Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3173 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)


Showing comments 3173 - 3101

  • As NY primary approaches, Clinton and Sanders separate, somewhat, on Israel
    • Exactly the sort of person I would imagine who sees himself on the far left and then campaigns for Clinton.

      Quotes from Tony Kushner on Israel and ZIonism:

      “[Israel was] founded in a program that, if you really want to be blunt about it, was ethnic cleansing, and that today is behaving abominably towards the Palestinian people.”
      — Yale Israel Review (winter 2005)

      “I’ve never been a Zionist. I have a problem with the idea of a Jewish state. It would have been better if it never happened.”
      — The New York Sun reporting Kushner comments made at a conference in NY (10/14/02)

      Kushner: Establishing a state means F****** people over. However, I think that people in the late 20th century or early 21st century – having seen the Holocaust, having seen the 20th century and all of its horrors — cannot be complacent in the face of that. Ha’aretz reporter: But you are saying that the very creation of Israel as a Jewish state was not a good idea.
      Kushner: I think it was a mistake.
      — Ha’aretz (4/7/04)

      “Zionism aimed as the establishment of a national identity is predicated on a reading of Jewish history and an interpretation of the meaning of Jewish history I don’t share. Insofar as Zionism is an idea that the solution to the suffering of the Jewish people was the establishment of a Jewish nation, I think it is not the right answer.
      — Ha’aretz (4/7/04)

      “I am not a Zionist in case you haven’t noticed.” Kushner cited “the shame of American Jews” for failing to denounce Israel.”
      — Chicago Tribune (4/10/02)

      “The existence of the state of Israel, because of the terrible way that the Palestinian people have been treated, is now in great peril and the world is in peril as a consequence of it.”
      — In These Times interview (3/4/02)

      “Israel is a foreign country. I am no more represented by Israel than I am by Italy.”
      — Ha’aretz (4/7/04)

      “The Israeli-built security wall should come down, the homeland for the Palestinians should be built up, with a strictly enforced peace, not enforced by the Israel Defense Forces, but by the United Nations.”
      — Baltimore Jewish Times (6/4/04)

      “I deplore the brutal and illegal tactics of the Israeli Defence Forces in the occupied territories. I deplore the occupation, the forced evacuations, the settlements, the refugee camps, the whole shameful history of the dreadful suffering of the Palestinian people; Jews, of all people, with our history of suffering, should refuse to treat our fellow human beings like that.”
      — London Times (5/7/02)

      “[Israel is involved in] a deliberate destruction of Palestinian culture and a systematic attempt to destroy the identity of the Palestinian people.”
      — New York Sun (10/4/02)

      “To avoid facing up to such atrocity, to sustain the refusal of any Israeli share in culpability, Zionism has produced a long, shameful, and debilitating history of denial…”
      — Wrestling with Zion – Introduction p.5

      link to

      Quotes are from a ZOA letter condemning Kushner, posted by Norman Finklestein. As far as I know they are accurate quotes. Kushner is not a Zionist, and he is farther to the left than Bernie Sanders on Israel. He is also a surrogate for Clinton. I assume that is because he thinks she would make a better President than Sanders, despite her hawkishness on Israel. I'd agree with him on that point.

      Mondoweiss has covered Kushner's views here in the past in quite a few posts. See here:

      link to

      I haven't seen Munich and don't have an informed opinion on it, other than having read some reviews of it. However, it certainly isn't the end all and be all of Kushner's political views.

  • Top Israeli officials who issued directive to execute Palestinians hang Hebron killer out to dry
    • He hasn't been abandoned, certainly not "readily and utterly". There are quite a few Israeli politicians making excuses for him. The big shots are just making noises for the international audience because it got caught on video, that's all.

    • Wasn’t he actually convicted of wasting ammunition?

      Nope. He was found not guilty on all charges, but he was never charged with murder, only minor offenses.

      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 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.

      more at link

      link to

  • Israeli soldier filmed executing wounded Palestinian man
    • Its worse than just withholding treatment, old geezer. According to MK Oren Hazan (Likud), the soldier who shot the Palestinian was a MEDIC!

      "Enough, stop already," Hazan responded. "Let the mother of a terrorist cry and not a Jewish mother. A combat soldier, a heroic medic, neutralized a murderer and said 'there was concern that he would blow up with an explosive.' I believe him. Period."

      link to

      Looking at the footage it appears that the shooter was in fact a medic. He is seen earlier tending to the wounded soldier at the ambulance, and his uniform is slightly different from the other combat soldiers, some of whom are nearer to the wounded Palestinian.

      Its a minute 53 seconds into the video before the medic takes his shot, and most probably quite a bit more time before the camerawoman started recording.(The ambulances are there and the wounded soldiers is already on the stretcher. Five minutes, ten minutes?)

      So after all that time, suddenly a medic is worried about a suicide vest? And he doesn't warn the other soldiers who are nonchalantly standing closer to the wounded Palestinian? If you follow his movements it looks more like he decided to shoot the Palestinian well before he was close to him. He's raising his gun well before he walks closer to his victim. Looks like a revenge killing. And no one else seems to bat an eyelash.

      A medic "confirming the kill". The IDF is a morally sick institution.

  • A history of silencing Israeli army whistleblowers – from 1948 until today
    • Got to love the caption on the photo, too.

      "Arab residents leaving Haifa, accompanied by Haganah men, April 1948."

      How considerate of the Haganah men to "accompany" the fleeing residents. And they even brought their rifles for protection. I'm sure that was much appreciated. I'm not at all surprised that Ben Gurion, according to his diary, was aghast at how all those Palestinians could have just up and left.


      And for those of you who don't do links, here's the relevant paragraph about the letter:

      The letter was sent by Ben-Gurion on June 2, 1948, a month and a half after Haifa was captured and a few weeks after Israel's independence was declared. It was addressed to Abba Khoushy, the secretary-general of the Haifa Workers' Council, and later the city’s mayor.

      “I hear that Mr. Marriot (Cyril Marriot, the British Consul in Haifa) is working to return the Arabs to Haifa. I don’t know how it is his business, but until the war is over we don’t want a return of the enemy. And all institutions should act accordingly” instructed Ben-Gurion.

    • Not sure what Jonathan Cook's source was, but I found it describe here in Haaretz:

      link to

      Here's the cached version if you don't have a subscription to get the whole article:

      link to

      On edit: What a whitewash Haaretz did of the story, quoting Shapira at length, claiming that the pathological liar Ben Gurion was SHOCKED at the lack of Palestinians in Haifa after they had been mercilessly attacked and forced out of the city.

  • Zionism's long and rich history of delegitimizing Palestinians
    • I would respond to the question by asking another one. "Do you agree with the sentiments and beliefs avowed in the US Declaration of Independence?" If so, then you agree that governments are only legitimate when they have the consent of the governed, and Israel does not have the consent of the Palestinians to govern them, and treats them as unequal, not worthy of a right to consent. Therefore, Israel, in its present form, should be abolished and a new government, respecting rights for all, regardless of religion or ethnicity, should be formed. (That should be the shared value!)

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      link to

  • 'New York Times' whitewashes poll showing Israeli support for expelling Palestinians
    • he said he doubted many here would feel uncomfortable incriminating people ...

      is basically the same as saying

      many here would feel comfortable...

      Doubting that people would be uncomfortable is in essence the same as saying that people would be comfortable.

      personally speaking, i would not feel uncomfortable in the least incriminating someone suggesting that.

      So SteveC's doubt was correct in your case, and mine, and eljays, and at the very least I would believe it to be correct for the majority of posters here, regardless of background, religion or ethnicity.

    • Whoa there annie. I think you totally misunderstood SteveC's point.

      I doubt many here would feel uncomfortable in incriminating those who would agree with it .

      That means he recognizes that such a statement would be outrageous and "many here" would certainly "incriminate" any one who agreed with such an outrageous statement. In other words, he's agreeing that stating "Jews should be expelled from America" is totally outrageous and not subject to "problematic" interpretation. And then he's contrasting it with the Pew poll question, which the NYT is willing to obfuscate as "problematic" when an equivalent question is asked about "Arabs".

      And I've got to agree that "provocative " "normal" and "consequences" are all vague as formulated in eljay's question. What behavior is or isn't "provocative" or "normal" and what exact "consequences" is the question talking about? Thus they are subject to multiple interpretations whereas eljay's first question is exact and not subject to such multiple interpretations.

  • With hasbara robot, the 'startup nation' enters its decadent phase
    • In the meantime, here's a much more humanitarian use of technology, brought to you by the Rebuilding Alliance and Donna Baranski-Walker. I'd strongly urge anyone who can afford to donate to their efforts to do so tomorrow (Wednesday). Its a great cause and can mean so much to the children of Gaza.

      Here's the letter from the Rebuilding Alliance:

      Hello Friend,

      Yesterday, our first pallet of 1,920 solar-powered Luci lights shipped from China en route to Gaza to Brighten the Future of Gaza's Children! It is scheduled to arrive in Ashdod on April 3rd, pre-cleared to enter Gaza.

      My permit is approved too! I'll be there in April to present a paper at the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme's 6th International conference, 'Mental Health and Human Rights in Palestine – Enhancing Resilience and Hope.' I'll get to meet some of the children and their families who receive the solar lights and bring you their stories.

      Because of your help, we are sending solar lights so children can do their homework, families can cook with light, and little ones can have a nightlight when the power drops out each night. We are sending solar lights so together, we'll press officials to end the blockade of Gaza and give families a way to make a living and recover from trauma and war.

      It is really exciting to hear how creatively groups are organizing events! We'll write more in our next message - but first this:

      Tomorrow, Wednesday Mar. 16th, is the next GlobalGiving Bonus Day Competition. Our goal is to raise $19,200 to send the next pallet of 1,920 solar Luci Lights.

      GlobalGiving will match your donation from 6 AM until 8:55 PM PST, for donations up to $1000. Global Giving is granting a total of $75,000 and they are matching all donations, all day.
      Please, if you can, give again on Wednesday and please ask 10 of your friends to give too. Together, we can do this. We can send the next shipment of solar lights to brighten the future of Gaza's children!


      Donna, Tamsin, Christina, Henry, Andrea, Monica, Kamila, Thai, Fatma, Niveen, Lamia, Laurie, Adam and many more volunteers!

      link to

      P.S. On Wednesday, all of Rebuilding Alliance's projects are up for matching funds. Please consider making a 2nd donation to support these great projects too. To see the whole list, click here.

      link to

      And here's the website for the Rebuilding Alliance itself.

      link to

  • 'What certainly influenced me' to support Iraq war, Clinton says, was Bush's billions of aid to NYC
    • Kris, I'd like to make several points in response to your latest comment, in a somewhat random order. First, you said, You’re right, I shouldn’t have said that Bush didn’t want to provide money to help NYC, since actually it was some Republicans in Congress who objected to that.
      However, neither you nor I said that. You still aren't accurately describing what I said, Hillary Clinton said, or in this case what you yourself said. You never said in your first comment that Bush didn't want to provide money for NYC.

      In fact your were incredulous that I would believe Clinton's assertion that Bush did not want to provide money for NYC reconstruction. As I pointed out in my following comment, this was NOT what Clinton said, nor what I said. Now you seem to be acknowledging that Clinton didn't say that, I think, but are asserting that you incorrectly stated that Bush didn't want to give those funds but YOU didn't say that either. You seem to be having problems following the argument and I don't quite know how to address that when you don't seem to be consistent even in describing your own statements, but I'll try again anyway.

      Second, you've twice repeated the false meme that Clinton said "that her daughter only just avoided death on 9/11 when that was not the case". She never said that. That was a lie made up by rightwing pundits. Here's the story about the pundit lies from Media Matters, complete with the transcript of what Clinton actually said.

      link to

      She said nothing about Chelsea "only just" avoiding death, but instead said that Chelsea was in Manhattan that morning, had planned to jog from Battery Park to the Twin Towers and back and had been in a coffee shop when the first plane hit, and that Clinton was understandably worried about her daughter because she hadn't been able to get in touch with her until a few hours after the attack. The rest, about Chelsea just avoiding death was a purposeful misstatement of what Clinton said, uttered maliciously by right wing pundits, in order to cast aspersions on Clinton.

      Yes, that was a lie, but not Clinton's lie, and you repeat it twice here without having checked whether its truthful or not. I think that's poor judgment on your part, and doesn't show any of your claimed disdain for lying, but rather a disdain for Clinton, even when its built on other people's lies. You sound perilously close to someone throwing stones from your own glass house, and in a political arena you'd likely be rhetorically mugged repeatedly for your own "lies".

      This is just another example of what I was complaining about with my first comment on this thread. Someone makes up a lie about what Clinton said or did and people swallow it whole, and then use that lie to reinforce the idea that any new accusation of Clinton lying must be believable, without need for question or fact checking, because she " lied before" even when she didn't.

      As for " but remembering landing in Bosnia under “sniper fire” when nothing like that happened is not normal". Clinton did misstate what happened on that occasion. Probably an embellishment on her part of an incident that happened 12 years before. According to everything I've read, others' recollections, and archival video have corroborated what she said about the incident in her 2004 book, "Living History".

      "Security conditions were constantly changing in the former Yugoslavia, and they had recently deteriorated again. Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find. One eight-year-old girl gave me a copy of a poem she had written entitled 'Peace.'"

      This later embellishment, or misstatement or whatever, was blown out of all proportion in the heat of the campaign in 2008. I see it as an example of her being held to a higher standard than other male politicians. Here's an example of that. Richard Cohen, the columnist, acknowledged that McCain had made numerous false statements and inconsistencies, but they were "understandable" while Clinton's one exaggeration on her Bosnia visit was "disqualifying" for the Presidency. (And likewise, Obama's stated position on NAFTA in Ohio, which was the opposite of what his economic adviser told the Canadian government was the Obama campaign's position, was not a "disqualifying" falsehood but exaggerating sniper fire was.)

      link to

      I can only see this as sexist treatment of a woman candidate. There seems to be no other reason for the number of vociferous lies spread about Clinton, all made while disingenuously decrying lying as being a particularly heinous fault of hers, not theirs. It reeks of projection to me as well as a double standard. I'm much more interested in policy positions that in whether or not someone embellished an incident from 12 years earlier in one comment made to the press. I just wish that more voters would ignore the war of the sound bites and the "gotcha" moments and focus on the issues. This kind of petty stuff only demeans the contest, but politics in the US seems to have devolved into an ongoing episode on Jerry Springer, or a badly scripted "reality" show, now complete with Donald Trump..

      And here's the report from Politifact on Clinton's statement on North Ireland, where again you claimed she said she was "instrumental' which is incorrect: She said she was "helpful" and several of those instrumental in the negotiations in fact agreed that she was helpful. So again, not a lie on her part.

      link to

      I think they are a bit harsh at the end in judging her statement "half true" , because they interpreted "helpful" to have implied more importance than it deserved, but in any case they acknowledged that she was in fact "helpful" as she said, according to several of those more intimately involved in the negotiations of the Agreement.

      The story right now is that Hillary thought that she could trust Bush, and voted for pre-emptive war, because Bush resisted Republican opposition and came through with funds to “rebuild” NYC .
      The story used to be (as in the Slate article) that Hillary voted for the Iraq resolution in order to strengthen Bush’s use of diplomacy.

      No, you are still not getting it. The real "story" in both instances is the same- that Bush assured everyone, including Congress and the UN for that matter, in October of 2002 that the AUMF would be used as a diplomatic tool to pressure Hussein into allowing the UN inspectors to complete their work and to enforce the UN resolutions, not to wage war. One of Clinton's stated reasons for believing Bush's assurance in this instance, whether faulty or not, was based on her experience of Bush having keep his word on NYC. It wasn't the money per se,it was that he made a promise and kept it, despite some pressure to do otherwise. In both "stories" as you call them, her belief, avowed by Bush to Congress and the UN at the time, was that the AUMF would be used as a "big stick" for a diplomatic solution, not a preemptive war as you assert. You may disagree vehemently with her reasoning, but she has been consistent over time with her rationale, even though she now admits her vote was a mistake. Again, she has gotten much more flak for her vote than any other Senator or House member who cast the same vote. Kerry wasn't considered "disqualified" in 2004 for "poor judgment" for his "Yes" vote, nor was Biden in 2008 or 2012. Nor was Obama for that matter, who chose to put all three (Biden, Clinton and and Kerry) in his Administration after their "poor judgment".

      *BTW, the wording of the AUMF resolution itself required that military force was only to be used as a last resort, after all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, and after the Bush Administration had confirmed in writing that all diplomatic options had failed. Of course the Bush Administration ignored the AUMF requirement and declared war 5 months later. He also ignored UN requirement to put the question to another UN vote at that point and refused to let the inspectors finish their work. The Administration simply created a new legal theory that the earlier UN resolutions from the 1990's justified their "right" to declare war on Iraq in 2003. They were bound and determined to go to war on Iraq and a different vote on the AUMF wouldn't ave changed their actions. Its good you protested, as did I, but those protests didn't start until January of 2003, not October of 2002.

      Again, my main point in commenting on this story is that people are buying into lies in order to justify their own reasons for choosing to vote against her. Vote how you choose on policy, don't double down on one untruth with more repetitions of old untruths you haven't bothered to research.

      And be aware that every politician at one point or another has told an embellishment or an untruth, including the saintly Bernie Sanders. It doesn't make them "abnormal". It makes them politicians. I'm planning on voting Green as I have done for the previous three Presidential elections, but I am under no illusion that Jill Stein, or any other future Green Party candidate, isn't entirely capable of exaggerating, equivocating, misremembering or even downright lying at times. If I agree with the policies, then that's how I'll vote.

    • Tree, do you really believe Hillary when she says that President Bush didn’t want to give NYC funds for reconstruction after 9/11? -

      Kris, that is not what Hillary said, nor what I said. She said that Bush wanted to and promised to give funds to NYC. It was other Republicans that were pressuring him not to. Do I think there were Republicans that didn't want to help out NYC? Yes, I'm sure there were. If you can't get that point correct then why do you think that you are getting any other point correct in this story? *

      Did you read the Slate piece or Clinton's speech on the floor of the Senate before the vote? She laid out then exactly why she voted for the authorization and it totally coincides with what she is saying now. This isn't just some story made up after the fact, as you seem to think.

      And should I take it that you refused to vote for Kerry for President in 2004, or for Obama/Biden in 2008 and 2012 because of Kerry's and Biden's similar bad judgment? Or is Clinton's "yes"vote somehow different from and more toxic than their "yes" votes? The war was the fault of the Bush Administration. Whether or not Clinton, or any other Congressperson voted for the authorization or not, the Bush administration was going to go to war. I would strongly urge you to read the Slate piece, which you seem not to have read. Again, we aren't talking about a "cognitive disorder", we are talking about the actual historical record in this case. Her description of her vote today exactly parallel's what she said when she cast her vote in 2002.

      And people don't always remember things exactly correctly. Its not a "cogniive disorder", its a human frailty. You should know that as a nurse. I used to have a nearly eidetic memory when I was younger (sadly lost since adulthood.) But I still made mistakes in my memory on occasion, even then, and certainly now.

      *And BTW, speaking of "cognitive disorders", would it be fair to claim you have a cognitive disorder because you misread something I wrote a few minutes ago and claimed it said something it didn't? I don't think so, but do you? We'd all be diagnosed with cognitive disorders if so.

      If you want to dislike Clinton for her vote, or her policy on Israel or whatever, that's certainly your prerogative. I just don't like people making up stories about "bribes" that are clearly false and defamatory. People shouldn't resort to lying to justify their own decision not to vote for someone. It's not fair nor open nor democratic. The writer of the piece that accused Clinton of admitting to a bribe did just that-lied- and that, and the widespread willingness here to accept the lie as fact, is the primary objection I am voicing here.

    • This is why I hate election seasons. People with axes to grind start writing crap and people buy into it. Suddenly it becomes an accepted "truth" when its simply a case of false political spin. I'm not saying you, David, or Phil have axes to grind. I'm talking about the original writer of the opinion piece who tried to, and, by the reactions of people here, including you David (and Phil), succeeded in planting a false story.

      If you listen to the full answer from Clinton at the MSNBC link its clear that she ISN'T saying that she voted for the War Authorization because Bush gave NY millions. She's saying that she trusted Bush to keep his word on Iraq because he kept his word on aid to NYC, even when there was significant pressure from his fellow republicans to quash the aid and go back on his promise.

      This seems to have gone down the memory hole, but at the time of the vote Bush promised that he would let the weapons inspectors finish their work and also promised to go back to the UN for ratification if weapons were found. He did neither, but Clinton, knowing that he had kept a promise to her on providing funds to NYC despite pressure to renege on that promise, believed Bush's promise that he would use the authorization in order to press Iraq diplomatically rather than merely as an excuse for war. That is what she is saying when she said she had a different experience from Sanders, who was not present for Bush's promise to provide funds for NYC. Of course he lied.

      But to insinuate that Clinton was bribed to support the Iraq War is totally false. It's part and parcel of what I complained about earlier here on the demonization of Clinton. She was wrong, and admitted as such, but so were 28 other Democrats (and all but one Republican), including Kerry, Biden and Dodd, none of whom have been raked over the coals for their votes as much as Clinton has. Even Obama cut Kerry slack for his vote when he supported Kerry in his 2004 bid for the Presidency. This "bribery" crap is just more of the same unfair treatment that Clinton has consistently gotten, and I'm sorry to see so many here lap it up without question. Criticize Clinton for her vote if you so choose but don't latch onto false propaganda and repeat it as gospel.

      If you doubt my word on this, I'd suggest reading, which has deemed the rumor of Clinton "admitting bribery" as false, here:

      link to

      Or see, which discusses Clinton's similar explanation of her vote made in February of this year.

      link to

      From Slate:
      In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

      Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

      Kaplan at Slate then goes on to explain the circumstances around the vote and quotes from Clinton's speech at the time. I'd suggest reading the Slate piece at length if you really want the truth instead of more false rumors and innuendos.

  • BDS Victory: Ahava moving factory out of occupied West Bank
    • Annie,

      my personal theory (in case you’ve not already heard it) is that a certain poster was banned the day before rugal arrived. when a person is banned their archives are wiped out (MW does that). so i think rugal sort of “inherited” the banned persons archives, probably because it’s the same poster (w/the same obsession).

      In actuality it has nothing to do with a4tech's wiped archives. It's his new moniker that is the problem causing a lack of archives. The underscore before the b is what throws the archive program for a loop. It ignores everything after the underscore and goes looking for comments by "rugal", a nonexistent commenter, rather than rugal_b, and there are no such comments so his archive is blank. This problem with the software program has happened before. I mentioned it a few years ago but apparently it hasn't been corrected.

      link to

      Creating a name with an underscore in it when commenting on MW should not be allowed until or unless the archiving system figures out a way to handle archiving names with underscores.

      Speaking of rugal_b, why hasn't he been banned by now? I've never seen anyone here make as many racist comments as he does. You don't even need an archive with him to see it, because he violates rule number one of the comments policy in nearly every other comment.

  • As Trump takes on the neocons, Kristol likens him to Hitler
    • I'm quite sure that rugal b is a young white male.

      ...and a troll with two purposes- create divisions between white and black supporters of Palestinian resistance (while at the same time promoting white Jewish support for Palestinian resistance as somehow more noble and sincere than non-Jewish white support)- and guilt non-Jewish whites into ignoring Palestine until every problem in the US is solved.

  • Can we take 'Avi does the Holy Land’ seriously?
    • Haaretz just did an article on her, which was picked up by The Forward.

      Yes, it's satire. Yes, she considers herself a leftist. Interesting article.

      link to

      However, I can see where a Palestinian might have trouble finding the humor in the racism that they have to deal with on a daily basis.

      And obviously some people, like Steve Grover for one, can't even recognize the satire because the characters racist statements mirror their own racist thoughts, and so they think she is "smart" when she's spouting racism.

  • Neocon savages Christie for failing 'months and months of careful coaching' by foreign policy experts
    • my edits didn't work in time.

      For clarity, the third paragraph begins the quote from the Washington Post, starting with "In Washington..."

      And here's Gabbard's statement after Netanyahu's address to Congress, including the usual boilerplate, “The United States’ relationship with Israel must rise above the political fray, as America continues to stand with Israel as her strongest ally.”

      link to

      People are grasping at straws and assuming that an endorsement of Sanders implies a less hawkish foreign policy outlook. It doesn't. Certainly not in the case of Gabbard.

    • Hillary will be the last democratic nominee who’ll be a tool to the neocons. Tulsi Gabbard is endorsing Bernie and she’s the future of that party.

      Be careful before touting Gabbard as the future of the party. You may not like the result anymore than you'd like Clinton. She's socially conservative and has a Muslim problem.

      In Washington, Democrats no doubt noticed how great Gabbard looks on paper and television. She was elevated quickly to top jobs like vice chair of the DNC and to important committee assignments that fit with her military experience. “I think she’s wonderful,” House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) told Vogue.

      House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told Vogue that Gabbard is "an emerging star" and invited the then-congressional candidate to speak at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. “Some fresh recruits stay and some go," Pelosi said. "It’s hard to tell what route she'll choose.”

      So far, Gabbard is choosing her own route, and it's not one Democrats hoping to groom her for leadership would have her take. Especially with regard to foreign policy, Gabbard often sounds more like a hawkish Republican than a potential future Democratic leader. She has blasted President Obama for failing to talk about Islamic extremism. And she recently tweeted this criticism of the president's perceived weakness and hypocrisy in Syria:

      "Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Obama won't bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget"

      "But enough US has not been bombing Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in Syria. But its mind boggling that we protest Russia's bombing of these terrorists."

      Needless to say, for Democrats it's awkward to have one of their most visible stars and a top DNC official saying things like this. In that sense, Gabbard is really a singular figure in her party.

      hat's more, Gabbard has been glorified in the conservative media. Her criticism of Obama's failure to cite "Islamic extremism" earned her appearances on Fox News, and in April, the conservative National Review wrote a glowing profile about the "beautiful, tough young" Democrat "who's challenging Obama's foreign policy" (though the magazine's adjective-heavy headline didn't earn them any favors with feminists).

      This shouldn't be a complete surprise though. Gabbard's political background is non-traditional. Her conservative Democratic state senator father led the charge in Hawaii against same-sex marriage. Gabbard said she generally aligned with social conservatism until she deployed twice to Iraq with the Hawaii Army National Guard. In 2012, she described what Honolulu Civil Beat called her "leftward journey" to the paper:

      “Some of these experiences living and working in oppressive countries, not only witnessing firsthand but actually experiencing myself what happens when a government basically attempts to act as a moral arbiter."

      link to

      When she says " when a government..." here she's not talking about the US government intervention. She's talking about other countries' social conservatism. She's just as much a hawk on the Middle East as anyone else, with no qualms about bombing people in that neck of the woods.

      From the Honolulu Civil Beat:

      U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is co-sponsor of the Zero Tolerance for Terror Act, legislation that calls for ballistic missile sanctions against Iran.

      According to her office, the action comes in response to Iran illegally firing two missiles in October and November — a violation of a United Nations resolution.

      In a press release Thursday, Gabbard noted that it had been six months since Iran and world powers including the U.S. agreed on curbing Iran’s nuclear program in exchange of an easing of financial sanctions.

      link to

      And here's a report that includes her criticism of Obama's foreign policy from a rightist perspective, and her strong support for Modi of India.

      link to

      And another from Alternet about her support for the BJP:

      link to

      I don't think that this is who you want as the future of the Democratic party.

  • Videos: Proof of Sanders's lifelong anti-racist activism breaks on eve of Nevada Caucus
    • I often had to severely bite my tongue, but I certainly never humored him.

      Same difference, Dickerson.

      I'm not talking about the Hope postcard itself, from the Hope Chamber of Commerce, which was indeed offensive to blacks. I agree with you on that point.

      I am talking about the fact that you are attempting to label Bill Clinton as racist because he took the (racially offensive) post cards as a gift from his grandmother in her nursing home and sent one of them back to her (and apparently only to her, as no others have turned up from him to anyone else) to let her know that he was doing alright at college, and thinking of her, which was probably the intent of his grandma in giving him the postcards in the first place, despite her poor taste. To call Bill Clinton racist because of that is a stretch way too far.

      How would you like it if someone accused you of being a racist because you sometimes "severely bit your tongue" when your father said racist things? Because that's the road you are heading down with all of this.

      And, really, why would you think that I would consider it reverse discrimination because a black female teenager beat you to a science award? Seems perfectly logical occurrence to me, no reverse discrimination needed or inferred from the result. Non sequitur to the extreme.

    • OK, now I must admit I'm going to do a pale imitation of yonah here, but I think your headline is inaccurate. An arrest in the 1960's during a civil rights protest does not prove "lifelong anti-racist activism". It proves that he was an activist early on, but "lifelong", no. He move to Vermont in 1968 and didn't do much "activist" work in a state with a miniscule minority population . I don't doubt that he still believes in civil rights, except maybe for Palestinians, but it doesn't prove anything beyond what he did in the early-mid sixties. His priorities seemed to be elsewhere after that time, which is OK, but its dishonest to use something from 50 years ago to prove what he is doing now and what priorities his campaign has today.

      I understand that this site has turned into an unofficial Bernie Sanders site and with it comes the sadly usual tendency to judge everything "Bernie" with rose-colored glasses while loudly booing the designated villainess. I saw it and had it up to here in 2008, all for a pocketful of broken hopes and dreams when Obama won.

      I may have to check out for several months if this kind of mindless cheerleading and constant demonizationcontinues. I really wish Democrats could disagree without having to feel that their candidate is all goodness and light and will do exactly what they want and hope even thought he hasn't actually said he would. Or disagree over ideas and platforms without making into a personal battle of good vs. evil in their minds. Its really quite juvenile thinking and I think most here are better than that in ordinary circumstances.

      Well, I've vented, so now I guess I can go quietly or just shut up and put a sock in it when people are overreacting and believing satire sites as if they are real. One last comment, though. I vociferously disagree with Clinton on a few things, most particularly on Palestine and the Middle East, and I'm not voting for her since I have committed to vote Green Party since 2008 and don't plan to change. However, I really believe that some of the really nasty animus towards her is simply the result of animus towards a strong woman candidate, however unexamined and unspoken it might be. She isn't evil-incarnate, nor is she appreciably different or worse than the sorry lot of politicians we have today, and yet you'd think she chews the heads off babies to hear people talk. What makes her so much worse than most of the bozos we have running for high office today?What makes her so much worse than Bush, Trump or Cruz or Obama or Sanders for that matter? Not much. Just her gender and I think a lot of Americans still aren't ready for a woman President. And that includes a bunch of "progressives" too.

      Of course, knowing myself all too well, I probably won't "put a sock in it", but I'll try to limit myself and remain civil if I occasionally feel the need to vent about the current manichean view of political candidates.

    • The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.

      And of course we all know that is exactly what happened when Obama was elected and now the world is perfect!

      Oh , wait...

      Obama hasn't done jack-sh*t to eliminate special interests, has he?

      Maybe we can all still hope he'll change all that now that he's got less than a year left on his 8 years. I'm sure there's plenty of time left. (snark)

      Clinton had it pegged correctly in 2008. Obama didn't even try and he's been just as guilty as any other President, and more so than some, of honoring special interests and killing people overseas. You can blame Hilary Clinton for a lot of things, but she got that right. Shooting the messenger won't make the Obama Presidency any less built on lies and broken promises.

    • The real serious blunder was made by the Nevada caucus organizers. They should have had a neutral Spanish speaking interpreter on hand but they didn't.

    • Dickerson, I don't think I've ever replied to any of your comments before. Some I find interesting, some not so much, but this particular one about Clinton's postcards has been made at least 4 times by you and and I think your implication is dishonest.

      You've never mentioned what Clinton wrote on the back of the postcard which was this:

      "Dear Mammaw, Thought I would send you one of your cards[my emphasis-tree] just to prove I'm using them! My tests are over and I'm just starting the second term. Hope you are well and happy . . . Love, Bill."

      So he sent the racially insensitive card that his grandmother gave to him back to his grandmother, no doubt because he didn't want to send it to anyone else but wanted to show his grandmother his appreciation of her gift to him despite her racial insensitivity. This is somehow supposed to show how racist Bill Clinton was or is? I doubt it. This is getting ridiculous.

      link to

      Come on, Dickerson. You grew up in Atlanta in the '60s. You never humored a racist older relative for a relatively minor offense like this? I think not.

  • Reinterpreting Truman and Israel: A review of Irene Gendzier's 'Dying to Forget'
    • No. The Arabs had the only motive for killing Wasson and Walker. Wasson and Walker were murdered the day before Chaim Weizman met President Truman in the White House to discuss a $100 million dollar loan and an end to the arms embargo against Israel.

      You're grasping at straws, Jackdaw.

      For your scenario you'd have to assume that an Arab sniper would have known that Weizmann was meeting Truman the next day for the purpose indicated, that Truman would have granted an end to the embargo and a loan, neither of which Truman was inclined to do, nor did, at that juncture . The sniper would have also had to have believed that shooting Wasson would make Truman much less likely to end the embargo, a result which was also highly unlikely and illogical , and the supposed Arab sniper would have had to believe that, of all the targets he could have hit after infiltrating into Jewish controlled area, the US Consul who was working on a truce was the most important target he could have hit in all Jerusalem. Also highly unlikely.

      And if an Arab sniper just wanted to kill Wasson he could have done that much more easily from Arab controlled territory in the Old City when Wasson was walking in the open near the French Consulate very near to the Old City Walls. No need to have to sneak into enemy controlled territory and put himself and his "mission" in danger to do so.

      Your argument seems to simply be a "pre"( as opposed to "post") hoc ergo propter hoc one. In other words, the shooting happened the day before Weizman met Truman, therefore it must have happened because of that meeting. Period. A coincidence in time equals cause.

      And BTW, I find no mention in the histories of the Israel’s War of Independence that I’ve read, of a bombing that killed 78 Arabs in Haifa, on 6-20-48.

      I’m not this bombing really happened.
      Can anyone help?

      Yes, I can. Your problem is that in this instance you have poor reading skills and a lack of knowledge of the history of the Irgun and Lehi.

      First off, Dickerson's snippet from Haaretz lists June 20, 1939, not 1948. How you got 1948 out of 1939, who knows, but you're off by nine years. If you had an adequate knowledge base of the history of those two Jewish terror groups you would know that they actively engaged in multiple terrorist bombings in the late 1930's, some of which, including the bombing in the Haifa vegetable market on June 20, 1938, were included in the list Dickerson linked.

      If you'd like to see the original article from 2011 in Haaretz you can read it here:

      link to

      You're welcome. Glad to help.

    • Jon,

      You said:I don’t know who shot Mr. Wasson, and neither do you.

      That's true, but you were the one who originally linked to the WIkipedia article on Wasson. I was responding to the content there, and your belief that it implicated "the Arab side" more than the "Jewish side" as you called them. If you really didn't want to speculate then why did you?

      The link you provided includes an “appears to be”, a “presumed ” and an “if”.

      The "appears to be" refers to what was Wauchope Street in 1948 being called Hess Street today. Your link to the main page of the Wasson WIkipedia entry positively states that "Wauchope Street [is] (now Abraham Lincoln/Hess)." If you have information otherwise please share it.

      The "presumed" refers to the telegraph the consulate sent regarding Wasson's death, presuming, quite logically, that a shot that entered his upper right arm and exited near his left costal cartillage as he was crossing Wauchope (now Hess) towards the Consulate would have come from his right, in the words of the telegram "FROM THE DIRECTION JUNCTION JULIANS WAY AND WAUCHOPE STREET'", which is now the vicinity of the Hebrew Union College. Any other direction would have been highly unlikely given the direction the bullet took through his body and where he was when he was hit.

      And the "if" refers to the improbability of an Arab being the sniper, because of the lack of a clear shot in that location from anywhere inside the Arab controlled position.

      All of these are logical deductions from the location and manner of his death.

      You yourself indulged in "most likely" when you asserted that
      That fact makes it more likely that it was enemy fire, from the Arab side. In wartime shots hitting one side most likely come from the other side.

      While this might make some logical sense as a generalization, it implies that Wasson was "on a side", which was not his function as a member of the Truce Commission. It also runs counter to the actual facts of this particular incident, which was my reason for pointing out to you that your generalization did not apply in this instance because of the implausibility of a shot from the Arab controlled area hitting Wasson in the location where he was shot..

      Another plausible scenario could be that he was shot by a sniper from the Arab side who was unaware of his identity, the sniper picking off a random target in enemy-controlled territory, as snipers do. According to the link there would have been no clear line of fire from the old city walls, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that the sniper was positioned somewhere else.

      If an Arab sniper was anywhere else in Arab controlled territory it would have been even more impossible to get a clear shot at Wasson. The Old City wall was the closest the Arab controlled area came to Wasson's position and anything on the other side of it would have been blocked by the city walls and the same lack of a clear shot as well. It would be highly illogical for a Arab sniper to enter far into Jewish controlled area to take random pot shots when he could do this just as easily and with more safety from within his own lines.

      By the way, I think that there are more pressing issues at hand, then trying to figure out who shot Mr. Wasson back in 1948.

      And yet you considered it important enough to comment on and provide a link which we have discussed. I can understand why. The implication, backed by logical deduction, that Wasson was killed by a Jewish sniper in the Jewish controlled area of Jerusalem leads itself to the further logical deduction that it was a planned assassination rather than a "random" targeting of a European looking man. Given the assassination of Folke Bernadotte such an implication would be entirely within the bounds of reality. I think you realize that and are upset by it, thus your continued comments implicating "the Arab side" on something you claim you don't feel is a "pressing issue" and you admit you do not know.

    • Jon s,

      You said:Exactly the opposite. That fact makes it more likely that it was enemy fire, from the Arab side.

      From your response it seems you didn't read the link to the Wikipedia talk session on Thomas Wasson that I provided. So I will quote from it:

      1. The UN telegram has 'AS HE CROSSED WAUCHOPE STREET TO ALLEY ALONG WEST SIDE CONGEN'. The alley is clearly 'George Elliot'. Wauchope Street appears to be 'Hess' running East to the Hebrew Union College. The telegram also has 'THE SNIPERS BULLET PRESUMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DIRECTION JUNCTION JULIANS WAY AND WAUCHOPE STREET'.[1]i.e.what is now the Hebrew Union College.
      2. The front line at that time was the City Wall. The Scotsman reports on May 22nd that Arab irregulars had take the Wailing Wall and had begun demolition of the Tifret synagogue. The newspaper also reports that a Jewish force of about 1000 had attacked the Zion Gate during the night. Also Jewish mortars fired on the Jaffa Gate and Arab Legion armoured cars in action between Damascus Gate and Allenby Square. i.e. in front of Notre Dame.
      If the sniper was Arab, ie on the City Wall, he would have had a clear line of fire whilst Wasson walked up 'Paul Emile Botta' from the French Consulate. But once on 'Abraham Lincoln' there would have been no clear line of fire.

      In other words, Wasson was well within the Jewish controlled area when he was shot, with no clear shot possible from the Arab controlled area. Wasson often travelled the route from the American Consulate to the French one and back as part of his duties on the Truce Commission. He could have been easily shot by an Arab sniper while he was in the vicinity of the French Consulate, "which was just under the Walls of the Old City" according to Wells Stabler, a Vice Consul at the American Consulate (see my other link), but instead he was shot well within the Jewish controlled area, on a street right behind the American Consulate with no clear line of sight from the Arab controlled area, which looks like it was 1500 yards away, beyond the limit for accurate shots from a 1948 era .30 caliber rifle, even a miracle one which could shoot around corners.

      Clearly the only logical presumption is that the bullet came from a rifle fired from within the Jewish controlled area, not from the Arab controlled area, and thus most likely fired by a Jewish sniper.

    • I did, however, find this entry from the Wikipedia article darkly amusing:

      The NYP report claimed that an American Government document stated that his dying words, to the Jewish nurses at his bedside, were that he had been shot by Arabs.

      According to the report of his fatal wound, "he was shot by a .30 caliber rifle. The bullet entered his chest via his right upper arm and left level to his second costal cartilage."

      That puts the shooter to the side and slightly behind ( and possibly above) Wasson; a sniper who Wasson probably never saw nor could he possibly identify, but we are to believe that Wasson made sure with his last dying words to tell the nice Jewish nurses that an Arab shot him.

      Given the fact that the place that he was shot was in an area controlled by Jewish forces, its most likely that it was a Jewish Israeli who shot him, but it really doesn't matter.

      See the talk section of the WIkipedia article here:

      link to

      Interesting side note: He was wearing a bulletproof vest when he was shot, but the bullet hit an area unprotected by the vest.

      link to

  • Israel detains Washington Post bureau chief in Jerusalem accusing him of ‘incitement’ --updated
    • Neil,

      ‘without foundation’ means EXACTLY: no reason to think the reporters were guilty of the purported wrong (of offering to pay for a show)

      No, you are ignoring the statements made by the Israeli police spokesman because of your bias.

      Again, from YOUR link:

      An Arab woman allegedly told Booth that if he paid some of the bystanders, they would provoke the nearby police officers and start a violent demonstration, Jerusalem Police spokesperson Asi Aharoni told The Times of Israel.

      “Police officers were told that she said if you pay these youngsters, they will start the provocation and you’ll be able to take pictures,” Aharoni said.


      A passerby complained to Border Police officers, who were standing a few feet away, the Jerusalem Police spokesperson said.

      “In light of the complaint, officers detained a number of suspects to check the facts,” police spokesperson Luba Samri said.

      Its abundantly clear that the original complaint was about what the Arab woman allegedly said. There is no mention BY THE ISRAELI POLICE of a citizen's complaint that the WP reporters paid or agreed to pay anything. The passerby's complaint was about what the "Arab woman" allegedly said.

      The police statement after the fact said, according to the TOI:

      “The clarification [of what happened] was required in light of the information given to the officers, which turned out to be false,

      And according to the update above, The Israeli Police have now issued a third statement on the case: “Regarding the detaining and questioning of a Washington Post correspondent, we would like to make it clear that following an inquiry into the circumstances of the event it has been ascertained that the information which had been given to the officers was WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

      The information given to the police was that the Arab woman had offered to stage an incident for money. That is the information that the police spokesperson mentioned and this is the information that was false, even according to the Israeli police. Only your bias and your stubbornness makes it impossible for you to believe the truth when even the Israeli police make the statement. You need to check your own hatred cuz its overflowing and impairing your reasoning.

      Eglash arrived on the scene after Booth and Taha were taken aside for questioning. she did not witness the encounter with the woman; clearly stated in one of those linked articles

      She was obviously in contact with Booth and Taha, as also mentioned in the linked article(and I believe she is the woman in the video above with the two), and you acknowledged that she was speaking for those two as well as herself when she stated that they wanted to "put the incident behind them." But now you insist that she is not speaking for them when she denied the accusation, and in fact you purposely omitted her denial, and then fantasized "a conscious decision by these world class media to “neither confirm nor deny” an extremely salient point of fact about a story with international reach," when the denial was right in front of your face. This was very dishonest on your part.

      modern cell phones are amazing. lots of megapixels. everybody got one. (and the arab woman may have even offered skilled and experienced photography expertise by one of the “children”.

      And now you are fantasizing about some bizarre offer of which there was absolutely no complaint, false or otherwise. You've totally lost touch with reality because of your hatred and have the gall to accuse others of lying? Look in the mirror; you'll see a man consumed with hate.

    • One further point, Neil. I just clicked on your second Times of Israel link. Its very clear from that article that the accusation against the "Arab woman" was determined by the police to have been false. You seem to have not only missed the Mondoweiss update but to have totally ignored what was said in your own link, and misrepresented in your comment the police statement made here: (Second link of yours, paragraph four.)

      The police defended the initial detention, but apologized for any distress caused. “The clarification [of what happened] was required in light of the information given to the officers, which turned out to be false,” the police said in a statement.

      Bad form on your part. Dishonest and juvenile to boot.

    • Did you miss the Update, Neil? You seem to have become unhinged over all this.

      Update. The Israeli Police have now issued a third statement on the case:
      “Regarding the detaining and questioning of a Washington Post correspondent, we would like to make it clear that following an inquiry into the circumstances of the event it has been ascertained that the information which had been given to the officers was WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

      - See more at: link to

      In other words, the passerby was totally wrong about the "Arab woman offer(ing) the reporters some photogenic sumud theater for payola."

      And if you had read your own link in a reasoned matter you would have realized that Eglash, who was not in custody and could make a statement, did issue a denial. From your link to the Times of Israel(paragraphs 5 and 6):

      “Police officers were told that she said if you pay these youngsters, they will start the provocation and you’ll be able to take pictures,” Aharoni said.

      However, Eglash disputed that claim, nothing(sic- probably meant "noting") that neither Booth nor Taha is a photographer or even had a camera.

      So, Neil, obviously your reading skills are impaired at this point, perhaps because of your anger, or perhaps they aren't that good to begin with. Or perhaps you purposely left out that bit of information because it ran counter to your argument, and your argument was more important to you than the truth.

      We now know that the Post has denied the unsubstantiated claim of a passerby and so has the Israeli police spokesman. The police spokesman didn't just state that the reporters didn't pay, he stated that the information about the offer was itself "without foundation."

      I'd suggest you not impugn other people's intelligence when you get so agitated that you abandon logic yourself in order to rant from your own bias.

  • Video: Scenes from a bloody Sunday in Palestine
    • The more I read "The Mideast Beast" the more it sounds like a satire site with a decidedly Zionist bent, BTW. Markedly soft on Israel, and harsh in the satire against those who criticize it.

      Try reading this satiric article from the website:

      Israel Defense Force Commits Crimes Against Israeli Population, says Attorney

      or this:

      Israel is ‘Criminal State’

      The human rights group “We know nothing about the Middle East” or WKNATME has accused Israel’s government of being a criminal organization. 

“Being a democracy and providing a high-standard of living just cannot be done via legitimate means,” said Sandy Guinness who makes coffee for the teenager that runs their website from a truck stop café outside Dublin. “Israel is mostly Jewish, therefore mostly corrupt. Look, I don’t believe the whole ‘drinking the blood of Palestinian children’ thing but they definitely sell their organs. I read it about it on the Internet.”

      or this one:

      Radical Offshoot of Human Rights Watch Sends Strike Team to Nepal to Assassinate Victims Saved by Israel

      or this:

      Al Jazeera America to Shut Down, Citing “Not Enough Anti-Semites in U.S.”


      West Coast JAP Thanks BDS Activist for Punching Her in Face, Catalyzing Coveted Nose Job


      Israeli Wonders When Palestinian Supply of Homicidal Psychopaths Will Run Out


      Hamas Replacing Human Shields with Much Cuter Puppy Shields

      I'd suggest that Taxi not use that site as a source for anything, even satire.

    • Bornajoo,

      Platosguns lifted the "article" about the supposed letter from Clinton to Saban from a site called "The Mideast Beast".


      link to

      Here is the first paragraph from "The Mideast Beast"'s "about" page:

      The Mideast Beast (TMB) is a satire and (dark) comedy news site that produces spoof articles about or connected to the entire Middle East for comedic and entertainment purposes. We poke at anyone and everyone.

      Whatever you read on TMB is totally fictitious and you should not take us seriously in any way, shape, or form. Clear? Good. Moving on…

      I know the temptation to make Clinton out to be the vilest of all viles, but if people can't recognize an "Onion" type piece of satire when they read it, then they have obviously gone way overboard.

  • Prioritizing Palestine over the Presidency: Intersectional feminism's challenge to Hillary Clinton
    • Hi gamal,

      Please, no need to apologize. I was not clear to begin with and you responded to what you thought I intended. As they say in American basketball, "No harm, no foul."

      I always find your comments interesting at the least and often enlightening , with a unique viewpoint. To quote another meme that's probably outdated ( the only kind I seem to know), its all good.

    • Thanks for the reply gamal but its apparent that I didn't make my point very clearly. I understand what is being called "intersectionality".

      The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, was that I have not heard a similar objection to the effort for Obama to become US President such as that made against Clinton as the "diamond-bejeweled white fist raised towards a glass ceiling which prevents privileged women from achieving the presidency of the world’s largest hypermilitarized imperial power."

      Both Obama, a black man and Clinton, a white woman, are both privileged, not because of their race or gender, but because of their positions of power and wealth that they obtained prior to their run for the Presidency. This is the context in which I called Obama a privileged black man.

      I don't consider the average black man or white woman as being privileged, but rather as unencumbered, respectively, by gender (black men) or race (white women) discrimination. I refuse to consider being unencumbered by discrimination a "privilege" when it is most certainly a human right and not simply a "privilege". Power and wealth are privileges, basic human rights are not.

      Obama's attainment of the Presidency ( of the same world's largest hypermilitarized imperial power", BTW) was for the most part applauded as a symbolic victory against racism and for equality. On the other hand, Clinton's struggle is portrayed here as somehow counter to "real feminism" and a blow for racism and elitism, even though both were campaigns by privileged people to lead a highly privileged country. It is the double standard that I am attempting to point out.

      Just to make clear, I firmly believe that it is much more important and meaningful for Palestinians to achieve their human rights than it is for a symbolic victory by either a black man or a white woman in obtaining the US Presidency.

      My point is that this, as far as I know, is only being brought up when its the goose, so to speak, that is running for the Presidency, when there was silence or acquiescence or outright cheerleading when the gander was doing the same thing.

      I also don't see the two (Palestinian rights and a symbolic victory in the US against race or gender discrimination) as mutually exclusive; although they certainly have not been (under Obama)and will not be( if Clinton attains the Presidency) mutually inclusive either.

      This is why this looks to me like women, and I mean ALL women, not just white women, are expected to fight for everyone else's rights before their own. I don't think that's the way the world should operate. And white women who root for a symbolic victory at the expense of other people's rights should get no more approbation than anyone else who does the same. If you are vocal in speaking out against this when women do it, you must be likewise vocal when others do it, or risk being guilty of the same sin you are blaming on others.

      I hope that helps to clarify what I was trying to say earlier.

    • So, did anyone make an "intersectionality" objection when Obama, as a privileged black person, sought to "achieve the presidency of the world's largest hypermilitarized imperial power", or does "intersectionality" only operate in one direction( a one way street, perhaps)? I'd really like an answer to this, because it seems quite hypocritical if this only applies to women. I missed it if the same reasoning was applied with regards to Obama.

  • Six Palestinians killed by Israeli forces over the weekend
    • Bornajoo, stop spamming this. The letter doesn't exist. Its the internet creation of a satiric site called "The Mideast Beast". See here:

      link to

      and here:

      link to

      Quting the about page:

      "The Mideast Beast (TMB) is a satire and (dark) comedy news site that produces spoof articles about or connected to the entire Middle East for comedic and entertainment purposes. We poke at anyone and everyone.

      Whatever you read on TMB is totally fictitious and you should not take us seriously in any way, shape, or form. Clear? Good. Moving on…"

  • Barriers to love in Israel and Palestine
    • And I just read an article from from 2013 Haaretz discussing the difficulties that a couple goes through getting permits and permanent residence status, not to mention citizenship, for foreign non-Jewish partners of Jewish Israelis. It appears to be worse for non-white spouses, but even Western European non-Jewish spouses face long waits and a daunting amount of what seems to be totally irrelevant and sometimes non-existent paperwork.

      An excerpt:

      Could the process of granting status to foreigners in Israel be considered racist? The previous interior minister never concealed his opinion that preserving the Jewish character of the country comes first; we have yet to hear the opinion of his successor, Gideon Sa’ar.

      Feller says the answer is complicated. “Israel isn’t the only country whose laws give preference to a specific ethnic group for returning to the country and granting status. Israel is exceptional in that that’s the only policy it has. This leads to a much broader question, namely is the Law of Return racist, and entire books have already written about it.”

      At the same time, the lawyer adds, “Clearly the Interior Ministry makes things difficult, it doesn’t want them here. It sees itself as a watchman at the gate that makes sure there will be as few non-Jews here as possible.”

      Elam: “I once asked someone who was on the side of the Interior Ministry why the ministry often refuses to compromise, even if the judge has clarified that he will rule against it. He replied that what interests the Interior Ministry is time: ‘If the process is supposed to last seven years and it lasts 10, we’ve gained three years. Maybe the couple will give up.’ I know couples who do. ‘Enough, we’re sick of it,’ they say, ‘there’s no more money.’”

      Says A., a former senior official in the population authority who maintains ties to the ministry to this day: “My feeling is that [former Minister] Eli Yishai couldn’t get the policy he wanted: not to accept non-Jews at all. The Justice Ministry wouldn’t have allowed him to do that. So he determined policy by not determining policy. It’s very easy to come to a branch office at the population authority and to tell them what you want, even without determining policy.”
      And when there’s no policy, he adds, “the interpretation is very broad. There’s no consistent policy ... and every official asks himself: ‘If I’m lenient, what happens? I’m likely to make a mistake. On the other hand, if I don’t approve it, will it be transferred to a higher authority?’ An employee who earns a minuscule salary sees 20 people a day and is responsible for their fate. Everything goes to the legal office of the population authority, which determines policy, in effect.”

      “The very fact that I get this runaround − not because my partner is not Israeli but because of his religion − is intolerable,” sums up Ilana. “After all, if he were Jewish he would make aliyah, receive citizenship, money, rights, and that’s the end of the story. Even if the grandmother of his sister’s aunt was Jewish in the distant past − if you have a paper to prove that, that’s it. Many countries have immigration quotas, but the emphasis on religion here is what makes this process so racist. Racism that is directed at anyone who isn’t Jewish − and at me, too, because I’m the one who brought a non-Jew to the State of Israel.”

      read more: link to

    • One other caveat. Even a Jewish citizen of Israel is not allowed to live in Israel with a Palestinian spouse from the West Bank or Gaza. Both Neta Golan and Allegra Pacheco (both Jewish Israelis) are prohibited from living in Israel with their Palestinian spouses, and so they live with their spouses in the West Bank.

      Of course that too is illegal according to Israeli law. For example, Neta, as an Israeli Jew, is prohibited (by Israel) from entering "Area A" , where she lives in Ramallah with her Palestinian husband and their children, but the enforcement of that law is not as strict as the enforcement of the law prohibiting her husband from living with her in Israel. Its all a matter of maintaining the Jewish "purity" of Israel, so its considered much more important to limit the number of Palestinian citizens of Israel, regardless of the sanctity of marriage, or the desires of Israel's citizens, even the Jewish ones.

  • Oscar swag bag includes ten-day VIP trip to Israel worth $55,000 (Updated)
    • I'd suggest slipping a translated version of the Tel Aviv firm's advertisement for maid service, including the lower fees for black employees, into the goodie bag. That ought to liven up the discussion, particularly this year.

    • Really TBK? You're saying that shareholders control the policies of Sony Entertainment and other media companies and not the CEO's and top executives? Do you really think that Hollywood firms are any different than any other large American company where the day to day as well as the long range planning of company policy is overwhelmingly controlled by its top executives, not by the shareholders? This comment of yours:

      0 out of the 7 corporations that truly own Hollywood have anything more than a small percentage of Jewish shareholder ownership, though several were founded long ago by Jews and Jews remain prominent as executives.

      is either an example of your supreme ignorance of American corporation power structures, or worse, an example of your ability to misrepresent in order to score a point.

      Since you mentioned Sony, do you remember this?

      Leaked Sony emails reveal Hollywood execs efforts to support Israel - See more at: link to

      The CEO of Sony Entertainment is not Japanese. And producing "Zero Dark Thirty" was not a decision made by Sony shareholders.

  • Bernie Sanders' spirituality is resonating with young religious 'None's
    • its like religion but you don’t inhale

      Funniest, and best, definition of spirituality I've ever encountered!

  • Jewish West Bank settlers are as smug as white South Africans in 1980
    • Shmuel- A specific proposal to prohibit Israelis from entering Western Europe is that what you are proposing?

      Good lord, yonah, do you ever bother to try to understand what others are saying to you? There was no "specific proposal" from Shmuel , just an anecdote about the troubles of a South African woman going through passport control in various Western European countries during the Apartheid period. His anecdote didn't even mention the woman being 'prohibit(ed) ... from entering Western Europe.'

      You seemed to miss the point as usual.

  • The Israeli government is as responsible for Duma murders as those who threw the firebomb
    • Exactly right, Diasp0ra, Chief Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was another Mizrahi Jew of Iraqi ancestry with some nasty bigoted ideas.

      And I think rugal, nee a4tech, comes to us via Spencer Sunshine's Political Research Associates. A troll with a mission.

      Dear Roha,

      Yes, I ought to have said "ought" not "aught". Too late to edit.

    • only a white Rabbi would be saying these things

      Rugal sweetie, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu is Mizrahi. His grandfather was an Iraqi Jew. His father, Mordecai, who had similar genocidal views, was the Chief Sephardic Rabbi in Israel for ten years, until 1993.

      Any human being is capable of vile and hateful thoughts. It doesn't require one to belong to a particular race. To suggest such a thing is itself a racist statement. You really aught to clean up your own racism before lecturing the rest of us here on how progressive you are.

  • Israeli group Ad Kan continues attacks on anti-occupation activists with 'expose' of Anarchists Against the Wall
    • Basically what they said!

      And right back atcha, diasp0ra. You probably phrased it better than I did.

    • There is no such thing as a Jewish privilege.

      Bullshit. Israel was built on an ideology of Jewish privilege. My sister was welcomed there because she was Jewish, not because she was white. If she had come as an avowed Christian she would not have the privileges she has now.

      Your ideology is transparently simplistic. Saying there is not Jewish privilege in Israel, only white privilege, is akin to claiming that there is no male privilege, only white privilege. As if a dual system of privilege can not exist, when they certainly can and do.

      You also seem to think that only one system of racial privilege- white privilege- exists in the world. You need to get out in the world more and notice that systems of privilege exist in many places... even (gasp!) among non-white populations of the world. Every human society is capable of prejudice and systems of privilege. To reduce everything down to white privilege is in fact a racist belief as well as incredibly lazy thinking.

      In Israel the primary determinant of privilege is Jewishness. A black Jew has more privilege than a white Palestinian in Israel. And a black Ethiopian Jew has more privilege than a black Sudanese refugee who can't claim any Jewishness. To deny this Jewish privilege is to deny reality.

  • Updated: Former French Justice Minister should face questions in NY about law barring BDS speech
    • Hi ex-pat. My understanding of the laws and their scope comes from comments and links made by Hostage. See here for some of his comments on the subject:

      link to

      My understanding of the 1976 anti-boycott amendments to the Export Administration Act and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1977 Tax Reform Act, garnered from his comments and links, is that it only applies to persons or companies complying with foreign boycotts of Israel, most specifically the Arab boycott.

      It prohibits complying with certain foreign requests to comply with the Arab boycott of Israeli goods when participating the import of goods into Arab countries. When Hostage mentioned that "transnational businesses figured out how to game the system a long time ago", my understanding of that statement, gleaned from his links, is that these companies can bypass the law by stating that they are simply complying with the legal requirements of entry into the port of said Arab country, without explicitly mentioning the boycott provisions of that country, or, alternatively, by positively certifying the imported freight's country of origin to said Arab country (if that origin is other than Israel) rather than negatively certifying that its origin is Not Israel.

      In any case, both amendments refer to complying with foreign countries' boycotts, specifically the Arab countries' boycott of Israel. They do nothing to prohibit a civic boycott against Israel (or any other country) based on its violation of international law and it poor human rights record . That is why no anti-BDS organization has attempted to use them against BDS. They just don't apply in the case of BDS.

      I hope that helps to answer your question.

      This link of hostage's was very helpful to me in understanding the scope of the two amendments:

      link to

    • You're welcome, Mooser.

      Just a side note but every time you put quotes around my name I have a minor existential crisis that I may not really be here. ;-) You can call me tree.

    • BTW, this is one reason why the PA does not itself call for a boycott of Israel and the plea comes from Palestinian civil society instead. There is a fear that direct PA sanction or call would trigger the two 70's era US laws.

    • No, your statement is incorrect. It is only illegal in the US for a company to enter into an agreement with the Arab League, or any foreign county, to boycott Israeli goods without prior US sanction for such boycott. It is not illegal for any US resident to decide to boycott Israeli goods on his/ her own volition, nor is it illegal for such citizen/resident to advocate that others boycott Israel, hence it does not "penalize civil appeals not to buy Israeli goods".

      The applicable law you are incorrectly referring to is here:

      link to

  • Among the settlers
    • "Mooser is pronouncing it the way Zionists pronounce “Hamas”. "

      I thought it was a combination of chutzpah and huevos.

      Cheuvos. If it isn't a word already, maybe it should be. We can give Mooser credit for adding to the English language.

  • British Parliamentarians pay homage to Dick Cheney during debate over ISIS
    • I doubt they would also erect a statue of Powell and Rice to commemorate their contributions to the allied foreign policy.

      The British didn't erect a statue of Cheney either.

      You didn't read the article, did you? You just looked at the headline and the picture and assumed the statue was something that the British erected. Wrong. The statue was the most recent addition to the long line of busts of US vice presidents, commissioned by the US. Every past Vice President gets one eventually. This was explained in the first two paragraphs:

      "On 3rd December 2015 at the United States Capitol in Washington a statue was unveiled in honor of Richard “Dick” Cheney, former vice President to George W. Bush. In line with all other past vice-presidents a marble bust will now rest alongside all other United States vice-Presidents.

      Coincidentally, the previous day witnessed the British parliament, specifically the House of Commons, inadvertently honor Cheney..."

      Reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit.

  • African asylum seekers fear for safety with racism on the rise in Israeli society
    • I’d say it’s firmly based in historical experience.

      So hophmi, does that mean that if a Palestinian believed in eternal and irrational Israeli Jewish bigotry against them you wouldn't be the first one to cry "Anti-semite!" or even claim that the belief was anti-semitic at all?

      After all, it would be "firmly based in historical (as well as personal) experience".

    • late edit:

      "And yet in actuality a small number of German Jewish children were brought to the US, but no British children were" is incorrect. Should read, "In actuality the number of German Jewish children brought to the US was roughly equivalent to the small number of British children brought here",

    • No, Froggy, it is you who are mistaken, and if you read your own quoted passage you will realize that Mooser was right in saying that the quotas set in 1921 and then toughened in 1924 were quotas by country.

      What you are citing is a bill to MAKE AN EXCEPTION to the country (or "national") quota for immigrants from Germany based on the suffering of Jewish German children, allowing them to come to the US regardless of the numeric limitations of the quotas. It didn't pass but that didn't mean that German Jewish refugees weren't allowed into the US in excess of the country quota for German immigrants.

      I'll quote an earlier post of mine rather than rehash yet again what I said earlier on this subject:

      The US never barred foreign Jews from entering the country on the basis of their religion.

      It did erect quotas in the 1920's which severely limited immigration from Southern and Eastern European countries, enacted during a post WWI era of WASP nativism and anti-communist hysteria. It was just as much of a blow to Catholic immigrants as it was to Jewish ones in the 1920's. German immigration was limited as well, but not as much as Southern and Eastern European immigration. Asian immigrants were barred completely and earlier Chinese immigrants to the US were barred from ever obtaining US citizenship. Its totally Judeocentric to describe the US immigration policy at the time as particularly biased against Jews. It wasn't.

      And as I have mentioned before, despite the quotas and restrictions, here and elsewhere during the Great Depression, between 1933 and 1940 some 432,000 German Jews, nearly two thirds of the Jews in Greater Germany (Germany and Austria with over 700,000 Jews) were able to immigrate to other countries in Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. It should be noted that up until late 1939, the only Jews who were believed to be in danger from the Nazis were the ones in Nazi Germany. Few if any thought that Nazi Germany would soon control much of Europe outside of its own borders.

      The US alone took in at least 126,000 German Jews during this time. Some 90,000 were admitted from 1934-1939, with nearly half of those coming in 1939 (with numbers in excess of the US quota for German immigrants) and with an additional 36,000 in 1940. In fiscal year 1939, Jewish immigration to the US totaled 44,000 out of a total of ALL US immigrants from any country or religion, of 83,000. In other words, more than 1 out of every two immigrants to the US in 1939 were Jewish. In fiscal year 1940, US allowed in a sum total of 71,000 immigrants, and 36,000 of them were Jews.

      Data on number of Jewish immigrants to the US and elsewhere found here, from the American Jewish Committee, which kept records on Jewish immigration:

      link to

      link to

      Please, this idea that the US didn't allow in Jews is false. The US certainly could have done more, but it didn't do "nothing", and it did more for Jewish refugees prior to and during WWII than it did for any other of the millions of refugees of the time. Jews were not the only ones suffering during this time.

      - See more at: link to

      (I might suggest reading some of my other posts under the same link, as they elaborate somewhat on this topic.)

      As for your example of the planned evacuation of British children in 1940, it should be noted that Great Britain had the highest immigration quota under the 1924 Immigration Act, and bringing British children into the US in 1940 did not require upping that generous quota, as did the proposed Wagner-Rogers Bill. And yet in actuality a small number of German Jewish children were brought to the US, but no British children were.

      Again, during the 1939-1940 time frame the number of Jewish refugees allowed into the US exceeded the country quotas, and with 80,000 Jewish immigrants out of a total of all US immigrants of 154,000 , 52% of the all US immigrants in these two critical years were Jewish.

  • 'Netanyahu at War' on PBS was dreadful but not without interest
    • To say...

      Wow, two whole paragraphs to misquote Roha while saying absolutely nothing of substance at all! ( And a negation of first paragraph in the second paragraph.) Sunshine must be proud!

      Please don’t be so ignorant and make such outrageous statements.

      I'd suggest you rework that sentence and make it your daily affirmation, rugal. Stand in front of the mirror each morning and repeat: "I will not be so ignorant nor make outrageous statements today." It might help.

  • Facebook censors cartoon critical of Israel
    • BTW, according to the Observer the "Stop Israelis" FB page has now been closed by FB.

      link to

      The pages were both opened on 12/29, self-reported on 12/31, with, according to Shurat Hadin, the "Stop Palestine" page closed that day, and, according to the Observer, the "Stop Israelis" page closed on 1/6 or before. It looks like the Observer was the only news source that actually checked to see if the "Stop Israelis" page still existed as claimed by Shurat Hadin.

      Also, if you view the video made by Shurat Hadin the two accounts do not have "identical" posts as claimed, but simply similar ones, and the video also equates incitement against Israelis with incitement against Jews. It claims that there was only one difference between them, claiming one incited against palestinians (sic, they didn't capitalize the term) and one inciting against Jews (capitalized of course), and yet the title of the page was "Stop Israelis". I guess to Shurat Hadin, Israelis=Jews since they are the only Israelis who count for them.

      They also claimed the videos and pictures and posts were identical though of course they weren't as they couldn't be. Examples, using SH's English translations verbatim:

      "The Zionist bite palestine part after part and the world is silence. we'll stop them on any way we can." with the 4 maps of the disappearing Palestine posted on the Stop Israelis page.

      "Greater land israel should return soon from the hands of the muslim enemy back to jewish sovereignty! we'll do it in any way we can."
      accompanied by a satellite picture that shows a part of the Middle East including Israel, Jordan, and parts of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

      These are not "identical" posts. The only thing identical between the two is the short phrase "any way we can".

      Next example they cite:

      "Today more than ever the Zionist army uses violence against palestinien kids. These children will liberate palestine with blood and fire and demolish the zionist invaders!", accompanied by a picture of an unarmed young girl raising her fist against an armed Israeli soldier who looks bemused and is surrounded by many other smiling Israeli soldiers.

      The "identical" post? "More and more soldiers in the israeli army knows that there is a need to destroy the arab enemy. We are ready for war against the enemy!" accompanied by a picture from the neck down of an Israeli soldier displaying a rifle of some sort in what looks like his barracks, with writing on his chest. ( Exhibiting solidarity with an Israeli soldier who was lightly reprimanded for shooting an unarmed Palestinian, as occurred on Israeli FB pages a while back?).

      Not identical at all.

      Only the next posts seem to have a close similarity as they respectively state "Death to the jews" or "Death to the arabs".

      As mentioned before, both have now been taken down, and Shurat HaDin has been dishonest in claiming they were "identical" when they clearly were not.

  • Sick of Zionism’s stranglehold on Jewish culture? There is an alternative.
  • Why are American pro-Palestinian voices silent about the brutal war on Yemen?
    • I suggest that you read up on what happened in Vietnam. Not many Israelis there but there was genocide and the use of chemical weapons. .

      Yes, and it ended without the US ruling class being overthrown.

      As did de jure segregation of the Jim Crow South, and some de facto segregation in the rest of the country. As did the Korean War and Apartheid in South Africa, etc, etc. And lo and behold the US ruling class is still here. So its possible to make things better without some pie in the sky "revolution", and frankly, my experience with quite a few Marxists online and in person, who can't seem to carry on a coherent argument without insulting and belittling other people, makes me very leery of putting any of them in a position of power. Meet the new boss...

      If its possible to end individual oppressions, and it is, then let people who wish to do so, do so. Pursue your battle with the ruling class if you wish, but don't demean people for trying to do what they can to help others, including Palestinians.

  • New Jersey teenager threatened with legal action by high school over pro-Palestine activism (Update)
    • okgoodvibes

      It’s the second set of tweets here: link to where another user asks who is disagreeing/altercating with Bethany so he can ‘square up and fight’. Bethany responds excitedly that she is sending that user the names of those people. In fact, when asked about it, she admits that she DID send that user names, but that “it was obviously just a joke” (that’s me paraphrasing here but her real quote was along those lines).

      - See more at: link to

      From your link: Koval said she did message the girl's name to L_Chevere, a classmate, "but of course it didn't go farther. She didn't even know the girl"

      Your explanation about the vice principal intervening because of the tweet you mentioned could make some sense here EXCEPT that the girl that tweeted Bendy that she was "ready for a fight" was a classmate of Bendy's at the same school (according to your own link above) and yet she was apparently not called in to the vice principal's office. If this was a concern about "bullying" because of a "threat" of a fight, then certainly the classmate who made this comment should have been called in as well, or even called in first.

      The vice principal clearly states, while pressuring Bendy to make a statement, that if she doesn't make a statement it will be only the complaining student's word on the record, which to me indicates that the issue that the vice principal was addressing had nothing to do with the direct message Bendy made to another student and friend and had more to do with he political statements. Otherwise there woud be a statement from the friend she DM'd as well.

  • Not the only 'proud Palestinian' in the family--Gigi Hadid's father details refugee history in Syria
    • Interesting information to know, Stephen. Thanks.

      My post was simply a supposition about motives, based on the fact that there were a few instances prior to 1948 of Jews having their homes or lives threatened if they didn't monetarily support the Jewish terrorists or if they were suspected of informing the British on them.

      A few examples, from a list of terrorist acts enumerated here:

      link to

      October 2, 1946, Tel Aviv. British military units and police seized 50 Jews in a Tel Aviv cafe after a Jewish home was blown up. This home belonged to a Jewish woman who had refused to pay extortion money to the Irgun terrorist gang


      March 10, 1947, Haifa. A Jew, suspected of being an informer, was murdered by Jewish terrorists.


      May 8, 1947, Tel Aviv. ... three Jewish-owned Tel Aviv shops whose owners refused to contribute money to Jewish terrorist groups were burned down.


      August 18, 1947, Palestine. The shops of five Jewish merchants in Tel Aviv were destroyed by the Irgun because the owners refused to give money to that organization.

    • Not to justify it in any way, but by way of possible explanation, it might be relevant to remember that while Britain controlled the number of Jewish immigrants allowed into Palestine, subject to the carrying capacity of the economy, the identity of those actually given immigration permits were controlled by the Zionist agencies. They had selection criteria that were based on good health, young age (but not too young so as to be a burden), acceptance of the Zionist ideology, and ability to contribute to the building of the Jewish economy in Palestine. The immigrants were not typical Jewish refugees, which is why they were called "settlers" by the Zionists in Palestine. This selection criteria were in effect all the way up to 1950, when the Knesset passed the Law of Return. (Which was passed not to help Jews in the diaspora, but to allow the Knesset to give citizenship rights to every Jew who was in the newly created Israel at the time while delaying any conferring of citizenship on the Palestinian inhabitants of Israel..- see Shria Robinson's "Citizen Strangers".)

      Also , as an additional point, there were situations where Jews in Palestine were extorted by Zionist terrorist groups to provide monetary and political support for them, and Jews who bucked the Zionist system faced possible "revenge" from fellow Jews. Its possible that these people were simply acting under pressure from other Zionist Jews. If so, these individual acts of expulsion of their benefactors were cowardly acts of course, but given the horrible overall Zionist ethnic cleansing, might have been the only act they could have taken without endangering their own lives. When push comes to shove its a rare human who will stand up for what's right at considerable cost to themselves.

      Of course they could have just been committed Zionists who bought the ideology that all of Palestine belongs to them, and any non-Jewish others are not important.

  • Israeli ambassador flings Nazi label at Israeli leaders, after latest authoritarian step
    • ” but for example Haifa was almost 90% evacuated before any Jewish military groups even arrived. (link to

      - See more at: link to

      Zaid did a good job of disproving Greg's statements, but if I could I'd like to add a bit about this particular statement of Greg's and how it shows his utter lack of knowledge of the subject. His link to the Jewish Virtual Library goes to an online version of Mitchell Bard's "Myths and Facts" which is a dishonest propaganda piece.

      But even given that, Greg is too ignorant to understand what was said in that link and what it meant. ( Of course the other possibility is that he simply thought we were too ignorant to recognize a bald-faced lie, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.) His link claimed to quote a news article in the Economist from October 1948, which mentioned that there were only 5 to 6 thousand Palestinians left in Haifa at that time. Greg used that to claim that 90% of Haifa's Palestinian population had "evacuated before any Jewish military groups arrived."

      Jewish military forces were in Haifa from December of the year prior (1947) and were engaged in skirmishes and terrorist acts that led to the departure of 10 to 15 thousand of Haifa's 70 thousand or so Palestinian residents. When the British pulled back and announced they would no long intervene to keep order on April 21st, 1948(they'd given the Haganah two days notice of their planned withdrawal), the Haganah attacked and took control of the city, causing most of Haifa's Palestinian population to flee for their lives, and many others to leave within weeks because of the looting and destruction of their homes and livelihoods, as well as the forced evictions and their relocation into ghettos in Haifa. This is why there were only 5 to 6 thousand Palestinians left in Haifa In October 1948 ( that's 6 months LATER, Greg), and its believed that the only reason that this small number were not likewise expelled was because they were needed to work in the Haifa Oil Refinery, which was then controlled by Israel.

      Greg, if you really think there were no Jewish troops deployed in Haifa before October 1948 then your ignorance is overwhelming. I suggest you stop reading Bard's propaganda and actually read some scholarly books. And try questioning what you read, because you seem incapable of doing that. Most everything you have posted here since your very first comment has been incorrect.

    • @diasp0ra “Greg, do you think Zionists have more right to a home than Palestinians?”

      That is a very good question.

      - See more at: link to

      And then he goes on for several paragraphs avoiding giving an answer to the "very good question". Why is the question good, but you can't give an answer, Greg?

  • 'Israel is ours'-- Dermer's settlement gift puts spotlight on Ahava
  • Israeli settlers at a wedding party cheer burning of Palestinian baby
    • The Palestinian cause is not edified by their repeated violence (going back to the 1920 Nebi Musa riots) which means Israel has no choice but to adopt its steadfast position

      The early Zionists' "steadfast position" (i.e. violence) predated the Nebi Musa riot in 1920. The JNF was already forcibly removing non-Jewish tenant farmers from purchased land, in violation of the tenant farmers' rights. The second aliyah, from 1904 to 1914, had already developed the ideology of the "conquest of land" and the "conquest of labor" which involved the forcible removal of Arab non-Jewish laborers from Jewish colonies and businesses, and the boycotting of non-Jewish produce and products.

      I'll quote yet again David Hacohen, an early Zionist and later a leader of the Mapai party.

      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.
      - See more at: link to

      Zionist colonialism was not the result of any actions by the indigenous Palestinians. The ideology was already in force way before 1920.

    • Not only has he denied it, but a high ranking Israeli police officer and psychologist who interviewed him numerous times believes his denial, and bases it partly on forensic reports that the child was shot.

      From a Haaretz article from 2009:

      You also met with Samir Kuntar of the Palestine Liberation Front, who murdered members of the Haran family in Nahariya and was released as part of the deal with Hezbollah that brought back the bodies of the two abducted soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

      "We turned Kuntar into God-knows-what - the murderer of Danny Haran and his daughter, Einat. The man who smashed in the girl's head. That's nonsense. A story. A fairy tale. He told me he didn't do it and I believe him. I investigated the event within the framework of the next book I am writing, about hostage-taking incidents. As far as I am concerned, it was no more than a newspaper report. I sat with him; he was very intelligent. He was a squad commander at 17. He told me that his motive for infiltrating Nahariya was to take hostages. He said [his organization] knew that would both humiliate Israel and get them media publicity.

      "He told me: 'If I had wanted to kill Danny and his daughter, I would have shot them in the house. I took them to the boat because I wanted hostages. I had no interest in hurting them. After I got them into the boat, wild gunfire started and I went back to help my squad on the shore. Danny, the father, kept shouting, "Stop firing, you crazy people." He and his daughter were found shot in the boat. I was on a small rise, shooting at your forces, and the boat was 20 meters away in the water, with Danny and the girl.'"

      So you say that Kuntar did not murder Haran and his daughter?

      "That is what he says, and in my opinion there is support for the fact that they were killed by fire from the Israeli rescue forces. You can accuse him all you like, but it was obviously the rescue forces that opened fire. There were all kinds of legends about Kuntar. People also said that he would return to being a terrorist [after his release]. Nonsense. He told me then explicitly that he would not go back to terrorism, that he was too old to execute operations - and that's also clear. For the same reason, I see no problem in releasing terrorists with blood on their hands in return for [kidnapped soldier] Gilad Shalit. I get the feeling the country is waiting for his body.

      link to

  • 2015 in Pictures: What Mondoweiss Showed The World
    • Max ,

      If you can't bother to read the links I provided which prove my points, why bother pretending you want proof? Try clicking if you really want to know, which I seriously doubt you do.

    • Apologies to Roha. Sometimes I can't help myself.

    • Let’s take a look at the violence and hatred in each photo from left to right. Top left, staged photo of hurt girl, obligatory. second from left we see smuggling weapons through a terror tunnel to attack innocent civilians and commit murder, next two show violent confrontation with Israeli forces, last on the right for the first row is a fallacy as the greenhouses left for gazans when Jews were ethnically cleansed from Gaza were destroyed and the tubing used to make rockets.

      Swallowing propaganda whole certainly interferes with your rational thinking, Max Narr.

      First photo, I suppose you think that 6 year old girls hit with stones are normally quite happy about the whole thing. 'What fun, I'm being pelted by Israeli settlers who think I'm trash and they can get away with anything! What a laugh riot! But the camera wants me to be upset. Brushes with injury and death are just so enjoyable, how will I ever look upset?' (You're sick. Your comment is a symptom of your sickness.)

      Second photo: I thought you hasbarists only called the tunnels into Israel "terror tunnels", or does the new (post Protective Edge) appellation now apply to tunnels from Egypt to Gaza, the ones that are used to provide food and other necessities to Gaza? I suppose for racists like you the thought of Palestinians having adequate food and shelter is "terrifying', right?

      BTW, that's not a weapon in the tunnel. Its a sump pump, used to pump the salt water that Egypt has been flooding the tunnels with. But I suppose facts are not necessary when you live and breathe Zionist propaganda.

      link to

      Photos 3 and 4:

      Both are the results of the IDF storming into Palestinian areas and firing tear gas. NOt exactly a kumbaya moment on their part. The first is from Aida refugee camp and the second is someone in Bilin holding spent IDF tear gas canisters after their weekly protest over the theft of their land.
      I suppose you think that the Palestinians' reaction should be to grovel and thank the IDF for storming in and polluting their homes and lungs with noxious gas, but believe it or not that not a typical human response to such violence.

      Photo 5: On this one your response is stupid on several different levels.

      I'll overlook the stupidity of the "ethnic cleansing" remark. Standard idiotic hasbara which means nothing except that you think that stealing something gives you some right to keep it, if you're Jewish of course.

      First stupidity: The "destruction of the Gaza greenhouses" you mention is a fallacy that has been debunked years ago.

      link to

      link to

      Note that both the MW piece and my linked comment cite several sources for the debunking, including the NY Times, Associated Press, and the Boston Herald.

      In summation :

      Some Israeli settlers dismantled some of the greenhouses and equipment prior to the disengagement. This was the first looting, done by Israelis, who had been paid to leave the equipment intact. Then about ten percent of the equipment in the former Israeli greenhouses in Gaza was looted by some Palestinians immediately after the disengagement, mostly by stealing plastic irrigation pipe, plastic sheeting, and water pumps .The greenhouses themselves were not destroyed. The destruction caused by both looting incidents was repaired within a month or so by the Palestinians and the greenhouses were up and running within 2 months. They were not destroyed. They exist today.

      So your insistence that there are no greenhouses in Gaza because they were all "destroyed" in 2005 just shows your complete ignorance.

      And then there is stupidity #2: The tubing looted from the greenhouses was plastic. Metal piping doesn't work well in greenhouses because of the high humidity there, and besides metal piping is needlessly expensive to use in greenhouses and requires expensive joints and elbows because its doesn't have the flexibility of plastic.

      Plastic tubing, on the other hand, while great for greenhouses, is useless in an explosive rocket. It wasn't looted to "make rockets", it was taken to be used in Palestinian greenhouses and agricultural fields that existed at the time. I don't know who convinced you that the plastic tubing was used to make rockets but whoever it was must have rejoiced at your supreme gullibility. Next thing you know you'll be telling us Palestinians make rockets out of chickpeas. Fear the hummus power!

      And finally, stupidity #3: The picture wasn't even taken in Gaza, Apparently you think that no greenhouses exist in either Gaza or the West Bank. As I said, you're extremely gullible.

      The photo was taken in Tulkarm, West Bank.

      link to

      Question for you, Max. The article linked immediately aove mentions that three times the IDF took (looted would be a good word) the plastic roofing on the Tneebs' greenhouse. Do you think the IDF used the plastic sheeting to make missiles or mortars? Or are you only gullible when it comes to believing lies about Palestinians?

  • The most memorable stories of 2015
    • Well, I'm sure that by a4tech's logic (hmm,is that an oxymoron?) all Allison's are the same. Deger, Weir, whatever, they are all whites so they all share an evil ideology.

      Clue for a4tech , Allison Deger is Mondoweiss' reporter on the scene in Israel/Palestine. Not to be confused with...

      And BTW, Allison Weir's "problematic selection" consists of consenting to interviews with anyone who wishes one and her detractors had to go back to a single interview in 2009 to hang her for what the interviewer said, not what she said. Meanwhile, JVP, on the other hand, which claims to have "zero-tolerance" for racists, accepted the invitation from J-Street, a Zionist organization, to present at their conference in 2011. "Zero tolerance for racists, except Zionists" is their type of "problematic selection" of target audience. An organization in a glass house throwing stones. Weir doesn't adopt a "biased narrative" but you do, a4tech.

  • Roger Cohen and Jeremy Ben-Ami go on the road for the two-state solution
    • Right. Any Christian who feels persecuted can just hop on a plane to any Christian country and he will be given instant citizenship as soon as he gets there. - See more at: link to

      Yep, Hophmi just managed to prove that Jews are given something that neither Christians nor Muslims are ever given. To quote the man himself, "That's called ignorant bigotry."

Showing comments 3173 - 3101