Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2874 (since 2012-06-23 07:13:37)

Showing comments 2874 - 2801

  • 'Irreplaceable bedrock' of U.S. backing for Israel is threatened by -- intermarriage
    • "Lawmakers Seek to Prohibit Criticism of Israel"
      July 19, 2017

      Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Grim write in The Intercept today in “U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for Boycott Campaign Against Israel” that: “The criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the west.

      In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing t-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. The U.K. has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism.

      In the U.S., governors compete with one another over who can implement the most extreme regulations to bar businesses from participating in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements, which the world regards as illegal.

      On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as ‘the Palestine Exception’ to free speech.

      “But now, a group of 45 Senators — 30 Republicans and 15 Democrats — want to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. …

      “Perhaps most stunning is our interview with the primary sponsor of the bill, Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin, who seemed to have no idea what was in his bill, particularly insisting that it contains no criminal penalties. But as the ACLU put it, ‘violations would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $ 1 million and 20 years in prison.’

    • [Haaretz:] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched a blistering attack against the European Union...


      Netanyahu has also launched blistering attacks on exploding European anti-Semitism.

      I'm not sure I'd believe him in either case.

    • Citizen, who are the major non-Jewish anti-Zionist billionaires?

  • 'We need to cut their heads off,' Bush said of anti-western demonstrators in Syria in '06 -- Tzipi Livni
    • Bont Eastlake asserts that Muslims are entitled to react to offensive cartoons with violence, terror, mayhem and murder.

      We strongly disagree.

    • Jon66: I agree that speech should not be limited just because it offends someone.
      But where were you mighty defenders when Nada Elia wrote this on MW.


      Where? Look at the comments. You'll find some very strong disagreement with Nada Elia.

    • eljay: Once again, you deliberately distort my words...

      Best not to feed a dissembling Zionist troll.

    • Bont Eastlake: You would rightly expect violence when you call a tensed black guy the N-word…but Muslims are supposed to adhere to a different standard?

      @Eastlake: Please, stop trolling.

      @Everyone: Please, don't feed the troll.

  • 'You are thieves of history!' Hotovely tells Palestinians, waving books at them
    • I thought you were making some clever reference to aliyah .

    • Jonathan Ofir: they are just Israeli illegal settlements.


      Nevertheless, they are Israeli settlements in Palestine, not "Palestinian settlements".

    • echinococcus: Yeah, some authorities on international law you have now.

      I made no reference to international law. I was referring to actual linguistic usage, whether right or wrong legally, morally or whatever.

    • Jonathan Ofir: Is Al-Khalil in Palestine? Yes, says most of the world community. Is it then a Palestinian city? Yes. That’s not really complicated.

      Actually it is a bit complicated. The word "Palestinian" can refer to geographical location, but it can also refer to ethno-national identity or de facto sovereignty.

      Thus a Palestinian city could be in Israel, or in Lebanon or elsewhere, not necessarily in Palestine.

      Ma'ale Adumim is in Palestine. But is it a "Palestinian city"?

      Wikipedia has it on its list of Israeli cities , along with four others that are located in the West Bank.

      Israeli cities in this list are the cities in Israel, and Israeli settlements with city status in the occupied West Bank; [emphasis in the original]

  • NBC plays up gruesome crashes in Tour de France-- then blames the riders
    • NBC plays up gruesome crashes in Tour de France– then blames the riders" ETC.

      Brilliant allegory. Israeli violence, ethnic cleansing, apartheid... the Palestinians... the Zionist media..."terrorism". Blame the victims.

  • Nadia Hijab on Palestinian options, Jewish allies, and the Zionist crisis
    • Mooser: ... I believe those nice Russians helped the Poles with their sovereignty up til recently.

      You are conflating the Soviet Union with Russia, as you effectively did in your previous neatly bookended historical survey:

      [Mooser:]... don't let these people talk bad about Russia. 70 years of Communist rule, WW2, the arms race, the planned economy, and then the collapse of Communism into anarchy has left Russia in fine shape...

      But that's okay, Sen. McCain has a tendency to conflate Russia with the Evil Soviet Empire as well.

      Of course, he has his personal motivations for doing that. As you do, no doubt. Although the emotional roots of your anti-Russianism , like Yonah Fredman's, might naturally reach down into an even more distant imagined past.

  • 'LA Times' calls BDS a 'classic tool of peaceful political expression'
    • The 50-year occupation of the Palestinian territories seized during the Six-Day War has gone on for too long and must eventually be brought to an end. (emphasis added)

      "Eventually"? Revealing choice of words.

  • Wonder Woman is a hero only the military-industrial complex could create
    • goldmarx: Proyect is on record as opposing a no-fly-zone.

      Proyect's position is either utterly incoherent or disingenuous: to maintain an anti-imperialist image he claims he doesn't support a U.S. imposed no-fly zone--but he calls for Syrian rebels to be supplied with MANPADS (surface-to-air missiles) so they can establish a no-fly zone, and he strongly supports groups like The Syria Campaign that lobby for a no-fly zone.

      Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria

      Max Blumenthal

      [...]By partnering with local groups like the Syrian civil defense workers popularly known as the White Helmets, and through a vast network of connections in media and centers of political influence, The Syria Campaign has played a crucial role in disseminating images and stories of the horrors visited this month on eastern Aleppo. The group is able to operate within the halls of power in Washington and has the power to mobilize thousands of demonstrators into the streets. Despite its outsized role in shaping how the West sees Syria’s civil war, which is now in its sixth year and entering one of its grisliest phases, this outfit remains virtually unknown to the general public.

      The Syria Campaign presents itself as an impartial, non-political voice for ordinary Syrian citizens that is dedicated to civilian protection. “We see ourselves as a solidarity organization,” The Syria Campaign strategy director James Sadri told me. “We’re not being paid by anybody to pursue a particular line. We feel like we’ve done a really good job about finding out who the frontline activists, doctors, humanitarians are and trying to get their word out to the international community.”

      Yet behind the lofty rhetoric about solidarity and the images of heroic rescuers rushing in to save lives is an agenda that aligns closely with the forces from Riyadh to Washington clamoring for regime change. Indeed, The Syria Campaign has been pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria that would require at least “70,000 American servicemen” to enforce, according to a Pentagon assessment, along with the destruction of government infrastructure and military installations. There is no record of a no-fly zone being imposed without regime change following —which seems to be exactly what The Syria Campaign and its partners want.

  • Clinton lost because PA, WI, and MI have high casualty rates and saw her as pro-war, study says
    • Keith: MOOSER- “Don’t worry, Vladimir Putin will keep Trump on the straight and narrow.”

      So, who is going to keep you on the straight and narrow? Clearly, your heart belongs to Hillary and the Dems. The empire too?

      Keep in mind that in Jewish demonology, among the supreme devils are the Nazis, the Tsar and the Soviets, as Mooser recently indicated in this comment in another thread:

      [Mooser: ]“Nathan” nobody can break a Jewish home. Not the Nazis, not the Czar, not the Soviets, not nothin’.

      Tsar Putin, of course, is right up there in the pantheon of anti-Jewish demons, being the evil offspring his Tsar/Soviet progenitors.

      (Cf. Yonah Fredman: " I am biased against Russian dictatorship, whether czar, leninist or putin. ")

    • @Keith

      Cohen had a pretty good line about the recent Trump-Putin meeting:

      The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail.

      It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin.

    • Mooser: A very troubled place.

      Far less troubled than your ignorant (sensu stricto), propagandized mind imagines. I invite you to come see for yourself.

    • echinococcus: No proof and not even any probable cause shown, except the word of the gallows bait criminal Harpy and her Neocons and CIANSAFBIetc.


      True, not a speck of proof of Russian government-directed hacking was ever presented. (But that proof may exist, somewhere, in classified documents, locked up forever.) [note comma usage.]

      Nevertheless, the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did contain some extraordinarily damning information about nefarious Russian media efforts to undermine U.S. democracy, in particular the relentless propaganda campaign carried out by RT News.

      I quote verbatim from that report:


      In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham."

      * * *

      RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government.

      * * *

      "RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use (RT, 24, 28 October, 1-10 November).

      * * *
      RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US financial collapse (RT, 31 October, 4 November). "

      * * *

      RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. "

      * * *

      RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government (RT, 10 October-9 November).


      Those are serious allegations! With RT news flooding America with such pernicious propaganda, no wonder KAY 24, Mooser et al. are up in arms about Russian "interference" and are rallying in support of the U.S. intelligence community, the great defenders of freedom and democracy around the world!

    • echinococcus: Except that even your CNN has been obliged to call back that lie and apologize.

      Yes, why is Kay24 mindlessly repeating these thoroughly debunked U.S pro-war establishment talking points?

      The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false .

      Among the most oft-repeated claims of the entire Russia election hacking scandal is that of absolute unanimity among US intelligence agencies, with media and politicians regularly claiming that “all 17 US intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump.” It’s not true.

      Nearly a year into the hacking scandal, both the New York Times and the Associated Press are finally copping to the fact that this allegation is untrue, and retracting it outright. The AP confirmed falsely making the claim in at least four distinct articles, most recently on Thursday.

  • Anti-Semitism accusations against 'Dyke March' prove pro-Israel lobby will torch LGBT rights for marginalized people
    • MHughes976 : There is in any event no definition of ‘Jewish’ which will effectively support a rational argument for the sort of rights that Zionism claims for Jews...

      I certainly agree with that. And I'm skeptical that endless discussion about "who is a Jew" will ever do much to help the Palestinian people.

      But since we are on the subject of language, we shouldn't forget that English is not the only one in the world.

      In Russian, the word for "Jew" is "еврей "


      The word еврей is used to refer to any person of Jewish ancestry, regardless of religious beliefs. When specifically referring to a follower of Judaism, the words иуде́й (iudéj) and иудаист (iudaist) are used.

      While the above is not strictly true ("еврей" can be used to refer to a religious Jew), the notion that "евре́и" ("Jews") refers to a people or ethno-nationality is deeply-rooted and widespread.

    • Since echinococcus rejects the official BDS movement and any rights-based approach grounded in international law, one might wonder what strategy he proposes for the Palestinians.

      Well here it is, the Echino Plan:

      [echinococcus:] In the absence of some worldwide war, the only way to do to [save the Palestinians from genocide] is by turning around the US, and it's not your insignificant "American Jews" but only the general population, the masses of Americans, the people who just voted Trump because they've had it, who can do that. Every cent we can spare should go to informing them.

      Hope, in echino's view, lies in worldwide war or the re-education of America's Trump voters.

      Of course a worldwide war is unlikely to bring any great benefits to the Palestinians, so that leaves the informing- the-Trump- voters plan.

      And what better way to "inform" those potential agents of Palestinian salvation than to drop the appeals to international law, UN resolutions etc. and inundate them in echino-style rhetoric about "imperialist illegality", "genocidal Zionist invaders" and the hoped-for "destruction of Israel"!

      Surely, that kind of rhetoric will get the Trump voters to become pro-Palestinian, defeat the Zionist lobby, and reverse U.S. policy… right?

    • echinococcus : No need to repeat that imperialist illegality is OK
      Of course international law and institutions are deeply flawed and subject to manipulation by great powers, particularly the U.S.

      But that's not the issue. The issue is whether and how Palestinians and their supporters can use international law as a weapon in their battle to attain moral ends.
      (Cf. RoHa)

      The official BDS Movement has three stated goals:

      Ending [Israel’s] occupation and colonization of all Arab Lands and dismantling the Wall. International law recognizes the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied territory. […]

      Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality. […]

      Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194. […]

      A large part of the BDS movement’s success has come from the fact that it strategically adopted a rights-based approach grounded in international law. This gives it enormous global appeal and legitimacy. It’s hard to argue against international law and human rights.

      Echinococcus , however, claims that the official BDS movement is a Zionist- controlled entity.

      He calls for the BDS movement to change its position to something like:

      We reject international law and institutions as imperialist projects.

      We seek the destruction of the imperialist-colonialist state of Israel.

      We demand the right to expel all Zionist invaders from all parts of Palestine.

      Of course, such an official position would be--as a practical matter-- a complete disaster for the Palestinian cause.

      It’s no accident that Echinococcus, Bont Eastlake, Hophmi et al. are all in the same boat when it comes to strategically delegitimizing international law and institutions.

    • Talkback: That’s the other side of the scam, but one Talknic fails to acknowledge.

      True. And to attempt to explain away that reality, Talknic has concocted the completely baseless notion that the UN is somehow prevented from condemning non-member states ....etc. etc.-- you know the argument. (And even if that were true, which it isn't, nothing would prevent the UN/ICJ from affirming that Israeli territory inside the Green Line was illegal acquired.)

    • @Bont Eastlake

      Using the words of the great Gamal, what a miserable insult to intelligence your whole schtick is; its a sign of ideological exhaustion and the very definition of bad faith.

      Let's see, now you are telling us:

      [Bent Eastlake:] Stop trying to derail the conversation by bringing up legalist BS that has no bearing on ground realities...

      But a little while ago you were telling us:

      [Bent Eastlake:] No matter how much you feel entitled to hold on and fight for your views, you will lose because you are strategically on weak ground. Hence, your inability to argue on a legal basis, using the framework of international law and doctrines of universal human rights that are recognised by all nations.


      Bont Eastlake "is spinning so fast, and typing so hard, he could very well cause a logorrhea cyclone or tornado!" (the immortal Mooser)

    • Bont Eastlake: Stop trying to derail the conversation by bringing up legalist BS...

      Nice try, Silamcuz.

      Your idea that international law is nothing more than "legalist BS" is precisely the Zionist position, and of course, you'd love to see the Palestinians and their supporters adopt that position, being a Zionist yourself.

      The Palestinians' right under international law to self-determination is not "legalist BS."

      The Palestinians right to return under international law is not "legalist BS".

      The Geneva Conventions that dictated the illegality of Israeli settlements in the WB are not "legalist BS".

      International law rejecting the acquisition of territory by force is not "legalist BS."

      International law criminalizing genocide, apartheid, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not "legalist BS."

      BDS fully embraces international law and bases all it's goals on the enforcement of international law.

      The Palestinians are up against many very strong forces, but one powerful force they do have on their side is international law.

      International law is a weapon to be used. Using it as a weapon doesn't mean accepting every aspect of it, but if you are going to wield it as a weapon, you do have affirm its basic legitimacy.

      However flawed international law is--and it certainly is flawed-- the Palestinians and their supporters would be making a colossal strategic error to reject it.

      But of course, that's exactly what you suggest. For obvious reasons.

    • echinococcus: echinococcus Sibiriak,No need to repeat that imperialist illegality is OK with you.

      I can't repeat what I never said. I stated facts; I didn't say I was okay with them.

    • echinococcus: “Israel” is itself an occupied territory illegally acquired by war...

      That's your opinion, and you are, of course, entitled to it.

      But it's not the opinion of the UNGA, UNSC or the International Court of Justice. There has never been a UN resolution or ICJ opinion that has affirmed that Israeli territory was illegally acquired within the "Green Line" .

      Needless to say, they may well be wrong in that position-- just as the U.S. Supreme Court can be wrong in theirs. Nevertheless, it's important to distinguish between "settled law" and the multiple opinions, including yours, that have no official standing.

    • @goldmarx

      By your own account, it appears to be a anti-Zionist action, not an anti-Semitic one.

      1) she had marched in the CDM for many years prior...

      2) Prior to this year’s march, the CDM never explicitly stated that it is an anti-Zionist

      Clearly, what had changed wasn't that the CDM had suddenly become anti-Semitic. What had changed was that it had become explicitly and vehemently anti-Zionist, and, rightly or wrongly, they ejected Grauer et al. because of their Zionist convictions , if not actions.

      Grauer's account confirms this (emphasis added):

      Jewish members of the Dyke Collective , or those who were Jewish and said they were speaking on behalf of the March organizers, said I had to leave because even if I saw this a Jewish Pride flag, "this is seen as an Israeli Pride Flag and offensive to others."

      * * *
      “Are you a Zionist?” “This march is pro-Palestine and explicitly anti-Zionist.” Just as I did not hide my flag, I did not hide when asked point-blank, that, yes, I care about the State of Israel. Yes, I believe it does exist and that it should continue to exist.

      Rightly or wrongly, the flag was seen as a Zionist symbol and was objected to on that basis, not because it was a Jewish symbol.

      So, I don't how you can argue that Grauer et al.'s ejection was an anti-Semitic action.

  • US Jews must oppose Palestinian boycott, but boycott Israel and bring it to its knees over prayer at western wall
    • Correction: "Eljay’s characterization " not "Eljay’s consistent "

    • Bont Eastlake: America is indeed a Christian-supremacist nation just Israel is Jewish-supremacist and ISIS is Islamosupremacist.

      Eva Smagacz: I just discovered a latest weapon in Zionist hasbara: If Israel’s actions are no longer defendable, try to change meaning of the words.

      Above we have exhibit B: Trying to make word “supremacist” [meaningless]

      Do you recall Bont Eastlake's response to Eljay's consistent of Israel/Zionism as a "supremacist construct"?

      [Bont Eastlake:] Unlike anti-Zionism which as a political movement and philosophical thought has robust backing from a diverse range of people and institutions, opposing supremacist construct of states has no set history, no consistent backers, no concrete goals to focus on.

  • US foreign policy in the Middle East
  • Start 'Birthright' earlier and hire conservative professors-- to stem 'national security issue' of Jewish kids abandoning Israel
    • "The only supremacism that matters is white supremacy."
      --Bont Eastlake

    • "Modi’s visit to Israel signals the end of solidarity"

      [...] As Modi made the first visit of a sitting Indian prime minister to Israel last week, the optics suggested that the two countries would be the closest of allies. Modi dressed in the colours of the Israeli flag - blue and white, and articulated the slogan “India for Israel”.

      While Modi claims that India supports the two-state solution, there was none of the fanfare and symbolism of solidarity when Modi met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas earlier this year. Modi has opened a new era in India-Israel relations - forging collaboration and trade in defence, technology, agriculture, tourism and pharmaceuticals.

      The developments signify that the age of solidarity on human rights causes in India is over. By standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and expressing solidarity with Israel, India is accused of abandoning its commitment to upholding the rights of colonised people to fight for their freedom. Furthermore, activists allude to India’s failure to uphold universal rights that it once rightly claimed for itself.

      Modi’s foreign policy towards Israel is what Israel has wanted to achieve - to ensure that pivotal countries in the developing world forge close relations with Israel, thereby breaking the global south’s solidarity with the Palestinian people.

      What Netanyahu pulled off through Modi’s visit was nothing short of a diplomatic coup. Israel will expect India to vote with it at the UN and in other international bodies, and the hope is that other countries follow suit. [...]


      "India & Israel ink $4.3bn worth of deals, push for closer economic ties"

      [...] According to a joint statement, the two countries will focus on the development of defense products that include the transfer of technology from Israel, with an emphasis on Modi's signature 'Make in India' initiative. Earlier this year, Israeli companies signed arms deals with India totaling over $2.6 billion.

      "We have identified great business opportunities for Israeli companies in India in sectors such as transport infrastructure, including roads, railways, civil aviation and traffic management systems, smart cities, renewable energies, water and environment, automotive, food, naval and aerospace industries and defense," Shraga Brosh, co-chair of the India-Israeli CEO forum, was cited as saying by Reuters.

      Bilateral trade is expected to surge from the current $4-5 billion to $20 billion in five years, the statement said.

    • Misterioso: Israel is increasingly viewed around the world as a pariah...[...[Zionism is in big trouble.

      Israel is facing increased criticism but is still far from being a pariah state.

      In addition to the support from the U.S. and other western states, Russia and China are making huge free trade and investment deals with Israel.,7340,L-4877405,00.html

      And then there's India:

      India’s Narenda Modi is in Israel for an historic 3-day trip. Modi is the first Indian Prime Minister to make the visit. India has a history of supporting Palestinian rights, but that has started to shift. India and Israel recently signed a weapons deal worth $2 billion. And though it’s common for foreign leaders visiting Israel, Modi won’t be meeting with Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas.

  • Attacks on Israeli police in East Jerusalem are not terrorism
    • Re: Arafatbastard:"... 2,000 Jewish inhabitants of the Jewish Quarter [...] ethnically cleansed in 1948"

      Samih K. Farsoun and Naseer H. Aruri " Palestine and the Palestinians: A Social and Political History " (p. 335, emphasis added):

      Over thirty thousand of the inhabitants of the Arab villages and urban centersaround Jerusalem were driven out by force or fled the outbreak of violence, several months before two thousand Jews were forced out of the Jewish quarter in the Old City by the Jordanians. 20

      20. Edward Said, "Projecting Jerusalem," Journal of Palestine Studies 25 (Autumn tumn 1995): 7.


      Benny Morris, "1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War" (separate excerpts):

      In truth, however, the Jews committed far more atrocities than the Arabs and killed far more civilians and POWs in deliberate acts of brutality in the course of 1948. This was probably due to the circumstance that the victorious Israelis captured some four hundred Arab villages and towns during April-November 1948, whereas the Palestinian Arabs and ALA failed to take any settlements and the Arab armies that invaded in mid-May overran fewer than a dozen Jewish settlements.

      * * * *

      The fears of the [Jewish] quarter's inhabitants proved groundless; the Legion had learned its lesson from K far `Etzion. The [Jordanian] Legionnaires deployed in force and protected the Jews from the wrath of the gathering Arab mob. The soldiers shot dead at least two Arabs and wounded others as they guarded the Jews.

      One POW recalled: "We were all surprised by the Legion's behavior toward us. We all thought that of the soldiers [that is, Haganah men] none would remain alive.... [We feared a massacre. But] the Legion protected us even from the mob, they helped take out the wounded, they themselves carried the stretchers.... They gave us food, their attitude was gracious and civil." 193

      The Legionnaires took prisoner 290 healthy males, aged fifteen to fifty-two-thirds two-thirds of them, in fact, noncombatants-and fifty-one of the wounded. The other wounded and twelve hundred inhabitants were accompanied by the Legionnaires to Zion Gate and freed. 194 The quarter was then systematically pillaged and razed by the mob. The fall of the Jewish Quarter, an important national site, dealt a severe blow to Yishuv morale.

      * * * *

      During the "civil war," when the opportunity arose, Palestinian militiamen who fought alongside the Arab Legion consistently expelled Jewish inhabitants and razed conquered sites, as happened in the `Etzion Bloc and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City.

      Subsequently, the Arab armies behaved in similar fashion. All the Jewish settlements conquered by the invading Jordanian, Syrian, and Egyptian armies-about a dozen in all, including Beit Ha arava, Neve Yaakov, and Atarot in the Jordanian sector; Masada and Sha'ar Hagolan in the Syrian sector; and Yad Mordechai, Nitzanim, and Kfar Darom in the Egyptian sector-were razed after their inhabitants had fled or been incarcerated or expelled.

  • Support Mondoweiss to keep brave journalists reporting news
    • Bont Eastlake: Problematic ideals and concepts must be identified and chipped away from the raw political conciousness.

    • Mooser: Mondoweiss is a pretty nice site, but it changes from day to day.

      Yes, but tell me, where do the children play?

  • Canada Park, a popular picnicking spot for Israelis, created upon the rubble of Palestinian homes
    • Eljay, compare:


      Yet you live on land stolen from the native Canadian Aborigines, and the “Palestinian” village was built on land that was originally owned by Jews.

      2) Silamcuz :

      {Eljay: I believe that my obligation is to support the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality...]

      Good, then I suggest start with the Canadian government collusion with Zionist , in all aspect of governance. In addition, you should also acknowledge that as a Canadian with no ancestry to the First Nation peoples you are as much of a settler-colonist as the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the rightful owners of the land are the indigenous pre-Columbian nations.

      3)Bont Eastlake :

      all you [Eljay] have done is project supremacist ideals yourself by sanctimoniusly criticising Israel while enjoying the privileges from being Canadian.


      Arafatbastard is a undisguised illiberal Zionist. Silamcuz and Bont Eastlake are fake progressives pushing Zionist talking points. Two sides of the same coin. Their game is to accuse "Western" progressives of hypocrisy, to put them on the defensive, and thereby divert and distract.

    • Bont Eastlake: all you have done is project supremacist ideals yourself by sanctimoniusly criticising Israel while enjoying the privileges from being Canadian...

      Fifty shades of Silamcuz.

  • 'Please remember the Montgomery bus boycott'-- letter to Westchester County board before BDS vote tonight
    • Jonathan Cook:

      [Shawqi Issa, a Palestinian analyst and former government minister in the Palestinian Authority] believes the outlines of a US-Israeli-Saudi-Egyptian plan for the Palestinians are starting to emerge.

      It would offer Hamas a mini-state in Gaza, under Egyptian oversight , cementing the enclave’s separation from the West Bank, he said. Egypt and Saudi Arabia would use former Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan, a rival to PA president Mahmoud Abbas, as their intermediary.

      Earlier this month Hamas leaders met Dahlan in Cairo. Egypt reportedly wants Dahlan to oversee Gaza in return for alleviating the mounting humanitarian crisis there.

      In return Arab states would pump millions into the economy , while Egypt would open its Rafah crossing to Gaza and increase the electricity supply to the enclave, relieving its current power blackouts.

      Ben Caspit, an Israeli analyst, referred to a “secret program” last week that would involve the US, Europe, Egypt and the Gulf states.

      He cited an Israeli military source stating that they would seek to pressure Hamas into agreeing to a long-term ceasefire and moves towards demilitarisation in return for aid.

      Issad said: “The crisis in Gaza gives Hamas an excuse for signing on to a bad deal, saying its people can’t live like this forever. And Israel will be able to tell the world the Palestinians have a state.”

      As for the West Bank, Issa suggested the slivers of territory there currently under nominal Palestinian control would, on the Israeli-US plan, become Jordan’s responsibility.

      “The danger is Amman won’t be able to resist the pressure when it comes from SaudiiArabia, Egypt, Israel and the US,” he said.
      (emphasis added)

  • The deep bonds of Palestinian-Puerto Rican solidarity were on display at this year's NYC Puerto Rican Day Parade
    • Being at war is a bit more significant than having a pimple, I would think.

      But forget the "we" then, echinococcus. How many wars are you in? Shouldn't be too hard a question to answer.

    • echinococcus: ... we are in a war and must learn to behave appropriately.

      How many wars do you reckon "we" are in at the moment? Please list. Thanks.

    • Marnie: Marches in solidarity with zionism; however, are a homogenized group of yelling, spitting, frothing at the mouth neanderthals. Grotesque.

      The Enemy is not human.

  • The Israelis
  • Intersectional feminism: Wonder Woman, Palestinians, Wakanda and Zionism
    • YoniFalic: I try to avoid the use of liturgical terms to describe ethnicity. How about Slurk = Sl(avo-T)urk? Of course, the term Slurk would apply to me, but I consider this identity to be a disease from which I must strive to recover. [emphasis added]

      You seem to be conflating ethnicity and identity (constructed/essentialized) and slipping into racism.

    • I boycott films with these two people. Cruise is a Scientologist and Johansson is a Zionist

      I find it useful to have a well-organized database with detailed ideological profiles of thousands of artists--actors, writers, musicians, painters etc. Software such as No Platformer etc. can generate up-to-date boycott lists based on variable political correctness scales. It's quite customizable. The pre-sets aren't bad either, though "anti-Zionist" needs a bit of tweaking-- some "non-Zionists" and even a few "liberal Zionists" manage to sneak through somehow.

    • Actor ≠ character

    • "Why Wonder Woman is a masterpiece of subversive feminism"

      "Did you weep watching Wonder Woman? You weren't alone"

      Like a lot of other women I know – and a lot of women I don’t – I found myself crying at unexpected times during the film. Watching the Amazon women of Themyscira practice fighting, their strength and athleticism on full display; the battle scene where their bodies flew through the air, beautiful but not sexualized; the incredible moment Diana reveals herself and liberates a town by climbing above the trenches and doing what no man had been able to do before.

      Meredith Woerner described it best in the Los Angeles Times when she wrote: “I felt like I was discovering something I didn’t even know I had always wanted.” To see a woman brave, powerful and invincible.

      Yes, we’ve seen female action stars before – but not like this. Not in a way where the camera lingering on a woman’s body feels strong instead of lascivious. Not in a movie where a woman’s strength is depicted as inevitable and natural.

      When the movie was over, I openly wept outside the theater to my husband – I needed a minute to compose myself. It’s one thing to intellectually recognize the power of representation, quite another to feel it in your bones when you finally see it.

      We’re in a political moment when rooms full of men are making decisions about women’s future and the country is being run by a man who brags about sexually assaulting women. Feminist backlash is so severe that theaters holding women-only showings of the movie have been the target of online ire, even lawsuits. (I have a few friends who didn’t attend such viewings for fear that one of these angry men would show up to do harm.)

      When so many of us feel powerless, seeing the extraordinary power of one woman felt like a cathartic release. A reminder of what is possible, and of what our daughter – and ourselves – deserve.

  • Orientalism, intersectionality, and the 'New York Times'
  • How 1967 changed American Jews
    • Catalan: ... what are the benchmarks that you use to determine that the movement is a “success”? Like, how much did it reduce Israeli exports? Or how much Israelis stocks lost value because they were divested from? In other words, what is your criteria that BDS is “successful” – what is the threshold of harm to Israel that would lead to achieving the goals of BDS (return of refugees, ending the occupation, changing Israeli laws).


      Several points about BDS:

      1) The main threat is to Israel's reputation --aka delegitimization-- not it's economy.

      As Uri Avnery put it:

      There is now in the world a large movement of BDS against Israel. The Israeli government is afraid of it and fights against it with all means, including ridiculous ones. But this fear does not spring from the economic damages this movement can cause, but from the damage it may cause to Israel’s image. Such image may hurt, but it does not kill.

      2) BDS by itself cannot achieve its goals (end of the occupation, right of return per international law, equal rights in Israel). It needs to work in synergy with other modes of political action: Palestinian resistance (non-violent most effective, imo), international court action, international governmental pressure, internal Israeli dissent etc.

      3) Right now there is zero S in BDS. And not much prospect of it in the near future. But even international economic sanctions are rarely effective by themselves, and they often backfire. Russia would be a case in point.

      4) Right now the short-term prospects for Palestinians look pretty bleak. But the future is unpredictable. BDS is having significant success in delegitimizing Israel and energizing the pro-Palestinian cause (a pro-Israel cause as well, for those that see the end of Israeli apartheid as a good thing for Israel.)

  • The issue isn't the 'occupation', it's Zionism
    • echinococcus: There is a hierarchy of international crimes, though. Aggression and internal intervention against sovereign states and invasion of other people’s territory stand separate from the rest. Tyranny, etc. are not a consideration at that level.

      Where do you find this supposed hierarchy? Citation, please.

      The Rome Statute, notably, lists four core international crimes in this order: 1) genocide, 2)crimes against humanity (w/ 11 subcategories, including the crime of apartheid), 3) war crimes, 4) the crime of aggression (Art. 5).

      There is no statement of hierarchy, and none of the four categories is made to "stand separate from the rest."

