Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 273 (since 2010-05-07 21:27:34)

straightline

Showing comments 273 - 201
Page:

  • Israel destroys dairy farm in occupied Palestine
    • straightline May 3, 2012 at 9:29 pm

      Sorry - meant to say "hypocritical" rather than "irrational" - would not want to be accused of an ad hominem argument.

    • straightline May 3, 2012 at 9:15 pm

      Now Fred a couple of days ago you criticized a thread as an attack on Jews when all it was criticizing was Israeli Government policy. Seems a little irrational to criticize someone for making the same mistake.

  • Romney beats Obama-- to the eulogy anyway
    • straightline April 30, 2012 at 6:16 pm with 2 replies

      I don't think I'll ever understand you, dimadok, but this comment seems very strange. Annie left a link to +972 in which there is a record of an interview of Benzion Netanyahu in which Derfner uses the word "appalling". Here is one interchange from that interview.

      Q: You don’t like the Arabs, to say the least.

      A: The Bible finds no worse image than that of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases. The tendency toward conflict is in the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won’t allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn’t matter what kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one of perpetual war.

      You don't find that appalling? If you don't I guess we know about your entire essence.

  • An account of the Guardian's racist endorsement of the Balfour Declaration
    • straightline April 30, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      Here is an interesting Guardian article from 2011 by its ombudsman

      link to guardian.co.uk

      I wish that other of the mainstream media were as fastidious when it comes to prejudice of all kinds.

    • straightline April 30, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      While I agree with most of the comments here about the perfidy of Albion over this matter, there are many nuances to the Balfour Declaration which need to be understood - mostly that there were Zionist lobbyists even then, and that the decision was taken by a very small group of people. It never went to Parliament.

      Here is an Australian website that ran a long series of articles on it.

      link to middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com

      C.P.Scott - the Guardian editor at the time had strongly Zionist sympathies. At that time the Manchester Guardian was a provincial newspaper and Manchester had a significant Jewish population (though by no means a majority), who would have been among the more educated and so more likely to be readers of the Manchester Guardian as opposed to a more popular newspaper. This doesn't explain much, as most Jews opposed Zionism until much later.

  • The push for divestment continues as the Methodist General Conference enters its second week
    • straightline May 1, 2012 at 3:31 am

      On the subject of antisemitism, I wonder if someone would do a study of this site to find out whether it is the pro-Israel-policy group or anti-Israel-policy group which most often conflates "Jew" and "Israeli government policy".

  • Egypt and Israel, all is not well
    • straightline April 24, 2012 at 6:24 am

      Mayhem: "Hypocrisy and double talk is their lingua franca"

      Yep!

      Dr. Guy Bechor, heads the Middle East Division at the Lauder School of Government at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya.

      Bechor: "There is no breach of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel here. Under the agreement, Egypt was supposed to sell oil and energy to Israel, and it did so, but that obligation ended ten years ago.
      "This is solely a commercial-economic matter, not a political matter. EMG, the gas supplier, has not paid the Egyptian government for several months. There is no decision to halt gas supplies for political reasons.

      link to globes.co.il

  • Israeli undercover unit’s murder of Palestinian civilian was part of "training exercise"
  • Israeli celebrity says she enjoyed video of IDF attacking Danish activist because he looked like a Nazi
    • straightline April 19, 2012 at 4:12 pm with 1 replies

      thetumta>> P.S. If your a pork lover, nobody does it better than a Danish breakfast buffet.

      That proves it - Danes are antisemitic!

    • straightline April 18, 2012 at 5:50 pm with 1 replies

      Slightly off topic but there are two very interesting pieces of recent research about the blue-eyed/blonde gene(s).

      link to telegraph.co.uk
      (apologies for telegraph but easiest to find)

      link to cogweb.ucla.edu

      The gist is that

      1. the blonde/blue eyed "gene" was a mutation from between 6000 and 10000 years ago near the Black Sea.

      2. Frost says that its prevalence in Northern European latitudes was a result of evolutionary pressure from there being relatively few males in the population. Paraphrasing: "gentlemen prefer blondes"! Don't shoot the messenger!

  • How Benny Morris transformed a patriotic struggle into a 'holy war' for 'sacred Islamic soil'
    • straightline April 18, 2012 at 4:56 am with 5 replies

      I'm sure most of you know but just to put on record for those who don't

      Palestinians killed in 2nd Intifada: 6513
      Israelis killed in 2nd Intifada: 590

  • Iran didn't threaten to 'wipe' Israel out -- Israel's deputy prime minister
  • The Grass just keeps on growing
    • straightline April 14, 2012 at 3:18 am with 6 replies

      And which nuclear armed enemy would that be Fred?

    • straightline April 14, 2012 at 3:14 am

      Victim? Israel? Please Mayhem - as someone who has declared themselves an Aussie don't embarrass me!

      This is what that link says everybody - read:
      "The new anti-Semitism involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations, with Israel as the targeted “collective Jew among the nations.”

      Israel is the"collective Jew"! Did you read that Mooser?

    • straightline April 13, 2012 at 7:58 pm

      Yes the MSM in Britain is trying to ascribe Galloway's victory to the significant Muslim population of Bradford West but the polls show that he won the non-Muslim vote too. A vote against both New Labour and the ConDems. In the past the Lib-Dems have been the party of between-general-election protest but having hitched their wagon to the Conservatives they have left room for Respect.

  • On anti-Semitism, war crimes, and old poets
    • straightline April 13, 2012 at 7:39 am with 1 replies

      I'm not an expert on this - willing to be corrected - but weren't the Sturmabteilung ("Brown Shirts") founded in 1920 and did they not adopt brown shirts early on? Certainly they were around and in brown shirts long before 1935 - in fact they seem have essentially started fading out of the scene in 1934 to be supplanted by the SS.

      As to Heller, I haven't read it but with a foreword by Menachem Begin it is certainly not looking that objective.

  • Jewish press concoct threat against 200 Jewish students in Florida university
  • Iran has 'promised' 'another Holocaust' -- CBS commentator
    • straightline April 9, 2012 at 8:14 pm

      Thanks Keith

      Fredblogs was peddling this twaddle a few days ago and I hoped that one of the many knowledgeable (much more so than I) people who write for this site would counter him. Many people, organisations, and countries (US, UK, and Australia in particular) were trying to do something to help the Jews and others at risk under the Nazis but, by and large, their efforts were stymied by the Zionists. Here are some quotes but I'd welcome input someone with more knowledge.

      link to wrmea.com

      link to desip.igc.org

      The original Lilienthal link on the latter site seems to have disappeared.
      Here is Lilienthal's site

      link to realnews247.com

      He died in 2008.

  • NY high school students visit Western Wall, Israel Museum, and AJC, but Foxman blasts them for daring to meet Palestinians
    • straightline April 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      250 schools - that's about 1 in 10 schools in Victoria. And presumably some of those school visits are from other states. Lots of holocaust denial going on Mayhem.

    • straightline April 14, 2012 at 3:03 am with 1 replies

      As someone who lives in Melbourne - that's Victoria I'm assuming and not Florida - I can say that none of the children I know - children of friends etc - is Muslim. None of them attend Islamic Schools and none have - as far as I know - visited the Holocaust Museum. Maybe I hang out with strange people but their children attend fairly regular public or private schools. Interesting. It seems that holocaust denial is everywhere Mayhem - perhaps even under your bed!

  • Brian Williams suggests that Israeli attack on Iran will invite terrorism to London Olympics
  • UK's deputy PM says Israel is 'vandal'-izing the two-state solution. Israel accuses him of 'gratuitous bashing'
    • straightline January 17, 2012 at 4:04 pm

      Let's be clear. This is Clegg - it is the leader of the minor party in the Coalition - Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. He has been completely outflanked by the major party on almost all aspects of policy, and is widely regarded in the UK as having sold out.

      Cameron on the other hand is a self-declared Zionist.

      link to youtube.com

      It is interesting that Cameron backed Clegg - although with a less radical form of words. Perhaps he is using Clegg to test the waters on a policy change here. The other ingredient in this is Hague - the UK Foreign Secretary. He has been a Friend of Israel for many years.

      link to ccun.org

      Presumably he would have had to sanction a statement on foreign policy matters by the Deputy PM.

  • Cyber-attacks strike Israeli stock exchange, airline, banks
    • straightline January 17, 2012 at 7:38 pm

      Look guys, stop being so silly. Witty's logic is clear - love that word taught to me by eee.

      Collective punishment means that it makes life a little inconvenient for ONLY civilians. If you bomb a region and kill many civilians and a few military that's ok.

      If you kill a nuclear scientist because there is a possibility that the project he is working on might at some future stage if required for the defense of the country develop into one that makes nuclear weapons then that's fine.

      If you drop thousands of cluster bombs on a country within hours of an upcoming agreed ceasefire that's fine because while it will undoubtedly maim and kill many innocent people it might just kill a soldier of the side that you are agreeing the ceasefire with.

      You just have to understand Witty's logic and stop being hard on him.

  • A regular commenter on this site seeks a more temperate comment board
    • straightline January 17, 2012 at 3:21 pm

      How about (a little facetiously):

      7. (though perhaps subsumed under 4.) No identification of Jews with Zionists or Israelis.

      8. If someone introduces as fact a statement which is debunked with uncontrovertible evidence (or at least evidence they do not question in the discussion), that person is not allowed to repeat it in another discussion.

      9. No generalizations about any ethno-religious group - including Jews, Muslims, Palestinians, Arabs or even Scots.

      10. No use of the terms "terrorist" or "terrorism".

      11. No-one shall conflate fact with opinion.

      12. No-one shall base claims on religion - and no quotes from any religious work.

    • straightline January 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm

      Advocacy for a single-state is not about truth or otherwise. It is a political position. The same applies to reform of Israel's policies.

  • Israeli Supreme Court upholds discriminatory citizenship law: 'Human rights shouldn’t be a recipe for national suicide'
    • straightline January 13, 2012 at 8:53 am

      Again I'll commit the sin of answering my own response. I thought it would be good for Winnica, who seems to have some strange views about my adopted country, Australia, to see the statement that those seeking residence in Australia are required to sign:

      I understand:
      * Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good
      * Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background
      * the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.

      I undertake to respect these values of Australian society during my stay in Australia and to obey the laws of Australia.

      I understand that, if I should seek to become an Australian citizen:
      * Australian citizenship is a shared identity, a common bond which unites all Australians while respecting their diversity
      * Australian citizenship involves reciprocal rights and responsibilities. The responsibilities of Australian Citizenship include obeying Australian laws, including those relating to voting at elections and serving on a jury.

    • straightline January 13, 2012 at 8:22 am

      Now let's talk about Australia on which you make some unsubstantiated statements. Australia has a very clear immigration policy.

      link to immi.gov.au

      You receive points for:

      1. Having relatives in Australia - no ethnic considerations.
      2. Level of education.
      3. Ability to speak/write English.
      4. Trade or profession - some are more in demand than others. Often it is trades like plumbers. Medical qualifications are usually not useful.

      And that's about it. The more points you have the better your chances of immigration. And there is no discrimination against Indonesia - many Indonesians immigrate to Australia and we tend on the whole to have good relations with our near neighbor - sullied only slightly by the issue of illegal immigrants coming by boat from there. I don't know about the other countries you mentioned - though I'd be interested to see some evidence - but I do know a little about Australian immigration. Oh - there is one other category of immigrant - if you have oodles of money you can also immigrate to Australia. And many of those in that category are Chinese. It is pretty easy to work out where recent immigrants are from - they tend to be the taxi drivers. In recent years, taxi drivers have tended to come from South Asia - India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and from East Africa - Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, etc.

      Often students come to Australia on a student visa and after two or three years here obtain permanent residence.

      As to being at war with anyone - who is currently at war with Israel? When has a country has invaded the internationally agreed territory of Israel?

    • straightline January 13, 2012 at 6:50 am

      I have a life too - just back to this. Did you read the article? It is nothing to do with ethnicity. It is that Britain is contemplating the Danish rules and indeed regarding them as too strict for the UK. And even what is contemplated might be difficult to get through the UK political system especially as the somewhat supine LibDems who are part of the ruling coalition might object. The means of discrimination is the difference between being foreign (ie born outside of the country of whatever ethnicity) versus nationals (born inside the country of whatever ethnicity) and to some extent about forced marriages as we have indicated earlier. To illustrate, someone in Australia all of whose grandparents were from the UK (and there are many) would have no more rights to settle in the UK than someone from Pakistan. Indeed if the latter had parents who were UK citizens of Pakistani background they would have the right to settle in the UK. Let me quote from the article you have apparently read:

      "requiring a mixed Danish-foreign couple to show that their combined attachment to Denmark is “considerably greater” than to any other country. The Danish model is probably too radical for Britain, says a Whitehall source: but the government does believe that someone who wants to marry a foreigner must earn enough to support him or her—or move."

      In other words what Shmuel quoted for Denmark, which is at least a defensible law, is too radical for the UK. It is fine for a country to discriminate on grounds of whether someone is born in that country of nationals/citizens of that country - lex soli. I do not regard it as acceptable for them to discriminate on grounds of religion or ethnicity. Israel is not saying that. It is saying that someone born in New York (and Jewish) whose parents and whose parents parents have never set foot in Israel can marry an Israeli and live there whereas a Palestinian whose grandparents were born in Palestine (subsequently Israel) and who marries an Israeli is not. I would like to know how that is not racism. Comparison of the Israeli law with those of either Denmark or the contemplated UK law is absurd.

      The other issue raised in the article is one of income tests. But the article is a little disingenuous there. Income tests are defensible in a country with significant social support system such as theUK. The state can argue that it should not have to support immigrants. Moreoever the income test is on the total income of the couple. There are complex socio-economic issues here, and the average socio-economic position of British Asians is below that of the population as a whole. On the other hand, the cut off of 20k pounds (around $US30k) suggested, though not specified, by the article as posing a burden for the taxpayer is hardly a high hurdle, being around or slightly below the median income level for an individual. There are very many British Asians whose income level would exceed that.

      The other issue that is raised by the article and used as a justification for more rigorous spousal immigration laws is of forced marriages and I hope that we all at this site would condemn that practice and applaud genuine attempts to eradicate it.

      As to actual recent changes in the law rather than "contemplated" the only change I can find in the UK is one of raising the age of the overseas spouse to 21 years as a means to cut down on forced marriages:

      link to canadaupdates.com

      As far as I can see nothing else has changed from the rules I posted earlier. And even then the British Supreme Court has voiced concerns about this change.

    • straightline January 13, 2012 at 5:59 am

      And not only is asherpat paranoid but does not understand irony - point to you indeed MLE. Well done!

    • straightline January 12, 2012 at 9:14 pm with 9 replies

      I'll leave the debate about conversion to someone else but doesn't this:

      "But I suspect that the true nature of ur question is ur yearning for fake converts to flood Israel and then reveal their true colour (so to speak)?"

      suggest that someone is paranoid?

    • straightline January 12, 2012 at 8:56 pm

      You imagine that these tribes did not inter-marry with the locals? That they drove out the indigenous people? That's not the way modern historians of Palestine - that is Palestine not Israel - see it. So yes there were several migrations into Palestine. But as with many other countries the indigenous people including Hebrews and proto-Christians absorbed or were absorbed by the invaders.

    • straightline January 12, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      And it was overturned:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • straightline January 12, 2012 at 5:50 pm

      Please elaborate - in what way do these other states mentioned by Winnica prevent spouses of "mixed" marriages immigrating. Where I live in Australia there are laws to ensure that marriages are genuine and not just mechanisms for immigration. Other than that there are no mechanisms, legal or otherwise, to inhibit marriage of people of different ethnicities. I also know the UK pretty well - so would be interested in how these mechanisms exist there.

    • straightline January 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm

      Well Winnica, several of us have responded to your unjustified assertions with fairly strong evidence that they are wrong. A reasonable person would either come back with evidence to the contrary - such as a citation of the supposed Economist article - or withdraw the assertions. Which is it to be? Or is this just standard hasbara - sow a few seeds but don't stay around to harvest the results.

    • straightline January 12, 2012 at 4:11 pm

      I will reply to my own response (and to Shmuel's) having had a few minutes to reflect, and hopefully before RW or more likely eee jumps in. There is one aspect of UK law that is "discriminatory". It is to do with the "Established Church" which is the Anglican Church (Church of England). The sovereign (King or Queen) is head of that church. And the prime minister has to be able to advise the sovereign on ecclesiastical matters. Almost all prime ministers of the UK so far have been Anglican or the related Church of Scotland. There is a concise and pretty good description of the situation here:

      link to wiki.answers.com

      The current leader of the Labour Party in the UK is Jewish (though not in a religious sense) and if he became prime minister would presumably not take on the Anglican faith. I do not think anyone in the UK is concerned about this. These issues are anachronistic and because of the history of the UK.

    • straightline January 12, 2012 at 3:40 pm

      British visa rules for immigration of spouses of UK nationals:

      link to ukimmigration.com

      Spouses of UK citizens or permanent residents (mainly those with indefinite leave to remain) may come to the UK under marriage visa category, and are able to work as soon as a visa is granted. You will need to meet the following marriage visa requirements:

      * If you have been together for less than four years you are granted a marriage visa for a probationary period of two years. If you are still married and living together at the end of two years in the UK permanent residence (properly known as indefinite leave to remain) will usually be granted.
      * If you have been together for four years or more outside the UK you will be granted indefinite leave to remain (permanent residence) in the UK without having to live in the UK for two years.
      * The UK citizen or permanent resident must have actually met their non-UK spouse. This is to prevent a situation that occurs sometimes in arranged marriages where the husband and wife have never met.
      * You must intend to live together permanently with your spouse.
      * You must possess sufficient funds to pay you and your spouse's living expenses and those of any dependants without claiming public funds. Public funds cover various benefits paid by the Government if you are currently looking for work, if you are on a low income and if you are in various other situations.
      * Accommodation for the couple, and any dependants, must be suitable and available.
      * Spouses seeking to come to the UK on the basis of marriage to a UK national should apply for entry clearance before entering the UK.
      * If you have a visa valid for six months or less in the UK you cannot change status to a spouse visa.
      * Children of the marriage who are under 18 years old are allowed entry to the UK as dependants, and can make their application at the same time as the main applicant.
      * After a total period of three years in the UK if you meet the residence requirements you may then apply for UK citizenship.

      No mention of ethnicity. Indeed the concept is foreign to UK law.

    • straightline January 12, 2012 at 3:12 pm

      Are you referring to this?

      link to telegraph.co.uk

      And if so it is hardly comparable, being a protection for Pakistani (and others) women against forced marriages. Please do not compare that with Israel's racist marriage laws.

  • Ron Paul's antiwar position is simpleminded
    • straightline January 7, 2012 at 7:32 pm

      No - as is well documented - the Zionists were not trying to save Jews from Hitler. They were trying to get Jews to emigrate to Palestine. They actively tried to prevent them emigrating anywhere else.

  • Happy New Year
    • straightline January 1, 2012 at 4:56 pm

      First Happy New Year to all - including the Zionists without whom our lives would be so boring. If only someone could invent a cure for Alzheimer's.

      Slightly off topic but I'm excited about this. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation - the government owned national broadcaster of Australia - is usually pretty pro-Israel in its reporting of the Middle East at least on radio. I could go on at length about this but unless someone challenges the assertion I'll leave it at that. This morning the NewsRadio station of the ABC had a report by an Al Jazeera reporter (usually ABC gets its ME reports from NYT or WaPo - at least it's not Fox) on a tour company called Green Olive:

      link to tripadvisor.com

      The company takes tourists around the West Bank to visit Palestinian and Settler communities. The ABC actually mentioned the conditions of the Palestinians - and their wonderful hospitality - and talks about the Settler violence on the West Bank without the usual crap about "Hamas Militants". It was all too brief but a step in the right direction as I hope 2012 will be.

  • 'People who promoted the Iraq war ought to be so discredited that no one listens to them any more'
  • Kampeas: Jewish neocons are more than 2 degrees removed from Bush's decision to invade Iraq
    • straightline December 31, 2011 at 5:27 pm

      For once you're right, Witty, but only in part. And indeed someone did say "let's stop it". But as usual it wasn't Israel.

      link to mediamonitors.net

      ?The first martyrdom operation came in response to the massacre of Muslim worshipers as they kneeled in prayer in the Ebrahimi mosque in Hebron at dawn by a Jewish settler Dr Baruch Goldstein. Sheikh Ahmed Yasin, Hamas spiritual leader who offered Israel a truce, explained that his movement does not endorse the killings of civilians, but that it is sometimes the only option it has to respond to the murder of Palestinian civilians. Israel has spurned Hamas offer."

  • Thanks, my enemy. I love Palestine
  • Ben-Ami: I advocate for Israel, Palestinian groups should advocate for Palestinian human rights
    • straightline December 23, 2011 at 12:31 am with 3 replies

      I will keep saying this so that no-one - not even RW - can be in any doubt. His last attempt at a "lying diatribe" (or was it a "candid discussion") on this topic ended in abject failure - thanks to the wonderful MDWsers - but I am sure he will be back. There were NO Hamas rockets for 4 months leading up to the Israeli attack on Hamas at the end of 2008! So let's not bring out that excuse of "stopping Hamas rocket fire" again, please. Here's Mark Regev confirming and squirming it again.

      link to youtube.com

  • Israel says it's 'disgusting' for world to take stand on 'domestic affair' --settlers
    • straightline December 22, 2011 at 4:51 pm

      Just checked that the magic word "democracy" does not appear in this thread. Israel cannot be both a democracy and claim that the occupied territories are an "internal affair". Which is it to be?

  • Busted by Goldberg, Klein now says commas caused war in Iraq, not neocons
    • straightline December 20, 2011 at 7:34 pm

      Thanks guys - your help is much appreciated. I thought that Mark Regev gave a suitable answer - but Richard appears to prefer Wikipedia. Strange!

    • straightline December 20, 2011 at 5:17 pm

      If I may indulge in a flight of fancy - well the holiday season is nigh - suppose that Paul did win the Republican nomination. It's a long shot but judging by the polling in Iowa not impossible. Who will they support - the Israel-firsters and their like? Paul's nomination would significantly strengthen Obama's hand in his game with Netanyahu - he's on a long losing streak, though he has managed to hold the line on Iran so far. On the other hand I'm sure Bibi is onto this - expect dirty tricks in the coming weeks. Ron Paul should be very careful. Even without his nomination it is clear that Paul's message is resonating with a significant part of the American public - something that other candidates might heed.

    • straightline December 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm with 2 replies

      I agree W.J - I was just being facetious.

    • straightline December 20, 2011 at 4:15 pm

      Witty is not partisan - he told us so. And he believes the Zionist patrolled Wikipedia over Channel 4 and indeed Mark Regev who never lies of course.

    • straightline December 20, 2011 at 3:37 pm with 4 replies

      It seems that Klein has joined Friedman as an "existential threat". How many does that make?

      A disgusting Caroline Glick article from JP is posted by Antony Loewenstein here:

      link to antonyloewenstein.com

      It makes me almost feel sorry for Friedman - looking forward to the next instalment on Klein. No wonder that Goldstone wilted.

    • straightline December 20, 2011 at 2:27 pm with 8 replies

      Just so that newcomers do not believe that canard about lobbing rockets. Apologies to the regulars who know the truth though eee and hophmi might need a reminder.

      link to youtube.com

  • Former Israeli general: Provoke a settler attack, then shoot the 'Jewish terrorist'
    • straightline December 20, 2011 at 7:23 pm

      I agree Annie - crap. I note that PZ did not copy from LGF/EoZ and the same book:

      "The Jews have eight synagogues in their quarter in Cairo; and not only enjoy religious toleration, but are under a less oppressive government in Egypt than in any other country of the Turkish empire. In Cairo, they pay for the exemption of their quarter from the visits of the Mohtesib; and they did the same also with respect to the “Walee, as long as his office existed. Being consequently privileged to sell articles of provision at higher prices than the other inhabitants of the metropolis, they can afford to purchase such things at higher rates, and therefore stock their shops with provisions, and especially fruits, of better qualities than are to be found in other parts of the town. Like the Copts, and for a like reason, the Jews pay tribute, and are exempted from military service."

      It seems that PZ only loves history that reinforces her/his prejudices. There are plenty of better sources for the history of Jews in the Ottoman Empire.

    • straightline December 20, 2011 at 1:35 am

      Provoke then shoot - sounds like the standard Zionist technique.

      "I know how at least 80% of the incidents began there. In my opinion, more
      than 80%, but lets talk about 80%. It would happen like this: We would send a
      tractor to plow someplace of no value, in the demilitarized zone, knowing
      ahead of time that the Syrians would begin to shoot. If they did not start
      shooting, we would tell the tractor to keep going forward, until the Syrians
      in the end would get nervous and start shooting. And then we would start
      firing artillery, and later also the airforce and this was the way it was. I
      did this and Laskov and Tzur (two previous commander-in-chiefs) did it,
      Yitzhak Rabin did it when he was there (as commander of the northern district
      at the beginning of the sixties), but it seems to me that it was Dado, more
      than anyone else, enjoyed these games." (Moshe Dayan, 22 November 1976)

  • Has NYT become an 'existential threat'? Oren says Friedman column was 'dangerous'
    • straightline December 18, 2011 at 7:20 pm with 2 replies

      This is a worry! Israel is on record as saying that it will use nuclear weapons in response to an "existential threat". Incidentally I usually like to cite statements like that but I am having trouble finding it online amid the multiple sites claiming that Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel, and the "seven existential threats" to Israel (is that anything to do with the seven dwarfs?). Anyone?

      Pretty soon the phrase "existential threat" will go the way of "anti-semitic": every non-Zionist will become an existential threat in the way that we have all become anti-semitic.

  • Israel is incapable of taking on the settlers
  • Hitchens's Jewishness
  • Friedman line, 'Congress is bought and paid for by Israel lobby,' is shot heard round the world
  • David Remnick erases Norman Finkelstein
    • straightline December 14, 2011 at 12:04 am

      Really Cliff - I recall a comment a couple of months ago where RW complained of partisanship on the part of everyone else. Surely our Richard is not being hypocritical?

    • straightline December 14, 2011 at 12:01 am with 1 replies

      I would take issue with one sentence and one only of your polemic (in the true sense of the word), American. This crap was not written for the Jews - it was written to persuade (?) the wider American community that the Zionists had justice on their side. If only the Palestinians had PR departments like the Zionists do! Of course, PR is a lot easier if you're telling the truth.

    • straightline December 13, 2011 at 2:15 pm

      Never mentions it? Not sure what "LOL" has to do with anything about this.

      link to youtube.com

  • Gingrich has opened an important door
  • One day in the State of the Jewish People, a 'light unto the Nations'
    • straightline December 13, 2011 at 3:08 pm

      So let's extrapolate - all of the world's Jews in a racist Israel - is that what you really want? Do you realize the consequences?

  • Iran airs footage of US drone intact
    • straightline December 10, 2011 at 12:35 pm

      The situation has changed significantly since the Second World War. Now the best of US universities are, by and large, the best in the world, but in science and engineering they are relying increasingly on India, China, and the Middle East (including Iran) to supply them with graduate students:

      link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

      And increasingly these students are leaving after they graduate:

      link to businessweek.com

    • straightline December 9, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      Marconi? Do you mean Fermi? And there were Peierls (German born but naturalized Briton), Frisch (Austrian/British Jew), Ulam (Polish Jew), von Neumann (Hungarian), Oliphant and Titterton (Australian), Lawrence (American), Bethe (German/American), Bohr (Danish), Segre (Italian/American), Loomis (American), Compton (American), Chadwick (British), Einstein (German/American), Feynman (American), Penney (British), WIgner (Hungarian), Wilson (American), Wheeler (American) and many more.

      link to mphpa.org

      By the way, Oppenheimer was not an "administrator", he was the Scientific Director.

    • straightline December 9, 2011 at 3:53 am

      Roha, the defense minister of one country (you know which) has, at least, negotiated about the sale of its nuclear weapons to another country - the latter being Apartheid South Africa.

      link to guardian.co.uk

  • 'Segregated country': Israel envisions Orthodox-Jewish-only 'cities' in Palestinian area
    • straightline November 27, 2011 at 4:37 pm

      Incidentally, eee, the largest "ethnic" group currently immigrating into Australia is Chinese - no longer European. Australia is fast becoming an Asian rather than a "European" country. Do we of European "ethnicity" oppose that? No we do not - well not the vast majority! We have long since acknowledged - post the "White Australia Policy" - that a diversity of immigrants adds to the richness of our culture and society. Chinese people and others from SE and South Asia are buying houses in the richer and the poorer suburbs of our major cities and we welcome it. This country is among the strongest supporters of Israel but almost all of its people would abhor your attitudes. If only they were informed!

    • straightline November 27, 2011 at 4:24 pm

      I have a feeling of deja vu here, eee, but I should never expect you to read what others say except to make a point. As someone living in Australia, for once I agree with you, eee - yes the settlement of Australia by Europeans involved land theft. I might try to find an excuse by saying that Aborigines were not a settled people but that is just what it is - an excuse. While there is significant political debate about how to help the Aborigines, I have to say that we, on the whole, now understand what we did to them and with few exceptions are keen to make recompense within certain economic limits of course. We acknowledge that we have built on the land of Aboriginal people - in fact at many major gatherings the introductory speech acknowledges that we are on the land of the Wauthaurong people (or whatever tribe are the traditional owners of that land) . Aborigines now have freedom to live anywhere in Australia and take a job anywhere. There is absolutely no legislation that discriminates against the indigenous people of Australia, while there is legislation that discriminates in their favour in an attempt to recompense. Of course this is all a myth really - economically most of them cannot afford to live just anywhere in this country with the highest house prices in the world relative to income. We have said we are "sorry" for what we did to them, we provide them with social services, we do our best (well perhaps not quite our best) to integrate those that want to be integrated and to allow those who want to live in the traditional ways to do so. Some of them own large amounts of land and are farming it. No it is not satisfactory - we could do more - but we do not shoot them any more, we do not dispossess them any more, we do not discriminate against them (well perhaps we do but we are conscious of it and try not to). Not perfect but improving.

      Now coming back to your comparison of India and Israel. As far as I am aware India does not constrain immigration according to (as you would say) tribal membership. I am not sure that Indians would understand the notion of a "tribe" - caste is quite different. India has significant populations of multiple religions - Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and even a few Jews none of whom are systematically discriminated against. It does NOT systematically bomb populations under its control. If only Israel were like India.

    • straightline November 27, 2011 at 3:58 pm

      I have a feeling of deja vu here, eee, but I should never expect you to read what others say except to make a point. As someone living in Australia, for once I agree with you, eee - yes the settlement of Australia by Europeans involved land theft. I might try to find an excuse by saying that Aborigines were not a settled people but that is just what it is - an excuse. While there is significant political debate about how to help the Aborigines, I have to say that we, on the whole, now respect and understand what we did to them. We acknowledge that we have built on the land of Aboriginal people - in fact at many major gatherings the introductory speech acknowledges that we are on the land of the Wauthaurong people (or whatever tribe are the traditional owners of that land) . Aborigines now have freedom to live anywhere in Australia and take a job anywhere. Of course this is all a myth really - economically most of them cannot afford to live just anywhere in this country with the highest house prices in the world relative to income. We have said we are sorry for what we did to them, we provide them with social services, we do our best (well perhaps not quite our best) to integrate those that want to be integrated and to allow those who want to live in the traditional ways to do so. Some of them own large amounts of land and are farming it. No it is not satisfactory - we could do more - but we do not shoot them any more, we do not dispossess them any more, we do not discriminate against them (well perhaps we do but we are conscious of it and try not to). Not perfect but improving.

      Now coming back to your comparison of India and Israel. As far as I am aware India does not constrain immigration according to (as you would say) tribal membership. I am not sure that Indians would understand the notion of a "tribe" - caste is quite different. India has significant populations of multiple religions - Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and even a few Jews none of whom are systematically discriminated against. It does not systematically bomb populations under its control. If only Israel were like India.

Showing comments 273 - 201
Page:

Comments are closed.