Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3578 (since 2011-08-30 20:10:31)


I quit my Jewish membership. It was easy and without costs.

Showing comments 100 - 1

  • 'Israel Firster' gets at an inconvenient truth
    • Well, the Israel supporters are lying again, if they say that using the word "Israel firster" would be antisemitic, if it is not a collective/stereotypical accusation against Jews as such. And again Israel supporters by claiming something is antisemitic which is not are abusing Jews as human shields.

  • 'NYT' and 'Haaretz' and world opinion are now greatest threat to Israel, Netanyahu reportedly said
  • 'Time' says Mossad did it
  • Leveretts: False flag in Iranian hit likely disguises U.S.
  • Israeli drone 'mega deals' export the occupation world-wide
  • Bombshell: Israeli intelligence posed as CIA to recruit terror group for covert war on Iran
    • Interviews with Mark Perry:

      ‘Israel, if you want to be welcome in U.S., don’t pull this kind of crap’

      Mark Perry speaks about allegations of Israeli spies posing as CIA agents

    • Time Magazine:

      "Who Assassinated an Iranian Nuclear Scientist? Israel Isn't Telling

      Like three previous Iranian scientists ambushed on their morning commute, the latest nuclear expert to die on his way to work was a victim of Israel's Mossad, Western intelligence sources tell TIME. ...

      Wednesday's attack followed the pattern of previous operations planned by Mossad and carried out over the past two years by Iranians trained and paid by Israel's spy agency, according to intelligence sources. ...

      Israel is officially silent on the incident. However, its top spokesman for the country's military posted this on Facebook: "Don't know who settled the score with the Iranian scientist, but for sure I am not shedding a tear." The Obama Administration insisted it had nothing to do with the attack. "The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declared. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her denial of U.S. involvement "categorical."

      The contrast in responses reflects the good-cop, bad-cop roles the allies have assumed in the international effort to dissuade Iran from pushing ahead with its nuclear program. ",8599,2104372,00.html

    • The Scorpion and the Frog

      One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

      The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

      Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

      "Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

      "Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

      "Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

      Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

      "This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

      "Alright do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

      "Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

      So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

      Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

      "You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

      The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

      "I could not help myself. It is my nature."

      Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

  • Benny Morris dreams of a 'less Arab' Israel
  • Dumb as rocks ('Washington Post' says giving Palestinians access to quarries will 'advance the peace process')
  • Several thousand US troops headed to Israel for 'unprecedented' joint missile defense exercise
  • Trivializing the anti-Semitism charge
    • It's very simple. The core of antisemitism is a negative stereotyping of Jews. If this core is missing, it's not antisemitism.

      So if someone says that a (pro) Israel lobby controls or tries to control US foreign policy in the Middle East is a simplification, but it's not antisemitism. But Foxman and other word twisters want to shift it towards antisemitism by claiming that what was actually said was that "the (stereotype) Jew controls or wants to control the world". It's Foxman et al. who disseminate antisemitism and pour oil into the fire.

      I witnesses the same during a discussion about the Israel/Palestine conflict in which someone claimed the stronger party would be responsible for the conflict and a zionist twisted his words into "THE JEWS are responsible for everything (bad)". It's actually them thinking like antisemites. Maybe they hate themselves for being a Jew who has to support zionism, right or wrong. It wouldn't surprise me.

    • Zionists like Foxman project their own antisemitic thought processes onto their whipping boys. Nothing new.

  • Israeli Supreme Court: Israeli companies are entitled to West Bank natural resources; international law must adapt to long-term occupation
    • "international law must be adapted to the "reality on the ground" of long-term occupation."

      Oh right. It's not Israel which must adapt to international law. The international law must adapt to Israel's needs. Who cares that prolonged occupation constitutes a crime because self determination is denied and that the Security Council allready more than thirty years ago reaffirmed "the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"

      Next year in Bagdad, das Volk braucht Raum!

  • Israel's mythological borders: an interview with Rachel Havrelock
  • Ron Paul prose on Israel allegedly makes woman cry
    • From my experience it goes more into pathological lying, word twisting and an accusation of antisemitism that is more irrational than antisemitism itself.

    • She acts as if someone has touched her ... you know.

      This video discourages me. The Palestinians are totally screwed, if a certain amount of Israel supporters have a disorder like she obviously has. I allready know a lot who have (not all in the same way) and I honestly [!] don't mean this as an insult.

  • Three years later, IDF happy with 'Cast Lead', wants to have another go
    • Deja vu?

      "In July 2002, Israel moved quickly to avert yet another political catastrophe. With assistance from European diplomats, militant Palestinian organizations, including Hamas, reached an accord to suspend all attacks inside Israel, perhaps paving the way for a return to the negotiating table. Just 90 minutes before it was to be announced, however, Israeli leaders - fully apprised of the imminent declaration - ordered an F-16 to drop a one-ton bomb on a densely-populated civilian neighborhood in Gaza, killing, alongside a Hamas leader, 11 children and five others, and injuring 140. Predictably, the declaration was scrapped and Palestinian terrorist attacks resumed with a vengeance. "What is the wisdom here?" a Meretz party leader asked the Knesset. "At the very moment that it appeared that we were on the brink of a chance for reaching something of a cease-fire, or diplomatic activity, we always go back to this experience - just when there is a period of calm, we liquidate." ... (52) Scoring still another major political victory the next month, the Israeli government blocked Israeli peace activists from linking up with 700 of their Palestinian counterparts in Bethlehem. Reporting from Bethlehem, Amira Hass observed that many Palestinians were endeavoring to "open a pubic debate aimed at reducing Palestinian support for attacks inside Israel, without waiting for a change in Israeli policy." The joint demonstration, she continued, "was an example of that type of effort. It was an effort that failed, foiled by the Israeli authorities." (53)"

  • Israel prepares to transfer 70,000 Jerusalem Palestinians to West Bank i.d.'s
  • It's one country
    • It is obvious that humanitarian law prohibits the occupier from exploiting resources for it's own national interests (or economy) and obliges him to build up the infrastructure or housing units of the occupied population instead of destroying them without any military necessity. Israel again is commiting multiple war crimes and any other interpretation of international law isn't bona fides and perverted.

  • 'New York Times' implies anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic
    • Oh I see, Richard. The need for a hostile separation project is because of the hostile reaction to it.

    • "When the harrassment of Jews by Palestinians made itself institutionally apparent in the 1920′s and 1930′s, and a critical mass of yishuv Jewish residents determined that a state was necessary to survive ..."

      It was the other way around. First there was the demands, then the riots. Read for example the Palin Report after the riots in 1920:

      "69. The following are the considered opinions submitted by the Court:

      1. That the causes of the alienation and exasperation of the feelings of the population of Palestine are:-

      (a) Disappointment at the non-fulfilment of promises made to them by British propaganda.
      (b) Inability to reconcile the Allies' declared policy of self-determination with the Balfour Declaration, giving rise to a sense of betrayal and intense anxiety for their future.
      (c) Misapprehension of the true meaning of the Balfour Declaration and forgetfulness of the guarantees determined therein, due to the loose rhetoric of politicians and the exaggerated statements and writings of interested persons, chiefly Zionists.
      (d) Fear of Jewish competition and domination, justified by experience and the apparent control exercised by the Zionists over the Administration.
      (e) Zionist indiscretion and aggression, since the Balfour Declaration aggravating such fears.
      (f) Anti-British and anti-Zionist propaganda working on the population already inflamed by the sources of irritation aforesaid.

      2. That the Zionist Commission and the official Zionists by their impatience, indiscretion and attempts to force the hands of the Administration, are largely responsible for the present crisis."

  • Right-wing attack group caught fabricating quotes in effort to smear critics of Israel
  • Why Alan Dershowitz is wrong on Israel's 'rights'
  • Israel says it's 'disgusting' for world to take stand on 'domestic affair' --settlers
  • Defense lawyer Lichtman says Palestinians have a 'culture of death'
  • Is portrait of Mark Zuckerberg in 'The Social Network' anti-Semitic?
    • So your interpretation was antisemitic, too?

    • Zuckerberg is just an individual who happens to be of Jewish heritage. It would be rascist (antisemitic) to assume that Zuckerberg represents a negative stereotype of a Jew. It would be also rascist (philosemitic) to assume that there's something like a positive stereotype of a Jew and it's not represented by someone like Zuckerberg.

      So what did the author of this article and his wife actually assume?

  • Liberal Zionists (at last) say non-Jews have a right to criticize Israel
  • Iraq-- I'm sorry
    • Called from whom, eee? Rascist bigots like Nathan Sharansky who don't hold back delegitimizing and demonizing Palestinians?

  • Hitchens's Jewishness
  • Gingrich comment that Palestinians are an 'invented people' enters primary debate
    • "Palestinian national identity as it currently is recognized was a reaction to the creation of Israel and most prominently the 1967 war when Israel captured territory controlled by Egypt and Jordan." (William A. Jacobson).

      Palestinian Nationaliy allready existed, when Palestine was detached from the Ottoman Empire and became a state which was put under mandate. It was officialy enacted with the Palestine Citizenship Order from 1925 and included all the people living in Palestine with former Ottoman citizenship.

      The PLO definition excludes Jews (and their descendants) which emigrated to Palestine during the mandate. It is not an ethnic term but a citizenship. The whole debate whether this term "Palestinian" means an ethnic group is fallacious and wants to divert from the fact that there's no Jewish citizenship today and still Israel wants to be the state of the Jews and not the state of the Israelis (including the Arab Israelis which are maintained expelled and denationalized).

  • Israel isn't good for the Jews anymore
    • john h,

      1.) Zionism is a way to preserve the Jewish identity, because it's core ideology is antiassimilation and separatism from the Nonjews, whether by only being different from the Nonjews or having a nuclear protected Mega-Shtetl. Israel is just one expression of Zionism.

      2.) I could reside my citizenship tommorow and still teach about the history of this country. I don't find the IDENTIFICATION with my country or heritage important. I don't see the use in preserving it.

    • "I think that [Talkback or RoHA] are doubtful that Judaism or Zionism bring anything to the table that makes them worth retaining as part of a citizen’s identity." (Hostage)

      No Hostage, I'm not doubting I'm asking. And it's not about what Jewishness 'brings to the table', but about the identity "Jew" or identyfing with being a "Jew". What's the difference, if you consider yourself a Jew or not?

    • So what, eee?

      Is the future of the Jewish people more important than the future of the people marrying the ones they love? It would be like putting tribalism above the individual pursuit of happiness. It was you who said that it would all be a matter of personal decision and preference (eg. to love Pollocs pictures). Still in your mind you worry, if the choice goes against tribalism and not, if it goes against individuality.

    • Hostage,

      I can teach and preserve Jewish history without being a Jew. The question still remains. Why preserve a Jewish IDENTITY or the IDENTIFICATION with a Jewish collective?

      I also don't get "humanist Judaism". It's like saying that Judaism by default it inhumane. Same goes with "Jews for Justice" or "Jews for Peace" and so on. Is it so important to mention that someone is a Jew, if he is for justice or for peace? It's like saying that a Jew by default is neither for justice nor for peace. Sounds quite antisemitic to me.

    • eee,

      "Some people find beauty in Jackson Pollock pictures, some don’t. Those who like them can’t explain to others why they are willing to pay millions of dollars for them. "

      You cannot compare an identity with a picture. A certain collective identity is keeping you distinct and separated from the members outside this collective and yourself. I still don't understand the worth of it. If you say, being a Jew means to see things like this or do things like that I can say that I could see it or do it without beeing a Jew. What makes a human a Jewish human?

      "If you want to figure out what “Jewish Identity” is, I suggest you live a year or two in Israel."

      Is it not enough, if I ask you, who identifies himself with this collective?

      "Or maybe just see “Fiddler on the Roof”, and ask yourself why the Jews depicted there want to remain Jewish in spite of all the hardships it causes them. "

      First I asked you, what's worth preserving a Jewish identity. Now I have to ask you, what's worth suffering to preserve a certain identity? This seems selfdestructive to me.

    • eee,

      see also RoHa's answer to your comment, that you didn't answer my question.

      Of course it's a personal question and decision. And I can't tell you, if the Jewish Identity is worth preserving or not, because I don't know, what a "Jewish Identity" is. Logically it is dinctint from a Nonjewish Identity. So what is so worth seperating Jews from Nonjews and the collectiv self from your personal self?

    • Hi eee

      I'm a citizen of A and raised with religion B. My heritage is a mix between A and C. But I don't care about being A, B or C. I only care about being me.

      Can you tell me what's so worth about preserving a Jewish identity/community or "Jewishness" (what ever that is) ?

  • Read the Ambassador's speech on settlements fostering anti-Semitism that has neocons calling for his scalp
    • In this case they can't be Zionists. Zionism (as I see it) puts Jewishness over anything else. (Of course not everyone who puts Jewishness over anything else is therefore a Zionist.)

    • Gutman made a mistake. Because if Muslims hate (all) Jews for Israel's politics it's not right, but it isn't antisemitism. He called it a form of antisemitism, but antisemitism is never the fault of Jews. That's what makes his remark antisemitic.

  • Nakba denial: 'NYT' removes the word 'expulsion' from article describing Palestinian refugees
    • "there would have been no refugee crisis if there had been no war, and there would have been no war if the surrounding Arab states had not rejected the partition." (Robert Werdine)

      Actually it was the majority of Palestinian citizens who rejected the partition recommendation. And it was the Jewish Seperatists who rejected the will of the majority. The Arab Palestinians also didn't need a war or to expell Jews to follow their independency ambitions of a united, souvereign Palestine. The Jewish seperatists needed a war and to expell Arab Palestinians to get a state territory and become a majority in it. Otherwise within the borders of 1967 there would have been around 600000 Jews (half of them not even citizens of Palestine, but refugees) and 900000 Arabs.

      According to the Shai report of the Hagana by the midth of June 1948 73% of the Arab refugees were caused by direct "Israeli" actions. The territory the provisional GoI controlled after the first week of the proclamation (which itself was a violation of Security Council Resolution 46) was:

      "... Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard."

      "Its aim was to abort the nascent Jewish state and establish a “unitary Palestinian state” that the Arabs would then slice up between themselves." (Robert Werdine)

      Palestine had been allready been a unitary state under mandate. And the Arabs tried to preserve and later restore this status against the hostile secession by Jewish seperatists and terrorists.

  • JJ Goldberg is uncomfortable with 'astoundingly hostile' new 'New York Times'
    • "The occupation is the term commonly used to denote Israeli control over the territories it conquered in 1967. That’s what the word means (when you’re not talking about a job): governance of a territory that doesn’t belong to the governing power but was captured in war. "(JJGoldberg)

      Well, how did Zionists acquire Israels's state territory, then? Writing love letters?

  • Guardians of the City: An interview with Neturei Karta's Rabbi Meir Hirsh
    • Well, who knows the real reason for Hertzl's sudden death after his Uganda proposal.

    • I was not talking about the 10 commands. And I'm not even sure, if Neturei Karta members even think that the 10 commands bind Jews towards Gentiles and not only towards Jews.

    • I'm not sure about this Neturei Karta guys.

      Sometimes it seems to me, that all they care about is Jews and that if Jews do bad things to Palestinians or Gentiles it is only bad, because it's bad for the Jewish people or their collective soul. Antizionism is not wrong to them, because it's rascist or inhumane, but because it's against God's commands and prevents the coming of the Jewish Messiah (which on the other hand will come anyway). And if he comes, according to them not only Israel will fall to Jews (as global Highpriests) anyway. They don't care about humanity but only about God's commands, even if they were inhumane.

      But maybe I'm wrong.

  • Israeli newspaper owner says Obama can't stop settlers' 'apartheid regime' because of 'Jewish lobby'
    • Lourd Balfour:
      "The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission [evidently the King Crane Commission] has been going through the forms of asking what they are. The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion, that is right. "

      And from a declassified British memo:
      "3. The [Balfour] Declaration was the result of prolonged discussion with the Zionist leaders. Its terms were framed with great care after lengthy deliberations by the War Cabinet, in which all parties of the State were represented, as also the Overseas Dominions in the person of General Smuts. It had a definite war object. It was designed to enlist on behalf of the Allies the sympathy of influential Jews and Jewish organisations all over the world. The Declaration was published at a time when the military situation was exceedingly critical. Russia had dropped out of the Alliance; Italy appeared to be at her last gasp; and the Germans, freed from anxiety in the East, were massing hugh forces on the Western front in preparation for the great offensive of 1918. The promise to the Jews was in fact made at a time of acute national danger. The objections to receding from it when the danger is over are obvious."

      Read also this very interesting discussion:

  • Gorenberg says a one-state solution would produce another Lebanon
    • The hipocricy of Zionism in it's essence:

      During the mandate it was the (arab) Palestinians who opposed Jewish refugees (not from Palestine, but from Europe). That wasn't ok, because it wasn't good for Jews. It led also to a domestic and economical problem, which set the political entity aflame. That was ok, because it was good for Jews.

      The Arab Palestinians were at least a 75% majority (considering Jewish refugees weren't citizens, yet) and called for a representative Goverment in Palestine, meaning majority rule. That wasn't ok, because it wasn't good for Jews. The (former) Jewish Palestinians are now a 75% majority by keeping arab Palestinians expelled and denationalized. That's ok, because it is good for Jews. It's called a "jewish democracy".

      Hamas and others want's to free the whole of Palestine, and some say that this would include massacre, expulsion, disfranchisement, dispossession and denationalization of Jews. That's not ok, because it is not good for Jews. Jewish seperatists and their terror organisations DID take over Palestine by force, massacred Arab Palestians, expelled a major part of them and disfranchised and denationalized them. That was ok, because it was good for Jews.

      Arab Palestinians in a one-state-solution might demand return of their property, on which Israel built it settlements. That's not ok, because it is not good for Jews. Jewish seperatists and their terror organisations destroyed more than 400 villages and build their settlements on the ruins or one private land, tens of thousand took over ready-furnished housing units. That was ok, because it was good for Jews.

      Creating one state Palestine is a pipe dream, which cannot be realized, because it's not good for Jews. Creating a (de facto) one state Israel was Hertzl's realized dream and it's good for Jews.

      Forced removal of illegal settling Jews is not ok, because it's not good for Jews. Forced removal of native Palestinians is ok and has to be maintained, because it's good for Jews.

      The "unmaking" of Israel is not good for Jews. Palestinians after 60 years cannot turn back the clock. The "unmaking" of Palestine was good for Jews. Jews after 2000 years could turn back the clock.

      Every violence and inhumane behaviour is good, if it is good for Jews. It's called "warning", "reaction" and "self-defence". Every violence and inhumane behaviour isn't good, if it isn't good for Jews. It's called "threat", "agression" and "terrorism".

      Everything is ok, possible and justified, as long it is good for Jews. And everthing isn't ok, possible and justified, if it is not good for Jews.

      Forget about universal moral or human and equal rights for every human.

      "Never Again!" is also the Zionist's lesson, because of past crimes against humanity. Except if it's good for Jews.

  • Fact Check!: DePaul students disrupt 'Israel 101'; Northwestern students walk out on Israel propagandist
    • If you cross the checkpoint you get prolonged administrative detention. And you have to sign a peace of paper which is written in hebrew. Sometimes with electro cables on your genitals. :D

    • They should flood these hasbar events and simply walk out after a while or a major lie. That's not even a disruption. But it's demoralizing the speaker and those who remain.

      Most perfect example of non-violant resistance.

    • Aaaaaaaaaaaaaawsome!

      Like a flash mob. And then the room was empty. That's even more humiliating. ROTFL!

      By the way. It's not a distortion, it's a clarification. That's what I learned from "hasbara". LOL.

  • 'Occupy the Occupiers' disrupts Birthright Israel event
    • To use the word "birthright" for a state instead for a human (natural person) is very rich. It's the Zionist who deny the Palestinians their birthrights until today, which is the right to self determination (state or state merger), human rights (right to return) or the right to citizenship (refugees).

      From "Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" by Jeremy R. Hammond:
      "4.) ... Nations don’t have rights, people do. The proper framework for discussion is within that of the right of all peoples to self-determination. Seen in this, the proper framework, it is an elementary observation that it is not the Arabs which have denied Jews that right, but the Jews which have denied that right to the Arabs. The terminology of Israel’s “right to exist” is constantly employed to obfuscate that fact. ...

      Palestinians will never agree to the demand made of them by Israel and its main benefactor, the U.S., to recognize Israel’s “right to exist”. To do so is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to take Arab land, while Arabs had no right to their own land. It is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to ethnically cleanse Palestine, while Arabs had no right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in their own homes, on their own land.

      The constant use of the term “right to exist” in discourse today serves one specific purpose: It is designed to obfuscate the reality that it is the Jews that have denied the Arab right to self-determination, and not vice versa, and to otherwise attempt to legitimize Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, both historical and contemporary."

  • Aloni: Goldstone legitimizes apartheid in Israel/Palestine
    • "The key difference is the purpose. Apartheid by definition has a racial purpose. But, Israel has a larger minority population than Palestine." (Richard Witty)

      Definition of the Crime of Apartheid:
      "inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed *with the intention of maintaining that regime.*"

      The purpose here is to maintain the zionist regime and thereby the domination of Jews (real minority) over Palestinians (real majority) by violently manipulating the real demographics. The inhumane actions are: keeping a large part of the real majority expelled and denationalized while opressing their human and civil rights and their right to self determination and citizenship.

      If that's not Apartheid, Richard, what is?

  • Israeli police target Sheikh Jarrah store for hanging posters of Erdogan
  • World condemns Israel's Jerusalem landgrab, while US says it is 'within the frame of our policy concern'
  • As settlers disrupt olive harvest, Israeli officer declares: 'I am the law, I am God.'
  • Americans who support Palestinian cause must be willing to lose friends
    • I'm not an antizionist in the sense, that I think that Jews don't have a right to a state of their own. I'm an antizionist in the sense, that they don't have a right to acquire a territory by war and against the will of a majority for this purpose and expell Nonjews (or keep them expelled) to become a majority.

    • She should be thankful she got rid of this "friends".

  • In anxious/nostalgic interview of Amos Oz, NPR's Rob't Siegel says Shalit was held 'hostage'
  • Struggling for water in Gaza
    • "If you want to solve problems, there is only one way, negotiations. "

      I understand that "justice" (international and human rights law) isn't the Zionist way to solve problems. After all they took Palestine by force and now they want to negotiate the ransom for a partial release.

  • Even Fayyad forecasts struggle for equal voting rights in I/P
    • UN-mediator Count Bernadotte:

      "2. The resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947 provided not for simple partition of Palestine, but for partition with economic union. It envisaged the creation of an Arab State, a Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under a special international regime administered by the United Nations. These three entities, largely because of justifiable doubts concerning the economic viability of the proposed Arab State and the City of Jerusalem, were to be linked together in an Economic Union of Palestine. The obvious disadvantages of territorial partition were thus to be corrected to some extent by economic union. ...

      7. The partition plan took into account that a partition of Palestine without economic union would leave the Arab State economically nonviable, unless the population should be forced to submit to a substantial fall in its standard of living. This problem was met in the partition plan by economic union, which, by maintaining the essential economic unity of the whole area, attempted to ensure that the flow of capital and labour and the consequent distribution of economic activity would not be greatly influenced by partition."

  • Fat lady sings -- Israel announces new E J'lem neighborhod called Givat Hamatos
  • 'Commentary' smear of Occupy Wall St. doesn't bother to get basic facts right
    • The antisemitism accusers are not different from antisemites. They look for on or two black sheep in a group and then accuse the whole group of being black sheeps and that it would be in their nature to be black. They more they cry antisemitism, the more I smell philosemitic or antigentile rascism.

  • Neocon orgs seek to paint Wall St protests as anti-semitic
  • Boycott update: Champion fencer Sara Besbes stands down rather than plays Israeli
    • In one of the italian articles I read that according to the people close to her she felt bad for what happened.

      Besbes and Mills fought last year.

    • "Fencing World Cup, Tunisia prohibits its athletes to compete against Israel" (Googletrans)

      "... the athlete Besbes Tunisian Sarra has been forced from their federation not to fight against Israel's Noam Mills ..." (Googletrans)

      "The meeting ends in a few seconds with the two athletes who do not greet each other, but they cry, each in his corner.

      Behind the attitude of the decision of his Besbes that the Federation has ordered not to fight against Israel. Boycott. A gesture that comes 24 hours after the same made by another athlete Iranian Sayyad Ghanbari Hamad, who had retired rather than face his opponent, Tomer Or, Israel. " (Googletrans)

      It seems that Tunesia wanted to catch up with Iran.

    • You didn't answer my question.

    • I'm afraid it was to early in the competition to be broadcasted.

    • I support BDS, but I cannot support this, because the Tunisian Federation was requesting it:

      "Sconcerto per la richiesta della federazione tunisina ad una sua atleta di non gareggiare contro un'israeliana."
      (Googletrans: "Disconcert for the request of the Tunisian Federation for its athletes not to compete against an Israeli.")

      She felt very bad about this and cried, like her opponent did:
      "La Besbes e’ rimasta molto male per quanto avvenuto, fanno sapere le persone a lei vicine, anche perche’ questa sconfitta ha condizionato il suo mondiale e al termine della sfida ed ha pianto, come anche la sua avversaria"

    • jon s,

      "The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.""

      Don't you think that Israel keeps a part ofthe native population (Palestinians refugees) "segregated" (expelled) and denationalized to maintain the (demographic) domination of Jews and a zionist regime?

    • The phrase "ruba una mela e ti chiameranno ladro... ruba un regno e ti chiameranno re..." is just the signature of the user which copied this article into a forum. The original source is

      And the phrase sounds like a variation of a phrase of Saint Augustine's "De Civitate Dei" (City of God".

      Chapter 4.— How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies.

      Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."

    • I don't know if it is propaganda. I googled for "Besbes Mills" found some italian articles, translated them with google trans and read that the Tunis Federation made her do this which sounds credible, because it was reported (probably not my Tunis radio) that not only Mills was crying but also Besbes. It seems to me that she was more into fencing than boycotting.

    • I want to retract my comment. It seems that Besbes was not doing it voluntarily, but on demand of the Tunis fence federation.

    • Braveheart! And what a poetic gesture just to point the sword to the ground. That gave Noam Mills the final blow.

  • Iran hysteria: Senator Mark Kirk says 'It’s Okay to take food from the mouths of’ innocent Iranians
    • Maybe the US can make use of Israel's present scientific starvation experiment in Gaza. I'm sure than some of Israel's Dr. Mengeles can provide some numbers or formulas.

  • Do we really need another 'Gandhi'?
    • If I read lines from Zionists I automatically replace "Arabs" with "Jews" and "Israel" with "Nazi Germany". It surprises me every time.

  • Burg, former Knesset speaker, endorses idea of one state from river to sea
    • It's always nice to see somenone becoming an individual thinker and a universal humanist who leaves the stupidities of his herd behind. To identify with a collective is always immature.

    • "... most refugees are within the West Bank and Gaza. The refugees in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan are under a few hundred thousand."

      According to UNWRA (first number is "Registered refugees in camps ", second is "Registered refugees") the numbers are (Jan 2011):

      Jordan: 350,899/1,999,466
      Lebanon: 227,718/455,373
      Syria: 149,822/495,970
      West Bank: 206,123/848,494
      Gaza Strip: 518,147/1,167,361

  • UN: Israel 'becoming more efficient in their demolitions, displacing ever growing numbers of Palestinians'
  • What do a Jewish state and a Catholic table have in common?
    • In mandated Palestine every citizen of Palestine was "Palestinian" regardless of ethnicity or religion. "Jewish" or "Arab" wasn't a nationality (=citizenship) but a "nationality WITHIN citizenship". In France it's the same. Every citizen of France is of "french" nationality. If "jewish" isn't the NATIONALITY of every Israeli citizen and just a "nationality in citizenship" then Israel as a "jewish state" is a rascist concept.

  • US withholds $200 million from PA for punishment over statehood bid
  • Vice PM Moshe Ya’alon: Regime change in Ramallah will ultimately be necessary for peace talks to progress
    • Just in case nobody understands longliveisrael's distinction between the old and the new Jew:

    • eee,

      "Jews want a state of their own."

      Palestinians, too. Do Palestinians living in Israel and outside of it have the right to partition and occupy all of it, expell the majority of Jews and keep them segregated? Or is this only the zionist way?

      "As long as the Palestinians demand 2 Palestinian states, there will be war."

      They can have as many states as they want on their territory.

    • So if you conquer 100% and give back 50%, you're not an expansionist. If you steal 100% and return 50% your not a thief. And if you lie 100% and take back half of your lies, you're not a liar.

      Does Zionism have any other side effects on rationality?

  • Imagine if this article was about whites and blacks in the US
    • eee,

      there was no partition out of the blue, only a recommendation.
      It wasn't the Palestinians who rejected the will of the majority regarding this recommendation. It was not the Palestinians which needed a war to acquire a territory for a future state (because they allready had one under mandate). And it wasn't the Palestinians which expelled people of different religion to become a majority.

      You know that Israel was created only through terrorism and massacres, war and conquest, and mass expulsion and dispossession.

      And regarding the people of Quebec. They are a minority. A minority has only a right to secession if their human rights are fundamentally violated (like the arab Israelis who had to live under military law until 1966.) And if Quebec would have the right then all people residing habitually in Quebec would become citizens of the State of Quebec regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Do you see the difference to Zionism and it's inherent rascism?

    • You didn't have a seperate territory on your own. You weren't just living in a region called Judenland, which simply wanted to seperate from the main land. You were living mixed with Nonjews in Palestine, split up the main territory against the will of the majority, acquired more than half of it by war, expelled most of the Nonjewish majority - who should be citizens of your state according to resolution 181, international and human right law - and keep them expelled/segregated till today.

      And yes. One can fault you for it!

  • Something to contemplate as you sit in rush hour traffic waiting to get on to the Queensboro bridge
  • Mondoweiss liveblogs the UN General Assembly speeches
    • The Palestinians allready came to their senses and realized that "negotiation" is just a hasbara code word for "prolonged occupation and settlements".

      Everything what Israels wants is Palestinians to give up their (international recognized) rights. It has nothing to offer and it certainly doesn't want peace. When there's to much calm it kills Palestinans to provoke retaliation.

  • 'Albuquerque Journal' runs column by pro-Palestinian activist calling on Jewish groups to have open debate
    • Sharansky's 3D goggles seem to expose every single Israel supporter to be a Palestinian if not Gentile hater. Israel's non recognition of Kosovo seems also to be a pure act of hatred. Antigoyism is a desease which can not be cured.

  • Comments Policy
    • Please forgive me, if it has been allready mentioned. But most of the comments lack of a "reply button" which is very unfortunate, because only if I directly reply to someones someone's comment, s/he can see it in her/his profile and vice versa.

    • fnlevit says: "I demand ..."

      I demand the US state department to quote the definition correctly which reads: "Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism ... COULD, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OVERALL CONTEXT, include, ..."

      So the examples COULD be examples for antisemitism, but they don't have to be. It's not exactly what Kenneth Stern wanted, but with this insertion the EUMC basically told him where he can stuff his Apartheid supporting definition proposal. :D

    • "Many thinkers have long opposed nationalism and the nationalist interpretation of the principle of self-determination, namely, that each national, ethnic, or cultural group is entitled to political autonomy or statehood. They cite historical evidence that political systems favoring one nation or culture have too often shown intolerance and discrimination toward resident minorities, besides fostering a good deal of interstate belligerence. There is another interpretation of the principle of self-determination by which self-determination is recognized as a right of popular sovereignty belonging to regionally defined collectives regardless of the ethnic, cultural, or religious identities and affiliations of their members. In this sense, all have a right to share in self-determination, Jews and non-Jews alike, but they have this right as residents of regions, not as members of cultural or national units.

      By implying that those who deny a right of self-determination to Jews qua Jews, or who raise doubts about the legitimacy of the state of Israel, are anti-Semitic, the working definition is thereby privileging the nationalist interpretation of the principle of self-determination, and de facto criminalizing the views and acts of those who oppose nationalism, including Jewish nationalism. This is not only an instance of historical and legal naïveté; it is a dangerous assault on our cherished democratic freedoms of expression and opinion." - Tomis Kapitan, Professor of Philosophy Northern Illinois University

Showing comments 100 - 1