution. Instead, this war-mongering hypocrite usually protects her own interests first and foremost. She is a despicable war profiteer, among other violations of U.S. law and her oath of office. Perhaps I am being overly cynical, but it wouldn't surprise me to discover that the 'courage' you suggest she has demonstrated is in some way benefitting her financially. Certainly she must view it as of some use to her politically. Otherwise she wouldn't bother.

      During her time as leader of the Senate's Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (2001-2005) she and her husband, Richard Blum benefited enormously from decisions she made directing appropriations to two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband.

      She has also been a staunch defender of the many illegal domestic spying programs rubber-stamped by our absurd FISA court system. Oh, well she did get a little upset when the CIA was caught spying on her and her committee! How dare they!

      Her support of all of our illegal and immoral wars of aggression is also a crime.

      Anyone who has reached the level of power and influence represented by membership in our Senate is by definition a criminal and a corrupt hypocrite. That's the very nature of our fetid corporate political system. Once we all realize that, then some real awakening will begin to occur.

  • Mamdani's 'holistic' challenge: Anti-Zionists must persuade Jews they can only be safe by dismantling the Jewish state
    • Right. All those poor Jews living as a "scattered minority" across the United States...how do they ever survive in such an unsafe environment? They should unite and form a Jewish State here, then pass laws privileging them and giving them dominance over all the non-Jews. That would make them much safer, no doubt.

  • Whew! Likely DefSec nominee said U.S.-Israel relationship has never been stronger
  • 'You don't want us to breathe!': Video captures everyday frustration of life under occupation in East Jerusalem
  • Sea change down under: Ex-Australian Foreign Minister announces himself a 'Friend of Palestine'
    • Right Steve,

      We see this a lot from politicians. It says they were bought and paid for while they were in office. Now that they have their pension and their investments sewn up, hey, why not pretend to have principles? It will help the cause, but it's pretty disgusting on its face.

  • Ambassador Power to kick off 3-hour event on 'never-ending' genocide of Jews
    • "Ms. Power is one of the most despicable people on the world stage today. She is the living, breathing definition of hypocrisy."

      So true, Maximus. Which begs the question, why does someone like Phil Weiss feel he has to suck up to her with stuff like he says in this article?

      To repeat what I always say, Phil has done amazing work with this site, but he has what at times can only be called a mind-boggling penchant for fawning over people in power. No pun intended. Reference his remarks about Brooks in an article yesterday, his comments half-praising Judi Rudoren and other pro-Zionist propagandists at the NYT.

      Can't live with him, can't live without him. It's the inconsistency I find distasteful.

      But keep up the good work anyway, Phil. Just try to use better judgement in your choice of individuals to laud. Powers is truly a sociopath and a monstrous war criminal. Please take her off your list of people whom you think show courage and leadership. Yuck!

  • David Brooks's romance of community
    • Donald, thanks for pointing this out. As much as I admire Phil Weiss and appreciate the amazing work he does with this site, he still has a tendency to fawn over guys like Brooks.

      "I’ve always liked Brooks because he’s actually interested in meaning and he’s such a clear writer."

      The only "meaning" Brooks is interested in is the meaning of his pay check. He's a pandering yellow journalist (though one hates to use the word journalist in conduction with Brooks), at best. At worst, he's a scheming propagandist. Why anyone would give him even a moments encouragement or suggest that he has any legitimacy at all is beyond me.

  • Another New York Times' reporter's son is in the Israeli army
    • Here is a link to a good article from Jeffrey St. Claire at CounterPunch about this penchant those of us on the left have for quoting the Times, over and over again, no matter how biased and absurd we realize its coverage is.
      link to counterpunch.org

      The substantive quote from the article:

      "Chomsky taught two generations how to read the paper of record, how to detect the warps in its stories, the subtle biases and false constructions, the decisive elisions of context, and servility toward elite power. What Chomsky could do not was to teach us how to stop reading the New York Times."

      And how to stop legitimizing it by using it as a reference as if it were an actual news organization. We'll see plenty of criticism of the NYT pro-Zionist coverage, but then the very next article we read will be littered with quotes from the Times.

