Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4553 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)


Showing comments 4553 - 4501

  • 'New York Times' uncorks laughable Israeli propaganda
    • You on the other hand, yonah, were exceedingly rude to Kris. You asked a question. She looked it up and answered it politely. No thank you from you, just a wise-crack about "idiots" who "cut and paste". And the same towards diasp0ra, who was civil in his response to you, and clearly has earned the right to complain about Modern Hebrew taking credit for words from Arabic while Israel does its utmost to deny his humanity and his right to exist.

      And then on top of that you admit that you already knew the answer to your own question. So why get all heated with an answer that you know is correct?

      If you want a civil conversation, why not start with your own part in it? If its too much to ask of yourself, then its too much to ask of anyone else, don't you think?

    • But its more than just Finkelstein making these points. For anyone interested, there is a documentary made about the book which is available to view online.

      link to

  • David Grossman's love letter to Israel, warts and all
    • Diasp0ra,

      It would be pretty impressive cognitive dissonance to read those books and still think you have a moral high-ground to talk from, as you so often do. - See more at: link to

      Hophmi's been around for a long time here, but no he's never challenged himself to read anything that disagrees with him. You might want to check out this old discussion from 2011, under an article about Rabbi Elmer Berger which devolved into a discussion of Shlomo Sands' Invention of the Jewish People.

      Hophmi of course hadn't read the book but he was gung-ho to cherry-pick whatever he could to try to refute it, without a lot of luck because we kept reading his links, which didn't exactly say what he purported them to have said. Quelle surprise!

      link to

      And then there is the discussion of Max's response to Alterman's hit job on Goliath, where Hophmi defended Alterman's criticism despite Alterman's own acknowledgement that Max's book was "technically accurate" with his usual racist crap about Palestinians and "context", while never explaining what context excused Jewish Israeli racism (and of course, only Jewish Israeli racism).

      link to

      I don't think he read Goliath either. He doesn't come here to challenge himself. He comes as the self-appointed savior-cum-spokesperson for all Jews--or at least the ones that really count. Phil and others here aren't included in that number, but that doesn't stop him from occasionally speaking for them as well, and for "anti-semites" everywhere, not to mention speaking for Palestinians, cuz, you know, the Mufti. Since Hophmi already knows what everybody thinks and feels, he doesn't have to challenge himself at all. Its a hell of a cocoon he's woven himself. Never has to deal with issues of morality at all.

  • Israeli police shoot two scissors-wielding Palestinian teenage girls, killing one
    • Pretend the assailant is Jewish and you might , just might be able to come up with the answer.- See more at: link to

      You don't have to pretend in order to know the answer.
      An ultra-Orthodox Jew stabbed 6 people at a gay pride event in late July of this year. One of his victims died a few days later. He was subdued without being shot and was arrested, as I would expect a normal police force to do. He posed a much bigger threat than those teenage girls did, and had a history of attacking gay people with knives. None of that mattered. The big difference perceived by the Israeli police is that he was Jewish and the teenage girls were Palestinian. Typical institutional racism and Palikari condones it.

      link to

  • 'Jewish Communal Fund' seeds Islamophobia as toxic as Trump's
    • I think it’s a fairly simple thought experiment. If Jews represented 1.5 billion people and 57 countries at the United Nations, rather 15 million people and 1 country, I don’t think that there would be an international campaign to target Israel. - See more at: link to

      Yes, it' a simple thought experiment but, as usual, hophmi's sense of Jewish exceptionalism gets in the way of him finding the simple answer to his simple thought experiment. Since Jews are not 1.5 billion of the planet's population and won't be in the immediate future, the easiest way to test his hypothesis is to look at countries that are majority Muslim or Christian, since adherents of those two religions make up, respectively, 1.6 billion and 2.2 billion of the world's population. Then we can ask ourselves, have they ever been "targeted" by an "international campaign" like Israel?

      And of course the answer is a resounding yes, they have and the list is long. In no particular order: Apartheid South Africa (Christian), the former Yugoslavia(Christian), Iraq ( Muslim), Iran (Muslim), Libya (Muslim) , Nicaragua (Christian), Cuba (Christian), Sudan (Muslim), Palestine (Muslim). These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure others could add to the list.

      So hophmi's answer is incorrect. Not only have majority Muslim and Christian states been "targetted", some have been subject to much more violent and direct targetting (i.e. invasion and war) than Israel has ever faced. BDS is a relatively mild 'targeting'.

      His error being that the only 'targetting' that he notices is that directed at the Jewish State, since he cares not a whit about any other state.

  • 'Allahu Akbar': A Muslim family in suburban New Jersey responds to the Paris attacks
    • And then there's this shocking instance of an anti-Russian hate crime from 2014:

      link to

      Or maybe its just another illegal NYC cab driver trying to rip off a tourist.

    • Actually, oldgeezer, there are some glaring inconsistencies in Mr. Indig's version of events as reported.

      He apparently entered the taxi wearing his kippah on his head (later torn off in the altercation), but claims that the taxi driver didn't know that he was Jewish until he started talking on the taxi driver's cellphone in Hebrew. (I find it extremely hard to believe a NYC cab driver doesn't know what a kippah is, or who wears one.)

      He claims the taxi driver only got upset when he heard him speaking Hebrew. At that point Mr. Indig said he was afraid for his life and yet he remained in the cab until he arrived at his planned destination.Then the taxi driver let him out and supposedly started stalking and then attacking him. Mr. Indig claims he was worried that the taxi driver had a knife and wanted to kill him, and yet after his kippah and cellphone(!) was taken, he chased after this crazed "terrorist".

      I found a slightly different version of events from a NY Jewish publication called jp udates :

      It still carries Mr. Indig's version of events but carries some important elements that are different, or missing, from the other coverage. First off, the altercation started as a dispute in the taxi over the bill when Indig refused to pay an additional $40 over what Indig claims was agreed as the fare.

      It got physical when he exited the taxi without paying. In the NY version, the physical altercation took place right outside of the taxi, with the cab driver taking $20 from Indig's pocket and then driving off, whereas in Indig's later retelling it happened away from the taxi, after the driver ran toward him, and ended when the driver "ran away" with his kippah and cellphone. In Mayhem's link there is no mention of the $20 taken from his pocket. The NY news story also mentions that Indig was an Israeli tourist, who said he asked to use the taxi driver's phone which was "graciously" loaned to him to talk to "my doctor", because he couldn't get good service on his own cellphone. Of course none of these versions tell the accused assailant's side of the story. The inconsistencies are all in Indig's version of events. And the inconsistencies play up the "crazed Muslim" slant of the story in the Israeli publications.

      My reasonable guess as to what actually happened after reading these two versions? Mr. Indig, the Israeli, used the NY taxi driver's phone to call his doctor, in Israel, speaking to him in Hebrew. The taxi driver was upset because his cellphone was just used to make an overseas call to Israel. Whatever words were exchanged, who knows. At the end of the ride the taxi driver wanted additional money to pay for the overseas call, Mr Indig refused and then ensued a physical altercation. Or perhaps it was just a dispute over what the agreed fare was. Was it an assault by the cab driver? Probably. Was it an "anti-semitic hate crime"? Doubtful. Sounds like a dispute over money gone bad to me, played up by Mr. Indig and the Israeli publications to promote the usual racism towards Muslims.

      Three versions, the first is Mayhem's link, the last one is from the NY source:

      Anti-Semitic Violence Erupts in New York as Muslim Taxi Driver Attacks and Robs Jewish Passenger
      Read more at link to

      Muslim NYC cabbie attacks Jewish passenger
      link to

      Israeli Tourist Robbed by Taxi Driver in Brooklyn
      link to

      Even the headlines point out the differences in the slant.

  • Jewish American activists unfurl banner in support of BDS at the Western Wall
    • yonah.

      To answer your question:

      On December 1, 1948, the Jericho Conference was held (in Jericho, West Bank of course.). It was organized by the then mayor of Hebron and attended by numerous other West Bank and Jordanian officials. The attendees adopted resolutions calling for the annexation and unification of the East and West Banks. Jordan gave citizenship and voting rights to all Palestinian refugees as well as those Palestinians residing in the West Bank. They were all allowed to vote in the new Jordanian Parliamentary Elections on April 11, 1950, with half of the 60 seats allotted to the West Bank. On April 24, 1950, the newly elected Parliament voted unanimously to unite the two banks under Jordanian sovereignty.

      link to

      link to of the Two Banks

  • The idea that people living under violent military occupation must be instructed in nonviolence is problematic
    • Mooser,

      First, you convert them all to Christianity, and the rest just falls into place.

      Herzl come full circle.

  • The Case for Parallel States: Excerpt from 'One Land, Two States: Israel and Palestine as Parallel States'
    • There is nothing separate about two organisations operating on the same territory with many of the same matters of concern.

      Of course there is. If there was no separateness, then it would be one organization (or in this case, state). They may have many of the same general "matters of concern" in this plan but their perspectives are separate and different. Their separateness actually reinforces and solidifies this difference.

    • that is not what we are proposing at all in the sense that you mean a racist american style system of one group dominating another. please read again and listen better.

      Mark, from your very own writing above:

      "It is into this situation that we introduce the concept of parallel states. Can one design a scenario with a new type of two-state solution: one Israeli state structure and one Palestinian state structure, in parallel, each covering the whole area, and with equal but separate political and civil rights for all?" - See more at: link to

      "Separate but equal" is exactly what you are proposing in reality, and , as Mooser pointed out, such a system is inherently not equal. The Israeli Jews have been dominating the Palestinians since 1948. They have the pre-existing structures of state and the means to enforce them. Palestinians do not. Even with an assumption of considerable goodwill on the part of Israeli Jews, which is certainly a fantasy assumption, such an imbalance will simply reinforce the dominance of Jews under such a system. Not to mention that the plan itself offers infinite possibilities for extending the "peace process" by millenia through all the "negotiations" that would be required for such a complex and detailed system.

      The emphasis should not be on "separating"(hafrada) or "dividing", or treating this as merely a land dispute. The core of the problem is extreme inequality on the basis of ethnicity/religion. Israel and Israelis need to be pushed into accepting, begrudgingly or not, the concept of equal rights under the law for Jew AND non-Jew.

      One state or two is irrelevant. The reason that one state is unacceptable to Israeli Jews is the same reason why two states have never come about, and that is because Israel holds the power and it does not believe that the Palestinians must be accorded the same protections and rights as Jews. It will never agree voluntarily to a two state solution and will never agree to a "power-sharing" system where they don't control the real power.

  • 'The Palestinian body finally achieves the approving gaze of the settler'
    • Did he tweet about it? Nothing in the post reveals his role.

      Did you actually read the post? Try reading again or get new glasses.

      "...and scholar Steven Salaita then retweeted the image and wrote:

      The Palestinian body finally achieves the approving gaze of the settler:"

      Hebron victim

      - See more at: link to
      The title of the post is a quote of Salaita's tweet.

  • 'Why I am a Zionist'
    • Jon

      To answer your question, I think racism is wrong, but I don’t think Zionism is racism.

      Actually, the question I asked in my reply to you was whether you think sexism is wrong or not. You haven't answered that one and your following paragraph doesn't shed any light on your attitudes regarding this.

      As for Dr.King and sexism, I honestly don’t know much about his position. If he didn’t address it maybe he thought it was good and maybe he didn’t think it was an area of expertise. Do you have a statement saying he thought was acceptable?

      Jon, perhaps you didn't understand this from my previous posts, but MLK was sexist in action and behavior as well statement. He didn't "address" it because he wasn't confronting it, in himself or in his movement or in the wider context of the US and the world. It wasn't a case of him not thinking it an "area of expertise". He simply accepted discrimination against women as a given not worthy of questioning. He was fallible. It doesn't make him a bad person over all, it just shows that he was susceptible to moral blind spots like the rest of humanity. He was sexist. The book I mentioned above discusses some of the sexism he participated in and condoned, but if you want a few short articles to read there are these:

      link to

      link to

      link to

      I think we will to continue to disagree on whether or not he supported Israel as a Zionist state. Given his speeches writings and the word of his close friends, I believe that he was supportive.

      My main disagreement with you is not whether he was or was not a Zionist, its that it is entirely irrelevant. He was not an expert on Zionism and knew little of its history, and apparently what he did "know" was false and he himself had moral holes in his vision. Co-opting your own morality to a formula of excusing your own beliefs by comparing them to some poorly informed man, even a "civil rights paragon" in your words, from 50 years ago is just wrong. And frankly a juvenile line of reasoning. You should be able to do better than that.

      As far as your list of biases, bad behaviors, and crimes -I have no reason to doubt you.

      I take it you mean that you were not aware of these things prior to my mention of them.* Can I ask you then, if you weren't aware of these actions and ideological beliefs of political Zionism from its very beginnings, how can you consider yourself informed enough about the concept of Zionism to make any judgment about its merits or lack of same? Maybe you need to do your own research on Zionism in order to come to a conclusion about it rather than relying on simple excuses for your own lack of knowledge by relying on your belief that MLK endorsed Zionism (on a likewise uninformed basis). Right now you are judging Zionism as not racist on the basis of ignorance. As well as on emotional grounds rather than intellectual or informed grounds, I suspect.

      The question is whether those flaws are redeemable/correctable or inherently a part of Zionism. I think Israel can be “fixed” within a Zionist framework, but I know I am a monority here.

      I think the flaws in Israel are correctable. I fail to see how they can get there "within a Zionist framework." Zionism is an ethnocentric ideology that puts Jews first above all others. How can one get to equality and justice (prerequisites for real and lasting peace) from an ideology which is so counter to equality and believes itself the state of all Jews, rather than the state of all of its citizens, regardless their ethnicity or religion? What would a "Zionist framework" look like in your opinion. A kinder and gentler occupation? Simply an end to the occupation? How could it even end the occupation when to do so would negatively impact the Jewish privilege, not to mention what equal treatment of all its citizens would do for Jewish privilege, which is the very basis of Zionism.
      It would be equivalent to "fixing" US civil rights flaws in a segregationist framework

      If you think you have a vision of what that ZIonism framework would be like I can only see two possibilities. One is merely lipstick on a pig, a more genteel racism in Israel; or two, the framework would not be a Zionist one. You can't get to justice for all by clinging to Zionist ideology. Why do you have such an attachment to it, when it has caused such grief and you are so ill-informed on it?

      * I thought about providing links for the points about Zionism I mentioned but decided against it as being too time consuming to facilitate a timely response on my part. If you want more info you can click on my name and then search my archives . I have mentioned most of these points before, usually with links. I could also recommend some books and papers you could read if you are interested in more information.

    • Sibiriak,

      One question: do you feel that Jewish anti-goyism is inherently racist and is the taproot of Zionism? - See more at: link to

      Sorry for the delay in answering. Between my struggle with writer's block and lack of time, my reading and commenting here is someone constrained. I alwaus try to answer questions directed at me but don't always get the chance.

      I guess I would have to answer yes and no. Yes, I think that most Jewish anti-goyism is racist (using racist in its broadest term here.) I don't think it was the taproot of Zionism however.

      A taproot is the primary root of something and I think Zionism had multiple roots, rather than one taproot. I see its beginnings firmly rooted in the era of its time within European thought, deriving its ideation out of the concepts of scientific racism, polygenism, and romantic nationalism. Contrary to how it is pushed and perceived today, it was originally more interested in "improving" the Jewish "race" or "nation" than it was providing a refuge. The assumption being that this "new Jew" would obviate any need for a refuge in the first place. I see elements of Turnerism, eugenics and a simplistic form of epigenetics at play in the belief that hard physical outdoor work could create such a collective change. I also think it was influenced early on by concerns about losing traditional tribal Jewish cohesion through loss of religious belief and through communism. Zionism chose ethnocentrism as its way to cement tribal cohesion, and ethnocentrism is a form of racism. I think Akiva Orr describes it well here:

      Certainly Jewish prejudice against non-Jews was a significant factor in early Zionism, and its beliefs and actions towards the Palestinians, who were certainly seen as inferior. At this point I see the same general "anti-goy" prejudice, as well as the lack of any real acknowledgement of this prejudice, as the core reason why there is such pushback for Zionism and against treating all people as equal before the law and the state in Israel. That includes the prejudice of some American Jews and non-Jewish Zionists, and sometimes even among those who oppose Zionism.

      Rabbi Alissa Wisse's speech to the Friends of Sabeel several months ago highlighted this lack of confrontation with Jewish prejudice. She talked about being told that no one helped the Jews during the Holocaust and how much that traumatized her. Of course she was taught that by her Jewish day school and still considers herself getting over her trauma. She doesn't seem to recognize that what she was taught was not only incorrect, it was a manifestation of Jewish bigotry against non-Jews. She lauded the Christians there for "getting out from under" the Christian church's anti-semitism, but only mentioned getting over her "trauma", rather than getting over the anti-goyism of her Jewish childhood schooling. She isn't facing her own prejudices, but instead urging others to do so with their own (non-Jewish) prejudices, in a setting concerned with helping Palestinians overcoming real and deadly consequences of Jewish bigotry. Cluelessness doesn't even begin to describe her obvious thought patterns.

      I see a positive feedback loop feeding all this prejudice. The accepted positive stereotype is that Jews are more interested in social justice and not prejudiced the way non-Jews are. At the same time there is the negatiee stereotype that most non-Jews are anti-semitic on some level. Therefore when someone criticizes Israel or Zionists or an individual Jew or group of Jews , particularly if they point out the massive discriminatory or racist actions of a Jewish State, those who are invested to some extent in this stereotype as part of their self-identity can't accept that. The critic MUST be wrong, because 'Jews don't do that'. So why are these other people falsely criticizing Israel, they ask themselves? It must be because they are anti-semitic, they think because they already believe that non-Jews are inherently anti-semitic at core. Thus a circular reaffirmation of their own prejudices occurs. Which is not to say that no Jews ever question the prejudice they might have been taught, or that might still exist in their own beliefs, but the number that haven't confronted this prejudice in their environment and their own thought processes is significant. Its the vast majority in Israel and possibly even a majority in the US. White prejudice had to be confronted by whites on an individual as well as a group basis in order to accomplish the goals of the civil rights movement. And the majority of whites during that time did harbor various degrees of racism. The confrontation of those white prejudices has certainly not been complete, even at this late date, but so far there is very little self-confrontation of Jewish prejudice. I see that as a necessary component of attaining justice and equality for the Palestinians. It all boils down to a question of Jewish self-identity, and confronting the reality rather than embracing the stereotype.

      Sorry for the long and somewhat rambling response.

    • Jon

      You didn't really answer my question about sexism except in a vague and roundabout way. Can I assume that you agree that sexism is wrong and that women's rights are a subset of human and civil rights?

      You yourself called King a "civil rights paragon" and yet he had a blind spot with regards to women's civil rights. This doesn't make sexism right or acceptable so why do you assume that Zionism is acceptable just because you believe, rightly or wrongly, that King was Zionist? Or am I wrong and because King was sexist then its A-OK to be sexist as well, because you feel that you can relinquish your own responsibility for all your moral decisions to a simple question of "What would MLK think?".

      And BTW, calling MLK sexist is just being honest about a moral flaw in a man who lived 50 years ago, when such a moral blind spot was commonplace. It isn't "demonization". So why do you claim that calling Zionism a form of racism and calling Zionists racists is "demonization"? It is just as accurate a description as calling someone who harbors sexist attitudes a sexist.

      I don't know whether I'd call MLK an "expert" on racism, but he was a civil rights leader who called for equality of opportunity and for economic justice, and yet he failed on these two civil rights when it came to his attitudes towards women. He obviously could be fallible and mistaken on civil rights issues. Women's rights are not some foreign subject so different from racial civil rights that could justify the difference you are attempting to claim between him being so wrong on women's rights and yet somehow right by default of being a civil rights "paragon" and an "expert" in your words with respect to racism.

      And I would be willing to bet significant money that one subject on which MLK was clearly not an expert was Zionism. Frankly there were very few experts in the US on the intricacies and history of Zionism back in 1968.

      I doubt that King knew that the JNF, in its founding charter in 1901, demanded restrictive covenants on the land it bought in Palestine, preventing non-Jews from living or working on such land, and preventing non-Jews from ever purchasing that land in the future. I doubt he knew that Zionists evicted Palestinian tenant farmers from lands they and their ancestors may have worked for centuries; farmers who had clear usufructuary rights to work that land under Ottoman and earlier Muslim land law. I doubt that he knew that the Zionists called that discriminatory policy the "conquest of land" and they likewise engaged in the "conquest of labor" which not only advocated boycotting of non-Jewish labor by Jewish businesses, but also advocated that the British government give preferential employment to Jews over Arabs and pay Jews a higher wage than it paid non-Jews. I doubt that he knew that the Zionists opposed Great Britain instituting an agricultural loan program in the early 1920's to help the Palestinian farmers who were hurt financially by the end of Ottoman agricultural loans, unless those loans were administered by the Zionist Anglo-Palestine Bank and distributed loans to foreign Jewish farmers as well, even though the Zionist apparatus already provided loans to foreign Jews, and only foreign Jews, itself. I also doubt that he knew that the Great Arab Revolt of 1936 against Great Britain began as a direct result of efforts by the Zionist Jewish Agency to forcibly, and sometimes quite violently, displace Palestinian workers in Jewish owned businesses in the mid 1930's. I likewise doubt that he knew that numerous ZIonist founders and executives talked about the transfer of Palestinians out of the country for decades before the Palestinians were violently displaced en masse in 1948. I doubt that he knew that Israel's "Law of Return" was originally formulated not to provide refuge for those who might have needed it, but to solve Israel's problem of how to provide citizenship for all the Jews that then lived in what was then Israel while denying the same to the the vast majority of Palestinians who should have had exactly the same citizenship rights as the Jews who lived there. I likewise doubt that he knew Israel only accepted the Partition Plan with exceptions, including no agreement to the territorial limits of the Jewish state, or the guarantee of civil rights to non-Jews. In other words, all the Zionists "agreed to" was what they wanted in the first place, a Jewish state. I also doubt that he knew that from 1948 through 1966 the Palestinian non-Jewish "citizens" of Israel were ruled under military law, unlike all the Jewish citizens. Or that since 1948, not only has Israel confiscated land owned privately by the Palestinians who were forced out of the country, but also the majority of the land owned by its own Palestinian citizens, and for the most part it did so and continues to do so to provide more housing for Jews only. It's refused to connect some Palestinian villages in Israel that existed prior to Israel's creation to the same electrical , water and sewage services that it routinely provides to all Jewish localities in Israel and even to the majority of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, regardless of whether Israel even considers those Jewish settlements legal or not. I also doubt that he knew that the IDF shot and killed thousands of Palestinian refugees simply trying to return to their homes in the early 1950's.

      I could go on and on with the racist things that Zionism, and the Israel that it created in its image, did prior to 1968 which exactly fit the definition of racist and discriminatory acts. Either MLK was completely ignorant of these things or he was one of the biggest hypocrites of all time, excusing and even supporting Jewish racism. I think its more likely that, like the vast majority of Americans, he was mostly ignorant of all this, and fed instead with the false narratives of eternal and universal Jewish innocence and high moral character. These points I mentioned are the facts of Zionism's existence and its lack of morality. Trying to convince us all that Zionism isn't racism despite its own actions and ideology just because MLK was supposedly a Zionist is an immoral folly.

      Again, the question is not what did MLK think of Zionism, but are all these actions I have enumerated, as well as the numerous ones I haven't mentioned here, and the ones committed by Israel since 1968, acts of racism or not? I say they are and if you support an ideology that underpins and commits these racist acts, then you are supporting a form of racism, which honestly makes you a racist. Whether you like the label or not, it is an entirely accurate one.


      To Roha and Mooser, thanks for the kind comments.

      I strongly agreed with your eloquent comment above, Roha, although I must confess the occasional desire to invade Russia myself. Too much Dostoevsky as a child, I'm afraid. ;-)

    • Jon, you are using an appeal to authority to justify the racism inherent in Zionism. The question is not was MLK a Zionist or not, but rather is ZIonism a form of racism and if it is, which I and most of us here agree it is, is Zionism wrong? Is racism wrong?

      Even civil rights icons can be imperfect and subject to fallacies and petty prejudices, whether positive or negative. MLK himself was clearly sexist in orientation despite also being a civil rights hero. Does that make sexism OK?

      No, it merely illustrates that even heroes and moral icons can have faults and and their own areas of moral blindness. Just as Thomas Jefferson could write the Declaration of Independence, declaring all men equal and yet own slaves, and ignore Native Americans' rights (as well as women's rights).

      This doesn't mean that one can today pretend that acceptance of slavery or prejudice against people based on ethnicity or gender is just a matter of opinion on which reasonable people can differ. And yet that is your position on ZIonism. Is racism wrong in your opinion, or is it acceptable if Jews are the ones doing racist acts and governing a racist state?

      As an aside, concerning King's statements at the Rabbinical Assembly, which were answers to questions rather than a speech, its clear from the time frame of his answers and the things that King said that when he was referring to the "Middle East Crisis" in March of 1968, he was referring to the then recent 1967 Six Day War, and his belief in the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state. He does not mention Palestinians at all, and when he mentions Arabs it is in the context of Arab nations, which no doubt referred at that time to Egypt, Syria and Jordan. His reference to Israel as a beacon of democracy and brotherhood was, as Donald points out, completely erroneous and only illustrates either profound ignorance on his part, or a pandering to his audience, or at worse case an expression of prejudice in favor of Jews, whom, in this assembly at least, were his allies in the US movement. I don't see it as an endorsement of Zionism. I'm sure, if asked, he would have also averred his belief in the US's right to exist as a sovereign state as well. It would be utterly ridiculous to therefore assume that he was a segregationist just because the US was in many ways and many places a segregated country in his lifetime. Israel does not need to be Zionist to exist, anymore than the US needs to be racist, or Italy needed to be fascist, etc, etc, in order to exist.

      To quote Michael Eric Dyson, who wrote about the sexism in the US civil rights movement, and the sexism of MLK himself, in his book, "I May Not Get There with You":

      "We need not idolize King to appreciate his worth; neither do we need to honor him by refusing to confront his weaknesses and his limitations. In assessing King's life, it would be immoral to value the abstract good of human perfection over concrete goods like justice, freedom, and equality -- goods that King valued and helped make more accessible in our national life."

      Whether or not MLK approved of ZIonism is not the important factor in judging Zionism. Zionism and what it stands for is the only moral basis on which to judge it. It most emphatically does not stand for justice, freedom and equality, and stands for racial/religious privilege (often in extreme and violent form) and thus is racist. If MLK was in fact a ZIonist, which is still unproven, it only illustrates a weakness of his, just as his sexism illustrated one of his weaknesses. It in no way exonerates Zionism, which must be judged by its own merits or lack of same, not whether someone you might admire endorsed it or not.

  • A majority of Palestinians support armed intifada as means of self-defense
    • I agree with Annie. Hophmi's not dumb, although he's not the brightest bulb on the tree either.

      He's purposely conflating non-violence, which is a tactic, with pacifism, which is a belief system, in order to attack BDS, which is not even mentioned in this article except in Phil's last sentence.

      I participated in demonstrations against the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and against Israel's numerous incursions. All were non-violent and I only participated in them because they were intended to be non-violent. That has nothing to do with the fact that I am not a pacifist and believe that the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and even the US and Israel have a right to defend themselves violently from a violent attack. (Although the US and Israel's concept of "defense" is highly problematic to say the least.) People can be non-violent and yet not pacifistic, despite Hophmi's implication otherwise, and I'm sure he knows that, but won't admit it in the case of Palestinians.

      I'm sure that Hophmi has attended demonstrations supporting Israel. Maybe he's even done so as a member of his "outreach group". He supports Israeli violence against Palestinians. He wouldn't be so silly as to claim that he or his outreach group wasn't non-violent because of that. That kind of silliness he reserves for his arguments against anyone who opposes the crap that Israel does, in the hopes of convincing susceptable people with false equivalences and strawman arguments.

      Hophmi's a lawyer. Whether he does this stuff here because he's paid or because he's so rapped up in his own Jewish brand of prejudice that he can't see straight and does it out of a perverted sense that he is defending something other than bald-faced institutional racism, who knows. He's been doing this for years here.

    • Do you consider your support for Israel violent because you support an armed and violent Israel, hophmi?

  • Letter to J.K. Rowling: For the sake of all Palestinian children who love Harry you need to say their lives matter
    • Good letter. I would have added that if Rowling is a believer in dialogue then she needs to speak those very things that the letter writer mentioned as part of that dialogue. If the dialogue isn't is honest then it does nothing. And the dialogue needs to expand beyond just the Palestinians and the Israelis. Rowling has the fame and fortune to expand many ordinary people's understanding of what is going on in I/P.

      Also, if Rowling is against boycotts, then she should likewise be against Israel's blockade of Gaza, which is so much more punitive than BDS. She should state that loud and clear as well as part of the dialogue she supports.

  • Palestinian Harry Potter fan challenges J. K. Rowling on BDS using lessons from Hogwarts
    • "revoked for his or her inability to navigate."

      Or, in this case, revoked for daring to speak Spanish that idiotic Israeli passengers can't understand. How dare he! Off with his head.

    • Hilarious. The Israeli passengers hear things that aren't there and get offended.

      About a place they claim never existed.

      Haunted by their guilt and prejudice. Everyone is against them, even when they aren't.

  • Boston-area conference aims to change the US political equation on Israel and Palestine
    • He sounds like a white person insisting that whites were "more effective advocates" in the condemnation of Jim Crow racism. There's the extreme hateful prejudice of Jim Crow - and of Israel - and then there's the more genteel variety, of which MJ is a classic example.

  • Video: Israeli mob attacks Eritrean, mistaking him for Bedouin assailant
    • "However, because the rioters thought he was a terrorist, we must remember the moral principle that every IDF soldier is taught: After the enemy is neutralized and is no longer a danger, he should not be harmed,” Shelah said.

      Is every IDF soldier taught that before or after they are taught how to "confirm the kill"? If it wasn't so tragic this kind of moral cluelessness would be hilarious.

      From 2006:

      Not guilty. The Israeli captain who emptied his rifle into a Palestinian schoolgirl

      An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

      The soldier, who has only been identified as "Captain R", was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.

      The manner of Iman's killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.

      After the verdict, Iman's father, Samir al-Hams, said the army never intended to hold the soldier accountable.

      "They did not charge him with Iman's murder, only with small offences, and now they say he is innocent of those even though he shot my daughter so many times," he said. "This was the cold-blooded murder of a girl. The soldier murdered her once and the court has murdered her again. What is the message? They are telling their soldiers to kill Palestinian children."

      The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.

      Capt R's lawyers argued that the "confirmation of the kill" after a suspect is shot was a standard Israeli military practice to eliminate terrorist threats.

      more at link below.

      link to

      This ("confirming the kill")has been standard practice for the IDF for decades.

      ‘Another paediatrician and another baker
      Got a bullet in the face from a paratroopers unit
      All day we search houses and kill children’

      - Extract from a song of an Israeli paratroopers’ unit that participated in Operation Calm Waters in Nablus, beginning of 2004.

      On 16 September 2005, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot published an interview with the commander of the IDF paratroopers unit that came up with that song. “Commander R” described the extraordinarily permissive open-fire rules under which his unit operated when they were based in Nablus, which on some nights mandated the killing of any Palestinian who happened to be seen on the street:

      “My team killed six innocent people, or probably innocent,” says “R”, a commander in an elite paratroopers’ unit. “We would joke about it and give them code names: the baker, the woman, the child, the old man, the drummer. Some of them by mistake, but as I see it, they were simply executed on illegal orders.

      “There were many nights on which we received orders that whoever we see on the street between two and four in the morning is sentenced to death [dino mavet]. Those were the exact words…”

      "The Baker” whose death provided such a source of amusement for the Israeli soldiers who killed him was a 25-year-old Palestinian named Ala Adin Masud Adawiya. He was walking to his job at the a-Silawi Bakery in Nablus at about 3:00am on 18 December 2003 when he was shot once by an IDF sniper, then eight more times from close range as he lay wounded on the ground by IDF soldiers who arrived on the scene in a Jeep to “confirm the kill”. Adawiya was shot because, unbeknown to him, he was walking to work on one of the nights when soldier R’s paratroop unit had received orders that whoever we see on the street between two and four in the morning is sentenced to death…

      link to

      Note: The two alias "R"s in these separate instances are not the same person.

  • Critics hammer 'NYT's Rudoren for daring to convey Palestinian experience
    • Yes, quite interesting in comparing the editions. Thanks. The NY Times already appears to have softened the article by eliminating words and sentences here and there which reflect the predicament and sentiments of the Palestinian East Jerusalemites.

      As for the 3 sentence paragraph you mention, the 2nd one (since eliminated) is probably the most accurate, although even that one is not entirely accurate.

      The first is incorrect because Israel only offers the right to apply for citizenship, not the right to guaranteed citizenship itself, to resident East Jerusalemites. As I have mentioned elsewhere, two thirds of the Palestinian East Jerusalemite applications for citizenship are denied by Israel.

      And although residency does entitle them to similar social service benefits, their residency can be revoked for failing to maintain Jerusalem as the their "center of life", including attending higher education overseas for 7 years, or maintaining a residence in other parts of the West Bank, even if it is just outside the municipal border. When Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem, they expanded the borders 10 fold, but sliced the territory in such a way that West Bank village agricultural land was annexed, but the village itself was not, creating a larger Jerusalem at the expense of the Palestinians without having to give those so harmed any rights of residency.

      Also, residency was only granted to Palestinians who were present in East Jerusalem on the date at which Israel conducted their census. Anyone outside of the area, even for that one time, were denied residency rights. Residents must meet certain conditions to pass their residency on to their children, and a West Banker marrying an East Jerusalemite does not gain residency rights him/herself, but must apply for "family reunification", which is a long and difficult process. Otherwise they have no right to live with their East Jerusalem spouse, according to Israeli law.

      And as for the 3rd (since removed) sentence, while voting in municipal elections might gain the Palestinian East Jerusalemites some municipal influence, in the larger picture, budgets are set at the national level and would counteract any possible municipal gains.

      link to

  • Set up? Video appears to show Israeli soldier placing object next to Palestinian killed in Hebron (Update)
    • The Italian Air Force bombed Tel Aviv and killed over 120 Jews.

      More about the bombing:

      Starting in July 1940, the Italian bombings in the British Mandate of Palestine were primarily centered on Tel Aviv and Haifa. However, many other coastal towns such as Acre and Jaffa also suffered.[1][2]

      The last Italian bombing on the territories of the British Mandate of Palestine occurred in June 1941. Haifa and Tel Aviv where hit, but with few damages and casualties.

      Bombing of Haifa

      Haifa was hit many times by the Italians, because of the port and refinery, starting in June 1940.

      The 29 July 1940 issue of Time reported a bombing at Haifa by SM82 bombers during the previous week, with a dozen casualties.

      According to Time Magazine, the Italians claimed a huge success which the British did not deny.

      Where the British oil pipeline from Mosul reaches tidewater, "Ten big Italian bombers, flying at great altitude from the Dodecanese Islands, giving the British bases at Cyprus a wide berth, dumped 50 bombs on the Haifa oil terminal and refinery."

      The bombing started fires which burned for many days afterward, and the refinery's production was blocked for nearly one month.
      British fighters from a base on Mt. Carmel were too late to overtake the Italians returning to their base in Italian Dodecanese.[3]

      Bombing of Tel Aviv

      On 9 September 1940, a bombing raid on Tel Aviv caused 137 deaths.[4] There was another raid on Tel Aviv on 12 June 1941 with 13 deaths, done by the Italians[5] or by the French, based in Syria.[6]

      Historian Alberto Rosselli [7] pinpointed that the bombing of Tel Aviv that caused 137 death was because the Italian bombers were on their way to the strategic port and refineries of Haifa, but were intercepted by British aircraft. Forced to go back, the Italians received orders to drop their bombs on the port of Tel Aviv, but in attempting to avoid the attacking British planes they dropped the bombs by mistake on a civilian area near the port.

      link to

      Its quite telling that Jackdaw only mentions the deaths of Jews, as if they are the only civilians that matter, and as if the Italian bombs (and bombers) purposely dropped them on Jews and no one else.

    • After Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage in 1994, it came out in testimony before the Orr Commission from the IDF soldiers in Hebron that they were given explicit orders when serving there that they were not to return fire or attempt to stop any Jewish settler there who was committing an act of violence against Palestinians. They were told to huddle down and protect themselves but otherwise not to interfere.

      The commander of paramilitary border police in Hebron, where the Feb. 25 massacre occurred, said standing orders prohibit security forces from firing upon Jews whatever the circumstance--whether to stop an attack on Palestinians, to prevent a crime or even to defend themselves.

      "If a Jewish settler fires his weapon . . . at locals (Palestinians) to the extent that he is shooting with intent (to do harm) and not just firing warning shots in the air, it is still forbidden to shoot at him," Chief Supt. Meir Tayar testified.

      "You take cover and wait for the clip to finish or for the gun to jam," Tayar continued, explaining what was required under the orders, "and then you stop him in some other way, but not by shooting."

      Lt. Col. Yemini Canaan, the army's operations officer for West Bank forces, testified later that the order was confirmed and enlarged immediately after Israeli settlers from Hebron and nearby Kiryat Arba rampaged through central Hebron in December, attacking Palestinian residents and shooting wildly in the densely populated city. "The order was not to fire in any event, in any circumstance, against the settlers," Canaan said. "It was absolute."

      In his testimony, Tayar said of the Hebron massacre, "Even if I had been there, I could not have done anything--there were special orders."

      Tayar said the unwritten instructions, acknowledged Thursday by both paramilitary border forces and army officials, were issued by Meir Khalifi, the army battalion commander who testified earlier and never mentioned this point. Canaan said similar orders were given in all units operating on the West Bank.

      link to

      The IDF soldiers' sole job there is to protect the settlers, regardless of what violence those settlers perpetrate against Palestinians. They only protect Jewish settlers, and in some instances the settlers issue orders to various IDF soldiers, who are expected to respect those orders, if they don't want to face repercussions. That's why Hebron is considered the worse posting for the average IDF soldier.

      link to

  • On Bret Stephens' hate speech
    • “We understand {the power of hatred} especially when it is the hatred of the powerful against the weak.”

      Did Stephens really write that?

      Yes, and for two reasons that I see. Number one, it gives him an excuse to mention the Holocaust. Number two, he's blaming the weak(Palestinians) for being trampled by the strong (Israeli Jews). Its his way of expressing his feelings of Jewish moral supremacy.

    • We should keep in mind that while Bret Stephens mouths white racism in support of Israel’s efforts to eliminate the Palestinian people,

      It's not white racism. Its Jewish racism. He isn't bemoaning the death of whites, he's upset about the deaths of Jews and calling all Palestinians evil for wanting to "kill Jews". Why is there this need to call it "white racism" when the compelling factor in the whole horrible mess in Israel is Jewish racism, there and here? If we can't name the problem but instead feel the need to blame it on white racism, which is at fault for its own set of problems, then how are we ever going to confront it and overcome it?

  • NPR fails to mention occupation-- while Barghouti says in Guardian it is 'root cause' of violence
    • That’s their choice, not Israel’s. Palestinians in East Jerusalem are free to become Israeli citizens anytime they choose.

      This is false. JeffB tried to peddle the same garbage and provided a link which actually refuted his claim.

      I'll quote again from the link, from page 22 of the International Crisis Group Report, second paragraph and footnote 205:

      "Assessing the extent to which applications for Israeli citizenship among East Jerusalemites have trended upward during the last decade is difficult because the government has released contradictory figures. About 13,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem (roughly 5 per cent of the Arab population) are reported to have citizenship,203 though it seems likely a significant proportion are members of Israel’s Palestinian minority who have moved to Jerusalem for work or family reasons.204 In terms of applications,the interior ministry said that almost 7,000 individuals applied for citizenship between 2001 and 2010 205 – a relatively small number – yet two thirds of these applications were made from 2008 2010.206 "

      Footnote 205:"Roughly one third were approved, one third were denied and one third were deferred. Central Bureau of Statistics response to Crisis Group question.

      link to

      So even among the small number of Palestinian Jerusalemites who applied for Israeli ciizenship, two thirds were turned down by the Israeli government. Israel has total control over who becomes a citizen in East Jerusalem, not the Palestinians themselves.

      And as Yoni points out, the application process itself is time consuming and expensive, thus discouraging many from applying in the first place, not to mention the fact that any Palestinian Jerusalemite who happens to have Jordanian citizenship, or the possibility of future Palestinian citizenship must renounce that citizenship in order to apply for Israeli citizenship.

      Hophmi doesn't deal in facts when it comes to Israel. He prefers to peddle hasbara about his fantasy Israel.

  • Hectored by Zionist wannabe archaeologists, 'NYT' recasts article on Jewish temples
    • He can only get employment in Tablet. Speaking of which, what happened to the Jewish press?

      I thought Liebowitz was part of the meritocracy Phil talks about.

    • Muslims sacrifice millions of animals during the holiday of Eid-ul-Adha.

      I think you are confusing ritual slaughter with animal sacrifice. Ritual slaughter includes human consumption of the meat of the animal, animal sacrifice involves making the animal a sacrifice to God, not humans. Eid-ul-Adha, celebrating the sacrifice of Abraham, has the animal meat divided into 3 parts with a third going to the family, a third to friends and neighbors and a third to the needy.

      I don't know if the contemplated "animal sacrifices" would include ritual slaughter or not, but all kosher meat must follow ritual slaughter techniques, and the same goes for halal .

    • Sibiriak and echinococcus,

      If you look at the comments section of Sibiriak's link to you'll notice that either "benedict" is richard's commenter "eli" and he cut and pasted his own comment from November , 2013 in the comments here, or else they both cut and pasted it from some other source, maybe the hasbara manual.

      From that link I also found a link to what seems to be the BBC documentary MDM is talking about. For anyone interested its here

      link to

      Warning: it has the irritating propensity to abruptly shove a commercial in here and there.

  • Salaita, Khalidi, Bayoumi appearances make this a landmark week in NY
    • Again, if I heard him say “we are not calling her an anti semite” then a few sentences later say ” we have the right not to associate with an anti-semite and white supremacist,” I would infer that the “anti-semite and white supremacist” phrase refers to Clay Douglas.

      But the question never was "Does JVP and ETO have a right not to associate with Clay Douglas, or agree to an interview with him?" so stating they have a right not to associate with him makes no sense. The question has always been about the banning of association with Weir. It sounds like Abunimah is trying to claim that he ISN'T calling her an anti-semite and white supremacist, while implying that she is. A sort of non-plausible deniability. Its a hypocritical stand, but then the whole JVP stand is highly hypocritical, since they have associated with JStreet and attempted to associate with Hillel, both of which are Zionist. And Zionism is a form of racism. So they have nothing against "associating" with certain types of racists (Zionists) And that associaion goes way beyond Weir's couple of radio interviews from 6 years ago.

  • Iran Deal coalition breaks apart, and J Street looks more and more like AIPAC
    • To be more precise, you have to accept JVP's framing of both issues; that Weir didn't sufficiently challenge and that focusing on American interest is chauvinistic (and/or racist-I'm not entirely clear on JVP's reasoning here). Then, if you accept their framing you have to decide if those two points are sufficient to ban all collaboration. Then you have to likewise decide if JVP's similar actions and statements (accepting similar interviews as well as speaking at J Street events and their framing of their involvement in terms of Jewish connections and values) violate the very same principles that it accuses Weir of violating. If so, then you have to ban all collaboration with JVP, or cut everyone, including JVP and Weir, some slack, slap a few wrists and get on with the job of fighting bigotry and oppression. And read the book.

  • Amnesty: Killing of Hadeel al-Hashlamoun was 'extrajudicial execution'
    • Little known historical fact: The Soweto Uprising in 1976 South Africa started as a protest by high school students against a new decree by the government that Afrikaans must be the language of instruction in all black high schools. Another fact from the uprising- the students threw stones at police in response to tear gas. What is most remembered is that the South African police then shot over a hundred of the 20,000 some students who protested.

      I think many people agree the oppressed had a right to protest having to use the language of the oppressor, and they had a right to throw stones without being shot and killed. Too bad the usual apologists for Israel don't apply the same reasoning to Palestinians that they are willing to apply to black South Africans.

    • JRD

      One thing you will notice if you post here regularly is that the clearing of comments is rather haphazard. The place is understaffed for moderators and they aren't always available so there may be a backlog. Then, when someone is available and comments do get cleared, they don't always get cleared in the order in which they are posted.Sometimes new comments get cleared before older comments or comments on a more active thread are cleared faster than those on other threads. And a few longtime posters have their comments cleared in a more streamlined system. I'd suggest not taking it personally. It isn't intended that way, its just a part of the vagaries of a small volunteer moderation system.

  • How Israel legitimizes vigilante terror
    • A day after deir yassin 78 docters etc. where murdered in the Hadassah convoy. No arab leader condemned the massacre.

      From Wikipedia( yes I know its not the best source, but in this case it provides valuable context):

      The Hadassah convoy massacre took place on April 13, 1948, when a convoy, escorted by Haganah militia, bringing medical and military supplies and personnel to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus was ambushed by Arab forces.[1][2]
      Seventy-eight Jewish doctors, nurses, students, patients, faculty members and Haganah fighters, and one British soldier were killed in the attack. Dozens of unidentified bodies, burned beyond recognition, were buried in a mass grave in the Sanhedria Cemetery. The Jewish Agency claimed that the massacre was a gross violation of international humanitarian law, and demanded action be taken against a breach of the Geneva Conventions.[1] The Arabs claimed they had attacked a military formation, that all members of the convoy had engaged in combat, and that it had been impossible to distinguish combatants from civilians. An enquiry was conducted. Eventually an agreement was reached to separate military from humanitarian convoys.[2]

      More on the inquiry:

      (T)he Jewish Agency requested that the Red Cross intervene over what they called a grave Arab violation of the conventions. An inquiry conducted among the Arabs, Jews and the British suggested the circumstances were more complex. The firefight had lasted several hours, indicating that the convoy was armed. The Arabs claimed that they had attacked the military formation by blowing up the armoured cars. They were unable to make a distinction between military and civilians because, they maintained, all the Jews, including the medical personnel, had taken part in the battle.[2] The Jews claimed that they had the right to protect their medical convoys with troops. They admitted in the end, according to Jacques de Reynier, that they had been relieving the unit at the Hadassah hospital and furnishing the troop there with ammunition with the same convoys as those of the Red Shield. This practice was justified, they said, because the role of that troop was exclusively one of defending the hospital. De Reynier repeated the position of the Red Cross, that a mobil medical unit must move around unarmed and always separately from combat units. One had a choice between having recourse to armed protection or the protection of the Geneva Conventions and the Red Cross flag. Both staging troops in a position of strategic importance, and refurnishing them with supplies, de Reynier argued, had nothing to do with the hospital's functions. The Jewish Agency had been prepared to have the troop stationed there withdrawn and its protection entrusted to the Red Cross, but was overruled by the Haganah, which insisted that convoys to the hospital could not pass unless they went under military escort. De Reynier then volunteered to put this to the test with a practical proof that an unarmed convoy could pass. The following day, without warning the Arabs, he led a small column of vehicles, under a Red Cross flag, while the following cars displayed the red shield. Their passage passed without a shot fired, and de Reynier argued that this was proof that the Arabs respected the Red Cross. The result was that leaders on both sides eventually ordered that military operations were to be separated from activities associated with medical assistance and the Red Cross.[2]

      link to

    • To be completely factual the 254 number was quoted at the time by members of the Irgun and Lehi, who were responsible for the massacre. Apparently no one at the time asked the surviving villagers how many were killed.

      Several decades later, in 1988, in a research study from the Palestinian Bir Zeit University, the surviving villagers of Deir Yassin were actually asked to number and name those who were killed. According to villagers' memories the number killed was 107. Pretty much immediately afterwards this new lower number was glommed onto by various and sundry Zionists , including the ZOA. (Perhaps the first case of the ZOA accepting Palestinian sources.) Of course in this case it was because the 1988 Palestinian figures were lower than the professed Irgun numbers reported by international newspapers immediately after the massacre.

      At present time some Zionist apologists even try to imply that the larger number was the result of "Arab propagandists" rather than from the perpetrators themselves, and ignore the fact that the lower number was the result of a Palestinian study, not an Israeli one. The GOI has still refused to declassify any documents (including pictures taken after the massacre) from Deir Yassin, despite the fact that it is now nearly another 30 years past the usual 30 year mark for declassifying Israeli government documents.

      As a personal aside, I'm not sure that a number arrived at 40 years after the fact is necessarily the most accurate either. I would suspect it to be somewhat lower than the actual number, memories being what they are. So the number is probably somewhere in between the two figures, IMHO.

  • Israeli gov't used my image for propaganda purposes without my consent
    • not necessarily “adores” but might be ambivalent about experience with Israelis in general until she was pressured to reject any positive aspect to the GOI

      What "positive aspect" do you think she experienced? The 3 GOI military assaults on Gaza that she experienced since 2008? The repeated GOI rejections of her request for a permit to leave so she could study abroad ? The refusal of her request to visit her uncle in Ramallah before leaving? The fact that they didn't shoot her at the crossing?

      Why do apologists for Israel act as if there is some "positive aspect" to the GOI for Palestinians? Do they really think the rest of us are so stupid, or are they so brainwashed (or stupid?) that they believe it themselves?

  • Could Syria's revolution have been different?
    • Beezlebubelaroo..

      Really? You feel the need to resort to serial name calling to make your points? Give it up. You aren't impressing anyone here with your name calling and comparisons to Stalin. Why make this so personal? Either you have the facts or you don't. And right now your name calling only leads me to believe you don't.

  • 'NYT' misrepresents Iran's prediction about 'Zionist regime' to mean 'Israel'
    • And as for the ridiculous notion that AIPAC is (or was) the most ‘powerful lobby’ here is a LINK-[yes-i actually found cause to link] to a site that is most decidedly ANTI Israel ANTI Zionist and anti-everything that has to do with Israel-The Angry Arab citing a list of the top 10 nations paying for influence in the US government. So much for the protocols.

      I'm not sure whether your problem is poor reading comprehension or faulty logic. AIPAC is not a foreign country. Therefore it would not be on the list of top ten foreign governments paying for influence, or even on the list of bottom ten foreign governments. Its funny how lists work that way, but if your group doesn't fit the definition of the list, it doesn't appear on the list, no matter how much it spends.

      However, the fact that AIPAC et al spent some $40 million on just one issue this year means that if it was a foreign government it would be at the top of the list and the amount spent would be greater than the top 3 countries combined. If you add in all the associated pro-Israel lobbying groups' and PACs' 2015 spending it would dwarf that of all 10 of the foreign governments.

      P.S. you didn't link to the article you cited. You just copied and pasted. Here's what an actual link looks like:

      link to

      You can accomplish this yourself by copying the url for the article you wish to link and pasting it in your comment.

  • The Star of David is fair game
    • Sweetie, the flying pig in question had all 3 Abrahamic religious symbols on it, not just the Star of David. Only the Star of David on the pig received any vocal condemnation. So please explain how the 3 things are completely different and only the Star of David is found offensive, and also explain how you were completely clueless to the fact that the flying pig balloon had both the Crucifix and the Crescent and Star on it.

    • The Roger Waters flying pig not only had a Star of David on it; it also had a Crucifix, a Crescent and Star as well as a hammer and sickle, a dollar sign, a Mercedes symbol, a McDonald's sign and a Shell Oil sign.

      I can find no internet link to any objection to the Crescent and Star or to the Crucifix that were illuminated on the very same Waters' flying pig.

      link to

  • Racism in Arad: Mayor declares southern Israeli town off-limits to Africans
    • Lets be very clear that at the core of Jewish “ethnocentrism” is a great hatred/fear of Jews and non-Jews of a darker hue –

      But the level of fear of the non-Jew is much greater because the hatred of the non-Jew is greater. Jews of Arab or African descent are still considered Jews and thus not as significant a "demographic threat" as non-Jews are. Although the Ashkenazim might be disappointed to be outnumbered by the presumed "inferior" Mizrahim and Ethiopian Jews, in the final analysis they are all Jews and don't threaten the demographics of the Jewish State like the Palestinians, the foreign workers (including the Eastern European ones) and the African asylum seekers do.

      The mayor didn't ban Ethiopian Jews from the town of Arad. He banned African non-Jews. There's a difference in the level of discrimination one faces in Israel depending on the religious background of the person.

    • But its important to remember that the African Asylum seekers main "offense" against the Jewish State is that they aren't Jewish. Israel has been doing this kind of crap since its very beginnings, as did the early Zionists before its creation. They didn't need to "seize" an ugly American tradition (since abandoned thankfully) to do this. Its the nature of Zionism. Let's not try to morph this into white racism. Its Jewish ethnocentrism at its heart.

  • 'Jimmy Carter's cancer is God's punishment,' says leading Israeli newspaper
    • shorter yonah: ‘i’m the arbitrator of what is and is not news.’

      With addendum: 'I'm the expert on stupid.'

  • Pappé on apartheid, ideology, Chomsky, and the contradictions of "liberal Zionism"
    • Thanks for posting this, Henry. Pappe's got a great mind and he's funny too. I loved this bit:

      It is very interesting if you mentioned, you know, Democracy Now or The Nation. These are the venues where people who stretch the word Zionism to such an extent that if they would one day leave it, I do not want to be there to get it in the nose. It is like an elastic gum. They have really succeeded in remaining loyal to a basic Zionist idea and yet being very, very liberal and open-minded. I think what I am doing is too much for them. I just pinch the balloon and I say, “Guys, I am sorry, you cannot.” And I know they really mean well. They somehow believe that there could be a Jewish state and it could be liberal, it could be democratic. That Palestinians would be happy with that. [laughs] You know?

      Very inspiring interview.

  • Why the mainstream media is still ignoring Max Blumenthal's excellent book on Gaza
    • Furthermore, Hamas was not invited into negotiations for the "Egyptian" ceasefire, which was pretty much dictated to Egypt by Israel.

      On Monday night the press became aware that a ceasefire proposal was being crafted by the Egyptian government in negotiation with Israel and the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The proposal was delivered to the Hamas leadership shortly before the deadline was to take into effect, and did not include the demands the Hamas party put forward already on the second day of the fighting, conditions that would score the group political capital, namely - the release of its rearrested fmembers, jailed in recent weeks by Israel, the lifting of the 8 year-long blockade on the strip, and the end of fire.

      link to

  • U.S. is even more implicated in Israeli settlement project than we thought
    • Non-Jews would are the spouses of Jewish aliyot are eligible for citizenship through the Law of Return.

      This is not true in the case of spouses who are Palestinian non-citizens, i.e. those from the West Bank or Gaza. Not only does Israel prevent these Palestinians from gaining citizenship, or even residency, if they marry Palestinian citizens of Israel, it also prevents Palestinian spouses of Israeli Jews from gaining citizenship as well as residency rights in Israel.

      Two well known examples of this are the husbands of Neta Golan, a well-known Israeli human rights activist and one of the founders of ISM, and Allegra Pacheco, an Israeli human rights lawyer. Both couples must reside in the Occupied Territories because they are not allowed to even live in Israel together.

      link to

  • Israeli minister says IDF should have fired on unarmed Palestinian protesters for humiliating a soldier
  • Jewish community is Humpty Dumpty-- it won't come back together again, and shouldn't
    • My apologies for the missing apostrophe, RoHa. I know the rule but plead an error of haste and hope the court will let me off with a lenient sentence, so to speak.

      (I'd add a smiley face except it might be considered a second offense.)

Showing comments 4553 - 4501