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 3500 - 3401

  • Stop the attacks on David Palumbo-Liu
    • David Palumbo-Liu: "As a scholar-activist working on issues such as ... , Palestine, ... college campuses are the new battleground..., far-right organizations and white supremacists ..."

      That's one way to describe certain supporters of a certain state with a certain national character.

  • Struggle for equal rights for Palestinians is 'right choice,' and will lead to 'significant exodus of Jews' -- Henry Siegman
    • wdr: "No Palestinian “refugees” will ever be allowed to “return” to Israel (which their grandparents left, not them)."

      You don't have to tell us that Israel does everything to maintain being a Jewish Apartheid Junta. And you don't even have to tell us that you are a Nakba denier (which are despicable as Holocaust deniers) and claim that the grandparents "left" and put refugees in quotation marks allthough there is not doubt that not most of them were expelled directls, but that they all count as expelled, because they were not allowed to return. And you also don't have to tell us that you have no idea about the fact that the refugee status is passed unto the descendants in intentionally prolonged refugee problems like those which your Junta created for Apartheid reasons.

      The only question would be, if you support such crimes against humanity and its denial and the answer is obvious, too. Cause that's what you are: A blatant racist of the likes who were similarly racists towards Jews.

  • Naked justice
    • Jackdaw: "UN Resolution 465?"

      The one the US Secretary of State disavowed three days later?"

      Who cares if you think what he allegedly "disawoved"? The US didn't veto the resolution. His words from your source regarding settlements:
      "U.S. policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process."

      Jackdaw: "Still ROFL.
      God, you guy’s really do need Hostage back. This Talkback joker can’t hold a candle."

      Who's the joker now, Jackdonkey? Just read your source, again. This is the second time you mention Hostage and miserably fail.

      Jackdaw: "There were no Palestinian laws prior to Israeli invasion and occupation, because Israel occupied territory illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948."

      You haven't got a clue, don't you. Local law remains under occupation. And contrary to Israel Jordan did not "illegaly occupy" this territory, because it was occupied with the consent of the occupied to stop the Zionist terror hordes.

      Jackdaw: "Prior to the Jordanian invasion the law was the Mandate of Palestine, 1920, who Articles including, but not limited to ..."

      ROFL. What do you actually know, Jackdaw? The mandate was not from 1920, but drafted in 1922 and came into effect in 1923 and it ended ended 15 May 1948. And before that the mandatory stopped Jewish immigration and restricted settlements and land purchase. (See White Paper 1939 and Land Transfers Regulations 1940).

      You just shot yourself in your knee, again. Guys, where is Hostage, eeh aaw.

    • oldgeezer: "I disagree with those who say no Israelis are there legally. "

      They aren't, if they are there without the consent of the Palestinians. Neither civilians nor soldiers.
      oldgeezer: "The fact that Jews used to live in any particular place is irrelevant."

      Not only irrelevant, but utterly racist.

      oldgeezer: "Israels army can requisition territory but only for military necessity."

      Nope. Israel has to withdraw since resolution 242.

    • Jackdaw: "Many aspects of the State of Israel’s involvement in the settlements are legal."


      "5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

      6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;"

      Jackdaw: "Many individual settlers are living legally in Judea and Samaria."

      Not if they entered Palestine without the consent of the occupied, their representatives or their goverment, etc.

      Jackdaw: "There are 50 shade of grey. The issues are not simply black and white, as Mondoweiss would like us all to believe."

      They are simply black and white if you don't interpret international law and the Geneva Conventions in bad faith as Israel does.

    • Zionist imbecile: "... I’m asking whether international law prohibits an individual citizen from moving to an occupied territory and whether that individual’s State of origin must, by law, act to prevent the individual from entering the occupied territory.

      Answer(s). No and no."

      Answer, yes. If this citizen is citizen of the occuyping state. And yes if that individual's state of origin is the occuyping state. Contrary to the opinion of Zionist imbeciles that's also customary international law and opinio juris as reflected in countless Security Council resolutions.

      Zionist imbecile: "No, we’re not at the protection level yet, but consider this, doesn’t the Occupying Power have a duty to build roads, hospitals and infrastructure for the people living in the Occupied Territory?
      So if individual Jews have moved into an apartment building in Hebron, shouldn’t that building be attached to the electrical grid, the water system, etc.?"

      The occuping power has to deport the "individual Jew" if s/he is a citizen of the occupying state or a foreigner who illegaly entered the territory under occupation. If this individiual Jew is not part of the people under occupation s/he isn't a protected person.

      Zionist imbecile: "Remember that Jews had been living in Hebron during the British Mandate, and for several hundred of years before that."

      So what? Are they Jewish Paletinians or Jewish Israelis? If they are not Jewish Palestinians they nust be deported and their settlement dismantled.

      To complicated for you? Or are you interpreting international law in bad faith as Israel always does?

    • Jackdaw: "@talking out your hat"

      Yes, Zionist imbecile?

      Zionist imbecile: "Okay. None of you savants can show that there is a law prohibiting individual Jews from moving to Judea and Samaria."

      As much as there isn't a law prohibiting Zionists to be imbeciles.

      Again, the Geneva Conventions prohibits citizens of the occupying state to move to the occupied territory whether they are Jewish or not.

      Zionist imbecile: "Does a State have a international law based ‘affirmative duty’ to prevent it’s individual citizens from moving into a disputed or occupied territory?"

      If the state is the occupying state, yes. It has to protect the occupied people from colonialization. Same article 49(6) of the Geneva Conventions.

      "This clause ... is intended to PREVENT a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories."

      The clause protects the occupied people.

      Israel violates even 49(1) by deporting Palestinians into Israel's prisons.

      Zionist imbecile: "Who ever answers first gets a gold star."

      Nope. Your turn! Prove that Jews have a right to move into every country, especially if this country is under Israel's occupation. (Not counting the US).

    • Jackdaw: "I asked you to put on your thinking cap, not the Mondoweiss standard issue dunce cap.

      What law prevents individual Jews from moving to Judea and Samaria?"

      Why don't you put on a thinking cap? It doesn't matter if Israel allows one or half a million Israeli citizens to settle in occupied territories. It's prohibited. The only legal way is to acquire a permit from the Palestinians. Same goes for everyone else who wants to move to another state.

    • Still trying to blame Palestinians for Jewish settler colonialism and the crimes against humanity that comes with it?

  • Israel, are you a real state?
  • Palestinian ambassador reveals details about Trump's meetings with Abbas, accuses the U.S. of 'backstabbing'
    • Rusty Pipes: "If behind Abbas’ proclamation of cutting off negotiations with Israel, the ambassador is begging for resumption of negotiations ..."

      My understanding is that he begged for resumption of negotiations only until Trump's Jerusalem announcement.

  • New Orleans City Council rescinds human rights resolution, igniting the movement for Palestinian rights
    • Naftush: "Some abusers don’t get away with their vileness, as New Orleans just proved."

      Some abusers just did, as New Orleans just proved.

      Only in your perverse universe people who support human rights can be called abusers instead of those who violate or work against them. Like your abusing Apartheid Junta.

    • Jews. Once organized to fight for human rights. Now organized to fight against it.

      What a shanda.

  • 'Without UNRWA we have nothing': Palestinian refugees speak out against US aid cuts
    • Emet: "Emet: Eljay, how many Muslim states are there? How many Arab states are there?"

      The same number of states whith natives Muslim or Arab majority population. Unless they were expelled by Zionist terrorists.

    • Emet: "Kaisa, as most of the Arabs from the Ottoman era period moved around the area and have families in many of the modern day countries created after Sykes-Picot, let the Arabs who's great grandparents once lived in Palestine, and for a short period of time, move to Syria, or Iraq, or Lebanon, or Jordan, or Egypt or Saudi Arabia. "

      Besids the fact that this is just another claim that you can't prove with SERIOUS sources (that exludes the Joan Peters hoax) you just demonstrate again, that you are a racist. Cause where did most of the Jews come from who settled in Palestine during and after the Ottoman period?

      And no, even if it is important for a racist, inhumane being and supporter of Jewish Apartheid they have a right to return to Palestine.

      Emet: "The Arabs living in refugee camps should have been given citizenship of the countries they are now in."

      They should have been Israelis from the get go. According to international customary law and human rights law and as envisaged in the partition resolution they should have been Israelis from the get go. But you need to keep them expelled and denationalized to maintain Jewish Apartheid.

      Emet: "If the Palestinians want to return, let them return to an Arab country. They will be more at home there."

      Please continue and show the world the ugly racist face of Zionism.

    • Emet: "Kaisa, you only strengthen my case with your comment. When the Jews were exiled by the Romans, there was no “UNWRA” looking after them. They got on with it."

      Besides the fact that you can't prove that the Jews were exiled at all it is obvious that your sense of "justice" is 2 millenias behind the rest of civilization and that you need to have a huge problem with human rights - especially the right to return - and even have no heart to support refugees or to criticize a prolonged refugee problem which was created because of the absolute racism that your Apartheid Junta practices.

      Shame on you, Zionist!

      Emet: "They did not buy weapons and wage war and terror. "

      ROFL. You are kidding, right? There were no Jews fighting Roman occupation?

      Emet: "They encouraged their kids to study and make something of their lives. "

      Sure. A lot of kids "studied" 2000 years ago, especially in "exile", right?

      Emet: " ... and they encourage the next generations to hate."

      Nobody needs to be encouraged to hate those who keep one expelled because faith and heritage. The hatred is justified.

      Emet: "Unfortunately you are not helping the Palestinians."

      Says the Zionist of all people who supports the expulsion of Nonjews until eternity. Absolutely perverse.

  • Norman Finkelstein's new book on Gaza is a meticulous account of Israel's crimes
  • There are two narratives, but one reality: Palestinian dispossession
    • Boris: "Today antisemites love to point to Jewish critics of Israel like Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Anna Baltzer, JVP, etc."

      Doesn't touch the validity of their arguments.

    • Nathan: "The “original sin is the terminology of the article. The article itself defines Zionism as “colonialism”. Neither one of those terms (“original sin” / “colonialism”) is mine."

      A straw man. Nobody said they were.

      Nathan: "You think (quite strangely) that I can’t cope with reality as you see it, but it’s simply not true. I’m coping with everything just fine: the State of Israel exists and it’s doing quite well."

      Another straw man. You can't cope with the reality that the original sin is Jewish settler colonialism.

      Nathan: "Most people here are busy with undefined and debatable terms such as “international law”."

      There is nothing undefined or debatable to any UN member state except your Apartheid Junta when it comes its violation of international law.

      Nathan: "I think the best thing would be if the Palestinians would agree to negotiate an end of conflict with Israel. "

      Your Apartheid Junta is not interested in peace. It's interested in keeping control over the whole of Palestine.

      Nathan: "What do you think is best?"


    • Boris: "Finkelstein is very easily identifiable as a Jew, as his face has very obvious Semitic features."

      You sound like a Nazi, again. Maybe Ukranian Neo-Nazi?

    • Nathan: "If one hasn’t had enough time to grow accustomed to the reality of the Jewish state in Palestine, then perhaps in a few more years Mr Jeffries will learn to accept reality"

      Imagine what Nathan would have said if the Aryan state in Germany would have succeded.

      Nathan: "So it would seem that someone has learned to accept reality after all. That was quick."

      This has nothing to do with reality, but with ethics and morality. Something you can't comprehend, because it is inherently build on universal values or menshkeit.

      Nathan: "The last sentence of the article raises the strange point that properly acknowledging the original sin (that can’t be undone) should bring genuine peace with justice. ... The conflict is not so simple. Perhaps, just once, we could get an outline of a real plan of action that is beyond the mantra of “oy, oy, oy, Zionism is the original sin”."

      You keep fabricating that the original sin is the mere presence of Jews in Palestine. Besides the fact that your claim is blatantly antisemitic you just want to distract from the fact that the original sin is Zionism, its settler colonialism, it's hostile takeover of Palestine and mass expulsion of its majority. You just can't cope with this reality. You just don't have any counter arguments and you know it.

    • Misterioso: "It is estimated that the Hebrews did not invade until circa 1800 BCE. "

      What??? Another invasion?

    • Boris: "It does not look like a riddle – indigenous means native.

      As a nation – the Jewish people are the oldest nation existing today that had originated, lived, and had its nation state in the area known today as Palestine."

      Jews WERE indigenous to Palestine thousands of years ago. Jewish Foreign settlers and their descendents are not indigenous.

  • Fearing breakup of Israel lobby, liberal Zionists stress the power of Jewish unity
    • Mooser: "“yonah”
      why can’t you get it through your head that you spending each day indicting Phil Weiss for antisemitism, on the blog that he set up tells anybody (and especially any Jew) everything they need to know about Zionism and Zionists?"

      Mooser, please notify me, if Yonah ever comes up with a rational definition of antisemitism.

  • Examining 'Ten Myths about Israel', by Ilan Pappe
    • DaBakr: "If pappe is a “scholar ” then so is Pamela Geller."

      In the Zionist world a professor of history is as much a scholar as a blooger who left university before completing her degree.

      DaBakr: “Zionist-haters hating cranks love pappe. ”

      That’s what hating Zionist haters hatefully claim because of their hatred.

      DaBakr: "Ahs besides that…. don’t you believe that the majority of israel scholars are pro Zionist racists?"

      DaBakr: "I’ve read pappe. He is a master manipulator, not a scholar. He’s an extreme ideologue, like many here on MW which is why he’s so well liked here but taken seriously by very few serious scholars of history, including scholars with no real stake in the I/p conflic."

      A true scholar backs up his claims. You can't. That's whats called manipulation. But you are not a master of manipulation. Your lies are see through.

      DaBakr: “Ahs besides that…. don’t you believe that the majority of israel scholars are pro Zionist racists?”

      Depends on the pro Zionist racism of their claims.

    • RoHa: "Incidentally, even if the Jews are, in some meaningful sense, a “people” or a nation, Zionism is still morally wrong."

      The "nation" concept is based on the faked "exile" concept. Reform Judiasm simply acknowledged that Jews don't have one national origin, but multiple, because it primarily is a confession. (Otherwise one couldn't convert to Judaism). And Nathan simply endorses the antisemitic concept of Jews being a 'foreign or seperate body' within a nation in the relevant sense of the concept state nation - of not belonging to the nation they are citizens of.

    • Nathan: "In other words, these Reform rabbis are admitting that the Jews have considered themselves to be a nation ... still it should be noted that the Bund defined the Jews as a nation ... the quote included Mr Levy’s perspective that the Jews are a nation.

      Still not a constitutive people in the international legally relevant sense of the term "nation". The Supreme Apartheid Court has ruled out that there is an Israeli nation and admits that Israel as a "Jewish state" is a true Apartheid state.

    • DaBakr: "That’s how the majority of Americans feel about Israel."

      Allthough the media which tells them how to feel about Israel is run by antizionists, right?

    • Parity: "Does someone know of a source for this?
      In 1928, the Palestinian leadership, notwithstanding the wishes of the majority of their people, consented to allow the Jewish settlers equal representation in the future bodies of the state. The Zionist leadership was in favor of the idea only as long as it believed the Palestinians would reject it"

      See for example:

      "Even in 1947, when Britain decided to refer the question to the United Nations, the Palestinians suggested with other Arab states, a unitary state to replace the Mandate in Palestine, with equal rights for Jews and Arabs. This the Zionists rejected."

      See for example:

    • DaBakr: "Pappe, considered a crank by many ...

      ... Zionist cranks.

  • Abbas's crime was saying that Zionism is a colonial project
    • DaBakr: "You speak about logic on a comment board that is so bloated with emotional discord, ... jealousy, antagonism and lots of just plain old bigotry, racism and hatred. "

      Should Mondoweiss censor Zionist comments to support more logic instead of racism, hatred, etc?

      DaBakr: "If you were born from mother x and raised by mother y would you still be the son of mother x, the son of mother y or the son of both?"

      Totally missing the point. To be born from your mother doesn't mean that you will share her faith simply by being her son. Faith has no gene. Faith is the result of education. The reason why Jews emphasize matrilineal descendency is simply because the mother was seen as the main parent who could ensure raising the children in the Jewish faith. Go an ask a Jew who knows about Judaism.

    • Nathan: "Since it is Gideon Levy who is calling the Jews a nation, the only relevant question in this regard is “what did he mean by nation”. "

      The more relevant question is "why is ist important, when Gideon Levy calls Jews a nation"?

      Nathan: "You think that I’m confused, but actually I think that you have a problem that’s known as “cognitive egocentrism”. You think that the way that you see things is how things are, and any other way of seeing things is “confused” or “racism”."

      Well, Nathan, I wrote that you are confusing two terms. Not that you are confused. But now I really think that you may be confused and your ad hominem loggorhoe is a very good example what "cognitive egocentrism" means and what your problem is beside your racism.

      Nathan: "Your lesson about citizenship is irrelevant and ill-informed."

      Sure, it's irrelevant for racists who value "nation" in the sense of "common descent" higher than "nation" in the common international common sense of "citizens". And just to see you fail I will ask you to explain why it is ill-informed. Don't dissapoint me.

      Nathan: "The Jews view themselves as sharing a common descent, ..."

      Who cares? What are the legal consequences of this view? What rights do arise from this view? Definitely not the right to national self determination which is reserved for the people OF a country which doesn't include foreign settlers whose infiltration is enforced upon the native population.

      Nathan: "I should bring to your attention that “Palestinian narrative” means “the common story that Palestinians generally tell”."

      According to Nathan the Holocaust is a 'Jewish narrative', 'the common story that Jews generally tell'.

      Nathan: "Indeed, the Palestinians claim that the Jews are not a nation ..."

      .. in the international relevant legal sense. They are correct. Contrary to the Palestinians Jews are not a constitutive people. But that's not a Palestinian narrative, it is an obvious fact.

      Nathan: "Maybe your problem is that you don’t read literature in foreign languages."

      Beside the fact that I'm responding to you in a foreign language maybe your problem is that you can't succesfully argue in any language and have to resort to ad hominem idiocies that are even more pathetic than your claims.

      Nathan: "It would help you understand that there are other points of view out there (based on different cultural perspectives)."

      I'm still waiting for you to legitimize the creation of a "Jewish state" in Palestine based on universal values and not on "cultural perspectives". I'm expecting either more silence or more racism.

      Nathan @ Rob Roy: "Do you know what the cause of conflict might be?"

      Zionist settler colonialism, duh.

    • Nathan: "I understand that you liked it because it seems to corroborate the Palestinian narrative that views Zionism as a colonial project."

      Palestinian narrative? These were the exact words from Theodor Hertzl to Cecil Rhodes.

      Nathan: "However, the quote confirms that the Jews are a nation (“…a nation whose absolute majority doesn’t live in it [in Palestine]”)."

      Still not a nation=constitutive people and will never be.

      Nathan: "The Palestine narrative claims that the Jews are merely a religious community, ..."

      Again, Palestinian narrative? That was the prevailing view within Judiasm in the early days of Zionism.

      Nathan: "... and hence they have no homeland (but a nation does have a homeland)."

      Again, you are confusing nation within citizenship with nation as citizenship. Is this to complicated for you to understand? Jews are NOT a "nation" like US American, French, German, etc. Nobody can become Jewish by acquiring a citizenship of any state.

      Btw, is this your new view of racist incitement to call everything you don't like "Palestinian narrative"?

  • Israel as a perversion of Judaism and the modern nation-state
    • Mooser: "“Talkback”, I have no idea, cannot figure out what they are trying to do. Can they really be this unconscious of their effect?"

      As so many others can be, too.

    • Mooser: "Have you ever seen a herd of ilk so afflicted with grandiosity as the self-selected egos-on-the-half-shell who advocate for the kosher-crusader state?"

      Nope. Besides Israel's actions this herd is the other reason why Israel is hated so much and with that unfortunately also innocent Jews.

    • Mooser: "Wow “Boris” the way you seized control of this thread was impressive.

      Like an intellectual Entebbe raid, or something."

      More like Zionists took over Palestine. He seems to think that Mondoweiss is occupied by Zionists and that he can expell everybody he likes. Or maybe ... well, you may know the problem that Ukraine has with Neo-Nazis.

    • Boris: "@Talking rear end ... Well, my soft-bottom friend, ... kicked their lower “back”"

      Did you know that anal fixation is quite common amongst racists?

      Boris: "... since you asked me nicely, I will answer your questions."

      I think the "chicken" part was more effective.

      Boris: "With questions like “what you do to Nonjews” you enter the imbecil territory. Which “nonjews” are you talking about"

      What an imbecile question to distract from the fact that you will not answer my question.

      Boris: "Are these Arab countries that had tried to destroy Israel ever since the country establishment?"

      Well Boris, this is just a kindergarden Hasbara.

      First of all, the establishment of Israel had nothing to do with being legal since the partition plan was rejected by the party that represented the majority of the citizens of Palestine. It was nothing else than a terrorist coup d'etat and violation of Security Council resolution 46 which prohibited the declaration of any state after the partition plan was abandoned or at least put on ice and the international community was working on puting Palestine under UN trusteeship. (To declare Israel on the 15 May 1948 was even a violation of the partion plan which was accepted by the Zionist only to reallow immigration, build up an army and then conquer all of Palestine. Guess what actually happened in 1967).

      Secondly the only party that was interested in war, because it needed to acquire a territory for its state was the Jewish Agency. At the end of April the Arab countries accepted a 'truce' brokered by the US, but the Jewish Agency rejected it and the UN trusteeship plan.

      "Ten days before Britain's exit from Palestine, U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency's rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan. In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a "Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council."15 Washington would face what McClintock called an "anomalous situation," in which "the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership."

      It is obvious who the real aggressor is, Boris. The party that destroyed Palestine. Politically and physically.

      Boris: "Some “nonjews” were very hostile to the Jewish population of Palestine and were invited by the Arab counties to leave while their armies wipe out those pesky Jews. They left – decisions have consequences, Israel does not let them to return. "

      That's one way to justify expulsion to achieve a Jewish majority. Of course it is kindergarden Hasbara, again.

      "In fact, the declassified material contradicts the 'order' theory, for among these sources are documents testifying to the considerable efforts of the AHC [Arab Higher Committee] and the Arab states to constrain their [the Palestinians'] flight."

      And that those who the Apartheid Junta didn't kill right away but expelled were "very hostile" and "left" the country is not only incitement but blatant Nakba denial. I wonder how it passed moderation.

      It's obvious to everybody that the Apartheid Junta expelled them to achieve a Jewish majority. And it keeps them expelled for the very same reason. It wouldn't allow them to return even if they were licking their boots cause their biggest crime is that they aren't Jewish.

      Boris: "These Arab countries are the ones who do not allow the people they told to leave to integrate, ...

      These Arab Countries told them to stay in Palestine while Jews were massacring or expelling them and preventing them to return. That's the reason why these Arab countries intervened besides Jordan which was collaborating with the Jewish Agency to split up the country. (No, I'm not talking about Ribbentropp and Molotow.)

      Boris: "... while Israel had accepted all the Jews who came from these areas."

      How selfless and of Israel to accept all the Jews after it expelled nearly all of the Nonjews, right? It almost sounds not genuinely racist at all to be true. As if Israel wasn't an Apartheid state.

      Boris: "So, it should be resolved as a population exchange and these permanent refugees should settle where the Jews lived before."

      Sure Boris. The ethnic cleansing of Nonjews is a Zionist's wet dream.

      Boris: "Some nonjews live in Gaza and the disputed territories."

      About 2/3 of the Gazans are those which the Apartheid Junta keeps expelled and there is no such thing as "disputed" territory except in Zionist kindergardens. Even the Supreme Apartheid Court bases its ruling on the legal framework that the Westbank is held under belligerent occupation. Not to mention the rest of the world and the Interantional Court of Justice.

      Boris: "Israel left Gaza and gave its Palestinians all the infrastructure."

      Yep. The Greenhouse propaganda—How Gazan history is being rewritten to dehumanize Palestinians

      Boris: "It got rocket fire in return."

      That was not a return for leaving Gaza, but for continuing to oppress, disposess and kill Palestinians for half a century. The Apartheid Junta and especially its actual crime minister knew very well what would happen if JSIL would withdraw and leave a power vacuum behind. This was all planned to ensure the permanence of the occupation and being able to point to Gaza every time someone calls for ending the occupation. When Hamas was elected they imposed a truce upon themselves. And what followed? More than 14.000 Israeli artillery shells into Gaza in 2006 alone.

      Boris: "Pals famously rejected all peace proposals ..."

      ROFL. Like Jews famously offered "peace proposals" that are bantustan and ethnic cleansing solutions neither based on international law, security council resolutions or human rights? Which side again is willing to give up 78% of Palestine and share Jerusalem?

      Boris: "– produce nothing but terrorism".

      ROFL. Which side again needed to terrorize a whole people to establish a state and expell the majority of its native population? Which side needs to terrorize a whole people to maintain an occupation? Israel has been nothing else than a terror state from the get to. If the Palestinians wouldn't lift a finger the Apartheid Junta would still continue to terrorize Palestinians to maintain its oppression.

      Boris: "They hope that ignorant people like you will be sympathetic to their case."

      Contrary to people like you most of the world population doesn't have symathy for Apartheid or any other form of institutionalized racism or for state that needs to expell people and differentiate between nationals and citizens to achieve and maintain a racist national character.

      And that you of all people call me ignorant is a mix between stupid and dishonest. Like your next statement.

      Boris: "I am proud how Israel deals with this situation – very measured, trying to minimize civilian casualties, and win hearts and minds. "

      Yes, yes. If only Palestinians would treat Jews exactly the same way that Jews have been treating Palestinians since the late 30s, right? At least they should treat you this way - the whole experience. And if Israel continues to win the hearts and minds one day it may make a huge step from place three to place two in the top 10 of the most hated countries in the world. By then you will be completely out of touch with everything that truly exists.

      Boris: "Finally, there are many “nonjews” in Israel. They enjoy equal rights ..."

      Now you are lying again. If they would enjoy equal rights Israel wouldn't have a problem with a political party that calls for equal rights. The right to equality was explicitly removed from one of its Basic Laws. According to the same Basic Law every fundamental right can be violated by "a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required". Israel differentiates between nationals (only Jews) and citizens to grant only its nationals the rights that citizens would normaly have in true democratic states.

      Boris: "P.S. I am not going to answer any more questions on this thread."

      You cowardly never answered the question how proud Jews are of keeping Nonjews expelled, denationalized and dispossessed. Your whole comment was just a distraction full of lies, distortions, falsifications of history, delusions, incitement and denial. To put it short: The usual Hasbara.

    • Boris: "Arab countries had expelled their Jews – none left in Iraq, although Jews had inhabited the area before Arabs."

      Don't confuse Arabians with Zionist Jews. The former weren't settler colonials. They conquered and arabized the native population instead of expelling them.

      Btw. what was the reason that Jews were expelled? Can't be Apartheid, because noone was expelling Jews to become a majority.

    • These questions, Boris:

      Were Jews before today not proud? And does it make the Jews of today proud of what they do to Nonjews in Palestine? How proud are Jews of keeping Nonjews expelled, denationalized and dispossessed?

      Please don't chicken out and answer them.

    • Boris: "@Talking rear end"

      You are obviously an imbecil."

      I am replying to you only because I like to play with your handle."

      Did I hit a nerve with my questions which you can't answer? ROFL.

    • Boris: "And your “survival” is living as subjugated people in a ghetto."

      Yeah. Just look at all the Jews today living as subjugated people in ghettoes trying to survive. Especially those who make Nonkejs live as subjugated people in Palestinian enclaves.

      Boris: "No proud Jew today would want that."

      Say Boris, were Jews before today not proud? And does it make the Jews of today proud of what they do to Nonjews in Palestine? How proud are Jews of keeping Nonjews expelled, denationalized and dispossessed?

    • Boris: "2. from that history they are realize their common vulnerability
      3. … and this teaches them the importance of Israel."

      Yes, so important that more then half of them choose to live "vulnerable" outside of this Apartheid Junta.

    • Mooser: "“Naftush” did you know Jews the right to fly by flapping our arms? (to the extent we don’t interfere with civil aviation, of course)."

      What makes you say that? Everybody knows that the International Civil Aviation Organization is antisemitic and wants to deny the only Jewish people's enternal right to fly by flapping with their arms. What the former would consider as interference is only a hateful Palestinian narrative and actually disputed. Your self hatred is obvious.

    • Naftush: "Talkback: that’s toxic waste in verbal form."

      That's hot air in verbal form.

      Naftush: "Jews carried their nationhood from country to country for centuries until repatriation became possible."

      ROFL. There is no "repatriation" without an exile. And no Israeli historian has prove yet that there even was an exile.

      Naftush: "Nothing but nothing like Germany, let alone Nazi Germany."

      Nazi Germany differentiated between nationals and citizens to privilige the former and discriminate the latter. Israel also differentiates between nationals (only Jews) and citizens. According to the Supreme Apartheid Court "Israeli" is not even a nationality, Isrelis are not a nation. Full bore Apartheid. Just answer the question if Israel's land belongs to its citizens.

    • Naftush: "Violent national successions are as old as Genesis."

      Sure, but it's forbidden after 1945. What's next, Naftush? Genocides are as old as Genesis?

      Naftush: "Jewish nationhood allows for one and only one homeland."

      According to who?

      Naftush: "Israel is no settler-colonialist venture but a classic state construct that’s meant to protect a national population."

      ROFL. Israel is a 100% a settler-colonialist creation which doesn't protect all of its citizens, but keeps millions expelled and denationalized. Even the term "national" is perverted and only refers to Jewish Israelis. Nazi Germany did the same and differentiated between nationals (volkish Germans) and citizens.

    • Naftush: It’s nationhood vs. citizenship."

      A concept only known from Israel. At least after 1945. Before that Nazi Germany had the same concept.

      Naftush: "Universal Jewish nationhood that confers the right to citizenship if the individual takes it up, Israeli citizenship that confers citizen rights including suffrage."

      Sure, and "Jewish nationhood" trumps Israeli citizenship, right? Fullbore Apartheid.

  • Israeli forces kill Palestinian and destroy three houses belonging to relatives in reprisal for settler killing
  • The checkpoints, by Rawan Yaghi
    • Emet: "It’s not a numbers game."

      It never is when the numbers don't suit your agenda.

      Emet: "The same could be said about the number of Germans who were bombed in Dresden in WWII. The Allies did the right thing as they had no choice. Same with Israel."

      The difference is that after the Nazis that kind of bombing is considered to be a war crime. You are basically whitewashing war crimes and crimes against humanity, Emet. And the Palestinians are totally defenseless against Israel's state terrorism.

      But if you are so sure that Israelis do the right thing just say that you support this matter to be settled in the International Criminal Court. I'm waiting.

    • Emet: "I am trying to make a point of course. And the same can be said about stealing property, selling the property and the new owner needs to give it up, by law and by every standard in modern society. The land was stolen from the Jews. It has reverted back to the rightful owners."

      ROFL. Can't be true. Otherwise Jews - by every standard in modern society - could have taken the case to the International Court of Justice. But they had to use methods from barbarian times and start a war and expell the majority of its natives. Nothing legal about that in modern society. To the contrary. This is a crimes against humanity. And your claim is nuts. Who can prove that a certain Jew is a descendant of ancient Hebrews and a certain Palestinian is not? You just can't. So maybe it is more likely that the Palestinians are the rightful owners. Whether their ancestors converted to Islam to stay in this country or whether they are descendants of Canaanites. You know, the people Jews took the country from. So much for rightful owners.

      Emet "But for those cynics, if you speak to Palestinians and King Abdallah of Jordan, there was never a significant Jewish presence in Palestine nor the Kingdom of Israel. And you brain-dead bots just follow the line."

      Niobody denies on MW that there was a significant Jewish presence in Palestine. You are just lying again, "Emet".

    • Emet: "Proud to be a Palestinian? Not so fast.

      In the early part of the 20th century, Arabs in Palestine rejected that they were referred to as Palestinians. I’ll am searching for some references to this very interesting item of news, which I fully believe to be fact. The Arabs at the time, under the Ottoman rule, would refer to themselves as being part of their families in Syria, in Iraq, in Egypt and Arabia."

      This was not a matter of cultural identity, but of territoriality. Just years before they were all living in the same territory and couldn't understand why this territory should be split up on behalf of foreign Jewish settler who certainly did not identify as "Palestinians", but as Jews.

      Nevertheless, what's legally relevant is: Who was a legal citizens of Palestine in 1948? Only a citizen of Palestine had the right to determine Palestine's future by majority ruling. That rules out about half of the Jews of Palestine who were not citizens of Palestine.

      Emet: "Yes, this strengthens the belief that most of the modern day Palestinians came from the region. Of course, you lot are going to reject this out of hand. The other part of this is that the Jews living in Palestine were okay with being referred to as Palestinian."

      Oh I don't care were the citizens of Palestine originated from as long as they legally immigrated and were not enforced upon the native population. Like you I reject settler colonialism even if the foreign settlers are Jewish. Don't want to be a racist bigot, do we?

    • Mooser: "They never have to explain why Zionism could be or should be good for anybody else, they seem to think all they have to say is “It’s good for the Jews” and everybody must say “Why sure, take it”. Never seen anything like it."

      Mooser, your just have to say "its chilly" if you need a shabbos goy to open the window for you. You shouldn't order him around. Didn't you know that?

    • Emet: "It was Jewish land before it was Palestinian Arab land."

      Really? That's your answer? Are you a proganda bot?

      And no. The state of Palestine under mandate was not "Palestinian Arab". It belonged to all citizens of Palestine. Contrary to your racist Apartheid Junta.

      And before it was "Jewish" it was "Egypt" and "Canaanite" land. So what's your point anyway? That the history of the land didn't start with the Jews?

    • Emet: "History did not start in 1947, however much Palestinian Arabs want this to be the case."

      Oh, they actually claim that the history of the land of Canaan started in the days when it was the land of Canaan. But the history of Zionist settlers this land started in 1878.

      Emet: "The intransigent nature of how modern day Palestinians view Jewish history and heritage is what is preventing peace."

      What a hollow phrase. Let me try it, too. The intransigent nature of how modern day Jews view Palestinian history, heritage and presence is what is preventing peace.

      In fact it is the anachronistic Jewish settler colonialism that was never interested in peace.

      Emet: "And don’t forget that the Koran has verses that will not allow sharing as well."

      Really? Even the Hamas Charta says that all three Abrahamistic religions only find peace under the shadow of Islam. Btw. what does the Torah say about sharing the land of Canaan with its natives? You know, the natives that weren't exterminated.

      Emet: "And the Arab leadership is not interested in sharing as well, no matter how strong a case the Jewish people have of claiming Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem and other places central to the Jewish story."

      Sheqer, you are such a liar. While the Palestinian leadership (are you too racist or to afraid to call them Palestinians?) is willing to give up 78% of Palestine and share Jerusalem, you accuse them of being not interested in "sharing".

      And what strong case are you talking about? The Westbank is held under belligerent occupation by Israel and it illegally annexed Jerusalem. Citizens of the occupying state are not allowed in occupied territories. But of course, you want to make a strong racist case for the Jewish people, don't you?

    • Emet: "Islam, the type practiced by the Palestinians, rewards death. Kill Jews and you get 72 virgins and your family will receive a monthly stipend."

      What kind of Judaism do Zionist practice when they acquire territory through war and become a majority through expulsion? When they dispossess and disenfrenchize Nonjews, illegally annex territories and illegaly settle in them? And how are they monthly rewarded?

      Emet: "... Palestinians have resorted to violence ... the Palestinians resorted to violence and death ..."

      After how many years of Jewish terrorism and killings and other crimes against humanity?

      Emet: "And so the need for checkpoints arose."

      Sure, violent settler colonialism must be violently protected. What's next? That you justify concentration camps, too?

      Emet: "The Arabs are responsible for the situation they are in."

      Sure, they are responsible for Zionist settler colonialism and its inherent violence.

      Emet: "... as we know Islam does not treat Christianity “kindly”."

      "Vatican official says Israel fostering intolerance of Christianity
      The Israeli government's failure to respond adequately to Jewish extremist attacks against churches and monasteries is fostering a climate of intolerance towards Christianity in the country, a senior Vatican official in Jerusalem has warned. "

      Btw. "Emet". What kind of Judaism is practiced in this case:
      "Most Jewish first-graders attend ultra-Orthodox and religious schools. The majority of them are educated along the lines of "The King's Torah." A Jew is human. A non-Jew is non-human. "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to non-Jews. And this is not delivered in the form of incitement, but as a simple statement of a fact. As simple as calling a chair a chair."

  • Aren't Ahed and Nariman Tamimi women too?
  • Once again, 'NYT' says Judaism = Zionism
    • Naftush: "... uninterrupted consciousness of its homeland ..."

      ROFL. Does this "uninterrupted consciousness" create any right?

  • Braying donkeys
    • Jackdaw: "@twitback"

      Unfortunately you still haven't managed the first sillable, Jackdaw. It's "Talk" -"back". "Talk" like in "to talk". Your IQ seems to be even lower than 51. Is this maybe the result of brain damage caused by encephalitis Zionica? Or Ziocane abuse - do you have the feeling that you are used to Jew haters?

    • Jackdaw: "’Im obviously used to Jew haters."

      This can happen to any "Jew haters" junkie and then they need to increase the dosage. If this is to expensieve for you try and fabicrate some by yourself. I'm sure that DaBakr can help you. He knows the recipe and his fabrication amount has almost reached industrial scale.

    • Jackdaw: "John, did you ever invite Palestinians into your home to break bread? Ever, John?

      Be honest."

      Do you actually realize how racist you are? Just replace "Palestinians" with "Jews" and you sound like certain Germans in the 1930s.

    • Now compare what they called the Non-Arabs to do to Jews to what Jews actually did and have been doing since the late 1930s to British and other Nonjews in Palestine and until today.

    • Jackdaw: "@squawkback"

      Now that's pretty far away from "Talkback". The estimation of your IQ must be lowered to 52.

      Jackdaw: "Stay on topic, you pathetic hack."

      What happens if I don't? Are you going to shoot into my face? Demolition my house? Kidnap and torture my children? Kill my relatives? Dispossess or expell me? ... Or any other Nazi crime?

    • Jackdaw: "Disprove what I just said about BG and the donkey quote, or shut your hole."

      Did you oppress any Palestinians lately? Or did you get slapped by one of their teenage girls?

    • "Pinhas Lavon, for example, in 1955 summed up his objection to the way Israel treated its Arab citizens by stating bluntly that “Nazism is Nazism, even if carried out by Jews.”"

      The only conclusion from Lavon's statement is that Zionism was Nazism from the get go. Not the full blown Auschwitz-Nazism, but more the like a piece of the road that led to it.

      And then there is this from John Quigley's book "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice", p. 30:
      "To quell the Jewish Agency revolt, Britain used the Defense (Emergency) Regulations. In 1946 Dov Joseph, a future minister of justice of Israel, denounced them before the Jewish Lawyers Association. ”There is no guarantee to prevent a citizen from being imprisoned for life without trial,” he said. The government may "banish any citizen at any moment." A decision to banish, he complained, was taken administratively: ”a man does not actually have to commit an offense; it is enough for a decision to be made in some office for his fate to be sealed." The regulations authorized "collective responsibility," he complained. "All of the six hundred thousand settlers could be hanged for a crime committed by one person.”

      Yaacov Shapira, another future minister of justice in Israel, said the regulations led to a situation "unparalleled in any civilized country. Even in Nazi Germany there were no such laws." To call the military tribunals that conducted trials under the regulations "courts," he declared, was "mere euphemism". Moshe Dunkelblum, a future judge of the Supreme Court of Israel, said the regulations "violate the basic principles of law, justice, and jurisprudence. They abolish the rights of the individual and grant unlimited power to the adminstration".

      The same emergency regulations that the Zionist Apartheid Junta has imposed unto Palestinians since day one. Again, "Even in Nazi Germany there were no such laws".

  • Documentary on Israeli-Palestinian dialogue -- 'Pomegranates' -- leaves the viewer even more despairing
    • Elisabeth Block: "And then what? The Jews turn 18, join the army, and oppress, arrest, maim, kill their “friends.”"

      Not so fast! Before they join the army they are sent to visit Ausschwitz to learn that everybody is their enemy and to comfort themselves with the tought that nothing that they are going to do to their enemies will be as bad as what Nazis did to Jews .

  • After 30 days in jail, Ahed Tamimi's detention is extended indefinitely
    • Of course it does. That also explains why they don't need to present evidence, provide for a fair trial or allow a lawyer to visit and consult the prisoner.

      They are probably as effective as the inquisition.

  • Norman Finkelstein's 'Gaza' is an exhaustive act of witness
    • "Israelis protest that they cannot fight a war in Gaza, without firing into or near civilian buildings. Finkelstein dismisses them: if it can’t be done legally, then stop doing it."

      The Apartheid Junta won't stop or even change as long as its targets are not Jewish.

  • What's wrong with colonialism?
    • Steve Grover: "Anti-Zionism=Anti-Semitism no matter how much JVP tries to bullshit that away."

      That would imply that the bullshit you claim would be a rational argument.
      Having said that. I have never read any rational argument from you. To equate being against an ideology with being against a human group is actually a fascist propaganda claim. Suits you.

    • Thank you Avigail. But I wasn't sarcastic at all. I was just decontextualizing a hypocrite's words.

    • jon s: "We’ve seen the consequences of the fanatical mind-set: totalitarianism and terrorism, violence and misery. Not for me."

      Good for you that you chose to become an Antizionist.

    • DaBakr: "You have no sense at all that Israel is a nation among more then twenty, many of which were created in the same way."

      Zionist ethics in a nutshell: If others commit a crime, than Jews have a right to commit the same crime, too.

      But name 20 countries that were created after 1945 as the result of settler colinonialism. After that name the Aüartheid countries amongst them.

      Here's a hint:
      "Israel is the only state in the world that can be called an apartheid state," the South African delegate told the Israeli delegation and UN members convened at the Palais du Nations."

    • DaBakr: "I guess the events of recent weeks have really driven the Zionist/israel haters to the brink."

      Poor DaBakr. His whole conviction of the legitimation of Zionism/Israel is based on his conviction that everybody hates it.

    • It may not be new to others, but I just realized that Zionists never talk about the rights and obligations of the state of Israel, but only of the alleged rights of the "Jewish people". It seems that "Jewish people" transcend statehood in the way that everything goes.

      While a state cannot acquire territory through war and annex it the whole case becomes different if one just claims that this is the "ancestrial homeland of the Jewish people".

      While a state cannot claim illegally annexed territory as its capita, the whole case becomes different if one just claims that it is the "capital of the Jewish people".

      While a state cannot legally transfer its citizens into occupied territory (or "disputed" territory like the occupier needs to word it) the whole case becomes different if one just claim that "this is the land of the Jewish people" or "the Jewish people have the right to live everywhere in their ancestrial homeland".

      While a state and its land collectively belongs to all of its citizens in the whole case becomes different if one just claims that it belongs to the "Jewish people".

      Same goes for "Jewish democracy", etc.

      It's NEVER about an UN member state which has to abide by international law and human rights. It's never about an indegenous population vs. foreign settlers that immigrate under a de facto or de jure occupation. It's only about the "Jewish people". If Jews hadn't expelled Nonjews they would have created a Jewish dictatorship just to rule over its Nonjewish majority.

    • Nathan: "Yes, ending the Jewish state means the end of Israel."

      Sure, like ending the Aryan or Boer's state meant the end of Germany and South Africa, right?

    • jon s: "It’s remarkable how much the extremists on both sides echo each other, each side denying the other’s legitimacy ."

      What's not remarkable is your attempt to create a fake symmetry.

      jon s: "The Palestinians are not a real people and are not indigenous. No, the Jews are not a real people and are not indigenous. This country is the homeland of both Jews and Palestinians and both are indigenous ...."

      The Palestinians are a constitutive people, the Jews are not. The Palestinians (including Ottoman Jews) are indigenous, Jewish settlers who immigrated under British gun were not.

      jon s: "... and should enjoy equal rights."

      Palestinians should have the right to return even if Jews become a minority (which they allready are in hist. Palestine), right?

    • jon66: "I did not mean to emphasize the question if ancestors, but rather the justification/mitigation of violence against civilians."

      To create a state in Palestine without the consent of its majority population and only through war to acquire the territory and expulsion to become a majority was not possible without violence and terrorism against Palestinians. To keep them pre or post 1967 under martial law the Jewish Apartheid Junta needs to commit violence against a whole people, against EVERY Palestinian civilian every single day, hour, minute and second.

      So please spare us your condemnation of Palestinian violence against Jewish civilians. That's just the tip of the iceberg of Jewish violence against Palestinians, inluding their expulsion, dispossession, disenfranchisement, ritual kidnapping; imprisonment without charge, trial or visitors; torture and demolition of their property and livelyhood.

      When Palestinians would stop attacking Jewish civilians there would be no equivalent response. Jews would continue with their violence and their violation of international law and human rights including the violent prevention of Palestinians who want to return. Including the violence it takes to maintain illegal settlements. Including the violence it takes to control the Westbank. Including the violence to revoke residential status of Nonkews. Including the violence which is needed to protect violent settlers when they attack Palestinians.

    • Jerry Hirsch: "The Jews are in fact far less religious than you imagine. They were recently confirmed as being the least religious of any group worldwide."

      Just another distortion. The Haaretz article says that the Gallup poll DIDN'T include Israel. So much for "worldwide". It also pointed out that 80% of Israeli Jews believe that God exists and 70 percent believe that Jews are the "Chosen People".

    • Mooser: "What is the definitive signs and characteristics of ‘Jewish ethnicity’."

      Being a descendant from Nonjewish settlers from Ur who settled in Canaan?

      Mooser: "How can I tell a real Jew, so we know who deserves a chunk of Holy Land?"

      Mooser, it's not something that Jews "deserve". According to Zionists it is their birth right, including the right to expell, denationalize, disenfranchise, dispossess or oppress Nonjews and punish them with draconian laws.

    • jon 66: "How can one argue that ACTUAL hijacking, murder, suicide bombing, indiscriminate rocket attacks, stabbings, etc., are justified because one had ancestors in the area?"

      Who justifies the violence of settler colonialism which is against a whole people and who justifies the native's violent reaction against some settler colonials?

    • Jerry Hirsch: "Continually confusing religion with ethnicity. …"

      Say Jerry, when did Jews became Jews according to your opinion?

      Jerry Hirsch: "The Jews are an ethnicity just as the Arabs are."

      ROFL. Whose confusing religion with ethnicity? Who knew that not only Jews can become member of an ethnic group through religious conversion, right? Next thing that you are going to claim is that Jews are a nation like Palestinians and therefore one can become Jewish by acquiring citizenship.

      Jerry Hirsch: "Robert F. Kennedy reporting from Palestine in 1948.

      "The Jews point with pride to the fact ...""

      I stopped right there. Can you tell why? According to this nutcases Nonjews don't reproduce at all.

      Here's a report from the UN in 1947:
      "16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

    • Jerry Hirsch: "Avagail, the Jews have a 3,000 year history in the land of Israel. To call them occupiers in their indigenous lands is an insult to rational thought. The evidence of their longterm habitation is enormous and can’t be denied by a logical thinking person."

      To call Jewish settlers who settled in Palestine under British de facto occupation since 1917 and in the West Bank under Israeli occupation since 1967 "indigenous", "longterm habitants" and having "a 3,000 years history" in a land that was only called "the land of Israel" for a short time in history are examples of the usual Zionist orwellian perversion of language and nothing else but the rationalization of Zionist settler colonialism and its crimes against the real indigenous majority Nonjewish population.

    • Jerry Hirsch: "Certainly the Arab conquest of Palestine in the seventh century had all the qualities you now criticize the Jews for. "

      Another example of how corrupted and unjust Zionism in modern time is. It's about 14 centuries back. Or at least one century and before 1919. What's next, Jerry? That you are going to point out that the genocides in the bible had all the qualites of genocides in recent times?

      Jerry: "The critical difference being that the Jews are indigenous to that land while the Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula."

      ROFL. The critical difference is that some ancient Jews WERE indegenous to this land, some Jews today still are, the vast majority are foreign settlers, the vast majority of Palestinians are indigenous and only 5% of them have Arabian ancestry. Onlike Zionist Jews the Arabians were not into settler colonialism and only into conquest and control.

    • Avigail: "I’m Amazed (but not surprised) by how I’m told that I am saying the colonists should leave, when I’m clearly not saying that."

      Nathan is only distracting from his support to keep the natives expelled. Just think about the inherent racism of his false dillema. He wants everyone to trick into believing that expelling Nonjews and keeping them expelled is a lesser crime than expelling Jews.

    • Nathan: "Her recipe isn’t really a solution, because she doesn’t admit or she doesn’t realize that ending the existence of Israel is not the end of conflict (the Jews who arrived after 1917 would have to leave)."

      Again, Nathan and his false dilemma: Either except Jewish settler colonialism or support the expulsion of all Jews and their descendants who arrived after 1917. And the same time he has no problem that the Jewish Apartheid Junta's solution is to keep Palestinians expelled.

    • Nathan: "The grievance of colonialism pre-dates the founding of Israel by a few decades. The grievance of colonialism is about the immigration of Jews to Palestine – so the ending of the Jewish state is not the remedy. The Jews would have to leave."

      Nathan's pathetic false dilemma. Either except a Jewish settler state or expell all Jews. There's nothing inbetween. And again, it's only about Jews, Jews, Jews and Jews. No word about restoring Palestinian rights and the fact that Nonjews have to kept expelled by the Apartheid Junta.

    • Nathan: "Are you suggesting that the colonists be sent back to wherever they came from?"

      The only question a colonial mindset can dishonestly ask as long as he needs to disenfrenchize the native population and deny them their rights including equality and return.

  • Abbas confirms Trump tried to sell Abu Dis as Palestinian capital, in 'Oslo is dead' speech
    • Rivlin: "To say Israel is the result of a Western conspiracy to settle Jews in land belonging to Arab populations? To say that that the Jewish people has no connection with the land of Israel?"

      Rivlin twisted Abbas words (what a surprise). That's what Abbas said according to MEMRI (which was founded by a former Israeli military intelligence officer):

      Abbas: "The functional nature of Israel means that it was evoked by colonialism in order to fulfill a specific function, and thus it constitutes a colonialist enterprise that has nothing to do with Judaism."

      Abbas simply claimed that Zionist settler colonialism had nothing to do with Judaism, but this was a Nonjewish imperial enterprise.

      And Abbas didn't say: “They wanted to bring Jews here from Europe to maintain European interests in the region. They asked Holland, which had the largest navy in the world, to transfer the Jews,”

      He said according to MEMRI: "It did not begin with the Balfour Declaration. ... It began in 1653, when Cromwell ruled Britain. Cromwell staged a coup against the king and became the head of a republic in 1653. This was 300 years prior to the Balfour Declaration. He came up with the idea of transferring the Jews from Europe to the Middle East, to this region, because they wanted this region to become an advanced post to protect the interests and the convoys coming from Europe to the East. This is a well-known story, and there's no need to repeat it – the East India Company and all that... He asked Holland, which owned the largest fleet in the world, to transfer the Jews, but the project was unsuccessful."

  • Israel declares the entire village of Nabi Saleh, home to Tamimi family, a closed military zone
  • Trump's line on 'shithole countries' is a mainstream view in Israel
    • eljay: "– calling IDF soldiers “institutionalized settler terrorists”; "

      Wait, that was me. Don't take it away from me. It was one of the most moral things I ever wrote on MW!

  • Facing serious damage to its image, Israel must smear its critics as anti-Semites
    • Ok, now I understand why you assumed that I thought that these was his position. And it makes sense.

    • And it also means that if you are against Jews conquering and killing Nonjews you are an antisemite.

    • Paranam Kid: "@Talkback: you make sound as if the 2nd part of the phrase you quote is Machover’s own opinion. Clearly it is not, he states explicitly that it is the Zionist ideology."

      How can I make it "sound" as if this is his own opinion allthough he explicitly states that it is the Zionist ideology???

    • Machover: "The core of Zionist ideology is the belief that the Jews of all countries constitute a single national entity rather than a mere religious denomination; and that this national entity has a right to self-determination ..."

      I don't care about the first part, but the second part is bogus.

      Jews, like anybody else have or should have an individual right to self determinition as citizens of their country. But Jews, like anybody else don't have a collective right to national self determination anywhere they like. The collective right to national self determinination is reserved for the citizens/denizens of a certain territory/country by majority ruling and has nothing to do with their faith or heritage. So in Palestine the citizens of Palestine had a national right to self determination by majority ruling. Whoever illegaly immigrated or entered as a refugee didn't. Period. And unlike every other people who want to exercise their national right to self determination Jews are not even interested in becoming a constitutive people.

Showing comments 3500 - 3401