Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 77 (since 2009-08-29 23:06:30)

sydnestel

Website: http://www.syds-blog.blogspot.com/

Showing comments 77 - 1
Page:

  • Syria wrap: Grumbling This won't be easy, NYT's Bill Keller suits up for another Mid-East war
    • sydnestel May 6, 2013 at 12:57 pm

      So, reading the Robert Hunter quote above, isn't this a good argument against a "one state solution" in Palestine/Israel. Seems like multi-ethnic states in the ME end up as having one ethnic group unfairly lording it over the others, or else bloody civil war.

      Just askin'.

      --
      Sydney

  • Reality check-- John Kerry prepares to stick fork in two-state solution
    • sydnestel April 19, 2013 at 3:54 pm

      The 2 state solution might be dead, but that doesn't mean that the one state solution is alive. The logic that says that 2 states can't work because Israel won't allow it to, and has established too many facts on the ground, would also dictate that a one - egalitarian - state solution is dead for the same reasons.

      I also don't see a Palestinian majority for a single multi-cultural, multi-national, egalitarian state. Fatah and the PA still officially support a two state solution (they want to see a Palestinian Arab team at the Olympics and hear a Palestinian Arab national anthem at the UN), and Hamas supports a one - non egalitarian Islamic - state solution.

      I suspect that it is true that a 2 state solution is dead. But that is no reason to rejoice, in my opinion. The practical alternative is probably worse.

    • sydnestel April 19, 2013 at 3:42 pm

      Yes

      61 % of Israeli Jews say they want a 2 state solution.

      On another question:
      7% wanted one state with Jews and Palestinians as equals
      23% wanted one state without giving Palestinians citizenship (aka apartheid)
      13% wanted the status quo (aka defacto apartheid)
      57% wanted a 2 state solution along the line of the current barrier

      see: link to 972mag.com

  • Amina Tyler's naked activism
  • Yair Lapid, centrist star and Finance Minister, plans 16,000 new settlement units in West Bank
    • sydnestel March 23, 2013 at 5:21 pm

      " Yair Lapid, centrist star and Finance Minister, plans 16,000 new settlement units in West Bank ...

      The first phase will see 7,000 new homes in Kiryat Gat settlement, 1,600 in the Tel HaShomer area, as well as 1,000 in the settlement of Modi'in, west of Ramallah."

      ???!!!

      Kiryat Gat and Tel Hashomer are in pre 1967 Israel, not in the West Bank. Modi'in is mostly in pre-1967 Israel, with about a third built in what used to be the "no-mans-land" between Israel and the West Bank.

  • Zionists thrill that Obama will recognize ancient Jewish connection to 'homeland' (undoing his Cairo error)
    • sydnestel March 17, 2013 at 1:21 pm with 4 replies

      Does no one see the irony of labeling "President’s decision to lay a wreath at the grave of Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism" as supporting "the Jewish people’s roots in the land of Israel."

      Herzl could have cared less about the Jewish peoples roots. He supported establishing a Jewish state in Uganda (or anywhere else if it had been on offer.) He wanted the language of the Jewish state to be German. Herzl was 100% motivated by European antisemitism. (Not the Holocaust, obviously, he died 35 years before it.)

      As for the symbolic value of the Dead Sea Scrolls in proving the Jewish people’s roots in the land of Israel - most of them were looted from the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions regarding removing cultural artifacts from occupied territories. Furthermore, these documents pre-date the split of Judaism and Christianity, so they are at least as relevant to establish Christian roots in the holy land as Jewish ones. And finally, when one considers that many Palestinians are in fact genealogically descendant from the ancient Jews who wrote and read those texts, and that many Jews are descendants of converts over the centuries, the whole thing becomes absurd. Except, or course, that it makes good propaganda to claim the scrolls as proof of an exclusive historical Jewish tie the land.

  • Vivian Gornick stashed book critical of Israel lest she 'commit literary suicide'
    • sydnestel March 17, 2013 at 8:46 am with 3 replies

      The full quote is

      "Jews are barely 2% of the US population, but their influence far exceeds even the likes of Heritage Foundation and other similar right-wing ideological repositories. I call them intellectual suppositories because they all have their heads up their arses."

      which is what I meant to include in the above comment.

    • sydnestel March 16, 2013 at 2:22 pm with 9 replies

      "Heritage Foundation and other similar right-wing ideological repositories. I call them intellectual suppositories because they all have their heads up their arses."

      Maybe you get a pass from other people, but not me. That's just fucking antisemitism - straight up.

  • 'NYT' runs op-ed by Israel lobbyist in human rights garb, saying Palestinians are too corrupt to deserve a state
    • sydnestel February 14, 2013 at 6:14 pm

      "A good indicator of how committed a government is to upholding peace with its neighbors is its commitment to protecting the human rights of its own citizens. Nations that disregard the freedoms of their own people are not likely to care much about maintaining peace with their historic enemies."

      What nonsense. Iran - under both the Shaw and the Ayatollahs was and is hardly a paragon of protecting the human rights of its own citizens, but has never been involved in a war, other than the war started against it by Saddam Hussein. Other similar examples - post Soviet Russia, China (no wars since the end of the Korean war), Egypt (no wars since 1973), Saudi Arabia, ...

      The U.S. - which relatively speaking does protect the human rights of its citizens - has been involved in dozens of wars - many (most?) of which it started.

  • Forget the Palestinian Mandela, where is the Israeli Branch Rickey?
    • sydnestel February 8, 2013 at 5:35 pm

      Just to be clear, many other Israeli football clubs do have Arab Muslim players, including the Israeli National Team.

      This is not to say that racism is not a problem in Israel, nor that it is specifically not a problem for Israeli Arab footballers. Its is.

      But Beitar Jerusalem fans have always had a reputation of of being particularly racist right wing and thuggish. Up to now Beitar Jerusalem has never had a non-Jewish player on the team.

      So this Branch Rickey thing really doesn't apply.

  • 'Time' embarrasses Hagel's Senate questioners for Israel focus
  • Video: Naftali Bennett stands by party member who raised idea of destroying the Dome of the Rock
    • sydnestel January 21, 2013 at 4:54 pm with 3 replies

      I agree with Shmuel's take - but as he said, neither he nor I are Bennet's target audience. The fact is, if the polls are correct, he is reaching way beyond the traditional National Religious base, and stealing votes from "non religious" rightist and centrists. A friend, who just returned from a month in Israel tells me that, young secular kids in Tel Aviv are saying they will vote for him - because he's 'cool': rich, young, and can use facebook!

  • Rightwing Israeli group accuses human-rights orgs of 'emasculation' of soldiers
  • 'Lincoln' is an argument for equality in Israel and Palestine
    • sydnestel December 10, 2012 at 12:02 pm with 2 replies

      "Spielberg and Kushner want us to take Lincoln's ideas to Jerusalem, and explain that their way of life is premised on inequality, and Israelis must let go of it, without forcing a massive bloodletting."

      Kushner - maybe.

      Speilberg, I don't thing so.

  • Exile and the prophetic: Rabbi Gordis's 'innermost circle' of caring
    • sydnestel December 6, 2012 at 4:54 pm

      Gordis says:
      Especially this week, I wanted to tell her to love my family and my neighbors more than they love the people who elected Hamas and who celebrate each time a suicide bomber kills Jews. Is that really too much to ask?’

      Well, I love my kids, more than other peoples kids. But when they beat up other kids, even mean ones, in the school yard I make them apologize and make proper amends.

      More to the point, what do you do with a beloved relative who is an addict - who is harmful to himself and steals, robs and assaults others. Family loyalty only goes so far. You don't have to stop loving them, but you do have to reign them in, or failing that at least stop enabling them.

  • 'A vision seen in a dream': A leading religious Zionist's 1956 call for the Palestinian refugees to return
  • When it’s quiet in Jerusalem the settler security cameras are still rolling
    • sydnestel October 18, 2012 at 5:48 pm

      @Roha

      Nationality is all in the head ... Nationality is about common cultural touch points, common symbols, a common SENSE of history (aka – mythology).

      Are the Scots a nation? If enough of then think so they are. Otherwise their British. They are going to have a referendum soon to decide if they should have separate state. These things are fluid.

    • sydnestel October 17, 2012 at 11:32 am

      Well whoopdi-do! Jews aren't ethnically pure!

      So what? Nationality is all in the head anyway? Are Americans ethnically pure? Are Brits? Are Checks or the Slovaks - who mostly think they are ethnically pure, really ethnically pure. Nationality is about common cultural touch points, common symbols, a common SENSE of history (aka - mythology). Washington did not really cut down the cherry tree: does that make the American nation a sham?

      The debate about whether being Jewish is about blood-lines, belief, or just plain self-identification has been going on (in the Jewish community) for hundreds of years - or more. In the Bible, Ezra is aghast that his fellow Judans ("Jews" would be an anachronism) have intermarried, and orders them to divorce their non-Jewish wives. King David - on the other hand - is, according to the Bible, the grandson of a "convert" (actually she never converts, she just self-identifies as a Judean.) Maimonides (circa 1200) points out that Jews are not literally "descendants of Abraham" as the Bible itself says that they were joint by a "mixed multitude" when they left Egypt. But that didn't stop Maimonides from believing that the Jews where a nation (aka People.) Ben Gurion (ptu ptu ptu) himself believed that the "Arabs of Palestine" where mostly descendants of Jews who had converted, and early on, he held out hope that they would join their "cousins" in supporting a Jewish State.

      Nation is not the same as State, and they should not be identified one-to-one with each other. Nations often cross state borders. States can (and often do) contain many nations, but should nevertheless treat all their citizens (and significant nations) equally. That is Israel's sin. That it privileges Jews and discriminates against Palestinians. But that does not mean Jews are not a nation (People).

  • Meet the donors who likely attended Romney's Florida fundraiser
    • sydnestel September 19, 2012 at 4:51 pm with 3 replies

      I don't doubt that most of these guys are probably supporters of Zionism, and are right wing. But you can't prove they are right wing Zionists by just showing that they contributed to the UJA or Jewish Federation. Thousands of Jews who have a variety of ideological positions (or none) contribute to those charities. It would be like concluding that giving to Federated Catholic Charities means the donor is virulently anti-choice.

  • The conversion of Joel Kovel (Part 1)
    • sydnestel September 7, 2012 at 5:06 pm

      Communism is (was?) universal, but you still had to join the Communist Party to be really trusted.

      The point is that Christianity - like Islam and (l'havdil) Communism - aspires to be universal. Judaism doesn't. In that sense Christianity - in theory - is as totalitarian (ala Hannah Arendt's usage) as Communism. Pluralism is tolerated only for the practical reasons and only to the extent that the total adherence to doctrine cannot be enforced without unacceptable costs. But, if the cost is acceptable - go for it! (Hence the Christian evangelicals in America who never tire trying of getting the government to impose their views on everyone.) I have yet to hear of a Christian denomination that would officially admit that a Hindu could enjoy "everlasting life." (correct me if I am wrong.)

      Judaism - again in theory - allows that there will always be multiple religions, and that people of other religions can also be good and can get into "heaven" (aka "olam habah".) This traditional Jewish acceptance of pluralism - perhaps forced in it by Jews weak status in diaspora - is one of traditional Judaism's more positive features. (This feature is, admittedly, eroding under the impact of right wing religious Zionism.)

      I recognize that many Jews and many Christians don't act or believe as per the mainstream tenants of their faith, but nevertheless ...

  • Discussing life 'after zionism' in Israel/Palestine
    • sydnestel August 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm

      Antony

      Re "More essentially, I argue that Zionism itself is the issue. It can’t be reformed, re-defined or re-imagined. From its beginning, it was about subjugation of the Arab, a desire to colonise as much land as possible in the name of Jewish liberation. "

      Did you read the last chapter in your own book? - the one by Jeremiah Haber? It challenges the above statement. It is, IMO, both a factually accurate and strategically wise position.

  • Brian Williams is justly outraged by Mormon bar on intermarriage
    • sydnestel August 24, 2012 at 4:57 pm with 1 replies

      Nonsense. A Jew can marry a convert to Judaism and 99.9% of Jews wouldn't say anything about it.

      As a Nevada Ned pointed out 50% of US Jews intermarry, so at least those 50% don't seem to feel its a "closed" - by bloodlines or by faith.

      As for Jews who do take their faith seriously - believe me, most Haredi or Orthodox Jews would be aghast if their child married a Reform Jew, and many liberal Jews would be aghast of their child married a Haredi or Orthodox Jew. (I personally know people in both categories.)

  • B'nai B'rith and World Jewish Congress defend settlements as 'Israel'
    • sydnestel August 17, 2012 at 3:04 pm

      Frank Dimant - who has ruled Bnai Brith Canada for decades - has long been a supporter of the settlements and on the right wing of the Canadian Jewish Community. Now that the Canadian Jewish Community has moved to the right, he is just a tad right of center - so he can be more vocal about what he always believed.

      BTW when I write Canadian Jewish Community - I mean the official agencies and organizations that claim to speak for the community. Canadian Jews are a diverse group, and I would say most of them - even those who are affiliated with some group or another - are to the somewhat to the left of the "Leadership".

  • Geller's 'savage' bus ad meets strong resistance from the Bay Area
    • sydnestel August 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm with 7 replies

      Geller's ad is paraphrasing her loony hero Ayn Rand

      “[W]hen you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the
      civilized men, no matter what.”

      But Rand's idea of "Civilized" and "Savage" are distinctly objectivist. Not what most of us think of when we use these words.

      "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." (see link to brainyquote.com)

      Also, as far as I can tell, the NY court case did not unequivocally side with Geller. It merely granted her an injunction, ordering the MTA to run the ads until a full hearing is held and a decision could be rendered. The next court session is Aug 29. You can read the judge's logic [sic] at

      link to docs.justia.com

      IMO, if the U.S first amendment enshrines the right to use racial and religious hate speech, then the first amendment needs to be amended. At the very least the word "Jihad" - which is a normative Muslim concept meaning struggle (and is not at all typically associated with violence) should be ordered removed.

  • Paul Ryan's foreign policy: Spinning straw into gold
    • sydnestel August 15, 2012 at 12:09 am with 1 replies

      "Romney's paltry net worth of $250 million is only a tad over 10% of Adelson's nearly $24.5 billion"

      Actually, that's a tad over 1% of Adelson's worth. Adelson is worth 100 times what Romney is.

      So if Romney is part of the 1%, Adelson is simply another species entirely. Adelson could give $100 million to the Republican campaign - as he has threatened to do - and then do that again for the next 240 election cycles!

      Money talks. Adelson's money commands.

  • Ancient olive trees, stolen from Palestinian lands, now decorate Israeli settlement
  • Are the Jews a nation? And more importantly, can they hit a curveball breaking low and away?
    • sydnestel July 30, 2012 at 4:12 pm with 24 replies

      The issue of are Jews a nation is not so clear cut as this article suggests.

      1) Jews are a nation, at least according to the self understanding of most Jews. (That is an empirical fact despite the atypical views of the most writers on this web site.) That's how virtually all Jews thought of themselves (and thats how non-Jews thought of them too) until the 1830s. Only then - with the establishment of Reform Judaism - did the idea of Jews as primarily a religious designation get any traction. And Reform Judaism, though big in the U.S. was never a majority of world Jewry, and in any case over the last 40-50 years Reform Judaism has reversed itself completely on this issue and now are officially Zionists.

      2) "Jewish is a religious designation, not a national one." It is certainly not exclusively or even primarily a religious designation. Otherwise how do you explain Phil Weiss's self affiliation, or so many others who hang around this web site. Not to mention, dozens of secular Jewish organisations, from "The Workman's Circle" to "Humanistic Judaism".

      3) In general there seems to be confusion over the difference between the terms Nation and State. Often there is a tight correlation, but not always. China, Russia, Canada, Belgium, and the UK are all officially multi-national states. The UK even sends separate sports teams to world cup football (soccer) from its constituent nations (England, Scotland, ...) Even the U.S, it could be argued, is a defacto multi-national state. (There are a lot of American citizens who celebrate Cinco de Mayo.) Sometimes, in my more optimistic moments, I dream that Israel/Palestine could evolve into a multi-national federated state.

      4) Nations often have diasporas. These people often have a degree of dual loyalty to both the state they live in and their "original" nation. (Hence all those Italian-Americans who played for Italy in the 2009 WBC.) There is nothing wrong or unusual about that.

      5) On the other hand the WBC is set up as a competition between States, not nations. But clearly they too are confused about the differences between states and nations, and their eligibility rules just highlight that.

      6) Why are Ryan Braun "dual loyalties" in this regard more problematic that Mike Piazza's?

  • Ben-Ami says divestment will alienate Christians from 'American Jewish community'
    • sydnestel July 3, 2012 at 5:35 pm with 1 replies

      Phil

      You wrote: "Excuse me but tens of thousands of Jews are in JVP"

      And how do you know that to be true? I looked (briefly I admit) on the JVP site and couldn't find any membership numbers?

  • Saving Illinois from Senator Kirk
    • sydnestel May 25, 2012 at 12:56 pm with 3 replies

      "The CFI member then argued that Palestine never existed and couldn’t have ever existed “because the letter ‘P’ is not part of the Arabic language”. "

      I have heard this argument before. It must be a new meme. See the slide show at the link below - slide 54.

      (The rest of the slide show is equally "brilliant" in its denial of Palestinian identity.)

      link to shaarshalom.ca

      --
      Sydney

  • Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism
    • sydnestel May 25, 2012 at 1:18 pm with 1 replies

      I didn't see anything in the comments above that indicated that the writers " still swallow the teachings and textes in the Torah and Talmud as the whole truth, nothing, but the truth."

      Quotation doesn't imply agreement in part or in whole, and in any case there is no one fixed meaning to most of these texts.

      As for the 10 commandments - I hope you haven't done any work on the Sabbath recently! Or have any engravings of sculptures in your home of office.

    • sydnestel May 23, 2012 at 8:58 pm with 1 replies

      Proverbs 24:26

      "He kisses the lips that give a true answer." or more colloquially "An honest reply is like a kiss on the lips"

    • sydnestel May 23, 2012 at 8:45 pm

      "The line was tacked on to a liturgical poem to that effect (Hassal siddur pesah), composed in 11th-century France."

      I am not sure that "tacked on" is the right phrase. It fits very well in context. The last stanza of the 11th century poem is:

      "Splendid One residing on high
      Raise up your people, a congregation who can count,
      Soon bring your offshoots
      Freed to Zion in song."

      The return to Jerusalem, in traditional Judaism, was always associated with messianic redemption.

    • sydnestel May 23, 2012 at 8:35 pm with 2 replies

      Shmuel

      At my seder, we end with "Next Year in Jerusalem: a city of peace and justice for all its inhabitants" and then we play the song Jerusalem by Steve Earle (see link to youtu.be ).

      This year we added a small glass of Palestinian olive oil to our seder plate as well. And we usually expand the 10 plagues to include and additional 10 plagues of the nakba/occupation.

  • Shmully and guilt
    • sydnestel April 26, 2012 at 4:01 pm with 108 replies

      Phil,

      Chabad is racist and anti-rational. But they suck-in many Jews with their charm and their commitment and frankly with their subterfuge. If Eliezer is co-sponsored by a Chabad Rabbi, you can be assured that it is committed to the same racist and anti-rational agenda, even if not all its members realize that.

      The rabbi and his wife gave voice to two of Chabad's central themes.

      "Shmully said that Jewishness was in someone’s soul and it would always reassert itself in a Jew’s life."

      For Chabad, this is not a metaphor. For Chabad, souls are real - and Jews have qualitatively (better) and quantitatively (more of) different souls than non-Jews. This is just a hairsbreadth away of saying that Judaism is "in the blood" (or DNA.) This is why they spend a huge effort on saving "lost Jews" and not a sliver of effort in general good-works in the non-Jewish community. And I won't even get into the worst kind of stuff they say about the souls (or lack thereof) of non-Jews. (BTW there are parts of religious Judaism that absolutely reject the idea of Jews having special/different souls. So this Chabad belief is not universal - but they are very good salespeople, so it is sadly growing in parts of the Jewish community.)

      "The rebbitzin was also tough on me. ... She told me about her grandmothers escaping the Holocaust. But their parents died, and many of their relatives died. This was not that long ago. You are not sensitive to this. This is an emotional issue. It’s not something that you can be rational about. "

      This highlights Chabad's explicitly anti-rational (i.e. anti evidence based) system. So what if she is emotional about it. It still begs rational analysis and thought. (Full disclosure, my parents were holocaust survivors and all my grandparents and most of my aunts and uncles were killed by the Nazis.)

      When you ask the Rabbi why many years of good relations between Jews and Mulism have ended, he does not mention Zionism, or the Muslim experience with European colonialism, or any other actual historical factor. Rather,

      "Shmully said that when Esau sold his birthright to Jacob there had been a quarrel. That quarrel was reasserting itself now thousands of years later."

      This is typical of Chabad thinking. Chabad thinks in terms of (imagined) timeless metaphysical categories. Jacob is the People of Israel. Esau is the eternal anti-Semite: in Talmudic times Esau was Rome; in the Middle Ages Esau was the Catholic Church; today he is the Muslims. Anti-Semitism itself is a unique metaphysical phenomenon and not subject to normal historical cause and effect i.e. rational analysis, which is why ending the occupation would do nothing to end the Jewish Palestinian conflict in Israel/Palestine - their opinion.

      When you let Shmuli get away with this comment about Jacob and Esau in the forth paragraph, I knew the story was not going to end well for you.

      But, good for trying. The real audience for this drama were those silent J-street types at the end of the table. Better they heard the arguments between you and Chabad than only the Chabad point of view.

  • Sheizaf shreds Oren Op-Ed touting Israeli democracy
    • sydnestel April 11, 2012 at 3:34 pm

      Fredblogs: “State for all its citizens”... calls for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to be made citizens"

      That is simply not true. "State for all its citizens" is a very specific term in Israeli political discourse and it refers to providing equal privileges and obligations for both Jews and non Jews within Israel, and de-entangling Jewish symbols and state symbols. Things that are sometimes mentioned in this regard include: equal distribution of funds to Jewish and non-Jewish municipalities and schools, equal allocation of land to Jewish and non Jewish municipalities, stopping such government initiatives like "Judaising the Galilee", changing the words to the Israeli national anthem to remove references to "the yearning of the Jewish heart", and instituting mandatory national service for all citizens. It has nothing to do (one way or the other) with the Palestinian right of return.

  • How important is it to the Times (and us) that Greg Smith is Jewish?
    • sydnestel March 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm with 5 replies

      I agree with Elliot.

      But it only pushes Jews into false solidarity with the undemocratic Jewish leadership when sweeping statements about the dangers of Jewish power are being made.

    • sydnestel March 19, 2012 at 10:59 am

      yourstruly - yes the high road would be nice.

      Cliff - Zionism is a Jewish movement, yes - but not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists understand the word as it is used by the mainstream (see e.g. link to jeremiahhaber.com ) It seem that both the Zionist establishment and the anti-semitic anti-Zionists have an interest in conflating the two. And in America it is Christian-Zionists (and they are NOT merely Christian supporters of Zionism. They have their own reasons and agenda, not always so Jew friendly) that have as much, or more, power than Jewish Zionists

      Tom - Mearsheimer and Walt, as far as I can recall, were careful to critique"The Israel Lobby" and not "Jewish Power". The distinction is crucial in a discussion of American foreign policy (and that is what this is about isn't it?) As for Atzmon - you discredit yourself and your argument by quoting him. (see link to jfjfp.com).

      Tree - it is not a critique of the Israel Lobby or Aipec or Zionism - or their influence in America - that I object to. That is fare game. It is the phrase "Jewish power". It is not legitimate and it is dangerous. As for the argument that we have no problem using the phrase "Christian Power" - well that is just not true. The MSM rarely use that term - because they understand that Christians (even politically engaged Christians) involves everyone from Daniel Berrigan, Jeremiah White and Jimmy Carter to John Haggee, Pat Roberston and David Duke. They talk of Evangelicals or Born Again. (And perhaps that too is to much of a generalization.) On Monodoweiss the phrase "Jewish power"appears 99 times (if I counted correctly) while the phrase "Christian power" appears 7 times (3 of those in this thread). "Christian Zionist" appears here many dozens of times. So it appears that on Mondoweiss people are careful to be nuanced when it comes to Christians but show no nuance at all re Jews.

      The dangerous meme being promoted on this site is: Zionism is evil, all Jews are Zionists, therefore ....
      Or, Zionism has too much influence in America, therefore Jews have too much influence in America, therefore ...

      If some people on Mondoweiss don't get it, well I can only say its similar to many whites not getting it (or pretending to not get it) when white politicians talk of the problems of "black crime" and the danger that poses for "us".

    • sydnestel March 18, 2012 at 1:11 pm

      Not all Jews support the Israel lobby and not all (or eve most) of those that support the Israel lobby are Jews. So how is it accurate to call it "Jewish power". Its Israeli and/or Zionist power.

    • sydnestel March 18, 2012 at 9:53 am

      Re Tree's comment above.

      Well if it is OK to ask about Christian power, why is that the Christian half of the Israel lobby so little discussed on this list. I bet there are more Christian Zionists in congress then Jewish ones.

      And I haven't read anyone on this list citing "Jewish power" re Jon Stewart's sometimes scathing critiques of Israel or American foreign policy re the ME.

      George Soros and Sheldon Adelson are both rich powerful Jews, but they don't conspire together to achieve joint policy goals. To speak about "Jewish power" (as if it were a coherent thing) influencing American policy is precisely the type of thinking that underlies much racism and certainly historic anti-semitism.

      So yes, I do think, that talking about the negative influence of "Jewish power" is antisemitic. Talking about the negative influence of "the Israel lobby" or of Zionism is not. And it dismays (and worries me) that Mondoweiss - which in many ways is so good - seems to be an incubator of an antisemitic trope.

    • sydnestel March 18, 2012 at 12:24 am with 1 replies

      And this is as a result of "Jewish power", in your opinion?

    • sydnestel March 18, 2012 at 12:12 am

      What do you mean by "a Jewish stump"?

    • sydnestel March 17, 2012 at 11:56 pm

      First the very phrase "Jewish power" implies that Jews act and think monolithicly. Second, it assumes that Jews have significantly different interests and/or ideals than other people.

      Would you ask if "Christian power" is good for us?

      And who is "us" in your question. It seems to imply a them. Do you see this as an us vs them issue?

      Finally, you are not asking an innocent question. You clearly believe that "Jewish power" is a significant problem. So asking you what you have in mind as a cure seems reasonable.

    • sydnestel March 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm with 17 replies

      1) "American Jews flaunt contempt for this natural antipathy at their own collective peril." - is that a threat, wishful thinking, or just a dispassionate opinion?

      2) What would you suggest? Ethnic/religious quotas (upper limits) in government, in the media, in the universities? Would it apply to Christians or just Jews?

  • Chair of DNC says: 'Israel is our rightful place... a place for us to go'
    • sydnestel March 17, 2012 at 8:00 am with 1 replies

      "Debbie Wasserman Schultz as well as being the DNC chairman, helped found the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) — is also on the board of the American Jewish Congress, Southeast Region."

      OMG!

      And Rep. Emanuel Cleaver is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and keynote speaker at the 2010 NAACP convention, an organization dedicated to advancing the interests of African Americans.

      As for the AJC being involved with Bernie Madoff - yes, he stole their money and bankrupted them. Which should be obvious if you read the article at the link you cited.

    • sydnestel March 17, 2012 at 7:41 am

      Wait!

      "But Judaism is a religion, not a culture."

      I defined Judaism as a culture and you come back and say that somehow that excludes secular non-religious Jews. Then you come back that Judaism is not a culture, it a religion! So who is excluding secular Jews?

      You seem not capable of making a rational argument. Or perhaps you aren't interested in one: just in winning a point for your pre-conceived opinions. And you are not very honest either. Since you claim to know so much about Quebec you obviously do know that in 1995 49.42% of Quebecers voted that "that Quebec should become sovereign ..." (for those not familiar see: link to en.wikipedia.org ) and yet you write"Polls also show ... that separatists are regarded as an extremist minority, so your argument is irrelevant."

      No, it is you who are irrelevant by deliberately misleading and dissembling. I will try to just ignore your comments from now on.

    • sydnestel March 17, 2012 at 7:26 am

      So now you are using Israeli laws and policies and an example of proper behaviour and attitudes. Clearly you will use any seemingly clever argument to win a point. There is a name for that: "sophistry"

    • sydnestel March 16, 2012 at 5:19 pm

      "two sovereigns" ? "upper and lower status in human affairs."???

      And what exactly was the American Revolution about?

      that way to antediluvian for me.

    • sydnestel March 16, 2012 at 5:12 pm

      Shingo - with all due respect you obviously don't know much about Quebecois: who all surveys show overwhelmingly feel loyalty to Quebec, and somewhat fewer (minus the separatists presumably) also feel loyalty to Canada.

      And defining Judaism as the culture of the Jewish people, certainly does not exclude "secular non religious" (isn't that redundant?) Jews.

    • sydnestel March 16, 2012 at 10:48 am

      I has reacting to LanceThurster's example given re "Sophie's Choice" where a mother had to choose life or death between two children. The example had to do with a mothers "dual" loyalties to her children and how impossible it is to choose. Presumable LanceThurster was saying that just as Sophie had an impossible choice, so to would any American with dual citizenship.

      I was responding that, most of life is not that dramatic and people navigate these dual loyalties everyday. Most parents with more than one child manage to balance these loyalties to all their children, and no one would advocate having one child just to avoid the rare horrible choices that might have to be made. Similarly no one should advocate against dual citizenship (or dual loyalty) because rarely one might have to choose between these two loyalties.

      I hope that is clear.

    • sydnestel March 16, 2012 at 10:32 am

      There is no "Jewish Race" and I don't believes DWS believes there is. Certainly very few Jewish thinkers do (some of the ultra-orthodox certainly do, but they are not a majority.) Most Jews believe that Jews are a People and that Judaism is a religion and/or culture they share. Sort of like the Quebecois -eh? So can a person living in Montreal have loyalties and both Quebec and to Canada? How about a Francophone living in northern Ontario? Or would that make them a violent racist?

    • sydnestel March 15, 2012 at 11:21 pm

      People with more than one child manage multiple loyalties every day. Mostly it works out. "Sophie's Choice" is a once in a very long time occurance, and is not a reason for a "one child policy".

    • sydnestel March 15, 2012 at 11:17 pm

      Well I guess one shouldn't expect a different answer from someone whose handle is "American". Your identity seems to be your state. Count me as an old "lefty hippy child."

      Seriously, is what people on this list care about American state interests, or is it human interests and ideals? They are not the same.

      There is nothing wrong, and much right, with having multiple and even conflicting loyalties. The conflicts get worked out as best we can - hopefully based on human values, not state interests.

    • sydnestel March 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm

      Well thanks for the apology re the word "vile", but its my wife who deserves it not me. I don't have American citizenship at all, I'm Canadian.

      More seriously though, I find your comment below (and I assume you are not alone on Mondoweiss) disturbing.

      "Love another state enough to become a citizen there? Fine. Go there and leave your American citizenship at the door. If you are not 100% into the “American citizenship” thing, then I’d just as soon kick you out and reserve it for those to whom it is special."

      Why, in a world were people move around a lot, and have relatives and friends all over the world, should citizenship (or more importantly "love" and "loyalty") be restricted to one (or any) state. Why can't you have attachments (even "love" if you want) to more than one place and one people. I find that attitude you express narrow minded.

      In Canada several major political figures have dual citizenship - with France. The redneck right tried to make an issue of it. It didn't get much traction. Americans, on the other hand, are so Americentric! Many on this list rail against Jewish exceptionalism (and they should) but fail to see their own American execptionalism.

      Jews should be allowed "dual loyalties". As should Mexicans, Chinese, French or whomever. As long as you don't break any laws. Life, and loyalty (as well as love) is messy.

    • sydnestel March 15, 2012 at 2:30 pm with 41 replies

      But America recognizes dual citizenship. (Even triple citizenship. My wife has an American, Canadian, and an Israeli passport.) And there is no American law (as far as I know) that says dual citizens can't hold office. So there is should be nothing wrong with dual loyalty - as long as people are upfront about it.

      Its a multi-cultural world. Get used to it.

  • '60 Minutes' goes in for casual racism about 'Arabs'
    • sydnestel March 12, 2012 at 2:06 pm

      Its amazing. Stahl, the supposed enlightened journalist, is spouting sophomoric chauvinism and faux tough-guy lingo like some sort of character out of Dr Stangelove ("How many Ruskies did e get today?") , while Dagan comes across as rational.

  • Notes on Purim: The affirmation of the diaspora
    • sydnestel March 7, 2012 at 6:12 pm

      If people are interested in another take on Purim and its "message" you can read my talk on this subject at: Purim Lessons

      The conclusion states:

      "And historically, Purim has been the more important of our two post Biblical holidays. [The other being Hannukah.] It is Mardi Gras and Christmas rolled into one: Wild parties and gifts. It has a communal ritual – the reading of the Meggillah . And it has a holy sanctified text that we can study and try to learn from.

      And what can we learn?

      To recap from our Talmud text:

      that quite often we sanctify what we ritualize, and not vice-versa;
      that human sensitivity and insight into the hearts of our fellows is a Godly characteristic, one which is attainable by all of us;

      that multi ethnic and multi religious tolerance and harmony are Godly blessings that are now, and have been in the past, achievable by humankind;

      that curiosity, political intelligence and calm strategic thinking are Godly traits we should expect from our leaders – and that we are blessed when, in fact, we have such leaders;

      that even when fighting our most vicious enemies we can limit collateral damage and refrain from taking material advantage – and that we are blessed when we do so;
      that we can achieve security and thrive without resort to ongoing violence or an ethnocentric polity;

      and that all our struggles for survival must be motivated only by peace and truth, that we must avoid revenge and bitterness, and that the ends we seek be rooted in peace and in truth."

  • Just in time for Netanyahu visit, neocon ad in 'NYT' attacks MJ Rosenberg and CAP
    • sydnestel March 2, 2012 at 12:54 pm

      Yes ! I just made donations to several of these organizations. Since the point of the ad is to pressure these philanthropies to cut off their support for MM and CAP, I thought it important for them to know that the controversy cuts both ways. I hope others do the same.

  • Video: Settlers claim olive oil as 'Israeli'
    • sydnestel January 18, 2012 at 12:53 pm with 4 replies

      The commercial is objectionable, and the olive oil company is racist.

      And it is also no doubt true that:

      "Zionism’s cultural appropriation [sic] of indigenous Palestinian folklore and cuisine – such as hummus, falafel and maftoul – as 'Israeli' has long irked Palestinians"

      But that does not mean the feelings - or more importantly the implications of viewing the Jews as temporary foreign implants - is justified. About 50% of Israeli Jews are from (or are descendant from parents or grandparents who are from) Middle Eastern lands where hummus, falafel, etc were always staples in their diets. Furthermore, after after 100+ years of Jewish settlement, even originally Ashkenazi Israeli Jews have become localized. To say that hummus etc is not an Jewish Israeli food, is akin to saying that corn on the cob is not quintessentially American (another settler society that adopted indigenous people's food while suppressing the indigenous people)

      The point here is to acknowledge that though many Jewish Israelis came from somewhere else, at this point they are as much part of the local land and cuisine as the Palestinians. Both sides should stop making exclusive claims to possession of the land (and is foods.) Neither the Jews nor the Palestinians are going to leave. So fighting about who is more authentic is counter-productive.

  • "Didn't we learn anything from 1938?' Wasserman Schultz's opposition says Palestinians belong in Jordan
  • Henning Mankell: 'I promise that the Israeli regime won't have a quiet moment until this illegal blockade is broken'
  • Liberal American Jews negotiate away the right of return
    • sydnestel July 15, 2011 at 3:12 pm with 8 replies

      Seems to me that, despite Jefferson’s rhetoric, rights are not “inalienable” nor absolute, and that rights often conflict. My “right to the pursuit of happiness” is now regularly curtailed in that I cannot smoke in most public places – this to allow other to enjoy their “right to life” and health.

      Also seems to me that we need to distinguish between individual rights and national rights? Do ethnic groups have collective rights? If not: why not advocate for a “no state solution”; world government is all that makes sense in that case.

      In 1948, the UN voted for partition – the creation of a Jewish state and of a [Palestinian] Arab state. They did this for two major reasons: it was generally thought that the Jews and Arabs of Palestine just couldn’t get along in the same state without massacring each other, and there was a general feeling that “national self determination” was a good and progressive thing. In that sense the creation of Israel and the planned for creation of Palestine where seen as both a continuation of Wilsonian ideas of liberal nationalism of the early 2oth century (that created many European nation states out of multinational empires) and as harbingers of future decolonization in African and Asia.

      What has changed since then? If you believe that Jews and Palestinians can leave peacefully and equitably in one state, and if you believe that there is no place for group rights (aka national self determination) than clearly you should believe in a one state solution and an unrestricted right of return. If you have doubts about either of those propositions than a two state solution may be preferable. And a two state solution means two states for two people. Neither state needs (or should be) ethnically pure, but each should have a clear majority of its primary national group – Jews and Palestinians respectively. And that means some practical restrictions on the right of return. Yes this is a restriction of rights, but in the achievement of other rights.

      To quote a great philosopher: “You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you can get what you need.”

  • Goldstone to AP: 'I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time'
    • sydnestel April 6, 2011 at 5:11 pm

      The reason Judge Goldstone is so focused on "intentionality as a mater of policy" is that this is one of the criterea that raise a crine for teh status of a "war crime" to that of a "crime against humanity." He is a judge after all, is giving legal opinions not moral ones.

      Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."

  • Report: Israeli company recruits mercenaries to support Gadhafi
  • Remnick book tour is turning into Israel-turkey-trot
  • A tale of two ghettos
    • sydnestel November 4, 2010 at 4:27 pm with 10 replies

      You guys (and Adbusters) must be nuts. No mention of the fact that the main Nazi crime re the Warsaw Ghetto was the deliberate mass annihilation of the entire civilian population (approx 400,000) - either by gassing in concentration camps or by starvation and disease in the ghetto itself.

      Israel is not gassing Palestinians and there is not mass starvation in Gaza.

      The situation in Gaza IS immoral and intolerable. And Palestinians are suffering and some dying because of it. Israel should be condemned for its Gaza policy.

      But exaggerations of this kind show either ignorance or a hate for Israel that is beyond the rational. And they convince no one who has any sense of history. On the contrary they make those that make and support such claims look like dupes or hate mongers.
      me

      By way of comparison, many more Iraqis died as a result of the U.S. blockade and subsequent invasion of Iraq, and I didn't see the Americans being equated to the Nazis, despite all the justified protests and condemnations.

  • Chomsky/Abunimah (the left and Zionism)
    • sydnestel January 17, 2010 at 9:10 am with 4 replies

      I see no similarity whatsoever between Yugoslavia and I/P.

      I should have written Serbia/Kosovo rather than Yugoslavia.

      I actually think the situation re Kosovo/Serbia mirrors Israel/Palestine (not exactly, but close enough). Kosovo is the "historic heartland" of Serbia - where the Sebian nation was forged in its opposition to Ottoman Turkish rule. Unfortunately (for the Serbs) they slowly over centuries migrated north and west, while Muslims from Albania migrated into Kosovo. Serbs became a minority in Kosovo. Now all this happened while neither Serbia nor Kosovo where independent, but part of larger empires, so the issue of who ruled was moot. In the 19th century Serbs, along with the rest of Europe, discovered nationalism. They (re)create the idea of an independent greater Serbia, mythologizing the great battles and glorious Serbian culture - centered in Kosovo. Serb nationalism triggered WWI. After WWI the West decides to support the Serbs idea of creating Yugoslavia as a sort of greater Serbia. While nominally a mutlti-ethnic Kingdom, it is dominated by Serbia. The King is a Serb and the capital of the Kingdom is Belgrade. While Croatia and Slovenia are provinces (states), Kosovo and Montenegro are part of Serbia. Fast forward to the 1990s, and you have Muslims in Kosovo as a second class citizens within Serbia, and radical nationalist Serbs who want to ethnically cleans Kosovo of Muslim/Albanians. Kosovo is populated with about 20% Serbs and 80% Albanians. The West (and most progressive type agree with this) supports Kosovo succession (Partition!) rather than insisting on equal rights for all within a multi-ethnic Serbia. Serbs overwhelmingly reject this. They feel no on understands them. They feel uniquely singled out. They feel that an independent Kosovo is ripping the heart out of Serbia and allow will result in the persecution and ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo.

      Finally (and here is where the story diverges radically from I/P) the West says "too bad" to the Serbs, and bombs Serbia into submission, occupies Kosovo and sets up and independent Kosovo.

      Justice you say? But why? Why not have insisted on a single democratic secular multi-ethnic, multi-religious state that treats all its citizens equally and fairly, where citizenship transcends ethnicity.

      * * *

      I also don't see anyone advocating an re-uniting India and Pakistan to solve the Kashmir wars, or as a way of ending Muslim terrorism against India, or as a way of improving the lot of India'a 100 million Muslims who live as a discriminated against minority within India. I know several Pakistani intellectuals who say that partition was bad idea - but they realize they are in a huge minority and that in any case you cannot uncrack that egg.

      I see no reason to believe that the two-state solution, as it has been presented so far, has any more chance of being realised than a one-state solution. To be frank, neither stand much chance.

      I agree with that. I also agree that what people of conscience outside of I/P should be advocating for is social justice - which included end to the occupation, one way or the other, and ending gross de-jure discrimination based on ethnicity and/or religion. But we should not be committing ourselves to this or that political solution. Political solutions are always compromises. I would agree to whatever solution the parties would agree to. (Though I might have hopes for a particular solution.)

      Palestinian civil society would appear to be overwhelmingly in favour of one state.

      I am not sure how you know that (though it does seem to be the accepted wisdom on this site.) And does "civil society" (aka NGOs) really reflect the majority popular opinion? Officially, Fatah - the largest political grouping among Palestinians supports two states. (You may say they are corrupt, or old, or self interested, but that's what they say, and I am not so sure they aren't reflecting their supporters in this.) Hamas - the second largest political grouping among Palestinians, supports one state - but it is an Islamic state, where non-Mulsims (which, by the way, would include Christian Arabs) would be second class - so I don't think thats a peg to hang your dreams on. As far as I can see, only a minority of independent intellectuals and leftist groupings (e.g. the Popular Front and the Popular Democratic Front) support a secular, democratic, multi-ethnic one state solution. And its also clear that these groups do not represent a majority of Palestinians. Illogical you say? Well, as Mr. Spock learned, humans are not logical. Having your own team at the World Cup, your own flag, your own national anthem, may trump ideas of absolute justice, or even economic benefit, at least in the popular imagination.

      I do agree that we should frame a future that expresses our best hopes and dreams, and not start with compromises based on what we think is possible in the short run. But we should not be so arrogant as to force our vision down the throats of the parties, or so naive to think that we can. Nor should we dismiss the good out of hand because it is not the perfect. Nor should we denigrate and dismiss allies in the big struggle (Chomsky in this case) because they do not conform to our purity of vision.

    • sydnestel January 17, 2010 at 12:14 am with 10 replies

      So can I ask why partition is the solution of choice in the former Yugoslavia and not in Israel/Palestine.

      Sure it would be great if everyone could just get along in one big happy country. But what if they can't? What if enough people hate each others guts and fear each others intentions that a single state just leads to civil war and inter ethnic violence within the country?

      In an ideal world we would have a "no-state" solution. As long as we are compromising why is one state more pure than two? Or why not have a United States of the Middle East? There are lots of neat ideas? The question is: what idea that has a modicum of justice also has a chance of being realized in our lifetimes?

      Also as afar as I know the official position of the majority of the Palestinian leadership is (still?) for two states. Maybe they would like half a cake in their lifetimes than a full cake maybe never. So who are we, mostly armchair western observers, to tell them what to fight for?

      As for BDS its a just a tactic. (And not a well defined one at that.) What is the goal? Seems to me that a lot of people with disparate goals are raising the banner of BDS.

  • One vision for one state in Israel/Palestine
    • sydnestel January 10, 2010 at 5:52 am with 2 replies

      Certainly a federation of some sort is the only way that a one state solution could work.

      But why make the federal units territorial. Let citizens choose to join one of four communities: Hebrew Secular, Jewish, Arabic Secular, Muslim. These communities would have jurisdiction over education, culture, family law, civil law among community members, and some social services. The federal government would control defense, criminal law, civil law between members of different communities, and physical infrastructure. (roads etc.)

  • Abunimah: There is a tremendous struggle to be waged, to force Israeli introspection, and change
    • sydnestel December 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm with 4 replies

      It is wrong, in my opinion, to claim that BDS alone brought down the South African apartheid regime.

      Rhodesia, underwent close to 20 years of far harsher sanctions after UDI, and survived. Rather it was brought down by classic guerrilla warfare.

      The South African whites were inconvenienced by BDS and suffered some economic loss. But they would not have willingly handed over power (and they did willingly hand over power) had not the threat (real or perceived is debatable) of Communism, expulsion, and/or expropriation of their property also been removed.

      Don’t forget that:

      1. The ANC never carried on a campaign of terrorism aimed at the white civilian population (it did take on the army and economic targets)

      2. No elements of the ANC ever spoke of driving the whites back to Europe.

      3. By the 1993 the Soviet Union had fallen and the communists within the ANC where a clear minority.

      4. Mandella, in the 1990s offered a path of reconciliation and accommodation with white economic privilege.

      So the white historic fears of being expelled or having all their wealth taken away was effectively mitigated. And it turned out that they cared more about economic priviledge and wealth than political power or whites only swimming pools.

      BDS was only a minor side show in this calculation. If there had been no conciliatory Mandella, or if the old style communists had been dominant in the ANC (and supported by the Soviet Union) missed rugby tournaments, restricted travel rights, and even somewhat reduced economic opportunities, would not have convinced the whites to hand over power.

      There are probably some lessons here for Israel/Palestine.

  • Nakba never ends
    • sydnestel November 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm

      Before we get our knickers in knot about how awful Israelis are, we should realize that this poll is an informal internet poll linked to from the home page of Artuz Sheva, the right wing settler news agency. Its akin to judging the opion of all Americans based on emails sent into Fox News, or (l'havdil) to analysing the commentary on Mondoweiss.

  • Will a Israel-Hamas prisoner swap mark the end of the PA?
    • sydnestel November 25, 2009 at 2:07 pm with 1 replies

      Smoke and mirrors.

      I doubt very much that Barghouti will be released as part of a deal for Shalit.

      Israel doesn't want to release him preceisely because he is a popular smart and militant secular leader who is not so extreme as to scare off the rest of the world. He might actually make the Fatah and/or the PA effective.

      Hamas does not want to release him preceisely because he is a popular smart and militant secular leader who is not so extreme as to scare off the rest of the world. He might actually make the Fatah and/or the PA effective.

      Of course Hamas would like the Palestinian street to think it is demanding Barghouti's release. Hence the dis-information, IMO.

  • Masters on a hill
    • sydnestel November 23, 2009 at 5:11 pm

      ... and another neat trick.

      When Israel and Jordan signed their peace treaty they diveed up all the waters of the Jordan river. Jordan uses its portion to irrigate the East Bank. Israel uses its part for irrigation and drinking water in pre-1967 Israel. Both Israel and Jordan divert the water before the river enters the West Bank. The West Bank Palestineans - who actually border the river (on its west bank, in fact) get bubkas! They get water only from the underground aquifer - or by buying water from the Israelis (who took most of it from the Jordan river to begin with).

  • The only basis on which I might forgive Obama his collapse on Gaza and settlements
    • sydnestel November 20, 2009 at 4:21 pm with 2 replies

      I am beginning to fear that the trouble with Obama is that he doesn't understand that true conflicts of interests exist and he doesn't know how to use power. Obama believes that everyone's interests are ultimately the same (that’s the religious Christian thing after all), and that if people can only be made to see where their long term real interests lie - by the power of his brilliant arguments and rhetoric - they will come around to his way of thinking. Its the hubris of being the smartest guy in the room - and a university professor to boot.

      In the real world, people don't often give a shit about long term or deep interests. And when words fail - as they usually do - you need to promise and/or threaten, and have the wherewithal and the balls to follow up.

      But that would be too impolite and crass for a Harvard man.

  • Illegitimacy? FT says that Netanyahu is committed to 'national suicide'
    • sydnestel November 9, 2009 at 11:11 pm

      " How many Arabs have died in pogroms at the hands of Jews, during the last 4,000 years? "

      Says in the book of Esther that we massacred 70,000 Persian citizens.

      And then Baruch Goldstein knocked off a few more "goyim" to commemorate the event.

      Ask a dumb question, get a dumb answer.

  • Avnery: Barack W. Obama

Showing comments 77 - 1
Page:

Comments are closed.