Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3861 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)


Showing comments 3861 - 3801

  • Alleged K.C. killer: 'If Jews can have a state of their own, why can't we have a White Christian state?'
    • Well for starters, he just murdered three victims that were members of his own so-called “White Christian” constituency.

      Actually, no. Most of these white supremacist nutcases really only consider white Christians who agree with their bigoted viewpoint as "their constituency". The rest of white Christians they dislike as "weaklings" or "cowards" or "race traitors". Its similar in a way to the Jewish nutcases who consider Jews who don't agree with their bigoted viewpoint as "self-haters" or "Judenrat". According to an article in the Daily Beast, Miller wrote up a "hit list" of those he wished to see dead and how many points he'd give. "White race traitors" and Jews were tied for point score.

      I certainly don't know what his exact motives were, but if his only motive was to kill Jews its a bit odd that he would attack the JCC parking lot, not on Saturday, when Jewish services would be held, or Monday evening when Passover started, but on Sunday afternoon when there was a citywide talent contest being held there. Maybe he just wanted to hit the Sunday evening news cycle, or maybe he had some warped reason to choose that particular time and place.

      ...just pointing out that that particular line of thinking on the perpetrator’s part would have been irrational...

      Sounds like the guy was pretty irrational to begin with. There's no reason to assume that his line of reasoning would be rational, at least in terms of accepted norms of rationality.

    • this is an odd focus/leap given the topic we’re discussing. this guy murders 3 people and you respond by mentioning “draining the swamp” in the comment section and commenters on mondoweiss. sort of a long shot if you ask me.

      Annie, if you look at the sum of TBK's comments here you find that many, if not most, of them concern his patrolling of the comment section for perceived anti-semitism. Even his first question posed to Phil when Phil spoke at Eliezer about the Israeli occupation of Palestine (and his reasons for opposing it) illustrates TBK's primary lens through which he sees the conflict, and this website in particular.

      Ben began the questions by asking me Did I ever have misgivings about my work given that it has been attractive to anti-Semites, and what did I aim to do about that.

      link to

      I don't think TBK has any real and justified examples here of "the same kind of argument" as the killer's, except in the sense that commenters have pointed out that acceptance of Jewish supremacy in Israel is just as bad as acceptance of white supremacy, or Christian supremacy in the US. His commentis just an example of the kind of attitude that worries more about the consequences of telling the truth about a horrible situation (like the collective mistreatment of Palestinians by Israel) than it worries about the horrible situation itself. He's not quite in the same category as the tweeters because at least he acknowledges that there is collective mistreatment of the Palestinians. The tweeters are in major denial, because the truth conflicts with their bigoted sense of Jewish moral exceptionalism.

    • I'm wondering if in his sick mind he was striking out against "race-mixing". The day he chose to shoot up the JCC parking lot was the day it was hosting auditions for KC Superstar which is open to KC high school students of all faiths, hence the Methodist grandfather and his son got caught in the line of fire. Same with the Catholic woman who was visiting her mother in the assisted living home.

    • Two of those killed were Methodists- the doctor and his grandson. The woman was Catholic.

  • Why are two Republican congressmen doing a walkabout on the Temple Mount?
    • I've got a more general question about Colin. I wrote to him in October of 2012 because suddenly his comments stopped appearing. I asked him if he had been banned from Mondoweiss and he responded that "apparently" he had been banned. Can Colin comment here now? I don't always agree with his comments, but he was a thoughtful contributor to the discussions here and his return would be welcomed, at least by me.

  • To reach the 'moveable middle' in Jewish life, you must be inside the tent
    • Leander,

      Dbroncos got a few of the details wrong. Gore made a bad tactical decision (and a bad moral one if you asked me) in not asking for a full Florida state recount. He only asked for a recount in 4 Florida counties. I understand the reasoning for that since the Democratic party would have been responsible for the cost of the recount, but still it was a bad decision. That recount was what Katherine Harris stopped and what the Florida State Supreme Court ruled IN FAVOR of, not against. The US Supreme Court overruled the Florida State Supreme Court, and stopped the limited recount again. Gore lost by 537 votes in the certified election results and would have lost by a slightly smaller amount if the limited recount was allowed to continue.

      However, a consortium of media outlets, mostly newspapers, solicited the NORC report that looked at all uncounted Florida votes and their conclusion was that a recount of all Florida votes would have resulted in a Gore victory. The most decisive element was in the counting of clear "overvotes". Overvotes refer to where two Presidential candidates are voted for on one ballot . Most of them represented cases where two punches for different candidates were made on the same ballot, rendering it impossible to tell with certainty who the voter really intended to vote for. But some of them consisted of ballots where a candidate was selected through punch or optical scan but there was also a "write-in candidate" selected. Here, of course, if one candidate is punched and another is written in, it is likewise impossible to tell for sure who the voter was really selecting. However, some of those votes punched or optically voted for Gore and wrote in Gore, or alternately, punched or optically voted for bush and wrote in Bush. These were clear votes for either Gore or Bush and should have been counted. Counting these votes and all other clear votes would have given Gore a victory margin at least as large as Bush's certified margin.

      So, yes, if the US Supreme Court had allowed the limited recount, Bush would have still been the victor, but if a total state recount had been conducted, then Gore would have won. There were also various problems with the voting machines, hanging chads, the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach and elsewhere, the overzealous "cleaning" of the voter rolls of voters erroneously listed as felons without voting rights, overly partisan decisions made by Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State, including the counting of several hundred illegal overseas absentee ballots, all of which combined in a perfect storm to rob Gore of tens of thousands of votes. But even ignoring those elements which could not be legally tallied in determining the winner in 2000, if all the legal votes in Florida had been counted and certified as they should have been, Gore would have won Florida by a small margin.

      As for Hostage's comment about the antiquated electoral system, I can explain it this way. The US uses an "electoral college" to elect the President rather than a simple majority vote of all US voters. Gore won 500,000 more votes than Bush nationwide, but each of the 50 states tallies its votes and gives all its proportionally determined votes to the winner of the state election results. Thus a candidate can get 500,000 more votes overall, as Gore did, and be the clear consensus choice for the whole country but lose the Electoral College vote, which is the only one that counts, by losing Florida's 25 electoral votes and losing the electoral tally by 4 votes.

    • It seems to me that there is still something quite self-delusional about Fleshler's responses. Here he is justifying his organization's continued association with an umbrella organization whose then chairman, Mort Zuckerman, was a significant voice urging war against Iraq, and one of whose other member organization, JINSA, led by Perle, Feith, and Wolfowitz, was considered the major "brains" (I use the term loosely) behind the war, even by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. While at the same time he's blaming Nader voters for the war when, outside of JINSA and PNAC, war with Iraq wasn't on any American voter's radar.
      Maybe if APN and other Jewish organizations had walked away from the war-mongering of COPMJO's chairman and other member organizations, it might have prevented the war regardless of who was elected. Who knows, but it is no less likely than Fleshler's insistence that Gore, or Leiberman after him, wouldn't have gone to war.

      link to

      link to

      link to

      link to

      And another question for thought: Was it necessary, prudent or moral for anyone to join the White Citizens Council in order to "reach the 'moveable middle'" among southern whites?

  • Amid 'climate of fear' at Vassar, president comes out against 'action and protest' re Israel
  • The Jewish community must not embrace Ayaan Hirsi Ali
    • As far as I can tell she also cites FGM as an Islamic practice when it is not, although some Muslims practice it. It is a practice that occurs mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt, regardless of religion. Christian Copts in Egypt and the Sudan have used it, as have the Beta Israel in Ethiopia. In Nigeria, which has the highest absolute numbers of FGM, it is more prevalent in the Christian predominant parts of Nigeria than in the Muslim predominant parts.

  • 'Not a single person in this room would accept living as Palestinians do, generation after generation'
    • Yonah, here is what makes your "common sense" racist: You apply it differently to Jews than you do to Palestinians.

      You posit from the fact that Palestinians are Arab as are Egyptians that since Egypt at present is not a democracy and treats its citizens poorly, an Israel with a majority of Palestinians rather than a majority of Jews would not be a true democracy either. But you have a prime example in front of you that an Israel with a majority of Jews has been incapable for 66 years of being a true democracy that treats its citizens with justice and equality. You don't take that very obvious example of Israel and from it conclude that Jews are incapable of creating a true democratic state without oppressive discrimination against non-Jews, or without rampant corruption for that matter. And that is your double standard and where your belief exhibits racism.

      And your name calling proves only that you wish to inhibit my questions. Great!

      David is answering your questions, not inhibiting them. What is inhibiting you is not the answer but your inability to listen to the arguments of others you disagree with. You want dialogue on your terms only, but that is not the way dialogue works. You've just created in your head another reason why you don't have to listen to David. You've done this consistently here with the majority of commenters. Soon there will be no one here that you deem worthy of talking to, and will blame that on everyone else.

      If you want an example of what Israel/Palestine might be like with a majority of non-Jewish citizens, then look to earlier Palestine, one hundred years ago, circa 1900-1916, when it was still governed by the Ottoman Empire, and Zionist Jews were allowed to buy land there; when the governance of Jews by non-Jewish Arabs was better than any governance of Arabs by Jews since the creation of Israel. Read Shira Robinson's book "Citizen Strangers" and see how those Palestinians who managed to remain in Israel despite the Israeli governments worst efforts to get rid of them tried against overwhelming odds to use the instruments of democracy to attain their rights in Israel. Learn more about Palestinian society. Talk to Palestinians. Don't just assume that Palestinians are interchangeable with Egyptians, especially when you know next to nothing about either group. You wouldn't want the same thing said about all Jews being interchangeable so don't say that about Arabs unless you want your statement to be perceived as racist.

      One more point:

      And your name calling proves only that you wish to inhibit my questions.

      Can we assume this is projection on your part? Since one of your overriding penchants here is to call others anti-semites, or stupid, or propagandists, or other various names, does that mean that you are trying to inhibit other's questions?

  • 'In every generation they rise up against us' -- Passover and the Jewish imagination
    • If you enjoy typing your own opinion and then reading it here, keep up the mediocre work. If you are interested in finding out how others think, change your mode of dialogue to one of dialogue rather than taunting.

      You might consider taking your own advice, yonah.

    • Damn those first-born for "cowardly blending" with their family and friends!

  • Why LA needs a city-funded Middle Eastern cultural center
    • In reality, Los Angeles has a quite diverse cultural milieu. People from elsewhere tend to think that LA begins and ends with Hollywood, but it doesn't. As Elgraby said, "Southern California is home to the largest community of Arabs, Iranians and others from the MENA". Also:

      Approximately 59.4% of Los Angeles' residents were born in the United States, and 0.9% were born in Puerto Rico, US territories, or abroad to American parents. 39.7% of the population were foreign-born. Most foreigners (64.5%) were born in Latin America. A large minority (26.3%) were born in Asia. Smaller numbers were born in Europe (6.5%), Africa (1.5%), Northern America (0.9%), and Oceania (0.3%).

      The city is often said to have the largest Mexican population outside Mexico and has the largest Spanish-speaking population outside Latin America or Spain. As of 2007, estimates of the number of residents originally from the Mexican state of Oaxaca ranged from 50,000 to 250,000.[4] Central American, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and South American nationalities are also represented.

      As of 2010, in the world, except for the respective home countries, Los Angeles County has the largest populations of Burmese, Cambodian, Chinese, Filipino, Indonesian, Korean, Sri Lankan, and Thai people. In Los Angeles County the largest Asian ethnic groups were the Chinese and the Filipinos.

      Ethnic enclaves like Chinatown, Historic Filipinotown, Koreatown, Little Armenia, Little Ethiopia, Little Bangladesh in Mid-City, Los Angeles, Little Moscow in Hollywood, Little Tokyo, several Little Saigons, Tehrangeles in West Los Angeles and Thai Town provide examples of the polyglot multicultural character of Los Angeles.

      The city has the most Druze living anywhere in the world outside Lebanon or Syria.[12]
      The world's largest population of Saudi Arabian expatriates (est. 20,000) according to the Saudi Embassy of the USA.[13]


      Cherokee Indians, among other Native American tribes such as the Apache, Choctaw, Comanche, Hopi, Muscogee (Creek), Navajo, Nez Perce, Paiute, Shawnee and Zuni made Los Angeles probably have the largest Urban Indian population.

      Source: link to

      A Middle East Cultural Center would be a welcome addition to Los Angeles.

  • Brandeis retracts plan to honor anti-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali
  • 'For me, Palestine is paradise': An interview with Leila Khaled
    • She means to acquire this Paradise with a gun.

      A more accurate statement would be that she means to reclaim her Paradise with a gun.

      What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Hypothetically speaking, if it was acceptable to acquire the territory with a gun in the first place, why is it unacceptable to reclaim it with a gun?

    • Israelis are afraid to find themselves living in an Arab state which it’s culture and language and religions are foreign and intimidating.

      Actually, you mean Ashkenazi Jewish Israelis, not just Israelis, who include both Arab Jews and Arab non-Jews, for whom the Arabic culture was not foreign or intimidating prior to the creation of Israel.

      It’s very natural for a nation to want to preserve itself.

      And yet Zionists claimed, and continue to claim, that the Palestinians were wrong to object to the creation of a foreign state in their midst; a foreign state that had no interest or concern for their welfare but rather was formed to privilege other foreigners. The basic problem is that Israel was built on a concept of acceptable Jewish privilege, to the obvious detriment of all others, and there is no moral way to conclude that those others need to accept their institutionally enforced inferiority.

  • Friedman says Iran's friends include BDS and Jews in Open Hillel movement
    • Anyone else notice this bit of hasbara on Friedman's part?

      ... that Israel remains in the “occupied territory,” as the U.S. State Department refers to the West Bank, won by Israel in the 1967 war


      It's not that the West Bank is "occupied", its just that the State Department refers to it as such. And Israel "won" it in 1967, even though international law says that state's may not "win" territory through war. As reprehensible as our actions were in Iraq, did anyone actually say that we "won" Iraq, the territory (as opposed to "winning" the war on Iraq)? Did Friedman?

  • 'NYT' readers who objected to calling Abbas 'defiant' have a point, public editor rules
    • "Downfield blocking" in simple terms would be someone on your team who is ahead of you on the field ("downfield", or closer to the goal) and is providing blocking of opposition players that helps clear the way for your scoring run.

      I hope that's non-esoteric enough for you.

      In other words, Mandel, as a reader and veteran copy editor, made the point first, clearing the way for Sullivan to make a similar point as the NYT public editor.

  • Ehud Olmert's JNF-sponsored tour nixed after corruption conviction
    • This is just Zionist propaganda, of course, so pay no attention.

      Yes, it is. Your source is the government of Israel, which has lied consistently about its own policies and refuses to take blame for any of its actions in Gaza over its 40 years of internal control of Gaza's water. I'll repeat again from an earlier post of mine referencing Israel's water policy in Gaza in 1995, when it was firmly in control of Gaza water resources.

      From Sara Roy's "The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-Development", published in 1995:

      The insufficiency and decreased quality of Gaza's water supply have been exacerbated by Israel's own, often urgent, need to supplement its own water resources. In accordance with the Israel Water Law of 1959, water was declared to be a public commodity soon after the occupation began. This declaration exceeded the rights of an occupying power under international law....Prevailing Egyptian law was amended with Military Order 158, which required a license for digging new wells. Given Israel's need to control and use water resources, however, Military Order 158 translated into a prohibition on the development of new water sources by the Arab population only. These restrictions have never applied to the Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip.

      Government measures regarding water use have assumed several forms in Gaza. First, despite the restrictions imposed on the Arab population, the authorities bored five 20-inch artesian wells in the Strip that draw water from Gaza's own limited sources for Jewish (including settler) use. Second, Gaza's most important source of surface water and one that it shares in common with Israel, the Wadi Gaza (Or Nahal Bessor in Hebrew) is diverted wholly for use by Israel. The Wadi Gaza has catchment areas in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel and arguably provides 20 mcm to 30 mcm of water per year. However, Israel impounds this water before it even enters Gaza. Third, part of Gaza's aquifer -50 mcm to 60 mcm per year- flows from Israel. Although Israel denies it, Palestinian hydrologists claim that Israel intercepts this flow, leaving small quantities for Gaza. Fourth, unofficial reports from foreign development agencies working in the Gaza Strip maintain that in 1985, the (Israeli) government dug between three and five boreholes so close to Israel's border with Gaza that water drawn from them was being drawn from Gaza's own reserves instead. Fifth, government sanction of Jewish settlement in Gaza has further limited the amount of water available to the Arab sector. Water use among Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip prevents Palestinian agriculturalists from making optimal use of available water, a fact that has no doubt played a role in confining farming methods within a decidedly traditional framework.

      Jewish settler water usage in Gaza at the time was 18 times the Palestinian usage there. Israel also installed over 35-40 new wells for the settlers by 1995 and dug them much deeper than the Palestinian wells, adversely affecting those wells by drawing water away from them. Jewish settlers in Gaza, in contrast to their Palestinian neighbors, did not suffer from Israeli government imposed water quotas, and in fact had their water usage subsidized by the government. The town of Khan Younis, in comparison, had only 6 wells supplying its water, and five of them were built during Egyptian rule, leaving exactly one that was allowed to be built by Israel during its lengthy occupation there. Compare that with the 35-40 wells built for Jewish settlers.

      Israel totally diminished and abused Gaza's water supply during its long occupation, depleting its aquifers and increasing their salinity, and it continues to do so by interfering with water resources that Gaza would normally benefit from without Israel's craven interference. And of course, in addition, one of the greater pressures on Gaza's water resources in the large number of people it must sustain. The large number of people living in Gaza is the direct result of Israel's ethnic cleansing of its Palestinian population. Israel is the primary culprit behind the devastated water situation in Gaza.

      link to my earlier post: link to

      And here's another earlier post of mine which goes into a few of the regulations that Israel set up in Gaza to cripple Gaza's economy and infrastructure starting in 1967, lest you dig up more lies from the Israeli government about how benevolent they were in Gaza:

      link to

      link to

    • And don’t forget that the Jews in Israel had a country like Germany which it could blackmail for thousands of millions to pay for infrastructure and a wealthy diaspora which could supply it with money, an unearned access to capital markets and later a billion-dollar per year sugar daddy. The Gazans have no such luck.

      Also don't forget that the Jews in Israel had the considerable capital goods and land that they stole from the Palestinians they dispossessed, both those that they expelled and those that remained in Israel under martial law for the first 19 years of Israel's existence.

      I'll repeat, because this bears repeating, from an earlier post of mine:

      The provisional government used the Arabs' land, dwellings, and possessions for its Jewish population, and primarily for recent immigrants. Ben Gurion ordered that abandoned Arab housing be allocated to Jews. By April 1949, he reported to the Knesset, the government had settled 150,000 Jews in Arab housing.

      The government also took housing from Arabs who remained inside the armistice lines. In Haifa in July 1948 the IDF forced out Arab residents of the Carmel ridge area to make room for Jews. It forced Arabs from their homes in Acre into what became an Arab ghetto. Many "internal refugees" tried to return to their homes. Their land, like that of the Arab "external refugees", was considered "absentee" property and was controlled by the custodian of absentee property, who rented it to Jews-the rent money going to the government.

      The value of the land taken from the Palestine Arabs was estimated at 100 million Palestinian pounds. It included stone quarries, 10,000 acres of vineyards, 25, 000 acres of citrus groves, 10.000 business establishments, 95 percent of what became Israel's olive groves, and 50,000 apartments.

      The government took over fully equipped plants. In Ramleh, it distributed 600 shops to Jewish immigrants. In Lydda it seized 1800 truckloads of property, including a button factory, a carbonated drinks plant, a sausage factory, 7000 retail shops, 500 workshops, and 1000 warehouses. It confiscated cabinetmaking shops, locksmith works, turneries, ironworks, and tinworks, which it then leased and sold to Jews.

      From "The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective", John Quigley

      It should be noted that in the 1950s, Israel's largest export was oranges, with over half of the crop formerly owned by Palestinians prior to 1948, according to the British Survey of Mandate Palestine. Its third largest export was olives, which were 95% Palestinian prior to 1948. By 1954, 35% of Israeli Jews lived on land and/or property confiscated from Palestinians. Even with all the confiscated property from the ethnically cleansed Palestinians, and the few "present absentees" (Palestinians who managed to remain in Israel but had their property confiscated through immoral legal maneuver) Israel was reliant on "reparation" payments from Germany for 87.5% of its state income in the 1950's and 60's.

      I'm sure some, perhaps even most, Israeli Jews worked hard but Israel got where it is today by stealing from the Palestinians and taking handouts from other countries. Its nothing to be particularly proud of, and Israel more closely resembles a state that expects other states and/or people to hand it what it wants on a platter, or at least allow it to go on stealing what it wants, than it does a state built on the hard work of its citizens.

    • ... one dunam, one cow, one day.

      Which, along with a lot of money from Diaspora Jews and their sponsorship by the British Mandate got the Zionists 6% of Palestine. Then they engaged in ethnic cleansing and dispossessed the Palestinians of vastly more than "one dunam, one cow, one day." They built their state on the backs of the Palestinians they dispossessed, but you still think that is something for Jews to be proud of. Shame for you.

      And BTW Zionists had complete control of Gaza from 1967 to at least 2006 (40 years) and they did absolutely nothing good for it. They depleted the water supply, and denied the Palestinians under their control of any gains in infrastructure or economy that wasn't wholly dependent on and subservient to Israeli Jewish interests. Now Israel's control of Gaza is exercised externally, and is used to punish. You want to be proud of that too?

      I strongly suggest you read Shira Robinson's "Citizen Strangers" and then tell us how proud you are of the racism inherent in the Jewish State.

  • 'NYT' stamps Jimmy Carter 'radioactive' and not 'a force for good'
    • It’s projection.

      It's bigotry. Christians who are critical of Israel, even mildly, are anti-semites in the mind of a Jewish bigot. Christians who are not critical of Israel are only potential anti-semites. Its Jewish bigotry against Christians. Bigotry can run both ways, but Jewish bigots like biorabbi like to pretend that their own bigotry toward Christians, or other non-Jews, is actually the fault of the Other.

  • Oren says Pollard 'sacrificed himself for the Jewish people'
    • He is certainly not an innocent lamb, but I fail to see why spying for Israel should be treated differently at sentencing or in terms of potential clemency.

      But the difference seems to be in the calls for clemency or early release for Pollard only. IF you can find me news stories of repeated calls for clemency, including calls from US Congresspeople, for Robert Hanssen, Aldritch Ames, or John Anthony Walker, similar to the decades long pleas for Pollard, then you might have a case for Pollard being treated no differently than those other spies, who are all serving life sentences. (Whitworth, Walker's compatriot, is serving a 365 year sentence.) But you certainly DON'T have a rational case that Pollard was or is treated more harshly than they were or are. Its just another case of a belief in Jewish exceptionalism on your part. Or are you calling for clemency for those other spies as well?

  • 'A Painful Price': The escalating war on Palestine solidarity at U of Michigan and beyond
    • Seems to me you might want to consider that you apparently not only know ugly terms but use them quite freely.

      So now you are comparing calling someone racist because of their views with using a slur based on someone's ethnicity or religion? Stupid argument, Jeff. You might want to try for something a bit more intelligent than the childish, "I'm rubber, your glue" argument.

  • Boteach stops reporter from videotaping Columbia University debate
    • Anyone who can joke about anti-Shmuelism in an apology has a fine sense of humor in my book.

      And clearly, yonah, your comment, even if meant humorously, implied anti-semitism on Frankie's part. Not surprising, given your penchant here, but a low blow nonetheless. To pretend that the problem was Frankie's sense of humor and not your implication was an even lower one.

    • Different person. That was Shmully Hecht at Ben Karp's townhouse, not Shmuely Boteach.

      link to

  • Liberal Zionists are the new front line against BDS
    • BDS is about equal human rights for everyone living in the former mandated territory regardless of how many states there are.

      Exactly! And jon jumped on the inequality bus a longtime ago, so I don't see why anyone should take his advice on what "bus" to get onto.

  • Repression and resistance in Bethlehem's Aida refugee camp
    • Wesley, if you click on the link to the Ynet article in Wolf's report, it states:

      The two soldiers sustained light to moderate injuries and were evacuated to the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem.

      Their source appears to be the Israeli border police spokesperson.

      And the Arutz Sheva article, linked by Wolf below the Ynet link, says this:

      One suffered moderate injuries and the second suffered light injuries, according to the Border Police spokesman.

  • BDS' big night: Loyola student government passes divestment, U. Mich votes it down
    • Israel has released prisoners, who were murderous terrorists, and what will they get in return?

      Mayhem, Israel has no death penalty so all the citizens of Israel who are convicted of murder are given at most a life sentence, which is most often commuted to 30 years, with eligibility for parole in 20 or so years. Thus it releases murderers as part of its judicial system rules on a regular basis. It gets nothing in return for those releases, except perhaps the gratitude of the convicted murderers and their families.

      Every time I have seen a release by Israel of Palestinian prisoners who have been convicted of murder, they have already served at least 20 to 30 years in Israeli prisons, thus making the release of these Palestinian convicted murderers no more lenient than that accorded to Israeli convicted murderers. So why expect to "get something in return"? Do you expect to get something in return every time a convicted Israeli murderer is released?

  • Wash Post story on Adelson as Republican kingmaker leaves out his nuke-Iran agenda
    • If you think that's the case, then Obama and Biden and Kerry are also neocons by such a definition. As will Warren prove to be. Her foreign policy positions are no better than any other leading Democratic possibility.

  • Ohio State Hillel member calls Desmond Tutu a 'neo Nazi' for criticizing Israel
    • And I was taught at school that Arabs belong to the white people.

      No, "Arab" is a cultural and linguistic identifier, not a racial one. Here's a picture of Omar al-Bashir. the President of the Sudan, to illustrate the point:

      link to

    • Because when one uses a term that applies to a very large group of people you are speaking of their institutional representatives.

      No, when you use a term like "the Jews", you are creating or perpetuating a stereotype, whether positive or negative. You are not "speaking of their institutional representatives", nor are you making statistical references. To spout stereotypes instead of specifically speaking of "institutional representatives" (who, in the case of American Jewish organizations are not elected by all American Jews, or in some case not even elected at all) is lazy thinking and lazy speaking. Likewise, when you are making statistical references you use terms like "majority", "plurality", etc.; you do not use the term "the Jews" as if they are a monolith.

      For example, statistical studies show that the majority of Israeli Jews hold racist beliefs. However, to say that "the Jews" hold racist beliefs would be a lazy stereotype. But, on the other hand, just to show your own bias in regards to when you use the term "the Jews", a majority of Israeli Jews believe that there is apartheid in Israel. However, I have never seen you claim that "the Jews" agree that there is apartheid in Israel. You only use the term "the Jews" when what you are ascribing to the whole lot of them is an opinion that you agree with.

      You don't speak for all Jews, and it only shows your lack of an independent identity that you feel the need to back up your prejudices with the supposition that they are an integral part of your identity as a Jew. They aren't. There is nothing about being an individual Jew that forces you to defend Zionism. Its a personal choice of yours. Just as it was a personal choice among white southerners in the Jim Crow era to support white supremacism, and a personal choice among white South Africans to support white supremacism in Apartheid South African. It was the easy and cowardly choice but it was a choice nonetheless, just as Zionism is a choice, and lazy and cowardly one. The fact that so many people can make bad choices does not make those choices worthy of respect, even if they are held by a majority, or by "institutional representatives". There was nothing "anti-white" about striving for equality and justice in the US and South Africa; just as there is nothing "anti-Jewish" about striving for equality and justice in Israel/Palestine. On the contrary, to claim that equality is "anti-Jewish" is to defame both Jews and equality.

    • Did you bother to read the NY Times article?

      Earlier, others had written: ''Black Nazi pig'' on the walls of St. George's Cathedral in Arab East Jerusalem, where the Archbishop was staying.

      You don't consider that a racist statement?

    • First off if you don’t like your heroes being insulted then maybe you get some idea about why Jews find BDS (which Tutu advocates) offensive. The people that Tutu attacks are just as precious to the Jews as Tutu is to the South Africans and worldwide human rights activists.

      And yet another self-appointed spokesman for "the Jews" stands up. Jews per se don't necessarily find BDS "offensive", and even some of those Jews who buy into Zionism don't find BDS offensive so why talk as if they do? And "the Jews" as a monolithic group with but one opinion don't exist, except in anti-semitic viewpoints. But that doesn't stop JeffB from expounding as if he were an expert on what every Jew thinks. I swear some of the worst anti-semitic statements come from avowed Zionists.

  • A movement grows in a Georgia church basement
    • But then again one can certainly argue against Palestinians being as "free" as they are under the control of Jewish supremacist state of Israel, and one doesn't even have to "imagine" it. Its a concrete reality that Palestinians are not given equal rights by Israel. Israel's had over 65 years of failure at treating its citizens and subjects equally regardless of religion/ethnicity. Its time to press for equality.

  • Columbia debate on Israeli policies features 3 Zionists, no Palestinians
  • D.C. scribes party with red wine, vinyl, and image of a terrorist
    • Most people tend to limit the discussion of Begin's terrorist credentials to the King David Hotel bombing and the attack on Deir Yassin. However, although they both involved a large number of civilians killed, they were but a small part of the numerous terrorist actions that the Irgun committed, starting in the late 1930's.

      Here's a small sampling of some of the Irgun's terrorism in the late 1930's:

      1938, June 26 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa. [14]
      1938, June 27 1 Arab was killed in the yard of a hospital in Haifa. [14]
      1938, June (late) Unspecified number of Arabs killed by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Jerusalem. [15]
      1938, July 5 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel Aviv. [14]
      1938, July 5 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem. [14]
      1938, July 5 1 Arab was killed in another attack in Jerusalem. [14]
      1938, July 6 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab melon market in Haifa. More than 60 people were wounded. [14][16][17]
      1938, July 8 4 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jerusalem. [14]
      1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [14]
      1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][18]
      1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa. [14]
      1939, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem. [19]
      1939, May 2 9 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem.
      1939, June 2 5 Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem. [14][20]
      1939, June 12 1 British bomb expert trying to defuse the bombs killed, during a post office in Jerusalem was bombing [14]
      1939, June 16 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Jerusalem. [14]
      1939, June 19 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][21]
      1939, June 29 13 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks around Jaffa during a one-hour period. [14][22]
      1939, June 30 1 Arab was killed at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [14]
      1939, June 30 2 Arabs were shot and killed in Lifta. [14]
      1939, July 3 1 Arab was killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][23]
      1939, July 4 2 Arabs were killed in two attacks in Jerusalem.

      More at source: link to

      More than 250 people were killed by the Irgun in the two and a half years between March 1937 and September, 1939, the majority of them civilians, and a large portion of those civilians were indiscriminately killed by bombs planted in Arab markets. The Irgun has been credited with the first successful use of the car bomb, as well as the first successful use of the letter bomb.

  • Iymen Chehade fights Chicago school's cancellation of his class
    • “…he’s the faculty advisor for Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. Which makes him IMHO a political activists teaching a class not an academic.”

      Which only goes to show that your humble opinion isn't worth sh*t. All student organizations at Columbia College are required to have a faculty advisor. He is the chosen one for JVP and SJP on campus. If you are silly enough to insist that every faculty advisor (specifically chosen BECAUSE he or she IS an academic) for a student organization at any given college is not REALLY an academic simply because of their selection as an advisor, then you are again illustrating that your logic has gaping holes in it. Which of course you have illustrated before so no one will be surprised. You are predictably illogical when it suits your argument.

  • Democrats have no problem with Israeli envoy addressing GOP group opposed to Obama
    • sean,

      She has never dared to get out in front of any controversial political issue (unlike Obama, who opposed the Iraq War).

      Oh, lord, talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. Obama gave one speech in Chicago during a well attended rally when he was a state Senator where he said that the money could be better spent domestically. He wasn't "out in front" in any sense of the word, and admitted later that he wasn't sure if he would have voted any differently than Clinton and Kerry and Biden voted had he been in the US Senate at the time. Even as President Obama has been loath to really get out front of any controversial political issue.

      She is dull, mediocre and conventional — completely under the thumb of the powers that be. Not a leader in any meaningful sense of the term. Without question, she would take her marching orders from AIPAC and Wall Street.

      You could substitute the name Obama in your sentence just as easily and be correct. Mr. Drone Warfare has given new meanings to mediocre, gutless and heartless.

      Giles and Sean,

      But tree thinks it is reasonable that Hillary would threaten Iran with annihilation under s scenario where Iran launches a nuclear attack on Israel.

      For all the talk about Obama supposedly engaging in 11th dimensional chess each time he sucks up to Israeli demands, some people don't seem to understand that a statement that could be taken to be directed at one country could be meant for the ears of another.

      I analyzed Clinton's statement in reference to her concept of providing a "nuclear umbrella" in the Middle East, vowing US retaliation against any country there that launched a nuclear attack against any other and thus hopefully damping any perceived need for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

      I, like most others here, consider Israel's fear of a nuclear attack from Iran to be part hysteria and part dishonesty, but the "fear" did in fact lead Israel to contemplate attacking Iran, which would have totally destabilized the area, and most likely led to massive loss of life. The one fear that I think is legitimate on Israel's part is that, IF a country were to contemplate using nuclear weapons against Israel, even with Israel's own numerous nuclear weapons it might be crippled and destroyed by an undetected first strike. Clinton's statement, it seems clear to me, was intended more for the ears of Israel than the ears of Iran, which has no nuclear weapons and no plans to use them if it did. Clinton's statement diffused the Israeli fear of a first strike by guaranteeing that no first strike would go unpunished, and thus lessened the Israeli fear of possible Iranian nuclear weapons and lessened the chance of a catastrophic attack by Israel on Iran. The statement was not intended just to warn Iran about something it had no intention of doing; it was meant to reassure Israel that it had no need to attack Iran. As I said, I personally would have liked it if she had also said the reverse, but such a statement would have been political suicide and I doubt that any US politician would ever say such a thing.

      The idea that Clinton is more beholden to the Israel Lobby than Obama or Kerry or Biden, or even potentially Warren, is a false one and has been proven so over the years of the Obama Presidency. Obama chose her for Secretary of State, not the other way around. He also chose Biden and Kerry, both of whom have been extremely obsequious in their statements about and to Israel, so this idea that Clinton would be so much worse than anyone else in regards to Israel doesn't really hold water.

      Who knows, maybe Clinton could end up being like Nixon on China; the one who has the political backing to make a break with conventional thinking on Israel/Palestine. After all, the Clintons were close friends and political partners with Max Blumenthal's father, Sidney. I personally don't think its likely, but its much much more unlikely that Clinton would declare war on Iran, like some here seem to think. Clinton isn't appreciably different from any other mainstream US Democratic politician on this issue.

    • Since her threat to "obliterate Iran" was conditioned on Iran launching a nuclear attack upon Israel, I don't really have a problem with the statement. I only wish that she, or whomever is in power at the time, would say the same thing to Israel if it threatened to launch a nuclear attack on any other country.

      I don't think it is a bad thing to warn any and all countries that attempting to use nuclear weapons would engender a fierce and swift blowback, and that includes warning the US about any use of nuclear weapons.

  • Is the U.S. quietly imposing travel sanctions on Israeli officials?
  • Bloodbath in Jenin
    • Same guy as the picture.

      Except that he's not carrying a weapon in the photo of him lying dead in the street. So your position is that any one who ever carried a gun is fair game? That would place the majority of Israeli Jews in the same "fair game" category. Or is this another one of those rules you brandish that don't apply to Jews, only to Palestinians? Thought so.

      And BTW, here is the stalwart IDF explanation of his death:

      He was wanted for “shooting and bombing attacks as well as planning future attacks” and the forces enter the camp allegedly in an attempt to arrest him. Al-Hija barricaded himself in his home, a battle ensued, Israeli forces gained entry and killed him.

      Notice in the photo there is absolutely no blood in the doorway of the home. Only blood around him on the street. That's where they killed him. They didn't kill him in his home and he didn't have a weapon when he was killed. That's murder, and the IDF lied about the circumstances of his death to cover it up.

  • Israeli embassy pressured Amnesty to cancel launch of 'apartheid' book -- Ben White
  • Obama doesn't talk to Jimmy Carter -- because of Israel
    • ...and those without your particular interest in the Jews.

      Ah yes, TBK the great anti-semite hunter strikes again! If "American" complains about and is aghast at Israel's sway over US policy he must have a "particular interest in the Jews". You don't even get how your framing is the anti-semitic one, Tokyobk. The implication of your statement is that American's "interest" in the deleterious influence of Zionist and Israeli influence must mean he has ipso facto an interest in "the Jews". Because we all know "the Jews" are just one big monolith, right, with no variation and whatever Israel does is what "the Jews" are doing? Check the log in your own eye before casting about for "anti-semitic" motes in other eyes.

  • 'NYT' music piece strikes false note on Mehta and Israeli politics
    • It seems again, Donald, like nationalism is ok for everyone but the Israelis.

      In the real world, it seems like bigoted attitudes are bad except when they are held by Israeli Jews and their American supporters and then they are a wonderful thing and a beauty to behold. Israeli nationalism doesn't exist, because Israel doesn't acknowledge an Israeli nationality. Its Jewish "nationalism", rather like white "nationalism" in the US. Bigoted, and exclusive rather than inclusive. And you are just fine with it, hophmi, because you are just as bigoted. Which is why you couldn't imagine that any Palestinian would be familiar with Western classical music, despite the fact that you practically live at this website and had the opportunity to read numerous articles here about Palestinian classical musicians.

    • Come on. How many Palestinians in Israel have studied Western classical music? It’s clear that the orchestra is not formally segregated. The orchestra’s a Western vestige in Israel. Is it really surprising that there haven’t been Arab-Israelis in it? I’m sure you’ll see one before long.

      Well, hophmi, if you ever bothered to read some of the articles here you'd know what a totally ignorant and bigoted statement that is. Of course, I'd expect nothing less from you.

      link to

      link to

      link to

      link to

  • Slim Peace’s slim chances for justice
    • For JeffB and Hophmi, so they can wax nostalgic for the "good ole days".

    • ...the period from 1967-1987 in the West Bank. Those memories of shopping in Ramallah, having a Palestinian maid, being able to freely travel without risk were what made the Israelis kept trying to deescalate rather than escalate like they did in 1937, 1947 in Gaza today …

      Love the neo-colonial waxing poetic over having a Palestinian maid. Its so you. However, you've just proven Annie's point. Twenty years of Israelis being able to shop in Ramallah and take on Palestinian maids didn't lead to any long term gains for the Palestinians. All during that time Israel continued the occupation and continued to steal more and more private Palestinian land to create more Jewish only settlements. Its just like Uri Avnery said. During times of quiet there's no reason to end the occupation in the Israeli Jewish mindset because, after all things are quiet so all must be OK. If the Palestinians get tired of the oppression and protest, well, Israel can't end the occupation then, because that would would be giving in to violence. So unfortunately, there is no time that is a good time to end the occupation, or the land theft, or the killing, or the collective punishment. But here, we'll help you lose weight as long as you acknowledge how we are showing how very peaceful we are by actually being in the same room with you when it suits our purpose.

  • Ululating at Vassar: the Israel/Palestine conflict comes to America
    • ...the Jews you speak of have been there for well over a century. ... If they are not indigenous there, they are indigenous nowhere; you essentially argue that they should be stateless.

      Stupid statement, hophmi. By your quirky definition of "indigenous" I qualify as an "indigenous" to the US since most of my immediate family ancestors came here from Europe at the start of the 20th century, and a few came a century before that. I am not indigenous, and have no Native American blood as far as I know. And I am not stateless. I'm simply not indigenous and neither are you. If someone were to say that the "indigenous people of the US" don't want us to go on the trip, they wouldn't be referring to me or you. You know that. You are applying different standards to Israel in your never ending quest to defend the indefensible.

  • Kerry tries to get out of Jewish-state trap set by Netanyahu and the lobby
    • Unfortunately the Obama Administration has proven itself completely incapable of 11th dimensional chess, or even 3 dimensional chess. It even has problems thinking along 2 dimensional chess lines. A combination of A and B is most likely.

    • I remember reading Uri Avnery's take on the Israeli mentality towards the occupation years ago (probably nearly 15 years ago). He said that the Israeli thinking was that when there was any Palestinian unrest then Israel couldn't possibly end the occupation at that time because to do so would be "rewarding" Palestinian violence. But if there was no unrest and everything was quiet there was no need to end the occupation then either, because there was no urgency to end it if there wasn't any Palestinian violence occurring. Lack of violence was interpreted as acceptance of the status quo on the part of the Palestinians. In essence, it was never the right time to end the occupation according to the Israeli consensus.

      The Palestinian are caught up in an unending series of Catch-22's of Israel's making.

  • Lebanon 'affirms right' of citizens to resist Israel
    • yonah,

      I'm not referring to annie's comments. My reply was directed at your comments, which were wrong.

      My memory of 2000 was that there were no battles fought in 2000. Ehud Barak decided to withdraw Israeli troops and he withdrew them 6 weeks before the scheduled withdrawal, but I could find no (quick, superficial look) evidence of a battle in 2000, let alone a decisive battle that forced Israeli troops to evacuate.

      If I’m wrong, tell me I’m wrong.

      I guess you didn't really mean that last sentence I quoted. There was a decisive battle in 2000. As a result of that battle the IDF was forced to evacuate its forces within 48 hours of the emergency security cabinet meeting dealing with the worsening (for the IDF) situation in South Lebanon, rather than 6 weeks later as planned. The fact that the battle was against the SLA, Israel's proxy army in Lebanon, doesn't make any difference because it was the precipitating event that led to the hurried withdrawal of the IDF under duress.

    • From the NY Times report on May 23rd (a Tuesday):

      After meeting with army commanders on the Israeli side of the border on Monday[May 22nd], Mr. Barak reiterated his pledge to pull all Israeli forces out of southern Lebanon within ''a few weeks.'' His office denied Israeli television reports that he had ordered the troops withdrawn by June 1, five weeks ahead of his original deadline.

      But in light of the Monday collapse of at least two battalions of the South Lebanon Army, the security cabinet was said to be trying to speed up the withdrawal, while reinforcing Israeli military installations immediately south of the border.

      After the late night security cabinet meeting on the 23rd, Israel hastily withdrew all forces on May 24th and 25th, bombed its own abandoned tanks and artillery in Southern Lebanon and reinforced its own side of its northern border with troops from within Israel. These are not hallmarks of an orderly unprovoked withdrawal. I'd say give Hezbollah credit where credit is due.

    • More about the dire straits the IDF was in on May 23rd with the widespread surrender of the SLA and the capture of much of the Israeli "Security Zone" in South Lebanon by Hezbollah. From the NYTimes:

      Israel's Buffer Strip in South Lebanon Collapsing

      link to

    • Battle of Khiam, 2000

      link to

      This is the battle that forced the hasty early withdrawal of Israel from Southern Lebanon. Israel's continued loses there and the likelihood of more loses with no appreciable gains is what led Barak to schedule the withdrawal for July 2000. On May 24th Israel announce it was withdrawing all troops in light of the collapse of its "Security Zone" due to the surrender of the SLA. By the end of the very next day, all Israeli troops were withdrawn. They were in essence chased out.

      link to

    • Completely false. Israel unilaterally withdrew. Everyone knows this to be true.

      Yeah, kinda like the US unilaterally withdrew from Vietnam. You can pretend it wasn't a defeat if you want to, but the rest of the world knows the truth.

  • Does Israel Have a Right to Exist as a Jewish State?: An excerpt from Ali Abunimah's 'The Battle for Justice in Palestine'
    • Ofer, with all respect…since when is Judaism a nationality?

      That question should be directed to the state of Israel and its High Court which have declared that there is no Israeli nationality, only a Jewish one. Makes no sense of course, but then its Israel, so what do you expect? I think that was Ofer's point, and why he linked to this:

      link to

    • Jeff, your answers only support my points even further.

      Because Jews are a bunch of hysterics.

      Your comment, not mine, but if you believe so then clearly, since you are referring in this case to Israeli Jews, Israel has not provided a safe haven from Jewish hysteria. Jews clearly still feel threatened in Israel.

      Its(Israel's) refusal to allow the USA to be its military protector is a major source of contention.

      Now you are just lying. Israel urged the US to declare war on Iraq for Israel's own interest. It continues to urge the US to sanction and even to declare war on Iran for Israel's interest. It demands that it be given a "qualitative military edge" in military weaponry from the US, and it has sought to block US military sales to other countries. In the 1973 war it demanded immediate weapon resupplies from the US. Yes, it doesn't want the US providing manpower in the Occupied Territories, but only because such a force would conflict with Israel's desires to ethnically cleanse the remaining Palestinians and confiscate more land for Israeli Jews. Otherwise Israel often begs for US military support in terms of either weapons or manpower. Israel would not exist as state that oppresses the Palestinians without the massive US military and diplomatic support.

      In terms of diplomatic, the USA is mainly protecting its own interests and the UN.

      followed by this several sentences later

      Without Jews American politics would have sided with their oil interests and assist the Arabs in genociding the Israeli population.

      Two totally contradictory statements by you within a matter of seconds. Since you admit that Jewish American support for Israel, such as it is, is a product of Jewish "moral support" for Israel, then you have just proven my point, not yours, that Israel depends on foreign Jews for its own safety, and can not even guarantee its own Jews safety without help from outsiders. And if the US would normally side with "the Arabs" in its own interest, if not for American Jews and their influence in American politics, then clearly Israel is not providing safety to Jews. American Jews are providing safety to Israel. And by your own admission, the US is not acting in its own national interest, despite your earlier insistence that it is. As to the US "protecting the UN" by shielding Israel from proper criticism and condemnation, such a comment is laughable in its absurdity. The US is protecting Israel at the UN, and by doing so is hurting its own reputation ( badly checkered as it is, of course) as a force for consistent application of human rights for all. Such actions do not "protect" the UN; they seek to render it useless.

      If new anti-Semitism were to become an acceptable theology in the west that is a threat to me and more likely my children and grandchildren directly.

      You interpret the "new anti-semitism" as the same as anti-Israel sentiment. And yet the creation of the state of Israel as a state built on ethnic cleansing, and built on the concept that those of Jewish faith and/or nationality have greater rights than those of other faiths or nationalities, is the direct cause of this "new anti-semitism' as you call it. Again, Israel is not a safe haven but is instead a source of possible harm to Jews because of its actions taken in the name of all Jews.

      Two more points from your earlier posts. One, you mention Jews being "ethnically cleansed" from Venezuela. As Derfner pointed out this is a giant distortion, as many Venezuelans of all faiths left due to economic concerns and rising violence in Venezuela. No one was ethnically cleansed. But I'd like to make another important point. Most of the roughly ten thousand or so Venezuelan Jews who left DID NOT go to Israel. Even assuming for the moment that they all left because of religious persecution, the majority of those who left preferred to go to other Latin American countries or to the US, with South Florida being one preferred destination. Chavez was certainly anti-Israel, and thus some of the discomfort Venezuelan Jews may have felt could be attributable to Chavez' opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish supremacist State, but the Venezuelan Jews who left DID NOT NEED Israel in order to find other places to live. Israel may have been a contributing factor to Venezuelan Jewish emigration, but it was not a significant factor in helping them to move elsewhere. In other words, its existence caused them more grief than help.

      Point two, you mentioned your Russian Jewish wife. She likewise came to the US, not to Israel. She found safe haven here.

      Also, Israel was forced to demand that both the US and Germany both curtail Soviet Jewish immigration because too many Jews were choosing to live in those two countries rather than in Israel. This was an Israeli action against the interest of those Jews who wished to move to those countries. Israeli representatives also engaged in falsifying records in order to qualify as "Jews" Soviet citizens of dubious Jewish heritage in order to flood Israel with suitable European immigrants in the 1990's. Again, this does not support the idea that Israel is needed as a safe haven. There are plenty of safe havens around for Jews. Many ethnicities can not say the same.

    • And if Israel is such a safe place for Jews, then why does Israel keep bemoaning "existential threats" to the state, and why does it rely so heavily on the US to provide protection, both diplomatic and military, for Israel? Why does it need foreign Jews to provide it with both monetary and moral support? Why do YOU (JeffB) feel that you need to defend Israel? Jews are safe there, right? Why do you feel the need to defend the secure and well protected? Think about it for a moment.

  • It is time to repeal the law being used to criminalize French BDS activists
    • He has gained considerable time by utilising only half his shirt buttons.

      Coffee spew time! Thanks for the hearty laugh.

Showing comments 3861 - 3801

Comments are closed.