      Some scholars and commentators have argued for a hierarchy, but usually to put genocide and crimes against humanity above the other two categories and/or make genocide the "crime of crimes."

    • So-called enlightenment is not all it's cracked up to be.

  • Oren sees 'radical implosion' of US Jewish support for Israel -- then calls Palestinian polygamy 'existential threat'
    • Putin is a horrifically evil authoritarian ruler who is out to destroy Western civilization.

    • catalan: The definitive shift against colonialism in international law occurred in 1960. – Sibiriak I was thinking what is the reason that sibiriak always expresses the official Russian government line.
      The "official Russian government line" ?? Hardly. I quoted a mainstream British international law expert, James Summers.


      otherwise he would lose his citizenship.

      Huh? I'm a U.S. citizen and will remain so.

    • Correction: "On 14 December it was adopted..."

    • The definitive shift against colonialism in international law occurred in 1960.

      1960 marked at turning point in the policy of the General Assembly towards colonial self- determination. At this time the de-colonisation process had gained momentum, with seventeen new states taking up their seats that year.

      On 23 September 1960 Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchev presented the Assembly with a draft declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. This was taken up and on 28 November, when debate opened on the issue, twenty- five Asian and African states submitted their own declaration on colonial independence. This draft drew on resolutions of the Afro-Asian conference in Bandung in 1955 and the first and second conferences of African states at Accra and Addis Ababa in 1958 and June 1960.

      14 On December it was adopted without changes, by 89 votes to 0, with 9 abstentions, as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples , GA Res. 1514(XV).

      The Colonial Independence Declaration has been called the “Magna Charta” of decolonisation. And it is a landmark document. If the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen 1789 signalled the emergence of nationalism as a political force, the Colonial Independence Declaration marked its global conquest.

      It was also a watershed, which specifically repudiated many of the basic assumptions in earlier instruments, like the UN Charter. In particular, size and development were no longer held to be prerequisites for statehood, at least for trust and non -self-governing territories.

      As a resolution of the UN General Assembly, the Declaration, unlike the UN Charter or the Covenants, is not formally legally binding. Nonetheless, it has been considered by the International Court of Justice in determining international law in the Namibia and Western Sahara advisory opinions. [emphasis added]


      James Summers, "The Idea of the People: The Right of Self-Determination, Nationalism and the Legitimacy of International Law

  • Israel provoked the Six-Day War in 1967, and it was not fighting for survival
    • Keith, good points. Obviously my analysis was far from comprehensive. Arab Nationalism, oil geopolitics, Cold War rivalries, Israeli expansionism, U.S. Zionist power/ideology --there are various historical vectors converging in the '67 war.

      Finkelstein, in the North/Weiss interview article says:

      But once the US in effect gave Israel the green (or amber) light at the end of May and early June, Israel did a repeat performance of ‘56. Its primary goal was to neuter Nasser, to deliver a deathblow to these uppity Arabs and finish off what was called radical Arab nationalism.

      Their secondary goal was to conquer the lands they had coveted but didn’t manage to seize in ’48: East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan. Tom Segev’s book, 1967, is not great, but it does copiously document Israel’s expansionist territorial aims on the eve of ‘67.

    • The 1967 war can only be undertood within the context of Israeli strategic expansionism

      Israel was slowly but surely creating a crisis with Syria by provoking incidents along the border with the ultimate purpose of grabbing land .

      Syria had embarked on a project to divert the Haztbani river; Israel wished to destroy that project, but did not want to initiate aggressive action that would damage its relationship with the West. The IDF developed a strategy of taking non-military actions to provoke a Syrian military response, then retaliate with military action to destroy the diversion project. On two occasions the Israeli air force attacked the diversion project, and by February 1966 work on the diversion project was stopped. Syria then began to give indirect support to the PLO.

      Yet, the Israeli military activity along the border continued and even escalated throughout 1966. Using similar tactics for triggering incidents, the Israelis continued to provoke the Syrians. The IDF responded disproportionately every time the Syrians opened fire on Israeli tractors working in the DMZs or on police boats disguised as fishing boats getting close to the northeast shore of Lake Kinneret.


      In a rare and revealing interview ten years after that period, Moshe Dayan discussed this pattern of Israeli behavior with the journalist Rami Tal (1997).

      DAYAN: I know how at least 80% of all those incidents there [along the Israeli-Syrian border] got started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let us talk about 80. It worked like this: we would send a tractor to plow some place in the demilitarized zone where nothing could be grown, and we knew ahead of time that the Syrians would shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to move deeper [into the DMZ], until the Syrians got mad eventually and fired on it. And then we would activate artillery, and later on the air force. [...]

      Rami Tal: I am quite stunned by what you are saying. And for what was all this?

      DAYAN: Well, looking back, I can't say there was a well-defined strategic conception on this issue. Generally speaking, I'll tell you this. When the War of Independence ended, we signed armistice agreements with the Arabs. We were smart enough to understand that these agreements were not peace agreements, but we were not smart enough to understand that the armistice agreements that had been signed under the auspices of the UN and which were supported by the great powers . . . were very serious agreements that form something with a significant political value.

      What do I want to say by this? We thought then, and it lasted for a long time, that we canchange the armistice lines by a series of military operations that are less than war, that is, to snatch some territory and hold on to it until the enemy would give up on it.

