Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 363 (since 2009-08-03 06:09:51)

The Hasbara Buster

Linguist from Rosario, Argentina. Amateur musician. Committed anti-zionist.


Showing comments 363 - 301

  • 'NYT' reports 'surge of hostile sentiment against Jews' nationwide -- on what basis?

      In the 2005 Senate hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein asked the nominee whether he would put his Roman Catholic beliefs aside as Chief Justice, like John Kennedy had done as President.

      During the same hearings, Senator Arlen Specter asked Roberts if his faith would affect his opinions on the bench.

      Neither Senator was called a bigot for asking those questions, and not one commentator described the hearings as an instance of pure and raw anti-Catholicism.

      In the case of the UCLA Jewish student, and in a University where BDS is an issue, it was thoroughly appropriate to ask her if her affiliations with Jewish groups would influence her decisions on the judicial board. Too bad the scared students who asked the question rushed to apologize before informing themselves about the standard practices in hearings across the United States.

  • Palestinian flag is an 'enemy' flag-- Netanyahu's latest crackdown
    • Not sure what exactly your point is, dimadok, but Allison is providing an example of Israeli racism, i.e. a policy that punishes Arabs, but not Jews, for stone throwing and acts of terrorism. The house of an Israeli Arab who runs over someone with a truck will be demolished. That of an Israeli Jew who douses gasoline on a teenager and sets him alight will not. That is Apartheid, plain and simple, independently of what goes on in Lebanon.

  • Palestinian-American teen denied access to Israel’s airport
    • @Mikhael

      False analogy. You're a citizen of Israel and you have duties toward that state. If you dodge the draft or evade taxes you're breaking the law and can be denied an exit visa because of those offenses.

      Dina Shehadeh, on the other hand, is not an Israeli citizen, does not live in Israel or the West Bank and hasn't committed any punishable offense. You retort that Israel has the legal right to stop her from boarding a plane all the same. That is true, but it's not the issue. The issue is whether such right is being applied arbitrarily and whether racism plays a role in applying it. All indications suggest it does.

      I don't recall Israelis adopting such a legalistic approach when an Israeli tennis player was denied entry into Dubai a few years back. On the contrary, they went ballistic -- even when the United Arab Emirates had the legal right to deny her the visa.

  • 'Lesson: The Jews will defend themselves even if it means killing children'
    • Lozowick is not an intellectual in the highest level. (Tip: guys who flaunt their PhD's in your face usually aren't.) I recall debating him and he didn't know the difference between colonies of exploitation and colonies of settlement -- a striking unawareness coming from a historian. He also wasn't aware that the UNSC had declared Israel's settlements legally invalid.

      Also, Lozowick is a dishonest person. Back in 2002, when Israel conducted Operation Defensive shield, he maintained that Israel is especially moral because it launched a ground offensive instead of bombing Jenin from the air. But in 2008, when Israel bombed Gaza using planes and missiles, Lozowick changed his tune and found nothing wrong with such an aerial attack.

      In sum, and despite his abilities as a fluent and articulate writer, I don't think we need to take him (or Asa Kasher, or any of the other "historians," "philosophers" and "intellectuals" who seek to justify Israel via plausible deniability) particularly seriously.

  • Elie Wiesel plays the Holocaust trump card in Gaza
    • For long years, IDF graduation ceremonies took place in Masada, where, as the narrative has it, 900 Jews committed suicide (including the killing of their own children) rather than being captured by the Romans. That doesn't strike me as a rejection of child sacrifice.

      Also, during Israel's war of independence the Jews used children as young as 10 for military purposes; and they stored weapons in synagogues and nurseries.

      But then, a well-known Zionist argument consists of 2 steps:

      1) Claim that Israel meets extraordinarily high moral standards, far superior to those of any other country.

      2) When someone provides counterexamples, ask him why he expects Israel to meet higher standards than other countries.

  • Arrests without charge of American beating victim's relatives in Jerusalem leave State Dep't 'deeply concerned'
  • Israeli police ransack Tariq Abu Khdeir family home and arrest relatives in apparent revenge raid
    • Business as usual for the Israeli army and police. When Salam Amira, then 16, filmed an Israeli soldier shooting a blindfolded and handcuffed detainee in the foot with a rubber bullet, and sent the video to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, the IDF began to shoot at her home. See this brave girl standing by her window, which has a hole with cracks spreading in all directions, here. Now it's the turn of Tariq's relatives for daring to film his brutal beating.

      It is terrifying to think that if this boy had not been American, his "confession" would already be in the hands of the Israeli police and he might spend months in prison. Shared values?

  • Hasbarapocalyse: Naftali Bennett says Hamas committing 'massive self-genocide'
    • Bennett's initial claim is that the death of these 4 kids is Hamas' fault for placing them next to missile launchers. When Blitzer retorts that the 4 died on a beach with no missile launcher in sight, Bennett asserts that Israel never intentionally kills civilians.

      Too bad an experienced journalist like Wolf Blitzer didn't identify the goalpost-shifting and counter, "But you asserted it was Hamas' fault -- do you accept that that claim is inaccurate?". Zionists need to be pressed when they subreptitiously change their lines.

  • Ben Gurion detention guard tells humanitarian worker she is being deported for 'trying to change Israel and make it free of racism'
  • Israeli police and media collude to marginalize coverage of Muhammad Abu Khudair's murder
  • Child's beating in Jerusalem brings unprecedented coverage of Palestinian experience to U.S.
    • @hophmi

      For God's sake, what's wrong with you? For the first time ever, the bruised face of a boy of Palestinian ethnicity beaten up by Israeli security forces is the largest image on the New York Times' cover page. If that's not unprecedented coverage, what is?

      The whole point of this article is that because this particular boy has American citizenship his story is getting phenomenal attention, unlike the many beatings of Palestinians that have been caught on camera in the last few years. I can't see why you are so worked up by Weiss making such a clear point.

  • After brutal police beating, Palestinian-American Tarek Abu Khdeir, 15, sentenced to home arrest without charge
  • Photo Essay: Israeli soliders destroy Qawasmeh and Aisha family homes in retribution attack
    • @DaBakr

      Expressing sexuality through language, dress and behavior is freedom of expression and fully legal. Living in a settlement in occupied land is not legal.

      The correct analogy would be a woman who breaks into a man's house to steal stuff and is caught and raped by him. Nothing can justify rape, but at the same time the woman is to a large extent responsible for her fate.

  • What's your politically-correct World Cup bracket?
  • Israeli officials threaten return to Intifada-era policy of demolishing suspects' homes
    • @Alex

      In 1999, the Israeli High Court outlawed the torture regime the Shin Bet used for years, though human rights groups have said Israel has continued to torture some detainees. The court decision also allowed for abusive means–”moderate physical pressure” (MPP) in the court’s words–to be used on “ticking time bombs,” which refers to detainees who had information on imminent threats to Israel life.

      I don't believe it makes much sense to give any credibility to the High Court's "outlawing" of torture in as much as it came with a caveat that rendered it meaningless. After 1999, all the Shin Bet has to do is label its prisoners as ticking time bombs et voilà, business as usual.

      I'm not saying other countries don't use torture. But at least they don't pompously claim to have outlawed the repugnant practice while employing it whenever they see it fit.

  • 'Forward' editor says Presbyterian vote was anti-Semitic
    • @hophmi

      Exactly what sanctions are on the current regimes in Iraq and Egypt? Egypt receives a couple billion in military aid every year.

      The only reason the US gives $2 bn to Egypt is so that the African nation won't make war on Israel. Actually, that money should be counted as part of the aid given to Israel: the US is bribing dictators on behalf of the Zionist state.

  • Teju Cole explains (and shows) that one side has been dispossessed in Israel and Palestine
    • Except that the Bir'im Maronite Palestinians did not lose any war. They were (and are) Israeli citizens whose village was destroyed by the Jews in 1953, while no war was being fought. Their land was expropriated for Jewish-only use.

  • Netanyahu says Jews invented the idea of 'honoring your father and mother'
    • Honoring one's parents is a long standing tradition in most of the world's cultures. Tracing it to the Bible is simply a hilarious act of arrogance.

      Unfortunately, in recent times that tradition has begun to be lost, among other places in Israel itself, where elderly Holocaust survivors suffer deprivation even as their government collects the reparations that were meant for them.

  • New video shows Palestinian youths killed by Israeli army on Nakba Day posed no threat to soldiers
    • @Zach S

      Maybe he was shot and killed in that video, maybe he wasn’t. But this video doesn’t prove that he was, or that he was shot by an Israeli.

      You don't seem to get the point of this post, which is that the video proves that the youth was not threatening the Israeli soldiers in any way. The Israeli government suggested he did, but the only video released up to now shows that he didn't. The post does not purport to prove that the boy was killed by the soldiers because that has not been disputed by anyone.

      Now you come here to present the minoritarian view that the boy may have been killed by others or that no boy at all may have been killed. The place to publish your concern is the websites of the primary sources (news agencies) that reported the story in the first place, all of which disagree with your view.

  • What’s wrong with the ADL survey and how it could be improved
    • @Palikari

      Some Jews think they are better than other people of course, but to generalize saying that “Jews think they are better than other people” is anti-Semitic, just like to generalize saying that “Americans think they are better than other people” is anti-American. Do you get the difference?

      Groups are usually judged by what their leadership, their media and their intellectuals say and do. Jewish leaders and media make frequent references to the high numbers of Jewish Nobel laureates, violinists, judges, businessmen, writers, senators and other achievers, often making favorable comparisons with the figures for other ethnic or religious groups. Celebrated Jewish authors like Scholem Aleichem or Leon Uris paint the Jews as good, smart and superior and the Others (e.g. Russians, Arabs) as evil, dumb, brutal and inferior.

      I mean, you can't boast of being better than other people and then feign outrage when someone tells you that you think you're better than other people. Of course, this behavior from the Jewish leadership does not extend to all and any Jews, but making generalizations from what the people who claim to represent a group say and do is an instance of bad sociology, not of prejudice.

  • Blumenthal in Brooklyn
    • @yonah

      I agree with you that citing Lieberman's dubious credentials is uncalled for. I personally favor a more aseptic approach that mainly takes into account his actions during his tenure as the foreign minister of the State of Israel.

      That being said, it can't be denied that a) Lieberman is the second most popular politician in Israel in terms of votes received, and b) he treats Israeli Arabs as dhimmis whose citizenship can be revoked, and continually threatens to leave them out of the State (for instance through land swaps that would transfer major Arab towns to the projected Palestinian state) if they don't behave. Whether he'll eventually achieve his goals or the country's High Court will stop him, we don't know; but the fact that such a rhetoric can be openly displayed without anyone raising an eyebrow is very telling of the racist nature of the State of Israel.

  • 'NYT' terms Islamic Jihad's 4 percent support-- 'new traction in Gaza'
    • @hophmi

      You seem like most radical movements – very loud, very proud, and basically marginalized.

      We're not marginalized in as much as you come here to tell us we are. Remember Gandhi's aphorism? "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." At present, you're in the stage of fighting us. If we were marginalized, you would just ignore us.

  • Defending Apartheid – From 1968 to the present
    • Instant messaging was not an Israeli innovation. In its modern form it was first developed by Quantum Link (later America On Line) for use with Commodore 64 computers; but noncommercial IM services, such as the Zephyr Notification Service (developed by MIT) were already in use in the early 80s.

      Israeli can't really boast of any revolutionary innovation; the country's scale is simply not enough for that. At most it can boast of first commercially launching certain products (but not instant messaging or cherry tomatoes) that would have anyway been developed somewhere else a few months later.

  • Racism in service of a pro-Israel agenda-- two 'NYT' editors reveal a bias
    • @Ira

      The modifier "some or many" is misplaced in the phrase "the racist, libelous and outrageous claim that Palestinians want to kill all (some or many) Jews will be a statement that other departments at your newspaper will be confronting shortly." It should come before "Palestinians," not before "Jews," to accurately reflect the editors' proposal.

      Also, you could make the point that Schimmerling says "by word and action," which implies he's not merely citing the obscure reference to a hadith in the Hamas charter, but talking about real efforts made by the Palestinians to try and kill all Jews.

  • A Jew who visited Palestine responds to 'NYT' assertion that Palestinians want to kill all Jews
    • @yonah

      The testimony of Ted Auerbach is irrelevant. I’m sure (23/29ths sure) that he was not staying with Hamas Palestinians. That is the demographic of the Palestinian people that might harbor attitudes formed by the Hadith that I referred to yesterday.

      I see what you mean: while Fatah Palestinians don't want to kill all Jews, Hamas ones do.

      Small problem, a Jew called Norman Finkelstein has been the guest of Hamas Palestinians in Gaza, and they didn't kill him.

      So, while this may be 32/29ths off kilter, we're still left with not a single example of Palestinians who have avowed to kill all Jews.

      I must add I can't fathom why you would consider that calling out a deranged editorial policy is not relevant in a blog largely devoted to media bias.

    • @Citizen

      How about, “Israeli Jews have avowed as their goal the transfer/exodus of all Palestinians.”

      Actually, that would be an accurate statement. Israelis are represented by their elected politicians, and the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Liberman, has put forward the idea of transferring Israeli Arabs, for instance by swapping Israeli Arab towns for uninhabitted Palestinian land.

      Liberman has avowed to get rid of the Arabs frequently and unambiguously. For instance, on Sunday he addressed Israeli Arab politicians in a Facebook posting, stating “I can promise these inciters that we will do everything so that in any future accord, they will find themselves in the place they belong and Umm el-Fahm [a major Israeli Arab town] shall be part of the Palestinian state and not part of the state of Israel.”

      This is not an obscure sentence in a charter, or a vague statement misrepresented by the press. It's a repeatedly stated commitment to a policy of ethnic cleansing.

  • Haaretz joins Rush Limbaugh and company in trying to link Max Blumenthal to KC shooter suspect
    • @hophmi

      Israeli governments have had non-Jewish cabinet members for years now.

      Just to clarify your ambiguous phrase, not a single non-Jew serves in the current Israeli government.

      Salim Joubran has sat on Israel’s Supreme Court since 2003. Ayoub Kara was deputy Speaker of the Knesset. Nawaf Massalha was a deputy speaker as well. Salah Tarif was a deputy speaker and a cabinet minister. Majalli Wahabi was a deputy speaker and briefly as Acting President of Israel. Raleb Maladeje held cabinet positions in two successive government when Labor was in the coalition.

      Exactly, and the question posed to you was “How many non-Jews — especially Christians and Muslims — have been high-level members of the Israeli government from its founding to the present day? ” From the hundreds and hundreds of cabinet members that Israel has had in its 33 governments, you can come up with just 2 non-Jewish ones -- neither of which high-level. From the hundreds of Supreme Court justices, just one has been non-Jewish.

      To put things in perspective, 3000 Jews openly lived as Jews in Berlin through WWII -- they were not killed, they were not harmed, they were not jailed, and everyone knew they were Jewish. The existence of those Jews does not disprove the Holocaust, and the existence of a couple of Arab former low-level ministers does not disprove the ethnocratic character of Israel. It is shameful that you use Holocaust-denial-like techniques to argue your points.

  • Israeli embassy pressured Amnesty to cancel launch of 'apartheid' book -- Ben White
    • In other Apartheid-related news, RIBA, the Royal Institute of British Architects, has passed a motion proposing a boycott of IAUA, the Israeli Association of United Architects, over their role in the construction of illegal settlements. RIBA is calling for IAUA to be excluded from the International Union of Architects.

      link to

  • Johansson sees greater wrong in Oxfam than Israeli settlement
    • @hophmi

      As usual, she’s absolutely correct.

      She claimed, without evidence, that Oxfam funded a BDS movement. She also claimed that the illegality of the settlements is "easily debatable." These two claims are not correct.

      Cults never recognize nuance, and Scarlett’s opinion is nuanced.

      The UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the US Government have all asserted, without nuance, that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal. Would you call all of these organizations "cults"?

      Johansson's opinions are "nuanced" to the same extent that a Holocaust denier's are. However, contrary to the Holocaust deniers, who act out of ideology, Johansson simply acts out of cluelessness.

  • Does Israel Have a Right to Exist as a Jewish State?: An excerpt from Ali Abunimah's 'The Battle for Justice in Palestine'
    • @JeffB

      Jews mostly live in Israel and the United States. But even the modern record shows that if the Jews didn’t have their own state their status would return to the horrors of the past.

      Although this has been frequently stated, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion. More to the point, it's a ludicrous one.

      I can remember a time in the not too distant past when Jews were unofficially barred from serving in my country's (Argentina) foreign service. You had Jewish academics, lawmakers, cops, but not ambassadors or consuls. This has radically changed in the last few years and now not only do we have Jewish diplomats, but the country's Foreign Minister himself is Jewish.

      Are you seriously claiming this is somehow connected with the existence of Israel, and that if the Jewish state disappeared Jews would again be discriminated against in Argentina? The notion doesn't pass the Occam razor test. It is much simpler to posit that the world has changed for the better, which is supported by the fact that other traditionally ostracized groups have also been vindicated (for instance, gays are now allowed to marry in many places, including my country).

      Regrettably, this positive change has not affected the whole world. For instance, I can't fathom a Muslim being appointed as Israel's foreign minister. Can you?

  • Anti-Defamation League exploits fear of Muslims to undermine anti-gay bill
    • @hophmi

      Why? Why is it any fairer than arguing that conservative Christians could deny services to women who have had abortions, even if that’s never happened?

      The outrage here is not the assertion that Muslim cabbies would refuse to drive passangers based on religious reasons. The outrage is the suggestion that obstructing someone from attending a non-Muslim temple could be one of those reasons.

      Concretely, the ADL stated that, based on his beliefs, a Muslim would not drive a Hindu to his temple. This, unlike the ban on alcohol, is not part of Islamic teachings, so that, essentially, the ADL is lying. The "example" they so casually provided has absolutely no base in the Muslim religion.

      By diverting attention to the refusal to drive people carrying alcoholic beverages, you're trying to establish an analogy between intolerance of an intoxicating substance (which does exist) and intolerance of all religions other than one's own (which the ADL argued but does not exist). That is a stupid comparison that could only be made in bad faith.

  • Breaking: Students rise up against NY Jewish school's 'prohibition' of Rashid Khalidi
    • @hophmi

      I don't understand your chastising the MW community over its advocacy. This is not a newspaper; it's a blog that has taken a position. Basically, that position is that a state shouldn't separate its citizens into categories with different theoretical and practical rights. This is not to discount the Israeli narrative; it's just to support a principle that collides with that narrative.

      Your high opinion of yourself notwithstanding, the reality is that you don't come here to learn anything, but to confront an opinion you don't like. Your well-mannered tone only thinly disguises your use of tired talking points and diversions (e.g. "Most seem relatively uninterested in human rights elsewhere in the world," as though not speaking about something were the same as not being interested, and as though there were something wrong in picking one's fights). True, you keep phlegmatic most of the time, but you revert to crude hasbara when pressured. There's nothing wrong with that; many of us do something similar on Zionist sites. But it's amusing that you portray yourself as holding the moral high ground before an intolerant and simplistic community when you're doing exactly the same as us: one-sided (however polite) advocacy.

      Some shriek on and on about the media, finding bias where none exists

      I recall a very good example given the other day on this site: when newspapers report "the wall is considered by many to be illegal. Israel disputes this," thus equating a finding of the International Court of Justice to the opinion of an interested party in the conflict. Whether the reporter is aware of their bias, that's debatable; but bias it is.

  • NYT obit of rabbi left out his urging Sharon: 'Very simply, wipe them out'
    • The sadistic blockade of Gaza, in which shoes or clothes have been blocked from the Strip for up to 3 years, is also cruel, and the Gazans' powerlessness in the face of it also found expression in speech against Israel or, in many cases, the Jews. I don't see the New York Times understanding the complex psychology of it all. I see the NYT understanding rabbi Hartman, but depicting the occasional antisemitic outbursts of individual Gazans as the product of hate and indoctrination, rather than of Israel's actions.

  • 'NYT' highlights AIPAC's first failure in 30 years, as de Blasio and Hillary jump on Iran bandwagon
    • The US Congress refuses to impose further sanctions on a country that was already being subjected to sanctions for doing nothing illegal in the first place; meanwhile, that very same Congress allocates $3.1 bn to another country that is clearly violating international law. If that's AIPAC's defeat, it's a pyrrhic one, if the term applies.

      If my 15-yr-old son asks for a car and an apartment and I buy him a car but not an apartment, has he failed?

  • American Jewish leader calls Iranians manipulative 'bazaaris'
    • It gets to the point where we would need to know Zarif's version of the events. It's quite unlikely that a diplomat would treat a kosher-keeping Jew to dinner without seeing to it that appropriate food is served. Since Jews overwhelmingly do not follow the religion's dietary rules, it's quite probable that Zarif was not aware that Hoenlein did.

      Another possibility is that Zarif ran into Hoenlein in the street and improvised the invitation, in which case he served the food he had planned to eat, which Hoenlein politely turned down because it was not kosher.

      In any event, I don't see the point in Hoenlein's recalling that he refused to eat. It's irrelevant and it may be construed as painting Zarif in a bad light when it's plain obvious that the embarrassment was unintended.

  • Deconstructing Scarlett Johansson’s statement on SodaStream
    • @MahaneYehude1

      I believe Aloni doesn’t deserve post in MW since it is hard to write about Israeli politician which her CV doesn’t contain any event that can be used to attack Israel.

      I assume you're aware that Aloni was among the first to compare Israel's behavior in the West Bank to Apartheid. I'm glad to see that you're comfortable enough with that analogy to demand that homage be paid to her in MW.

  • At MLA, boycott opponents paper chairs
    • I don't see these unidentified boycott opponents' point. The Mufti's claims about suicide bombing and Jew-killing are truly hateful, but he was not a speaker at the event, nor is he endorsed by BDS supporters. As for Barghouti's statements, I don't see how they can be construed as an objectionable use of language. Zionism is an ideology of racial discrimination that needs to be done away with, and Barghouti says exactly that in an eloquent way. He talks about the death of a stance, not of people. Nothing to object to.

      On the other hand, we have state-appointed and -paid Israeli rabbis stating that Gentiles were born to serve Jews, or that it is permissible to kill babies in war, or that Jews shouldn't rent out houses to non-Jews. But these statements seem to somehow have escaped the boycott opponents' commendable concern for words.

  • Chilean soccer team puts Palestine front and center
  • 'Haaretz' says many Orthodox are taught to see non-Jews as 'not quite human'
    • @OlegR

      I wonder if it’s important that Satmars are virulent anti Zionists.

      "Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring," said rabbi Dov Lior in a ruling against artificial insemination of Jewish women with semen from non-Jewish men. Lior is a senior authority on Jewish law in the Religious Zionism movement.

      So that no, it's not an anti-Zionist thing. It's an ultra-Orthodox Jewish thing.

      Unfortunately, those Jews who could fight these horrible teachings don't, and Lior gets paid a salary by the State of Israel. My conclusion is that these monsters are useful to Zionism.

  • The importance of Susan Abulhawa's poetry
    • To be honest, I prefer, for example, the forceful anger in Gihad Ali's Eye to eye to Abulhawa's mixture of poetry and pamphlet, which is too explicit to be the first, and too weak to qualify as the second.

  • Cyndi Lauper, the country you are planning to entertain imposes violent segregation, not equality
    • @JeffB, Mahane Yehude1

      That was a good retort.

      No, I'm afraid it's not. We were discussing the rights enjoyed by Arabs in Israel. I pointed out that the Israeli Arab citizens from Iqrit and Bir'im were expelled from their villages, given a written promise that they would be allowed back, and then denied the right to return to their houses, which were demolished. Keep in mind that we're talking about Israeli citizens, now living as internally displaced people.

      Mahane Yehude1 retorts that his family left property in Iraq. This is a non-sequitur, since we're discussing Israel, not Iraq. The right of a group of Israeli Arabs to return to the villages they were expelled from, which was set forth in writing, was not respected, and these families don't enjoy the freedom to live where they wish. Of course, there's no analogous case of Jewish citizens being internally displaced in Israel.

      You are mistaken. There is no law against intermarriage in Israel

      I am not mistaken. Marriage in Israel is left to the different religions, since the country does not allow civil marriage in its territory. The Muslims perform some Muslim-Jewish marriages. The Jews don't perform any marriage between people of different religions at all. Therefore, if there exists some intermarriage it's thanks to the Muslims, not to the Jews.

      Just to respect them, we don’t eat bread in Passover in the street in Jewish towns.

      Again, you claimed that there's no religious coertion in Israel and I cited a case of religious coertion. Whether such coertion stems from respect or not is irrelevant.

      That’s makes all the difference. We are not speaking on a small fraction in the population.

      The 3,000 Jews who survived in Berlin alone were more than 1% of all Jews living in Germany when WWII began. That is a far larger proportion than that of, say, Arabs among Israeli ambassadors since 1948. In other words, Jews who survived Nazism were marginal, but Israeli ambassadors who are Arab are even more marginal. The same holds true for Cabinet ministers, university lecturers and even Israel Electric Company employees.

      I hope that when our neighbors accept us as an integral part in the ME, many problems will be solved.

      The Arab league has repeatedly offered to recognize Israel if the country retreats to its 1967 borders. That was 97% of what Israel wanted. In the most recent offer, they even accepted that Israel could keep its largest settlements through territorial swaps. That's 100% of Israel's aspirations. But Israel has somehow managed to ignore this incredibly generous offer.

    • @MahaneYehude1

      a country that provides freedom to its citizens, regardless race or gender

      The Israeli citizens from Iqrit and Birim, who were forcibly expelled by the Jews in 1948, don't enjoy the freedom to return to their villages, despite the written promises that were made to them at the time of their expulsion.

      My country withdrew from Gaza strip completely. After the withdrawal, instead of building their piece of land, they attack our civilians in the Negev by long range missiles which they build by themselves or smuggle from Arab countries to the strip.

      Israel withdrew from Gaza out of necessity, not under a peace agreement. While I reject any attack on civilians, this is not a case of a peace gesture paid back with war.

      As for romantic relationships between Palestinians and Israelis Jews, I don’t think that your show will be visited by even not one couple consists of Muslim woman and Jewish man since the Arab society doesn’t allow such romantic relationships to exist.

      Well, at least the Muslims allow Muslim man-Jewish woman couples. The Jews don't allow any kind of intermarriage.

      Secular people also free to live their lives in their way and no one forces them to follow the religious laws.

      Showcasing leavened products in Jewish-majority towns is forbidden in Pesach even if the baker is secular.

      Indeed, the wall saves lives and the level of the attacks was decreased, but, unfortunately, this wall also causes injustice to innocent Palestinians. My country makes all efforts to minimize these damages.

      Correlation is not causality. Security experts agree that the fundamental cause for the decrease in the attacks is that the Palestinians renounced terror.

      Also, Israel didn't do the most elementary effort to minimize damages, i.e. building the wall along the Green Line.

      The Palestinians, who are citizens of the state of Israel, enjoy excellent medical treatment, education in high level colleges and universities and high standards of living the same as the Jewish citizens.

      Not true. Israeli Arabs live a full 4 years less than Israeli Jews.

      They enjoy freedom and democracy like all other citizens, many of them serving in senior positions in Israel like members of parliament, judges, journalists, scientists, police and army officers, business men etc.

      Did you know that up to 3,000 Jews openly lived in Berlin unharmed through WWII? Any Arab serving in a senior position is an exception that does not revert the general trend of a ferocious discrimination against Arabs. Denying this discrimination because of the exceptions is akin to denying the Holocaust because of those Jews.

  • Israeli rap warns vulnerable Jewish women about seductive, dangerous Arab men
    • @JeffB

      That’s not anti-miscagination that’s objection to intermarriage.

      That's why I said Whatever name you give to it. Did you miss it?

      But Tzipi Hotovely does not just object to intermarriage. She calls for girls to be taught not to intermarry, and she does so in her capacity as a Member of Knesset and using taxpayer-funded facilities. We anti-Zionists, using a single standard, denounce the only country considered a democracy where such an outrage takes place, i.e. Israel.

      To pick an example of a national hero, though not a lawmaker

      Muhammad Ali's clownish reflections about God having made us different and bluebirds not mating with red birds were statements made on a personal level several decades ago. Nothing to do with an official endorsement of "anti-intermarrying."

    • @JeffB

      Mixture of races came before the “esp”. That part is absolute.

      Yep. That's why I clarified for you that The word “race” means –among other things– “a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.” Did you miss it?

      Still not true. The ethnicity of Palestinian Jews is the same as the ethnicity of Palestinians Muslims.

      Allow me to ask for your source for this extraordinary statement.

      In any event, a mainstream Israeli lawmaker from the ruling party asked for more education "to prevent Jewish women from forging life connections with non-Jews." Whatever name you give to it, there's no analogous statement from any lawmaker from the ruling party of any other developed country.

    • This was a discussion about the meaning of the word “miscegenation”.

      Along with the authors of the OED dictionary who define it as: “Mixture of races; esp. the sexual union of whites with Negroes.”

      Oh, the old line that Jews can't be racist because Judaism isn't a race. The same logic by which Arabs can't be antisemites because they're Semites themselves.

      The short form "esp." stands for "especially," which doesn't preclude other meanings. The word "race" means --among other things-- "a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group." Finally, we have standard journalistic usage, in which "anti-miscegenation" is commonly applied to Israeli efforts to keep Arabs from mixing with Jews. Here you have an example.

      But since words, not concepts, are all that matters to you, I have no trouble rephrasing the sentence that sparked this little debate: Israel is the only developed nation where efforts to prevent one ethnic group from marrying another ethnic group enjoy official support.

    • @JeffB

      To sanction means, among other things, to endorse, to approve of, to give one's blessing to.

      A prominent Jewish lawmaker in Israel hosted a conference against Jew/non-Jew relationships. She then declared "more education is needed to combat intermarriage." If that's not endorsing anti-miscegenation, what is?

    • @Newclench

      But no, this is not representative of a stream of Israeli popular culture.

      No, it's representative of a very mainstream view in Israel, according to which there's an Arab conspiracy to dissolve the Jewish people through intermarriage.

      In fact it's so mainstream that Tzipi Hotovely, a hihgly respected lawmaker from Likud, the largest party in Israel, hosted a Knesset hearing on how to prevent Jewish girls from entering relationships with non-Jews. Mississipi 1950? No, Israel 2011.

      Israel is the only developed country where anti-miscegenation is officially sanctioned.

  • Yet another Dershowitz fabrication
    • I had heard the "yes, but we're talking about Jews" story ascribed to an unnamed antisemitic professor at the University of Buenos Aires.

      The resurfacing of the same exact story in an American context in Dershowitz' fantasy makes it clear it has nothing to do with any actual antisemitism, and everything to do with Jewish victimism and the need to create myths to support it.

      On another note, Dershowitz makes another false analogy when he claims, "China occupies Tibet, Russia occupies Chechnya and several other countries occupy Kurdish lands." China doesn't occupy Tibet; it has annexed the region, and its inhabitants have full Chinese citizenship and even some privileges the Han don't enjoy, such as the right to have more than one child. This contrasts with the situation in the West Bank where the Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. Also, China has built for the Tibet the highest railroad in the world, which can be used by everyone. In contrast, Israel builds roads on expropriated Palestinian property where the very owners of those lands can't drive.

  • 'An Arab & A Jew' debate BDS and the future of Israel/Palestine
    • @Seth Edenbaum

      In Germany until 2000, when they finally changed the laws, even third generation descendants of Turkish immigrants could not become full citizens. They were not “German” citizens because they were not ethnic Germans.

      Correction: descendants of Turkish immigrants could and did become full citizens, only the process was not automatic. In this Germany was indeed similar to Israel, where descendants of non-Jewish immigrants can at least theoretically apply for citizenship.

      But there was a fundamental difference between the German system and the Israeli one. Once those immigrants, having overcome all the hurdles, became German citizens, they were undistinguishable from ethnic Germans. They became part of the German people.

      In Israel, on the other hand, non-Jewish immigrants who become citizens do not become part of the Israeli people, because Israel doesn't recognize such a people in the first place; and, critically, because they don't acquire the Right of Return Jewish Israelis enjoy. The two groups have legally different statuses even if non-Jewish citizens travel on an Israeli passport.

  • 'It's hard to see why Israel won't follow white South Africa's road to extinction,' says 'Forward' writer
    • @JeffB

      It then became the typical normal diplomatic relations i.e. peace+embassies and “attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees”. Which was an insult not a peace offer. It is a return to the same nonsense that people had been talking about for decades.

      Absolute nonsense. For decades, the famous three "no's" implied an absolute rejection of Israel. Consequently, and contrary to your claim, the Arabs had never proposed full diplomatic ties between Israel and all the Arab nations. In 2002 they did. That was a watershed.

      Also, the language about refugees was carefully crafted not to mention the concept of a full return. There was room for negotiation, but the Israelis missed the opportunity.

      Ariel Sharon thought it was such a good offer he immediately called for direct or indirect negotiations to tighten the offer up. Sort of a “I’ll meet King Faud anywhere to discuss this”.

      A few weeks later that offer got pulled.


      Sharon rejected the initial initiative, the one you claim was pulled, even before the formal offer was made.

      Indeed, the initiative was formally presented at an Arab League summit on 28 March 2002. However, Sharon had rejected the initial Saudi plan at a Cabinet meeting on 3 March 2002. See here.

      I think the point of that little episode shows that Israel is willing to have peace providing it is to their advantage.

      Yes -- that's why the Israeli peace plans come with caveats that render them unacceptable. Can the Palestinians be faulted for not accepting them?

    • NormanF above is…Norman Finkelstein?

      No, NormanF is just another Zionist internet warrior who doesn't care much for consistency. It's interesting to follow these guys and see how they can say one thing and its exact opposite; how they can defend an action (if performed by Israel) and attack that very same action (if performed by the Arabs).

      For instance, when Israel denied entry to a Palestinian American because of her ethnicity, he claimed "A sovereign state is entitled under international law to refuse admission of a foreign national and does not have to give a reason for its denial. Israel did nothing here the world’s other 192 states don’t do."

      But when Dubai refused a visa to the Israeli representative at the FIAT/IFTA conference earlier this year, he moaned "In other words, FIAT/IFTA has decreed “no dogs or Jews allowed.”" No mention of a country's right to refuse admissions here.

      I find these contradictions quite amusing.

    • That is a grinding one but the Arabs are the ones who bear most of the cost – not from Israeli policies but from the decision of their leaders to hold out for victory over the Jewish State than to accept a compromise peace.

      If you live in 2013, why do you use the rhetoric of 1990?

      "The Arabs" have long accepted a compromise peace. In 2002, the Arab states, under the auspices of the Saudi king, offered recognition of Israel and full diplomatic ties in exchange for the State's retreat to the Green Line. Unlike Israel's offers, which are always secret and temporary and never set forth in writing, the Arab peace proposal can be found on the Internet and has not been retracted.

      The Israelis have never responded to this incredibly generous offer, which gives them 97% of what they are asking for.

  • Jewish establishment stays silent on Israeli plan to forcibly displace Bedouins
  • Richard Cohen's racist ABC's: Arab culture, biracial children, Chirlane McCray's sexuality
    • Phil,

      I don’t question that Jews have had a remarkable culture, historically, in this stage of capitalism.

      Well, I do have a problem with this assertion. The accurate statement would be that Jews have been great producers of the cultures they have lived in.

      There's little Jewish, if anything at all, in the cultural output of Ashkenazi Jews. It's not like they developed the concerto for piano and orchestra, the modern short story or oil-on-canvas painting. It's not like they founded a physics school that eventually led to the Relativity Theory. They are all European creations that were taken up by Jews on an individual basis. Of course there's a Jewish tradition of providing their offspring with an education, but that alone does not constitute a culture, nor can it be construed as the source of Jewish achievement, which would have been nonexistent outside of a European cultural context (no Einstein from Morocco).

      The ultimate reason for the Ashekanzi Jews' (and Israel's) success is that Europe made them the gift of Enlightment, freeing them from the yoke of religion. Left to their own forces, they would have probably ended up like the Haredi community in Israel, whose culture is uniquely Jewish.

  • Truth hurts: 25 Palestinian social media activists detained for 'incitement'
    • @MahaneYehude1

      In general, Amigo, there are racists in Israel. But I don’t think more than any European country and no more than among the Palestinians.

      This statement is inaccurate.

      There are racists in all countries, but only in Israel (among all democratic industrialized countries) do they get a free pass and even the State's support.

      Just to cite an example, in 2010 some 39 rabbis signed an edict calling on their followers not to rent houses to Arabs. These racists haven't been prosecuted. Not only that; they even get paid by the State. I challenge you to cite a single European country where a similar outrage takes place.

  • Stop the demolitions in Jerusalem!
    • Shmuel, NormanF's phrase "Ramat Shlomo is in north Jerusalem west of the so-called Green Line" yields no results in a Google search. At least commend him for, for once, making up lies of his own rather than regurgitating someone else's.

  • A lynching by another name would be a political murder
    • Denis:

      If one is going to justify the Ramallah incident by providing counter-examples of i-Jews doing the same, one would need to cite an instance where crowds of i-Jews lynched a Palestinian or two and then desecrated the bodies.

      I'm afraid the asymmetry of the situation makes that impossible. Israeli Jews can --and do-- rejoice in the deaths of Palestinians without having to resort to killing them themselves, because they have an army that does it for them. For instance, during operation Cast Lead Jews flocked into Sderot to watch the destruction of Gaza live. There are several videos and stories on the web describing how casually they helped themselves to coffee from espresso machines as they witnessed the Israeli planes bomb the strip. When interviewed, they expressed genocidal wishes.

      On another note, you gotta love these Zionists. They claim to be morally superior, but when someone tries to ascertain whether that's true or not, they ask them why they expect from Israel what they don't expect from any other country on earth.

    • Lozowick claims:

      “[The] need to account for their actions in a way that shows a decent respect for the opinions of mankind is one of the things that distinguishes the Jews from their enemies, who observe no morality at all in waging war and show no compunction in twisting the truth to their ends.”

      In the Ramallah incident, the Palestinians killed soldiers who were occupying them. That they washed their hands in their blood is completely irrelevant; the sacralization of dead bodies is simply a superstition.

      (In a similar incident, in the Bus 300 affair Israeli soldiers killed two captive Palestinian fighters, crushing their heads with large stones, against the general opinion of mankind that prisoners should not be killed. The murderers were pardoned by the the President of Israel, and thus were not accountable for their action.)

      In the Zion Square lynching, on the other hand, the Jews almost killed an Arab who had done nothing to them. There was no rational motivation for the attack. Unlike the lyinching in Ramallah, where resistance to the occupation was the driving force, in the Zion Square case the driving force was hate.

  • Israeli gov't upholds denying entry to American teacher in Ramallah
    • NormanF:

      She has to deal with Israeli border control. And they have the right to decide if she can get in. If not – as in this case, tough luck.

      When Dubai banned the Israeli representative at the FIAT/IFTA conference earlier this year, this is what you had to say:

      • 2 months ago

      In other words, FIAT/IFTA has decreed "no dogs or Jews allowed."

      And the Jew-hating Arabs of Dubai are happy!

      "Jew-hating Arabs?" Sorry, no! It was just a case of "tough luck"!

    • NormanF,

      Under the agreement, both sides can still refuse to admit each other’s nationals.

      No sir. Under the agreement, Israel can refuse to admit American nationals without giving any reason verifiable by the US. The US is not explicitly granted such an option.

      I simply pointed out this is customary international law. There is a reason the US is mum.

      Agreements between countries are meant to supersede international law. What is being questioned here is that the US is on the verge of entering an agreement with a country that has a record of refusing entry to Americans based on ethnicity.

      And you haven't answered my question -- as an American, you don't seem to be much outraged that a fellow American was deported for no apparent reason. Why is that? (I do recall, however, that a few years back you were outraged that an Israeli tennis player was not allowed to enter Dubai to participate in a tournament -- you didn't cite the fact that such refusal was legal under international law.)

    • Except that Israel is neogotiating a visa waiver with the US. In such an agreement, you get free entry and you grant free entry.

      By the way, you don't seem to be showing any solidarity with your fellow American. Or is it that you don't feel any "fellowness" towards her? If so, why?

Showing comments 363 - 301