      I believe a good term for this paradox is "epistemic closure: In US political debate, a reference to closed systems of deduction that are unaffected by empirical evidence." In other words, despite the overwhelming evidence that the NYT is nothing more than a propagandistic rag, we continue to refer to it as a source for real information.

  • Sweden's recognition of Palestine will license activists
    • "America’s apparent inability to stop the slaughter…" in reference to the 2008/2009 massacre, and "Washington’s impotence in the face of Israel’s latest massacre in Gaza," in reference to this summer's carnage is so far off base as to be laughable. To suggest or imagine that the U.S. is anything but a partner and willing participant in these bouts of ethnocide that take place in Gaza is absurd. We aren't unable, nor are we impotent. As Glenn Greenwald points out in the article linked here, we are financing, encouraging and participating in the slaughter.

      Ahmed Moor knows better. So why does he make these ridiculous remarks in this article?

  • Abbas calls on UN Security Council to end the occupation
    • And no doubt, despite his empty rhetoric at the UN, Abbas, the traitorous collaborator, will do everything he can to obstruct any effort on the part of the Palestinians to accede to the Rome Statute. Let's hope there is a special place in Hell for creatures like Abbas. He is the Palestinians worst enemy.

  • Rosh Hashanah After Gaza
    • Wow. Perfect. This is the best call for realism in the Jewish community I have seen in a while. The notion that the kind of tepid middle-of-the -road moralism expressed by Rabbi Jacobs will accomplish anything is absurd. Yet so many writers continue to endorse it.

      "Rabbis need to simultaneously address the very real fears of those of us with loved ones in Israel,…"

      The "very real fears" would evaporate if Rabbis would demand justice and call Israel to account for the horrors they have unleashed against the Palestinian people. Would she suggest that a rapist's fear of his victim's defensive response is some sort of "very real" and justified concern?

      Address the crimes being committed, Rabbi Jacobs, and the rest of your apologist rhetoric will be unnecessary.

  • US elites are vulnerable to donor pressure on Israel question
    • Great piece. But I feel obliged to add that the entire analysis loses credibility when it uses Thomas Friedman and the New York Times as sources.

      It's well past time we quit enabling the propaganda rag that the NYT is. And Friedman? Come on. This buffoon should be run out of town on a rail, not quoted as if he has some kind of legitimacy.

      There is plenty of credible information in this article without resorting to these yellow-journalism sources.

  • Senator Warren's progressive supporters demand accountability for her rightwing pro-Israel positioning
    • Hophmi, those of us who support human rights for everyone are not "anti-Israel fanatics." We are human rights and social justice fanatics!

      Also, when we hrasjf's hold so-called Progressive politicians to account for supporting U.S. war crimes and the crimes of the Zionist regime in Israel , it's because these types of candidates generally accomplish little or no advancement of liberal agendas anyway. If their support for death and destruction can be so easily bought and paid for, how can we possible expect them to have enough integrity to support any real Progressive agenda? History has proven that we can't.

    • "Remaining silent was one thing, but repeating Likud talking points was worse."

      This notion that it's kind of okay to be silent on issues of war and peace is part of the problem with so-called Progressives. "Many of Warren’s progressive supporters, who had been urging the senator to speak out on war and peace issues, were shocked." There are only two possible reasons why they could possibly be "shocked" by Warren's statements, or by her continued support for U.S. wars of aggression around the globe. One is because they haven't been paying attention; Warren has been giddily pro-war and pro-Zionist from the get-go. The other (and more likely reason in my opinion) is that they are too willing to compromise their core values just to get these kind of faux-liberal candidates into office. It's a familiar "Don't ask, don't tell" strategy on the part of Progressives which has brought us the likes of Barack Obama.

      Bernie Sander is another example of a heartily pro-war, pro-Zionist politician who continually gets a pass from "liberals" because they buy into his sham populist rhetoric. Even a cursory look at Warren's or Sanders' voting records makes it clear that neither of them is a Progressive. The same could be said of Obama (well before Progressives elected him, not once, but twice).

      Looking the other way when it comes to war, just to make what they perceive to be "gains" on a few Progressive wedge issues, is a tried and true tradition for many on the Left. Of course, as history has proven, they wind up losing on all fronts because they are supporting con artists who have no principles in the first place. It's a failed strategy that will be repeated this coming election cycle.

