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 3400 - 3301

  • Facing serious damage to its image, Israel must smear its critics as anti-Semites
    • Nathan: "So, Mr Greenstein thinks that Israel should never have come into existence, and he wishes for her to drop dead. In such a point of view, he is not criticizing Israel. He doesn’t think that Israel should change her policy or improve herself. He has no suggestion for an Israeli policy that he would approve of. So, he’s not criticizing anything. He’s hostile to Israel, and it’s obvious."

      To be more precise: He can't criticize Israel, because its Apartheid supremacism and expulsion of the Nonjew is inherent in the ideological fundament of its "national character".

      South Africa could and did change. Same with Germany. But Israel ... nope. Still the wish to abolish a supremacist regime has nothing to do with racism ("antisemitim") or hatred, but with justice, equality and humanity (the opposite of racism). Three aspects that are totally missing from any person who after four requests can't formulate a single universal value or priniciple on which the Jewish Apartheid Junta was created. You know that I'm talking about you, Nathan, don't you?

      Btw. this is the fifth request and counting.

    • That's Zionist BS bingo. You have to make 5 of these claims in 5 consecutive sentences (or comments) to win the game.

  • What MLK's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' tells us about Ahed Tamimi in a cold Israeli cell
    • Jackdaw: "@talkhack"

      You nearly got it right, Jackdaw. It's Talkback. If you get closer you will be ready to go to primary school. Allthough it might be quicker to train a monkey.

      Jackdaw: "Your ... pitiful."

      After you learn to write my name correctly we will start to teach you how to formulate a counter argument instead of shifting completely the point of issue and creating a straw man. With your "condition" this might take a decade. But be patient. Overcoming Zionism without strong medication is tough.

    • Jackdaw:"@talkbackside"

      Nope, it still is Talkback. Try again. I promise you that you will become intelligent one day. Don't give up. Even if it hurts your brain.

      Jackdaw: "A decade preceded by a decade of Arab terrorism."

      There was no such thing before Jewish terrorism. There were several progroms against innocent Jews because of Zionism. But that's not terrorism. Look up the definition. (But don't rush and first try to learn my name.)

      Jackdaw: "A violation of territorial integrity that most of the world accepts today as the best chance for peace, a ‘two-State solution’."

      Understandably. To safe at least a minimum of Palestinian rights from being violated by Jewish settler terrorists and their Apartheid Junta.

      Jackduh: "You do want peace, don’t you."

      You don't know what peace is, do you. It certainly isn't supremacism and the violation of international law and human rights.

    • Jackdaw: "The fatwa demanding jihad was first proclaimed in November 1947, BEFORE the civil war, and BEFORE any massacres and BEFORE an expulsions."

      To be exact. On the day that the violation of the territorial integrity of Palestine was recommened by the UN after nearly a decade of Jewish terrorism.

      Jackdaw: "To wit; your self defence claim is frivolous."

      Sure, only Jews are allowed to defend themselves against terrorism and the violation of the territorial integrity of their Apartheid Junta. As only they are allowed to transform a rejected UN proposal into using war and expulsion to implement it.

    • Jackdaw: "The words used by Balfour, and codified by the League of Nations, were, “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine."

      Balfour never lost a word about Palestine being THE (exclusive) home OF the Jewish people. He wrote about the establishment of A national home IN Palestine FOR the Jewish people. And a "national home" is not a state. Just read what the Jewish Zionist Norman Bentwich, the first General Attorney of Palestine, wrote about the term "national home":

      "It signifies a territory in which a people, without receiving rights of political sovereignty, has nevertheless a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing its moral, social, and intellectual ideas."

      So according to you a state in Palestine or Palestine as a state for the Jews was not "codified by the League of Nations".

      Jackdaw: "Like it or lump it."

      Grow up.

    • Jon66: "Or, he was an educated man who had traveled to the area, was an expert on human rights, and was a Zionist."

      Or maybe he was misinformed by Zionists about their ethnic cleansing and keeping Nonjews under military law in closed enclaves until 1966 within the green line and under the same permit system they intruduced to the Westbank in 1967.

    • Jackdaw: "What would you call the ideology that declared a holy war on the Jews in 1948? Non-racist?"

      Self defence against settler colonial terrorists. But you won't understand this with your ridiculous on the "Jews" obsession.

    • Jackdaw: "King supported Israel in her struggle against Egypt in 1956.
      During Israel’s 1956 war with Egypt, he wrote: “There is something in the very nature of the universe which is on the side of Israel in its struggle with every Egypt.”"

      So King supported Israel's war of aggression against Egypt and calls it a "struggle". What a nutcase.

      "While King’s followers were largely Black, his donor base was white and largely Jewish. As such, he was sensitive to their concerns as may be seen in a question from one of the rabbis asking if donations to the movement had dropped off as American Jews became increasingly alienated from the civil rights struggle. King understood that at that time, Israel was rapidly becoming a defining element of Jewish identity. That’s what informs much of the glowing remarks he delivered here."

    • Jackdaw: "Wanting to return to your home makes you a racist?"

      Calling it "your" home does. And to "return" "you" must have been gone. Unfortunately until today no Zionist historian could prove that any of "you" went away. But that is not going to prevent "you" from repeating the same BS lie over and over again, does it? Being racist and a liar seems to go hand in hand.

  • What Canadians can do for Palestine this February
    • Nathan: "The charter is clear that the entire country from the river to the sea must be liberated."

      Yep, like the plattform of the ruling party in Israel. And let's be honest. There is not a single party in Israel who dreams about a souvereign Palestininan state.

      Nathan: "Yes, you can find many quotes in which the PLO recognized Israel (past tense). However, you won’t find any statement in which it is said that the PLO recognizes Israel (present tense). They do NOT recognize Israel, period."

      Yeah, sure. That must be the reason why some are thinking about suspending the recognition of the Jewish Apartheid Junta until it recognizes the State of Palestine.

      Do you need to distract from the fact that the Jewish Apartheid Junta has NEVER recognized the State of Palestine? Not even in th past. Period?

  • Ahed Tamimi should stay in prison because she might slap again -- Israeli ethicist
    • DaBakr: "Ahed commit acts of resistance that are specifically committed to create scenes making the IDF look as badly as they possibly can."

      ROFL. So the IDF doesn't act as badly as they possibly can, but Ahed has the power to create scenes that make them look this way and the IDF is the real victim. Besides shooting her relative just moments ago and killing another in this year.

      Btw DaBakr, I don't want to create scenes which make you look as disgusting as possible.

  • Israeli Jews will never accept Palestinians as equals -- Klutznick, chair of Americans for Peace Now
    • Yonah: "... kicking out all pre 1917 Jews from all of Palestine (which was the PLO charter pledge for the longest time) ..."

      You are lying:
      Article 4: The Palestinian identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic; it is transmitted from parents to children ...
      Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

    • Yonah: "When will the Palestinians begin a campaign to get citizenship in jerusalem?"

      15,000 Palestinians have requested this since 2003, fewer than 6,000 were approved.

    • Meanwhile Israel is looking for peace while supporting a two state solution. NOT:
      Netanyahu's party votes to annex West Bank, increase settlements

    • Yonah: "unless it is the one state of pre 1967, that is: jews leave and we get our country back."

      Rubbish. Not even in 1947 Palestinians proposed such a "solution" but a democratic state, based on majority ruling and minority rights. At the same time Ben Gurion proposed to put Palestine under Jewish "mandate" (aka control) and delay Palestine's indepedence until Jew's acquired a significant majority. When he was asked what he would do if the Nonjews wouldn't consent he answered that he would use force if the UN accepted this plan.

    • Your book is a must read!

      And just ask any Zionist if she or he thinks that the Palsestinians should have exactly the same rights as Jews as reflected in their claims. They will fail, because they know that their ideoloy is only racist and supremacist.

    • Catalan: "Despite the fact that the bds wishes me to suffer and in some cases to even die ..."

      Do you really believe that your monstrous lies become less see through if you accuse BDS of acting against 'you' as 'you' act against Nonjews in Palestine?

  • New Orleans adopts divestment measure proposed by BDS campaigners
    • "the City of New Orleans has social and ethical obligations to take steps to avoid contracting with or investing in corporations whose practices consistently violate human rights, civil rights or labor rights, or corporations whose practices egregiously contradict efforts to create a prosperous, educated, healthy and equitable society."

      Well, if this doesn't sound anti-Israel and maybe even antisemitic I don't know what does, right? But let's wait for conformation from the usual supporters of the only and only anti-Nonjew Apartheid state of the world. Maybe New Orleans will be the next place where fascist Zionists infringe the right to free speech and divest.

  • Privileged American Jews are safe thanks to 'Israel's might'-- Roger Cohen
    • dimadok: "Israel as the national home is justified to be viewed as the safe haven for any Jewish person"

      That doesn't give Jews or any other people the right to immigrate into a country without the consent of its indigenous population, take over this country through war and expell the majority of the indigenous population. Settler colonialism is a crime against humanity.

    • Great comment as usual and a great source.

    • Naftush: "The homeland existed; what was needed was a practical repatriation program."

      In other words. Enforced emigration under colonial gun to make room for foreign settler without the consent of the native population. Of course you would never support such an injustice and violation of the right to self determination. And it is interesting how well you describe the situation for Palestinian refugees and I'm glad that you support their repatriation instead of being a racist supremacist Zionist shmock.

  • New Israel Fund's Daniel Sokatch exposes the bankruptcy of liberal Zionism
    • DaBakr: "The whole conflict has long since become anything but an unbiased affair."

      Well, what do you expect if settler colonialsm has to be justified.

      DaBakr: "It proved how stupid people are Ann’s how easily they are manipulated that they either don’t care or don’t realize that the Tamimis lives are always ‘cameras on’ whenever the IDF is involved because they never want to miss an opportunity to blacken israels eye, which is their goal, and right many believe."

      To claim that it's not the IDF's behaviour that blackens Israels eye, but the fact that it is documented fpr self protection really shows how stupid peple are and how easily they are manipulated because they only care for settler colonialism, and the racism and violence which is inherent and has led to the creation of Israel and its seven decades long of history to put Nonjews of Palestine under martial law and Apartheid.

      DaBakr: "It’s not really a conflict, is a war."

      Exactly. That's true for every form of settler colonialism.

  • From Spinoza to Vilkomerson, Jewish voices for peace have long been banned-- by Jews
    • jon s: "Talkback, Yes, I’ve read it, thanks . As I said ,”deserves death ” is not to be taken literally. Noone is actually tried sentenced and executed, according to the Rambam himself."

      "obligated to die" simply means that he is not going to be executed by decapitation which is the usual capital punishent for gentiles. Sanhendrin 59a asks for "stoning" the gentile to death.

    • jon s: "I tried to explain that the quote provided should not be taken literally."

      So you haven't read the Hilchot Melachim uMilhamoteyhem (10:9) either?

    • So you haven't read the Hilchot Melachim uMilhamoteyhem (10:9)?

    • jon s: "North Cascadian produced a quote purporting to show that non-Jews studying the Talmud are subject to the death penalty, he didn’t say that there’s such a “law in the Talmud”. You ought to improve your comprehension skills. There really is no such “law in the Talmud”."

      Ok. That's enough.

      "Mesora: Based on Talmud Sanhedrin 59a (top of page) and Maimonides' Laws of Kings (Chap. 10, Law 9) a Gentile may not learn Torah except for his 7 Noachide laws, punishable by death. ... It should be understood why the punishment is so severe, if a gentile learns Torah other than what applies to his seven Noachide Laws. By doing so, the Gentile then blurs the lines of who is a “Torah Authority”, and this done en masse, will destroy Torah, as other Gentiles not fit to teach, will proliferate ignorant rulings. Only by the Rabbi/student system discussed in the JewishTimes these past two week, is the Torah insured from falling into the hands of those without proper training. "

      "And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty; as it is stated: “Moses commanded us a law [torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.

      The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as an inheritance, this prohibition is included in the prohibition of robbery, as a gentile who studies Torah robs the Jewish people of it. According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as betrothed, as the spelling of the Hebrew word for betrothed [me’orasa], is similar to that of the word for inheritance [morasha], the punishment of a gentile who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning. "

    • DaBakr: "Large numbers of the Israeli left are living in a bubble from the past. "

      Yes, the fail to realize that they have never been "left", but only a left wing in Israel's right extremist supremacist settler colonialism.

    • Paranam Kid : "@Talkback: I fully agree with you, you make valid points"

      Me? That was Ghandi. Every single word. I only wrote the last sentence "Well, they miserably failed.".

    • Ghandi in his own words:

      "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence."

      "He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor."

      The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me.
      The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews
      have hankered after return to Palestine.

      Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. 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. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French.

      If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of
      the Jews. ...

      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. They should seek to convert the Arab heart.

      The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart... They will find the world opinion in their favor in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.

      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."

      Well, they miserably failed.

  • What Palestinians can learn from South African anti-apartheid struggle
    • Emet: "It’s quite simple Talkback."

      I smell simplistic Hasbara coming.

      Emet: "Jews are indigenous to this land."

      Not those who came as settlers. You even have to pervert the term "indigenous". Those who are indigenous were those who automatically acquired Palestinian citizenship in 1925, because they were former Ottoman subjects who were habitually resident in what became mandated Palestine.

      Emet: "If you don’t accept this then we will never be able to agree on anything. You will need to decide one day that you are open and willing to learn a slightly different history of the events to the one that is causing your brain to fuse."

      Emet, I'm intersted in emet, not in your ludicrous propaganda and perversion of history and words.

      Emet: "The Arabs are not going to support a Jewish state anywhere."

      ROFL. They have supported the Jewish Apartheid Junta so much without any equivalent response that some of them even propose to suspend the recognition of the junta until it recognizes the State of Palestine.

      Emet: "And please spare us your Zionist supremacist crap."

      LOL. Me? The Zionist supremacist crap is not coming from me, but from you. One Example:
      Claiming that Jewish settlers are (more) indigenous to Palestine while Palestianians, including the refugees aren't. But we all know that you won't spare us more of your Zionist supremacist crap, don't we?

      Just re-read your whole pathetic comment. Your pathetic claims from your former comment just imploded. You could only resort to more lies.

    • We are not amazed about you obsession to project your own hate unto others. We know that it comes with your racism.

    • Sheqer: "When the Blacks were offered a split in the country, whereby they would receive a majority of the land, they turned down the offer. Hang on, this never happened in South Africa. It happened in Palestine."

      Exactly. How can you "offer" someone to split their country? Who made this "offer"? What right did he have to make this "offer"? What was the result of a referendum regarding this "offer"?

      Sheqer: "When the Blacks refused to split and share the country, they launched an all-out war against the Whites and had all their brothers from neighboring countries launch an all-out war against the Whites. Hang on, this also did not happen in South Africa. Silly me, it happened in Palestine"

      You are lying as usual. It was the Jewish Agency and its terrorist that started a war in the late 1930s against the mandatory and the Nonjewish population. It was them who started in April 1948 to conquer land beyond the borders that were recommended in the partition plan. It was them who started an all-out war while the Arab states excepted a US brokered truce in April 1948. The Arab armies only entered Palestine after the Jewish Agency declared statehood in clear violation of Security Council resolution 46 and even against the partition plan that was put on ice if not abandoned and when they saw that Palestinians were massacred and expelled large scale.

      Sheqer: "Before the end of apartheid, the Whites and the Blacks met not too long ago and the Whites made another offer to the Blacks. This was not as good as the first offer but a highly generous offer never the less. Hang on, this never happened in South Africa. It did happen at Camp David of course."

      Now you are not only lying about the "generous offer" in Camp David, which was nothing else than a controlled Bantustan in less than 80% of Palestine, but also making a wrong fake comparision, because the Zionist Apartheid Junta never ever offered to the Palestinians to end its Apartheid.

      Sheqer: "The bottom line is the two conflicts have nothing in common."

      Of ourse not. The Apartheid settler entity in Palestine wants to get rid of its indegenious population.

      Sheqer: "The Palestinians have nothing to learn from the Blacks. If this is not enough, the Palestinians are not deserving of their support. The Palestinians are responsible for their own shit they are in. Stop blaming others. The entire Middle East is full of war, conflict and bloodshed. ITS NOT ISRAEL’S FAULT!!!!!!!!!"

      Sure Sheqer, the Jews will never forgive the Palestinians for Zionist settler colonialism, the destruction and conquest of Palestine, seven decades of martial law imposed upon Nonjews and putting the rest of Palestine under siege and blockade.

  • Ahed Tamimi offers Israelis a lesson worthy of Gandhi
  • Finally a 'New York Times' columnist says liberal Zionism is dead
    • Phillip Weiss: "... but she knows that what Israel is practicing is apartheid ..."

      She never claimed that Israel was practicing Apartheid. You quoted her out of context. She claimed that it would practice Apartheid IF Israel abandons the two state solution and went for a one state solution in which Palestinians in the Westbank would be only stateless residents of an autonomy with limited local administrative sovereignty instead becoming Israeli citizens with full rights and political represention.

      She doesn't realize that Israel is allready practicing Apartheid by denying Palestinian refugees to return and regain citizenship, full rights and political representation.

    • Sheqer: "Before the 1967 war, there were no settlements .yet the Arabs and Palestinians declared war on the Jewish state."

      Sheqer is just repeating his lies. The first Zionist settlement was in 1878. And it was not the Arabs and Palestinians who started a terror campagne in 1930s which transformed into a full scale war to conquer Palestine, expell its Nonjewish natives raze more than 400 villages and keep the rest under martial law until 1966.

      Sheqer: "The Palestinians have also shown no willingness to share with the Jewish people."

      Another lie. They did until Zionist arrived who showed no willingness to share the land, but a willingness to take it over and "transform" it into a "Jewish state".

      Sheqer: "They, therefore, are the main party responsible for the situation they are now in."

      Sure. Zionist will never forget Palestinians for the Zionist settler colonialism and the crimes against humanity that came and still come with it.

      Anything else you need to pervert in the name of Zonist settler colonialism and your beloved Apartheid Junta?

  • Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as capital of 'Jewish people' is assault on my religion -- Queens rabbi
    • Yakkov Shapiro: "It legitimates Zionism to the Zionists. They are able to convince themselves of the righteousness of Zionism by convincing themselves that all criticism of it is motivated by anti-Semitism."

      Spot on! And all of your comments are precious!

    • Naftush: "“Zionism has everything to do with Jewish religious beliefs because these beliefs are national at their root."

      ROFL. Then why did all the rabbies reject Herzl's dream before Zionism corrupted them?

    • Boris: "This is my last comment here, which sums everything up:

      Losers, you can’t face reality!"

      Yep, that's why you are the last man standing. Let's see how long it will take for you to "return" or write under a different name.

    • Keith: "Are you concerned with the 6 million non-Jewish Congolese Africans killed by Zionist posterboy genocidaire Paul Kagame? "

      Well, "Jewish Neocons Adopt Rwandan Dictator, Kagame"

      And Kagame in his own words: “To be [in Israel] it’s like coming home,” the Rwandan president said.

    • Meanwhile Israel’s Rabbinate reject non-Orthodox streams of Judaism, which comprise more than 70 percent of American Jews.

    • Mooser: "Every person who is Jewish is a convert. Every single child has to be converted to Judaism."


    • Boris: "At the end you will be treated like the rest of us…"

      Do you believe that this treatment will be worse than how you treated and still treat Palestinians or less worse?

    • Keith: "More than 60 million, Boris."

      Well, it works every time – sooner or later Zionists reveal themselves as deniers of crimes against humanity.

    • Kaisa of Finland: "As a non-Jew, it is not up to me to define what makes a person Jewish."

      And it is absolutely irrelevant. Only Zioinists are obsessed with this question, because they think that being Jewish leads to acquiring rights in former mandated Palestine that Nonjews shouldn't have.

      Including the right to expell, denationalize, dispossess and disenfrenchize Nonjews. That's the core believe of the supremacist ideology of Zionism and its settler colonialism.

    • Boris: "Please spare me your righteous indignation. Nowhere I am anti-Gentiles."

      Well, there is on easy way to find out if you are or not.

      Just repeat this sentence:

      I, Boris, think that Nonjews have exactly the same rights in Palestine as Jews have or claim to have, including the right to return to their homeland and an independent state in former mandated Palestine.

      I'm expecting your racist silence.

    • Boris: "See, backtalk, ..."

      Yes, Dislexic?

      Boris: "wars have consequences."

      Settler colonialism, too.

      Boris: "Arabs lost the wars that they had started, ..."

      What wars have they started? Zionist declared war on Palestine when they declared that they would turn it into a Jewish state. When the British stopped supporting this policy in 1939 Jewish terrorists started a war against the Briish and the Nonjewish Palestinians in Palestine. When both sides were offered a US brokored truce in the end of April 1948 the Jewish side had allready conquered areas outside the partion plan borders and expelled its population. And it rejected that truce and instead opted to create a state through war and acuire its territory through war. Nonjewish Palestinians didn't need a war, Zionist Jews did to prevent Palestine to be released into independence in one single peace. 1956 Israel started a waer. 1967 Israel startet a war. 1973 Israel wasn't attacked but Egypt and Syria tried to liberate their own territory occupied by Israel.

      "... they refused to sign any peace deals as recent as 2001.

      They righlty refused to subjugate to Israel's violation of international and human rights law and what Zionist call "peace deal" which does not even include a souvereign and liberated State of Palestine.

      Boris: "Now, unfortunately, they ALL have to pay."

      That's what the Nazis said to regarding Jews.

      Boris: "Israel would gladly give them self-rule, ..."

      Your wording is absolutely revealing. It proves exactly what position Israel has. A violator of the right to self determination. A true colonial Aparheid state which only wants to "give them self-rule" in other words a Bantustan.
      Btw. what was wrong with the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, "Boris"?

      Boris: "... but the history shows that they are still hope to destroy the only Jewish state in their midst, so, until they grow up, the situation will continue."

      What history actually shows is that Israel not only destroyed 80% of Palestine, but that it is hoping to destroy the rest of it and that they will never stop even if Palestinians outgrow them even more and their infantile hasbarats.

      And it is telling that you don't have anything to say about the fact that Jews have keep about 5,000,000 million Palestinians expelled and denationalized only to maintain a junta dominated by Jews and that this amounts to the Crime of Apartheid.

      And it is also telling that you can't answer the question what the difference between hate and your accusation of hate is, because you know that there's no difference at all.

      Boris: "Send me your picture, I will tell you if you look Jewish….",fl_lossy/t_Article2016_Control/215679

      Need to measure their skulls and noses, too, Dr. Boris?

    • Boris: "Can’t argue with a woman."

      Not only a racist, but also a mysogonist ...

    • Boris: "Well, walkie-talkie, Jews haters claimed that we poison wells and spread black plague, Nazis claimed that we as subhuman, you and your crowd claim that the only Jewish state practices aparteid.

      What’s a difference?"

      The difference is about 5,000,000 Palestinians that Jews keep expelled and denationalized only to maintain a junta dominated by Jews. And that amounts to the Crime of Apartheid.

      My turn. What's the difference between hate and your accusation of hate?

    • No Boris, I'm not going to ignore that you let yourself be defined by Nazis. But I'm going to ignore that you claim that BDS does the same, because it calls for equal rights of Jews and Nonjews. Something that you (or Nazis) can't support.

    • Yes Boris, continue to let the Nazis view define you!

    • Again, his name is not David Shapiro, but Yaakov Shapiro. Phillip Weiss simply made a mistake.

    • Annie, there is no Rabbi "David" Shapiro. This is Rabbi Yaacov/Yaakov Shapiro from True Torah Jews.

      Here's another video (Shapiro enters after two minutes):
      Has Zionism Hijacked Judaism. - Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro

  • Israel issues BDS blacklist against 20 organizations-- 'badge of honor,' Munayyer says
    • DaBakr: "@mst
      Oh right. Like I’m really going to take an EI piece (the website that spreads half of the lies told about Israel and shares them far and wide so it appears like the stories are being put out by credible sources other then EI linked entities."

      ROFL, right. So which lies did EI tells about Israel by refering to a 2017 report one can download from

      Don't chicken out this time! (Oh, I know you will, lol.)

    • DaBakr: "Do you want Israel Jews to have any sovereignty as Jews. Do you want the majority population to be Arab and the Jews become a minority?"

      Do you want to keep Nonjews expelled? What is the actual crime against humanity?

    • What's even more funny that you just describe your own reaction to BDS.

    • "“To attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism,” Francis told a delegation from the World Jewish Congress (WJC). "

      So to attack Palestinians is hatred/racism against Palestinians and an outright attack on mandate Palestine in 1948 or the State of Palestine today is also hatred/racism.

      Interesting. Highly stupid, but interesting. Just another Zionist idiot. There, I said it.

    • An anti-Apartheid movement is going crazy because it has been BLACKLISTED by the Apartheid state? You must be pretty delusional. This just supports their cause, because the Apartheid Junta lost another chance to fake being a democracy.

    • Yes, Jackdaw. We allready know that something in your psyche makes you forget Israel's occupation and that there's no other way to enter Palestine.

  • Haass and Kristof can't cross the Zionist Rubicon
  • Stop talking about Ahed Tamimi's hair
    • Btw, where are all the Jewish "liberal" females who allegedly stand up for justice and equality? Oh wait, Ahed is not Jewish. Nothing to gain from it.

    • Say DaBakr, how much bravery and brainwashing does it need for an Israeli soldier to shoot a Nonjewish teen in the head? Or does being a cowardly scumbag comes natural with a supremacist ideology followed by a sick society?

  • Why I am not at the MLA
  • Haaretz smears the Tamimi family to counter worldwide solidarity with 16-year-old Ahed
  • If you genuinely back the Palestinian cause, you must support the right of return
    • DaBakr: "Right of return is doomed unless there is some equal action that compensates the approximately equal amount of Jews kicked, forced or coerced out of Arab/muslim lands between the 1920s and 1950s."

      DaBakr perverting the right to return as usual. You will never find him arguing that Jews, too, should have a right to return to "Arab/muslim" lands. He and his racist Apartheid Junta needs them to be kicked, forced and coerced out forever. As he and his racist Apartheid Junta needs the Palestinians to be kicked, forced and coerced out forever. Couldn't be more racist, inhumane and despicable than this.

    • You're welcome. And there are only "wdr"'s in the Zionist camp. ;)

    • His criticism of those who NEITHER support a two state solution based on UN resolutions NOR a right to return but claim to support Palestinians is neither interesting nor very strange.

    • Mooser: "Well, well, well, look at who is calling Breaking the Silence “useful idiots”"

      Here's a bigger, more dishonest picture. jon66 always doubts the negative intention of Israeli soldiers when they kill Palestinan civilians. But as soon as soldiers come out and admit their guilt and the crimes they commit against Palestinias he calls them "useful idiots."

      As he does with B'Tselem. The source he quotes to pervert its meaning and to justify soldier crimes and deligitimize Palestinian resistance against occupation soldiers.

    • RoHa: "Since at that time (as at every other time) Jews were universally hated and persecuted (even by people who didn’t know what Jews were) it seems odd that some people would stop hating and voluntarily become Jews."

      Your assumption that Jews were UNIVERSALLY hated and persecuted is false. Judaism has a history of proselytisim.

    • Yonah: "I accept the desire of the Palestinians kicked out in 47-48 and later to return. But this acceptance does not translate into support.

      Those of us who have spent time in israel and who have close friends and relatives in israel adjust ourselves to the political realities on the ground. "

      No replace "Palestinians" with "Jews", "47-48" with "1939-1945" and "Israel" with "Germany".

      Oh, the good old brown-shirt-test. Works every time.

    • Robert D. Brooks: "How many returnees?"

      As much as they want to exercise this right.

      Robert D. Brooks: "How many generations qualify? "

      All of them. They all have refugee status.

      The rest of our questions can be worked out by the people who are specialized in incorporating Jewish immigrants and creating settlements for them. Do you think that they will think a second, if as many Jews were knocking on their doors?

    • wdr: "The “right of return” only applies if at all to those who left in 1948, not to their descendants, who are citizens of whatever country they live in."

      WRONG. You just made that up.

      wde: "Refugee status does NOT extend in international law to the descendants of refugees who were born elsewhere."


      Not only under UNWRA but even under UNHCR the refugee status can pass unto descendants. And all refugees have a right to return. Otherwise they wouldn't have refugee status. According to customary international law (as envisaged in partition resolution 181) the first generation of refugees should be Israelis. And according to Israel's law also their descendants..

      wdr: These descendants have no more of a “right of return”" than Jews in Chicago have a right to return to Russia ..."

      ... or to Palestine. Good job! You just deligitimized the State of Israel in particular and Zionism in general. Bear in mind that all Jews who entered Palestine after 1919 were not registered as Palestinian or Ottoman refugees who would have a right to return to Palestine. Including their descendants.

  • Israel detains 313 children-- but State Department says it has no 'information on that'
    • No wonder that the Apartheid Junta's "conviction rate" is so high. Not only that Palestininia childrens are torturted and have to sign "confessions" in written in neo-Hebrew, but those who are put into administrative detention are not even charged.

  • Gaza’s airport, once a symbol of statehood, is now a wasteland
    • Yes, it's never good to uprise against an occupation the occupier wants everybody to forget, but can't and occasionally needs to use more than a million bullets to ensure its occupation and the terror and collective punishment that comes with it.

      If only the Palestinians were as unproblematic to the occupier as other sheeps under occupation.

      And of course it's not your Apartheid Junta's occupation which is an act of an aggression and the result of a war it started in 1967 that is a "war", but an uprise of the occupied people against it.

      And of course you won't tell us what the Butcher of Shabra and Shatila did to provoke the Palestinians into this uprising.

      Always perveting the truth, aren't you Zionists?

  • Israel's prosecution of Ahed Tamimi is blaming the victim
  • Israeli prosecutors try to make Ahed Tamimi a terrorist
    • @ Nathan

      I'm still waiting and I will remind you that you are not able to formulate a single universal value regardind this issue. Your racism is obvious as much as you want to hide it.

    • Nathan: "You tell me again and again that I shouldn’t focus on the Jews. But then, suddenly, you tell me that the Jews are only a fake state nation. It would seem that you, too, are busy with the Jews (and not only with universalistic “individuals that immigrated”)."

      Don't be daft, Nathan: You focused on the Jews and were lying about the Palestinians when you claimed that "in the Palestinian world, the answer is clear: The Jews had no right to be in the country." I reminded only you of the fact that the Palestinians are a constitutive people and that includes Jews contrary to Jews who are not and who rule out Nonjews to be part of what they call "their nation".

      This was an example of a universal principle regarding state nations.

      Nathan: "You are hiding your hostility behind empty slogans of “universal values” and “international law”.

      You are hiding your racism behind idiotic accusations without being able to formulate a single universal value/principle. It's understandable that you have to distract from this simple fact.

      Nathan: "Your agenda is that all the Jews who arrived after 1917 will have to leave the country. That’s not a universal value; rather, it’s the particularistic Palestinian position."

      You are lying again, Nathan. It's not my agenda at all and it isn't even the Palestinan position. They have allready declared that Jews can stay in the state of Palestine as Palestinian citizens, but not as ISRAELI settlers.

      But how does Israel treat illegal immigrants and their descendants?

      Your agenda is to keep Palestinians refugees expelled which is only based on your racist agenda.

      Nathan: "And, obviously, the people living in Israel are Israeli citizens – even those who great-grandparents arrived illegally after 1917 without anyone’s consent. That’s international law."

      As much as it is international law that people have a right to return to their country and should be Israel's citizens, too. But that doesn't suit your racist agenda.

      Nathan: "Obviously, the “natives” are Palestinians and “individuals that immigrated” are the Jews."

      You are lying again. Natives are the citizens who became iso facto citizens of mandated Palestine, because they had Ottoman citizenship and were habitually residing in Palestine. That includes Jews.

      Nathan: "The right of return is a political issue."

      The right to return is and inalienable right and based on the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights. It is only a "political" issue in your racist agenda.

      Fourth chance for you to argue based on universal values. Keep distracting from your failure by distorting my position and distracting form your racist agenda, Zionist.

    • Jon66: "Was Ms. Tamimi executed?"

      Not yet. Who knows what the psychopath sadist and child abusers of the Apartheid Junta's sick society have allready don to her. But another of her relatives was executed by shooting him into the neck:
      Palestinian teen first to be killed by Israel in 2018

      That was pure coincidence, wasn't it?

      Jon66: "Are there significantly more killings than arrests?"

      A question that represents the standards of he self declared most moral army of the world. The real question in a true democracy would be: Are there any killings?

      Jon66: "You assume that the IDF is criminal and therefore all actions taken were intentional and not sincere mistakes. That is not my perspective."

      Of course it isn't. It would be only yours, too, if the IDF would treat Jews the same way. Until then this high professional army is only a bunch of idiots and Breaking the Silence are liars.

    • Nathan: "Talkback – I read your “definition from a universal point of view”, and I wasn’t really too impressed."

      I don't have to impress somehow who after even two responses is still not able to formulate one single universal law. It reveals the underlying racism of your personal point of view.

      Nathan: "You define the Jewish immigration ..."

      There he goes again: Jewish, Jewish, Jewish and Jewish. What a pathetic obsession. I formulated a universal principle. I neither used the words Jewish or Palestinian.

      Nathan: "Well, as I pointed out to you before, you have a political position, so obviously your “universal” point of view is under the impact of your political position."

      Nope. It's just racist political position that prevents you from formulating universal principles that can be applied on all people. You can only present a Zionist position.

      I was just giving examples of international law, the right to self determination and how it can be exercised and examples of universal human rights. You can't recognize this through your racist lenses.

      Nathan: "Reading between the lines, I understand that you are arguing that the presence of the Israeli Jewish population in the country today is illegitimate ..."

      Again, I never spoke about Jews or Nonjews. I wrote about a country's legal population, whether they are Jewish or not. Your "reading" is as racist as pathetic.

      Nathan: "The Israeli Jews are citizens of the State of Israel, and so their presence in the country is self-evident."

      Why the focus on "Jews", again? Absolutely pathetic and totally missing the point. Based on what universal principle was the state of Israel established and by what means?

      Nathan: " In the Palestinian world, the answer is clear: The Jews had no right to be in the country ..."

      You are lying. Even in the PLO's definition of Palestinian citizenship Jews who were present before mandat times and their paternal descendants are ipso facto citizens of Palestine. "Palestinians" are a constitutive people unlike Jews who are only a fake state nation. Palestinians do not need a racist differentiation between "nationals" and "citizens" like Nazi Germany or Israel does to privilige on people on the expense of another.

      Nathan: "I’d be curious to read the international law regarding the right of return. "

      Read the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Let's see if you are even able to recognize the article in question. I'll give you a hint by refering to the Crime of Apartheid as defined in international law:

      "For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

      Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
      By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
      By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
      By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
      Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
      Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
      Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
      Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
      Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid."

      Nathan: "Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. In the case of the Palestinians, there is an agreement (the Oslo Accords) that has determined that the refugee issue is an end-of-conflict topic. In other words, it has to be negotiated and agreed upon – and only in the framework of ending the conflict. Since there is such an agreement witnessed by the international community, it is now international law."

      Israel has trashed this agreement. I was never implemented. And it is not "international law". Israel didn't even consider it to be an international treaty, because it doesn't recognize the State of Palestine.

      Anyway. That's real international law and consensus: "the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted" according to multiple General Assembly resolutions. Whether your beloved Apartheid Junta wants to agree to it or not.

      Just replace "Palestinians" with "all people" if it is not universal enough for you. Oh wait. That wouldn't fit the Zionist narrative, right?

      Nathan: "In the strict legal sense, obviously, it was within the right of the government to allow such immigration. The British ruled the country with a mandate from the League of Nations. Was it the right policy? Well, that’s an ideological question. There are two very different answers."

      ROFL. In the strict legal sense the mandate violated the mandate system. Even the British and Balfour admitted it. The mandate scam was just colonial politics and you know it.

      But again. You don't answer Annie's question, because it doesn't fit your anti-universal Zionist agenda:
      "A country has no right to enforce immigration upon another country.

      do you recognize this as being universal or not? or do you think this concept demonstrates bias? let’s get that out of the way can we?"

      Nathan: "Anyway, the Palestinian grievance which is at the root of this conflict pre-dates the Mandate. "

      Of course. Zionism which is the cause of this conflict pre-dates the mandate. Ahad Haam wrote in 1891: “They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, unscrupulously deprive them of their rights, insult them without cause, and even boast of such deeds; and none opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.”

      Nothing has changed since then.

      Nathan: "Are you of the opinion that the presence of the Jewish population in Israel today is illegitimate?"

      This pathetic obsession with Jews is ridiculous, but explanable. Nathan can't use the words "natives" or "individuals that immigrated with the consent of the country's people". That would be to universal and not "Jewish" enough. ROFL.

      We are still waiting for you to cut your racist "Jews this, Jews that" crap and formulate universal principles for all people.

    • Nathan: "Talkback – Perhaps I could bring to your attention that there is a conflict in the Middle East."

      You don't have, too. Zionist settler colonialism didn't start yesterday.

      Nathan: "This means that there are grievances that motivate people to maintain a state of conflict. "

      Sure, especially settler colonialist who want to colonialize more and are pretty much frustrated that not all Nonjews were expelled from Palestine.

      Nathan: "These are not grievances about "universal values" or "international law". "

      Of course they are not the grieveances of the settler colonialists. Maybe their interpretation of "Jewish values"?

      Nathan: "So, no, it's not so simple."

      It's never simple to justify supremacism, Nathan. You have to try harder.

      Nathan: "Actually, I would be curious to know if you are able to define the grievance from the Palestinian point of view (i.e. not from your outsider's point of view). A little hint: The Palestinian grievance is not about international law or about universal values."

      Who says it isn't? You? Again, nobody needs to takes sides when it comes to universal values. Neither the Jewish nor the Palestinian side. That's your supremacist shtick, not mine.

      Here's a definition from a universal point of view. A country has no right to enforce immigration upon another contry, not during a mandate nor de facto or de jure occupation. A country's population has a right to a unitary, independent state and the right to defend it against seperation by terrorists and foreigners whose immigration was either enforced or who entered the country as illegal immigrants or refugees. People who legally and habitually reside in a country have a right to citizenship of the hosting country. They don't loose that right when they flee or get expelled. They do have a right to return. A country that differentiates between nationals and citizens is a country in which racism has been institutionalized.

      Yes or no, Nathan? It's very simple.

      Nathan: "It's not clear at all what "restoring all rights" might mean."

      Read the rest of the sentence: "Restoring all rights under international and human rights law."

      You probably don't know what I'm talking about, do you?

      Nathan: "You, Talkback, are anti-Israel. "

      I am anti-Nazi Germany and anti-Apartheid-South Africa, too. It comes with the crimes regimes commit whose racism is institutionalized. Especially if they removed an explicite right to equality from a constitutional or quasi-constitutional document. I hope you share the same view, but something tells me that you inherently support institutionalized racim. And even a seperation between nationals and citizens (not only talking about Nazi Germany).

      Nathan: "You have your political slant (which is fine, of course), but you can’t possibly be “universal” when dealing with this conflict."

      It's you who can't.

      Nathan: "Also the understanding of international law is political and debatable."

      No it isn't. It is very clearly definied. It is you who needs to debate it, not me. It is you who has to "dispute" anything that is obvious to the rest of the international community.

      Nathan: "So, do you have a vision of peace with Israel?"

      I have peace with those who follow and implement universal values. I do not have a vision of peace for racists and their regimes. So it depends on what vision Israel has of itself.

      Nathan: "Your ending of the comment with “I dare you, Zionist” (instead of “I dare you, Nathan”) was an expression of hostility"

      It was. Who want's to be called a Zionist and support settler colonialism, institutionalized racism and Apartheid? I surely don't. I'd rather prefer to be called antisemite by Zionists.

      Nathan: " I wouldn’t know why you are hostile to someone whom you don’t even know – but it surely means that you are not expressing universal values. "

      What a Zionst perversion. I'm only hostile to those who can't or won't express universal values. That's all I need to know about them.

      Still waiting for an expression of a universal value from you, Zionist.

    • eljay: "Sure, the U.S. bombed the f*ck out of North Korea – the world’s only North Korean state – but Israel is being singled out!"

      We have to stop singling Israel out!!! Therefore:

      No more UN veto of Security Council Resolutions against Israel. Something has to be done regarding their weapons of mass descructions. No more BDS, but a whole international embargo has to be put on them and in the long run it has to be invaded to liberate Palestine.

    • jon66: "Of course not. The ones with continuous combat functions."

      Really? There are soldiers that do not have a a "continuous combat function". Your quote, August 2016:
      "Persons who fulfill a “continuous combat function.” Such persons are legitimate objects of attack even if they are not participating directly in hostilities at the moment of attack. This category INCLUDES persons whose ongoing function involves the preparation, execution, or command of combat acts or operations. An individual recruited, trained, and equipped by such a group to continuously and directly participate in hostilities can be considered to assume a continuous combat function even before the person carries out a hostile act"

      So it is legitimate to attack Israeli soldiers.

      On the same day you wrote: "If BT [B'Tselem] on the ground is not sure if the [Gazan] police officers status I don't know how I could be."

      So you are not sure if Israel's police and border police, too, can be seen as an illegimitate target.

      But here's another quote from you from the same comment:
      "Wherever there is a DOUBT regarding the actions of a person, the DOUBT works in the individual’s favor, and it is forbidden to target the person for attack.

      So what is it, jon66? Killing is the last method of defense. It seems that in the IDF it is the first.

      jon66: "And anyone who attacks them is also a combatant who may be killed in defense."

      You just quoted a week ago: "Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities against the occupying power may be prosecuted."

      Do you want to claim that Israel kills as a method of prosecution? And what about settlers attacking Palestinians. Can they be killed in defense, too?

      jon66: "I am not defending the Samouni attack. You asked if it was terrorism and I said it depends upon the details and intentions. In order to classify it as a war crime you have to make assumptions. I don’t know enough about it."

      Again: ""Wherever there is a DOUBT regarding the actions of a person, the DOUBT works in the individual’s favor, and it is forbidden to target the person for attack."

      So it was a war crime until proven otherwise.

      Make up your mind, jon66. It makes no difference, if anyone is Jewish or not.

    • @ Mooser.

      Did Jack Green really ask me the question, if I oppose administrative practices that are "intended to end and correct the effects of a specific form of discrimination." (Wikipedia)?

      And is he really this stupid to call a correction of discrimination a "preference"?

      The usual Zionist supremacist perversion.

    • Jon66: "If a soldier kills civilians accidentally that is not terrorism. How do we know the intent?"

      Define "accidentally" and then you have your answer. Shooting teens in the upper part of their body or head is not an accident, it's a policy. Flattening a whole street in 60 seconds is not "accidentally" either, but a policy:

      jon66: "It’s a war crime to target civilians. It is not necessarily a crime if civilians die during a legitimate military attack."

      Not necesseraly. But if someone shoots with artillery, rockets,. tank guns into a densely populated area or drops white phospherous or cluster bomns on it one can be sure that the killing of civilians has been taken into account.

      And since the Apartheid Junta applies its Dahiya Doctrine it's definetly state terrorism.

      That is a strategy "designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population" (United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict")

      "Richard Falk wrote that under the doctrine, "the civilian infrastructure of adversaries such as Hamas or Hezbollah are treated as permissible military targets, which is not only an overt violation of the most elementary norms of the law of war and of universal morality, but an avowal of a doctrine of violence that needs to be called by its proper name: state terrorism."

      Btw. You once wrote: "Persons who fulfill a “continuous combat function.” Such persons are legitimate objects of attack even if they are not participating directly in hostilities at the moment of attack."

      Does that mean that every Israeli soldier is a legitimate object of attack?

    • Jon66: "Can we define ‘n’ =1 and indigenous = being those born in a place?"

      The typical Zionist support for ethnic cleansing. It's like Israel's nationality law. First expell as much Nonjews as you can and then declare that everybody is a citizen who hasn't been expelled, yet.

      What a perverted "sense of justice".

      Jon66: "As to your point about the Palestinians, of course I recognize their suffering and rights. I would like to see two independent states to fulfill the needs of both peoples."

      Sure, as long as the need to return is only realized by one people, right?

    • Nathan: "Anyway, if there is a vision of peace with Israel, let’s hear it and debate about it."

      How about this one. Restoring all rights under international and human rights law.

      Simple, isn't it? That's called a "universal value". Can you make example of an universal values and without refering to Jews or Nonjews? I dare you, Zionist.

Showing comments 3400 - 3301