Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4265 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)


Showing comments 4265 - 4201

  • How a culture remembers its crimes is important: A review of 'American Sniper'
    • I’m sure PTSD is real, but, for the life of me, I can’t help but object when US GI PTSD is the main focus, as if it were the worst consequence of the Iraq war, and not the millions of dead, wounded, orphaned, homeless, imprisoned, and oppressed Iraqis.

      Exactly. Sad to say but for too many Americans some people's lives (i.e. American soldiers) are considered so much more important than others (Iraqis, Afghanis, Vietnamese, etc.)

      And then to compound the moral vacuity, we justify killing those others by celebrating their murders as something heroic, ala "American Sniper". Every last one of those killed must have been a "bad person" and therefore deserving of death.

      Or else their death was the fault of others of their kind, even though it was our soldiers' actions that were the proximate cause of their deaths. Much like jons and others who won't accept that the IDF was and is responsible for thousands of Palestinians' deaths. It must be the fault of Hamas, or Fatah, or anyone else but the army that actually killed them.

  • Fifth child dies from exposure to freezing temperatures in war-torn Gaza
  • Gaza war blowback? Palestinian stabs 13 on Tel Aviv bus.
  • #JeSuisUnJuifBritannique
    • I agree totally.

    • Roha, I think you misunderstood my point, probably because of poor wording on my part. My point was that all 13 statements that the respondents are asked to agree or disagree with are of a negative variety, assuming a level of anti-semitism that does not match reality, rather than the statements being neutral in tone, or being a mix of positive and negative statements. Its a push poll of sorts, used for crass political purposes to gin up fear rather than a real research poll.

    • Thanks for the link, jwp.

      The Guardian link you posted also links to an evaluation of the polls from the (British) Institute for Jewish Policy Research, which noted:

      unfortunately, the organisation’s survey about antisemitism is littered with flaws, and in the context of a clear need for accurate data on this topic, its work may even be rather irresponsible.

      link to

      My take on the survey is that both parts have their flaws, but the survey of British Jewish attitudes is certainly the more flagrantly biased. Besides the unreliability of it due to its self-selected nature, I'd call it an obvious push poll. It consists of a series of 13 statements, to which the respondent is asked to either "strongly agree,
      agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree">

      Here are the 13 statements:

      1. I am concerned that Jews may not have a long-term future in Britain.
      2. I am concerned that Jews may not have a long-term future in Europe.
      3. My family and I are threatened by Islamic extremism in Britain.
      4. Boycotts of businesses selling Israeli products constitute intimidation.
      5. Media bias against Israel fuels persecution of Jews in Britain.
      6. I have witnessed antisemitism that was disguised as a political comment about Israel.
      7. I try not to show visible signs of my Judaism when I go out, like a Magen David or a kippah.
      8. I often avoid mentioning that I'm Jewish when I'm with new people.
      9. In the past two years I have witnessed or experienced more antisemitism than in previous years.
      10. In the past two years I have considered leaving Britain due to antisemitism.
      11. The authorities let too much antisemitism go unpunished.
      12. The Jewish community has to protect itself because the state doesn't protect it enough.
      13. The recent rise in antisemitism in Britain has some echoes of the 1930s.

      All of the statements support the idea that there is a great deal of anti-semitism in Great Britain. Not one of them is a positive or neutral statement . And three of them conflate criticism or boycott of Israel with anti-semitism. And the 1930's statement is just off the wall, even if its only talking about 1930's in Great Britain, of which any British Jew under the age of 90 would have no memory. Add the stacking of the deck with these statements to the self-selected responses and the survey is truly and utterly useless, except as a campaign booster for the CAA, mostly likely its primary intent.

      The YouGov questions are not much more helpful in that all they do is measure people's stereotypes about Jews, which are not the same as anti-semitism. Without looking into both positive and negative stereotypes its hard to say how much anti-semitism there is.

      Believing that "Jews have too much power in the media" does not necessarily imply that all Jews have this power. Also, even if one stereotypes ALL Jews as having "too much power in the media", that does not of itself indicate anti-semitism, which I would define as "hatred of Jews merely because they are Jews". Frankly I think that old white men have too much power in the media as well, but this does not mean that I hate old white men or wish them ill (I have several old white men as friends and relatives whom I love dearly). It just means that I think our media should be more diverse and representative of society as a whole. Without follow up questions, an agreement with the statement can not logically be used as a indicator of anti-semitism.

    • The July 13, 2014 incident was discussed here at length and it was concluded that it had been the French arm of the JDL that had started the rumble with the Palestine marchers in Paris, but the ADL above make it appear that the pro-Palestinian marchers had attacked the synagogues for no reason.

      Not only did video show that the JDL thugs attacked the marchers first, but the Rabbi of the Paris Synagogue flatly denied that the synagogue itself was attacked.

      link to

    • Many will simply answer “I am that family member”

      But yet the question remains. Only 10% of non-Jews in Britain answered that they would be unhappy. Are the numbers for Jews who would be unhappy with a relative marrying a non-Jew similarly 10% or so? We certainly know that there are some Jews who believe wholeheartedly in endogamy and Phil himself has gotten flak here from Jews about his marriage to a Quaker. So is the Jewish sentiment the same among the 10% or whatever the number may be, or is being unhappy if your non-Jewish relative marries a Jew somehow worse than being unhappy if your Jewish relative marries a non-Jew? And if so, why?

      And why don't any of these surveys ask the same question of Jews that they ask of non-Jews. It might be a bit more enlightening if they did.

  • There is no pride for Jews in the state of Israel
    • All those other people, Africans, Mexicans, Latin Americans, Asians, being given every advantage, culturally and economically cossetted and coddled, and given the jobs, comfort acceptance and security that Jews should have had!

      Hey, don't forget women too!

      I'd say that all of those people would have considered quotas that merely limited their numbers in colleges and jobs to their demographic percentage of the population to have been a great improvement over their restricted condition during the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, etc.. Its hard to elicit much sympathy about Jewish quotas in comparison to the much harsher discrimination that other minorities (and women) faced in the job market.

      And guess what? All those other minorities had another country that they could pretend was their "homeland". Didn't help them a lick, and at certain times being perceived by the population at large as having such a "homeland" just got them in trouble. Witness German-Americans during WWI and II and Japanese-Americans during WWII.

  • The legacy of Joan Peters and 'From Time Immemorial'
    • btw, Porath identifies politically as a centrist. Why do you call him a leftist?

      David, haven't you heard? Anyone who isn't to the right of Netanyahu is now a "leftist" in Israel. Bibi's the new center.

      BTW, this article is another great contribution from you, as usual. I will disagree somewhat with one of your statements, though.

      Peters’s thesis is not only dead wrong, it does not serve her intended purpose as a mathematical QED that justifies the status quo.

      I disagree that it was intended purely as a mathematical QED. Its greatest strength was in its appeal to racism and a sense of superiority. Yes, it has no moral argument to make for anyone with a sense of justice and equality, but by attributing an influx of Arabs to the Zionist Jews, who "made the desert bloom", yada, yada it sought to invoke the sense that Jews were (of course) more deserving of the land because they were smarter and more industrious, unlike the savage uncultured Arabs. It clicked in to a sense of Jewish superiority, and also a sense of victimhood, because, well, what ingrates the Arabs were for not appreciating what the Jews were doing for them. Of course it only works on those who are carrying bigotted beliefs but there are sorely too many of those around of all stripes and flavors.

      Its the same sense of intellectual, cultural, and/or moral superiority that lets too many Americans justify US actions that kill people in foreign countries for the sake of "freedom". And those foreigners are just so damned ungrateful for all our "help" and interest in their well-being, so they really deserve to be killed. Its a perverse argument but it seems to carry a lot of weight these days, much to humanity's detriment.

  • Why do Muslims object to depictions of their prophet?
    • ...who draws offensive, racialized cartoons depicting Jewish college students as white

      Oh the humanity! How terribly offensive to depict white Jewish students as white! How insulting and insensitive.

    • Sabbath-observant Jews do not walk into Gentile homes on the Sabbath and scream at them about turning on lights and watching TV. -

      There are "modesty patrols" in haredi neighborhoods in Israel that have attacked women in public whom they consider to be dressed inappropriately. Those attacks have included spitting, pelting with stones, punching, kicking and even throwing acid on the innocent women. They've also attacked women who seek the right to pray at the Western Wall.

      link to

      link to

      And in 2008, Jewish youths surrounded the car of a Palestinian Israeli who was visiting his relatives in a predominantly Jewish section of Acre and threatened him and attacked his car for the offense of driving during the Yom Kippur holiday. The man and his son were lucky to survive, but ethnic rioting ensued and several Arab homes were destroyed by fire during the riots.

      The original victim of the mob violence, Tawfiq Jamal, was arrested for "harming religious sensitivities", after being forced to apologize before a Knesset committee for exercising his civil right.

      link to

      And numerous Jewish attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, including fatal ones, have a religious nature to them. Baruch Goldstein was a religious extremist who killed 29 praying Muslims in the Ibrahimi Mosque during the Jewish holiday of Purim. Extremist religious settlers have perpetrated similar violent attacks on Palestinians, their property and their animals, all in the name of their brand of Judaism.

      So, yes, we have no record of Sabbath-observing Jews coming into a gentile's home and yelling at them for turning the lights on, but we do have ample records of Jewish religious extremists acting quite violently, similarly to the Islamic extremists who murdered people in France.

  • Netanyahu crashes Paris unity march, French gov't fumes
    • Saying sell out Israel to preserve the good will towards the diaspora religion of Judaism is not a sensible position. That’s like telling Christians to sell out Christ to preserve Easter.

      Well, there you have it. And you heard it first from JeffB. Judaism is dead and Israel worship has replaced it. God has left the building. All hail the golden calf!

  • 'With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France': Death threats follow publication of cartoon in Israeli newspaper
    • For anyone wanting to read more on the Leo Frank case, I'd highly recommend Scott Aaron's site here:

      link to

      My thoughts after reading more about the case is that Frank was most probably guilty, and was lynched because, in the paternalistic South of the early nineteen hundreds, it was an accepted belief by many that a man who molested and killed a (white) child, even if he was a white man, deserved to die. Frank's sentence was commuted to life by the the outgoing governor of Georgia, and it was widely feared that Frank would "get away with it". Thus the brutal lynching was not an unexpected possibility, and anti-semitism was not a necessary factor to explain it.

  • Why I am not Charlie
  • A tale of two tests
    • Yup, we get it, hop. Dead Palestinians are not a tragedy. You think its moral to equate 500 children with "terrorists who perpetrate rocket attacks". But of course only if they are Palestinians.

      If they are Jewish Israeli children then you would never equate them with IDF soldiers who killed over 500 times the number of civilians as were killed by Palestinian rocket attacks during the 2014 Gaza invasion. In your warped brain all Palestinians are responsible for rocket attacks, but no Israeli Jews bear any responsibility for the thousands of innocent Palestinians that Israel kills.

      Some numbers are more equal than others, and Hophmi doesn't want us to ever forget it.

  • Don't let's go to the war of civilizations again
    • So your first reaction is a meaningless cheap shot with no substance.

      And what's even more pathetic is that he's been waiting impatiently for three days to be able to level that cheap shot, after making this one on the 8th:

      phil has to wait until omar barghouti tells him what to write. has to get it lined up with the party line first.

      link to

      Yonah's honing his part as the stereotypical grumpy old man, yelling at Phil (and pretty much everyone else who disagrees with him) to get off his lawn.

  • Jo Roberts on Jewish trauma, the Nakba, and the olive tree
    • Gosh, “light2014″ they let them back into their own country to work? Now, that’s magnanimous.

      But not "magnanimous" enough to let them stay over night. Israel has its own "sundown laws", preventing West Bank Palestinians from staying overnight in Israel. And of course, West Bank Palestinians were not allowed to create their own industries in the West Bank so that their workers could find jobs locally. The West Bank under Israeli occupation is both a captive market for Israeli goods and a captive source for cheap labor in Israel.

      The closing down of the Israeli market for Palestinian workers, beginning in 1991, preceded by a decade the "wave of suicide bombings" in the later part of the Second Intifada, and in fact it also preceded Oslo, but continued during the early Oslo years as well.

    • Left out of that description of the Israeli olive oil industry is the fact that over 95 percent of Israeli's olive orchards in the 1950's had been Palestinian owned in 1948, prior to the Nakba and the Israeli confiscation of Palestinian property. That accounts for the fact that over 70 percent of the olive trees in Israel today are older than 50 years of age.

      In fact, according to the British Survey of Palestine, written in 1945, 600.000 dunams were in olive production in Palestine, with all but 1% of them Palestinian Arab owned. Ten dunams equals one hectare. Comparing 60.000 hectares in production in 1945 with the 16,500 hectares in production today with trees greater than 50 years old, its glaringly apparent that
      the number of older olive trees in production in Israel decreased by over 70 percent, despite the fact that olive trees do not reach full productivity until they are at least 35 years of age.

      This again supports the historical fact that Israel destroyed many Palestinian olive groves over the years and continues to do so today in the West Bank.

  • Israeli settlers attack US consulate convoy in the West Bank (Updated)
    • To be entirely accurate, the JPost didn't report that the security staff drew their weapons. They reported that an anonymous settler from Adei Adi claimed to have heard from other settlers that two of the US security detail drew their weapons, but the same anonymous "resident" refused to answer if the settlers threw rocks, and admitted that he was not a witness to the incident. I think we can take Mr. Anonymous' words with a ginormous grain of salt.

  • Dershowitz named in lawsuit alleging abuse of underage sex slave
    • Mr. Cassell has so far refused to discuss what evidence he found to back the allegations or what actions he took to verify them.

      Which is exactly the opposite of "dragging someone through the mud". Cassell is doing all his commenting on this case through the court system. His client's allegation was made in a court document. He is not discussing the case in public. First an allegation of wrongdoing is made through the court, then the court hears evidence from both sides and renders a decision. Cassell and Edwards are following the law.

      Dershowitz is the one trying to drag this out into a public dispute by publicly defaming the Jane Doe's and their lawyers.

    • I guess I am not normal but this is truly disturbing if true and I do not believe it based on the “normal males” that I know.

      According to Ray Blanchard, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, it isn't true, and his reasoning makes sense to me.

      Blanchard said that there is a "frantic argument" over the normalisation of hebephilia, with some turning to research that shows normal men – teleiophiles – in laboratory conditions, will become very slightly sexually aroused when shown naked images of children in comparison to pictures of rocks and trees.

      link to

      Kind of a ridiculous lab experiment, but at least they managed to rule out sedimentaphilia and shrubophilia as a normal condition for the majority of men. Whew!

      More from Blanchard:

      One of his biggest critics, Karen Franklin, claimed hebephilia is normal for men because in terms of evolution and reproduction, it is beneficial to be attracted to a girl when she becomes fertile: "She claims hebephilia is adaptive," Blanchard said.

      "There are two responses to that. One is that from what empirical evidence there is suggests that if anything hebephilia is not adaptive (part of evolution). I did a direct study comparing paedophiles, hebephiles and teleiophiles and found hebephiles had fewer biological offspring than teleiophiles who are attracted to physically mature partners.

      "There is no objective evidence that hebephilia is adaptive, which is to say it resulted in more offspring being left behind by the hebephilic individual compared with the teleiophilic individual."

      Sounds pretty logical. If a man is a hebephiliac then he prefers pubescent girls over all others. There would be no reason for him to develop a relationship with any woman because she would always get older and leave the preferred age group within a matter of years. Within the time it took to gestate and give birth, the hebephile's interest would probably wane, leaving an offspring at greater risk of death, if any offspring were created in the first place.

      And that's not to mention the increased risk to both mother and child when the mother is under age 19.

      Adolescents age 15 through 19 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy or child birth as those over age 20; girls under age 15 are five times more likely to die.

      Infants of adolescents are at increased risk for death. In fact, the infants of adolescent mothers are more likely to die before their first birthday than are the infants of older mothers.

    • annie,

      he helped him get off

      Just returning Epstein's favor, no doubt.

      Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more, know what I mean ?

    • Yet you keep making sure you keep coming here and adding your two cents worth, despite finding us crazy eh?

      As Mooser would say, hophmi always likes to complain that the food is terrible and the portions are so small. What would he fill his day with if he couldn't accuse everyone here of anti-semitism? He'd go completely and hopelessly verklempt.

    • Of course, there is no reason to believe he is entirely innocent anyway. He is not entitled to the presumption of innocence among the general population; that is only a right he deserves if he is ever a criminal defendant. Each of us is free to draw our own conclusion and engage in our own speculation.

      Bears repeating. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal axiom that is confined to a court of law.

  • The 'bait & switch' politics of liberal Zionism
    • You’re denying an atrocity, and as usual, blaming the Jews for the sins of the Arabs.

      Nobody's blaming "the Jews". They are blaming Israeli leaders. Israeli leaders are not the same as "the Jews" and its quite anti-semitic of you to imply that they are.

      From Israeli journalist and historian Tom Segev:

      The propaganda methods employed by these[Mossad] agents combined scare tactics with inducements. The warned the Jews that if they did not leave at once they would not be allowed to leave later. They told them that the Mossad's help in arranging their passage, and the aid given by the the Zionist movement would only remain available for a short while, and then no one would be left to help them. Efraim Shilo explained," Its true that we encouraged the Jews to leave. Its true that we urged them. We believed that if they did not leave at once it would be too late. We really believed it. Some of us had been at this work since the Holocaust, so it's obvious why we urged them to leave. And the State needed them." At times they were promised eternal happiness in Israel. "People were simply cheated," stated Jewish Agency Executive Giora Yoseftal.

      To keep them from hearing about the difficulties of settling in Israel, it was proposed by Itzhak Refael that immigrants' letters back to their families should be censored. This was, in fact, done. "They lied to me," wrote an immigrant from South Africa to his mother. "I want to return at once. If I don't leave in a week I shall starve. Please, dear, beg, borrow, steal, pawn whatever you have , only send me the money, or I shall not hold out another week ... This is a Godless country. " The mother never received this letter. It was confiscated and put away by the Mossad, where it remained in its files, bearing the stamp, "Detained by Censorship."


      ...It appears that this Israeli diplomat did not feel that Israel had a human, Jewish Zionist duty to save Jews in distress irrespective of their final destination, but only insofar as the operation promoted the interests of Israel and served its purposes. At the same time, there were some who thought that steps should be taken to worsen the situation of Jews in their various countries. Itzhak Ben-Menahem, nicknamed "Gulliver,"in years to come, a hero of various military operations inside Arab states wrote:

      Mass immigration will pour in only as a result of distress. This is a bitter truth, whether we like it or not. We must consider the possibility of initiating the distresss, of bringing it about in the Diaspora....For Jews have to be made to leave their places of residence. As the poet said, He will not waken unless roused by the whip, he will not rise unless forced by plunder.

      Such ideas were not alien to the people entrusted with the immigration. Itzhak Refael reported: "Conditions in Libya today are not bad. There is a danger that this source of immigration will ome to an end." The Chairman of the Zionist Executive at one of its meeting:"Even Jews who don't wish to leave (their homes) must be forced to come....."

      Segev, 1949:The First Israelis"

      Here is an excerpt from Hanna Braun, who emigrated to Palestine in 1937, and left Israel, disillusioned, in 1958.

      Upon my return to Jerusalem, I was assigned to a regiment commanded by Moshe Dayan (later General Dayan, Chief of Staff, later still, prime minister). He had "liberated" Qalkilya, among other towns,and villages and used to boast freely of his fear-striking tactics: he had ordered his troops to release a veritable deluge of shrieking sirens, careering searchlights, massive explosions of shells, grenades and other ammunition, prior to mounting an attack on these places. By that time, most of the inhabitants had fled in sheer terror. Dayan was rather proud of his successes gained by this method; I believe he used it often. The fact that the Qalkilians, like all Palestinians who had fled or who had simply been away from home during the "Independence War", had lost any right ever to return was left unmentioned. Indeed, for a long time- far too long - I realise with hindsight, it was so much easier to believe the propaganda we were bombarded with: the bulk of the Arab population had fled despite Israel's efforts to reassure them and to persuade them to stay put. Moreover, Jews from a variety of Middle Eastern countries were suffering persecution and peril and had to emigrate, or so we were led to believe, so it was a fair exchange. It was not until the early nineteen fifties, when I encountered some of these "persecuted" immigrants, that a very different picture began to emerge.

      In early 1950 all female teachers and nurses were released from the army and shortly after that I started my first teaching job in At-Tireh, formerly a prosperous Palestinian village which we had often glimpsed from the main Haifa - Tel-Aviv road. I was astonished to see the fine, modern school building erected and then abandoned by the villagers: the general perception by the majority of Israeli Jews was that Arab village dwellers, with very few exceptions, were illiterate.

      The village was now peopled by new immigrants, the bulk of them from Bulgaria and Turkey. Initially, we had no means of communication, but in time it became clear that many of our pupils' parents were less than happy in their new homes. All the Bulgarians had come from Sofia and were used to big-city life; the Turks also felt that the wonderful promises of life in the Jewish homeland had failed to materialise. All of them felt unneeded and even unwelcome; they had been dumped in abandoned villages - if they were lucky - and were usually unemployed or overqualified for the jobs they were doing. The young men, of course, had immediately been drafted into the army.

      My opportunity to meet some of these young soldiers came when I was called up to go on reservist duty: in February 1952 I was sent to Eilat for a month. At that time, it was nothing but a military camp on the shores of the Red Sea. I was assigned to a class of new immigrant soldiers who spoke no Hebrew. The hostility of the 25 or so young men I encountered on the first morning shocked me: they wanted to learn no Hebrew! One young Yemeni who spoke a little Hebrew explained that all of these men from various Arab countries, had left settled and contented lives in their former homes. They had been persuaded by the constant urgings of Zionist propaganda to come to the aid of the new Israeli state, which was in danger being destroyed by the surrounding Arab states, as indeed were their own communities. They had been made to feel needed, perhaps essential; what they had not been told was that their main role was to act as cannon- fodder. On arrival, they were sprayed with DDT at the airport and then crammed into extremely primitive reception camps. Within a week or two they were drafted into the army for a three-year term and sent to their bases, often without knowledge of where their families had been placed or how they would survive economically. They were far from unaware of the very different treatment accorded to European immigrants whose camps were far superior, who received help in finding suitable accommodation and who were quickly given jobs. Vast numbers of Eastern immigrants now wished to return to their countries of origin as soon as possible - the Indians even held a sit-down strike in central Tel Aviv demanding their fares back - very few had this wish granted. One difficulty was the very high level of taxes levied at the time on Israelis travelling abroad. This was compounded by the fact that, at that time, all Jewish immigrants, on arrival in Israel, had been automatically made Israeli citizens without being informed properly, let alone consulted or asked for consent. As a result, most had lost their original citizenship. On a recent visit to Palestine and Israel I met an Iraqi who had been part of this influx; he told me that he still felt bitter about what had happened to him, to his community and to all the other non-European immigrants.

      The Eilat experience opened my eyes to the reality of life for the new, mainly non-European immigrants. Later on I saw some of the purpose built, shoddy villages, literally in the middle of nowhere, in which many of them were dumped; quite often these were later abandoned and the disillusioned inhabitants were housed in - inferior - ex-Palestinian accommodation; the better type of such accommodation, particularly in the cities, had gone to European immigrants. The increasingly blatant inequality of treatment that existed between the Jewish and the remaining Arab citizens of Israel began to worry and to raise doubts and even anger in the minds of progressive Israelis, sadly not many of them. This was explained away by "security" needs: dangers had to be faced up to, especially those posed by the "fedayeen" (armed intruders, many of them farmers desperate to get back to their lands). However, everyone knew that these were few and far between and only affected the southernmost and northernmost borders, not any centres of population. It made no sense not to allow Arab-Israeli citizens to travel freely, not to give them access to health, education and other services in any comparable measure and to restrict their entry into a whole range of studies and professions, not to mention into trade unions.

      link to

  • 'Spiral,' 'threat,' 'polarization,' or 'full-scale popular campaign for Palestinian freedom' -- reactions to the ICC move
    • De nada, ritzl. Happy New Year to you and to all fellow Mondoweissians!

    • Ritzl

      does anyone know how to search for user id’s

      Of course there is always clicking on a commenter's name to get access to all their comments in the archive, but if you don't see any current comment that you can click on, you can search for their archives by entering something like this in the internet address window:

      which will get you to Ellen's comment archive that you can then search by key word.

      A couple of rules apply. Don't use capital letters, even if the user id contains capitals. Every letter should be lower case when searching for the comment archives. If the user name includes spaces between words, replace them with dashes instead, for example type:

      "" to search a blah chick 's archive

      and "" to search Stephen Shenfield's archives

      and "" to search Mooser's archives

      and "" to search for CloakAndDagger's archive
      (He doesn't use any spaces in his user id so don't use dashes).

      for four examples of the rules that apply to letter case and spaces.

      There are a few oddball ones as well. To search for yonah fredman's archive you must enter


      since that was his original user name here

      and Annie Robbins must be searched under

      since that was her first user name here. There may be a few other oddball ones as well that don't come to mind right away.

      Hope that helps.

  • Dissecting 'The Jewish Voices on Campus': a predictable but necessary endeavor
    • Further research on the video. I think I found where it was shot and when. Marina's Bar and Grill is a restaurant within Holiday Inn-Port of Miami located at the same address on Biscayne Blvd. I did a quick search of "Demonstration outside of Holiday Inn" and came up empty. However, I played a hunch and looked up the address of the Israeli Consulate in Miami. It is located at 100 Biscayne Blvd. I then looked up "Israeli consulate miami demonstration" and got this hit:

      posted by a pro-Israeli person.

      If you look in the background (clearest at :17) you can see the "Holiday Inn" sign across the street with 2nd floor awning of red. If you look carefully below at street level you can see the green awnings visible at 2:25 in the Jewish Voices on Campus video.

      The protest occurred on July 20, 2014 near the Israeli Consulate in Miami, in response to Israel's bombardment and invasion of Gaza. It did not occur on campus, and other than shouting insults and slogans back and forth across the street there was no violence between the protesters and counter-protesters.

    • A Google search located “Marina’s Bar and Grill” (seen in the background, 2:25) in Miami, although I have no confirmation that this is where this footage was shot.

      David, I did a Google Map search of 340 Biscayne Blvd, Miami (the address of Marina's Bar and Grill in Miami). The street view matches the video, complete with green awning with "Marina's Bar and Grill" printed on it in the same type. I think that confirms it was filmed in Miami, and NOT in Santa Cruz, as implied by the video.

  • Caroline Glick says there were no Palestinian refugees
    • jon,

      Just to be even more clear on Article 22 of the Charter, it begins thus:

      "Article Twenty-Two: The Powers which Support the Enemy

      The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream..."

      link to

      Note that Article 22 never once uses the term "Jews" but instead refers to "the enemies" and "Zionist interests". While greatly over broad in its explanation of the origins of the problem, it is in fact, as Zofia said, "in some part true". Zionist Jews bear responsibility for the Balfour Declaration, and usurpation of Palestine and the dispossession and impoverishment of its non-Jewish citizens. Some wealthy Zionist Jews, both in Israel and the US, are using their wealth and influence to continue the oppression of the Palestinians. Which was exactly Zofia's point. Just because something is a stereotype doesn't mean that certain individuals don't match the stereotype. Some blondes are dumb, some Scots are stingy. (And of course some brunettes are dumb and stingy people come in all flavors.) Denying that Zionist Jews worked successfully to alter events in order to achieve their goals is not only false but is replacing one false stereotype with another equally false stereotype - that no Jew or group of Jews would ever attempt or be successful at using power for their own benefit to the detriment of others. The success of Zionism proves that alternate stereotype of yours to be false.

      As Article 31 makes clear, the Charter is not condemning all Jews, but only those who are oppressing or fighting others. Taken in that context its clear that when the Charter does use the term "Jews" in other Articles, it is clearly referring to Zionist Jews who dispossess(ed) and oppress(ed) Palestinians.

      (As a side note, I find it interesting that your source for the translation of the Charter omits "B'nai Brith" from its list of organizations mentioned in Article 22. I don't think I would use a source that purposely omitted this one organization from their translation. It doesn't speak well to their accuracy. )

    • So much of Zionist "reasoning" is simply special pleading. Not only does Glick think that foreign Jews have a right to "return" to "their land" in Palestine/Israel because she believes they've had a sense of nationhood centered on Israel for x number of millenia, but she also believes that the indigenous Palestinians have no right to live in the land, since they are comparative johnny-come-latelys. So their expulsion can be morally defended and they are not refugees.

      Now, if one was to believe that steaming pile of brain poop, and apply it to the situation in Europe over the same x millenia, then European Jews were the johnny come lately's, who (according to Glick) had a sense of nationhood different from the one in which they lived, so therefore their expulsion from European countries at various times could be morally justified in exactly the same warped way that Glick justifies the expulsion of the Palestinians. And therefore there were NO European Jewish refugees, according to Glick's logic.

      But then, I'm sure she'd insist that different rules apply in Palestine/Israel that exist no where else. Special pleading to a tee. (And she doesn't even have a clue how many anti-semitic tropes she's embraced with her thinking.)

    • As was Ian and David Gilmour's review in the London Review of Books. readable in part without registration here:

      link to

  • Sony email chain on behalf of Israel joined Russell Simmons and Michael Lynton with rightwing Zionists
    • I've heard the 12 million figure dying in the concentration camps myself, tracing it back, as I recall, to William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, written in the 60's, which I read in the seventies. Since its now accepted history that less than half the Jews who were killed in WWII died in the concentration camps, if the 12 million figure is correct then that would mean that at least 9 million non-Jews died in the concentration camps. I'm not sure that is correct, and can't find any exact figures for total concentration camp deaths in a quick search.

      In any case, the estimated civilian death toll in WWII is on the order of anywhere from 38 million to 55 million people, so the 12 million figure really makes no sense in the context of the email, unless you totally ignore those deaths as if they didn't count. I've come to the realization that separating out the Holocaust from the rest of WWII, of which it was a part, is wrong and in fact dangerous, especially since the Holocaust is usually invoked in support of war and has resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths, rather than preventing deaths.

  • On eve of University of California honor, Bill Maher defends anti-Muslim hate speech in Vanity Fair interview
    • Maher's a misogynist so his deep concern about the treatment of women is laughable. And then there was this tweet of his during the latest Gaza invasion, where he managed, in the words of one respondent, to "combine encouragement for genocide with an affirmation of domestic assault in that joke. "

      Maher Tweet: "Dealing w/ Hamas is like dealing w/ a crazy woman who's trying to kill u - u can only hold her wrists so long before you have to slap her"

      link to

    • Yes, to consider the statements of Maher and Harris as enlightening on the "battle of ideas regarding Islam" is as stupid as believing that Father Coughlin was prescient on the "battle of ideas regarding Judaism" in the 1930's. They were all spewing prejudice; -heat, not light, and criticism of their prejudice is far from stupid.

    • So I think that Maher is indeed keeping the company where Armstrong places him.

      I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. Maher and Harris are blaming the vast majority of Muslims for the actions of a few, and taking the actions of the few out of the larger political context. This was in fact exactly what the anti-semitism of the 1930's did with regards to Jews. Hitler himself blamed all Jews for the excesses of Bolshevism (and anarchism) and also accused all Jews of adherence to Zionist beliefs that posited that Jews were foreigners in Europe and owed their principle allegiance to other Jews and not to the country in which they were born.

      Glenn Greenwald had a very good piece, as usual for him, on Sam Harris' anti-Muslim bias over a year ago.

      link to


      "The key point is that Harris does far, far more than voice criticisms of Islam as part of a general critique of religion. He has repeatedly made clear that he thinks Islam is uniquely threatening: "While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization." He has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence." In his 2005 "End of Faith", he claimed that "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death."

      This is not a critique of religion generally; it is a relentless effort to depict Islam as the supreme threat. Based on that view, Harris, while depicting the Iraq war as a humanitarian endeavor, has proclaimed that "we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam." He has also decreed that "this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda." "We" - the civilized peoples of the west - are at war with "millions" of Muslims, he says. Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."


      Most important of all - to me - is the fact that Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily if not exclusively at Muslims, from torture ("there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like 'water-boarding' may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary"); to steadfast support for Israel, which he considers morally superior to its Muslim adversaries ("In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. . . . there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah"); to anti-Muslim profiling ("We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it"); to state violence ("On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that 'liberals are soft on terrorism.' It is, and they are").

      Revealingly, Harris sided with the worst Muslim-hating elements in American society by opposing the building of a Muslim community center near Ground Zero, milking the Us v. Them militaristic framework to justify his position:

      "The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory — and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice."

      Harris made the case against that innocuous community center by claiming - yet again - that Islam is a unique threat: "At this point in human history, Islam simply is different from other faiths."

      In sum, he sprinkles intellectual atheism on top of the standard neocon, right-wing worldview of Muslims. As this superb review of Harris' writings on Israel, the Middle East and US militarism put it, "any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics": because his atheism invariably serves - explicitly so - as the justifying ground for a wide array of policies that attack, kill and otherwise suppress Muslims. That's why his praise for European fascists as being the only ones saying "sensible" things about Islam is significant: not because it means he's a European fascist, but because it's unsurprising that the bile spewed at Muslims from that faction would be appealing to Harris because he shares those sentiments both in his rhetoric and his advocated policies, albeit with a more intellectualized expression."

      Much more at link.

  • 'NYT' writer takes Salaita's side, saying U of Illinois violated 'intellectual and academic freedom'
    • Well, yonah, you've come up with three excuses for your hypocrisy. But none of them hold water. First we have this:

      no one has heard of hartman or cares about hartman ...hartman is not famous. salaita seeks fame and this tweet should be cited as part of his offensive pearls of wisdom.

      Which is total bullshit. Rabbi Hartman was famous, especially in Israel, but also in the US, as a founder of the Shalom Hartman Institute. His obituary was featured in the NYTimes and columnist James Carroll of the Boston Globe eulogized him as "one of the great figures of contemporary Jewish life. The founder of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and a prophet of religious tolerance, the self-described Jewish kid from Brooklyn had a huge impact on his generation, both in Israel, where he lived since 1971, and in the broader Jewish world." link to

      He WAS famous, and even more appalling given his eliminationist speech, he was revered as an icon of religious tolerance, which he betrayed with that very statement in 2002, which he never retracted.

      So one lie is told to defend your double standard when it comes to Jews uttering "offensive pearls of wisdom". Hartman, when he was alive was more famous than Salaita, but you prefer we not mention what Hartman said. You think its unfair, but when Salaita says something far less offensive, this must always and forever be mentioned in the same breath as his name.

      And Salaita's current fame is the byproduct of the successful attempt by wealthy donors to have him fired. I'm pretty sure that Salaita did not seek this kind of fame, and would much prefer to have his job rather than this fame by smear.

      Plus, one is hard pressed to explain why its somehow more acceptable for a non famous person to make eliminationist statements like Hartman did. You don't explain it. You can't.

      Then there is this excuse: The comment of mine was in defending a man a few days after his death. i cover up the sins of the recent dead.

      Another phony excuse. Hartman had died almost exactly a year before you made your comment in February this year. He was not "recently dead". In contrast, you went on at length in the comments section here about the sins of Gore Vidal, as you saw them, less than a full year after Vidal's death. You don't cover up the sins of the recent dead. You cover up the sins of those you like, or those of your "millieu" (read: Jewish Zionist), and exaggerate the sins of those you don't like, or are not of your "millieu".

      And finally you come up with this oddity: I am sorry that my role here as adversary does not give me sufficient opportunity to comment on the suffering of the Palestinians.

      But, as Teapot said, we are all just here to comment on those things we wish to comment on. No one has a "role" here unless it is a self-assigned one. You have plenty of opportunity to comment on whatever you wish to comment on. And obviously Palestinian suffering is not something you chose to comment much on. Your choice, no one is preventing you or limiting you comments about Palestinian suffering. Your comment above is a cop out. And your obsession with Salaita's tweeted wish that the Israeli settlers "go missing" from the West Bank shows you don't really relate to the suffering at all. As does your statement made back in February, in response to a question from me:

      I understand that my perspective is one sided for the most part (that I understand Hartman’s reaction and would not accept a similar reaction from a Palestinian).

      A perfect example of your purposeful failure to empathize with Palestinian suffering. To you the second intifada was all about Jewish Israeli suffering, even though it paled in comparison to the Palestinian suffering during that time period. This is why you forgave Hartman for urging Sharon to "wipe out" the Palestinians but can not accept Salaita's desire that Israeli settlers were not living in the West Bank, even though Hartman's statement was the genocidal one and Salaita's was not.

    • Quote:“Let’s really let them understand what the implication of their actions is. . . . Very simply, wipe them out. Level them.” March 2, 2002 Rabbi David Hartman

      Quote in response to Hartman's eliminationist speech:" Those who had no emotions involved at that moment are hardly in the spot to criticize those whose emotions found expression in speech." Yonah Fredman, February 14, 2014 link to

      Yonah, in harping on Salaita's tweet, is simply pointing out, yet again, his own hypocrisy and bigotry. An Israeli Jew issues truly eliminationist speech about Palestinians and Yonah bends over backwards to excuse it and explain it. But when Salaita sends a tweet wishing that there were no more Israeli settlers in the West Bank, Yonah has no sympathy or understanding, just phony moral indignation. He's a bigot, and his anger at Salaita is the anger of a bigot, not a man with a consistent sense of morality. Otherwise he would not have excused the far worse speech of Hartman.

  • A point by point response to Alan Dershowitz’s 'Ten Reasons Why The BDS Movement Is Immoral'
    • And of course, If Dersh really believed in "the worst first" principle he wouldn't be saying a word about BDS. ... Or anti-semitism in Europe or American campuses either, for that matter.

      There are so many things in the world that are much, much, much worse than BDS, but he can't shut up about it. I guess that makes him profoundly immoral. But then we knew that already.

      He makes up a 'rule' that he never ever follows and demands that the people who disagree with him must follow his made up rule and then impugns their morality if they don't. That's his strategy... and his 'morality'.

  • Mamdani's 'holistic' challenge: Anti-Zionists must persuade Jews they can only be safe by dismantling the Jewish state
    • jon s,

      Well, Europe was where 90% of the Jewish people were.

      Wrong. According to the AJC (American Jewish Committee), in 1939:

      Of the total number of 15,748,091 Jews in the world,
      8,939,608 reside in Europe, 598,339 in Africa, 839,809 in
      Asia, 27,016 in Australasia, and 5,343,319 in America.
      Thus, 56.77% live in Europe, 33.93% in America, 5.33%
      in Asia, 3.80% in Africa, and 0.17% in Australasia.

      link to

      page 593

      And by the way, no one was particularly "safe" in Europe in WWII. Nazi Germany had plans to destroy Poland and Eastern Europe and genocide hundreds of millions of Slavs and Russians. They didn't achieve their goals, but not because those people "had a country", or several countries, but because it was a plan on too large a scale for Germany to carry out. Still, they killed tens of millions of non-Jews.

      Having a country didn't save the Poles, from either the Germans or the Soviet Russians. Having a country didn't save Iraqis, or Syrians, or Congolese, or Cambodians. Nor did it save those Japanese killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nor the farmers (kulaks) in Soviet Russia, or the peasants in El Salvador.

      Israel has what "safety" it has because it is supported by the US. Without that support it could not do what it does, which it falsely claims is "self-defense' when it is really just pure bullying and oppressing non-Jews in the territory it covets. It won't bring safety to Israel. It will destroy it in the end, and at that point it will be hard for anyone to have much sympathy since it will be its own fault, and no one else's. You don't "liberate" yourself by oppressing other people. This is a lesson that Israel seems incapable of learning. And you are part of the problem.

    • They should unite and form a Jewish State here, then pass laws privileging them and giving them dominance over all the non-Jews. That would make them much safer, no doubt.

      Its rather amazing how difficult a concept this is for Zionist Jews to comprehend, isn't it. If you treat people like shit and claim that you have a right to do this simply because you are Jewish, those people you shit on will hate you and begin to believe that your Jewishness is the problem, since you keep insisting that it is, in your own clueless way.

      So far I would say that, given the example of Israel, Zionist Jews don't have the faintest idea how to run a state and probably shouldn't do so until they grow up and understand cause and effect.

    • There are a lot of things in life that aren’t understandable without God.

      And there are even more things in life that aren't understandable with God. The only difference is that belief in God (or Gods, for that matter) allows one to cease trying to understand. 'God does it all and I don't need to understand, just believe.'

  • It's always been a holy war
    • I doubt there is anything holy about any "holy war". It's an oxymoron.

      Holy wars are opportunities to succumb to negative passions and stereotypes , the ultimate us versus them replete with senseless violence. And in this case I think that Moor has a valid point that its always been a holy war, with Zionism as an ersatz religion on a crusader's quest to "reclaim" the "Holy Land" from the "infidels" to give it to the true believers.

  • 'I observe that you are a fascist' -- Zahalka to Feiglin
    • There she calls the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine “Arabs”, not “Palestinians”, but I think that was the normal usage in English at the time.

      In 1946, when she wrote that piece, Palestine existed so all its citizens were Palestinians. Using the word "Arabs" was the only way to differentiate between the newcomer Jewish Zionists and the indigenous population.

    • Complete disregard for the speaker has been the long standing norm in the Knesset from its very beginning. As are personal insults, and Zahalka's was rather mild in comparison to quite a few other insults that have been thrown around regularly in the Knesset.

    • What did he expected when he called the chairman a fascist? You can’t insult another MKs.

      I hate to be the one to break this to you, but insulting other MKs is a long tradition in the Knesset. This is from a news article published over 15 years ago, in 1998:

      The 120 Israeli lawmakers hurl insults across the chamber, calling each other "fascist," "racist," "parasite" and worse. Speeches are interrupted, fingers are waggled in faces, and members often stomp out, interrupting debate.

      One well-respected religious party member, frustrated by the defeat of a bill last week that would have benefited his ultra-Orthodox constituency, angrily accused opponents of being "anti-Semites" and "trash." Another lawmaker, shocked by those remarks of Rabbi Avraham Ravitz of the United Torah Judaism party, asked plaintively, "Am I an anti-Semite too?"

      Ravitz, chairman of the Budget Committee, shouted back at Emanuel Zissman: "They are anti-Semites. You are a little anti-Semite!" He later apologized; it was the retraction, not the language, that was rare.

      In another recent incident, Rehavam Zeevi, a member of the far-right Moledet party, added his own fillip to debate on whether Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat should have been invited to visit the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on his recent Washington trip. Zeevi, who opposed the invitation, was heckled by Israeli Arab lawmakers who supported it. "You're not even neo-Nazis," he yelled at them. "You're Nazis!"

      link to

      It looks like you are the one who needs "education lessons" about what the norms are in the Knesset.

      Feiglin didn't kick him out because MK Zahalka called him a "fascist"; he did it because Zahalka insulted him while being Arab.And then Feiglin proved what a fascist he is by removing Zahalka from the chambers.

  • Lieberman unveils racist peace plan: Pay Palestinians to leave Israel
    • Your snark assumes otherwise.

      Elliott (and Daniel), I didn't read Horizontal's comment that way. I assumed he was just applying the same criterion that Lieberman does, in order to point out its bigoted nature and its natural response, by applying it to his hypothetical Jewish neighbor. Lieberman wants to pay "Arabs" to leave Israel based solely on their ethnicity, not on their politics or ideology. Horizontal would have been changing the criterion by offering to pay someone to leave based on their Zionism rather than their Jewishness.

      He still did get one element wrong, though. He should have moved into his hypothetical Jew's neighborhood and then offered to pay him to leave. That more accurately describes Lieberman's situation.

  • #JusticeForMikeBrown: NFL star Reggie Bush connects Ferguson to Palestine
    • Leo Frank was convicted murder only. There hadn’t been a rape. He was convicted based on perjured testimony.

      Decades after Frank’s lynching, a man admitted that he was an eyewitness and that the building’s janitor had murdered the young woman.

      It's true that Frank was not convicted of rape, although the circumstances of the murder implied an attempted rape, statutory or forced, of the 14 year old girl.

      The man who "admitted" being an eyewitness only claimed that he saw Jim Conley, the black man who admitted to being Frank's accomplish in hiding the body, carrying Phagan's dead body. His decades later story makes little sense since he was a white boy who claimed he didn't come forward during the trial because he was threatened by Conley, who had been in jail from shortly after the crime was committed. Hard to believe that a white boy would have been too afraid to speak out against a black man who was already in jail. Also, he was in serious financial shape due to health problems when he came forward decades later and was apparently "discovered" by an author who had a strong bias toward believing that Frank was the innocent victim of anti-semitism.

      I likewise read the documents and its apparent that there was considerable evidence that Frank was indeed the murderer. There indeed was been some measure of anti-semitism in Georgia during the time, but it does not appear from the record to have been a major factor in the trial itself, despite what northern papers of the time tried to imply.

      As for the lynching, I'm not convinced that anti-semitism was a factor in that either. Most lynching victims in the South at the time were of course black but there were quite a few white men who were lynched during that period as well. Given the South's paternalism of the time, many of the white lynching victims were men who were believed to have raped or murdered young white girls, which exactly matches Frank's crime.

      When Frank's death sentence was commuted to life by the outgoing Georgia governor, Georgia citizens from Marietta, Mary Phagan's hometown, some of them quite prominent, took the law into their own hands and lynched him.

      For anyone with a curiosity about the case I would recommend looking here:

      link to

      Important note: There are other sites with similar names which have an anti-semitic bent to them. The one does not and it includes the most primary sources for information on the trial and its atmosphere.

  • Debunking Netanyahu's propaganda on Jerusalem
    • "ono citizens" was meant to read "non-citizens"

      Also, residency status was always a fickle thing as implemented by the Israeli government, easily revoked. This has to do with Israel's avowed desire that demographically Jerusalem be at least 70% Jewish. This was easily "corrected" by revoking resident status for transparent and/or flimsy reasons to achieve the desired results. My opinion would be that the Israeli government would have done that, one way or the other, regardless of whether the Jerusalemites had protested or not, or frankly whether they had citizenship or not.

    • Walid,

      Palestinian Jerusalemites who are not citizens of Israel (i.e. were residents of East Jerusalem prior to 1967, or resident descendants of such earlier residents) are prohibited by Israel from voting in national elections. They are allowed to vote in Jerusalem MUNICIPAL elections but most of them refuse to do so as a form of protest. Most important Israeli decisions regarding Jerusalem and the Palestinian residents there are made at the national level, not the municipal level. This is true throughout Israel, in terms of the national decision making and financial allocations trumping anything done on a municipal level.

      The Palestinian resident ono-citizens of Jerusalem are allowed to APPLY for Israeli citizenship, with no firm guarantee that their application will be approved by Israel. However, they first have to renounce any other citizenship or potential citizenship, either of Jordan or of the increasingly evident pie-in-the-sky Palestinian State as part of the application process. Giving that up can negatively impact their ability to enter other areas of the West Bank.

      For those reasons, and for reasons of protest, most Palestinian Jerusalemites have refused to apply for citizenship over the decades since 1967. I have heard that more recently some number of Palestinians have been quietly applying, sensing that a Palestinian State will never happen, and that citizenship may be their only path to protection of their status and homes. Given the Israeli government's current inflammatory position towards its own Palestinian citizens, citizenship may not help the Jerusalem residents as much as they might hope.

  • 'What is your religion?' question surprises two American visitors to the occupation
    • It’s not like they add anything real to the discussions besides talking-point misdirection and occasional comedy relief.

      Well it does give us a chance to point out his lies and his hypocrisy. A two-fer. From the religious courts in Jordan to the religious courts in Israel, not much difference:

      "It was probably something about the way I drew the strand of hair away from my face. The judge gave me a strange look and I knew that I was marked." That’s what an attorney appeared in court in Petah Tikva told me. And this is how she describes a conversation conducted in the rabbinical court:

      "Is madam married?" asked the rabbinic judge.

      "Yes" I replied.

      "Madam knows that according to the regulations she must appear with a head covering?"

      "Yes. But so far I've appeared without head covering. No one ever asked me to cover my hair."

      The bailiff held a rag in his hand and said: "Here. Put this on you’re head".
      "I'd rather not."

      "Don’t worry," the bailiff told me as he pulled out another, "Take this one".

      I demurred.

      "It's required," announced the judge.

      Since she did not want to hurt the interests of her client, the mortified attorney had no choice but to cover her head. She remembered that she had a bandanna in her car. So the parties reached a compromise: the lawyer went to get the bandana, the judges waited till she returned. Only then did they continue the hearing.

      link to

  • 'Palestine is an anxiety' for Americans-- Salaita in New York
    • and a statement, i wish they’d all go missing is in fact lascivious talk. licking his lips.

      Utterly ridiculous. "In fact" the meaning of lascivious is

      inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd:
      a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
      arousing sexual desire:
      lascivious photographs.
      indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness:
      a lascivious gesture.

      Your statement is idiotic in the extreme and not "a fact". There was nothing "lewd" about his tweet.

      He wishes that the illegal West Bank settlers would be gone from the West Bank. Considering that those settlers live on land stolen from Palestinians and live under civil Israeli rules while the Palestinians live under a brutal occupation and are often harassed and attacked by some of those settlers with no chance for redress of their grievances, the desire that they be gone is totally understandable, and requires no "licking of lips".

      As usual, you show you have little to no empathy for, or understanding of, Palestinians who wish their ethnic compatriots to have basic human rights. At the same time you have excused real eliminationist talk from Israeli Jews, so your ability to even recognize a "fact" is seriously impaired. "Lascivious"? Really? You have to put a fantasized sexual spin on his tweet in order to project sinister motives to his tweet? Every time I think you've hit bottom in your equivocation and projection you manage to mine even greater depths.

      Try reversing the situation if you can't manage to drum up any sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. If the settlers were Muslim and the indigenous were Jewish, under similar conditions you would say the same thing about wanting the settlers gone.

  • Netanyahu's 'battle for Jerusalem' can't end well for any of us
    • Jon

      You said: It’s an historical fact that the Jewish-Zionist side overwhelmingly supported the UNSCOP partition plan and actively lobbied for it at the UN.

      Actually, the UN records prove that is NOT a historical fact. As Hostage has pointed out several times, the representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Abba Silver, in a statement to the Ad-Hoc Committee made on October 2, 1947 made clear that "if it would make possible the immediate re-establishment of the Jewish State with sovereign control of its own immigration, then the Jewish Agency was prepared to recommend the acceptance of the partition solution, subject to further discussion of constitutional and territorial provisions." .link to

      In other words, the Jewish Agency, the governing Zionist body, had only agreed to the creation of a Jewish state with complete control over immigration. It particularly and overtly reserved acceptance of the provisions of the Plan that guaranteed full civil rights for all in the Jewish state regardless of ethnicity or religion and also reserved acceptance of the Plan's territorial limits on the Jewish State. One does not need to postulate a "what if" to recognize that those two elements of the Plan were clearly neither accepted nor implemented by the State of Israel, so to say that the Zionists "overwhelmingly supported" the Partition Plan is to engage in sophistry. They merely accepted the idea of a Jewish State, and never accepted any of the guarantees that were essential elements of the Partition Plan itself. Being as how the creation of a Jewish State was the raison d'etre of Zionism, its downright laughable to insist that the Zionist governing bodies were making any tangible sacrifice in "agreeing" to the very thing they had planned to take from the beginning.

      On the other side, the Palestinian leadership (with the exception of the Communists) and all the Arab states were absolutely dead-set against partition, actively lobbied against the plan, and voted “no” in the GA.

      Again, thanks to Hostage for this correction:


      the documentary record shows that the Jews were planning the military conquest of Palestine ever since the mid-1930s, beginning with the Avnir Plan. It also shows that the neighboring Arab states accepted the principle of partition, but not the ethnic cleansing or massacres that occurred after the UN proposed the plan of partition.

      *In “Pan-Arabism Before Nasser” (page 98), Michael Doran reported that Eliyahu Sasson made at least two trips in late 1946 to lobby Egyptian officials regarding the partition of Palestine. Sasson reported that he had been warmly welcomed by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Secretary General of the Arab League. Doran says that King Faruq and other palace advisers received reports on the partition talks and did nothing to scuttle them.

      *Joseph Heller, “The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics”, University Press of Florida, 2000, says that in the Spring of 1946 Sasson was dispatched to Egypt and that he reported that, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, there was a virtually unanimous consensus on partition among the members of the Arab League.
      *Before the Deir Yassin massacre, the US Minister in Saudi Arabia told Secretary Marshall that the Saudi’s and Abdullah of Transjordan had warned the other members of the Arab League (in March of 1948) that the partition was a civil matter and that the Arab states shouldn’t take any action that the Security Council might interpret as aggression.

      Prof. Shlomo Ben-Ami, PhD, is an Oxford University trained historian. He served as Israeli Foreign Minister and Minister of Internal Security and as the head of the School of History at Tel Aviv University. Ben-Ami relates that after the UNSCOP was formed in May of 1947, Ben Gurion explained that his acceptance of the principle of partition was an attempt to gain time until the Jews were strong enough to fight the Arab majority. He pledged to Mapai’s Central Committee that the borders of Jewish independence as defined by the UN Plan were by no means final and Yigal Allon said …”the borders of partition cannot be for us the final borders … the partition plan is a compromise plan that is unjust to the Jews. … We are entitled to decide our borders according to our defence needs.”

      Ben Gurion who upon his appointment as ‘defence minister’ in 1946 made it clear that the time had now arrived for a ‘showdown of force, a Jewish military showdown’, had been meticulously preparing for a war he was convinced, ever since the Arab revolt, was inevitable. See page 34 of Scars of War Wounds of Peace. link to

      link to

      (See Hostage's comment in full to access his embedded links.)

      As for Jamal al-Husseini, the leader of the Arab Higher Committee, he opposed partition but argued on September 29th, 1947 before the same Ad-Hoc Committee, that

      " once Palestine was found to be entitled to independence, the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine's constitutional organization, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee outlined the following principles as the basis for the future constitutional organization of the Holy Land:

      1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.

      2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.

      3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.

      4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.

      He added that the following steps would have to be taken to give effect to the above mentioned four principles:

      (a) A Constituent Assembly should be elected at the earliest possible time. All genuine and law abiding nationals of Palestine would be entitled to participate in the elections of the Constituent Assembly.

      (b) The Constituent Assembly should, within a fixed time, formulate and enact a Constitution for the Arab State of Palestine, which should be of a democratic nature and should embody the above-mentioned four principles.

      (c) A government should be formed within a fixed time, in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, to take over the administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power.

      (same UN source as for Abba Silver's remarks above)

      This Palestinian recommendation was entirely reasonable and just, so to pretend that rejection of partition somehow reflects negatively on the Palestinians and justifies the subsequent and continuing gross mistreatment of Palestinians by the "Jewish State" is to turn reality on its head. Given the previous half century history of the Zionist movement's discriminatory actions against the indigenous Palestinians, the rejection of a "Jewish State" carved out of Palestine and run by these very same Zionists was entirely understandable, and subsequent history has proven their rejection to have been correct. I'd suggest you read Shira Robinson's, Citizen Strangers. The 150,000 Palestinians who managed to remain, or were able to return without detection, and who posed no "demographic threat" to Israel's artificial and violently created Jewish majority, were treated appallingly by the State of Israel. This is the kind of state that the Zionists had worked for since the beginning of their movement-one that oppressed the Palestinian minority and privileged the Jewish "majority".

      I get that you probably have been raised on these convenient and, for you, reassuring lies and equivocations that you repeat, but you're a grown adult now. Isn't it time to think for yourself and stop mindlessly repeating falsities?

    • To Zofia,

      Thanks for including that well research info on Jerusalem. I hope you will continue to comment here and do it more often. Your comments are always so informative. What with Hostage being gone from these pages lately, info like yours is especially helpful these days.

      BTW, I'm hoping that Hostage is just taking a short vacation from the comments section, and will rejoin the fray just as Mooser did after an absence of several months.

  • Videos: Jerusalem Skunk
  • Yad Vashem
    • Andrew,

      I'm glad you brought that up again. Not only did the Zionist agencies insist that unhealthy or seriously injured European Jews in Palestine had to return to Europe so as not to be a burden on the Zionist governing bodies, but throughout their history from the early 1900's up until the Law of Return was passed by the Knesset in 1950, the Zionist agencies engaged in screening activities, both medical and and political, that weeded out the sick, the old, the very young and those without the approved political bent. (The very people most vulnerable and in need of refuge.) These were not the actions of an ideology that was interested in providing refuge. It was interested in political power and conquest and realized that it needed young adult Jews in good health and who could be more easily molded to the ideology in order to achieve that conquest.

      And as you say, a group interested in providing a refuge for Jews would not engage in the antagonistic actions that the early Zionists deployed against the indigenous population. Nor would it discourage the collection of money to help European Jews who wished to go elsewhere than Palestine. Ben-Gurion and others made clear that they considered funds that did not go to Palestine, but instead to directly help European Jews, were a direct threat to the Zionist enterprise. And of course they also fought any international efforts to relocate endangered Jews anywhere else than Palestine. After the war, they threatened Jews in the DP camps with violence and a cutoff of aid and jobs if they refuse to "volunteer" to fight in Israel. They used those Jews mercilessly for their own power interests.

      The hasbara about the need for Palestine as a "refuge" irks me for those very reasons above, and for the clueless parochial view that the only ethnicity that was suffering in Europe was a Jewish one. The view overly generalizes about Jewish suffering which was by no means universal within Europe, or even in Eastern Europe, and act as if no one else was suffering during this time, which is equivalent to a purposeful denial of European history.

  • Why I confronted Gregor Gysi
    • Of course, outside of Europe, Frazier Glenn Miller cited Max’s work frequently before he went and shot up the Jewish Community Center in Overland Park, Kansas.

      What a despicable lie in an even more desperate and despicable attempt to blame Blumenthal for the act of a bigot and right wing fanatic with a decades long history of violence! There you go citing unreliable right wing sources again as if they are credible. It's a very disturbing trend on your part.

      As Alex Kane and Phan Nguyen pointed out right here at Mondoweiss back in April, VNN, the right wing forum that Miller sometimes posted to, mentioned Max approximately 45 times, mostly in a negative vein, and mostly with reference to Max's work exposing the attitudes of right wing and extremist Republicans. Miller himself did not cite "Max's work frequently" but only linked to it ONCE.

      The idea is to tie Blumenthal to the Kansas shootings, by way of the alleged perpetrator Frazier Glenn Cross. Yet for all their attempts to create a connection, the single tie is this:

      Cross is believed to have been a frequent contributor to the VNN Forum. Out of 12,683 forum posts attributed to Cross, one single post was found to have mentioned “Jew journalist Max Blumenthal.” That single post contains a broken link to a page that once linked to a YouTube clip of a brief interview with Blumenthal. In that interview, Blumenthal explained how neoconservative supporters of Netanyahu in DC were hoping to sway the 2012 presidential election in their favor.

      link to

      (note: Cross is the real name of the man known as Frazier Glenn Miller)

      But then you know all this, hophmi, because you are a regular here and surely must have read that article. And still you repeated the bogus smear. If you have any integrity left at all, hophmi, you will retract your statement and admit it was a bald-faced lie.

  • In and out of love with Israel: Tzvia Thier's story
    • I think the blankets became weapons of extermination however they started.

      Smallpox came to the Americas in the 1500's with the Spanish explorers. It had already decimated native American populations well before the later substantial influx of Europeans. The native populations had no previous experience with the disease and had no immunity to it.

      The first known attempt to infect with blankets came from the British in 1763 during the siege of Fort Pitt, but it is not known if it was effective because there were reports that the disease was already spreading among native populations prior to the "gift" of the blankets.
      link to

      There is also circumstantial evidence that the British attempted to use smallpox against American forces during the Revolutionary War, not be blankets, but by sending infected persons across American lines.

      link to

      There was an outbreak of smallpox in 1837 which decimated many tribes. Ward Churchill claimed that it was deliberately spread by infected blankets but his claim has been seriously disputed by other historians, who trace the disease to infected individuals traveling up the Missouri River by steamboat.

      link to

  • The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)
    • jon,

      Who were “the Arabs” who made the proposal?

      I'll quote at length from Hostage on this:

      On September 29, 1947, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee, Jamal Husseini, appeared before the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Palestine. He said:

      "The future constitutional organization of Palestine should be based on the following principles: first, establishment on democratic lines of an Arab State comprising all Palestine; secondly, observance by the said Arab State of Palestine of human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law; thirdly, protection by the Arab State of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities; fourthly, guarantee to all of freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places."

      There were minority proposals from the Second Subcommittee of the UNSCOP, the Second Subcommittee of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee, and from the Arab States during the 2nd Special Session of the General Assembly based upon Jewish and Arab cantons in a bi-national state.

      The report of the 2nd Subcommittee of the Ad Hoc Committee is here:
      link to

      Mr Malik of Lebanon offered the proposal for establishing a single federal union with separate Jewish and Arab states, based upon the model of the US Constitution during the 2nd Special Session:

      “Principle number five: The Constituent Assembly, in defining the powers of the federal state of Palestine, as well as the powers of the judicial and legislative organs, in defining the functions of the cantonal governments, and in defining the relationships between the cantonal governments and the federal state, will be guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America. — Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48

      Original 2012 comment from Hostage complete with his links here:

      link to

  • Widening the Frame: SJP national conference highlights Palestine in global context
    • Nice of them, wasn’t it?

      Ivri'd probably even go so far as to say it was "mighty white" of them.

      His whole screed is one long denigration of MLK and the brave black Americans who fought for their civil rights. We all know how expensive it was to actually march in a demonstration, right? Or commit an act of civil disobedience? Or stand up for one's rights. According to ivri, none of that was possible without Jewish money and influence, which I'm sure in other instances he would deny exists. Why is it that ZIonists make the most anti-semitic statements and never get called on them?

Showing comments 4265 - 4201