  • Front-page 'NYT' piece on foreign influence on D.C. thinktanks leaves out Israel
    • I'm not sure why anyone still expresses amazement at the lengths the NYT will go to to propagandize Israel, or any other foreign policy issue for that matter. Robert Parry has an excellent piece out about the blatant whitewashing being done by the Times as concerns the Nazis extremists in the Ukraine.

      link to commondreams.org

      Isn't it high time we accepted the fact that the NYT is nothing more than our own Empire's version of the Soviet era Pravda? By constantly writing about this rag as if it were anything else, and by constantly quoting it and referring to it, we are only legitimizing and enabling its lies and misrepresentations. The NYT should be left out of any serious discussion because the information it publishes is pure fictional nonsense, intended to confuse and misdirect.

  • Israel has three years to end the occupation -- Abbas
  • The Palestinian message to Israel: Deal with us justly. Or disappear
    • I hope the moderator will check out the link Pixel supplied and post it to the main Mondowiess page. Here it is again, just in case, and for those who couldn't get the other one to work. This should be viewed as widely as possible.

      link to kolor.com

      How can any rational human being pretend that there was a "terrorist" with a rocket launcher hiding under every one of these destroyed homes and buildings? What a perversion of reason and logic. More proof that Zionism has demented the intellect of its supporters. It is a form of mental illness.

      I was somewhat surprised that whoever put this amazing slide presentation together (I didn't see any credits) repeatedly used the word "conflict" to describe this devastation. Clearly this was a maniacal killing spree by a people bent on revenge.

  • Elizabeth Warren says killing Palestinian civilians is 'the last thing Israel wants'
    • And yet, just watch as so-called Progressives flock to the polls to support her no matter what office she runs for. This woman makes my spine crawl. Her "benign Granny" persona masks the true warmonger she is. But following the Obama model, she will lure Progressives into her lair with false rhetoric and outright lies. This is a very scary person. I think I fear her more than Hillary. At least Hillary makes no bones about her thirst for blood.

  • Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza -- same way she lost it in Iraq the last time
    • Phil expects too much intelligence from voters. The patterns are always the same. Fear wins, rationality loses. That's Hillary's ticket to the White House.

      IMHO the creation of the Islamic State is an intentional strategic machination of U.S. foreign policy in order to maintain the maximum level of instability in the Middle East in order to maintain U.S. public support for Israel regardless of how bloodthirsty the Zionists become. The more violent and threatening the Islamic State becomes, the less import will be the more "liberal" voices of what Phil considers to be the Democratic base. Fear mongering the American Sheeple is a tried and true election-year tradition. This coming Presidential cycle will be no different. The hotter the situation in the middle east, the more irrationally frightened the Sheeple will be. They will be chomping at the bit to vote for Hillary. The more of a battle ax she is, the better her chances. And those who cant' bring themselves to be the warmonger type will vote for her because she is a woman.

  • Jodi Rudoren loves a winner
    • I'm keeping this article so I can refer to it the next time someone writes a piece here at Mondoweiss and suggests Rudoren "deserves credit" (or some such nonsense) when she accidentally lets some small item of truth about Israel slip through. This woman is a brazen propagandist, not to mention a disgusting human being. She should be put on trial for incitement against Palestinians.

  • Conflict Resolution 101: Talk to Hamas
    • As is so often the case with well-intentioned and heroic activists such as Benjamin, she is having a conversation with herself based on nonsensical, magical thinking.

      "For the past month, Secretary Kerry has been traveling around the Middle East trying to negotiate an end to the violence."

      As Glenn Greenwald points out in his recent article, the notion that the U.S. has even the slightest interest in trying to negotiate an end to the violence is absurd.

      link to firstlook.org

      In fact, the U.S. is part and parcel of the problem, which would not exist without U.S. support and funding of Israel, and is part and parcel of the current rampage in Gaza which would not be happening if the U.S. had not given Israel a green light to proceed.

      "You can’t presume to be a mediator and then exclude one key party because you don’t like them."

      More importantly, you can't presume, as Benjamin does, that the U.S. is interested in being a mediator. That's just crazy talk.

      It's not about whether U.S. strategy in excluding Hamas makes sense, or whether the U.S. is or is not effectively attempting to be a mediator. That suggestion is Orwellian, at best. The U.S. is not interested in mediating anything. The U.S. is interested in promoting and defending Israel, period. Any suggestion to the contrary, which is what Benjamin's article is about, it pure fantasy.

      Include Hamas? Include Hamas in what, Israel's and the US's collusion to dispossess and oppress the Palestinian people? Of course the counterproposals Hamas has put forward are reasonable. Of course including Hamas in any supposed negation or peace process is logical. But reason and logic have no bearing on what is being done in Palestine. Israel and the U.S. have no interest in "getting at the underlying systemic problem." So there is no use in making suggestions about how they might accomplish that. It's the wrong conversation.

      Much as I admire many of Media Benjamin's direct actions and her courage and willingness to put herself on the line physically, she should quit with this sort of "here's how we can all just get along" thinking. We can only all get along when we all want to get along. Neither Israel nor the U.S. has or ever has had any such intention. That is the issue which should be addressed.

  • The selected writings of Samantha Power
    • Powers is just one more example of the type of sociopath who rises to positions of influence and power in our society. She has no social conscience, lacks the ability to empathize, and will say and do whatever it takes to advance and support her own interests and belief structure no matter what the cost to others. The way she crafts her statements for the greatest pro-Zionist (and pro-Samantha) impact while attempting to give the appearance of compassion and objectivity is chilling. Yet she probably considers herself a normal, dedicated functionary of the system. She personifies the banality of evil.

  • The killing fields
    • So, hophmi, are you suggesting that the killing of civilians in Gaza is okay because civilians are also killed elsewhere? Or is it the fact that so many more civilians have been killed elsewhere compared to the massacre in Gaza which makes it okay? Pretty gruesome logic.

      This kind of moral-equivalency argument used by defenders of Israel is one of the more disgusting hasbara tactics. The "Yea, but look what they do" justification. Or the "why don't you criticize them as much as you do Israel" rejoinder. All loss of innocent life is abhorrent. It's not our job when addressing the situation in Palestine to also mention every other injustice on the planet.

      You can try to defend Israel's conduct if you want to, but please don't try to suggest that what they are doing isn't immoral just because everyone else is doing it. If you are willing to set your moral benchmark so low, then what has defending Israel cost you?

      And Kay24 makes an excellent point. I second his/her "Get real" remark.

  • Breaking: Israel shelling hospital in Beit Hanoun, injured Palestinians and internationals trapped inside
    • I agree with your suggestion that we are being occupied by Israel. But Obama's hands aren't tied by anything more than his own lack of empathy. He has no other election to win, no social agenda to try to pass through Congress since his agenda is wholly corporate and wholly supported by our corporate Congress no matter what he does. He has no heart and he requires no spine because clearly he is a sociopath, just like every other US President. You don't get to hold the office if you have a conscience. He has no problem untying his hands to unilaterally order drone strikes around the globe, killing innocent men women and children on a whim.

    • Not ever, Just? I guess you must be excluding the actions of the US over the last 60 years or so. We are responsible for what some estimates say is more than a million deaths in Iraq alone. Not to mention the complete destruction of their infrastructure and political and social structure. In Vietnam, over 3 million were slaughtered. Israel will have to try much harder to even come close to the level of indiscriminate carnage and destruction old Uncle Sam is responsible for. But I guess Israel gets some extra points for the utter cruelty and sheer bloodlust of their "work" in Gaza. But than again, what about the Phoenix project in Vietnam?

      Once our empire (as MLK said, "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world…") collapses, Israel will cease to exist. Let's hope both events occur sooner rather than later. We have tens of generations of healing ahead of us yet before the horrors of these two monstrous nations are forgotten.

  • Gaza massacre is generating ideological crisis in American Zionists
    • "Jews of conscience must organize with one foot inside the Jewish community and one foot outside it."

      When Jews, and all other racial, ethnic, nationalistic, genderistic, ageistic and divisive "ism" and "istic" oriented groups, put both feet inside the earthling community and leave the tribalism and otherism behind, that's when the world will finally begin to heal. This "us and them" stuff is the core of the problem with the human condition. Okay. I know. Dream on. And now I have to go attend my local Celtic separatist gathering. Because as everybody knows, it's we Irish who are really better than everybody else. Go Leprechauns!

  • Sawyer blunder indicative of noxious bias against Palestinians in American journalism
    • :...even if the images to accompany the story were switched after the copy had been written,…"

      What? The copy itself is a bald faced lie and an intentional misrepresentation of the situation. There are no images of "an Israeli family trying to salvage what they can" or “one woman standing speechless among the ruins,” because there are no "ruins." The pitiful rockets the are "raining down" on Israel rarely cause even minimal amounts of damage. There has been no loss of life in Israel in recent days.

      Here's what qualifies for a headline at Ynet. "Rocket explodes in Sdot Negev Regional Council causing damage to a structure." Ooh, damage to a structure. Meanwhile hundreds of tons of sophisticated and massively destructive bombs have been dropped on the people of Gaza.

      Neither ABC News, Diane Sawyer, nor any of the other disgustingly biased and slanted corporate media deserve "the benefit of a doubt" this author is willing to give them. They run propaganda like this knowing that even if someone catches them in the lie and the are forced to present a retraction, the damage is done. Very few of the 7 million viewers who saw this blatant piece of misinformation will remember any apology. What they will carry in their minds is the false image of bombed out Israel homes. That was the obvious intention of the "error" on the part of ABC. Oh to be a fly on the wall of some corporate office at ABC. It wouldn't surprise me if someone is getting a bonus and a promotion for this clever "mistake."

      Funny isn't it, how there are never seem to be any "blunders" which benefit Palestinians in any way, or anyone poor and downtrodden. They always seem to benefit the power elite. What a coinkydink.

      These so-called news outlets are nothing more than pro-Zionist propaganda mouthpieces, just as they are pro-corporate propaganda mouthpieces. What they air has no bearing on reality and in no way represents actual human actions or interests. Their function is to blatantly misinform people and obscure anything even remotely resembling the truth. Treating them as anything but Orwellian spin machines is not only a strategic error, it is a moral error.

  • 'Jewish' or 'Israeli' -- NYT, BBC, and CNN make different word choice
    • Of course I am opposed to home demolitions. The point of my comment was that Israel uses this barbaric tactic only against Palestinians, not against Jews. I assume the point of your question to me, hophmi, was to deflect from that reality.

    • Yes.

      And by the way, hophmi, do you expect the homes of those alleged Jewish perpetrators will be demolished (especially now that several of them have apparently confessed) as were the homes of the Palestinian "suspects" in the abduction of the three Israeli teens? Gee, I'll bet not, despite Netanyahu's claim that they will face "the full weight of the law,” insisting, “We do not differentiate between the terrorists."

      Once again, apartheid law enforcement by an apartheid state.

  • In 'NYT' tale of two mothers, the occupation is a human-relations problem
    • Every time I see it, I will have to comment on it. "...and all to Rudoren’s credit."

      Nonsense. None of the blatant propaganda Rudoren spews out is to her credit. Saying so is a mistake, strategically, morally, and just plain common sense wise. Her misuse of the press to indoctrinate simple minds and poison rational discussion borders on the criminal. Unless we say so at every turn, and unless we quit giving her "credit" as if she has made some positive contribution to the dialogue, we are working against our own best interests in the struggle for Palestinian rights and social justice.

      It's a simple concept which seems lost on many otherwise brilliant and heroic writers and journalists.

  • Can a neocon change his spots (and come back as a liberal interventionist for Hillary Clinton)?
    • "Eric Alterman has a column at Salon blasting Bill Kristol for banging the war drum again."

      Even though we know Eric Alterman is a wack-job pro-Zionist zealot, as revealed on this site repeatedly, people continue to site his opinions about other issues as if they mean something. It's this kind of inconsistency that hurts our strategy. Either we acknowledge and reject lunacy or we embrace it and enable it. You can't have it both ways. Any use of the New York Times as a "journalistic" outlet falls into the same category. On and on and on we go. And so the truth becomes relative rather than relevant.

Showing comments 193 - 101
Page: