Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4159 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)

tree

Showing comments 4159 - 4101
Page:

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

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

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

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

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

      Sorry, couldn't resist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to en.wikipedia.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      That's some Catch.

      The beatings will continue until morale improves.

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

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

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

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

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

      Which is my point exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

    • Hillary Clinton is virtually indistinguishable from her male counterparts.

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

    • Sean,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Sean,

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

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

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

      link to shieldsofdavid.blogspot.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      It goes back even farther to Zoroastrianism.

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

  • Witnessing Gaza
    • JeffB.

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

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

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

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

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

      From Matzpen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to matzpen.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Donald,

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

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

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

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

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

      link to electronicintifada.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Her accomplishments are few, and her talents are overrated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Two new videos out by Apartheid Adventures.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to theguardian.com

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

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

      link to internal-displacement.org

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

      link to blog.thejerusalemfund.org

      Come back when you have something other than regurgitated propaganda.

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

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

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

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

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

    • Ian,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to www2.ohchr.org

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

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

      Israel continues to control Gaza through:

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

      More details and explanations here:

      link to gisha.org

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

      link to mondoweiss.net

      As for this:

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

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

      link to mondoweiss.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to foreignpolicyjournal.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      And this is rich:

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

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

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

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

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

      Other reviews:

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

      and

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

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

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

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

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

      All of the ones who signed were tenured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      39 professors at Vassar signed a pro-Palestinian letter

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

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

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

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

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

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

      From your earlier comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to electronicintifada.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing comments 4159 - 4101
Page: