Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1752 (since 2012-11-18 22:35:07)

Showing comments 1752 - 1701
Page:

  • Live Blog: Massacre in Gaza as US and Israel celebrate embassy move to Jerusalem
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius May 14, 2018 at 3:29 pm

      The same Emily Thornberry who cozied up to the Israeli Labour party, attended the Balfour anniversary 'celebration' and described Israel as a 'beacon of freedom, equality and democracy'?

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius May 14, 2018 at 3:25 pm

      I saw a self-described 'left-wing Israeli' on today, happily blaming the victims and saying it was all the fault of khamaaas. According to polls, the vast majority of Israelis approve of these actions, just as they have approved almost all of the many acts of violence in the country's history.

      This is the reality of Israel. "Bibi" isn't an aberration. He's one of th emost popular 'leaders' in the country's history. Nor is he 'extreme right' by Israeli standards. He's pretty much a centrist. The alternative to him, if and when the Israeli people tire of him (having chosen him as PM 4 times) will not be what passes for the 'left' but the even more ultra extreme right in the shape of Bennett or one of his ilk.

      Time to give up the pretence that there's a 'moderate' Israel just waiting to get out. The opposite is true.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius May 14, 2018 at 9:51 am with 9 replies

      Let me guess. Western governments will 'express concern' and 'urge both sides to exercise restraint'.

      And the killing will go and nobody will lift a finger to stop it.

      "Moderate" Zionists will - at best - clutch their pearls and say this just underscores the need for a proper 'peace deal'.

      They do not realise - or choose not to realise - that this is not an aberration. It is the very essence of Zionism in action, right before their eyes.

  • Come in, Natalie, the water's fine
    • When Russia allegedly - very very allegedly - poisoned a double agent and his daughter in Salisbury (non lethally despite this supposedly being the most powerful nerve agent known to man), the UN sat in special emergency session.

      Here ... the sound of crickets.

  • Natalie Portman's criticism of 'atrocities' leaves Israel's advocates silent
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius April 22, 2018 at 8:37 am

      I would say the opposite, unfortunately.

      Her statement never even mentioned the word 'Palestinian'. It was very very vague and she made a point of emphasising her 'love for Israel'. She will soon come under a huge amount of pressure from the 'Jewish community', perhaps even a backlash from Hollywood. Much more likely that she will soon start to backtrack and go out of her way to show the world just how much she really really loves Israel and Zionism.

      I expect this rather mild gesture - important though it is given Portman's background - represents the high watermark of her 'awakening'.

  • Natalie Portman says, Enough!
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius April 21, 2018 at 11:42 am

      Seems Portman has just issued a statement on Instagram. It's very vague and full of her 'love for Israel'. Not sure if she's already back-tracking or she was never making a great stand. She said this:

      " But the mistreatment of those suffering from today’s atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values. Because I care about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power. "

      Hmm...... very vague as I said. The word Palestinian not mentioned, and her statement suggests she's thinking of African asylum seekers rather than Palestinians? She also said she's giving the money to ''Israeli charities'' and that she opposes BDS. Because of course she does. Liberal Zionism at its 'best'.

      https://www.instagram.com/p/BhzyyPWhnVf/

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius April 21, 2018 at 11:30 am

      I've never been a fan of Portman. I think she's extremely beautiful, but an at best mediocre actress and a pseudo intellectual who's been told since birth how uniquely wonderful she is.

      But never mind what I think. Fact is, she is highly regarded in certain circles. When an Oscar winning actress who has had the Dersh fawning all over her, and who has made much of her Jewish and Israeli heritage, makes a gesture like this, you know Brand Israel is toxic. It scarcely matters whether this is a genuine act of principle (if it is, what took her so long?) or a PR move to distance herself from the seething mess that is Israel. The net result is the same. Israel has about as much public appeal as its Apartheid ally had a quarter of a century ago.

      That said, I expect her to be Goldstoned very soon, if it hasn't started happening already. Natalie Portman is just too big a star. The hasbara guns will be firing on all cylinders, and no blow will be deemed too low. I hope she knows just what she's let herself in for,.

  • A new 'NY Times' tactic to downplay Israel's murderous assault in Gaza: dueling narratives
    • I don't think this is a new tactic at all. Au contraire, it's pretty much par for the course.

      Pro Israel propagandists know the facts are against them, so they have to turn it into a he said/she said battle of 'narratives'. Look at the Tamimi case - Palestinians see her as a hero, Israelis see her as a terrorist. Who cares how Israelis 'see' her? She's a kid who got put in prison for delivering the mildest of slaps to an occupation soldier. Could you imagine the Guardian or NYT offering a perspective on how militants might have 'seen' Malala? Yet it's kind of the same thing.

      It's a variation on the equally cowardly 'both sides' narrative, where we're supposed to see occupier and occupied as the same. One of the most absurd examples I have seen was when, after the last Lebanon war, CNN did a 'special' on the environmental damage: on the one side we had massive destruction of infrastructure and the deliberate placing of landmines. On the other we had.... a fewvery minor forest fires. But because there is no way CNN could be seen to say that the damage was entirely one-sided, the 'both sides' nonsense had to be put into play.

  • 'NY Times' covers up Israel's killing of nonviolent protesters along the Gaza border
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 30, 2018 at 4:24 pm

      "I didn’t fail because I undertook no obligation to demonstrate this to you to your satisfaction. "

      That's because you can't. Israel has never declared its borders. You cannot produce a map of those borders. Nobody can. That's because they don't exist - except when they're convenient for you, and disappear when they don't.

      No map exists of Israel's declared, internationally recognised borders. You know that. Israel has sent half a million land theives and armed militias to squat outside their legally recognised borders, so to claim the sanctity of 'borders' is laughable.

      "Hamas itself has declared that Gaza is not occupied."

      Really? Got a link. And are they now the unimpeachable source of international law? Can I quote you on that, 'mikhael'?

      "And are you seriously pretending that the UN somehow has moral or legal standing in this matter or any other matter?"

      No, "Mikhael", I think you're the one who decides these things. Who needs the UN when you've got 'Mikhael'?

      The rest of your post is another confusing word salad but this bit:

      " (it doesn’t seem as if he was threatening the PA policeman who shot him, although the throngs massing in Gaza are a physical threat to the IDF)"

      Throngs eh? And is it any wonder that sorry gang get their backsides handed to them any time they're up against an even halfway decent rival eh? Physically threatened by people not even they claim are armed? It amuses me no end that this shower think they can take on Iran!

      "I agree in principle that PA police have a right to shoot a Jewish civilian who ignores a lawful order to halt if they justifiably feel their lives are threatened."

      In principle eh? And of course you'd not need the slightest shred of evidence that the person was a 'threat'? You'd just take it on their word, as you do here?

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 30, 2018 at 3:38 pm

      " hostile foreigners"

      They are not " hostile foreigners." They are, under international law, a protected people. Israel has a duty of care towards them so long as it remains the occupying power.

      " the sovereign territory of Israel "

      So I'll ask you again: Where is this 'sovereign territory'? Where does it begin - and end?

      Go on. Show me. Name me any sovereign state and I could produce a map with declared, internationally recognised borders within minutes. But with Israel, you can't do that. Neither can anyone else. So stop using 'borders' and 'sovereignity' as arguments, when you are incapable of defining either of them.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 30, 2018 at 3:14 pm

      So, "MIkhael" I see you have failed to a) show me Israel's declared, legally recognised borders on a map and b) answer my question as to whether those who choose to squat and carry arms on the wrong side of those borders are legitimate targets.

      Not a good start.

      "Since the Hamas-governed quasi-state entity that is known as the Gaza Strip portion of the PA"

      Snigger. That's the clumsiest word salad since 'weapons of mass destruction mobile chemical laboratories.' It is not a 'quasi-state entity'. It is a part of occupied Palestine, and recognised as such by the UN. You don't get to create parallel realities so that you can get a warm fuzzy feeling about the killing of civilians.

      " any of its citizens who approach the border with Israel and ignore orders to stop are assumed to have hostile intent. "

      The half million 'civilians' and squatters on the occupied West Bank are all legitimate targets then.

    • The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Israeli-embassy linked organisation which has played a major role in the anti Corbyn smear campaign, has come out with a predictable statement blaming the victims.

      But from Corbyn himself, not a peep. Zilch. Nada. Rien. 3 years ago, maybe even 1 year ago, he would have made a statement comdemning this within hours, I am sure.

      He has been neutered. The smear campaign has worked. Another one bites the dust.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 30, 2018 at 1:12 pm

      @Mikhael,

      "Borders" you say? Can you show me those declared, internationally recognised 'borders' on a map? And would you not surely agree that any and all 'settlers' who live on the other side of those borders are, by your logic, illegal encroachers who are legitimate targets?

      Anyway, this discussion can proceed with more clarity when you've shown us the map with said declared, internationally recognised borders. All of them.

      "the absolute moral and legal fright"

      Well, I think we can all respect a moral and legal fright. Very frightening not to.

    • I see one of the propaganda lines - in the time-honoured 'We're just a normal democracy doing what anyone would do in difficult circumstances" style - is to say "What would you do if masses of protestors approached your borders?"

      Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that Israel has never declared its borders. So why are they referring to them here? Shouldn't the NYT and other 'news' organisations put the word 'borders' in scare quotes, just out of accuracy?

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 30, 2018 at 11:11 am

      The Guardian - once a fine newspaper but now barely distinguishable from the New York Times - has done much the same. We're told that the victims 'died in clashes' as though they suddenly became ill there and then, rather than that they were shot at close range by an occupation army. The first words of the piece are 'Israel says...." and mos tof it consists of quotes from Israeli officials about their 'fears' of how violent the march might be.

      All of which angers me, but makes me so, so happy that the Graun is reduced to begging from its readers after nearly every article these days.

  • Jeremy Corbyn and ’anti-Semitism’ - making sense of the hysteria
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 30, 2018 at 11:07 am

      " I would first of all ask them to define”Semitism” as without being semantic I have not been able to find one. "

      And I'm yet to find any definition of 'Jew' which does not go back to religion,ie a Jew is either someone who practices the religion of Judaisim or is descended from one who did. I am yet to be told what a Jew living in New York has in common with a Jew living in Isfahan, other than religion.

      And yet we're told that anti-Judaism is so very different and so much more serious than other forms of religious bigotry, because Jews are a 'race'. Never mind the obvious falseness of this, how are we to take seriously a 'protest' against 'racism', when it was attended by the likes of Ian Paisley, whose entire career is steeped in violent anti-Catholic, anti-Irish hatred, and who has pronounced himself 'repulsed' by gays. Not to mention BoJo and Sacks, as you note. Go figure, as Hadley's co-nationals would say,.

      But I suppose we have to remember that some forms of bigotry, and by extension some forms of human beings, are just more worthy than others. Isn't that the essence of Zionism?

      And how much do you bet we won't hear a peep out of Corbyn over this latest Israeli killing spree? Job done as far as the lobby are concerned.

    • That's because he CAN'T do that. If he admits to the ugliness that is Israel - and not just this leader or that political party, but the whole country - it destroys his entire world view. It's like acknowleding that the person you've been in love with all your life is a fraud. You just continue to lie to yourself, becasue reality is too hard. The likes of Freedland will never ever turn against Israel. Happily, they are becoming more and more irrelevant by the day.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 29, 2018 at 2:32 pm

      Hadley is just a spoilt narcissistic rich girl who needs to go back to her usual stock in trade - puff pieces about Beyonce and clickbait about nail polish.

      Freedland though..... he has to be one of the most deeply unpleasant individuals working in British journalism today. And I honestly think that he's starting to seriously lose it. Did you see the article he wrote a few months ago accusing his critics of being similar to those who murdered a heroic Maltese journalist?

      Yes, he actually wrote that. The Guardian 'edited' it (without informing its readers) but happily for us, screenshots are a thing.

      The man is nuts. The world is changing and he and his causes are looking ever more prehistoric. And he simply cannot stand it.

    • Hi Ossinev, nice to see you again!

      "a palpable sense of desperation on the part of Israeli Firsters/Zionists here in the UK that the next UK PM/Government could be horror of horrors openly and actively supportive of the Palestinians and might take some meaningful action to call Israel to account for its ongoing war crimes against them"

      The sad thing is though, I feel Corbyn has already caved. Instead of standing up to the bullies he has issued repeated 'apologies'. He should have stood firm and deselected the traitors. Instead, he basically abandoned Ken Livingstone and allowed Emily Thornberry to describe Israel as a 'beacon' and to make nice with Zionist lobby groups. He did refuse to attend the 100th anniversary 'celebration' of the Balfour declaration but never gave a reason, and permitted Thornberry to go.

      Sadly, I think he has come to the conclusion that being outspoken on Israel simply isn't worth it. In other words, the lobby have won.

      "And I think more and more of the British public will be asking the question -why does a religious cult whose members amount to only around 0.5% of the overall UK population appear to get so much publicity and have so much control over news narratives .Follow the money ?"

      Watch it! You'll have Hadley Freeman and her boss Jonathan Freedland accusing you of anti-semitism! But of course I agree with you. About 1 in 200 British people are Jewish. They are disproportionately wealthy and succesful, and good for them. They face absolutely zero obstacles to success and well-being in British society. Au contraire. Public opinion concerning Jews is much, much more positive than other, much larger, relgious minorities. The mere fact that an at the very worse poorly thought-out comment on a more than 5 year old mural (since removed) could bring about an instant 'protest' from the elite of British society says just how unoppressed they are.

      It is a farce.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 29, 2018 at 11:55 am

      Hi all. Been away a while....

      " his fierce critique of Israel"

      The thing is, his 'critique' really isn't that fierce at all. I would say he'd be quite 'moderate' by the standards of this website, which itself isn't all that 'fierce'. From what I can gather, Corbyn believes in a two-state solution in line with international law, so not really radical at all. However, he has explicitly called out Israeli war crimes (without the useless 'both sides' nonsense which is the norm in the UK and the West in general), and has supported the resistence - both peaceful and militant. So he has to go.

      I've been saying ever since Corbyn announced his candidacy nearly 3 years ago - and was even then assailed by faux anti-semitism charges by the odious Jonathan Freedland and others - that the ultimate aim is to essentially criminalise all meaningful criticism of Zionism in the UK. Any time any public figure makes a pronouncement on the issue, he/she will have to ask themselves ''Would Mark Regev approve?" If not, then forget it. The headaches involved are just too severe, and only those who are truly motivated or have little to lose will persevere. Even Corbyn, undoubtedly, has caved. Look at how he threw his old ally Ken Livingstone to the wolves.

      It's a most unedifying spectacle all round.

  • The problem with Passover
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 29, 2018 at 2:14 pm

      Maghlawatan

      I was so happy to read Hadley Freeman's 'j'accuse' piece in The Guardian, weren't you?

      I knew my knowledge of l'affaire Corbyn would be incomplete unless I had the views of the woman whose recent contributions to hard-hitting journalism include the Pulitzer prize winning expose, ''Tits are Massive on the Red Carpet."

  • Saying Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is not anti-Semitic
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius May 4, 2016 at 3:42 pm

      Mad Mel. Who let the dogs out?

      And just think about how a British Muslim of Pakistani descent would be treated if they moaned about their ''nightmare'' in Britain and defended the human rights abuses of their ancestral homeland, demanding that everyone else do the same on pain of being smeared as an Islamophobe. Opinion would be unanimous - if you don't like it, go and live in Pakistan. And we'd get all the patronising 'je suis Charlie' stuff about 'free speech is a cornerstone of our way of life' and again, if you can't deal with it, grow up or go to Pakistan. But when it's Mad Mel or Jonathan Freedland (or his dad) we have to listen to them in reverence or we're anti-semites.

      It really is becoming quite absurd.

      And as you say, Mad Mel would never live in Israel. She'd be just another Jewish woman there, unable to play the professional victim - or at least, no more than the rest of the country.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius May 4, 2016 at 2:21 pm

      I LOVE when he refers to the vile Jonathan Freedlan (who has been plumbing ever lower depths of vileness this past week) as a 'dull creep'. Simply superb description!

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius May 4, 2016 at 11:37 am with 2 replies

      As someone reading and listening to the British media all the time, I can't tell you how sick I am of this faux ''anti-semiitism crisis''. We've had the odious Jonathan Freedland preach from on high, and just today we had the even more odious David Cameron smear the wonderful Jeremy Corbyn as a 'friend of terrorists''. All this because he dares to not be a shill for Israel.

      Tell me this: What, exactly, does Britain owe to Israel? Why are British politicians devoting so much time to an Asian nation with which Britain has no alliances, when there are so many pressing issues facing their own country? Why are 4 out of 5 Tory frontbenchers card carrying ''Friends of Israel'' and why is this not a legitimate subject for discussion? How many "Friends of Britain" are there in the Israeli parliament? How much time do their politicians give to expressing concern for Britain and its people?

      As for the subject of this article, I would go further. Not only does Israel not have the right to exist as a Jewish state, it doesn't have the right to exist - at all. No nation state does. States are man-made constructs which can be, and are, unmade and remade. Did Yugoslavia have the 'right to exist'? Or the USSR? Or Czechoslovakia? And so on.

      Besides, can anyone show me, on a map, the borders of this ''Israel'' we're all supposed to 'recognise'? I've looked, but I can't find them.

  • 'Zionism is nationalism, not Judaism,' a former Hebrew school teacher explains
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius April 6, 2016 at 3:13 pm

      I did not know all that about Mirren! Sick bucket indeed.

      I've always really admired her as an actress and a person, but now she'll have to join Hilary Mantel and J.K Rowling on the ''talented but with obnoxious views'' list. And sleeping on the beach? Aint that cute? I wonder if she'd have spoken of how cool it was to hang out at barbies in Cape Town in the 1970s? Of course she never ever would.

      BTW I think it's ''Oscar wining actress'', not ''Nobel winning actress''.

  • No Escaping the 'Cohen': Nick Cohen is becoming a Jew (again)
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 29, 2016 at 9:52 am

      "Pro zionists can make the most audacious lies, slanders and defamations and they will remain. Factual posts which might be anti-Israel disappear. "

      Yup. A month or so ago I saw a hasbarist blatantly say that Guardian journalist Peter Beaumont flat out lied when he said those four boys were murdered on the beach during the last Gaza massacre. Why did he lie? Because he was 'anti-Israel' of course. The poster repeated it several times, but it stayed.

      "I tend to give the moderators the benefit of the doubt and hope they aren’t collectively part of the effort."

      Hmmmmm..... I dunno. I don't think they personally are pro-Zionist neccessarily, but it does without a doubt seem that the Guardian 'moderates' Israel threads in a very different way to 'normal' discussions. They systematically delete any comments which reference various ''Friends of Israel'' lobby groups, for example, even though that's hardly in breach of their 'community standards'. It may be that 'anti-Israel' comments just get 'reported' a lot and the mods just automatcially delete them, but I think there are very specific, unofficial policies regarding such discussions.

      That's when they're opened for comment at all, which is rare. In a way I can't blame them, as the comments will just be flooded by hasbarists who got an internet alert, but on the other hand I wish they had a bit of backbone. Part of the problem is that the Guardian is trying to increase its readership in the US, and feels it has to toe the Zionist line. The other problem is the odious Freedland. Like you, I rarely bother with it for serious news anymore.

      Agree with you about Cohen though. I never saw him as 'left-wing'. He's a (much) less intelligent and eloquent Christopher Hitchents - and even Hitchens was a critic of Israel.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 28, 2016 at 2:27 pm

      The Guardian is obsessed with 'anti-semitism'. Not surprising I suppose, with the sleazy Jonathan Freedland - who delights in finding 'anti-semitism' under every bed - as one of its editors. Barely a week passes without some hand-wringing 'article' about the 'new anti-semitism' - even its celeb/lifestyle hack, Hadley Freedman, was in on it.

      For many years now, Cohen has been less a journalist than a professional ranter/above the line troll. His 'articles' consist of little more than baiting leftists, Muslims and anti-Zionists. And now he wants to play the victim too! Is there anything more repulsive than when an ultra-privileged person wraps themselves in the mantle of victimhood?

      "[s]till there was no escaping the “Cohen”….I assured anyone who asked (and some who did not) that, despite appearances to the contrary, I wasn’t Jewish…I sounded like a black man trying to pass as white or a German arguing with the Gestapo that there was a mistake in the paperwork. [1]"

      Oh, do get over yourself! Try being a guy I know who lived in Troubles era Belfast with the quintissentially Irish Catholic name of ''Murphy'', despite being a Protestant himself. I'm willing to bet that 99% of these people weren't nearly as concerned about Cohen's ''Jewishness'' than Cohen himself was/is.

      Naval gazing is not an attractive trait, Guardian editors.

  • Jewish settlers threaten life of Palestinian who shot video of execution
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 29, 2016 at 10:52 am

      eljay

      I want you to say

      a) what crime the man committed
      b) who is competent to try him.

      Fairly straightforward questions.

      You seem to be saying that, in attempting to harm or kill a uniformed, on-duty member of the occupation forces, the dead man was committing a crime. Otherwise, why 'hold him to account'? However, international law disagrees with you. Under such laws - the only relevant ones in occupied territory - the man is not guilty of any crime. The obvious conclusion then, is that you want this man to be tried for a non-existent crime by the Israeli 'authorities' who as I said have no legal jurisdiction in occupied territories.

      I know you don't intend it as such, but your position here is identical to that of the hasbarists, who view legitimate resistance to occupation as a crime.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 29, 2016 at 9:44 am

      Jon

      "Do you have a source that specifies that Israeli settlers are not civilians and are not afforded the protection of civilians?"

      Don't misquote me. I specifically said that citizens of the occupying power are not considered 'protected persons' under international law. If you want a source, look up the Geneva Conventions.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 29, 2016 at 9:38 am

      eljay

      "the man with the knife must be held accountable for what he has done"

      Again, what exactly has he done wrong according to international law?

      And by whom should he be 'held accountable'? To repeat, Israel has no right to impose its jurisdiction in occupied territory.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 28, 2016 at 2:13 pm

      eljay

      "The Palestinian attacker is guilty of his crime. "

      What crime?

      Occupation soldiers are legitimate targets under international law.

      "He should be arrested, tried and held accountable for his actions."

      By whom? Occupation forces have no right to impose their jurisdiction in occupied territory.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius March 28, 2016 at 2:10 pm

      "Army reservists who are not on active duty are civilians and entitled to the protections that civilians enjoy under the laws of war, which are applicable in the occupied West Bank, Human Rights Watch said"

      And, as HRW well knows, citizens of the occupying power are not considered 'protected persons' under international law.

      And isn't it hilarious, in a sick sort of way, how the defenders of a state which considers kids playing football to be legitimate targets, still manage to get so hung up on the precise definition of same? If Israelis don't want to be targets, why don't they live within the legally recognised borders of Israel? What kind of person activiely chooses to live in a zone of belligerent occupation, much less raise their children there?

  • British Prime Minister David Cameron calls Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem 'genuinely shocking'
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 25, 2016 at 2:41 pm

      Cameron, like approximately 80% of the British parliamentary party, is a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Like every single mainstream British politician, he pointedly refused to condemn the last World Cup massacre. His use of the word 'shocking' is a classic example of a 'non comdemnatin condemnation'. Get back to me when he refers to the squats as 'illegal'. Clue: he won't.

  • Video: Israeli police continue firing after Palestinian attacker is incapacitated
    • Not really on topic I know ( nowhere else to post) but did anyone see today's 'Guardian' article about that paper's coverage of Israel? Seems an Israeli embassy drone took issue with a single headline (not the substance of the article mind you) and the Guardian - which is very pro-Israel - was forced to defend itself. Actually, not forced, chose to do so.

      I do agree with the poster in the comments who said that it's soon going to be the case where any time a mainstream newspaper or TV channel wants to do a report on Israel, they will send it to the Israeli embassy for pre-approval first. It really is heading in that direction, particularly with the proposed law to ban councils from participating in BDS.

  • Israel detains Washington Post bureau chief in Jerusalem accusing him of ‘incitement’ --updated
  • Cartoon: Netanyahu plans fortress Israel to protect against 'wild beasts'
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 11, 2016 at 2:07 pm

      And how long did their kingdoms last?

      Not long. But still longer than the Zionist entity, I should think.

  • Nobody cares that Bernie Sanders is Jewish
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 11, 2016 at 11:27 am

      Exactly. For an 'opressed' group, Jews do pretty well for themselves. Which of course is not to suggest that Jews have not been the victims of horrible persecution an various points in history, but it's nonsensical to claim that Jews are this powerless minority which needs a spare country held in reserve for them to flee to.

      On the other hand, could anyone envisage a Muslim become president of any Western nation? The mere fact that the very Christian Barack Obama had a 'Muslim sounding' middle name was, and still is, held against him by many.

    • A Jewish man may soon be a candidate for president of the world's most powerful country.

      A Jewish man was leader of Her Majesty's Opposition until last year.

      A Jewish man was President de la Republique in France.

      And yet we're still being told that anti-semitism is a major problem, and that Jews need Israel as a spare country?

  • Palestinians call on Oscar nominees to reject Israel propaganda trip
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 13, 2016 at 9:11 am

      Or maybe Bardem didn't want to be involved with a film which, despite its cast of 'big time actors', has flopped miserably at the box office.

    • Elton John is a known sanctions buster and has been for decades, so who cares about him. Beyonce would do anything for money too. But Springsteen? Now that IS disappointing.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 11, 2016 at 2:04 pm

      And a real country, with a real culture and a real history.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 11, 2016 at 2:04 pm

      " I think she’s actually a pretty capable actress who’ll be around for some time to come."

      Not unless she cultivates another facial expression. The one she's got has become a tad boring.

      Anyway, even if we disagree over whether Johansson is going to challenge Meryl Streep's record of Oscar noms, I think we can agree that the Sodastream affair hasn't actually enhanced her image, even if you believe that getting on the cover of a Hungarian magazine means it hasn't damaged it. And like I say, she had clear financial interests in shilling for Sodastream, which clearly made it worthwhile for her not to jetison them. The same does not apply to the Oscar nominees who have nothing to gain, but potentially something to lose, by accepting this 'gift'.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 11, 2016 at 10:53 am

      "Every one of them will love a trip to Israel,"

      If that's the case, how come none of them (that I know of) has ever visited Israel? It's not like these actors don't have plenty of time and money to spare. If Israel is such " a wonderful country to visit", how come they have to give it away for free?

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 11, 2016 at 10:51 am

      And you'll be able to pick and choose your seat, because going by the latest box office figures, you're going to have the cinema all to yourself!

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 11, 2016 at 10:49 am

      Some really top-notch publications there (not!)