      Zeev Maoz, "Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel's Security and Foreign Policy " (emphasis added)

      Basically, Israel was slowly but surely creating a crisis with Syria by provoking incidents along the border with the ultimate purpose of grabbing land .

      At a deep level, three key factors created a historical vector toward war:

      1) Israel was absolutely not willing to accept the '49 armistice lines as a permanent border and wished to grab more of "Eretz Israel".

      2) The Arab states were not willing to accept an expansionist Zionist state.

      3) There was a substantial power asymmetry between Israel and the Arab states (accentuated by Israel's decision to embark on a nuclear weapons project in the early 1960's, aided by France et al.).

      Israel had the power to expand and it chose to do so via various methods, including war.

  • Palestinian Authority to hold questionable 'supplementary' elections in Gaza
    • Bent Eastlake: no different from someone being rude to your wife or daughter in western countries

      That comment strikes me as sexist. YMMV


      The West Bank, which has a mixed population of Muslims and Christians, has traditionally been more relaxed during Ramadan and Christian-owned restaurants and businesses remain open in cities such as Ramallah and Bethlehem.

      But that could be about to change. Palestinian Authority prosecutor Alaa Tamimi said last week that anyone breaking the fast could face a month in prison. Palestinian law, amended in 2011 but which dates back to Jordanian rule in the 1960s, dictates that those caught breaking the fast are to be jailed for a month, or fined $21.

      Following Tamimi’s statement, as reported in Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, Palestinian police arrested a man in the northern West Bank town of Tubas for breaking the fast and another three men in Hebron for eating in a public place. A police statement said its officers had detained the three for “paying no respect to the feelings of those fasting.”

      Tamimi’s statement, and the arrests, have exposed tensions in Palestinian society between the religious and the secular. Nur Odeh, a former Palestinian government spokeswoman, posted her opposition to the Ramadan law on Facebook.

      “The Palestinian state’s declaration of independence stipulates specifically that Palestine respects freedom of religion and freedom of expression. So what’s your explanation for implementing a law that, based on an ancient edict, allows the arrest of anyone who breaches the fast?” she wrote, according to Haaretz.

      “Don’t you think such a law infringes on freedom of religion and freedom of others’ religion and faith? Should the Palestinian police use their resources and personnel to make arrests for breaking a law that opposes the principles of the Palestinians’ declaration of independence? I know you’re not the legislator, but you have the power to set priorities regarding the law’s implementation.”


      I can't fault eljay for siding with Nur Odeh and the principles of freedom of religion and expression enshrined in Palestine's Declaration of Independence.

      Of course, freedoms should be exercised wisely and with with respect for others--that's not in question. But respect is a two-way street.

    • Bont Eastlake: So any offense, intentional or not towards religion naturally touches the deepest most volatile places in their psyche [..]. It’s evokes a primal, biological response thats hard to be rationalised with words.

      True enough.


      "A mob beat a Pakistani student to death at his university campus on Thursday after he was accused of sharing blasphemous content on social media, university and police officials said.

      A group of about 10 students shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack on fellow student Mashal Khan, who was stripped naked and beaten with planks until his skull caved in as other students looked on, video obtained by Reuters showed."


      So I suggest we approach this matter with utmost sensitivity and empathy for all parties involved.

      Yes, including the victims.

    • We believe that eljay has made some excellent points about "supremacist constructs".

    • Bont Eastlake: If you have to know the internationally recognised universal laws and human rights to critic Israeli action..[ETC.]


      Stop the pompous strawmanning. It's really obvious, it's really stupid, and it wastes everyone's time.

    • @Bont Eastlake

      Eljay was merely expressing his opinion; he wasn't "dictating" to anyone.

      Their country, their laws.

      True, but no country is immune to criticism based on universal human rights and ethical standards.

      We don’t oppose Israel for being Jewish, we do because of the Nakba, its apartheid laws, its war crimes...

      Who is "we"? You only speak for yourself.

      Ethnic cleansing, genocide, apartheid, war crimes--these crimes are all defined by universal law which transcends the laws of individual states. The notion of "their country, their laws" has validity only to a point; no country is above international law and human rights critique--Palestine included.

      If you think Palestinian law and the actions of Palestinian police in this case are consistent with universal human rights and ethics, then you need to argue it on that basis, not by a spurious appeal to the glib phrase "their country, their laws." Alternately, you could argue against the validity of universal human rights and ethics altogether, but then you will need to explain on what basis you criticize Israeli laws and actions.

      With all due respect, you come off as a highly opinionated person with highly incoherent opinions, and instead of trying to defend them with facts/logic, you resort to cheap rhetoric and personal attacks.

  • Through 'severe pressure,' U.S. can impose a two-state solution on Israel -- Nathan Thrall
    • Donald Johnson: I was speaking specifically about the belief that with a little jawboning the Israelis would gladly accept a 2 ss along 67 lines

      Btw, I don't think many U.S. officials actually hold such a belief. "A little jawboning", "gladly accept"-- that seems like gross hyperbole to me.

      In any case, recent U.S. proposals allowed for major settlement blocs to be annexed by Israel; Israel to maintain a long-term military presence in the Jordan valley; Palestine to be a demilitarized state; no effective right of return, etc.--i.e. the U.S. proposed terms much more favorable to Israel than simply "a 2ss along 67 lines."

Showing comments 2874 - 2801