-
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program … 0
- Why did ‘NYT’ serve as platform for ‘military propaganda’? 1
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel … 6
- George Orwell would hate Israel 27
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag … 0
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president 0
- Why Palestine is different 7
- PLO: Israel has built 16,000 settlement units over the past … 1
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1712
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1368
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 954
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 810
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 401
- There’s been a sea change in US opinion on the … 314
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West … 302
-
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 106
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 94
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… … 57
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 54
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by … 50
- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle … 49
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program targeting Muslims http://t.co/J7dbBLZZXl, 9 hours ago
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president http://t.co/FXU8YRToQS, 10 hours ago
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag atop Everest http://t.co/jQQ6xcFAWw, 10 hours ago
- George Orwell would hate Israel http://t.co/pXjc9SBxNL, 10 hours ago
- Reluctantly taking down orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got '1000s of positive reactions' http://t.co/uCZ0r5CDey, 10 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the tip of everybody’s tongue’ (25)
- Ramzi Jaber: Citizen, yet again, I’m afraid you’re right but I hope you’re wrong ;-)
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ (34)
- Ramzi Jaber: Yes bintbiba, that’s right… “darabni wa baka, saba’ni wa shtaka”. The rhyme is...
- Annie Robbins: I wonder if there will be an internal jewish coup in the US led by the younger generation or it will...
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (49)
- Annie Robbins: ckg, that’s very interesting.
- George Orwell would hate Israel (27)
- eljay: >> Every country has the right to control its borders. But no country has a right to be an oppressive,...
- Sumud: Jeepers Norman, you’re still peddling entry-level hasbara? At least entertain us with some more...
- Stephen Shenfield: I just read the article you refer to (originally from Ha-Aretz) and “an admitted...
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got ’1000s of positive reactions’ (6)
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “They ["The Union" - J.L.D.] honestly don’t know what they did wrong. They’re genuinely...
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “The clip is meant for comedic purposes only . . . In less than one day, the video received...
- Kerry goes for the Hail Mary, but Obama is punting (48)
- Hostage: P.S. Netanyahu has advocated an economic peace rather than an end to the occupation for years. I have no...
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the tip of everybody’s tongue’ (25)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
no, hirsi isn't a self-hating muslim. she's something alright, just not that.
“Everyone assumes they live there for free, thanks to a donor, a friend of Bill and Hillary, or even just someone with an empty place who is connected,” the source said.
uh, isn't that illegal? it looks like a one-bedroom condo in that area goes for about 1.2M. i'm no tax expert, but if someone is giving you the rental value of $60k or more a year for free, i think the IRS might consider that a taxable gift. or income if weiner is performing some sort of service for rosen, allegedly. or might it be treated as an undisclosed campaign contribution? this doesn't smell right.
The sins of the father (and/or mother) are theirs and not their children’s.
that was a flip comment by me, woody, but it's not that simple either. her family connections are a large part of why she is now co-chair of this . . . well, whatever it is. and although I appreciate the sentiment, the 'of many' has the feel of so many other institutes/foundations/etc that are essentially elite filters that ensure that the right people work their way up the hierarchy of influence. (the institute “supports a new generation of religious and civic leaders who, deeply rooted in their own religious and spiritual traditions, reach across faith boundaries to solve social problems together.” in other words, this is Chelsea Clinton's more sophisticated version of her father's famous foundational networking rolodex of political connections. not that Chelsea would ever aspire to anything like her parents' ambitions.)
ick. Clinton and Mezvinsky. what a pedigree.
Half Jews? Half Jews?
My goodness, Biorabbi, do you mean…
right on, don. these are the real self-haters. bio can't imagine a 'jewish identity' that isn't consistent with the racial ideologies of the german national socialists or 'white' identity movements. that's why they have such an easy affinity with the religious fundamentalist nuts in this country, who believe that there is something inherently evil in people who don't embrace their version of Christianity.
but Pamela, why is it permissible (or to judge by biden's slobbering, required) to acknowledge uniquely 'jewish' contributions to the arts and sciences, for example, but impermissible to talk about the 'golden age' of jewish pornographers or ecstasy traffickers or mortgage underwriters, or to point out that many institutions, including government and scientific research, both of which we're told have outsize 'jewish' representation, are at historic levels of corruption and dysfunction? i personally don't have a satisfactory answer to this problem, but it's not logically consistent to permit praise of uniquely jewish contributions without also permitting criticism of uniquely jewish defects.
i'm with you on Koufax. the only smart thing Jacobs ever did was to hire chiarelli and neely.
jews escaping from their rabbis? oh, my.
Before we supported Israel
precisely woody. but Israel is a jealous type. that's the part biohazard left out. Israel insists on being 'our one [and only] friend', there can be no others, otherwise madame Israel pitches a fit, throwing her perfume bottles against the wall, threatening to release details of the whole sordid affair to the world.
I tend to agree somewhat with the vice president: Jewish cultural/political influence has been staggering
staggering. perhaps you could detail some areas of jewish influence on American culture that are staggeringly negative. and i'm not talking about generalized descriptions of stereotypical traits associated with etc. etc. etc. be specific.
Hey, what about me?
- Jeremy Jacobs (from Buffalo, NY)
This case is proof that they want to make their own reality.
from an FT review of 'Israel has Moved' by Diana Pinto:
Pinto’s acute – and, in my view, apt – diagnosis of Israel’s defining ailment is that it is “autistic”: trapped inside its own increasingly comfortable, security-defended bubble, unable to connect with – much less identify with – its neighbours, starting with the Palestinians.
link to ft.com
of course, your point is that they are delusional. there is no 'reality making' when it comes to previously completed historical events. al-dura was either shot and killed or he wasn't. since the Zionists can't deny that they have killed thousands of civilians, their public relations/semiotics strike team goes around 'debunking' every recorded, impactful image of the mayhem. the photo of dead child in gaza was really taken in Lebanon 2006; and that photo of a dead child in Lebanon 2006 is really from the 2nd intifada. and on and on goes the shell game. since Palestinian suffering is irrelevant (or, Palestinians are incapable of sincere grief; it's all staged, as a variation on the theme goes.) it certainly can't be recorded.
Maha would have had less trouble making this trip 25 years ago.
25 years ago? you mean during the 1st intifada?
i had previously linked to a great article by cheryl rubenberg of the middle east research and information project detailing israel's military role in guatamala and the genocide there.
link to merip.org
central america has been one of the sites for neoliberal laboratories for social and economic innovation. see also honduras, with its recently aborted experiment in the 21st century 'company town', rationalized of course with high-tech, entreprenurial mumbo jumbo.
link to cryptogon.com
It is, in fact, the most . . .
another case of superlative delusional psychosis. Israel can't be mentioned without attaching a superlative to its description. I seem to remember a 3 stooges short with this theme. whenever curly saw a mouse, he went spastic, flailing his arms and involuntarily shouting superlatives about the state Israel. ('the most ... the least ... the most ...') the only cure was to be force fed cheese. 'moe! larry! the cheese!' that was a great bit.
new Zealand is on the map, too. it has a smaller population than Israel. or were you referring to 'tiny' as in not many square miles. either way, you're wrong. again. but congratulations on posting the first comment.
So much for going from memory…
yes. all hail the internet, the great memory prosthesis. my impression is that there is a ripple of objective scrutiny of Israeli policies. just can't get too worked up about one particular show or personality. that's one of my criticisms of Weiss, he sees so many 'turning points', you have to wonder if one of his journalistic shoes is nailed to the floor.