      But I suppose it's hard to measure these things. Johansson is a bad actress, so she's probably not going to have much of a career once the next vacant eyed blonde comes on the scene. However, I do think the Sodastream fiasco has had an impact on her image. It's brought up all the time whenever she is discussed. And dropping Oxfam (which of course she had only ever done to bolster her image) was definitely a bad PR move.

      And Johansson, at least, was getting paid (a lot) to do the Sodastream gig. The Oscar nominees won't get a penny for their 'free' trip to Israel. Since they're all loaded anyway, they could afford a luxury trip to Israel anytime they wanted at their own expense. Why accept this 'gift' only to be used as a hasbara tool, at a time when Israel is not a cause anyone wants to be associated with?

    • I highly doubt that any nominees will formally reject this 'gift'. Simply too risky in Hollywood.

      However, I also doubt that any of them (other than maybe Stallone) will actually take Israel up on its 'offer'. Israel just isn't cool anymore. Nobody wants to be a hasbara prop. These actors will look at what the Sodastream gig did for the image of Deadeyes Johansson, and say 'No thanks'. Israel just isn't worth it.

  • In yet another effort to revive dream of Jewish sovereignty, 'NYT' cites Thai restaurants in Tel Aviv
    • Classic Ziobabble. Zionism is all about the Jews. No mention whatsover of the millions of innocent victims of Zionism.

      Like I said on another post, Jews are hardly the only people ever to have suffered from discrimination or persecution (though to listen to Zionists, you'd swear they were). But no other persecuted people has demanded a 'homeland' on another continent, at the expense of the people who already lived there, who of course were not asked if they consented to having foreigners steal their land and expel them at gun point.

      And then they had the nerve to act as though THEY were the victims.

  • Maya Angelou stood with Palestinians, but Israeli military uses her for Black History Month hasbara
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 9, 2016 at 2:44 pm

      "you want history to begin in 1948. it doesn’t. "

      No, indeed it doesn't. The history of the colonisation of Palestine by European Jews begins much earlier, in the mid 19th century. I know that doesn't suit your attempt to use the emotional blackmail of the holocaust (though I'm baffled as to why you thought it might work here - this isn't the New York Times) but such is life.

      " they moved there out of a very solid need. and a jewish army is one of the first expressions of this need."

      I know it's a central creed of Zionism that Jews are the only people ever to have been persecuted, but sadly, history is full of persecuted peoples. However, I can't think of any others who invaded a country on another continent and displaced the people living there, and STILL think it was all morally justified.

      In fact, I would turn your story on its head: I would say that the existence of Palestinian resistance movements is an expression of the need of the Palestinian people to defend themselves. Had there been a proper Palestinian army in the 1940s (or even th 19th century) the European Zionist invaders might never had had the chance to steal Palestine.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 9, 2016 at 11:26 am

      "Thus relating to the need for the IDF and its lack in the years immediately prior to the birth of the IDF."

      Yes, because the existence of an army in Asia would of course have prevented a genocide in Europe.

      I've not heard one convincing argument to support the silly notion that had Israel existed in the 1940s, the holocaust would never have happened. It's just emotionalistic nonsense.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 9, 2016 at 11:24 am

      Particularly ironic when the quote is juxtaposed with a photo of the most cowardly rabble on earth. You could call that 'army' many things, but 'courageous' is not one of them.

      BTW the only thing that surprises me about that image is that all of the 'soldiers' appear to be male. Israel is very keen to stress/invent the 'feminist' aspect of their army (even though women very rarely perform in combat roles) so I'm surprised they didn't manage to put a few conspicuous females in their propaganda shot.

  • Oscar swag bag includes ten-day VIP trip to Israel worth $55,000 (Updated)
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius February 9, 2016 at 10:39 am

      The little gasps are my favourite part too. So easily shocked, eh? I wonder what would happen if a star made a similar speech today?

      And the term ''Zionist hoodlums" is just pure genius.

Showing comments 1752 - 1701
Page: