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 2900 - 2801

  • 'Auto-anti-Semitism!' Naftali Bennett declares war on Jewish self-hatred in Israel
    • mcohen: "zionism is the only answer to irrational acts like anti semitism and jew hatred.. i might not support israeli policies towards arabs in the west bank but without zionism jews would be facing constsnt attacks."

      Yep, like they are outside of Israel. It is even worse than the Jewish attacks on Palestinians, right? But maybe, just maybe Zionism is an irrational answer that needs, sometimes fabricates or even creates Jew hatred.

  • The United State of Israel and Palestine
    • JeffB: "Similarly to be Jewish is to claim your ancestors lived in Judaea (potentially symbolically via having a taken a tribal oath)."

      That's your first mistake. One can convert to Judaism. And the descendants of Jewish ancestors can convert to other religions. Both has happened.

      JeffB: "When the Jews got kicked out other people moved in."

      Second mistake. Jews were only kicked out of Jerusalem and their elite was deported. No other "people moved in".

      JeffB: "Jews for 2000 years have been pretty explicit that they were a nation and a people often on pain of death."

      But "Jewish" is not a nationality. Nobody can become "Jewish" by acquiring a citizenship. Therefore they are not a nation AS citizenship and therefore a "Jewish state" of Israel is inherently racist, if only Jews are considered to be nationals.

      JeffB: "Now the state of Israel is Judaea reborn."

      Reborn? That's what you call the settler colonialist creation of an Apartheid Junta through war against and expulsion of the natives?

      JeffB: "The fact that the Palestinians are more recent immigrants (7th century) from the Eastern Arabian peninsula ..."

      Third mistake. Only 5% of Palestinians are descendants of Arabians. Arabian soldiers in particular. The Arabians never colonized Palestine. Palestinians are NOT immigrants. They are the real descendants of the natives of Palestine, especially Jews who were forced to convert to Islam.

      JeffB: "...and they should be fully welcomed to join Israeli with full rights of citizenship. That’s an egalitarian society. "

      Are you talking about the Palestinians that JSIL ethnically cleansed, too?

    • David: "You are confusing two different concepts."

      Not at all. Definition of "nation":

      "1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: [...]

      4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages."

      You are prefering definition 4 over 1. You are talking about "nationa" WITHIN citizenship. I'm talking about nation AS citizenship. Jews consider themselves to be the former. Palestinians are the latter since 1925. Jews are not a constitutive people like "Palestinians". Therefore a Jewish state is a racist state, because nobody can become "Jewish" by acquiring its citizenship.

      David: "Whatever citizenship people had in 1925, or at any time before or since, before Union Day, is completely irrelevant."

      Not at all. Only the citizens of Palestine had the right to self determination in Palestine by majority ruling. The Zionist state with its Jewish majority (most of them not former citizens of Palestine) was imposed onto them through war and expulsion.

    • DaBakr: "@tb

      "what a bunch of horsesht."

      I prefer the term "Zionists". That's even more insulting.

      DaBakr: "there are still palestinian arabs that have close relationship with israeli jews and vice versa. but suggesting that was the norm is completely absurd."

      Yup, everything went bad when the bunch of Zionists arrived to take over Palestine.

    • "Fincham "I don’t know why you say (Muslim) “Arabs”."

      My mistake. You were refering to the "Palestinian-ARAB nation" allthough the nation is called "Palestinian".

      Fincham: "The Palestinian nation has always included Jews, Christians and Muslims, and probably other smaller groups which I do not know much about. It is an Arab nation because Arabic is its common language. It existed long before 1925 – Haim Gerber’s book traces the development of a Palestinian national identity “back to the Crusades, and beyond”. Palestine became a nation-state in 1922 under the Mandate, and 1925 I suppose was when it established a citizenship law."

      The Palestinan "Identity" is legally irrelevant. The citizenship law of 1925 is the only legal approach to determine who had the right to self determination in Palestine in 1948. Many if not most of the Jews (refugees and illegal immigrants) who had not been naturalized did not have this right. Only the Jewish citizens of Palestine through participation in majority ruling. Cause the term "Jewish" does not refer to people living in a specific territory who have the right to see this territory gain independence and then transfer a nationality called "Jewish" to every habitually resident of the newly created state. Jewish self determination is a bogus concept when interpreted as a right to create a state or to gain independence.

      Fincham: "Over the last 70 years the Jews who migrated to Palestine under the banner of Zionism, and their descendants, have constituted themselves as a nation, and are recognized as a nation state. There are no grounds for saying they are not a nation – see the dictionary definition. "

      "Jewish" is not a nationality/citizenship like US American, French or Palestinian. Jews are not a constitutive people. One cannot become Jewish by acquiring a citizenship. Your prefered definition of a nation is restricted to being a subgroup ('nation'/'nationality') WITHIN citizenship and is actually based on racism not citizenship. That's why Jews in Israel have to apply a Nazi variation of the bogus and discriminating differentiation between "nationals" and "citizens".

      Fincham: "Within Israel there is a substantial minority of citizens of Palestinian Arab descent. A recent survey said that about 2/3 of these put their Palestinian identity before their Israeli identity, the other 1/3 put their Israeli identity before their Palestinian identity. They have the right to choose which nation they belong to."

      Again, your prefered definition of "nation" is misleading as is you focus on "identity". This time you use the terms "Israeli" and "Palestinian" as if both were not citizenships but only identities or 'nations' (your prefered definition).

    • JeffB: "The dual homeland approach didn’t work then because the residents hate each other and don’t want to live together."

      They used to babysit each others's children until the Zionist arrived to take over Palestine.

    • Fincham: "I talk about the Israeli-Jewish nation. In my conclusion I say that my proposal would achieve “self-determination for both the Israeli-Jewish nation and the Palestinian-Arab nation, ..."

      You confuse both concepts. The Palestinian nation is a constitutive people since 1925 and even in its PLO modification in the sixties it is not restricted to (Muslim) "Arabs". The Israeli-Jewish "nation"on the other hand is not a nation in the same sense. To talk about their (national) right to self determination is misleading. This principle only applies to a people of a country and is restricted to the denizens of its territory. If an "Israeli-Jewish" nation would have any legal substance than all Israelis would be "Israeli-Jewish" and one could become "Israeli-Jewish" simply by becoming citizen of Israel.

    • Irishmoses: "You seem to be making the claim that “all Jews are grasping and egotistic” by nature. As this could be interpreted as antisemitic, ..."

      It seems? It could be interpreted?.

      Nope. It IS openly antisemitic. How could Curatica even assume that Finchham has a grasping and egotistic nature whithout making the assumption that he was Jewish to complete this antisemitic accusation?

  • As many as 1 million Israelis have left for the U.S.
    • catalan: "Third, Israel has many ways to reduce the growth of the Palestinian population ..."

      And there are still many more ways to learn from the Holocaust to refine its genocidal politics.

    • Genocide against the 'Amalekites' is a devine command, Mooser. It's just a matter of re-labeling Palestinians or anybody else who Jews consider to be an enemy.

  • Chomsky on what 'everyone knows'
    • So Chomsky doesn't know that the right to return has become customary international law and therefore is binding even for countries that wouldn't ratify the Geneva Conventions. And he doesn't know about the decades long international support which is expressed in countless resolutions of the General Assembly in which this "inalienable right" is confirmed.

      What does he actually know?

  • White Jews: deal with your privilege and call out Jewish support for white supremacy
    • Grover: "... she used her position there to promote her own political views without allowing other views. An example of her bias was bringing Ali Abunimah to promote his book which outraged the local community.".

      The Zionist interpretation of intellectual freedom is that you can't allow a Palestinian to talk if there's no Zionist watchdog present or invited to a follow up event. That is an example of what outraged the community which stands behind her. And Abunimah' event was packed. They even had to send people away.

    • Nathan: "... the Jews are, indeed, children of the Middle East."

      So did they finally find a historian who can prove that Jews were exiled even beyond Jerusalem and that Palestinians are not their real descendants?

      Nathan. "Since the Palestinian public is enjoying quite a sensational population explosion, I am confused as to what you could possibly mean."

      Yep, according to confused Zionist it's all about population number or reproduction rate and never about the intent of crimes commited against a people.

  • Israel would use nuclear weapons to keep refugees from returning -- Noam Chomsky
    • catalan: "What makes you think you have a problem? That means that the status-quo remains. "

      catalan, you seem to be a little confused. Is a repatriation of refugees an "invasion"? And if so, what would you call an immigration of foreign settlers enforced upon natives within a framework to take over their country?

    • Catalan: "All that talk of 67 is just bs, what they truly want is a full-scale invasion."

      That pretty much sums up the history of Zionism. So why do you have a problem if this would go the other way around? The usual Zionist hypocracy?

  • After Israel tries to ban Al Jazeera, critics say the country is 'taking its cues from Arab dictators'
    • mccohen.. "and mondoweiss is attacking Israel for banning al jazeera."

      Yes, don't mention Amnesty International or Reporters without borders, just focus on your hate object Mondoweiss and distract from Israel's fake democracy.

  • Palestinian-American denied entry to West Bank for summer skateboard program
    • Sibiriak: "Actually, there are many multi-national states that differentiate between citizenship and nationality."

      You are making a mistake. "Nationalities" WITHIN citizenship is not the same as "nationality" AS citizenship. The latter is basically two words for the same concept. A country has one nationality, one citizenship.

      But Israel considers only (all) Jews to be THE nation (THE nationality) of Israel after it created an artificial differentiation between nationality (as citizenship) and citizenship. Like the Nazis did between nationals ("Reichsbuerger") and citizens.

      The real citizens of Israel are only Jews. Something Israel tries to conceal with formulations like 'those who have a right to immigrate under the law of return.' so it doesn't have to explicitly formulate rights, privileges or benefits that are for Jews-only and openly racist.

      Sibiriak: "The court did, however, reject the idea of an Israeli nationality. "

      Exactly. It doesn't consider Israelis to be the nation of Israel, but instead all Jews in the world.

    • jon s: "Israeli citizenship is held by Jews and non-Jews."

      True, but both are not considered to be nationals, only Jews. Israel's concept of a "citizenship" is fake. It applies a real citizenship only to Jews which trumps the face citizenship any time.

    • Arafatbastard: "How odd: I thought that “Palestinians” live in “Palestine”, and Israelis live in Israel."

      Yes, it's pretty odd that you call this "thinking". We have Palestinians who live in Israel and illegal Jewish settlers who live in Palestine and "Israeli" doesn't even exist according to Israel's Supremacist Court of Justice.

      Arafatbastard: "Basically, you’re just a racist."

      Nope, he's not a Zionist.

  • Zionism is apartheid, and worse
    • Jonathan: "Finally, it suggests that there is no national colonialist issue here – for Jews are simply a nation amongst so many others (Israel recognises over 130 nationalities, but not an Israeli one). "

      Israel considers the Jewish 'people' to be not a, but THE "nation" of Israel. The ethno/religious concept of a "nation" is not the same as the civic convept of "nation" being an equivalent term to citizenship. The 130 "nationalities" you are talking about are just "nationalities" WITHIN citizenhip and not "nationalities" AS citizenship.

      Israel is trying to fool everybody. What it calls "citizens" and the rights that comes with citizenship cannot be compared to the full citizenship of the citizens in other nations. Israel only grants this full citizenship to Jews which it considers to be not only citizens, but more importantly "nationals". Since "nationals" and "citizens" are the same in other countries Israel only views "nationals" to be the real citizens and obscures this by calling Jews and the Nonjews of Israel "citizens".

      The Nazis had a similar concept. They, too, differentiated between nationals ("Reichtsbuerger", literally "Citizens of the Reich") and "citizens". The only difference to Israel is that the Nazis didn't obscure it by putting the nationals in the 'lower' category of "citizens".

      So when Israel creates a legislation which applies to everyone in Israel than it is a legislation for its citizens. If it only wants to create a legislation that applies only to Jews than it finds others ways like describing them as laws, priviliges, benefits, etc. that only apply to those who can become citizens through the law of return.

      I urge you to watch Jonathan Cook's video:

      Jonathan: "Race is what we make it to be. And Zionism has made it to be ‘Jewish’, as a ‘nation’."

      I don't doubt that Zionism is only an antisemites's wet dream to treat Jews differently then as nationals in their country, but to sent them to 'their homeland'. Not to mention how antisemitic it is from a Jewish religious perspective.

    • Jack Green: "I told you about Lebanon to show what apartheid is.
      Apartheid is separation. It has the word “apart” in it.
      Lebanon keeps Palestinians confined to refugee camps separated from the Lebanese.
      There are no refugee camps in Israel."

      Another stupid commen that demonstrates that Jack Green doesn't know what The Crime of Apartheid is. The next time he will argue that prisoners are victims of Apartheid, because they are locked up and kept seperated. Does Lebanon need to confine them so that the Lebanese matintan dominance? On the other hand does Israel need to keep refugees "seperated" to maintain the dominance of one group in Israel which Israel racistly considers to be the only nationals, the only real citizens?

    • Jack Green: "What obligations to Gaza does Israel have under international humanitarian law?"

      The obligations an occupying state has. The wellfbein and protection of the occupied and their rights.

      Jack Green: "Does Egypt have the same obligations? What about the UK?"

      They are not occupying the State of Palestine. Duh.

    • Jack Green: "South African MP Rev. Dr. Kenneth Meshoe wrote ..."

      Superb Jack, you just found another person who has no clue how the Crime of Apartheid is defined in international law and instead compares Southa Africa's so called petty Apartheid with what Israel is doing without understanding the so called grand Apartheid which enables Israel to maintain Jewish dominance and the violation of human rights that come with it. Including the denial of the right to return.

      I have the strong feeling that you want to remain being ignorant.

    • Jack Green: "Collective punishment” like BDS?"

      Do you realize how pathetic it sounds if you need to compare non-violent tactics to pressure Israel into abiding by international and humanitarian law with Israel's violation of international and humanitarian law that are considered to be war crimes since the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis?

    • Jack Green: "Discrimination is not apartheid."

      Straw argument.

      Jack Green: "Apartheid involves segregation."

      Yep, keeping refugees expelled and denationalized, because they are not Jews.

      But the Crime of Apartheid as defined by international law does not necesseraly involve segregation. Why don't you take a little bit of your time to reads its definition on Wikipedia, before you make yourself look as stupid as any other Zionist Hafradaheid denier?

    • Mooser: "Now, that’s chutzpah! That’s beyond chutzpah!"

      Ben Gurion knew that most of the Palestinians are the true descendants of ancient Hebrews. He wanted to reconvert them. After that failed he opted for Plan Daleth.

    • Call it "Hafradaheid".

    • I watched this video. It's EXCELLENT. I have to see it again.

    • Down under girl: "Great doctored picture you have here BTW."

      Great self delusion,It's from Reuters and was used by Haaretz.

      Down under girl: "You clearly have no idea what apartheid is try the Arab countries for that."

      This would NEVER have happened in South Africa"

      Your Apartheid accusation towards Arab states and your comparison with South Africa's petty Apartheid clearly show that it is you who has no idea what the Crime of Apartheid is as defined by international law.

      But we allready know that you don't really want to know, don't we?

    • Jack Green: "... live in a Jewish neighbourhood ..."

      That's actually not the true. The neighbourhood decides on this matter. And you know their decision.

    • Jack Green: "If Israel were an apartheid state, I, for example, would not be allowed to work for a Jewish newspaper or live in a Jewish neighbourhood or own a home."

      How long how long are you going to play the stupid game that if someting isn't exactly like South African Apartheid it isn't Apartheid at all and ignoring the Crime of Apartheid as defined by international law? Having said that, Israel doesn't allow Palestinian refugees to do all of the above.

      Jack Green: "The real apartheid is in Lebanon, where there is a law that bans Palestinians from working in over 50 professions"

      You obviously don't know what Apartheid is. Lebanon doesn't need to do that to Palestinian REFUGEES so that Labanese are the dominating group in their own country. Israel needs to keep Palestinians expelled to maintain Jewish dominance.

  • Dershowitz and Chomsky agree on one thing
    • catalan: "Israel will continue to destroy the enemy with an iron fist and without mercy. I love it."

      Instead of iron use "hard as Krupp steel". That's sounds even more authentic.

  • If you can't say 'equal rights,' I can't work with you
    • eljay: "Zionism is all about Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist "Jewish State" in as much as possible of Palestine, "

      I would add "and with as less as possible Nonjews".

      Question of clarification. Is the following statement true?

      Zionism is about Jews creating a state in Palestine.

    • Acknowledging does not necessary mean supporting. Can you quote him supporting this right?

    • If you come to the issue of equality firstly from a concern for the future of Jews and Judaism, I can't work with you.

    • Mooser: "Right of Return?"

      He doesn't call it a right. He calls the phrase "a moral imperative". That's less than a right and it's not absolute. Jewish moral imperatives may come first.

    • jd65: "Yes to this."

      Really? Didn't you notice that after "redress" and "reparation" a word like "repatriation" was missing?

      jd65: "Interesting. What you write in this comment, in my opinion, is very different from what you wrote in the article/speech."

      ROFL. His whole article is about Jews, Jews, hatred towards Jews, Jews and Jews. And of course, equal rights for illegal Jewish settlers who suffer from being considered as something less then rightful natives.

    • Ossinev: "Worse still there is an implicit recognition of the “rights” or “legality” of the thefts and dispossessions of native the Palestinians lands , properties and resources by foreigners."

      No, no. That's just his call for "equal rights". I mean why should only Nonjews have the right to settler colonialism and dispossessions of natives? That would be antisemitic. Sure the Nonjews may suffer under Jews, but the primary concern is for Jews an if they suffer while the make Nonjews suffer.

      You obviously misunderstood him, otherwise he would have adressed it.

    • Just say it: "I, Robert Cohen, support the Palestinians inalienable right to return without any limitation. And I don't support any violation of international law and human rights law, including the violation to settle in occupied territories."

      THAT will be the start.

    • Jd65: "Bingo, Talkback. I assume you’re referring to this from the above article:

      Equal rights recognises that there is no pre-Zionist Palestine to return to."

      Really? Only this line? First of all. Being a former Jew I don't trust anybody who writes about Jewish values. It always ends in a debate what is Jewish and what not to distract from the fact that the debate will never be about universal values. You won't find a single statement in his article that is universal. There's no symmetry at all. There is only Jews, Jews, Jews and Jews. And when he is making a case for equal rights it seems as if only Jewish settlers were suffering under inequality.

      Look at his lenghty article called “As Jews, we welcome refugees” (unless they’re Palestinian)."

      Do you expect from this title that he supports the Palestinians right to return? Not a single word. That's the bottom line:

      "Until we confront our complicity in the creation of the Palestinian catastrophe we will never be able to move towards a peace that honours and protects all who today call the land their home. And while we continue to ignore or deny our responsibility our insistence that we Jews welcome refugees is going to ring hollow – at least in my ears."

      Protect all those that TODAY call the land their home. If this would include refugees he could have simply written: Protect all those that call the land their home.

      Just read his four points about equal rights:

      1.) "Equal rights recognises that that this is not about terrorism, it’s not about security, it’s not about competing nationalisms, it’s not about antisemitism."

      So equal rights should recognize that his list of topics that don't deal with equal rights actually don't deal with equal rights. Duh. And not with antisemitism which bizarrly takes a lot of space in his article but without loosing a single word about Jewish racism/supremacism towards Palestinians.

      "2.) Equal rights recognises there has been a great injustice that must be acknowledged in order to move on."

      Same like his other article. Confess to move on. That's enough.

      "3.) Equal rights recognises that there is no pre-Zionist Palestine to return to. Both people are now permanently part of the future landscape."

      In other words. Recognise that settlers are equal to natives. More explicit in point four:

      4.) Equal rights recognises that both Jews and Palestinians are connected to the land – historically, culturally, religiously. It even recognises that American and Russian born West Bank Settlers, whether we like how they got there or not, also have rights.

      So Palestinians are only historically, culturally, religiously CONNECTED to the land. They haven't lived there PHISICALLY for generations. They are not NATIVES. They are equal to illegal settlers which should have thes same rights as natives and not the same rights as illegal immigrants which should be deported.

      Isn't it telling and bizarre that he condems that "equal rights, International Law, UN Security Council resolutions don’t appear to count for much when it comes to Israel/Palestine." and then tries to make a case for illegal settlers whose illegal settlemets should be dismantled according to Security Council 465?

      It's a scam. What's the difference between him and an right wing one stater illegally settling in Bohemia and Moravia, sorrry, Judea and Samaria?

      He's just using the equality argument to make his case for settler colonialism.

      And your observation is spot on.

    • If you can't acknowledge the right to return, I can't work with you.

  • 'I will not be bullied, intimidated threatened over my unshakeable support for Palestinian liberation' -- Linda Sarsour
    • Catalan: "Same here".

      Aah, a self hating Zionist.

      Catalan: The spirit of Pascal and Descartes is in me."

      Yes, yes, especially Pascal's spirit who viewed Jews as "intellectual cripples and superstitious vagabonds", right?

  • New poll shows 2/3 of Jewish Israelis want death penalty for Palestinian attackers
  • Israel’s siege on Palestinian music
    • So what borders did Radiohead enable to be crossed by whom through their music? Whose minds did it open? What humanity did it manage to be shared between who? Whose freedom did it allow to be expressed?

      Yorke is so disappointing as a human being. I think that a lot of people and even those who wanted him to play in Israel thought that he off all musicians would not do it. He's just fake.

      This is the Alicia Key's version:
      "Music is a universal language that is meant to unify audiences in peace and love, and that is the spirit of our show."

      Yeah, product X makes my skin smooth ... la la la ... I use it every day ...

  • Ensconced at New York Times, pro-Israel advocate Bari Weiss smears Sarsour as a 'hater'
  • Head of American Jewish Committee is Israel's 'Foreign Minister,' said Netanyahu minister
    • Eljay: "The premise of my arguments is that Israel is an internationally-recognized state that must be:
      – reformed (from Jewish supremacist to secular and democratic);
      – made to honour its obligations under international law; and
      – held accountable for its past and on-going (war) crimes."

      I know. That's why I'm asking. If recognition is a higher value to you why do you even condemn settler colonialism and supremacism which led to the creation of the State of Israel? Israel is recognized despite of the injustices you condemn. Why don't you take your own words serious that it is "an internationally-recognized state"?

    • eljay: "Betty also states that Hamas bombarded Israel without mentioning that Israel has been stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land and oppressing, torturing and killing Paleestinians for decades, and that they place Jews in harm’s way by establishing Jewish colonies in occupied territory outside of Israel’s / Partition borders."

      Why do you condem and don't take settler colonialism for a fact, when the premise of your arguments is that the settler state is a fact?

  • As Israeli soldiers crushed Gaza, world Jewry united, and sent Ben & Jerry's ice cream to the front
    • jon s: "Ben& Jerry’s facility is in Kiryat Malakhi, inside the Green Line ( I go by there quite often). So boycotting B&J isn’t “impressive”, in my opinion, it just doesn’t make sense."

      Again, they created a franchise called “Ben & Jerry’s ISRAEL Ltd.” in Israel.

    • jon s: "As I said I’m puzzled by what makes Ben & Jerry’s special. "

      They created a franchise called "Ben & Jerry's ISRAEL Ltd." in Israel.

      "Civilian facilities such as hospitals, mosques and schools should not be targetted. However, if they are being used as launching sites, weapons depots and such -they may lose their immunity."

      The question is if Israel can rule out that civilians are going to be killed, if it targets Cvilian facilities with ammunition that doesn't differentiate between combatants and civilians. If it knowingly kills civilians in the process it may be a war crime.

    • Boris: ": "They are not the only company dealing with Jews who live in Judea and Samaria. The question was why they were selected."

      They are not the only company that is targeted dealing with illegal settlers that illegaly settle in occupied territories and illegaly acquire its resources why illegaly preventing the occupied from accessing them under an illegal occupation. What a bunch of racist criminals, aren't they, Boris?

      Boris: "@Talking behind"

      All your comments are nothing but hot stinky gasses. ... Understand the subject being discussed before shooting from your arse."

      Mhm. Is it "Anal fixation, Militarism and other pathological reasons for Zionist Nationalism amongst Russian illegal settlers in Palestine"?

    • What do you want to say jon s? That Jews control so much that it is futile to boycott Israeli products?

    • Boris: "I think it is very clear – Ben and Jerry’s are Jews, and Jewish kapos hate strong Jews."

      You gotta do something about your addiction to antisemitism, Boris.

      Their Israeli franchise sells ice cream in illegal settlements. That's why they are boycotted.

    • jon s: "There are no Jewish-only roads in Israel."

      That's true, cause "Judea and Samaria" are not in Israel.

      jon s: "3. The Hamas terrorists bear a large measure of responsibility for the civilian deaths in Gaza because of their strategy of using schools, hospitals, mosques and civilian residences for military purposes."

      Are you saying that Israel fires on schools, hospitals mosques and civilian residences allthough they know that they are going to kill civilians?

    • jon s: "We’re not thieves in our historic homeland."

      It's called historic, beecause it is not your present, unless you are a descendant of an Ottoman Jew who became Palestinian.

      jon s: "As to your gory simile , I’d rather not comment."

      It's very accurate, isn't it? But you could give at least an antisemitic intepretation to support Zionism.

    • eljay: "The Zionist project was and remains based on theft (and colonialism and supremacism)."

      In that case it needs to be dismantled like the Boers' project in South Africa.

    • Annie Robbins: "blood libel!"

      What blood lible? I never said that Cannibalism is something that Jews are as Jews. I was talking about the state of Israel in its current sitution towards the Palestinians. Or do you want to imply that this is something genuinely Jewish?

      You are toying with me, arent't you?

    • jon s: "As you should know by now I oppose the occupation and the settlements and support the two state solution, which is based on the pre-1967 lines, with mutually-agreed adjustments."

      That's very generous of you that the thief can keep 80% of his theft and most Palestinians expelled. And with "mutually-agreed adjustments" you mean that Israel can keep Palestinians occupied until they agree to any violation of their rights that Israel demands and that every settlement you oppose becomes a part of Israel, right?

      Gotta love the two staters and their implicit support for permanent injustice until it is finally accepted by its victims. Isn't Israel like a cannibal who demands from its victim to recognize his right to cannibalism and after the victim has allready lost both legs and an arm and begs to keep the other the cannibal is nodding and smiling while slowly chopping off its fingers?

  • Jewish resistance to occupation is also fighting for the future of Judaism itself
    • No, you are simply to dishonest to give an honest answer. You abuse antizionist arguments to make a case for Zionism.

    • eljay, just to clarify your comments, because some phrases could be misleading.

      Are Zionists only "colonialists" outside the state of Israel and does 'criminal construct' only refer to the "Jewish" state and not to the state of Israel in general?

  • Jew and Israeli: Solomon Schechter and Shlomo Sand
    • yonah fredman: "assimilation is viewed as a negative, because it involves loss of true self, as in, conforming to a society and denying your essence."

      Thank you for reminding me why I quit this cult.

  • Debunking the 2 claims: anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and BDS unfairly singles out Israel
    • RoHa: "I’m just trying to make sure that no-one thinks that MHughes makes or agrees with that claim. He’s just showing that nothing follows from that claim except a pointless re-definition of “Zionism”."

      My apologies to MHughes. I was lazy when I simply quoted him as if this was his position.

    • catan: "In a response to me you stated that by your own estimation you are very intelligent while I am stupid."

      ROFL. Are you nuts? You made a pretty stupid comment about people being jealous about Jewish intelligence and success. In response to the stupidity of your comment I responded to Mooser's similar estimation of your intelligence:

      "Maybe [catalan] is just trying to debunk the myth that Jews as such are intelligent. So far his being very succesful"

      And you responded with "I am of course not smart. ... I am very happy to be stupid ..." and made my point.

    • @ RoHa

      Don't forget the context. He wrote: "It’s been claimed that Israel’s real actions in messing up the Palestinians and the results of those actions exceed what Zionism required."

      And I'm countering this claim by defining Zionism in Palestine. Messing up the Palestinians started with the illegal immigration of settlers under British de facto occupation.

    • MHughes976: "Zinonism’ stands for ‘claims to Jewish rights in Palestine that stop completely short of justifying wrong done to Palestinian."

      Zionism in Palestine stands for claims to Jewish rights to disenfranchise Palestinians by force.

    • Yonah Fredman: "JosephA:
      Zionism is based upon three premises:
      1. Jewish powerlessness has been revealed by recent history to be untenable. Passivity in the face of Jewish powerlessness is unacceptable.
      2. Jewish self emancipation is the best way of remedying powerlessness. (This means Jews need a state, so they can have an army.)
      3. The place for the state should be Israel."

      There is another one:
      0. No assimilation and no intermarriage with Nonjewish woman who don't want to convert.

      Please read this text about radical/fundamental Islam and compare it to Zionism:
      "Islam provides the one and only solution to all questions in this world, from public policy to private conduct. It is not merely a religion, in the Western sense of a system of belief in God. It possesses an immutable law, revealed by God, that deals with every aspect of life, and it is an ideology, a complete system of belief about the organization of the state and the world. This law and ideology can only be implemented through the establishment of a truly Islamic state. The empowerment of Islam, which is God’s plan for mankind, is a sacred end and can be pursued by any means necessary. At various times, these have included persuasion, guile, and violence."

    • echi: "Eljay hasn’t yet received the memo that said voting public of illegal invaders already decided that policy plus genocide, is implementing it and supports it to the tune of >90%."

      I'm afraid to tell you that you didn't receive Eljay's memo.

      A democratic secular state within 48 borders enforced by Jewish settlers upon the Palestinans through war is a firmly antizionist project and neither supremacist nor settler colonialism. That's why they accepted the partition plan and were very eager to carry it out.

      Jews only expelled Nonjews and conquered territories beyond partition borders, because they suddenly mutated into supremacist, colonialist Zionist after they heard voices of rejection by people who don't even exist. It was a catastrophe, but not one they brought upon themselves.

      I don't know exactly what happened and why - you know how secretive Eljay is about it and how he ignores related questions. But If I understand him we just have to answer their cry for redemption of Eretz Israel and then they would transform back into being antizionist. So stop turning the real victims into perpetrators. It's antisemitic! Their involuntary mutation is even internationally recognized!

    • Catalan: "Gaza and the West Bank are on the other hand, according to the same statistics, some of the worst places to live in. I love this situation."

      Sure, Nazis loved, too, how other people suffered under their occupation. And in the case of Israel Zionist even completely acquired Palestinians industries and agriculture in 1948 through war, too.

    • MHughes976 : "It’s been claimed that Israel’s real actions in messing up the Palestinians and the results of those actions exceed what Zionism required."

      From the Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel:
      "WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the

      *** great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream - the redemption of Israel. ***"

      It has ever been about "Eretz Israel" not only the smaller state of Israel. And it is not even the maximalist Zionist position. See this version:

    • Mooser: "How would you arrange that? In this situation, not abstractly."

      I wasn't supporting it. I found the notion silly. But I'm not longer sure If I even understood it.

      Did you know that the creators of the partition plan knew that an Arab state wasn't viable on his own, because most of its industry and the most fertile agricultural production (13 times more was produced by Palestinians) was located in the territory proposed for the Jews? The partition plan was NOT a clear cut seperation into two state but an economic union.

    • eljay: "You are suggesting that their democratic will should include a right to adopt / revert to colonialism and supremacism."

      Not at all, I'm suggesting that if it is THEIR democratic will to prolong occupation, colonialism and supremacism than this is obviously THEIR choice and it was up to them to make this choice. And since international recognition seems to be so important to you I don't see, why they can't continue to make the same choice they made since 1948 as long as the state is internationally recognized.

      Eljay: "The right to keep the states separate or to unify them should be up to the democratic will of the voting publics of those two states."

      So the same goes for the democratic will to prolong occupation, colonialism and supremacism. There is nothing wrong with colonialism and supremacism as long as it leads to the creation and maintainance of Israel. Otherwise it would needed to be dismantled like a major settlement, cause one can't enforce a colony within Palestine or its partition without supremacism and settler colonialism.

      eljay: "There is no incohereny in my anti-Zionist (not “anti-Zionist”) position."

      Your best counter argument so far! So short and precise that it explains why it doesn't even look like one.

      Since I don't think that you are up for this debate I'm going to take a different approach which is more antizionist according to your antizionist standards.

      1.) Your condemnation of Israel's surpremacism and colononialism means the dismantlement of Israel. Because The end of its supremacism and colonialism would mean the withdrawal of all Jewish settlers and their descendants from all of Palestine. One OBVIOUSLY can't impose a settler state upon a country without being supremacist and colonialist.

      2.) In September 1948 Israel annexed the territories beyond 1948 borders:
      1. Any law applying to the whole of the State of Israel shall be deemed to apply to the whole of the area including both the area of the State of Israel and any part of Palestine which the Minister of Defence has defined by proclamation as being held by the Defence Army of Israel.

      Out of the 161 states that recognize Israel de jure 148 states recognized it after this annexation and only 14 before. But the latter didn't withdraw their de jure recognition because of the annexation. And Israel was never condemned for it by the Security Coucil) So all 161 states that de jure recognize Israel recognize it de jure within the green line until a final agreement has been reached.

      Of course if the voters of Israel choose not to come to a final agreement it is their choice.

      See? My position is even more "antizionist" than yours. Lol.

    • Mooser: "“catalan”, I commend you for your effort to reduce that jealousy. You are doing a great job. You seem to have completely eliminated it in relation to you."

      Maybe he is just trying to debunk the myth that Jews as such are intelligent. So far his being very succesful.

    • eljay: "If you say so. I certainly don’t."

      But it's based on the logic of your argument. You wrote: "If the voting publics of Israel and not-Israel choose not to unify their two states into one, that’s their choice.

      Whose else choice is it, if the voting public of Not-Not-Israel chooses to remain supremacist, colonialist and occupy land beyond partition borders? It's their choice if they make this choice, isn't it?

    • Bont: "Talkback, Its not a silly point at all."

      You are actually explaining to Mooser why the point he is making is silly.

    • eljay: "I don’t agree with this but, then, I’m an anti-Zionist and not a “pro-Palestinian activist” like you."

      Rofl, if you were an anti-Zionist they would all sing the Hatikva. You just abuse antizionist arguments like the condemnation of settler colonialism and supremacism to make a case for Israel within 48 borders. Because when it comes to the supremacism and settler colonialism that led to the the creation of Israel you simply whitewash it like a true Zioinst by reasuring everyone that Palestine was partitioned [which it wasn't], Israel accepted [which was lip service] and then internationally recognized [like to other regimes that followed a supremacist colonialist agenda in the last century and were successfully dismantled].

      You even make the claim that Israel wouldn't be longer Zionist if it would abandon its supremacism and settler colonialism. As if there was a need for a state of Israel for Non- or Post-Zionist. And you also claim that the two states could be even reunited, if that was the decision of their voters. True, why not, if Israel would be Non-Zionist, right? But if all of your arguments were honest than you could direcly make the truly anti-Zionist case for the one state solution given the fact that Jews right now are a minority in Palestine even without the refugees whose right to return you demand. But you don't, cause you are an anti-Zionist, right?

      When you say that you are not a "pro-Palestinian activist" it simply means that you don't want to deal with the fact that the creation of Israel was a violation of the right to self determination of the citizens of Palestine and the territorial integrity of Palestine. Zionist didn't even have a majory mandate of their future citizens and need to ethnically cleanse the nonjewish majority of the citizens of Palestine.

      I know, when ever someone questions your "anti-Zionist" position to point out its incohereny and in my opinion fundamental dishonesty you have to either ignore the questions or response with your "Sure, what ever you say" idiocy. What will it be this time? Oh, the suspense ...

    • yonah: "Quoting gandhi to a jew contemplating the shoah is a variety of sadism."

      I quoted Ghandi to show that he was against Zionism. Then a Zionist stepped in to exploit the shoa and the accusation of antisemitism (aka the ultimate Hasbara trolling) by quoting Ghandi's advice he gave in 1938 to Jews about voluntary suffering.

      If you are interested in real sadism when it comes to contemplating about Nazis and the Shoa as G-d's punishment against Jewish assimilation then enjoy Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat's wisdom and the two parts of "Holocaust -- where was G-d?" on youtube. Watch the second part after the first one suddenly stops with an error.

    • Eljay: "If the voting publics of Israel and not-Israel choose not to unify their two states into one, that’s their choice."

      And if the voting public of not-not-Israel decides to remain supremacist, colonialist and occupy land beyond partition borders it is its choice, too.

    • Mooser: "That was my point. It doesn’t magically get any bigger or get any more water or resources when you call it “two states”."

      Silly point. Do both state have access to the same resources?

    • eljay: "Jews are not entitled to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”."

      Is a group of foreign settlers whose immigration is enforced upon the native population entitled to create a state within a state against the wishes of the native population and despite the fact that this group neither intents to represent the majority of the citizens of the newly created state nor to consider them to be nationals, because they have a different faith?

      If yes, please explain.

    • Yes catalan. Now make a list of what Jews have done to Nonjews in Palestine and still are doing to them.

    • Eljay: "“Jewish self rule” was not and is not a “necessity” and Palestinians were not and are not required to suffer for it."

      Eljay: "Nope , ..."

      According to you "Jewish self rule was not and is not a “necessity” and Palestinians were not and are not required to suffer for it". The end of Jewish self rule is the end of Israel. So it seems that you like Israel to be dismantled.

      Eljay: "... that’s your ... thing."

      I recently told you that it is up to the Palestinians what they want. At least try to be a little honest.

    • jon66: "Talkback,
      There was no risk of the genocide of the Indian nation by the British. The British were not calling for the destruction of the Indians."

      Ghandi advocated the idea of voluntary suffering. Is ist antisemitic, because he not only adressed Indians but also Jews? Do you prefer Ben Gurion's “there’s a big catastrophe – and that’s power” (1942)?

    • jon66: "... the peaceful co-existence of both Jews and Palestinians ..."

      Yes, for example the Zionist creation of a state through war and a Jewish majority through expulsion.

    • eljay: "“Jewish self rule” was not and is not a “necessity” and Palestinians were not and are not required to suffer for it."

      I think you only will be pleased, if Israel is dismantled. *cough*

    • Nathan: "Obviously, that is the position of Hamas in the here and now: Jews may live under Islamic rule, but it is forbidden for Jews to be the rulers (or to have their own state)".

      Name one single country with any other religion than Islam which allows a Jewish minority to create a state within this country, especially since "Jewish" wouldn't be even a non discriminating term for a citizenship.

      Nathan: "You didn’t say that the quote from the Hamas Charter is positive or negative in your eyes. My impression is that it’s fine with you (but correct me if I’m wrong). You didn’t say that the quote from the Hamas Charter is positive or negative in your eyes."

      I was simply quoting different articles to counter your claim that Hamas sees Jews as such as an enemies. But you have to shift the issue, don't you?

      Nathan: " It’s called in Arabic a “hudna”, and quite often Hamas spokesmen declare their willingness for a “10 year hudna” with the Zionist enemy based on the 1967 borders."

      Sounds more honest than to sign an armistice agreement and then invade these countries in 1956 and 1967 to illegaly annex some of their territories.

      Nathan: "However, at the same time, it is quite clear that the entire country must revert back to Palestinian rule."

      Sounds like Zionism that wants to revert back the entire country to Jewish rule. But it isnt. "Palestinians" doesn't refer only to Nonjews. "Palestinians" are a constutive people which includes natives Jews (and their descendants).

    • jon66: "So in a case like the Liberty, ...

      When Mondoweiss published the article "Israeli paper investigates 50-year-ago attack on ‘USS Liberty,’ while US papers leave it in the letters column" where all the evidence was laid out you dodn' post a single comment!

      Now you are trying to highjack this topic in hope that your nonsense will face the less resistance. And you accuse me of "interpretating facts" motivated by Anti-Zionism. Well interpret this:

      Israeli fighters intentionally jammed 5 (five!) US emergency frequencies and not a single Egpytian.

    • jon66: "Ghandi’s advice. Don’t take up arms. Embrace your death.- I don’t think he was too much of a fan of the Jews. He foresaw the genocide and counseled prayer."

      You obviously don't know that he preached the same to his own people.

      And the issue is the conflation of being against a certain national ideologiy vs. hatred towards humans of a certain group.

    • JustJessetr: "Human rights are for everyone."

      That must be the reason why you unconditionally support the right to return also for Palestinians.

    • Nathan: "The Palestinians are in conflict with the Jews. You could take a peek at the Hamas Charter that was published in August 1988 ... Actually, in this quote, they are defining all the Jews of the world as their enemy (not just the Jews living in Israel), supposedly based on a quote from the prophet."

      What do you mean by "they"? The charter was written by a lonesome loony and nobody in the Hamas has ever refered to it.

      What about these quotes:
      Article 6: "Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights. In the absence of Islam, conflict arises, oppression reigns, corruption is rampant and struggles and wars prevail."

      Article 32: "Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect"

      What abouth the actual Hamas charter?
      Hamas presents new charter accepting a Palestine based on 1967 borders

      Did Zionist revoke the Biltmore Program (1942) or the declaration where it says:
      "Our call goes out the the Jewish people all over the world to rally to our side in the task of
      immigration and development and to stand by us in the great struggle for the fulfillment of the dream of
      generations - the redemption of Israel.

      Nathan: "It’s been very clear since 1929 that the Palestinians see the Jews as their enemy."

      Nope. Much earlier. When it became public what Zionist planned to do in Palestine and when the first High Commissioner of Palestine was a Zionist Jew.

      It seems that you are trying to shift from hostility towards Jews because of Zionism towards hostility towards Jews as Jews. You have to obscure that what happened was a reaction to Zionism not to Jews as being Jews.

    • jon66: "Now either the attack was or was not accidental, but which fact you choose to accept is certainly influenced by motivation."

      Yep, by the motivation to either tell or to hide the truth. Having read all the facts the only question that is left is, if this was sanctioned by the US (presidency) or not.

    • Mahatmi Ghandi, 1938:

      "It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. ...

      And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. ...

      Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth."

    • Nathan: "The Palestinians are in a conflict with the Jews."

      To be in conflict with Jews doesn't mean that it is antisemitic. Because on the one hand Jews might have started the conflict by declaring that they some way or another are going to violate the right to self determination of the citizens of the mandated state of Palestine. And on the other hand even if Palestinians hated Jews it doesn't necesserely mean that they hate them for simply BEING Jews, but that they hate them because of what Jews as Jews DID or still DO to them.

      Nathan: "Are there anti-Zionist activists (in the west) who are motivated by anti-Semitic prejudice?"

      Who cares if their activisim doesn't express antisemitism? See what I did there? Now its up to you to define antisemitism.

  • 'Transferring' Palestinian citizens of Israel to a Palestinian state goes from outrage to Netanyahu policy
    • Jack Green: "I told you what settlers believe.
      I did not say that they are entitled to take land by force."

      I'm asking you again. SO WHAT? If they believe this? It takes to claims to make one argument Jack:

      1.) The believe this 2.) AND therefore ...

      Therefore what Jack? What legal right does a believe create?

    • Jack Green: "Suppose land is for sale in Israel & that 2 people have made equal highest offers. One is a Jew & the other is a Christian. The Jew says that he should be allowed to buy the land because the land belonged to his ancestors who were dragged off their land by Roman soldiers to be slaves in Europe.
      I think that the Jew should be allowed to buy that land."

      You don't have to remind us how lucky the world is that you are not a judge.

    • jon s: "The quote from Herzl is way out of context. He wrote it in June 1895 when he thought that the Jewish state would probably be established in Argentina ."

      Aaaah, and then he fundamentally changed his opinion when he though that it could be established in Palestine where he dreamt about being the "vanguard of culture against barbarianism".

    • Jack Green: "In other words, no Arab should be forced to move.

      Furthermore, even trying to entice Palestinians to leave is not part of Zionism. It was what Herzl wanted, but it’s not an intrinsic part of Zionism."

      Again, Herzl: "... the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor ..." Sounds very enticing to Nonjews ìn Palestine, right?

      Wikipedia says: "Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel"

      How could immigration and homeland establishment have been achieved without using force against the people of Palestine?

    • So what Jack Green? Do you actually realize that it takes two claims to make an argument?

      So they BELIIVE this AND therefore are entitled to do what based on their BELIEVE? Use force to act out their BELIEVES? Than they are not different from islamistic terrorists.

      And what happened between this statement of yours and your "Whether or not the Bible is fiction ..." before? Were you recruited by members of the 'Jewish State in the Levante'?

    • Jack Green: "To become a Jew, you display knowledge of certain things & promise to do certain things.
      To become an American citizen, you display knowledge of certain things & promise to do certain things."

      Another straw man argument. It's not about how one becomes a Jew or an American citizen. It is about the fact that Jewish is not a citizenship and American and Palestinian citizenship is neither an ethnicity nor a faith.

    • Jack Green: "Modern deeds can also be fiction or forged."

      Another straw argument.

      Jack Green: "That’s one reason why we need judges."

      Yes, and that's one reason why they would never mistake a text like the Bible for an official and authentic land registry.

Showing comments 2900 - 2801