Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 9578 (since 2009-12-17 04:46:00)

Showing comments 9400 - 9301

  • By wrecking Iran deal, Trump politicized Israel
    • Eh? Kushner? Hang about, Kaisa, I'll look. I haven't seen him for a while, but I'm sure he's somewhere around here.

    • Hostages? It seems to me that most of them are damned enthusiastic supporters.

    • Russia and China will sell airliners to Iran. The deals will be done in roubles and yuan.

    • Even the Australian government, whose nose is usually wedged in to the root, has managed to mumble about being "disappointed".

  • The 'fake news' story is fake news
    • "any one remember the Ogoni, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Biafran war."

      I do, of course, but not with the detailed knowledge you have. And the name Ahmadu Bello is definitely a blast from the past for me.

    • "Aren’t most western states based upon some significant Judeo-Christian precepts?"

      No. European Enlightenment ideas overlaid on Stoic, Christian, and pagan Teutonic precepts. Not much Judeo at all.

    • Jon, I took Eljay's "hate" as a jokey way of saying that not all of Israel's actions are "good for the Jews".

      Since you took it seriously, I was inquiring (not, it seems, clearly) whether you were objecting to the attribution of hate rather than other motives, or simply condemning him as a dedicated follower of fashion.

    • So is your answer to Eljay "There is no hate. We have other motives for behaving badly towards Jews"?

    • "the scoundrels who won made wide use of fake news and manipulation."

      And the scoundrels who didn't win didn't?

    • I see you are following the depressing modern fashion of attributing 'hate" to those you disagree with.

      I suppose it is easier than researching real motives, and avoids the danger of finding out that your opponents might have a point.

  • Kovel's 'Overcoming Zionism' was ahead of its time
  • Philadelphia Jewish groups try to stop publication of article critical of Israel, insist on BDS training for Inquirer editors
  • Major bike race will kick off in Jerusalem Friday even as snipers line up on Gaza border
  • The 'One Democratic State Campaign' program for a multicultural democratic state in Palestine/Israel
    • And why shouldn't Israel surrender?

      Israeli plans are for the Palestinians to surrender and go away. This plan doesn't require the Israelis to go away.

  • Subscribers and donors withdraw support from the Philadelphia Orchestra over Israel tour
  • The struggle of Palestinians is the struggle of Native Americans
    • Arabic as a first language.

    • "Indigenous people are those people, identified with a locale, and where no other peoples can claim indigenous rights."

      You just made up that "no other peoples" bit, didn't you? Why (as MHughes notes) can't two sets of people both be indigenous?

      "Arabs are not indigenous to Eretz Yisroel, because Jews, preceded them to the land and Jews are still alive."

      Misplaced comma before "preceded".
      Probably some descendants of the Jews who lived in Palestine before the Arabization of the land are still alive.
      Probably most of those descendants are Palestinian Arabs.

      "Arabs are indigenous to Arabia." Arabs are people who speak Arabic are a first language. They are indigenous to whichever Arabic speaking country they were born in.

      And what are these "indigenous rights"?

    • There is a proposal for establishing a Souix sovereign state in some bits of the US that no-one uses.

    • "BTW, being Jewish isn’t strictly about genealogy, it’s more about customs, language, identity and ritual."

      So you are agreeing that "the Jewish People" are not all simply lineal descendants of the ancient Palestinian Jews, but are a mixture of bloodlines who follow certain customs, speak a number of "Jewish languages", follow certain rituals, etc.

      Can you explain how this makes them "indigenous" to Palestine, and why that alleged indigeneity gives any rights whatsoever?

      (Incidentally, I thought this "identity" thing was made up of customs, language, ritual, and similar ideas. However, you present it as a separate item. Could you tell me what it is?)

    • "Ashkenazi Jews descended from Italian Jews who had migrated North and into France and Germany.
      The Italian Jews had come from….guess? Eretz Yisroel!

      Did these migrants, mostly single male tradesmen, marry local women? Of course."

      So being indigenous to Palestine is inherited on the paternal line, even though Jewishness is inherited on the maternal line?
      Does not having local mothers make Jews in any way indigenous to Italy, France, and German?

    • "The road is still long"
      and getting longer,
      " and the night is quite dark"
      and getting darker.

    • "Eretz Yisroel is the homeland of the Jews.

      The Arabian conquerors homeland is Arabia."

      Can I get this straight, please, Jackdaw?

      It looks to me as though this is your story:

      1. First there was a tribe called "the Jews", who were indigenous to Palestine.
      2. Even though their folk tales claimed they were descended from an Iraqi migrant who bought a chunk of land from the natives.
      3. Other people, those natives, who lived there didn't count. No Jews ever had children with the others.
      4. The Romans drove this tribe out. Every Jew left Palestine and went to live in Poland or Golders Green.
      5. They were surrounded by other people, but no Jews ever had children with the others.
      6. For a while Palestine was inhabited by Graeco-Romans and the various odds and sods who had lived there with the Jews.
      7. Then a bunch of Arabs from Arabia moved in and took over the land.
      8. They never had children with any of the people who were already living there, and those people failed to have any children of their own.
      9. The modern Palestinian Arabs are descendants of those Arabs, and those Arabs only. They are certainly not descended from the others.
      10. The modern Palestinian Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine.
      11. So the modern Palestinian Arabs have no right to live in Palestine.
      12. Modern Jews are indigenous to Palestine by descent from the Jews who lived there.
      13. So modern Jews have a right to live in Palestine, and to set up an exclusive state there.

      Is that it?

      If so, I have to say that it looks a bit odd.

      First, of course, there is the heroic restraint shown by Jews and Arabs in managing to keep it all in the tribe. No hanky-panky in the woodshed,no-one led astray by a honeypot tongue and a flimmery eye. A bit hard to believe, that.

      Second, why didn't the others in Palestine have any descendants? What happened to them?

      Third, the principle seems to be that descent from a conquerer does not grant indigeneity, no matter how many generations ago that conquest was, but (via 2) descent from a migrant does. Not easy to see why this is so, though the implied consent of the other indigenes in the latter case could be a basis for an argument. But it does seem to imply that modern Jews are also indigenous (by migration) to Poland and Golders Green.

      Fourth, how does being indigenous give the rights referred to in 13, and why does not being indigenous imply 11?

    • "7 million Israeli Jews beg to differ."

      Argumentum ad populum?

  • Israeli radio host fantasizes about rape and murder of leftist 'filth' who called soldiers 'terrorists'
  • IDF claims most Gazan casualties were 'accidental'
  • Flaming kites mark fifth Friday of Gaza protests
    • Indeed I would.

      I believe that Mondonut is being sarcastic.
      But I find it interesting that I can say that anti-Japanese feeling in Asia is largely the result of the actions of the Japanese army, and perhaps the behaviour of subsequent Japanese businessmen, or that anti-American feeling in the world is a consequence of boorish tourists and the bomb-first-and-ask-questions-later policy of the US government, and no-one will raise an eyebrow.
      However, if I even hint that the behaviour or attitudes of some Jews just might have contributed to anti-Semitism, hophmi will be furious, Yonah will produce a doleful screed, and the moderators will have an attack of the vapours.

  • Israeli snipers shoot another 178 Palestinian protesters, killing three
    • Life in East Germany was not only better than life in Gaza, but better than life in much of the world.

  • Las Vegas print shop refuses to print JVP banner over Israel politics
    • "I am questioning the right of the law to force me into helping my political enemy."

      And it should be questioned. My point is that there is a disputable area.

      Should the law force me to even sell bread to people who misuse commas? As far as I am concerned, that is just engaging in "conduct that assists by any means whatever ... an enemy" (Australian), or, if you prefer, "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" (US).

      "Let the buggers starve", say I.

      But then the possibility arises that the illiterati could feel as strongly about pedants, and proceed to deny us the necessities of life, in the manner the Negro motorists were denied the necessities for travel.

      I would then be rather glad of laws that prevented this.

      But I still would not want to be forced to publish a comma after a subject clause.

      So although I want to draw a line somewhere, I find it awfully difficult to decide just where.

      (I have removed the qualifier "with intent to assist". It could be argued that I sell the bread to them solely with the intent to make money. But I suspect that, if I sold Australian official secrets to the San Marino Secret Intelligence Service solely with the intent to make money, an Australian court would not absolve me of treason.)

    • "there is a wall between public and private"

      Perhaps there should be, but it is not very clear where to put it. The idea that matters which do not affect the social order are private is not as helpful as we would like it to be. To take an extreme case, if your disgusting private predilections affect your character, and your public conduct reflects your character, then those predilections are not private after all.

      Or take a less extreme case from Mill's On Liberty. (Recommended reading on this topic.) Many people now regard marriage as the private choice of the victims, and not a matter for civil servants to involve themselves in except as registrars. But, according to Mill, in some European countries people could (in the 19th century) only get legal permission to get married if they could show that they would be able to support future children. Mill thinks this is a perfectly acceptable restriction, on the grounds that the children would otherwise be a burden on society.

      Similarly, philosophy might seem to be a private matter, but the public has decided, for its own protection, to lock philosophers away in universities. (And quite right, too. Otherwise they would be wandering around, accosting innocent citizens and asking them awkward questions*, and then tricking them into self-contradictory answers. We all know what that led too.)

      Because of this lack of clarity, we end up having these arguments about whether a business can refuse service, or whether there needs to be laws to compel service.

      (*E.g.: “What is justice?”, “How can we distinguish between the public and the private?”, “Is it right to govern people without the consent of the governed?”, “If a light goes off, is that light then on?”)

    • "But as soon as there is coherent behaviour on a large scale ..."

      That's why I mentioned the cartel case.

      I have seen a lot of privatisation, and heard and read the justifications for it, so I can assure you that, if privatised, speech might not be free, but competition will make it a lot cheaper and more efficient.

    • "But in a less rational world I might find that since I have never demanded that the UK stop shooting people for trying to cross our border fences I can’t ‘criticise Israel’ for the horrors on the Gaza perimeter. "

      Just to be safe, pre-empt. Demand that the UK stop shooting all the people climbing over the border fences along the North-West coast.

    • Jon66, I was simply looking at the "freedom of speech" issue. On the broader "denial of service" issue, I think you have a strong point.

      If Sheila was part of a cartel of print shops which all refused to print the banner, then I think there would be a stronger case to call this infringement of freedom of speech.

      (I don't know why you put scare quotes around "moral". I'm certainly not making an economic or legal argument.)

      On the one hand, we have the principle that it is wrong to compel people to act against their conscience*, as well as general principles of personal freedom. On the other, we have the social benefit that the legislation brings.

      This is the sort of thing that can keep philosophers off the streets for years. (And what a social benefit that is!)

      *I declare an interest. In 1966 the Australian government offered me an all-expenses paid trip to Vietnam. I appealed to conscience in declining the offer. Totally uninfluenced by the fact that the return was not guaranteed.

    • I don't know what laws the US has in place. I'm simply looking at it as a moral argument.

    • "Yonah...Oh. My. Gawd. Your comment was brief, intelligible and I agree with it"

      Scary, isn't it? A Sign of the End?

    • I can't see this as an infringement of freedom of speech. Sheila is not preventing you from speaking. She is just refusing to help you to say it.

  • The Gaza border is a theater of cultural resistance
    • I have seen no mention of this on the Australian mainstream news. The local services are too full of US and UK propaganda to have time for reality.

  • Adi Shosberger called Israeli soldiers ‘terrorists’ -- and Israel has turned on her
    • Gah!

      What a list!

      No wonder they can't get anything done.

    • The very existence of the JLM seems odd. Why was such a movement thought necessary? Is there a Sikh or Hindu Labour Movement? Anyone who wants to advance Labour causes would surely simply join the Labour Party.

      "God promised us all the land from the Euphrates to the River of Egypt. God never made good on that promise."


    • "But this duck is a terrorist duck."

      So calling Israeli soldiers "terrorists" is not just a canard, then?

  • Welcome the doubting liberals
  • Palestinian Christians and Muslims call on faith communities to help end the occupation
    • “Faith is taking the first step up even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”

      Or without even knowing there is a staircase. Faith is foolishness.

  • Portman's move puts pressure on liberal Zionists to take a stand
    • “Went off” can usually mean “was activated” in cases where the action is a single, short, and frequently violent action. There is an idea of the thing being poised for action.

      Bombs, guns, fireworks, and flashbulbs go off.

      When the action is typically continuous, "go on" is the usual term for the beginning of the action. It applies to things like light bulbs, televisions, and air conditioners.

      E.g.The light went on upstairs.

      When the action stops, "go off" is used.

      E.g.Hey! The light just went off! And the TV!

      To say "a light went off" indicates to me that the illumination stopped. But what happens in cartoons (and they are the ultimate arbitrators of reality) is that the light goes on, and illumination starts.

      (Alarms are an interesting exception. The alarm system is "on" when it is ready to make the noise. When it starts making the noise, it goes off, and this can continue for far too long. It is the sudden violence of the onset of the noise that leads us to say it "went off".)

      So saying "a light went off" and following it with " so important that that light finally went on" just leaves me confused.

      If "a light went off" is equivalent to "a light went on" in American speech, all hope is lost.

    • "This anecdotal survey says me and my fellow Jews are Zionists and steadfastly PRO-ISRAEL!"

      Since the hallmarks of Zionism are, as Inbound39 says, ethnic cleansing, genocide, land theft and apartheid. racism and blatant discrimination, this is a strong condemnation of your fellow Jews.

    • I'm confused. Did the bulb go off or on? If it went on, she understood. (As in cartoons.) If it went off, she stopped understanding.

    • Maghlawatan, I don't beat my wife liberally. Any beating I do is logical, grammatical, and socialist.

    • But will you see a liberal wife beater?

  • Israeli government justifies killing child protesters in Gaza: They're not in school
    • "Every time a single Palestinian gets killed there is a general hue and cry calling for an international investigation."

      Hardly noticeable.

      "This amounts to a singularly perverse obsession with everything that Israel does, "

      Israel should be allowed to kill Palestinians without anyone taking note of it.

  • Revealed: Israeli Justice Ministry directly involved in international 'lawfare' activities against BDS movement
  • Reclaiming Judaism from mystical nationalism
    • "I recall that God gets weak when people flaunt his laws,"

      Showing those laws to everyone certainly should make decent people think twice about following them.

    • "The rabbinic tradition made it clear that the Biblical zealots are not role models."

      Neither are the various prophets, heroes, kings, ladies, sons of God, apostles, etc., good exemplars of the best Confucian, Stoic, or Buddhist morality.

      And God himself is a particularly nasty character.

      "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. " Paine, The Age of Reason.

      "As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book." Paine, Letter to William Duane, April 23, 1806.

      The best thing to do is reject the whole lot.

    • I will add that just about everyone, not just "small peoples", has a catalogue of jokes about the neighbours and enemies.

    • Thank you for explaining that. I think I more or less understand those crazy ideas. Rabbi Kook was not misnamed.

    • Could have, Mooser!

    • "so long as there is any nation in the world that has not been fully realized in all its cunning,..."

      Has anyone got any idea what this means?

  • Emergency statement: Gaza protests and Israel’s military response
  • Natalie Portman’s cancellation: Inching towards the tipping point
    • Echi, spare us another squabble with eljay, please.

    • Jew marrying Goy is no big deal. I'm a man, and I married a woman! That's about as mixed a marriage as you can get.

    • When "the right to self determination" means "the right to establish a state in a particular territory", that right can only be the right of all the legitimate residents of the territory. It cannot be a right of religious, ethnic, or hobby groups. So the Jewish people do not have that sort of right to trump.

      If by "legitimate expression" you mean "morally right", then Zionism cannot be a legitimate expression of anything. Zionism is morally wrong.

      And since it was Zionists who dispossessed the Palestinians as part of the process of carrying out the professed aims of Zionism, it seems reasonable to blame Zionism for that dispossession.

  • Roger Cohen scares his readers: 'the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state'
    • No. I'm not strict enough.

    • So Cohen thinks that what Jews want is more important than what non-Jews want.

    • I don't understand.

      Levine asks "Jews need a state of their own. So what? What is supposed to follow from that?"

      You say that the answer is the UN resolution. That resolution called for a state, and Cohen says it was the best compromise to the situation.

      How does that answer Levine's question? What is the chain of reasoning from "Jews need a state" to "resolution and compromise"?

    • "they never ask that question that immediately arises when you argue that Jews need a state of their own. So what? What is supposed to follow from that?"

      "Nations, in this ethnic sense, do not have rights to sovereignty, not if you hold basic liberal democratic values. All the people residing in a given area should constitute the citizenry of the state that governs them,"

      I would like to think that Levine has been reading and learning from my comments.

      But I think it is simply that these points are so glaringly obvious to anyone with a functioning mind that he cannot help but see them himself.

    • Pssst! Misplaced comma between "apartheid" and "was".

  • Natalie Portman's criticism of 'atrocities' leaves Israel's advocates silent
    • "“[T]he Jewish People would have shriveled away in exile,” ... "a national center for our people in which there is no assimilation.”

      So by "shrivel away", N means "stop being Jews, and just be part of local community", and he seems to think it would be a bad thing
      Suppose all Jews did that. Why would it be bad?

  • Israel and its Democratic Party friends complain -- Trump gave Syria to Russia 'on a silver platter'
    • "Fox is the official fake news agency of the Trump regime. "

      And Fox might be crushing dissent in the ranks.

      It would be a shame to lose Tucker Carlson. I have seen a lot of videos of him, and he seems very good at puncturing nonsense. Far too little of that being done.

    • The USA has bases in many countries (including Syria), and Britain still has a few bases outside Britain. Many of these bases are forward postings close to potential or real enemies. Why can't Iran do the same thing?

      " iran to turn hezbollah into an armed camp on israel’s border"

      Hezbollah was always armed, and on Israel's border. And why shouldn't it be? Israel is an armed camp on Lebanon's border.

      "those who hate israel"

      Why is everyone so obsessed with hate now? Can no-one these days conceive of opposition that does not involve hate?

  • The 'Jewish nation' is the central myth of Zionism. It needs to be dismantled.
    • Mooser,

      He was simply too good a mathematician.

      No "of".

    • "Now, our task is to decide what is the name of this nation. Some might say that they are Jews."

      And they would be wrong.
      The name of this p-nation is Israel, but there is no Israeli n-nation. The p-nation is inhabited by an n-nation of Israeli Jews and large minority of Israeli Arabs who are not Jews.

      The rest of the world's Jews are not part of the n-nation of Israeli Jews, and do not constitute a single n-nation themselves.

      "It would be nice if there would be a debate about how to end the conflict (i.e. what to do tomorrow morning). "

      It would be nice if there were to be a debate about how to end the conflict (i.e. what to do tomorrow morning). However, since the pro-Israel crowd just refuse to take any steps towards justice and decency, they make peace with Israel impossible.

    • "Gideon Levy is a known lefty propagandist. "

      But he might still be right about some things. Even one's political opponents can occasionally fail to be wrong.

      " However, it is a mute point. "

      It is a moot point.

    • "One thinks that there is a Jewish nation, so in that individual’s mind the Jewish nation exists."

      But not in reality.

      " Edwin Montagu thought that there is no Jewish nation..., but others have a different view. "

      And Montagu is right and those others are wrong.

      "When one grows up, one learns to accept and respect the right of others to have their own personal and collective identity."

      We allow people to tell themselves silly stories about themselves, but we are not obliged to "respect" those stories.

      And when they use the stories as justification for wrongdoing, we are obliged to condemn both the wrongdoing and the stories.

    • Logical indeed. Sir Isaac Isaacs made the same point.

      However, the British Government did not revoke the citizenships, and Jews are still permitted to be Members of Federal Parliament is spite of the law that Members must be Austalian nationals only, and have no claim on any other nationality.

    • Perhaps a slip of the keyboard, Mooser. Boris accidentally left off the Ms.
      If Ms Jacob was a single ancestor, rumour has it that she was not the last Jewish woman to indulge in parthenogenesis.

    • I have used up enough electrons on the notion of "nation", and my p-nation, n-nation, c-nation typology, in past posts. I don't want to go over it all again.

      I do not know whether the Hebrew word "am" has the same semantic range as the English word "nation".

      I will say that I take the idea of "a common history" as meaning that the people and the social organization of the proposed "nation" are affected by the same events. In Britain, both non-Jews and Jews are affected by (e.g.) the Chartist Movement, the tragic entry in to the EU, and the Thatcher terror. Russian Jews are far less affected by these.
      On this interpretation of "a common history", British Jews are part of the British nation. Russian Jews are not.

    • Everything seems anti-Semitic to you, hophmi. However, I congratulate you on, for once, facing up to the important question: was Montagu right?

      You say that he was wrong to say that Israel would lead Britain revoking the citizenship of Jews. I can't find that, so if he did say it, he was wrong.
      (Perhaps you can refer me to the actual words.)

      I know he did say that Jews would be regarded as being in some way foreign, and he was right about that. Jews are now often suspected of greater loyalty to Israel than to their country of birth and citizenship. More importantly, many Jews regard Jews as in some way foreign, when they claim Israel as their "homeland", and urge Jews to "make Aliyah".

    • "Jews are often called "children of Israel", as, according to the Bible, we are the descendants for Jacob"

      Doesn't Jacob count as a single ancestor?

    • It would help if we had a definition of "common history". Boris seems to think it means "biological descent from a single ancestor". (And I'm sure he can produce a family tree, along with parish records and other supporting documents from Somerset House, that prove his descent from Jacob.) But to use this when trying to determine what is and what isn't a nation will lead to absurdities.

  • Influential rabbi teaches would-be Israeli soldiers: Genocide is a mitzvah
    • Burqa requirement? When I lived in Jeddah most women covered their hair but not their faces.

    • 'Are you perhaps mixing up “66” and “s”?'

      Probably. All these Zionists look alike to me.

    • "We"?

      I thought you were an Israeli.

    • "Brexit and break with the commonwealth "

      Brexit I approve of, but I'd be sad to see an even greater break with the Commonwealth.

      (I recall pre-EU Heathrow had three sets of passport gates for arrivals: "Honoured British Citizens" (me), "Uncouth Commonwealth Riff-Raff" (me again), and "Foreign Scum" (not me). It was depressing to see British Citizens and EU Foreign Scum lumped together, and Commonwealth Riff-Raff bundled in with the rest of the Foreign Scum. That led to Australia requiring visas for British Citizens. )

      I think that post-Brexit Britain would be wise to try to restore good relations with the Commonwealth, but I fear it may be to late now.

    • "Do you think the British had the same expectations for their future in the ME?"

      Unlikely. Official pronouncements notwithstanding, official Britain was well aware that those pronouncements could well be no more than frantic boast and foolish word, and that all their pomp of yesterday could very quickly be one with Nineveh and Tyre.

      After all, they knew that the American colonies had broken away with the aid of the French, who saved the colonists' butts in the uprising.

      (You Americans should recall that, if it weren't for the French, you would be speaking English today.)

      They recalled the Indian Mutiny, the Sikh wars, the Great Game of keeping the Russians out of India, the Ashanti wars, and too many other rebellions against British rule for them to be confident of holding on to anything for a thousand years. Especially with the damned French still lurking all over the place.

    • Mondonut, the full version is worse than the edited version. The edited version would have been a simple, evil, lie.
      The full version says that the southern Syrian Arabs were morally insignificant because they did not constitute a collective, a state or a "people", and so throwing them out and taking their homes and farms was not wrong. They had no rights to begin with. Individual rights do not count. It is the collective that is important.
      That is a basic principle of Fascism, and by that statement Meir aligned herself with Mussolini and the other Fascist leaders.

    • Broke a British square.

      Does this count as imperial propaganda?

    • "Jewish warfare law. ...two sorts of wars: reshut (permitted) wars and mitzvah (ordained) wars.
      Kings are permitted to go on reshut wars if they so please, but such wars are handled under relatively humane laws."

      If they so please?

      Western, Chinese, Hindu, and other ethical traditions require at least a just cause and that war be the last resort. Is there no such requirement on Jewish kings?

      "A mitzvah war of conquering the Land, which is not limited to saving the people of Israel from their enemies,... I could, on the face of it and by the essential law, destroy, kill and cause to perish ... all of them."

      Is this part of the great Jewish ethical tradition people keep mentioning?

      (For those who are interested in the Chinese Tradition of Righteous War, there is a neat introduction here. Start at page 10.;sequence=1)

  • Netanyahu hat-tips settler who called for extermination camps
    • A couple of million for Indonesia, another couple of million for Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, a million or so for Yugoslavia, ...

    • You probably still aren't depressed enough. But keep reading the news, and you will be.

  • Israel's genocidal explanations for killing unarmed protesters are only isolating it further
  • Sen. Warren and 5 congresspeople finally criticize Israel's killings; pressure mounts on Feinstein
    • There are mass murders and mass murders.
      Mass murder by gas is wrong.
      Mass murder by missile (I'm seeing reports that the Syrians shot down more than seventy of the missiles), by napalm, by depleted uranium, by sanctions, or by good old bullets is just fine. Perfectly acceptable. Normal, natural, and nothing to be ashamed of at all.

    • So that's five Democrats who will lose their seats.

  • Global outrage mounts over Israeli killing of Yaser Murtaja, from 'NYT' to Federation of Arab Journalists
    • "Chant it, what's the harm"

      What's the harm? It may turn out that the Qur'an isn't the word of God after all. Then we'd be associating with false prophets, and Satan would take our souls and convert them into vowels. Bit of a risk, don't you think?

  • Contextualizing the Great March of Return
  • 50 NYU student groups endorse BDS, call on university to divest from companies complicit in Israeli occupation

Showing comments 9400 - 9301