Bourdain is Lebanese.
is he? I thought he did a 'roots' show, returning to Brittany or some other dreary place in france with his brother. anyway, his Lebanese shows were a disappointment. if I remember right, he did a follow up and downplayed the Israeli role in 2006, and was laughing in effect at many of the Lebanese explanations for the dispute as part of the arab mania for conspiracies. 'globe trekker' (which did a very good Palestine edition) and rick steves would be better candidates for an even handed broadcast. bourdain is kind of a block head in my estimation, not as bad as the 'man vs. food' pig that paul k. links to, though. (I tried pitching an idea to the Travel Channel for a post-production behind the scenes look at the host after he's choked down his 24-egg cheese omelette, or 5-pound bean burrito, called 'man vs. bowel movement'. they said they'd call me.)
i'll spare you my OJ spiel, citizen, but that's only a partial diagnosis of dershowitzitis. it's the bald hypocrisy that I find most galling. this [person] can't open his mouth without slandering someone (tutu, Chomsky, walt, finkelstein, etc.), but pointed criticism of him is usually met with a law suit or threat of law suit. his ego can't resist the urge to climb into the ring and start swinging, but the minute someone punches him in the mouth he's bawling like a three-year old.
it's not completely analogous, but if I remember correctly brooke shield's mother had sued over publication of nude photos of her daughter, mommy claiming that they would cause harm to her daughter's reputation and career. the judge basically said, you chose this life for your daughter, lady, promoting a career based on titillating ads and movie and TV roles for a pre-teen. you broke it, you own it. same for alan. if he wants to fling dung around in a cage full of alpha chimps, too bad if some gets on him.
the judge in Guatemala who delivered the verdict finding Gen. Rios Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity spoke about the legal liability of those persons abroad who had assisted Rios Montt’s crimes.
you don't say?
When Gen. Efrain Rios Montt staged his coup on March 23, 1982, the Israeli news magazine Ha’olam Hazeh reported he had the help of 300 Israeli military advisers who assisted in training, planning and executing the coup. Yediot Aharonot referred to the coup as “the Israeli connection.” Rios Montt himself acknowledged to an ABC reporter that things had gone very smoothly “because many of our soldiers were trained by Israelis.” During the 17 months of Rios Montt’s rule, Israel’s intensified military involvement in Guatemala was supplemented by assistance on other levels. Shortly after Rios Montt seized power, the two countries signed a wide-ranging Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement. Guatemala’s tourist board reportedly targeted US Jewish communities in its promotion campaign, and Guatemalan radio regularly aired Israeli programs. Magen David Adom, Israel’s Red Cross, solicited contributions from American Jews so that Israel could dispatch relief supplies to Guatemala. During this period, a Guatemalan business leader told the Los Angeles Times: “We’re isolated internationally. The only friend we have left in the world is Israel.”
Rios Montt’s minister of defense, Gen. Mejia Victores, overthrew the president on August 8, 1983. The change in presidential palace personnel did not appear to signal any change in Israeli-Guatemalan relations. The Eleventh Convention of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Central America and Panama met in Guatemala City in April 1984, attended by Israeli diplomats and high Guatemalan government officials, though Guatemala’s Jewish community is estimated at no more than 1,500. Rodolfo Lobos Zamora, the Guatemalan army chief of staff, visited Israel in early 1985, reportedly to “negotiate for Israeli aid, particularly military aid.” Mejia Victores himself was scheduled to make a state visit to Israel on April 14, 1985, but the threat of a coup forced him to cancel.
Intensified Involvement
In January 1983, at the height of Rios Montt’s carnage, then-chief of staff Gen. Hector Lopez Fuentes summed up the relationship this way, “Israel is our principal supplier of arms and the number one friend of Guatemala in the world.” What accounts for the pervasive Israeli involvement in Guatemala? The convergence of two factors in the fall of 1981 provides part of the answer. First, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon felt strongly, as did Prime Minister Begin, that Israel could increase its leverage over Washington by performing indispensable functions for the US in third countries. Second, the Reagan administration was obsessively concerned about events in Central America, and Guatemala’s significance in US regional strategy was considered crucial at a time when Congressional restrictions on direct US aid were still in force. Lt. Gen. Wallace Nutting, then head of the US Southern Command, noted in 1982 that “the situation in Guatemala is potentially more serious than in El Salvador because the population is larger, the economy is stronger, and the geographical position is more critically located in a strategic sense.”
These two elements converged in the Memorandum of Understanding between Israel and the US in November 1981. The Memorandum specifically provided that the US would grant third countries permission to spend part of their US military credits in Israel. Israel did not feel that the accord went far enough in meeting its needs for expanded markets, nevertheless the Jerusalem Post stated that the Memorandum “laid the groundwork for using Israel’s defense needs and the American aid that nourishes them, to create a broader base for Israel’s industrial development.” The strategic agreement was suspended a month later, when the Begin government annexed the Golan Heights, although Sharon contended that it remained secretly in effect. In discussions prior to the agreement’s formal reinstatement in November 1983, Israel proposed that it serve as a conduit for American aid to “anti-communist” forces in Central America -- primarily the Nicaraguan contras and Guatemala -- through a fund the administration would establish independent of the government budget to finance projects implemented by Israeli “experts.” The Reagan administration’s commitment to these provisions was apparent when Congress tried to block US aid recipients from channeling such aid to the contras in the FY 1986 foreign aid bill: The Reagan team pressed successfully for wording that would not “take away from the sovereign decision” of other countries to assist the contras.
link to merip.org
more news from the land of the 'moderate crescent' (via angry arab):
“It’s a very important message saying we will not let religious extremism take over,” said Ronit Heyd, director of Shatil, a coalition of groups that fights segregation. “Israel can be both a Jewish and a liberal, democratic state. Once the religious law takes over the democracy, that’s where we’re in danger.”
Mr. Weinstein’s statement said that all seats on all buses must be open to everyone, with all passengers entering through the front door; that women must be allowed to deliver eulogies; that seating at public ceremonies must be mixed; and that signs advising women to dress modestly cannot be posted on neighborhood streets. It also gave the broadcasting authority six months to work out an arrangement with a prominent ultra-Orthodox radio station to end its ban on female broadcasters and callers from many programs.
Yedidia Z. Stern, vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute, said that most Israelis would welcome the changes, and that ultra-Orthodox politicians, who were shut out of Mr. Netanyahu’s current coalition government, had little chance of stopping them from becoming law.
But while Mr. Stern agrees with the prohibitions on segregation of buses and government or military ceremonies, he questions whether street signs in insular neighborhoods and radio programs geared to a narrow audience form a separate, quasi-public category that should be considered differently. And he worries that given the larger struggle over the integration of the ultra-Orthodox, the new rules could fuel the flames.
link to nytimes.com
so in May 2013, the only jewish democratic theocracy in the middle east is just getting around to legislation that prohibits women from being sent to the 'back of the bus'. some might take this as a sign of progress, but it's actually the opposite: it's an indication of how reactionary a state Israel is and is becoming.
American, what exactly would Israeli missile defense systems be protecting Jordan from? hmm. jeez, maybe after Israel instigates a war with iran Jordan is worried about the stray missile or two. nice country. shame if something were to happen to it.
interesting this. 'a moderate crescent'. by 'moderate' do they mean 'medium', 'modest', 'reasonably priced'? in SArabia they flog people for being gay, enforce segregation of the sexes, perform public executions by beheading, and on and on. are these the same types of 'moderates' that the US is arming in Syria by way of Libya and Turkey, for example? see ambassador Stevens' body for response.
I mostly agree, and am appalled by many of the comments distorting historical reality in a chauvinistic fashion.
keith, with all due respect I think you misinterpret 'the demilitarization of Germany' argument, at least made in this context. as I said, 'demilitarization' is a mischaracterization of the morganthau plan. 'demilitarization' really means deindustrialization here. and that's the underlying motivation: not the demilitarization of Germany as part of permanent peace plan for Europe, but as intended as a punishment of Germany as a state, and the germans as a people. I don't recall any argument about the withdrawal of what became NATO forces from allied territory, or of a negotiation of NATO withdrawal in the context of eastern bloc demilitarization, i.e. the demilitarization of europe. (the European history of mass murder is a European problem, not a german problem.) hophmi just wants to punish germans for killing jews. he doesn't give a sh*t about gentile germans killing gentile poles or gentile dutch or gentile greeks, as he's already stated.
sorry, citizen. that was my not-so clear sarcastic response to israel's used car salesman.
Is it really amazing? Look at all the nonsense in this thread, yet another one where you’re complaining that the Jews hate everybody. You actually feel a need to go back in history to complain about the Morgenthau Plan, as if there was some collective effort to starve Germany by Jews. Gee, I can’t imagine why Jews would be upset after the war. Without question, any instinct to demilitarize Germany after the war was correct, and if you can’t admit that, there is seriously something wrong with you.
are you capable of expressing a coherent, logically consistent thought? no, apparently. no one here alleged that 'the jews hate everybody'. no one. and morganthau's instinct was not to 'demilitarize' germany, but, as y.fredman put it, to forceably 'impoverish' the country, an important distinction which passes over your head. even the 'instinct' to demilitarize germany 'after the war' was not correct, unless you consider soviet-style domination of w.europe a favorable result.
that's the polite interpretation of morganthau, j.canning. y.fredman's walk back of his own comment is the honest interpretaton. and for all his biases, i'm sure yonah knows the history. germans were collectively punished for the war. their punishment may not have been the consequence of a coordinated, unified plan, but the punishment began with the decision to bomb concentrated civilian populations and continued with the mass rape and intentional killings of millions of german nationals, mass expulsion, killing and 'appropriation' of the property of ethnic germans, the mass killing of collaborators, etc.
it is amazing citizen. despite the mass murder of jews on so-called racial grounds, there continue to be any numbers of jewish individuals who see the world primarily in terms of race/genes and conduct their relationships accordingly.
ben Hecht wrote a piece entitled 'the sickness called germany' based on his experiences in Germany in the immediate post-war years, the early 20s. it's a racist diatribe, referring to germans collectively as this or that species of animal or herd, ignoring or belittling what many germans were doing, including sacrificing their lives, to avoid a future of more militarism. and so we go from that to this; morganthau's 'instinct', an inclination to send Germany back into the stone age was 'not wrong'. never mind that the history of Europe is a nearly unbroken 2,000-year chain of bloody conflicts up to the present. but again the instinct to pave Germany is not wrong. brilliant.
As Judt proves in Postwar- the fact that Europe survived the post war without again engaging in more wars was partially a matter of luck.
that's not even an accurate summation of judt's 'proof'. and luck had little if anything to do with 'Germany not starting any more wars'. Germany was divided and occupied; European politics were sufficiently polarized so that no European state, including Germany, could expect popular support for another European war; nuclear technology assured that another European war on the scale of the 'great wars' was not an option; etc.
ellen, hophmi's problem (or at least one of them) is the jew-gentile lens he views the entire world through. it allows for recognition that there are 'arabs' or 'muslims', which he casually exchanges as synonyms, but after that any nuance is lost. no 'arabs' speak out against 'human rights abuses' in the 'arab world'. the spectacle of millions of Egyptians protesting Mubarak's human rights abuses and corruption is a peg that can't fit in that hole, Tunisians protesting corruption and essentially overthrowing their government don't count, women in Saudi Arabia protesting against the prohibition on women drivers don't count, and the millions of non-Egyptian, non-Tunisian, non-Saudi Arabian, non-arabs who support those causes are non-existent. he lives in a captian israel comic book world.
really, annie, what logical conclusions, if any, can you reach from that stew of factual contradiction and logical inconsistency? most American jews, just happen to be jews, and aren't jews in any meaningful sense; only the opinions of the orthodox matter on the subject of israel; oh, and shut up because nothing you say or do will ever amount to anything on any topic of importance.
'lords of the land' is available at google books:
link to books.google.com
the first chapter details the quick transition from discussion of land swaps for peace, to various settlement proposals which are typically mish mashes of military, political and religious/historic considerations. dayan's transformation, as I said, was quick. within weeks he went from proposing military outposts, to the establishment of civilian settlements, the difference between military and paramilitary really being the key distinction between actors. that and he was enacting policies to ensure that w.bank Palestinians did not return and further encouraging displaced or separated family members from settling outside of the w.bank, in Jordan mostly. another big population transfer initiated by Israeli military aggression.
kylebisme, it's difficult to make a clear, concise statement of Israeli policy at the time from what I've read. there seems to have been many personalities working at cross purposes, or rapidly changing their positions, on the status of the w.bank in particular. dayan, then minister of defense, reportedly was initially supportive of a land for peace swap, but that didn't last long, and the idf began to train and arm settlers as a paramilitary force in the w.bank fairly shortly after the end of the war.
if you can get your hands on them at the library, 'lords of the land' and 'the bride and the dowry' are great resources on the subject.
david, i can't get behind the subscription wall right now, but adam shatz had an excellent review in LRB of 'the bride and the dowry' by avi raz detailing the history of '67, including the important pre-history leading up to it, and the historical fact is that many of the founding fathers of israel considered it a grievous error not to have taken the w.bank in '48. '67 (the 'pre-emptive counterattack') was the premeditated fix.
dershowitz is such a shameless liar every word out of his mouth is a fresh affront to decency.
krauss, that's just bizarre. so Israel is going to surgically "bomb assad back to the dark ages"? just him personally. no this isn't cast lead, it's a full cast of western powers destabilizing the assad regime in order to set Syrian society back into the dark ages like they've managed in Libya and Iraq, with the further intent, ultimately, of weakening Iran. that's the plan. read it. it's been publicly available for years.
Catholics have not been without sin when it comes to marrying outsiders.
yup, we all got our prejudices in our closets. my polish grandmother was convinced that her soon-to-be son-in-law was jewish because he was a dentist. 'only jews are dentists!' (or was it 'only dentists are jews'? i forget.) anyway that was over half a century ago. nobody in my family gives a sh*t about that part of identity anymore.
thanks for the concern trolling, Miriam. (have you fixed Darfur yet?) no one here disagrees that Guantanamo should be closed, but that has f*ck all to do with the 'anti-assimilationist' positions of bob jones or Netanyahu's brother-in-law.
having problems with the 'cap lock' key again Miriam? no, Israelis certainly wouldn't want to be associated with American values as their country regularly kidnaps children from the street, holding them without charges, denying them legal counsel, threatening them and their family members with physical and sexual assault in order to turn them into informers. what a proud tradition! Israelis don't want to be associated with the US? the feeling is mutual. adios. arrivederci. au revoir. auf wiedersehen. dovidenia. good luck sorting that thing out with Syria and Iran. we wish you the best.
Georgetown established the School of Medicine in 1851 and the Law School in 1870. Patrick F. Healy, S.J., the university’s president between 1873 and 1882, was the first African American to earn a Ph.D. and the first to head a major U.S. university. Healy dramatically reformed the university’s curriculum with a new emphasis on history and the natural sciences and started construction on the Flemish Romanesque-style Healy Hall in 1877.
my father and uncle's alma mater. along with notre dame, great Jesuit institutions. this is the part i'm proud of, that and the whole liberation theology movements. unfortunately bob jones is right about much of the rest of the history of the catholic church, the 'whore of Babylon'.
bob jones, jim jones, tom jones. we catholics don't take credit for any of them.
Catholic Bob Jones University's
catholic? I could be wrong, but I don't think that's the case.
keller's a genuine zionist, politically and psychologically. a hiccup of anxiety, completely without rational foundation, had to be staunched with the blood of thousands of American troops and Iraqi civilians. sitting back and applying his long cultivated professional 'caution and skepticism' isn't an option when his psychological well-being is at risk. what a friggin' hysteric.
they are revolting, keller, slaughter, demint, all of the cheerleaders for more blood. we can drop them into Syria, slim pickens' style, if they want to effect 'regime change'.
It all reminds me of Ahmad Chalabi.
you're not alone. aqidi has the feel of the typical 3%-ters that the US and Israel like to showcase as representatives of 'the people', like Fayyad or the hack of the month in Haiti, who couldn't win a fair and democratic election in a phone booth filled with close relatives. see this summary from cannonfire:
In the coming days, you may be seeing more journalistic puff pieces focusing on a Syrian Army defector named Colonel Abdul-Jabbar Mohammed Aqidi, who heads up an anti-Assad umbrella group called the Military Revolutionary Council in Aleppo. The media will try to convince you that he's the Charles de Gaulle of this war. We're supposed to think of him as a moderate leader, not at all connected to those awful, awful radical jihadis.
Israel seems to be backing Aqidi and his group.
I advise caution. This LAT story from last year indicates that Aqidi resembles Ahmed Chelabi a lot more than he resembles de Gaulle. The U.S. may consider Aqidi a future leader of Syria -- but how many people in Syria feel that way?
hophmi to annie today:
Or do Jewish lives not matter to you?
earlier, hophmi says:
March 20, 2013 at 9:38 am
I could care less that Christian killed Christians in endless intraChristian wars.
probably israel trying to degrade Assad’s military capabilities.
that and testing air defenses. just like in s.lebanon. send in a few planes and wait to see what air defenses are activated. Israel just needed the cover of the sarin nonsense so nobody would get too upset about its serial violations of neighbors' air space.
interesting that story, tzombo. seems it was released after the Sunday talking heads forums. I normally don't watch the Sunday round ups, but I wanted to see the reaction to Israel's latest violation of international law, and not a peep about the rebels use of chemical weapons.
how does an organization with an '87-year history' pre-date Zionism by '50 or so years'?
ope. it looks like the FAS says it is not a chemical weapon under the convention, although there are other sources, including apparently US military intelligence who (sometimes) say otherwise:
The Italian journalist who launched the controversy over the American use of white phosphorus (WP) as a weapon of war in the Fallujah siege has accused the Americans of hypocrisy.
Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel aired two weeks ago, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon".
The assessment was published in a declassified report on the American Department of Defence website. The file was headed: "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders."
In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."
According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.
so there you have it: it depends who's using them.
from the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998:
1) Chemical weapon. — The term "chemical weapon" means the following, together or separately:
(A) A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this Act as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.
(B) Ammunition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.
(C) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).
(13) Toxic chemical. —
(A) In general. — The term "toxic chemical" means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(B) List of toxic chemicals. — Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
A. Toxic chemicals: (CAS registry number)
(1) Amiton: 0,0-Diethyl S-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl] phosphorothiolate and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts (78-53-5)
(2) PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene (382-21-8)
(3) BZ: 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (*) (6581-06-2)
B. Precursors: (CAS registry number)
(4) Chemicals, except for those listed in Schedule 1, containing a phosphorus atom to which is bonded one methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso) group but not further carbon atoms,
so chemical precursors containing the phosphorous atom bonded to an alcohol group but not other carbon atoms, are chemical weapons. is there a chemist in the house?
it's beyond orwell. bejamin kunkel (I think) just wrote an article on the pathology of political debate in America, basically arguing that objective discourse isn't even possible at this late date. by way of example, apparently the DOJ is prosecuting an 18-year old American because he intended to travel to Syria through turkey to fight for the Syrian rebels, because, well they're terrorists. for a significant portion of the US population the irony or absurdity of this will pass completely over their head, just as they're incapable of registering the possibility of the hypocrisy of block and tabler.
pabelmont, that's it. the classification system is a corruption, designed to monopolize profitable information, and punish people like manning who have the audacity to embarrass daddy in public. keeping dangerous secrets out of the hands of bad men is only a small part of it. (which bits of 'secret' information leaked by manning were previously unknown to the enemy exactly?) that's what his defense team should be doing, neutering the 'dangerousness' and argument of uniqueness of intelligence of every bite of released information.
dan, sports is one of my favorite forms of entertainment, and my kids have been involved for years. (yes, i'm one of those over agitated parents at the 5th grade girls basketball game.) but my impression of professional athletes is generally negative: self-important, sexist, ignoramuses, in my opinion. I do feel sympathy for athletes as an exploited class though. back when I cared more about such things I spent weeks reading about college athletics programs and efforts and arguments about unionization of college athletics. but that's a slightly different topic.
annie, he's an offensive lineman, not a linebacker as you identify him in the headline. two different positions. small point. is it true that there are few devout muslims in the NFL as the article says? that surprised me, given the number of black muslims in America.
the final word given to greenwald is the whole point of the 'evolution' of constitutional rights post-9/11. islamophobia is the pretext. law enforcement (who, it must be noted, managed to cock up every stage of the investigation, pre- and post- bomb blast) had a million-plus people under martial law while pursuing a teenaged suspect, on foot, apparently unarmed. no offense to analysts, but that's the real story.
there was no drill. at least according to the apparatchiks' round table on the diane rehm show days after the bombing, not a single member of which had heard of the reports of a drill as tweeted by MSM sources, and as reported by witnesses at the marathon. of course diane and others were referring to people from Chechnya as 'chechnyans', not chechens, so maybe they're not so bright.
i'm with you on griffen, mrw. he has written some important stuff, even if I can't agree with all of it. the basic problem is the cover up. when the government and media publish disinformation and do everything in their power to discourage legitimate inquiries, sincere people are bound to follow some unproductive paths. (as to damages control, see for example that creep Kenneth Feinberg, bag man in charge of doling out shut up money to victims of 9/11, the BP disaster and now boston. yeah marc ellis, what a decent human being.
I think their day is passing.
regrettably I think that they're actually at the height of their power. how long that lasts, I don't know.
a love letter to UN Watch and its creative editing:
"blow[] . . . . me."
Moby Dick, pp. 133, 218, Herman Melville (Penguin Classics Edition)
from the article, bumblebye.
A report dated October 1947 refers to Menachem Begin, commander of Irgun, stating in a press interview that "the fight against the British invader would continue until the last one left Palestine".
m.begin, a Russian who immigrated to Palestine when he was 30-ish years old railing against the 'british invader'. sounds like a friend of hoppee's.
Yes, I suppose it does. So, Annie, what’s your choice? Are you going to live in Israel or South Lebanon? Which do you think is better?
ha! what a silly question, and an even sillier set up. so you're basically threatening annie with a dose of cluster bombs if she hypothetically chooses s. Lebanon? ('ya got a nice country there, girly. shame if something were to happen to it.') and the fact that you're surprised by her response is priceless. perfect example of the insular cluelessness of zionuts. why don't try rephrasing your question . . . a third time.
TAL is extremely well done, but this goofy, precious, contrived modesty of glass is nauseating. glass isn't consciously aware of his 'jewishness' and its effect on the show as a 'jewish kind of cultural product'? jee-sus. maybe a good slap or some cold water might snap him out of his stupor.
I love the show, notwithstanding legitimate criticism of its I/P coverage. the interviews broadcast in the aftermath of Katrina were incredible. (did I mention I love the show?) but come on. I had heard glass at some point do this whole shtick with shalom auslander, the author of 'hope: a tragedy' a year or so back, with the author playing the stereotypical, paranoid neurotic type, and glass playing the relatively relaxed, assimilated, Americanized jew.
link to youtube.com
I believe that I have heard similar exchanges or conversations with glass and others. so he's not aware that his work is a sort of jewish cultural product of the American species, but he has regular professional conversations (confessions of sorts, actually), with rudis, auslander and others, dealing with the relative differences between his jewish identity and that of other American jews. I guess we all have our blind spots.
there was no metaphor
annie to the rescue! thanks, you saved me the effort.
hostage, the respondents (IDF) originally issued orders prohibiting the use of 'human shields' without admitting that such a practice existed. the orders were issued apparently as a legal tactic, the argument being that if such a policy was prohibited, there was no longer a need for the injunction or suit. the petitioners (adalah) argued that the so-called 'neighbor policy' (early warning procedure) was in effect synonymous with the use of 'human shields'. it seems that the IDF argument was more semantic than legal or factual, the whole concept of voluntariness of the 'neighbor' policy being called into question, I believe. the injection of 'voluntariness' (to distinguish the 'neighbor' policy from the use of human shields), even if assumed for argument's sake, doesn't change the fact that the volunteer is performing a function which effectively reduces the risk of harm to israeli soldiers while subjecting the 'volunteer' to a greater risk of harm.
we can't be too harsh, though, shingo. the IDF is the 'most moral, best trained army' in the world. how couldn't it be? see, for example, monty python's IDF skit.
link to youtube.com
obsidian, there is a long documented history of the use of Palestinian civilians by the IDF as human shields. in fact the IDF argued in legal proceedings that its policy of using human shields is/was humane and is/was intended to reduce the risk of harm to other Palestinians. it's all there in black and white. you can read the court documents in English or Hebrew (assuming that you have eyes not blinded by hate), whatever your preference. and the implication of your statement is nonsensensical. the 'display' logic implies that the soldiers were attempting to defuse a tense situation. so one would have to wonder why they were casually firing off a few rounds in the direction of other Palestinians if that was their intent.
see adalah compilation of documents on Israeli use of human shields. summary below.
link to adalah.org
jewish terrorist organizations killed and terrorized other jews who engaged in business with arabs in pre-48 palestine, and killed and terrorized other jews whose politics were inconsistent with their particular plans for independence. there is no 'discovery' and the historical example given is not a unique incident of jewish violence against jewish collaborators, perceived or actual. you're being disinegenuous to be polite.
Sure. It’s really not in dispute.
too funny. links to Wikipedia and an article by mitchell bard of aipac and aice. well, that settles it then.
Reagan was/is a bizarre phenomenon. considered a 'great leader' by many in the conservative movement, the man couldn't get through the day without cue cards or some scripted prompt. I personally believe he was completely delusional, incapable of sorting out reality from the silver screen.
on her buddy, Pinochet. (seems the brouhaha over CNN publishing a photograph with the iron lady and jimmy saville as part of her obit was unwarranted. she was perfectly at ease in the company of sadists and murderers. her kind of people.)
The Report of the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture was commissioned in 2003 to create the most comprehensive list possible of those who were imprisoned and tortured for political reasons during the military dictatorship from September 1973 to March 1990. This mandate was vastly different from that of the first Chilean truth commission, The Rettig Report of 1991, which enumerated solely those who had been disappeared or murdered.
Published in 2005, the report greatly expanded on the official version of the extent of repression in Chile. The Commission took testimony from 35,868 individuals who were tortured or imprisoned improperly. Of those, 27,255 were verified and included. An unknown number of victims did not come forward to give testimony. Scholars estimate that the real number is between 150,000 and 300,000 victims.
94 per cent of the verified testimonies include incidents of torture. The short list of methods includes repeated kicking or hitting, intentional physical scarring, forcing victims to maintain certain positions, electric shocks to sensitive areas, threats, mock execution, humiliation, forced nudity, sexual assault, witnessing the torture or execution of others, forced Russian roulette, asphyxiation, and imprisonment in inhumane conditions. There are many individuals with permanently distorted limbs or other disfigurations. For others, the memory of the humiliation is what remains. One man testified, “While they interrogated me, they took off my clothes and attached electrodes to my chest and testicles…They put something in my mouth so that I wouldn’t bite my tongue while they shocked me.”
For women, it was an especially violent experience. The commission reports that nearly every female prisoner was the victim of repeated rape. The perpetration of this crime took many forms, from military men raping women themselves to the use of foreign objects on victims. Numerous women (and men) report spiders or live rats being implanted into their orifices. One woman wrote, “I was raped and sexually assaulted with trained dogs and with live rats. They forced me to have sex with my father and brother who were also detained. I also had to listen to my father and brother being tortured.” Her experiences were mirrored by those of many other women who told their stories to the commission.
link to thecrimson.com
oh, and great work as usual nima. i'd add richard seymour's finger on the pulse of thatcher's corpse as well for those interested in what she was up to.
link to jacobinmag.com
what has changed? Nothing, it's only gotten worse
well, yes, that changed. it's gotten much worse.
if soldiers and police shoot children and kill unarmed civilians engaged in peaceful protests, they are using deadly force without legal justification. that makes them fair game. the rest is silly semantics.
a mile wide, a millimeter thick.
the protest that never materialized. these dimwits couldn't be bothered to take time off from 'afternoon' classes, and no alumni appeared to protest either, apparently.
link to thedailybeast.com
ugh, yes, that's unfortunate. but you can't blame rosenberg for that sh*t stirrer, the world's leading authority on others' racism.
hophmi says:
March 20, 2013 at 9:38 am
I could care less that Christian killed Christians in endless intraChristian wars.
i go back and forth on whether weiss should shut down these racist losers. on the one hand, they give us an idea of how truly repulsive the supremacists are. on the other hand, we already knew that.
there are racists. And there are anti-Semites.
yes, there are. and yet again you make a melodramatic generalization, using, i might add, anti-Semitic imagery ('dripping with vitriol'; what, no mention of fangs?), without a single specific reference to an anti-Semitic comment, never mind providing an explanation of how such comment constitutes anti-Semitism.
every historical event is unique. that's not what your describing, the holocaust, or in this case, the murder of jewish children during the war, as a unique event. the separation of the murder of jews from other nationalities or ethnicities is historically misleading, and the only purpose it serves, that you serve, by continuing to insist that the holocaust be separated from its context is to elevate it as a superlative, a 'unique event' more significant than the murder of millions of Russians, poles, ukranians, etc. it's not only historically misleading, it's frankly offensive for anyone who had relatives killed in the war.
true enough. strictly speaking all historical events are unique. in this context unique is short hand for the superlative, e.g. the worst instance of such and such, the most murderous instance of . . ., and on.
re-reading the post, some of my comment was unnecessarily personal. and for that I apologize. but the main points, made better by others here, stand.
Those who feel the need to say that there is “nothing terribly unique” about the Holocaust are, in my opinion, driven by anti-Semitism.
I could, if I wanted to, find hundreds if not thousands of anti-Semitic statements here.
instead of reading minds and channeling McCarthy, why don't you spend a bit of psychic energy analyzing what lead to the hierarchies of suffering debate in the first place. it isn't sufficient to separate the holocaust from the extermination of slavs, roma, etc. as a method of breaking down history into bite sized chunks, but the insistence that the murder of jews is a historical superlative, that's what. and where's your righteous indignation when recent comments here suggested that the deaths of non-jews are/should be of little importance to jews? i don't recall a single commenter here ever suggesting that the deaths of jews are or should be irrelevant to gentiles. on the contrary. again it's the pathological, knee-jerk insistence on 'refuting' the suffering of others that has been the catalyst for this debate. no historical commentary about the murder of slavs, roma, Armenians, Chinese, etc. can pass without some half-baked response that it was always, everywhere, worse for jewish victims, with statistics to support that conclusion, as if it were mathematically possible to measure cumulative, mass pain. that's what's offensive. if you're intellectually incapable of keeping multiple perspectives in your head at the same time, fine. but most of the rest of us can understand the broader historical forces at work during the war, and can recognize that the murder of jews was part of a larger plan without diminishing jewish victims' pain and loss.
The language on this site is offensive.
yes, and what a brilliant, totalitarian response to being offended: shut down the comments section. that's really what this is about, your thin skin and the existential crisis you suffer whenever someone contradicts your position. so much for brandeis and an open dialogue.
piotr, they may not be imperialists exactly, but they are certainly practicing a version of colonialism and racism. (no, the fact that one of the protestors is egyptian doesn't absolve them of racism.) take the time to read some of the feminist critiques of femen. the link to the writer for le monde diplomatique is particularly to the point. i presume from the critique and tone that she's read tiqqun's 'preliminary materials for a theory of the young-girl' which more or less describes what femen is up to, but in typical french, post-modernist cryptic fashion. in short, the image of the 'young-girl' encapsulates its (it can be a male or female) entire ideology while completely excluding the possibility of any other ideologies. so for 3rd world feminists, for example, it's femen's way of the highway. you either adopt the tits on parade commercialism of femen's feminism, or you're a tool the islamic patriarchy. it's that simple: strip (or better yet admire us while we strip) or shut the f*ck up.
But if I were a member of the congregation I would be vehemently opposed to having a bigot like that speak where I worshipped. What message are they sending about what they stand for?
that's the question, though, donald. if geller's opinions accurately reflect the opinions of the congregants at great neck synagogue, then of course she should be permitted to speak. that just means that the worshipers at that synagogue are racists like her. who would argue that a christian identity church shouldn't allow david duke to speak?
why would you think it was an april fool's joke given the increasing interest in BDS and waters' history? pretty dim on your part, i'd say.
and, yes, of course, there's always something worse going on elsewhere. you'd make an entertaining if ineffective lawyer. 'your honor, while this court prosecutes my client for child molestation, syrians are dying? is this justice?'
yfred, not to piss on his grave, but hitchens was loathesome. he didn't just 'believe in the need to destroy the enemy of the kurds', he was a fan boy for bush and blair long after saddam was dethroned, and long after it was clear that the wars (plural) lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and it was also learned that the factual bases for the wars were fabricated. and he supported the wars because that's what 'journalists' did in the day. belatedly, he and his mildly retarded american doppelganger, tfriedman, began to realize that unequivocal support for the wars might be taken as evidence of bad journalism, and turned a critical eye on events. the newly critical hitchens, for his part, was responsible for one of the most embarassing bits of journalism in the history of modern journalism with his blubbering, pants-pissing display 10 seconds into his voluntary adventure in water boarding. 'yes, it's torture', he opined afterwards, as if any objective person couldn't have concluded that multiple, forced near drownings were 'torture' without the narcissistic theatrics.
good riddance.
it was well worth listening to. I need to go back to lydon more often. he is sorely missed locally.
ope. 'conversation about friedman, remnick, franken et al.'
gelb:
The first slippery slope now is the growing demand from the usual tiny group of interventionists for the U.S. to start supplying arms to the Syrian rebels. On the surface, this seems quite reasonable. President Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian Army is much better equipped, so why not at least equalize the fight against the dictatorial regime?
is that the starting point for US foreign policy, 'equalizing the fight against dictators'?
and could someone define 'intellectual' for me? I haven't a clue what it means in the context of a conversation about
The government, he said, was "not interested in finding a solution to the existing situation, but rather in preserving it …
smart.
clair, annie and i have already made the point that these types of protests would not necessarily be 'acceptable to a western audience', never mind the tactical disaster they likely represent in their own countries. and i fail to see how female autonomy is promoted by appearing nude in public. in fact it seems to reduce the question of autonomy to sexuality, which it is not.
you know, clair, them. that's who 'they' are. i'm referring to so-called dissidents and activists who confuse dissent and progress with vapid, regurgitated westernisms like 'my body belongs to me.' that's MTV, not reality. there is no society in which individuals are free to do with their body what they will without state interference, or other limitations imposed by culture or technology. it's a fiction, an advertisement for something that doesn't exist. the only purposes being served here are the undermining of tradition (however defective) and the creation of a vacuum for neoliberalism to fill. that's the error, the failure to attempt to conceive any other possibilities than what they have, and the ideal they see promoted on television.
Taking this at face value
but why would you? these things just don't pop up spontaneously. if not for western media, no one would have ever heard of 'pussy riot', for example. it's only certain, acceptable forms of protest that are cultivated and allotted bandwidth. i'd advocate for the opposite approach: i'd presume that these types of protests, which rely on sexuality (and pop culture more generally) as the hook, are provocations until proven otherwise.
gee ya think marc. face palm.
nothing gets by me, annie. mind like a steel trap. or something like that.
ditto for the rest of it. There are more dignified ways to advance women’s issues and gender equality. Wrong approach.
an independent woman = cigarettes plus lipstick plus vanity. "you've come a long way baby." no dignity, and they're incapable of envisioning independence without their hands being held by Madison avenue and the US state department.
call me jaded, annie, but i don't buy the hacked site bit. the whole thing seems contrived.
this smells like western agitprop, just like the farcical 'pussy riot'. i mean who else could come up with this sh*t except for some semiotics major from Harvard now working for one or another 'pro-democracy' NGO, who hopes someday to write for 'everyone loves raymond', and who can only conceive of 'feminism' as a woman's right to take back the property that is her body. (naturally, there will be a commercial imperative for these women to sell their liberated bodies, or at least rent them.)
her comment is like a square peg bouncing off the round hole of siegel's brain. when he had his 'journalist's' hat on I doubt he was even capable of processing what she said. if someone asked him about it, would he even recall shaw's reference?
I can only hope that SAC's alleged corruption throws a sickly light over this dubious cause.
'alleged corruption'? the $600-plus million fine isn't proof of corruption?
ugh. friedman. re-reading from that bound stack of toilet paper 'from beirut to jerusalem'. he really hasn't done anything original (for him) since then. are there any arabs who don't climax/suffer under the whip? or who aren't plunged/plunging into 'venomous' conflicts? this is political analysis as done by freud and streicher.
the pertinent questions are why do 'we' keep arming militant islamists, and why have 'we' been talking about a fractured syria for so long? this has been in the planning stages since the real assad bit it. see cannonfire piece on recent assad assassination psy-op.
sorry, mrw, my inappropriate snark. the point (poorly made) was that it really takes very little for the bots to shout 'treason'.
In my interactions with him he was unfailingly courteous, helpful and deeply, deeply concerned with Israel’s well-being.
obviously 'deep, deep concern with Israel's well-being' is a pretty low bar to set. there's so much more to be done, so much more to be felt by bona fide supporters of Israel. lewis could have tried harder, and the fact that he didn't is a symptom of his own self-loathing.
Ahmed Moor, title: Obama allowed Zionists to feel cool again
Without “liberal Zionists” this would not happen.
exactly. the enablers. see Nathan Englander's vomitricious 'what we talk about when we . . . .' can't stop talking about ourselves. this review notes Englander's departure from an 'intensely orthodox milieu in brooklyn', yet . . . .
THE OTHER WAY in which Englander’s fiction is Jewish is in its themes, and this is the prevalent mode of his new collection, much to its detriment. Of the eight stories, three center on a preoccupation with the Holocaust, one on the related subject of anti-Semitism, and another on the also related subject of the loss of dear ones in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The problem with this explicit addressing of Jewish themes—all, of course, involving victimhood—is its didactic insistence, which leads to contrivance or to sensationalism.
The title story is a case in point. Two middle-aged Jewish couples, who grew up together in a modern Orthodox setting, meet in the Miami home of one of them. That couple has become secular, whereas the other couple, settled in Israel, is now ultra-Orthodox. The four get drunk, then uncover a stash of pot belonging to the teenage son of the Miami couple, and they proceed to get very high. This scene has been admired by critics for its startling incongruity, but there is nothing either profound or funny about it: it is merely bizarre. Englander has too often gotten artistic credit simply for bizarre and improbable inventions. The couples, in their extreme inebriation, begin to talk about Anne Frank, and the Miami wife announces that “in the event of an American Holocaust, we sometimes talk about which of our Christian friends would hide us.” This twisted fantasy is then translated into a role-playing game in which one spouse is supposed to play the hunted Jew and the other the Gentile neighbor. The story ends when the Orthodox wife comes to suspect that her husband would not hide her.
I had looked forward to the book, but never got past the first two short stories. the 'hip' maryjane-smoking mini-portrait of the settlers in the first reads like a 1960s TV police procedural depiction of 'hippies'. and the propaganda peddled is just as subtle, fear of the gentiles matched only by paranoia over race traitors, the ubiquitous, treasonous 'self-haters'.
yeah, liberal Zionists, earthy crunchy on the outside, something else in the chewy center.
Does the Khazar stuff ever get old. Does the playbook ever get old, or is just recycling garbage ad nauseam. Using your logic, Israel be ‘ok’ if its Jews were really Jews and semites and not Khazars?
that's not his logic. the genetic origins of the jewish people would be an esoteric topic, important to half-a-handful of academic types, if not for the serially regurgitated historico-biological, Zionist rationale for the jewish state. nice try though, your ham-handed re-working of the 'why are you so obsessed with the jews' insinuation of anti-Semitism.
hrk, i believe i read the same article a few weeks back, and if that was the professor's argument (that unz overestimated), she's wrong. the center for jewish life (hillel) has long used similar numbers which pre-date unz's article.
As a high school student 50 years ago, Stanley Katz thought Princeton University was paradise, a place inhabited by pipe-smoking scholars with patches on their elbows and mustaches. ''I said, 'Katz, that's you.' ''
But as he learned more about Princeton, it dawned on him ''that this was the last place in the Ivy League -- except maybe Dartmouth -- that was for me,'' he said. ''It became clear to me that if not anti-Semitic, it wasn't congenial to Jews.'' He went to Harvard.
Today Mr. Katz is a Princeton professor and president-elect of its Center for Jewish Life, and the university is a far more welcoming place. The president, the provost and the dean of the college are Jewish. So are many of the faculty members. Professor Katz's center is a lively place, with a large kosher kitchen and a stream of events, from casino nights and swing dances to Talmud classes and Friday night services.
So how can it be, Mr. Katz and other Jews on campus are asking, that Princeton's Jewish enrollment has fallen by nearly half since the early 1980's -- to about 10 percent, or about 450 undergraduates, from a high of 18 percent? Why do other Ivy League campuses -- Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Penn -- manage to keep Jewish populations of at least a quarter and in some cases more than a third? (The figures, drawn from surveys by the University of California at Los Angeles that ask first-year college students their religious preferences, are considered rough estimates.)
that's from a 1999 NYT article. the reporting of jewish enrollment has been tracked for a number of years, and apparently is widely regarded as accurate and relied upon by ivy league institutions when reviewing admissions statistics. the 'princeton problem' reared its ugly head again, in 2007 i believe, when hillel later 'wondered' again why jewish students at princeton only numbered in the teens rather than the 25% or so at yale and harvard. (it would never occur of course, to reverse the question.)
he’s bringing out trolls like you.
i think henry enjoys it. he's a bit of a provocateur. he just lobs it in matter-of-factly and waits for the sobbing, chest pounding, teeth gnashing hysteria to begin.
what a drama queen. (were you pulling at your house coat and dabbing your eyes with kleenex, chain smoking, as you wrote that?) yes, we know hopee, counting ethnic units is 'good' math when analyzing historical prejudicial treatment of american jews, and it's 'good' math when publicly preening over jewish-american accomplishments, but heaven forbid that same math is used to argue that people who previously experienced prejudicial treatment might later use their influence for the purposes of self promotion. that's 'bad' math, anti-semitic math.
if this mild criticism is just too much to bear, i hear that there's a state, a paradise actually, where the benevolent influence and ethical superiority of judaism are unquestioned.
well, this should be interesting.
boy is she repulsive, wassermanschultz that is. my only criticism of o'brien is her failure to respond to the serial regurgitation by schultz of the 'jerusalem is the forever capital of israel' crap. so which countries have their embassies in jerusalem?
Is she really this shallow, or is she just in the fundraising business and knows this is what some people want to hear?
yes.
it's more than a 'gentlemen's' agreement. the nixon administration was in a bind (at the time sale of f-4s was pending to israel), and israel mislead the administration over its program. the policy that was mutually decided was that israel had its nukes, but would not publicly acknowledge their existence, because of the potential repurcussions for the US/israel relationship at the time. avner cohen details the negotiations in ‘the worst kept secret’. in the negotiations, israel agreed that it would not ‘introduce’ nuclear weapons into the ME, the novel definition of ‘introduction’ being that israel may ‘possess’ such weapons but not publicly acknowledge its possession.
link to amazon.com
i think that's the real story behind vanunu. israel publicly disclosed the existence of its nuclear arsenal through the patsy vanunu, while nominally keeping its deal with the US.
donald, take a look at the recent apologia from other presstards, like ezra 'don't call me fetus' klein. he's 28 and he's issuing an apology now for his reporting on the lead up to the iraq war? who the f*ck gave the teenaged jerk a platform to influence public thinking on a multi-trillion dollars war in the first place?
link to bloomberg.com
and, oy yoy yoy, as my babcha would say. it's just too much.
judi 'learning curve' rudoren on obama, psychiatrist to a nation:
link to nytimes.com;
Few Americans even know that the Bush administration forced ongoing inspections in Iraq to come to a halt.
that's typical stuff, kathleen. a pillow over the face of any diplomatic overtures. obama/clinton were doing everything they could in the 1st term to fight off diplomatic initiatives from iran.
Actually, they do have a use
you're right, of course, donald. in essence, the business they're in is advertising, not reporting.
great memory, kathleen. i would have underestimated the numbers significantly.
i made the mistake of listening to gladstone while at the computer. funny this:
They felt the anguish of their audience and the sensitivity of their advertisers to criticizing the government directly.
doesn't she work for public radio? i thought the whole point of public investment in media was to be independent of the 'sensitivity of advertisers'?
They felt the anguish of their audience and the sensitivity of their advertisers to criticizing the government directly. They wished they had Congress to do it for them.
they felt the anguish of their audience, suffering the loss of 3,000 in an attack on the US, so the press comforted their audience by cheerleading for a war that caused thousands more deaths, tens of thousands of maimed, and which bankrupted the country (not to mention that little thing about how the wars have affected iraqis and afghanis.)
they wanted congress to criticize the government? congress 'is' part of the government, dumkopf. we don't go to war without the congress.
i hate to say it yet again, but is this the state of our elite? award swapping, a good colorist and smart glasses. useless.
On the stone-throwing thing, this is yet more victim blaming.
she's an ass. another zionist referring to material she's apparently never read. gandhi was quite comfortable with the use of violent force in resistance to oppression. what eisner and other lying rat f*cks are doing is erecting an impossible standard for conduct, one which they wouldn't even consider adhering to themselves under similar circumstances, to portray palestinians as inherently violent, and thus not worth negotiating with, and not worth mourning when they are killed.
this is what the real gandhi had to say about non-violence, not the cartoon character eisner and other liars refer to:
he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. he who can do neither of the two is a burden.
a non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation, anger or malice, in self-defense or in defending the honor of his women folk. this is the highest form of bravery. if an individual or group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this great law of life, retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best though a long way off from the first. cowardice is impotence worse than violence.
'Gandhi on Non-Violence', edited by thomas merton, pp. 46-47, 50.
I am thinking of retyping it
excellent. if you're up for it, i'll be critical but kind. i am a frustrated author too. so frustrated in fact i've never typed a page.
send it to me, citizen. i'd love to read it.
american, i'm not sure if that's accurate or not. admittedly i'm no expert on the matter. but private universities do track the numbers of minority applicants and admissions, even if they don't maintain or have quotas imposed upon them. and they do receive significant funding from the feds, so again, i'm not certain if there aren't, or shouldn't be, some sort of strings attached to federal funding. (if i remember correctly, federal dollars for research at harvard is a significant multiple of private investment into research, which raises a host of questions about who owns or should own the product of the research.) this is one of those issues i wish i had a couple of months to dedicate to investigating.
on their university sites, minority enrollment statistics do include percentages of ‘jews’ should say do 'not' include.
i did a bit more re-reading after your posted comments, krauss, and a few salient points/questions that i'm sure you're aware of but which have been left out of this thread:
1. as unz points out, most schools which are either elite state universities or which primarily focus on testing and academics, such as MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Berkeley etc., have significantly lower percentages of jewish enrollment, with non-jewish whites enrolling at ratios of nearly 6-1 over Jews at Caltech, 3-1 at Stanford and MIT, and on, versus the favorable ratios of jewish enrollment over non-jewish whites at harvard, yale, etc.
2. it does not appear that the ivies request information from applicants on their 'jewishness' as opposed to their solicitation of information on african-american, asian, native american, hispanic applicants. when i looked at enrollment statistics for Princeton, Harvard, etc. on their university sites, minority enrollment statistics do include percentages of 'jews'. but even though it appears that the universities do not request that information on applications, we do know that such statistics exist. so my two-part question is, who compiles the statistics on jewish enrollment and for what purpose?
3. there has been a running battle over the 'low' rate of jewish enrollment at princeton, seen by many as a WASP haven, where jewish rates of enrollment of 'only' 10-13% was/are a cause for concern. again, who came up with the numbers and why? i ask 'why' especially since the last article i read (a 2009 article i believe) included no allegations of discrimination against jewish applicants, just a statement of wonder as to why princeton would only have a jewish rate of enrollment of 6 times the rate of the general population, versus the 12-14 multiple of representation at harvard, penn or yale.
4. the varied rationales for low jewish enrollment at princeton or dartmouth, as made, for example, by the princeton diretor of the center for jewish life, is that jews are drawn to urban campuses, and don't like the idea of being 'isolated' on the princeton or dartmouth campuses. odd. i don't imagine a non-jew suggesting that jews are only drawn to cities would get a good reception. if you're jewish, arguing a point by reliance on a stereotype is permissible, whereas the same comment by a non-jew is evidence of anti-semitism.
In other words shoot first ask questions later.
you don't give him enough credit, atheist. after all he took time out of his busy schedule to peer into the mind and soul of citizen. (i know, i know, the mind and soul comment was a bit of poetic license. any student of freud worth his salt knows that anti-semitic sentiment is located in the pineal gland.)
But even then, I’d be careful to look at class too.
precisely. class should be the factor, with a focus on improving academics at the secondary school level for others. the ivies themselves have determined that many qualified 'poor' candidates for admission to elite universities don't even bother to apply as they presume (rightly in most cases) that they can't afford four years at Harvard or UChicago. And despite their protests to the contrary, elite, private institutions favor those who can pay their own way. private universities, such as harvard, which receive significant federal funds and benefit from non-profit status should be required to foot the bill for 'poor' qualified candidates or have federal funding withdrawn.
but still no one is saying Jews are getting into Ivies without the requisite scores.
yes, people are saying that the current admissions process is corrupt. ron unz writes about this topic regularly. you can't have a meritocratic selection process while simutaneously 'perpetuating success by extending assistance to friends and family, and rewarding donation performance.' asians, in particular, have been complaining for decades that the system that prejudicially excluded jews and catholics, when their candidates were clearly academically superior to WASPish candidates (as defined by grades), and which briefly evolved to focus on quantifiable academic qualities, has reverted back to the squishy days of legacy, donorship and amorphous ideals like 'leadership'. that, in fact, was precisely the argument that the poor admissions dolt had to make on the radio program krauss refers to, that admissions departments at the elite universities shouldn't have to rely exclusively on grades, class rank and SAT/ACT performance but instead must consider legacy, family donations, and 'intangibles'. this is precisely the opposite argument made by jews when they were being discriminated against in early 20th century. now, curiously, 'intangibles' have made a screaming come back. so, yes, people are arguing that asians, for example, with better academic scores are being rejected in favor of lesser qualified jewish candidates, as well as the few 'affirmative action' undergraduates.
you don't 'generalize' when you refer to a specific subject at hand, olerg. and does that make any sense to you, your comment that a writer 'should have sympathy about what she writes otherwise her book will be lousy?' so only persons sympathetic to hitler can be great hitler biographers? you might want to rethink your literary theory. it seems a bit leaky.
that's high comedy. another effin' fool making up sh*t as s/he goes along.