Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4223 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)


Showing comments 4223 - 4201

  • '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

    • Page: 42
  • 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?

  • Loyola SJP investigation reflects double standard towards Palestinian voices on campus
    • How pathetic. You are linking to a right wing rag with ' most popular' articles like "TRENDING: MORE COLLEGE STUDENTS SUPPORT POST-BIRTH ABORTION" and "White, male hate-crime victim at Cornell University calls out leftist campus radicals as bullies, hypocrites". None of those "College Fix" screeds, including the one you linked to, have any real neutral news value but are merely vehicles with which to lie, race bait, and play the 'poor victim'.

  • Rivlin commemorates Kfar Qassem massacre and speaks of 'equality'
    • I'm glad Rivlin's actions were publicized here. I had read about his attendance at the Kfar Kasem memorial in Haaretz.

      However, I do find this paragraph problematic in its outlook:

      Rivlin, it strikes me, is a man who realizes that distributing justice, economic privilege, and the rights of citizenship based on ethnic-majority status is a flimsy basis on which to establish a state. In the United States some of the descendants of white European settlers are still struggling to learn this lesson. In Israel, Jews were a minority when the state was established, they are a 75% majority today. But a one state solution will leave the population more or less down the middle. The logic of annexation, the logic of one state, demands that justice, economic privilege, and the rights of citizenship must not be distributed based on ethnic-majority status.

      Why mention the "descendants of white European settlers" without also mentioning the large number of Jewish Israelis, as well as a significant number of American Jews, who have great difficulty understanding that distributing rights according to ethnic status is a "flimsy basis on which to establish a state." Why not come out and admit that, in this case of discrimination and injustice, it is Jews who are the perpetrators, not descendants of white European settlers in the US.

      And why not acknowledge that Jews are only a majority in the state of Israel because of massive ethnic cleansing? (And if I'm not mistaken, the Zionist forces had already created a Jewish majority in the area they claimed by their ethnic cleansing prior to Israel's declaration as a State. Jews were never a minority from statehood on because of this ethnic cleansing.)

      And this clause....."The logic of annexation, the logic of one state..."
      seems to imply that justice is only required in a one state solution of roughly equal ethnic populations.Justice and equality are just as important, or even more so, in a state with a small minority population. Justice and equality are of overriding importance, not one state or two, or whatever. As Jebreal said, Israel needs a civil rights movement. And it needs it way more than it needs diplomats arguing over borders and "solutions".

      And one comment about Rivlin's statement:
      I hereby swear, in my name and that of all our descendants, that we will never act against the principle of equal rights, and we will never try and force someone from our land.

      This is a palpable lie, and unfortunately the lie diminishes the other things he said. And he can't seem to help himself saying "our land" when the land that Palestinians are being forced from is their own, not owned by the "Israeli Jews" that he claims to be speaking for.

      Re Kfar Kasem, I'd recommend reading Shira Robinson's "Citizen Strangers". Not only was the village victimized when 49 residents were killed, but it was victimized again when the village was put under a year long curfew by the state after the massacre, intended to limit the coverage of the massacre and force the inhabitants to accept the state's paltry compensation and faux concern. It reminded me of the horrendous treatment the State dished out to the Abu Khdeir family after Mohammed was horrifically murdered.

  • Israeli army kills 14-year old Palestinian with U.S. citizenship
    • Jon,

      Have you seen a headline in Israel over the death of 5 year old Inas Khalil? Do you know about these instances? Or do you only care about Israeli Jews getting killed? The incident that killed the Jewish baby has been plastered all over the news.

      On Sunday, a man reportedly from the Jewish-only settlement of Yitzhar ran over Palestinian schoolchildren as they made their way towards their mothers after exiting a school bus in the West Bank town of Sinjil.

      Five-year-old Inas Khalil died of her wounds shortly thereafter and another girl, also hit, was left in critical condition.

      Instead of stopping to check on the children or calling for help, the man kept driving until he reached a nearby Jewish settlement, at which point he says he called the police.

      Residents accused the settler of ramming the children deliberately, but Israeli police ruled the hit-and-run an accident, siding with the settler, who claims he fled out of fear of being hurt by the Palestinian crowd which gathered around the girls he maimed.

      Raed al-Jabari, a 35-year-old Palestinian father and husband, was not so lucky when he hit Israeli settlers with his car in the Gush Etzion settlement bloc in late July. Al-Jabari insisted it was an accident and turned himself in to the police, reported Ma’an News Agency. But unlike the settler who killed Inas Khalil, al-Jabari was jailed for two months and ultimately died under suspicious circumstances.

      Israeli authorities claim al-Jabari hanged himself in the bathroom at Israel’s Eshel prison, but the autopsy suggests the man was tortured to death, according to Palestinian officials. Either way, the disparity in treatment of the settler who killed Khalil versus that of al-Jabari is the essence of Israel’s apartheid regime that affords different, unequal rights to those under its rule.

      Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations Riyad Mansour responded to the latest settler hit-and-run by filing a complaint with the UN Security Council, accusing “extremist terrorist settlers” of launching intentional hit-and-run attacks against Palestinians in recent months.

      Indeed, settlers slamming their vehicles into Palestinians in the occupied West Bank is a common occurrence that is routinely overlooked by the Israeli authorities as well as western media outlets.

      In September, a six-year-old Palestinian girl was run over by a settler driver south of the occupied West Bank city of Hebron. In August, an eight-year-old Palestinian girl was hit by a settler vehicle in the southern West Bank, an act witnesses described as a deliberate attack. A week later, a 23-year-old Palestinian man was run over and killed by a settler vehicle in the central West Bank.

      As far as this writer can tell, none of the perpetrators have been labeled “terrorists” nor have any been held accountable. But such is the nature of apartheid.

      Its the grossly uneven treatment, based solely on whether the victim or perpetrator was Jewish or Palestinian that is the underlying story here and it stinks to high heaven.

    • jjs
      hate to inform you, but that is one dumb comparison; you don’t seem to be aware of the fact that stone-throwing (preferably on motorists driving on roads or highways) are an exclusively Palestinian past-time. There is no record that I know of Israelis doing the same thing to Palestinians.

      Ever think that maybe the reason why you don't know of any Jews throwing stones at Palestinians is because you are poorly informed, rather than that such incidents don't occur? I have read of numerous cases of Israeli Jewish stone throwers, with both Palestinians AND Israeli police or military personnel being the victims of such attacks.

      Here's a few current hits on the subject:

      Arab Woman Slightly Injured by Stone Throwing in Jewish Quarter

      (from 2 days ago)

      link to

      Two Palestinians Attacked By Settlers In Jerusalem

      (from one week ago, includes settlers rioting and throwing stones at police)

      Ultra-Orthodox Jews throw stones at Arab house in northern Jerusalem

      link to

      Stone-throwing, an old Jewish custom

      by Amira Hass in Haaretz

      link to

      Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Men Vandalize Buses Displaying Images of Young Girls

      (includes throwing stones)

      link to

      Right-wing extremists attack IDF base in West Bank

      (yes, this is Jewish settlers attacking an IDF base)

      link to

      Why IDF soldiers stand idly by when settlers attack Palestinians

      link to

      And from BTselem, on casualties during the second intifada:

      Mustafa Mahmoud Musa 'Alian
      47 year-old, resident of Askar R.C, Nablus district, killed on 14 Nov 2000 in Kfar Malik, Ramallah and al-Bira district, by stones throwing. Did not participate in hostilities when killed Additional information: Killed as a result of being hit in the chest by a rock when settlers threw stones at a car he was riding in.

      There are many more instances, but these give you a small flavor of the existence of Jews who throw stones in Israel/Palestine. Hopefully you will now understand that just because you haven't heard of something it doesn't mean that the practice doesn't exist, or even mean that it isn't prevalent.

  • 'Jewish students were barred from attending' pro-Palestinian event -- Alterman misrepresents
    • No, Donald, Alterman is NOT right. Yonah's current description of what happened to him and his description at the time make clear that he was not barred from attending because he was Jewish.

      Here's is Yonah's side of the story from February 2013:

      link to

      One side of the story, but yonah makes it clear that whatever transpired was not discrimination on the basis of his religion/ethnicity.

  • Allegations of anti-Semitism used to cover up anti-Palestinian hate crime in Brooklyn
    • Hophmi, you're flailing. Re your "points".

      1. You misrepresented what was on the video. Kiswani was not holding the flag in "her hands" at the moment it is snatched away. She's clutching it between her folded arms and her body (specifically her stomach area) when it ripped away from her. We see this only from behind and other than the first reach by her assailant the rest of the action is obscured by the man's body. We can't tell if there was a punch or not from the video but we do know that he had to reach in to her stomach area in order to pull the flag away from her, and that such an action, regardless of whether it was or was not a punch, could have easily been interpreted as such by Kiswani. The flag stealing was indeed violence of a minor order, since you can't take a object tightly clutched between someone's folded arms and body without doing it violently, any more than you can steal a handbag tightly clutched to someone's body without some violence.

      2.There’s been no arrest for an assault, even though she claims to have filed a complaint. That likely means there is no evidence of an assault.

      No, it means that the police/prosecutor didn't think that the assault on Kiswani rose to the level of criminal misdemeanor assault. You're a NY lawyer so you should know that one element of criminal misdemeanor assault in NY requires "physical injury" / "substantial pain" which was not met in Kiswani's case, and in addition, prior to the posting of the video by Kiswani's assailants, there were only conflicting witness accounts on what actually transpired. In other words, the fact that no assault charges were filed doesn't mean that no evidence of an assault exists, because the video and several witnesses have provided that evidence. What it means is that the prosecutors have judged that the assault doesn't rise to the level of criminal assault.

      3. The video was stupidly posted, not by Kiswani, but by her assailants. It corroborates her testimony of what happened inside the arena, and is relevant to rebut Petlakh's false charge that he was assaulted because of his religion/ethnicity. The "sullying" of the "victim" was done by Petlakh himself, or his friends, when they posted the video.

      4. Speaking of sullying the victim, this point of yours is exactly that, as well as an example of you making unsubstantiated claims. You have no proof of anything you say about Kiswani, you are merely acting like a defense attorney for Petlakh because it irks you that some stupid, hateful Jewish guy got called out for falsely accusing someone of a hate crime.

    • The police investigated Petlakh's claim of anti-semitism and found it false. So he lied about the circumstances surrounding the assault, and Norton's investigation places Petlakh among the group who harassed and attacked Kiswani. She complained about being punched immediately while in the arena on the video, well before Petlakh was assaulted outside the venue. It was not some "late damage control".

      You on the other hand are engaging in late damage control. Someone has been proven to have falsely reported an act as anti-semitic in order to punish another person for his political beliefs and you feel the need to divert from that fact, because it makes it clear that not all claims of anti-semitism are legitimate, and should be investigated before being bandied about as true. Shame on you.

  • An exciting night at the opera: 'Klinghoffer' opening dominated by protest and heavy police presence
    • o I suppose it comes down to who is a reliable source, who do you believe

      And in your case, jon, you obviously believe a source (the IDF) that was PROVEN to have lied AT LEAST twice about Al Wafa- once by falsely identifying a totally different building as the hospital and once by releasing video from 2008 and claiming it was current in 2014. There is no rational explanation for these two egregious errors except that the IDF purposely lied in order to justify a war crime. Why you continue to believe such a source can only be explained as brainwashing. The IDF chose to kill civilians. No one "made" them do it. You sound like an abusive husband blaming his wife for "making him" beat her, or worse yet, murder her.

    • Was Mr. Klinghoffer firing rockets at civilians from his wheelchair?

      No, but then neither was Kamal Zghair or Jamal Fayid, both killed by the IDF in Jenin in 2002. Did anyone pay for their murders? OF course not, and you continually justify IDF actions.

      From Human Rights Watch:

      Fifty-seven-year-old Kamal Zghair, a wheelchair-bound man who was shot and then run over by IDF tanks on April 10 as he was moving in his wheelchair equipped with a white flag down a major road in Jenin;

      Thirty-seven-year-old Jamal Fayid, a paralyzed man, who was crushed in the rubble of his home on April 7 after IDF soldiers refused to allow his family the time to remove him from their home before a bulldozer destroyed it;

      and of course as Annie pointed out, no one in El-Wafa Hospital was firing rockets either, but you justified its targeting just because it was supposedly within 100 meters of rocket fire. You know that there are multiple civilian places that are within 100 meters of military targets in Israel, but you would never justify the killing of Israeli civilians as "collateral damage". You've got a glaring double standard, jon. And you seem to have some need to act as if the pain on both sides is equal when it most assuredly is not. Try living under occupation or having your house demolished with 15 minutes notice at your own expense, or having a minute or two (if you are lucky) before your house is destroyed by a one ton missile, or try worrying if your family should all sleep together so you will all die at the same time, or sleep separately so that some of you might survive the threatened onslaught. Then get back to us with all your stories about having to stop and get out of your car because there are sirens going off. The comparison is ludicrous.

  • Fineman and Robinson blast Sam Harris and HBO for promoting ignorance about Islam
    • ron
      All of the above terrorist groups “are not Islam”, but their members are definitely Muslims.

      Wrong. You've just proven yourself ignorant on the subject with extremely rudimentary cut and paste skills. First off, you obviously did a cut and paste job from the "related links" column at the National Counter Terrorism "groups" page. See here:

      link to

      Which explains of course why you erroneously listed "Greek Domestic Terrorism" as if it were a "group", which it is not, and as if Greek "terrorists" are Muslim, which they are not. As the NCTC site goes on to explain, most designated Greek "terrorist" organizations are radical leftist in orientation.

      Likewise, the "Lord's Resistance Army", also on your cut and paste list, is NOT Muslim, but is instead extremist Christian, and are considered one of the most violent extremist organizations, engaging in wholesale murder, kidnapping, rape, mutilation, child sex slavery, and forcing children into combat. Again, for you to falsely claim the members of this group are Muslim just shows your ignorance on the subject.

      Does the Lord's Resistance Army prove that Christians are inherently violent? Are all Christians everywhere supposed to protest against the savagery of LRA, or other Christian based terrorists? All Jews supposed to protest against Kahane Chai, Gush Emunim, or the Bat Ayin Underground?

      Why treat Muslims as a large group differently from how you treat Christians or Jews, as if they have more responsibility for everything that small groups do "in their name"?

  • 'Ethnic cleansing for a better world' -- Richard Cohen says Palestinians brought the Nakba on themselves
    • ..when and why was Plan Dalet conceived?

      The broad operational outlines were drawn as early as 1944, according to Pappe. The specific Plan Dalet was agreed upon by Ben-Gurion's Consultancy in March of 1948, following earlier plans that were adopted as early as 1945 with the same goals but slightly less drastic means.

      Why? Most specifically because the Zionists realized they couldn't simply overwhelm the existing non-Jewish population with Jewish immigrants because there weren't enough interested and available Jewish immigrants. In general, "transfer" had always been on the ZIonist agenda since the early days. They'd hoped they could simply urge the population to leave and bribe the surrounding countries to encourage it, but were willing to resort to forced transfer if it was the only way to achieve their goals of a Jewish majority in Palestine.

  • When Rouhani says blaming ISIS on Islam is Islamophobic, is anyone listening?
    • Rouhani’s self-patting on the back, i.e. blame it all on the West, does indeed mirror Chomsky, who too refuses to see the cultural foundation of the natives as a crucial element and instead prefers to pass the buck onto the U.S. entirely, just like Rouhani.

      If you are going to make pronouncements about the failings of Rouhani's speech, it would be better if you read it in its entirety rather than just the tidbits Phil mentions in order to make his point about blaming Islam for extremism. Phi; linked to the full speech. Why not read it before umping to the conculsion that Rouhani "blame(s) it all on the West"? Here's another portion of Rouhani's speech.

      The Middle East longs for development and is weary of war. It is the natural right of the peoples of the fertile lands of the Middle East to live in peace and prosperity. In the past, colonialism denied them this right, and today; the shadow of war and violence threatens their security. There are moderate politicians and elites in our region who enjoy the confidence of their peoples. They are neither anti-Western nor pro-Western. While aware of the role of colonialism in the backwardness of their nations, they are not neglectful of the role of their nations in reaching the development they seek. They do not absolve the West from its misdeeds, but are also aware of their own failings. These leaders can take positions of active leadership by attracting the confidence of the people in their societies and establish the strongest national and international coalitions against violence.

      Try reading the whole speech.

      And as for killing innocents, I suspect that the US tops them all in that sorry statistic, by a very significant margin.

  • Netanyahu erases the boundary between world Jewry and Israel in celebration of 'our country'
    • Crap. Still no edit function. Pardon the spelling, typing errors. Also last sentence was meant to read:

      What has happened, and continues to happen to others, even at the hands of Israel, doesn’t even make a dent in your consciousness.

    • least falling under the desire to see Israelis and Jews ‘brought to their knees’ whereas no other nations or peoples are currently subject to such objectives.

      Amazing how you can completely ignore how Israel has used used the Gaza blockade and the continual theft of land and the impoverishment of the West Bank to bring Palestinians to their knees. The Israeli government has been doing sanctions against the Palestinian people for decades.

      And of course the US sanctioned Iraq, and there are US neocons (and Israel) pushing for the sanctioning of Iran. Cuba has been embargoed for over half a century. And of course their were sanctions against South Africa, and other nations as well. But the only instance you see is a proposed sanctioning of Israel, which must, in your mind, be anti-semitic, because "no other nations or peoples" have been sanctioned because of their government's actions. You simply reveal your racism with such a statement. You focus only on Israel. What has happened, and continues to happen to others, even at the hands of others, doesn't even make a dent in your consciousness.

  • Another scholar cancels at U of Illinois, saying school doesn't 'protect faculty from donors'
    • Electronic Intifada has an article up about a missing document and the involvement of the Israel Education Center, an advocacy arm of of the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago in the effort to fire Salaita.

      link to

      Also in that article I first heard mention of "Masa".

      And the Israel Education Center’s Briskman has spared no effort in fostering relationships between off-campus Israel lobby groups and students, specifically at the University of Illinois.

      The Israeli government-backed Jewish Agency has deployed former Israeli soldier Erez Cohen to the Urbana-Champaign campus as a “sheliach” – or “envoy” tasked with propagandizing for Israel.

      In 2011, Cohen “sent a record number of participants on Masa programs in Israel,” according to a Jewish United Fund blog post.

      Masa is a program – similar to Birthright Israel – that seeks to recruit American Jewish youths as settlers and soldiers.

      None of his work “would have been possible without the tremendous support and teamwork from his colleagues, Aimee Weiss from Masa, and Emily Briskman, from JUF’s Israel Center,” Erez explained.

      Masa sounds like a program ripe for investigative reporting: recruiting Jewish jihadis for Israel.

  • Goldberg tries to police view that Israel's actions fuel anti-Semitism
    • BTW……the US is bombing Syria right now.

      ...and beheading people from a distance with technologically complex weapons... which is so much more "civilized' then using more basic weapons to do the same thing.

    • If I say ‘Zionism’ to people most of them have no idea what I am talking about.

      And then there are those, like the former British Conservative MP, who think 'Zionist' is a "cheap code word for Jew". Here's her famous twitter gaffe where she insisted she was going to block anyone using the term, including Theodore Herzl.

      link to

      I had a similar online conversation with someone when I first started delving into the matter. To them, 'Zionist' was just an anti-semitic code word for Jew. She had no concept of history or the political meaning of the word. It's like trying to explain quantum theory to someone who's anti-science. You can't even get agreement on first principles before they've turned off.

    • But that’s a ridicolous comparison on multiple levels.

      I didn't read it as a comparison, but a negation of the "universal and immutable rule" as espoused by Goldberg.

      But the real problem with Goldberg's "rule" is that he is applying it incorrectly. Israel is not "the Jews" so therefore the victims of prejudice are not the cause or precipitating actor in this case, Israel is. So unless you insist that Israel equals Jewishness, which is itself an anti-semitic prejudice, when Israel's actions cause anti-semitism to increase, it is not the victims who are at fault or the cause. Those who insist that criticizing Israel is criticizing "the Jews", or that all Jews must defend Israel or be cast out as not real Jews, are also responsible for this conflation that leads to prejudice.

      And protesting a group of Jews or even a synogogue that defends Israel's actions in Gaza or the West Bank is not anti-semitic. It is protesting a political viewpoint, not a religion or an ethnicity.

    • NO edit function! To clarify: " IF the point (of the protest)...."

    • Ahhh. I was about to make the same point. If the point is that its anti-semitic to blame Jews for what Israel does, then wrapping oneself in an Israeli flag at an anti-anti-semitism protest is sending mix messages at best, and at worst is totally negating the idea that Jews and Israel are NOT synonymous.

  • Palestinian babies not included on Israel gov't list of most popular names
    • Of course she was proven to be a liar by the fact that, according to Haaretz, where you lifted this quote,

      The authority circulated a list with the 10 most popular names for boys and for girls under the heading, “The most common names among babies born this year” – referring to the Jewish year 5774 – but neglected to mention that the list only included Hebrew names.

      So the Authority either purposely mislabeled the list or purposely eliminated obvious Arabic baby names from the list, which seems to be the more likely case, since the reason that Yosef was the most popular baby names was because it is spelled the same way in Hebrew and in Arabic, and thus was included in the list.

      Moreover, the ranking for Yosef – which was in fact the second most commonly given name – also includes Arab babies named Yusef, which in Hebrew is spelled the same way.

      It turns out that the population authority only omitted clearly Arab names like Mohammed and Ahmed – which would have been the ninth most common name, had it been included.

      The authority put out a similar list last year, also without citing the fact that it included only Hebrew names, and nor did it issue a separate list relating to the Arab population. By contrast, the data issued annually by the Central Bureau of Statistics contains three separate lists of the most commonly given names – for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

  • Israeli Supreme Court upholds law allowing housing discrimination against Palestinians
    • The Palistinians can have their state when they are willing to agree that israel shall have secure borders and they agree to not insist on messing with the current social fabric of Israel.

      It's always instructive to note how many restrictions Zionists put on the Palestinians as regards to how they can "have a state". So many rules to follow in order to please Israel. Israelis on the other hand, were allowed to simply declare one, continue with their ethnic cleansing (i.e, messing with the then current social fabric of Israel), and reap the rewards of their theft of property. And of course Israel never has to agree to recognize any secure borders of Palestine, or any borders at all, and gets to continue to mess with the "current social fabric" of Palestine ad infinitum.

  • The Shipman 'disgrace' -- did NY Police commish Bill Bratton just say the same thing?
    • I knew you constantly conflate Israel and "the Jews". Now you prove you are not above conflating the US government and "the Jews". How pathetic.

    • He said that the best antidote to antisemitism was for Jews to pressure the Netanyahu government.

      Reading comprehension is NOT your strong suit, hophmi.

      Shipman's letter read "the best antidote to anti-Semitism would be for Israel’s patrons abroad to press the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for final-status resolution to the Palestinian question." Israel’s patrons abroad", not "Jews". Israel's biggest patron abroad is the US government. Israel isn't a victim and the US isn't a victim. There is no "victim" pressuring "victim" here.

      Or were you purposely conflating the US government and US Jews? As I said, you aren't above engaging in a bit of anti-semitism yourself if you think it helps your argument.

    • The same point that Shipman made was made by a "report published ... by the Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism, a body sponsored by the Jewish Agency, the Prime Minister's Office and the Ministry for Diaspora Affairs" in 2009, according to Ynet news.

      The Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip has prompted a sharp increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents worldwide, after 2008 saw a drop in anti-Jewish sentiments globally.

      link to

      And yet another report from a Tel Aviv University Institute around the same time frame made a similar point.

      While Operation Cast Lead in Gaza prompted a sharp rise in global anti-Semitism in January 2009, it in fact followed a significant decline in anti-Semitism across the world, a new report published by the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University revealed Monday.


      February and March witnessed a sharp decline in violent incidents, reaching figures that were in fact lower than the equivalent months of 2008, "but the virulent verbal and visual expressions and the atmosphere of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel rage have not yet subsided," the report noted.

      link to

      A scholarly analysis touching on the import of these reports stated the problem this way:

      "The report found a spike in anti-Semitism during January 2009, amid Israel's Gaza invasion, followed by as steep decline in February and March. However, much of what the report conceptualized as anti-Semitism was images in cartoons and demonstrations comparing Israel's behavior to that of Nazi Germany. While such comparisons are problematic, historically, they are viable ethically in that attributions of brutal violence on the part of Israel, as with Nazi Germany, spealkaccurately to its widely documented human rights abuses. To deem such comparisons anti-Semitic creates an ethical framework in which inordinate violence can be justified as an act of justice.....

      It is likely that Israel's inhumane behavior, not mysterious repositories of predisposed hate, produce increases in what numerous groups deem anti-Semitic incidents (itself a process not without myriad problems). The ADL is culpable in this particular source of anti-Semitism because it is one of the most aggressive exponents of the idea that Israel and Jewishness are indivisible. That idea conjoins cultural practice with state action, a terribly perilous move socially and morally because it fosters an unsustainable ethnonational identity that transfers the burdens of violence from the state to the cultural group it supposedly embodies."

    • And of course, in your telling of it, its "obsessive media coverage of Gaza" rather than Israel's actions that are the problem. Israel destroys Gaza's civilian infrastructure and homes, resulting in billions of dollars of damage and the deaths of over 2000 people, and you think its "obsessive" of the media to actually cover it.

    • What a dishonest statement, hophmi. Shipman did NOT say "the Jews" were responsible.

      Deborah E. Lipstadt makes far too little of the relationship between Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza and growing anti-Semitism in Europe and beyond.

      The trend to which she alludes parallels the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.

      As hope for a two-state solution fades and Palestinian casualties continue to mount, the best antidote to anti-Semitism would be for Israel’s patrons abroad to press the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for final-status resolution to the Palestinian question.

      Of course, if you think that Israel =the Jews then it is you who is being anti-semitic. You clearly aren't above appealing to anti-semitic stereotypes if you think it might further your argument.

  • Achieving a hudna and ten years of calm in Israel/Palestine
  • Five lessons from the struggle to reinstate Steven Salaita at the University of Illinois
    • Eitan,

      Tree–you misunderstand the use of sources. The Times was Salaita’s source–his only source.

      No, Eitan, again it is you who is having trouble comprehending sources. If you actually read Salaita's footnote you'd see that the source he provided (with link) was not to the NYTimes, but was instead to the Jewish Federation of Tulsa's newsletter, "Tulsa Jewish Review". His link is no longer functional, as happens when websites reorganize their files, but I was able to find the original source through a search function on their site. Here it is:

      link to

      The short article is on page 3 of the February 2008 newsletter, under the column called "What's Nu?" I quote directly from the Tulsa Jewish Review:

      A Jewish Brooklyn man has pleaded not guilty to charges of anti-Semitic hate crimes. Police arrested Ivan Ivanov after discovering pipe bombs and other weapons at his home. Ivanov, who had long been suspected of a September spree of spray-painting anti-Semitic graffiti on houses, cars, playgrounds, and two synagogues in his Brooklyn Heights neighborhood, implicated himself in the graffiti incidents during a search of his home and was arrested. After Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge John WIlson set bail at $150,000 and ordered Ivanov to surrender his passport, his attorney Adrian Lesher revealed to reporters that his client was Jewish. The New York Times had reported that Ivanov told police that he was Italian by birth, raised in Bulgaria, and trained by the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency.

      According to the Tulsa Jewish Review Ivanov was a "Jewish Brooklyn man".

      So if you are going to accuse anyone of "fabricating" Ivanov's Jewishness, you better start with the Jewish Federation of Tulsa with that accusation. Perhaps Mooser can enlighten us on the fine points of "fabricating" Jewishness through the auspices of Jewish Federations.

      And of course, as you now indirectly admit, if you are going to accuse Salaita and the Jewish Federation of Tulsa of fabricating Ivanov's Jewishness, by the same token you should be accusing yourself of "fabricating" his Italian heritage. The warped standard you use to accuse someone of falsifying someone's ethnicity applies to both yourself as well as Salaita since Ivanov self-identified as both Italian and Jewish.

      And BTW, claiming Jewishness does not get one out of a charge of anti-semitic hate crimes. Any lawyer knows that so your flailing attempt to accuse his lawyer of lying in order to help his client only reveals your own desperate attempts to deny Ivanov's Jewishness. You believed him to be Italian because he said so. You even put Italian in all caps as if that made it more true. But when Ivanov said he was Jewish suddenly you find it not believable and even go so far as to claim that Salaita made it up.

    • It doesn’t matter what Ivanov’s lawyer said–(a) he’s trying to get his client off any way he can, and (b) Salaita was depending on the NYTimes, not on Ivanov’s lawyer. Salaita’s talking about Jews faking antisemitic incidents and claimed the NYT as his source of information.

      But the Times identified Ivanov as an Italian. Salaita claimed the Times identified Ivanov as a veteran of Mossad. But the Times did not: it only reported that Ivanov *claimed* to have been trained about Mossad.

      This is a perfect example of your double standard. You say the Times identified Ivanov as an Italian. But the Times only indicated that Ivanov said he was Italian, just as he said he was trained by the Mossad, and just as his lawyer said that he was Jewish. You take the reportage of what Ivanov said as the truth and a proven fact when it comes to his Italian heritage, but then use a different standard with respect to a similar claim from the same source, Ivanov, that he was trained by Mossad, and the same source, once removed, that he was Jewish. The Times, in its reporting simply stated what Ivanov, or his lawyer, said about his background. If you are going to disbeleive what he said, then there is no more proof that he was Italian then there was that he was Jewish.

      You also seem to think that either being Italian, or claiming to be Italian, precludes one from being Jewish as well. You seem overall to be quite confused and flailing with your argument, and haven't addressed the fact that Ivanov committed acts of anti-semitic vandalism that numbered in the double digits, not just one act, thus his acts alone constitute "numerous" acts, as described by Salaita.

    • There were about 630 cases of antisemitism reported in 2007 and 2008. Salaita cites a total of four. First of all–is that “numerous”?

      Annie, the "Prof" also makes an error here in understanding how anti-semitic vandalism is reported and counted. It isn't counted by the number of people who commit the vandalism but by number of individual acts of vandalism, regardless of how many people may be involved in perpetrating them.

      So, in other words, the vandalism committed by Ivaylo Ivanov (the correct name used in the NY Times and other sources for the suspect, and later convict) included at least 23 instances of vandalism according to the NY Daily News, and perhaps as many as 90 or more. He was charged on a 100 count indictment, but a few of those counts would have been related to the explosives found in his home, and the false report he filed claiming someone had shot his finger.

      So, contrary to this commenter's assertion that Salaita only mentioned 4 cases, the Ivanov vandalism alone would have included somewhere between 23 and 90-ish separate acts of vandalism.

      And Ivanov was identified early on as Jewish by his attorney, although Prof Eitan fails to mention that fact, and implies that Salaita simply "fabricated" Ivanov's Jewishness.

      link to

  • Ohio University filibuster: harangue or free speech?
    • The more important question is will they face prosecution like the Irvine 11 for "disturbing" a lawful meeting? We are talking about 2 minutes of interruption of Michael Oren by the Irvine 11, versus 38 minutes of interruption by the bullies at the Ohio State meeting. Any body placing any bets on the chance of this incident resulting in prosecutions? I wouldn't.

    • If you add an "l" to the very end of Mooser's bad link you get this story, which deals with Jews being attacked by other Jews in Israel:

      link to

      "Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews protesting the desecration of graves by a highway construction project near Haifa were attacked and brutally beaten by private security guards hired by the Ministry of Transportation.

      The group, known for being outspokenly critical of the State of Israel and its very existence were peacefully demonstrating at the time. This attack follows a long history of violence against the Orthodox Jewish community."

      more at link

    • To Louis-George Schwartz: I don't think you need to feel ashamed to be associated with this article. Kneedler admitted that she didn't always have a good view of the entire proceedings, but seems to have accurately described what she did see.

      Thanks for adding your input into this. Perhaps you might want to pen an article on what you saw from your perspective closer to the center of the action. The intimidation towards Marzec seems rampant among her detractors. Any idea who the man in the blue shirt was? He seems from the photos to be older than college age.

  • Salaita speaks out and warns of a 'Palestinian exception' to the first amendment and academic freedom
    • The UICU Board of Trustees just turned down Salaita's appointment. Vote was 8-1, with the lone dissenter being James Montgomery, a prominent black attorney in Chicago. He was the one who had earlier expressed reservations about the way WIse handled the matter.

  • Defending Apartheid: Then in South Africa, now in Palestine
    • And even earlier instances of Zionist discrimination against non-Jews included the covenants that the JNF enacted on the land they bought, banning non-Jews from ever owning or working on the land; the early boycotts against Arab labor and against Jews buying Arab produce, the attempts to convince the British mandate government to give hiring preference to Jews and to pay them at a higher rate than non-Jews; the refusal to join in a Mandate Palestine Legislative Council unless given a 50 % percent representation even when Jews were less than 10% of the Palestinian population, and of course all the early talk about "transfer".

      Its really no surprise that Israel turned out the way it did. Its origins, unfortunately, were steeped in an ideology than could only lead to apartheid conditions.

  • Salaita firing turns into a 'catastrophe' for University of Illinois
    • Here's the timeline of Salaita's tweets:

      -"If its "antisemitic" to deplore colonization, land theft, and child murder, then what choice does any person of conscience have?"

      Followed immediately by this:

      - "Zionists: transforming "antisemitism" from something horrible into something honorable since 1948."

      No doubt part of one thought put in two serial tweets due to the 140 character limit of a tweet.

      This was responded to a few hours later by another tweeter:

      -"Unsure how to respond to this as a jewish anti-zionist "

      To which Salaita responded:

      "By attacking the discourses of Zionism that cheapen anti-Semitism by likening it to principled stands against state violence."

      Notice that he puts "antisemitism" in lower case and quotes when he is talking about phony cries of "antisemitism" against criticism of Israel, but uses no quotes and upper case when he is talking about real Anti-Semitism.

      So Salaita is agreeing with you (and me) on this, David.

  • British pol is beaten by man in Israeli army t-shirt, and the chattering classes are silent
    • Finally, Dan, although most Israeli Jews are hopeless on ideology, not all are. Galloway’s blanket-ban would affect those in the Anarchists Against the Wall, the +972 mag types etc.

      Krauss, you might want to actually listen to the interview rather than making blanket statements from Phil's short description of what Galloway said.

      Galloway was talking about the boycott of Israel when he made the statement :"We don't want any Israeli goods, we don't want any Israeli services, we don't want any Israeli academics coming to our University, we don't even want any Israeli tourist sto come to Bradford, etc. " (quoted by the interviewer at 4:36) . He's a maximalist in regards to the Israeli boycott, but he goes on to say that he considers the "Anarchists against the Wall" and the "972 types"(those against the apartheid state of Israel) are his comrades (7:10), and Ilan Pappe, a Jewish Israeli citizen ,is one of his closest comrades.

      I think you are looking for something that isn't there in Galloway's statement.

  • Richard Cohen says he married Israel and has been faithful during ups and downs
    • Just,

      I can never hear that performance by Joe Cocker without thinking of this video, with the mondegreen "captions for the clear-headed". It came out years ago as a birthday greeting compilation from a guy to his girlfriend.

    • How can he claim on one hand that he has been "faithful to Israel" and at the same time insist that he came at the question "as a skeptic"? Pull the other leg. please.

      As for "callous indifference", he has it in spades when it comes to the Iraqis he helped destroy and the Palestinians he denigrates and helps oppress with his " love" for Israel.

  • I see five bears
    • Your friends saw your wife and a bear from a car???

      Sorry, couldn't resist.

      Good for you. I've only seen bear scat so I know they are around my property but no sightings yet. One day... hopefully not in my living room, as had happened to one unlucky family here a few years back.

      Be careful about getting what you want re seeing a mountain lion. I've been told that you only see them if they want to be seen, as when you are their prey.

  • Judaism's hijacking by Zionists drives 70% of secular Jews to marry non-Jews-- Koppman at Huffpo
    • Yep, in linguistics, the term “semitic” has nothing to do with race, ethnicity or culture. It’s just a language family, many of whose languages anyone can learn to speak, or speak as their first language.

      True today, but in the late 1800's, scientific racism, polygenism and Lamarckism connected language with race.

      [ German biologist and philosopher Erst Haeckel(1834-1919) ] put forward a doctrine of evolutionary polygenism based on the ideas of the linguist August Schleicher, in which several different language groups had arisen separately from speechless prehuman Urmenschen, which themselves had evolved from simian ancestors. These separate languages had completed the transition from animals to man, and, under the influence of each main branch of languages, humans had evolved – in a kind of Lamarckian use-inheritance – as separate species, which could be subdivided into races. From this Haeckel drew the implication that languages with the most potential formed human species with the most potential, led by the Semitic and Indo-Germanic groups, with Berber, Jewish, Greco-Roman and Germanic varieties to the fore.[12] As Haeckel stated:[13]

      "We must mention here one of the most important results of the comparative study of languages, which for the Stammbaum of the species of men is of the highest significance, namely that human languages probably had a multiple or polyphyletic origin. Human language as such probably developed only after the species of speechless Urmenschen or Affenmenschen had split into several species or kinds. With each of these human species, language developed on its own and independently of the others. At least this is the view of Schleicher, one of the foremost authorities on this subject.… If one views the origin of the branches of language as the special and principal act of becoming human, and the species of humankind as distinguished according to their language stem, then one can say that the different species of men arose independently of one another."

      link to

      In other words, to the 19th century Lamarckian polygenist, language determined race, and humans evolved separately from several races, signified and influenced by their linguistic group. This is the origin of the use of "semite" as a racial identifier, rather than strictly a linguistic one.

      People today tend to think of Zionist thought as a reaction to the era of Naziism, and romantic nationalism. Although the roots are similar, early Zionism was linked to this earlier polygenism based on language groups, and to the Lamarckian concept that humans (and other organisms) could genetically pass on traits acquired during their own lifetimes. Thus the early Zionist emphasis on physical agricultural labor, which was supposed to revive the "Modern Hebrew" or "New Jew" from the European Jew who was supposedly genetically diminished by accculturization to mental labor rather than physical labor. Throw in concern about "racial purity" and you've got the ingredients of early Zionism.

      Both Wilhelm Marr (originator of the term, "antisemite") and Arthur Ruppin ("Father of the Jewish Settlements" in Palestine) were influenced by Haeckel.

  • Being Palestinian got me barred from visiting Palestine
    • Cr*p. Need edit function! Only first paragraph of my comment above is JeffB's quote . The rest is mine despite the misplaced italics.

    • The 300k Palestinians living in Area-C are current hostile to their government I think the right analogy is a non-integrated minority.

      Since they had no vote and no say in "their government"(since you mean the Israeli government) for the last 47 years, based solely on the fact that they are not Jewish, then apartheid is in fact the operative word here., despite Jeff's latest attempt at victim blaming.

      And being a "non-integrated minority" that is currently "hostile" to "their government" is a classic Catch 22. Since the Palestinians in the West Bank have no say in 'their government" and have no civil rights as well, it is entirely natural to be "hostile" to such a government. When they cease to be hostile to having no rights, they might then qualify as Jeff's "integrated minority" that could be given citizenship, but then, if they are willing to have no rights, there would be no need for Israel to give them any, would there?

      That's some Catch.

      The beatings will continue until morale improves.

      P.S. Add me to the long list of those happy to see you here, Shmuel, although I hope its not for lack of current employment.

  • Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza -- same way she lost it in Iraq the last time
    • Thanks ritzl. Good points.

    • And I think “harpy” is a very good word that could be accurately applied to a lot of male politicians because “hawk” is far too complimentary.

      Except it can't because it is exclusively applied to women, so it would still be demeaning to women even if used against a male.

      -a rapacious monster described as having a woman's head and body and a bird's wings and claws or depicted as a bird of prey with a woman's face
      -a grasping, unpleasant woman.

      Which is my point exactly.

      Why use a gender slur when there are other words that could be used, and would be used to describe male politicians without demeaning a whole gender? Using the term to refer to male politicians doesn't help because the word refers to women only. It would be like calling a man the "c" word, which is still demeaning to women when it is used to describe a particular male.

      I agree that “battle-axe” doesn’t accurately describe Hillary; it is far to complimentary.

      I've NEVER seen the term "battleaxe" used to describe a woman in a "complimentary" way. It's never used that way as far as I know. Its a gender based slur, used to refer negatively to an older aggressive woman with strong opinions.

      tree, I know you mean well, but calling Hillary Clinton a “harpy”, which she undoubtedly is, ranks low on my scales of injustices, when because of her brand of politics, Israel is bombing Gaza with impunity.

      This sounds like whataboutery to me. Is the world really so limited that one can't complain about slurs being used against women in general because Israel is committing war crimes in Israel with the acquiescence of the vast majority of American politicians, including Clinton and Obama and most other Democrats? There are a lot of things in our society to complain about, none of them as atrocious as what is happening to the people of Gaza, but NOT complaining about those other things won't help the Palestinians either. Its not an either/or situation.

    • Hillary Clinton is virtually indistinguishable from her male counterparts.

      So then why use gender related terms that are used to demean women and put them in their place, subservient to men, to refer to her? There are plenty of non-sexist terms that can be used to describe her and other candidates, male and female, so why resort to sexist stereotypes about women to criticize her specifically when she is, as you say, "virtually indistinguishable" from male politicians? This is my point. I don't care whether it's Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton or Michelle Bachman, or Medea Benjamin for that matter, who is the brunt of these loaded terms. I think its wrong and its lazy and sexist to use them, regardless of the female target.

    • Sean,

      You are much more politically correct than I am. One should be able to use terms like “harpy” and “battle-axe” with gusto ...

      No, I'm just more sensitive about using sexist slurs than you are. So what are the limits for you on demeaning terms? Should "one" be able to use terms like the "c" word "with gusto" to refer to individual women you disagree with or find offensive? Do you have any limits or is everything fair game as long as you only use the slurs to refer to "specific" individuals?

      By all means be polite and sensitive to their feelings, if that is your disposition.

      Again you seem clueless. It isn't just the individual's feelings we are talking about. Or do you honestly think that the only one who would be offended if you used a racial slur or a racial stereotype "with gusto" against Obama would be Obama himself? No one else should care what kind of language you use, since it is only referring to a "specific individual"?

    • I don't care whether you "like women" or not, sean. Its beside the point. Again, in IMO, you can criticize all you want but don't use the slur "battleaxe" which is a a slur reserved for women. You are being particularly obtuse about this point, seeming to want me to agree that the term itself is not offensive but I consider it so, regardless of who it is describing.

      Notice that the very quote you used from Glenn Greenwald, although scathing in its criticism of Clinton, refrains from using sexist slurs against her. I have no quarrel with his opinion or how he expresses it. I think you are using demeaning terms, which is what I find objectionable.

    • Phil runs a great blog with a great many useful and interesting posts, but he’s always been a bit of cheerleader who lets his optimism run away with him when he makes predictions.

      I'd agree. Phil is a bit of a Pollyanna on the subject. The glass isn't just half -full for him. He's a "Gee, the glass is nearly full!" kind of guy. He's the little boy shoveling through the massive pile of horse manure looking for the pony that surely must be underneath there somewhere. Its kind of endearing in a way.

    • Sean, you totally missed my point. You can criticize women politicians as much as you want. As a group they are no better than male politicians. But please don't use words like "harpies" and "battleaxes", as those are gender specific slurs meant to demean women as women, and as such are not simply "criticism".

    • Sean,

      Can we cut with the gender-specific slurs of "harpy" and "battleaxe"? I had enough of them in 2008 when it became excedingly apparent that slurring women was still considered acceptable political discourse.

  • The day the settlers left: Gaza during the 'Disengagement'
    • Yes, Pamela, you are a great writer! I always feel as though I am there with you whenever I read your book or your descriptions here.

  • 'NYT' op-ed calls on Jews to abandon liberal Zionism and push for equal rights
  • Dead American soldier in IDF signed up to fight global jihadists plotting 'Holocaust 2.0'
    • His last post on his blog was from July 15th. "The Sounds of Sirens"

      link to

      A couple of thoughts about the essay. Number one, it details his reaction to a Gazan rocket landing within 150 meters of his base. I'm surprised he was allowed to mention this, since the IDF and the Israeli government usually go out of their way to obscure the fact that military bases might actually be targets of Hamas rockets, since the meme is that Hamas "targets civilians".

      Second, it seems as though he was not really prepared for the horrors of combat when he describes his feelings during an air raid over a rocket that caused one shrapnel injury. The reaction seems over the top for such a minor incident. He was, of course, only a soldier since August of last year, and had apparently seen no combat.

      This of course is just arm-chair psychology on my part, but I wonder if he projected his fear of vulnerability due to his abuse as a child into a fear of anti-semitism and a desire to "correct' his vulnerability by becoming in his own words, "a warrior". He probably fought in Gaza in late July and August, as the Givati Brigade was part of the ground invasion. I wonder if he had trouble dealing with what his "invulnerability" caused him to do in Gaza, and found it too painful to live with himself.

      Up until PE, the biggest cause of death in the IDF was suicide.

  • 'Lesson: The Jews will defend themselves even if it means killing children'
    • And who is this schmuck to speak on behalf of Jews ?

      Actually he spoke on behalf of "the Jews". I'm surprised that hophmi didn't come riding in on his steed to curse Lozowick for his anti-semitism. Oh, wait, he's a Zionist. Zionists are allowed to speak for "the Jews" in hophmi's book.

  • Air strikes and rocket fire resume as Gaza negotiations collapse
    • Direct quote from your B'Tselem link, jon:

      The figures B’Tselem collected regarding the number of Palestinians killed in the course of the fighting in the Gaza Strip are very preliminary and incomplete, and are still being cross-referenced and checked. In addition, we have not included certain incidents in these figures because neither the precise number of people killed nor their identity is yet known to B’Tselem. This situation is partly because not all bodies have been extricated from the rubble and identified. In the months ahead, B’Tselem plans to further investigate the incidents, including confirming the identity of the individuals killed and whether or not they took part in the hostilities. According to the spokesperson for Gaza’s Ministry of Health, 1,939 Palestinians have been killed from the launching of the Israeli offensive through 10 August 2014.

      And Donald's correct, BTselem uses the words "at least 1767". Funny how you can't even properly read your own link.

  • Revenge devoid of purpose: Punitive demolitions of Palestinian homes
    • Is his house not destroyed because it’s a rental?

      No, that doesn't stop Israel from demolishing homes of Palestinians. His home isn't demolished because he is Jewish.

  • More Orientalist insinuations in the New York Times
    • Islam can say what it wants about Judaism – or Christianity, for that matter – but that doesn’t make its pronouncements valid.

      As likewise, you can say whatever you want about all 3 religions but it doesn't make your pronouncements valid. Aiman is right. Abraham preceded the advent of Judaism so he was not Jewish. Judaism views its followers as descendants of Abraham as does Islam though technically Abraham was neither a believer in Judaism nor Islam, as neither existed at the time.

      And Judaism derived much of its practices and beliefs from Zoroastrianism, which was most probably influenced by even earlier religions.

      2. Are you saying you agree with Another Steve‘s assertion that Jews are, in fact, Muslims?

      You are misinterpreting what both are saying. Abraham preceded BOTH religions. Technically he was neither Jewish nor Muslim because NEITHER existed at his time, but he is taken as the spiritual father of both. (Technically, he probably didn't exist, and may have been derived from Zoroaster, who also may not have existed, Such is the way of religious belief.)

    • It all goes back to the Jews by whatever name one is to call them.

      It goes back even farther to Zoroastrianism.

      Interesting trivia: Freddie Mercury, born Farokh Bulsara, was Zoroastrian. I miss his voice and his genius.

  • Witnessing Gaza
    • JeffB.

      me:The Jewish National Fund discriminated against non-Jews from its very inception in 1901.

      you: That’s partially correct. We are talking about the government of Israel.

      No, we were talking about Zionism, which you insisted did not involve a belief in discrimination in favor of Jews, yet now you admit it did.

      Well yes, but at that point it was a trivial amount of land it was setting up for Jewish redemption through labor. I don’t suffer from housing discrimination because I can’t go live in a monastery. There is a difference between 90% being inaccessible and .09% being inaccessible. By the mid 1920s the position reversed due to the citrus explosion. If Zionism were as blanketly as committed to discrimination as your side claims that wouldn’t have happened.

      If you are thrown off the land you have legally lived on and cultivated because you are of the "wrong" ethnicity or religion, then that is discrimination. Its obvious. We aren't talking about you moving into a monastery, as much as you may want to make false analogies to obscure the issue. I'm not sure whether you are just ignorant and willing to make up what you believe is plausible shit, or whether you are purposefully lying (maybe a little of both?) but the Zionist policy of "conquest of the land" and "conquest of labor", both of which entailed the dispossession of non-Jews in Palestine, continued from the turn of the twentieth century up through the 1940's and was embraced by the State of Israel with its founding in 1948. Zionism was and is, to use your term, "blanketly" discriminatory.

      From Matzpen:

      The Zionist colonization proceeded under three basic slogans. The first of these is Kibush Hakarka (Conquest of the Land). This means that the holy soil of Palestine is to be made the patrimony of the Jewish people. Jews must work the land, and Jews alone are entitled to do so. During the mandate period, this slogan justified the Zionist land purchases and the forcible removal of the Palestinian peasants; since the formation of the state, it continues to justify the violent expropriation of Palestinians without any pretence of contractual agreement

      The second slogan is Kibush Ha’avoda (Conquest of Labor). In practice, this means that, as far as possible, Jewish enterprises must hire only Jewish workers. It meant that the Histadrut, which virtually excluded Arabs from membership until the mid-196os, had as its main function before the establishment of the state in 1948 the enforcement of an Arab labor boycott

      The third of these slogans is Tozteret Ha’aretz (Produce of the Land). In practice, this slogan meant the maintenance of a strict boycott of Arab-produced goods. Jews were to buy only from Jewish-run farms and stores.

      Today, either from tactical considerations or from stirrings of guilty consciences, Zionist spokesmen try to cover up this past – and present To demonstrate that these slogans in fact represented day-to-day practice of the Zionist colonization, it suffices to quote David Hacohen, a leader of the Mapai Labor Party, which ruled and still rules in Israel Hacohen was a member of the Knesset for many years and chairman of its most important committee, Defense and Foreign Affairs. In a speech to the secretariat of the Mapai in November 1969, Hacohen stated:

      "I remember being one of the first of our comrades to go to London after the First World War … There I became a socialist … When I joined the socialist students – English, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, African – we found that we were all under English domination or rule. And even here, in these intimate surroundings, I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there. … To pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the Kereen Kayemet [Jewish Fund] that sent Hanlon to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi [landlords] and to throw the fellahin[peasants] off the land – to buy dozens of dunams 12 from an Arab is permitted, but to sell, God forbid, one Jewish dunam to an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild, the incarnation of capitalism, as a socialist and to name him the “benefactor” – to do all that was not easy. And despite the fact that we did it – maybe we had no choice – I wasn’t happy about it "13.

      Hacohen’s revelation of his feelings is surely sufficient evidence that these slogans constituted day-to-day practice and that Zionism was in fact a colonization of displacement.

      link to

      These boycotts and pickets against hiring Palestinian Arab workers continued through all the of pre-state period. As Simha Flapan pointed out in Zionism and the Palestinians:

      The issue of Jewish labour became thus part of the larger problem of the scale and pace of Jewish immigration. This would explain the strange fact that the campaign for '100 percent Jewish labour' reached its climax precisely in the years of prosperity and large-scale Jewish immigration in 1933-35. The paradox of the situation was in the fact that Arab labour in the Jewish colonies increased not in the wake of competition between Jewish and Arab workers and not due to the employers' search for higher profits, but due to the shortage of Jewish labor, in the rural sector in particular. The economic boom in towns, the higher wages in construction drew thousands of Jewish workers away from agriculture and no moral appeal to Zionist ideals and national interest could persuade the workers in the colonies and the new immigrants to renounce a higher standard of living and lucrative employment offered by the economic boom in the cities.

      ...The shortage of Jewish labour and the economic boom threatened to wreck the [Zionist] policy of economic and social segregation; Arab workers were drawn in increasing numbers into construction sites in the cities and to the new colonies in the Sharon in which, up till now. the principle of 100 per cent of Jewish labour was preserved. To oppose this drift the labour leadership (now well entrenched in the Jewish Agency with Ben-Gurion and Sharett heading its Jerusalem section) took recourse to drastic measures which had far-reaching consequences on the relations between Jews and Arabs. In 1933 the Histadruth launched, for the first time, a campaign to remove Arab workers from the cities. Specially formed mobile units moved from place to place to identify and evict by force, if necessary, Arab workers from construction sites and other Jewish enterprises. This campaign in the cities, especially in Haifa and Jerusalem, which had a mixed population, assumed dramatic dimensions and had a devastating effect on public opinion. Every single case of removal of Arab workers - and in many case the operation took the form of ugly scenes of violence - was reported in the Jewish press and reverberated in the Arab media, creating an atmosphere of unprecedented tension.

      Flapan goes on to note that this campaign to forcibly remove Arab workers was a significant factor in the outbreak of the Palestinian Uprising in 1936.

      Did you notice the conditional part of the clause? “minorities willing to be integrated”. The Palestinians in the 1930-40s were not willing to be integrated ...

      Yes, I noted it as weasel words meant to excuse the actions of the Israeli government in discriminating against Palestinian non-Jews. Blaming the victim, in other words. You do that quite a bit. The Palestinians in the 1930s-40 were not the ones fighting integration into society. It was clearly the Zionists who immigrated and then refused to integrate into the existing society, and sought by all means to prevent the integration of Palestinians into the discriminatory state they created in 1948.

      me: Neither does the confiscation of land from non-Jews in order to benefit Jews only.

      you:I’m not sure which you mean here. Generally when people on Mondowweiss talk about confiscation they are talking about Israel taking territory in the West Bank. That’s liberating land from enemy control.

      Again, I'm not sure whether you are ignorant or simply lying. Israel confiscated land from its own Palestinian citizens ( and from the absentee owners who were ethnically cleansed from Israel/Palestine) long before 1967. Taking land from non-Jewish citizens of Israel and giving it to Jews is discrimination, plain and simple. And "liberating land from enemy control" is exactly what Nazi Germany did to Poland in WWII. I don't think that is something you should speak of positively unless you wish to be seen as a fascist. (But then, maybe you do so wish.)

      me:There is a basic institutional discrimination against non-Jews in favor of Jews and that is how the government and the majority of Jewish Israelis believe it should be.

      you:I agree with you. But that’s intrinsic to Zionism.

      My point exactly. So why did you insist otherwise above? So now we agree that Zionism is intrinsically discriminatory.

      Similarly Jews and Catholics in America were able to convince Americans that Protestantism was not intrinsic to being American.

      No, the founding fathers were mostly Deists, believed in freedom of religion, and never believed that Protestantism was intrinsic to being American, nor did they set up a State of the Protestant People. I find it amazing that you will even distort American history to try to excuse what Zionism is. Well, maybe not amazing. You often struggle to make arguments that have no relationship to reality, and this is just one of them. As is your last argument that somehow BDS is just like Al-Queda. Because treating everyone in Israel as equal before the law, regardless of ethnicity or religion is just like getting attacked on 9-11. Right. Its just another one of your false analogies.

    • As to the huge number of civilian casualties, including the children – their blood is on Hamas’ hands.

      Kind of like how the blood of the murdered of Lidice were on the hands of the Czech resistance, right?

      Why can't Israel take responsibility for its own actions? No one makes you kill children. You make a choice.

    • Donald,

      Sacks also clearly misrepresented what happened in 2002 in the siege of the Church of the Nativity. Here is his whitewashed version:

      In Israel a group of Palestinian terrorists had taken refuge in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. The Israeli army, not wishing to enter a house of worship, stationed soldiers outside to wait until the terrorists emerged. It took several weeks.

      In fact, the siege took place during the bloodiest part of Israel's offensive against the second Intifada, Operation Defensive Shield, when the IDF laid siege to most Palestinian cities and during which over 250 Palestinians were killed over the course of one month. The IDF did not simply "wait outside" the Church, after 200 people, the majority of them NOT fighters, nor "wanted men" as the IDF referred to them, sought sanctuary inside the Church. IDF snipers killed 8 inside the Church, including the church bellringer, cut off electricity and water, prevented food and water from being brought in, and damaged portions of the Church exterior, all while international negotiations were under way to arrange exile to Gaza or Europe for the few wanted men that the IDF was after.

      After the siege had ended, the only credible reports of damage inside the Church came from a fire cause by Israel fire from outside the Church, and trash and the strong smell of urine. Any Palestinian refuge seeker who attempted to go to the Church courtyard to relieve himself was shot by Israel snipers.

      Here's a timeline of the siege, and a listing of Israeli distortions:

      link to

    • The Jewish National Fund discriminated against non-Jews from its very inception in 1901. It set up covenants on the land it bought denying any tenant farmer who was not Jewish from farming on the land, even though such tenant farming was legal under Ottoman Empire law. It also prohibited any non-Jews from either working on the land, or from ever buying the land. This was discrimination from the very git-go. Jews who owned land in Palestine prior to the JNF were boycotted and threatened by Zionist Jews during the second Aliyah if they hired non-Jewish workers. The Zionists also lobbied the British Mandate Government to hire Jews in preference to non-Jews and to pay Jews more than they paid non-Jews for doing the same work. They also discriminated against Arab Jews from the very beginning by not allowing them to become equal members of the kibbutzim. The JNF, which by its very charter is an organization meant solely to benefit Jews, is a quasi-governmental organization in Israel and is a constituent member of the Israel Land Authority.

      Today it is the belief that Israel is for Israelis the same way France is for the French and China for the Chinese.

      No, Israel does not recognize "Israeli" as a nationality. It claims it is a Jewish State, and even demands that the Palestinians recognize it as a Jewish State, rather than an Israeli State.

      There is no belief about discrimination and in fact Israel has a pretty good track record of integrating minorities willing to be integrated.

      Ethnically cleansing anywhere from 750,000 to 800,000 people does not in any way shape or form constitute a "good track record". Neither does the confiscation of land from non-Jews in order to benefit Jews only. There is a asic institutional discrimination against non-Jews in favor of Jews and that is how the government and the majority of Jewish Israelis believe it should be. You are in complete denial about what Israel is and what they believe in. I suspect that you know better but cannot admit as much because you know that admitting that Israel was founded on oppressive discrimination would lead to calls for its reform and you like the privileges it accords to Jews. You're a hypocrite.

    • However, being anti-Zionist surely is as it exclusively denies Jews the right given to any other people

      Zionism is the belief that Jews should have preferential rights in the State of Israel. It includes the "right" of ethnic cleansing, discrimination, injustice towards minorities, and "rights" of confiscation and use of land based on ethnicity. NO ONE should have those "rights", and no one legally does in the United States but Jews have that privilege in Israel. To oppose those bigoted privileges is not anti-Jewish, any more than to oppose apartheid in South Africa, or legal discrimination against blacks in the United States is anti-white. Why this concept is so hard to grasp for Zionists is hard to understand.

  • Hillary Clinton's 11th-hour diplomacy
    • Oh, please, can we stop with the trotting out of female stereotypes, and I mean to include Mooser's comment above as well as Citizen's comment in this request. Females aren't anymore likely to act out based on emotion than men are, and the idea that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" pales beside the number of emotionally driven men who decide to murder their wives, girlfriends, ex-wives, etc. because they were scorned in some way.

      If you want to criticize Clinton on her positions, fine, but don't stoop to female bashing to do it, please.

      Her accomplishments are few, and her talents are overrated.

      One could legitimately say the same thing about all the major candidates in the last few elections. Including Obama.

    • I beg to differ. Obama has shown no inclination to criticize Israel on any of its violence and in fact has condoned it. He supports and condones targeted assassinations and drone warfare for both the US and Israel. He may hate Netanyahu (as do the Clintons) but he has done nothing about it.

      I've voted Green Party for President since 2008, have you? That doesn't mean that they have a realistic chance of winning the Presidency, sad to say, but it won't stop me from voting for them until and unless a decent candidate with a chance to win is nominated from one of the major parties.

    • Elizabeth Warren will be the same, as will Biden or any other Democratic candidate. Clinton is no worse than Obama, who was no better than Bush on the subject. Welcome to the extreme lack of choice of candidates on this issue. There's always the Green Party, which is the only party with a rational position on this, but they have zero chance of winning.

  • 'Bombing the Dead' -- Max Blumenthal in Gaza
    • t took me a moment to realize he was talking about collecting sea shells, as "shells" and "Gaza" usually refers to artillery shells.

  • Israel correctly fears its 'delegitimizers,' says leftwing member of Irish parliament
    • Lehava spokesman and former lawmaker Michael Ben-Ari denounced Jews intermarrying with non-Jews of any denomination as “worse than what Hitler did”

      To riff off the old anti-communist slogan, Ben-Ari is saying, "Better dead than wed."

      Ah, the Zionist Jew's underwhelming concern for his fellow Jews, on display once again. Its just like the white supremacist, whose concern for his fellow whites ceases the moment he detects they are "race traitors."

  • Video: Gaza forces young Jew to overcome 'giant hostile ferocious backlash' of her community
    • and the second one, "BDS: Apartheid in Danger"

    • Two new videos out by Apartheid

      The first one "Gaza:The IDF Explains Itself":

    • ...I could not fathom that the Jewish people… could do anything bad, and if they did they must have had a justification for it.

      This is the crux of the problem for many American Jews (and even for some American gentiles). There is this bigoted assumption that Jews are morally superior to every other group of human beings in that they alone are incapable of doing anything bad unless there is a very compelling justification for such behavior. Carey was able to finally overcome that biased assumption, but many American Jews still cling to that sense of moral superiority and think of it as the essence of their identity. If you attempt to take that away from them by confronting them with the truth, they react irrationally and with hostility because their sense of identity is all wrapped up with the idea that being Jewish imparts some higher moral sense, and to negate that is perceived as negating their core identity.

  • Rabbi slams 'militarization' in St. Louis but when it comes to Gaza-- the press 'loves underdog and suffering'
    • Thus, the claim that humanitarian aid is being misused to build tunnels might be a way to cast a bad light on humanitarian aid.

      I think that is the intent. Claim that humanitarian aid is being misused, so therefore push to end humanitarian aid. And I doubt that any humanitarian aid went into building the tunnels. Its mainly the work of human labor, mostly likely being paid for out of tax revenues collected by Hamas on the import of goods through the export/import tunnels. Humanitarian aid is controlled by the aid agencies and NGOs, not by Hamas.

  • Hundreds of scholars say they won't engage with University of Illinois unless decision to block Salaita is reversed
    • That’s a fine slogan, but I don’t see much evidence that Salaita has the slightest notion of what it means to engage with someone who doesn’t already share his deeply held biases.

      And you figured this all out from reading 4 or 5 tweets and nothing else he's produced, and having never attended his classes, nor listened to him in person. How deep of you. I've deduced from your one comment here that there is little evidence that you are either qualified to do your job, whatever it is, or comment on any one else, as this comment of yours shows you are guilty of "deep complacency about reducing complex human affairs to cartoons; embracing a single narrative whole-hog; hipsterish, sanctimonious showboating." It would only be fair and well considered of me to demand that you be fired.

      And yes, that's sarcasm, but I'm pointing out that in your comment here you are doing the exact same thing that you are accusing Salaita of doing. But I'm sure you think that its A-OK when you do it.

  • The Walzer Problem
    • Jon, you didn't provide ANY source, so why are you asking for a "better" one? Please provide a better source for exactly when you stopped beating your wife.

    • Having majority control of the territory is not the same as controlling the actions of every militant group.

      As Israel well knows. The 3 Israeli teens were kidnapped and murdered in Area C, which is under full Israeli control, and yet the IDF and Israeli government could not prevent the murder. As Shingo pointed out, its a double standard to extend responsibility to Hamas for not preventing other militant groups from firing, and yet not extending the same responsibility to Israel for both the murder of the 3 Israeli teens in the West Bank AND the horrendous murder of Abu Khdeir in East Jerusalem, both occurring in areas under complete Israeli control.

  • US branch of the Jewish 'family' owes the homeland 'unconditional love' -- Rosner
    • Ah, more blaming the victims from Jeff. Quelle surprise!

      The European Zionists came to Palestine with a sense of superiority, considered the Palestinian natives as savages, set up covenants on the land they bought that prevented non-Jews from working on it, evicted the Palestinian tenant farmers who had rights to live and work the land under the law at the time. They set up kibbutzim that non-Jews, and Arab Jews alike, were barred from joining. They preached a version of ethnic superiority that ranked European Jews above Arab Jews, then Palestinian Arabs, then Bedouins as a physical, spiritual and intellectual hierarchy. They also preached a "conquest of labor" which involved boycotts, sometimes forced, of non-Jewish goods and services, refused to agree to a Palestinian legislative council unless Jews got at least half of the representatives within it, even though Jews were less than a fourth of the population, and in general refused to learn the local language and customs, and talked among themselves of desire to transfer out the native non-Jewish population. And all of this was began BEFORE the 1920's. The JNF and its covenants were founded in 1901. The second aliyah (1904-1914) is identified with both the "conquest of land" (i.e., removing indigenous tenant farmers) and "conquest of labor" (boycotting Jewish landowners or business owners who hired non-Jewish employees, and boycotting non-Jewish goods). Arthur Ruppin, a eugenicist and sociologist who believed in the superiority of European Jews over Arabs, both Jewish and non-Jewish, became the chief Zionist land agent and the "father of the settlements' during that period.

      BUT, of course, its all the Palestinians fault for being "rejectionist" by not acquiescing to their own dislocation and failing to welcome their newly arrived self-professed alien overlords.

    • Hilarious, Elliot. But I was under the impression that Marnie was Jewish and had lived, or was living, in Israel. Am I wrong on that account? Perhaps there are the chosen and then there are the more chosen who get to choose what the mildly chosen choose to say?

  • Is the firing of Steven Salaita the beginning of a new Blacklist?
  • A Palestinian defends violent resistance to occupation
    • As far as the “2006″ economic “sanctions”, countries have a right to cut off donations for any reason they choose. And since Hamas didn’t accept the Olso accords, Israel had a right to withhold tax revenues.

      As I suspected you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The tax revenues that Israel has withheld on numerous occasions are not Israeli tax revenues, nor are they Israeli "donations". They are the import fees and taxes levied on Palestinians that are collected by Israel since it continues to control entry and exit for all goods going into Gaza and the West Bank from the crossings. Under the Oslo agreement Israel is required to turn that money over to the Palestinian Authority. This is part of Israel's effective control of the West Bank and Gaza, as I enumerated above- control over Palestinian tax revenues. Israel DOES NOT have a right to withhold money it collects from Palestinians that rightfully belongs to the PA, but it has done so repeatedly. Here's one example from 2011;

      link to

      That you think the tax revenues are something paid by Israelis just shows how ignorant you are about the subject you are discussing. As does your big whopper about the 7700 155mm shells fired into Gaza, which you first assured us MUST have happened over 40 years time, and then, oops, you actually looked something up and found out it wasn't 40 years, it was 10 months time in 2006. Of course, then you just as adamantly insist that Israel "would have never fired shells if the Palestinians hadn't attacked first" which you know for a fact having personally pulled that information out of your *ss.

      Here's is a report from the IDMC (International Displacement Monitoring Centre) 'Under Fire: Israel's enforcement of Access Restricted Areas in the Gaza Strip' which shows that the IDF has created a "no-go" zone where it shoots any Palestinian who enters these areas within Gaza. It doesn't wait for anyone to attack, simply walking in the area is sufficient for Israel to kill him or her, adult or child.

      link to

      And here's a chart that explains the "Context Behind Projectile Fire" from both Gaza and Israel in 2012. As often as not, Israeli fire is the precipitating ceasefire violation, and Gaza fire is the response, despite your unsupported assertion to the contrary.

      link to

      Come back when you have something other than regurgitated propaganda.

    • It is also counter-productive as it makes you lose the moral high ground.

      Human rights are rights, not privileges, and do not depend on capturing "the moral high ground". Otherwise, Israelis would not be entitled to human rights, which they are. They are not entitled, however, to deny those same rights to others, to engage in ethnic cleansing, or land theft, or discrimination and oppression, regardless of whether they think they have the "moral high ground" or not.

    • And this just proves that you will believe anything you're told without questioning it:

      ...and spend ~$100 million just on the 32 tunnels that went in to Israel and were destroyed, and it’s estimated that Hamas used 1.6 billion pounds of concrete to build their military infrastructure of tunnels in Gaza.

      1.6 billion pounds of concrete, at an average of 140 pounds per cubic foot would equal 11,428,571 cubic feet of concrete. To line a shaft 6 feet high on two sides by 4 feet wide by 4 inches thick would equal less than 6 cubic feet of concrete per lineal foot. That would mean that, even if the tunnels were completely lined with concrete along their entire length , which they are not, in total they would be 1,904,761 feet long, or 360 miles long. That's a length of over 10 miles for each of 32 tunnels. Gaza is only about 5 miles across from ocean to Israeli border, and about 25 miles long from north to south, and the IDF has claimed that the LONGEST tunnel was under 2 miles long. That would mean a minimum of 180 tunnels, if they were all full lined and all 2 miles long, which they clearly are not. If we make rational and limited assumptions, such as the tunnels only being lined over half of their length, and tunnels being an average of 1 mile long (both of which may still be overstatements), we get to the ridiculous number of 720 tunnels from your figure on pounds of concrete used. The concrete number you give is demonstrably overstated, as is the cost of building them. You're simply a parrot.

    • Ian,

      Feel free to peruse the archives here. Your hasbara has been refuted time and time again every time some newbie comes to the site and thinks that his tired old talking points are something new that we have never heard before. Besides the issue of moderation sometimes taking forever here, frankly a lot of us are tired of having to refute the same old lies over and over again. It would be great if we could just say "Hasbara bullshit #47" and link to old posts and links that refute the lies without having to start all over again just because some neophyte thinks he's just invented the Zionist wheel. But so far that capability has not been built into the system.

      However, in short, from the Goldstone Report to explain why Gaza is still considered occupied by Israel according to International consensus:

      276. Israel has without doubt at all times relevant to the mandate of the Mission exercised effective control over the Gaza Strip. The Mission is of the view that the circumstances of this control establish that the Gaza Strip remains occupied by Israel. The provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention therefore apply at all relevant times with regard to the obligations of Israel towards the population of the Gaza Strip.

      277. Despite Israel’s declared intention to relinquish its position as an occupying Power by evacuating troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip during its 2005 “disengagement”,162 the international community continues to regard it as the occupying Power.163

      278. Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the Gaza Strip. Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the Rafah crossing to Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and Access164) and decides what and who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip. It also controls the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip and has declared a virtual blockade and limits to the fishing zone, thereby regulating economic activity in that zone. It also keeps complete control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, inter alia, through continuous surveillance by aircraft and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs) or drones. It makes military incursions and from time to time hit targets within the Gaza Strip. No-go areas are declared within the Gaza Strip near the border where Israeli settlements used to be and enforced by the Israeli armed forces. Furthermore, Israel regulates the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency (the new sheqel) and controls taxes and custom duties.

      279. The ultimate authority over the Occupied Palestinian Territory still lies with Israel. Under the law and practice of occupation, the establishment by the occupying Power of a temporary administration over an occupied territory is not an essential requirement for occupation, although it could be one element among others that indicates the existence of such occupation.165 In fact, as shown in the case of Denmark during the Second World War, the occupier can leave in place an existing local administration or allow a new one to be installed for as long as it preserves for itself the ultimate authority. Although Israel has transferred to the Palestinian Authority a series of functions within designated zones, it has done so by agreement, through the Oslo Accords and related understandings, keeping for itself “powers and responsibilities not so transferred”.166

      When Israel unilaterally evacuated troops and settlements from the Gaza Strip, it left in place a Palestinian local administration. There is no local governing body to which full authority has been transferred. In this regard, the Mission recalls that the International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, regards the transfer of powers and responsibilities by Israel under various agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as having “done nothing” to alter the character of Israel as an occupying Power.167

      link to

      Gisha, which is an Israeli NGO that reports on Gaza states the case for why Israel, which is in "effective control" of Gaza on many levels, is still, under international law, considered the occupying power in Gaza.

      Israel's withdrawal of settlements and its permanent military ground installations from the Gaza Strip did not end Israeli control of Gaza but rather changed the way in which such control is effectuated. The forms of control have contributed to an unprecedented deterioration in the economic and social welfare of Gaza residents.

      Israel continues to control Gaza through:

      *Substantial control of Gaza's land crossings;
      *Control on the ground through incursions and sporadic ground troop presence ("no -go-zone")
      *Complete control of Gaza's airspace
      *Complete control of Gaza's territorial waters:
      *Control of the Palestinian population rregistry (including who is a "resident" of Gaza)
      *Control of tax policy and transfer of tax revenues;
      *Control of the ability of the Palestinian Authority to exercise governmental functions'
      *Control of the West Bank, which together with Gaza, constitute a single territorial unit.

      More details and explanations here:

      link to

      The excessive closure of border crossings into Israel occurred prior to the attempted coup by Fatah in Gaza which Hamas quelled, and prior to the capture of Shalit, so the closures can not be the result of actions that happened after the policy took place. See the current article entitled "The Greenhouse propaganda—How Gazan history is being rewritten to dehumanize Palestinians" for details on the closures that caused grievous economic harm to the Gaza economy.

      link to

      As for this:

      The government of Israel is far from perfect, but any government has an obligation to defend it’s citizens from infiltration by tunnels and rockets that could have killed thousands of people if it weren’t for the Iron Dome system.

      Iron Dome is relatively new, and there is considerable controversy whether it actually provides any protection or not. The rockets from Gaza, sent in response to much larger firepower directed by Israel towards Gaza, only killed 22 people from 2004 until today, and the greatest number of casualties from rockets in the past happened during Israeli incursions into Gaza which were supposedly intended to stop rocket fire. See the report here:

      link to

      So your insistence that the tunnels and rockets could have killed thousands is specious, but it does highlight the fact that while only 2 civilians have been killed by rockets, Hamas has managed to killed over 50 Israeli soldiers, which is part of its right to defend itself against military attack. Hamas has had tunnels since it captured Shalit in June of 2006. In the past 8 years it has attacked zero civilians in Israel and has only attacked legitimate military targets from the tunnels during the time that it has been under devastating bombardment and ground attack from "Protective Edge". Israel, on the other hand has killed nearly 2000 Palestinians in Gaza, as well as a few dozen in the West Bank, 80% of them civilians.

    • well, a little knowledge can be dangerous, and your predictable response proves that.

      Projection on your part, Ezra. Either you are being dishonest in failing to mention Israel's attack on Jordan in November, 1966, and its provocation and attack on Syrian airspace in April 1967, or your knowledge is so limited that you aren't even aware of these factors which led to the Egypt's declaration closing the Straits of Tiran. You seem like the typical gullible hasbarist who simply regurgitates what you hear without question, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are merely ignorant rather than a deliberate liar.

      Ever heard of Es Samu? It was a village in the West Bank, then a part of Jordan, that was attacked by an Israeli force of 3,000 to 4,000 soldiers, backed up by tanks and aircraft, destroying houses, schools, clinics and a mosque, and killing 18, 15 of them Jordanian soldiers fighting on Jordanian soil. This happened in November 1966 and is considered by all an important step in the lead up to the 1967 war. Jordan did not retaliate, and the only punishment for Israel was UN condemnation. In April 1967, according to Moshe Dayan, the Israelis purposefully provoked a confrontation in the DMZ between it and Syria by advancing military bulldozers into the DMZ until Syria responded by firing on the Israelis who were at that moment in breach of the armistice agreement. Israel fired back then brought in fighter jets who engaged Syria jets over Syria airspace, and shot one Syria fighter jet down over Damascus, over 50 miles from the border with Israel. Syria did not retaliate, but tensions mounted and Syria legitimately feared an invasion, and was threatened with one by Israel.

      This is the background to Egypt's closing of the Straits, which at the time it considered its own territorial waters ( the Straits are only 7 miles wide). It had agreed to adjudicating its right to close the Straits in the International Court and abiding by the Court decision, but Israel refused to do the same. The US and Egypt were engaged, in Washington, DC, in resolving the dispute diplomatically at the very time that Israel decided to attack Egypt. (Israel was aware of the negotiations.)

      So obviously, the country that chose the war, and that was threatening its neighbors, as well as attacking their sovereign space, was Israel, not the other way around. Israeli government officials have admitted as such since as early as the 1970s.

      Mattiyahu Peled, IDF General and member of the General Staff during the 1967, said "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."

      Menachem Begin, who was in the Knesset at the time, said, "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

      Yitzhak Rabin, also on the General Staff at the time, said:

      “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”

      Here's Miko Peled, talking a little bit about his father, Mattiyahu, and the 1967 war:

      And here's an article in Foreign Policy Journal which makes clear that the intent to attack was strictly an Israeli one, and not an Egyptian intent, and also makes clear that Israeli and American intelligence knew that Egypt was NOT about to attack Israel in 1967.

      link to

      And of course, if Israel truly believed that it was instigating a "preemptive attack" then its UN Ambassador would not have immediately and brazenly lied that Israel had been attacked when it was the one who attacked the Egyptian air force on the ground in Egypt.

  • How many Israeli civilians have been attacked from the Gaza tunnels? Any?
    • If Hamas wanted to use the tunnels to attack civilians, wouldn’t the best moment to do this be near the beginning, when the Israelis weren’t aware of how extensive the tunnel network was ?

      I made this point on another thread, but I'll repeat it here. IF Hamas really wanted to use the tunnels to attack and kidnap Israelis, then they would have used them BEFORE and INSTEAD of the kidnapping of the 3 Jewish teens near Hebron. We were told that Hamas was behind that kidnapping in the West Bank, which, in order to move the teens into an area not under direct Israeli control, would have required a journey of 20 to 30 miles not just through the West Bank under IDF control but across the green line and into Israel. It would have been far, far easier to emerge from a tunnel, travel less than a mile, kidnap and return to the tunnels under Gaza. But they didn't do that, because the Israeli hasbara about the tunnels and kidnapping is bullshit!

      It's like the Israeli government wailing and moaning about rocket fire until foreign airlines stopped flying into Ben Gurion for a few days. All of a sudden the rocket fire wasn't that big of a deal, but oh those "terror tunnels"!!

  • Even Wieseltier is upset by 'indifference in Jewish world' to Gaza slaughter and wholehearted Israeli support for it
    • I wonder if we’re seeing that stage with Israel in Gaza? As with Vietnam, people have come to the realization very slowly. At the NYT editorial board they still aren’t there.

      I understand that you feel that bringing up Vietnam provides some relevancy to what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians, and other Arabs, since 1948, but to compare the "slowness" of realization of the evils of the US war in Vietnam with the glacial, or damn near non-existent, realization of the evils of Israel's war against the Palestinians is inapt at best.

      At its broadest scope the US involvement in the Vietnam war lasted for 18 years, from 1955, when Eisenhower pledged military support for Diem, to 1973 when the US withdrew unilaterally. A build up to 9000 US combat troops didn't happen until 1962, with the beginnings of a massive buildup in 1965 and within six years the US abandoned the war completely, due in good part to disgust against the war among significant elements of the US population. Slow, yes, but downright supersonic compared to realizations in regards to Israel.

      You are comparing a US combat troop presence that lasted less than a decade to Israeli presence in occupied Palestinian territory that has lasted nearly 50 years, and ethnic cleansing and oppression of Palestinians for 66 years( and Zionist terrorism against them for years prior to 1948). The comparison, especially in regards to "slowness" in realization of the evils committed, whitewashes the continual racism and cruelty of Israeli actions.

  • 'NYT' is furiously rewriting history of Gaza conflict
    • The timing is all wrong for Hamas to be behind the kidnapping outside of Hebron, as is the use of a small cadre known for an independent streak.

      And on top of all that, since Hamas had all those "terror tunnels" it could have easily kidnapped soldiers or civilians from the tunnels. It didn't need two guys in a car in the middle of the occupied West Bank to do it. The Israeli government hypes the tunnels as prime kidnapping venues for Hamas and then wants you to believe that Hamas preferred to use a car in the West Bank that is under military control by Israel and would then have to travel 30-40 miles through Israel itself to get to Gaza. Pull the other one.

  • Steven Salaita-- unremitting in criticism of Zionism and Gaza slaughter-- loses a job at University of Illinois
    • Uh-huh – and which part of this is different from what I said?

      Wow, are you just playing dumb or are you really that dense? You said, of the 39, "All of the ones who signed were tenured.". I pointed out that you were wrong, only 27 of them were tenured, and 12 were not. And you can't tell the difference between "all" and 27 out of 39? I even quoted your false statement at the top of my post, before clarifying who was tenured and who was not. You can't really be that dumb, can you?

      I’m not exactly sure what you think you’re accomplishing by posting these couple of anecdotes

      You posted anecdotes. Mine were posted in opposition to the ones you posted. Do you think you have some kind of monopoly on posting anecdotes? Or do you think yours are just so much more righteous than anyone else's? They aren't.

      Your characterization of Jane Eisner’s piece is not even close.

      Actually, its spot on. Do you honestly think Eisner quoted Lipstadt because she disagreed with her? Here's Eisner's first two paragraphs.

      Last Shabbat, as my husband and I were walking home from a long, lovely lunch with friends, I noticed scribbling on the sidewalk. Since the letters were written in white chalk and were upside down from where I stood, it took a moment to decipher their meaning, and another moment to get over the shock.

      This was on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the epicenter of the liberal American shtetl, a place so ubiquitously Jewish that even the smallest grocery store posts Friday night candle-lighting times each week. So to see even this mildly anti-Israel graffiti was a surprise. For the first time since we moved to the neighborhood a couple of years ago, we felt uncomfortable, targeted, as people who care about Israel and as Jews.

      She feels personally "targeted" because someone wrote "Stop Funding Israel"in chalk on the sidewalk. Its deep insane paranoia, triggered by a mild political statement on the sidewalk, that could have as easily been placed there by one of her Jewish neighbors as anyone else. She can't understand how a country that has targeted hospitals and schools, killed thousands of civilians, totally destroyed ten thousand homes and a vast array of vital civilian infrastructure can be an object of anger and derision? She can't understand why a country where the Deputy Knesset Speaker has called for concentration camps, extermination and totally destruction of Gaza has been compared to Nazi Germany? Serious denial on her part. That may be her "feeling" but its not a rational one. That is the point I am making in posting these anecdotes.

      You make no case that Salaita is being punished for his views. It’s the way he expresses himself that’s the problem. Your citing of a tweet where he mentioned Israel does not make your case. He said supporters of Israel were awful people. Well, guess what, chief; lots of Americans are supporters of Israel, and not all supporters of Israel are supporters of the Gaza War or the Netanyahu government.

      If you are going to call me "chief", as if that is some kind of meaningful name for me, at least get my gender right and call me "chieftess". And again, you seem to have failed to grasp the simple point I was making. Cary Nelson claimed the problem was the tone, not the view, and yet he unequivocally stated that he would not oppose the hiring of someone who tweeted that anyone who defended Hamas was an "awful human being", but he opposed the hiring of Salaita because Salaita tweeted that anyone defending Israel during the Gaza massacre was an "awful human being". So calling someone with a different viewpoint than one's own an "awful human being" was clearly not the problem for Nelson. What was the problem for Nelson was who is being called such a name, i.e. the problem was Salaita's viewpoint, not his language. You obviously can't understand that point because its firmly in your interest to be deliberately obtuse when it suits your argument.

      And this is rich:

      And I’m not bringing someone to my campus who is incapable of holding a political view without personalizing it and judging those who disagree with him to be awful people.

      From the guy who called "just" a "dirty animal" for daring to question one of your pronouncements for which you have yet to provide proof. So much more genteel and collegial to call someone a "dirty animal" than an "awful human being". Your cluelessness about your own hypocrisy is amusing.

      I think the ability to disagree about politics and to recognize the common humanity with your political opponent is a measure of a person’s character. Of course, when your worldview is that everyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi or a fascist, then that’s hard to do.

      Your second sentence there describes your own failings. If your own character really bothers you why not work on it? Luckily for you , you won't lose your job just because you can't be civil in an online discussion, but if you really believe your first sentence, then you must be worried about your own character.

    • And as for Schreier, hophmi, I read your "rate my professor" link. 3 negative out of 25 reviews over 7 years. The majority of reviews are overwhelmingly positive, and 2 specifically disagreed with one of the negative comments made in 2009 that you cited. Even in the 3 negative reviews only one of them gave him a "poor" rating, with another giving him an "average' rating despite the negative comment, and another gave him a "good" rating even with one of the negative comment you cited. Not a very strong case to be made for how "close-minded" you claim he is.

      Other reviews:

      "Everyone, just ignore him.[the negative reviewer] If you have already decided you know everything about the Middle East and, thus, are in no need of a critical relation to your set perspective, do NOT take this class. However, if you want an engaging class that forces you too see evidence and THINK about it, take it."


      "I disagree with the comment made on 2/23/09. [same negative review] I am in the Middle East class as well, and from what I see in class and at his office hours, Schreier is completely open minded and welcomes all opinions. He only presents the material in an intense way, which may intimidate you at first, but overall I think it shows he's really into what he teaches."

      "Really, really energetic lecturer, its easy to pay attention. He does have very strong opinions, but he warns you of them at the start and will allow you to voice dissenting opinion... and then he'll (politely) explain why he disagrees. I love him and I found him really engaging but be warned there is a decent amount of reading and research paper."

      "Schreier is easily one of the best history professors at Vassar. His classes are challenging, his lectures engaging, and he is a very nice guy. He doesn't go easy on you for your ideology - if you believe something, you have to prove WHY you should believe it, and will call you out on your nonsensical views. But isn't that why we all go to college?"

      BTW, come to find out Vassar doesn't have a "Middle Eastern Studies" Department. Schreier is in the Jewish Studies department, which is where Israel/Palestine is covered at Vassar.

    • Hophmi, as usual you are being dishonest about this on many levels.

      All of the ones who signed were tenured.

      That is incorrect. Of the 39 signatures, out of somewhere around 300 faculty members at Vassar (I've seen a 290 number, but also saw a number of 331 Vassar faculty members), 12 of them were full professors and 15 were associate professors (tenured), 9 were assistant professors (tenured-track but not yet tenured), one was an adjunct associate professor (untenured), one was a lecturer(untenured) and one was a postdoctorate fellow. It is less than 15 percent of the faculty members there, even if you take the lower number of 290 faculty members at Vassar.

      Not a single professor submitted anything in defense of Israel to the paper.

      This is intellectually dishonest on your part. The open letter from the 39 faculty members printed in the college student newspaper, titled "A statement from members of the Vassar College faculty in response to condemnation of the American Studies Association resolution of December 4, 2013" was a dissent in response to the written condemnation by the Vassar College President and Vassar Dean of Faculty of the ASA call for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions. Since the Dean of Faculty had already issued a written statement condemning the boycott, no other Vassar professor had any pressing need to comment unless, like the 39 signatories, he/she disagreed with the Dean of Faculty's statement, so to imply that pro-Israel professors were cowed into silence by a small minority of faculty members beggars belief, especially since the Dean of Faculty is in a superior position to all faculty members, where as the 39 signatories are not. Silence in this case merely means acquiescence in the statement co-issued by the College President and Dean of Faculty.

      I know for a fact that there are professors at Vassar who are not supportive of the BDS movement who are afraid to speak out in favor of Israel.

      There are a lot of things that you claim to "know for a fact". There's good reason to doubt if you even know what a fact is.

      You claimed its a fact that there are more "pro-Palestinian" professors in academia than there are "pro-Israel", and have yet to provide any proof of this, you have claimed that all the signers of the Vassar open letter are tenured when they aren't. You claimed that Cary Nelson's beef with Salaita has nothing to do with Salaita's viewpoint, when Nelson himself insisted that a similar tweet about Hamas would not have been grounds for refusing to hire someone, but the same words used to describe Israel, when done by Salaita, ARE grounds for refusing to hire. This is a crystal clear admission that Nelson is not bothered by the language used, but by the viewpoint expressed.

      Pro-Israel advocacy groups have made it a point to urge those opposed to BDS or any criticism of Israel to claim that they feel intimidated and fearful rather than to argue the issue on its merits. Most of this is pure tactic and not a legitimate grievance. Many of us here are aware of that dishonest tactic.

    • Hophmi, you claimed that there are more pro-Palestinian professors in academia( not just in Middle Eastern Studies, but in all academia) than there are pro-Israeli ones. Citing 6 or 7 names of professors over and over again does not in any way shape or form prove your point, unless you are under some grand illusion that all of academia consists of 12 to 13 professors nationwide. You made an unsupported allegation and then had the audacity to demand other people prove you wrong rather than admit you have no proof of your point.

      39 professors at Vassar signed a pro-Palestinian letter

      There are 290 faculty members at Vassar. 39 out of 290. Do the math. Again, this doesn't even prove your point as regards to Vassar.

      As to complaints from pro-Israeli students, while their feelings may be accurate expressions, the fact of actual intimidation is not proven. As many of us here know, there are examples of students who simply get their feelings hurt because someone disagrees with them.

      Jane Eisner saw graffiti on a sidewalk that said "Stop Funding Israel" and compared it to being in Nazi Germany in 1934.

      A woman on a Jetblue plane repeatedly berated a fellow passenger and when she got bumped off the plane she thought it was because she was Jewish.

      A supposed attack on a synagogue in Paris was actually a street fight instigated by the JDL.

      My own first experience with dealing with someone who thought she was being threatened because she was Jewish was online 15 years ago, when I corrected a misunderstanding she had about why Israel wasn't identified on a Verizon world map. On the Verizon map of countries that enabled their text messaging system at the time, Israel wasn't labeled by name because they only labeled those countries that had Verizon text messaging ability and Israel didn't. When I corrected her and pointed out all the other countries that were likewise unlabeled because of lack of text message capability, suddenly I was making a horrible and hateful anti-semitic remark that left her feeling threatened, even though I made no mention of her ethnicity or religion, and was at the time under the wrong impression that she was a Christian Zionist, rather than Jewish. Feelings are not proof of actual intimidation, and one comment from a ratemyprofessors site does not prove anything. Being confronted with viewpoints other than your own is a basic premise of higher education.

      From your earlier comment:

      So the notion that it’s Salaita’s views that are the problems, rather than his incivility and nastiness, is nonsense.

      No, as I showed above, it is exactly Salaita's views that are the problem for Cary Nelson, by his own admission. To repeat the salient part:

      Another example Nelson gave was an 8 July tweet by Salaita, at the beginning of Israel’s current massacre in Gaza, stating, “If you’re defending #Israel right now you’re an awful human being.”

      Nelson used that tweet as one reason to oppose Salaita's hiring. However:

      When asked if he would oppose the hiring of a person who said that “someone who defends Hamas firing rockets towards Tel Aviv is an awful person,” Nelson answered: “No.”

      Its not the form of the tweets Nelson objects to, its Salaita's views he finds objectionable.

    • Nelson is a self-professed Zionist. Hard to reconcile Zionism with ethics and conscience.

    • Electronic Intifada has more on the Cary Nelson angle to this story:

      Nelson acknowledged, however, that he has been closely monitoring Salaita’s Twitter account for months. “There are scores of tweets. I have screen captures,” he said. “The total effect seems to me to cross a line.”

      Salaita has “always tweeted in a very volatile and aggressive way,” Nelson asserted, but “recently he’s begun to be much more aggressive.”

      Another example Nelson gave was an 8 July tweet by Salaita, at the beginning of Israel’s current massacre in Gaza, stating, “If you’re defending #Israel right now you’re an awful human being.”

      Nelson claimed that this might mean that students in one of Salaita’s classes who “defended Israel” could face a hostile environment.

      But Nelson acknowledged that he knew of no complaints about Salaita’s teaching and that Salaita was not even scheduled to teach classes on Palestine and the Israelis.

      When asked if he would oppose the hiring of a person who said that “someone who defends Hamas firing rockets towards Tel Aviv is an awful person,” Nelson answered: “No.”

      link to

    • Please indicate your evidence that in the field of Middle East Studies, that there are more pro-Israel professors than there are pro-Palestinian ones, with tenure.

      Everyone please note how hophmi operates because this is a classic example. He makes a blanket statement:

      The academy is full of tenured pro-Palestinian professors who have no trouble expressing pro-Palestinian viewpoints and getting tenure; in fact, there are far more of them than there are tenured pro-Israel faculty in academia.

      unsupported, of course, and refers to ALL of academia. When someone challenges him on this he brazenly moves the goal post and demands that someone else prove that in Middle East Studies there are more pro-Israeli professors than otherwise. Not only is he trying to put the burden on someone else to disprove his unsupported statement, but he has the gall to subtly change the subject to one small subset of academia, Middle Eastern Studies, hoping no one will notice his subterfuge.

      (And of course he also posted unsupported and hateful allegations against pro-Palestinian professors and students at Vassar.)

      Cary Nelson, BTW, whom Phil and hophmi quote in opposition to Salaita, is NOT a Middle Eastern Studies professor. He is a professor of English. Salaita isn't a Middle Eastern Studies professor either. He was an associate professor of English an and then at Illinois was to be an associate professor in American Indian studies.

Showing comments 4223 - 4201