Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 47 (since 2012-03-21 00:56:57)

Showing comments 47 - 1

  • 'The Israeli sniper shot my son as if he hunted a bird': Wajih Wajdi Al-Ramahi, 14, killed while standing outside of West Bank school
    • This will follow the standard zionist script:

      Step 1: Burial. The MSM ignores the story. If this doesn't work, procedes to
      Step 2: Denial. The kid had it coming. He had been throwing stones. He was in a place he shouldn't be. He wasn't targetted, he was killed in crossfire. If this doesn't work, procedes to
      Step 3: Minimisation. Okay, maybe the kid was shot in the back by a 'bad apple', but it doesn't reflect on the professionalism of the IDF. Which moves on to
      Step 4: Triumphalism. You see, the fact that the soldier was disciplined (after techniqes 1 and 2 didn't work) proves the moral superiority of Israel over the palestinian terrorists.

  • Leonard Bernstein cared more about Israel than sex
    • I’m curious. How do you not support a democracy that offers greater rights for its minority citizens than any state in the Middle East

      Because, of course, this state enjoys the luxury of having ethnically cleansed most of the Palestinian majority and thus has successfully exluded them from the benefits of "citizenship." Israel does not and cannot offer citizenship to the stateless people of the west bank, because given the birth rate they would overwhelm the Jewish population and be in a position to vote themselves their state or establish a binational state that would no longer be Jewish in character.

      Do you really think you're fooling us with this zionist bullshit? You're on Mondoweiss, not some campus board full of doe-eyed 18 year old political neophytes.

  • The Almond Tree: When novels distort legacies of struggle
    • The irony is, I'm sure Corasanti thought she was being clever.

      Complete with an endorsement from the HuffPo? Only an endorsement from Oprah's Book Club (doubtless forthcoming) could be a more effective warning.

  • 'The Onion' uses the k-word
    • Howard Stern regularly did bits about Norman Jewison (I think) who he said might as well be named “Kikey Kikestein” but Howard is also supportive of Zionism on the whole (he spoke of nuking some random Arab country on 9/11) so he gets quite a bit of leeway.

      If he did, he got it wrong. Norman Jewison, despite the surname and the fact that he did "Fiddler on the Roof", is not Jewish.

  • After Qalandia killings, shops close in Jerusalem and Ramallah, and Al Aqsa brigade members brandish AK-47s
    • Hey, Zionists. You know what this looks like to outsiders outside the US-Israel propaganda system. Qalandria looks like the Warsaw Ghetto, and you look like the Nazi stormtroopers. Because that's exactly the hat you're wearing now.

  • Yahoo! features Middle East news from Glenn Beck-owned right-wing website
    • Didn’t Beck’s show go off the air because, he use to connect the dots concerning major influences on current government trajectories he didn’t like, putting names/faces on those dots on his chalk board, and somebody with a voice in his employer’s ear noticed an awful lot of those dots were Jewish? Beck himself never mentioned or suggested those dots were individual Jews.

      You are probably referring to a particular special in which he chose to attack the liberal George Soros as "The Puppet Master" using tropes that his paymasters at Fox viewed as excessively anti-semitic. Soros was portrayed as a greedy conniving Jew using his enormous wealth to pull strings behind the scenes. It is acceptable to demonize the left, especially with blatant racist dogwhistles against blacks and muslims, but using anti-semitic tropes cut uncomfortably close to the bone.

      Beck, like all modern far rightists, has to weave a delicate line. On the one hand, he is doubtless personally deeply anti-semitic, like the far right has always been. On the other hand, he's also profoundly Islamophobic, plus he is on the side of entrenched wealth and power and wants as much wealth and power for himself as possible. That means his dealings with Jews are going to be extremely uneasy. Beck has figured out he has to stay clear of the Jewish power stuff if he wants to stay in business. But you can bet he'd start with it again at any time if the leash came off.

  • Video: Israeli soldier suffering 'flashbacks' brutally attacked Palestinian workers near settlement
    • Exactly: A few months in the territories creates "flashbacks" that excuse a vicious and violent assault. So what does a lifetime in the territories do to you? But of course, only Jews suffer from "flashbacks." Palestinians are motivated purely by their cthonic, irrational hatred of Jews.

  • 'Arrested Development' creator says Jews are too 'beloved' to be stereotyped
    • And there’s nothing funny about Jewish people. I mean, let’s face it. They’re beloved.

      This requires decoding. You see, unlike Mexicans or black people or poor people or gay people, Jews are "beloved". It's OK to take shots at non-"beloved" people, especially blacks and hispanics , but Jews are exempt from the same treatment, because it's our people we're talking about here.

      As Marlon Brando put it on Larry King live:

      "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of—of people who are suffering. Because they've exploited—we have seen the—we have seen the Nigger and Greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the Kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the wagons around."

  • Exile and the prophetic: Hannah Arendt's Jewish politics
    • This form of opposition was common enough in the early stages of Zionism, but one has to make the point that it is substantially vacuous. It's a purely pragmatic objection to Zionism; it implies that the issue is solely that it is counterproductive /for jews/, because it creates a "giant ghetto", not that it is intrinsically wrong to ethnically cleanse an impoverished indigenous people by privileged europeans in the service of a disingenous revanchist nationalistic ideology.

      In modern times, MJ Rosenberg's style of argumentation is a direct descendent of this kind of vacuous phony moral rhetoric.

  • Say 'thanks' to Stephen Hawking
    • I'm afraid Mondoweiss will have to thank Noam Chomsky as well for coming aboard the BDS boat and being instrumental in convincing Hawking to take this step.

  • Ethnocracy on display: Cabinet ministers approve Israeli plan to forcibly displace Bedouin citizens
    • The Israeli government has presented the plan as a way to ensure Bedouin “prosperity” in the employment and education fields. It will “put an end to the spread of illegal building by Negev Bedouin and lead to better integration of the Bedouin into Israeli society,”

      Yes, only Israeli settlers are allowed to start illegal settlements and get them retrospectively recognized.

      Utterly. Racist. To. The. Core.

  • Fayyad warns Obama: 'A state of leftovers is not going to do it'
    • But Ben Gurion was not willing to suppress the IZL. He was willing to use force to keep the IZL in line and force it to accept discipline under the Haganah umbrella. On condition it would obey orders, it was allowed to stay in the field to do what it did best; it was a most valuable asset in terror and ethnic cleansing operations like Deir Yassin.

  • Exile and the prophetic: State swap
    • I'm not opposed to the idea of a "land-swap" The problem is, like "liberal Zionist" belief in the "two state solution", they mean a little ghetto somewhere on the Jordan border with a million people packed into it, and 95 percent of the current borders of Palestine for themselves. Any rhetoric about land swap must be based on the fundamental notion that Palestinians are not worse off, by land area, than their current claim.

  • 'NPR' suggests that opponent of Syrian intervention has dual loyalty
    • I'm find with "dual loyalty" charges if they are applied consistently. As mentioned, when does Jeffrey Goldberg get interrogated about his dual loyalty? When does Alan Derschowitz?

  • Land swaps in Israel/Palestine (and a bridge for sale in Brooklyn)
    • I understand. I am simply saying that the Zionists were utterly unconcerned with abiding by the "legalities" of the partition, according to their own statements, both public and private, and never had any intention of allowing UNGA 181 to be binding, even if 181 could be said to be valid (The Arab league took the position that the UN charter contains nothing authorizing it do declare new states or partition existing ones, so the whole process was ultra vires, an arguably correct position. At the time the UN was merely a forum for the great powers to carve up the spoils of the postwar map anyway -- the need for consent of the Palestinian leadership was not considered).

    • The only thing to add, was, as I mentioned above, the Jewish agency's "acceptance" of the plan was always provisional; both sides knew that the intention of the Zionists was to annex the whole of Eretz Israel as soon as they were strong enough to wrest it from the existing owners. Thus the zionists always planned to "reject" the plan after "accepting it"; the internal debate between, say, Ben Gurion and Begin, was about the fear that accepting partition might mean it become a permanent partition instead of a temporary stepping stone to redeeming the whole land.

    • Once again we have the Arab selective memory at work. And we are not going to let you get away with it Mr. Ellis.

      Once again, it's the Zionists with the "selective memory." As you well know, the Zionists quite openly declared their rejection of partition and their intentions not to abide by it. The Palestinians were therefore wise in their decision to fight the Zionists, who had the obvious intention to reject partition, conquer the whole of greater Israel, and drive the Palestinians out:

      "As early as 1938, David Ben-Gurion declared: “After we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine”. In 1948, Menachem Begin said, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognised. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever”."

      Thanks for reminding me what weasily liars Zionists are.

  • Anonymous sources in the Israeli US Embassy don't like what they see on television
    • The SNL sketch happened because SNL's exec producer, Lorne Michaels, is a very old-fashioned rightist, of the type that darkly refers to "New York Elites" in private conversation. Even then it was never aired. Colbert is a South Carolina liberal Christian. "Veep" is essentially the successor of the British producer Armando Iannucci's BBC production "The Thick Of It", and many of the writers are British or BBC alumni, not American.

      Lesson from this: Personnel matters. It will be the outsiders and outliers -- the HBO indys, the web series, that will be pushing the issue of Israel as a sacred cow, first.

    • "These series present Israel as a country which one should be very careful not to offend, and that anyone daring to criticize it is reprimanded by the Jewish lobby," a senior state official says. .

      What an absurd notion these people have. After all, Chuck Hagel expressed extremely mild disagreement with Israel, and it's not like he was interrogated for hours by a circus of senators over his apostasy and squeaked in only after acknowledging his disgrace and promising never ever to do it again.

  • The gun lobby, the Israel lobby, and the double standard
    • He's "Big on the Internet". So, no, not especially. A little, perhaps.

    • Boy, you've been out of the loop. He's the rich white gay guy and self-professed "Blog Queen" who was a liberal during the early nineties, a gay conversative morals scold during the late nineties, a Bush-boosting "cut taxes for the rich, productive class" republican during the early 2000s, and a liberal again after Bush crossed him on gay marriage.

      This swerve into Israel-Palestine is the bravest and least blatantly self-interested thing he's ever done, but I'm not sure if I will ever quite trust the guy after all his ideological flip-flops.

  • Close Guantanamo now
    • How much is this Kabuki theatre, though? Obama's been talking up the possibility for some time, and may well like the political cover of appearing to be being pressured into it by someone like Morris Davis (think about it: only a /former prosecutor/ can call for the policy to be changed, like only Nixon is allowed to go to China.) We know Obama has no genuine humanitarian concerns in this game, but this hunger strike is causing bad PR, and the grassroots are unhappy.

      Given Congressional legislation, the only thing that Obama could do is disperse prisoners to other countries. I think this is orchestrated and will lead to one of Obama's patented bait-and-switch psuedoprogressive manoevers where prisoners are transferred to CIA secret prisons rather than being tried or released, as promised way back in 2008.

  • Obama's speech in Israel and the realities on the ground for Palestinians living near settlements
    • "Kibbutzim that made the desert bloom???????"

      I haven't had the opportunity to listen to the speech yet, because I need to get sufficiently stoned to avoid breaking things when I hear it, but OMFG is that the most blatant pandering I have ever heard. He's really pulling out all the cliched code words this time.

      Remember when Obama was practically called the anti-messiah by the Israel lobby? Well, he's scrambling to avoid even the hint of the charge of disloyalty to his Israeli foreign policy handlers now.

  • Palestinian teachers unions hail Irish teachers' union's decision, 'isolating the oppressor'
    • Israel foreign affairs knows that if it doesn't stop this drip-drip-drip of support for boycotts, becomes a trickle. If it becomes a trickle, it becomes a stream. If it becomes a stream, it becomes a flood. So it has to be dammed while it's still only teacher's unions and student associations.

  • Obama White House blew off idea of celebrating Emancipation Proclamation anniversary, says leading Lincoln scholar
    • BTW: The "compromise" in question? The legal theory behind the proclamation -- the reason it was a proclamation, eg executive order -- was explicitly framed around the President's war powers, specifically his power to confiscate the property of those in rebellion against the United States. Under that theory Lincoln literally could not address the slave property in loyal states without congressional authorisation. In short, it was not a compromise, it was a measure as radical as Lincoln's legal authority permitted.

      I'd say constitutional law scholar Obama actually understands this privately, but sometimes I think he genuinely appears to have very little understanding of his own alleged area of expertise.

    • Obama probably took a poll, got mixed results, decided it might backfire in some of the swing states, and canned the whole thing. Well known for his brave leadership style, that man.

  • Hiroshima epiphany
    • Since you are directly responding to me, perhaps you'd like to do me the courtesy of quoting me accurately? First of all I said unfortunately there is nothing particularly unique about the suffering of the Jewish people. (Although I imagine you'll now straw-man me into arguing that it's only unfortunate other people have suffered as well!)

      I am at heart a very simple man with a very simple outlook on life: I try to use words as we've all agreed they mean. Now, Wiktionary defines "Unique" as "Being the only one of its kind; unequaled, unparalleled or unmatched."

      Now I've already provided for you some brief facts about the Japanese holocaust for you. People rounded up into camps and exterminated death? Check. Deliberate, induced mass starvation? Check. Mass reprisal murders? Check. Mengele-style experiments on the "untermenschen?" Check. And I could bring in Stalin, Pol Pot, the Turkish genocide, Rwanda, Australia's genocide of the Tasmanians, America's various "trails of tears" -- we could go on and on and on.

      The reason you have such a bad reputation in this debate, well, it's essentially because you lack any moral clarity. Your sole objection to the conduct of the State of Israel is that it's bad -- for Israel. It damages its PR. It's bad for its public image. You actually buy into the Zionist frame of values, you just argue it's impractical for the Israelis to get everything they want. And that's why you cynically sling around accusations of anti-semitism to shut down criticism, because Zionist values are essentially where your head is at.

      To just about everyone here, it's uncontroversial to point out that The Holocaust was actually just one Holocaust in a long line of horrific crimes in recent history, one that has been cynically exploited by the Israel lobby. To anyone with a clear head The Holocaust in no way justifies Israeli/Zionist conduct in Palestine any more than the Japanese holocaust justifies Chinese conduct in Tibet.

      But you're not interested in having an adult discussion Mr. Rosenberg. You just want to heave around loaded language like "anti-Semite" and "minimizing the holocaust" and hope we'll be intimidated into shutting up. Well you guys have played that card too often. It's worn paper-thin. I am no longer afraid of it. I know I'm not an anti-Semite, and I know that in no way have I "minimized" anything, but merely cited some examples of crimes that reach the same level as The Holocaust. It's simply that you're still so wrapped up in Zionist mythology that you view any attempt to demonstrate the obviously factually true statement there have been many morally equivalent genocides is akin to "minimizing" The Holocaust. And it's pretty rational for you to do this, because if the people realize this The Holocaust begins to lose its power as the ultimate moral trump card. The trump card only works, after all, if it's the highest card in the deck.

      I can’t imagine saying there is “nothing terribly unique” about American slavery

      Can you imagine saying unfortunately there is nothing terribly unique about American slavery, and then discussing Arab slavery, Greek slavery, African slavery, Maori slavery, etc etc. If not, you're incapable of seeing some pretty common patterns throughout history. And if there was some African state out there mostly composed of some ethnic group whose central mythology was that their slavery in America was unique historical crime which forms a justification for an ethnic cleansing operation against there neighbors (Never Again Must We Be Enslaved!) you would indeed be morally obligated to point out that however bad the history might be, their experience is utterly non-unique, that many other groups were treated in the same way, and that other victims have not conducted themselves in this way.

    • It was indeed horrible, but then again, the Japanese started it. What the Japanese did in Asia rivalled anything Germany did in Europe. Japan slaughtered huge numbers of civilians. It had its own death camps -- in which you were worked to death, rather than gassed -- its own rape camps, even its own Dr. Mengele in Shirou Ishii. In the Rape of Nanking alone, 300,000 civilians were killed and 20,000 raped. Japan has been estimated to have murdered somewhere between 3 and 10 million during its imperialistic crusade in Asia.

      Yet we never hear about the Japanese holocaust, any more than you hear about the 5 million non-Jewish victims of the German holocaust. Lets face it, the reason is it mostly involves people that Americans don't know or care about and certainly it involves people who don't typically make Hollywood movies. And notwithstanding the significance of this war crime, we all understand it would be completely wrong for China to invoke Japanese atrocities during World War II to justify its own completely unrelated atrocities in Tibet. Yet this is precisely what Israel propogandists do vis-a-vis the Holocaust: use it as a shield. And a central plank of this shield is the absurd Zionist argument that the Holocaust was a unique act of evil and thus, the Jewish people were uniquely justified in their actions to secure a Jewish state.

    • Man, I love the stuff Phil does at Mondoweiss but some of the people who post here remind there still is real old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Even ridiculing the Holocaust is not out of bounds.

      I only see one post that meets that definition, unless others have been retromodded. Mr. Rosenberg, do you object to the argument, which I would have regarded as uncontroversial, that there is unfortunately nothing terribly unique about the suffering of the Jewish people and that the holocaust has been cynically used to deflect Israel's own history of ethnic cleansing?

      It is also interesting to note that the anti-Semitism never seems to emanate from Muslims or Palestinians but from old-fashioned American Jew haters.

      This is why you have such a reputation for sophistry. I have immense sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people but it would be absurd to deny the deep hatred many feel and express, quite openly. It may be understandable given the way they have been treated, but it is certainly there -- as is the equally intense hatred of Palestinians by Zionists.

  • 'NYT' reporter's appeal to editor: young Jews raising money for IDF are 'just like your daughter'
    • A Jewish hotel owner discovers her hotel is being used for a fundraising event for the now-infamous, if mythical, "Friends of Hamas" group. Shocked, and angry she wasn't informed, she initially demands it stops, but eventually compromises and asks that they merely take some signs down.

      What's the jury verdict in that case? Do we even have to ask?

      These kinds of discrimination lawsuits invite hypocritical, subjective and purely partisan decisions based on which group the judge or jury likes more. It's the ugly side of anti-discrimination law.

  • Since when is the left embracing Chuck Hagel, a nationalist, establishment figure?
    • It's very simple: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Real leftists have never shrunk from forming pragmatic alliances. And only Nixon could start the process of normalising relations with China; perhaps only Chuck Hegel, whose national security credentials are without question, can take on and diminish the influence of the Israel lobby.

  • Unedited security camera footage shows Israeli officer fired at Hebron teenager after he retreated
  • Rahm Emanuel says Netanyahu has repeatedly betrayed US friendship and embarrassed Obama yet again
    • We must remind ourselves Rahm Emannuel's angle in this is purely that the current leadership is creating too much of a shanda fur die goyim, not that the zionist enterprise itself is morally bankrupt. He wishes Israel would dispossess the Palestinians in a more subtle fashion.

  • NYT's Rudoren: Gaza funeral 'didn't feel incredibly human to me'
    • It's an indicator of significant progress that she feels she /has/ to respond to Weiss's critique. Not long ago the paper of record would simply print the piece and then maybe print a critical letter from Weiss with its most important points edited out. The internet has helped equalize the dynamic and spread countervailing voices, and there's been a cultural sea change that means that the zionists now understand they have to defend their racism now, they can't take the complaizance of the American left for granted (that is to say, the genuine left, not the Daily Kos drones.)

  • Couldn't make this up -- Official name of Israeli demolition plan for new East Jerusalem park is 'They Won’t Know and Won’t Understand 2012'
    • Yes, I think so, although it’s a way that is morally repugnant and therefore hard to follow. It is to argue against Zionism in terms of long-term Jewish self-interest.

      Yes, that's the whole MJ Rosenberg strategy. I find it cheap, insincere and self-crippling, insofar as you cannot, from this perspective, articulate the most fundamental reasons to oppose Israel's project, the profound racism of a colonial regime, but perhaps, in the current climate, and givn human psychology, it is the only way to get through to some people. Fortunately I am on mondoweiss, and psuedonymous, so I can afford to be frank in loathing such a perspective. I have to self-censor so much in my offline life, that I guess I understand why Rosenberg is so mealy-mouthed. Doesn't stop me throwing up my hands when he trots out the most morally obtuse arguments, though.

  • Tensions rise as Iran shoots at American predator drone and covert war heats up
    • Like other commentators said, they were circling it. The SU-25 pilots could have killed it at any time with their 30mm cannons. This was a shot across the bow to warn the drone operator he was getting too close. If the situation was reversed, we'd all be congratulating ourselves about our admirable restraint. How relaxed would the US be about Cuba flying drones 16 miles off the coast of Florida?

  • 'A vision seen in a dream': A leading religious Zionist's 1956 call for the Palestinian refugees to return
    • Thank you for this. Ironical that the people who were born in the land were called "infiltrators", whereas the people whose most recent common ancestor shared with the residents of Palestine is around 500 BCE were called the people of the land.

  • 'Even a single night in jail is enough to give a taste of what it means to be under the total control of some external force' - Chomsky on his recent trip to Gaza
    • Unless you refer to the kind of Zionism which died pre-1948, which emphasized Arab-Jewish cooperation on the basis of equality

      I want to be clear that I view this pre-1948 "emphasis΅on Arab-Jewish cooperation as empty lip service that "liberal" zionists had no intention of delivering on, and indeed didn't, as Chomsky himself acknowledges. I confesss I am very cynical of the intentions of all those zionist socialists who were comfortable with expropriating the land of others as they declaimed their utopian ideals.

      Chomsky in 2009:

      Chomsky: Nobody supports—I mean, you can talk about a one-state solution, if you want. I think a better solution is a no-state solution. But this is pie in the sky. If you’re really in favor of a one-state solution, which in fact I’ve been all my life—accept a bi-national state, not one state—you have to give a path to get from here to there. Otherwise, it’s just talk. Now, the only path anyone has ever proposed... is through two states as the first stage.

      I see this as deeply confused and constitutes a disingenous evasion of his standard formulation of a nebulous "no-state solution" which he has repeatedly used to evade the issue since the 1970s. I confess I view this as vague lip service and again, not a serious committment to two-state. For one thing, he never makes clear what he means by "two-state", "one-state", and "bi-national state" -- I suspect he's using strategic ambiguity to mask that by has in mind some kind of demarcation into two regions under one parliament, not a true "two-state" solution. Again, hopelessly confused on the issue.

      Chomsky in 2008:

      Noam Chomsky: Boycotts sometimes make sense. For example, such actions against South Africa were effective, even though the Reagan administration evaded congressional sanctions while declaring Mandela's ANC to be one of the "more notorious terrorist groups" in the world (in 1988). The actions were effective because the groundwork had been laid in many years of education and activism. By the time they were implemented, they received substantial support in the US within the political system, the media, and even the corporate sector. Nothing remotely like that has been achieved in this case. As a result, calls for boycott almost invariably backfire, reinforcing the harshest and most brutal policies towards Palestinians.

      Again, Chomsky keeps on changing his tune: here, he's saying that academic boycotts are ineffective because they "reinforce the harshest and most brutal policies", an argument he's largely dropped because it's clear that it's almost impossible for the occupation to get any more brutal than it currently is. Now his emphasis is that it harden the attitudes of American elites, again, a non-starter because both major parties are already falling over themselves to position themselves as the biggest friend of Israel. The elites back Israel 100 percent and always have. Again, Chomsky doesn't seem to remember that the boycott South Africa movement started out as a derided far left movement and only slowly moved into the mainstream. For example, the UN general assembly motion 1761 calling for divestment in 1962 which was derided and ignored by all the western powers.

      I have no explanation for Chomsky's blindness on these points except vestigial racism. I have no doubt he does not consciously realize his mental blocks, but they are there, nontheless, and they interfere with his moral clarity and committment at crucial points.

    • Precisely. I think Chomsky has never got over his Kibbutz experience when he was 20 years old, where doubtless he was indoctrinated into the familiar kind of revolutionary Zionist-Socialist rhetoric that espouses universalist principles while conveniently eliding the fact that the Kibbutzim communities could only exist in the first place because of a program of ethnic cleansing instituted by the state of Israel, one which the Kibbutzniks took full advantage of.

      He still believes in a vaguely specified"one state solution" in which he imagines, by some miracle, Jewish Israelis overcoming their prejudice to welcome the entirety of the Palestinian diaspora into the country and form a shared Jewish-Arab national identity, organized under, perhaps anarcho-syndicalist principles (whatever the fuck /that/ means.)

      Hence, despite all his rhetoric, he opposes any measures to effective pressure Israel because ultimately he retains a vestigial Zionist prejudice, that this could all be resolved if the Palestinians acknowledges the righteousness of Jewish supremacy and the Zionist project, and, in turn, the Jews generously offer the Palestinians full civic participation.

      This was a stupid idea even in 1953, but Chomsky doesn't seem to understand that a lot has changed since he was 20 years old and it's now an unbelievably stupid idea.

      I've always found Chomsky to be a deeply confused thinker. His latest pronouncements are precisely like someone visiting a Bantustan or Soweto in 1981, acknowledging the appalling conditions, but insisting that the boycott activists are only shoring up support for the white ruling class. Tribal loyalty and early conditioning die hard, I guess.

  • Mamet sees creeping totalitarianism in Obama 2
    • The guy's "problem" is high functioning narcissistic sociopathy. All his plays are about what the world looks like to a manipulative high-functioning sociopath. He couldn't write a neurotypical character if he tried.

  • Endorsing Romney, Chi Jewish paper praises him for saying Jewish culture is superior to Palestinians
    • Ha! "Defensiveness" is right. Although the context would suggest "our country" refers to America, there's clearly some strategic ambiguity -- otherwise they would just say "better bet for America." Which country are they referring to again?

  • Declassified documents show American 'outrage' over U.S. marine shot at by Israeli colonel
    • Internally, many at the US state department know that Israel is the most faithless, brutal, fraudulent, and deceptive "ally" the US has ever had. The point is that, externally, State always covers up for Israel at the behest of their political masters, and their Israel-firster pay masters.

      Only Israel, for example, could get away with the bungled false-flag attack on the USS Liberty. Any other country would have been bombed back to the stone age for that stunt. Only Israel could lobby to release Jonathon Pollard without it becoming a huge issue; only Israel can maintain an organization like AIPAC without it having to register as an agent of a foreign power.

      I think we'd be surprised how many veterans at State hate Israel's guts and don't trust them an inch. Long experience breeds contempt in this respect.

  • Michael Moore says Palestinians have gotten a 'raw deal'
    • Moore was vociferously pro-Palestinian in his youth. One of the editorial differences that led to him being canned so quickly from "Mother Jones" was that he wanted to do more on Palestianian rights. Since then he's kept his sympathies very close to his chest, which is cowardly or prudent depending on perspective.

  • Romney and Pro-Israel Dems attack party platform, but insider says AIPAC reviewed platform language and had no problem
    • I ask you -- is there any other agent of a foreign power in America that exerts pre-approval over all policy statements issued by both parties in relation to that power? Seriously, am I just naive or does this happen more often?

      But of course AIPAC isn't an agent of a foreign power -- a bipartisan Congressional effort ensures that AIPAC, despite its confessed work for MOSSAD, doesn't have to register.

      George Bush said "America will never seek a permission slip [from another power] to defend the security of our people." Can you imagine how Romney would attack Obama if he had the embassy of Iran or Kenya or Germany vet the Democratic party platform? But of course, it's different when it's AIPAC.

  • Daughters fight to save mother from arrest in Nabi Saleh
    • Yet another powerful act of non violent resistance that will entirely censored from mention in the US media -- and then some Zionist flack will come on to denounce the Palestianians for not embracing non-violent resistance.

    • That was the first thing I noticed too. While it shouldn't, of course, matter, it definitely helps their cause that they look very white, because I'm afraid white Americans don't really recognise Arabs as fully human, and seeing a very white-looking Arab dressed just like an American teen shocks us into remembering that Arabs are people just like us.

  • 'NYT' publishes op-ed saying there are 'too many Palestinians and Arabs' in Israel
    • [i]Do you not see the completely ROFL of that? Israel’s problem (besides the Arabs) is the wrong kind of Jew[/i]

      I wouldn't take this too seriously. It looks like a fig-leaf inclusion to try to dull the otherwise obvious racism of that passage. If you say Israel has too many Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, it just looks racist. If you put "Orthodox Jews" in there, you look a bit more ecumenical in your prejudices.

Showing comments 47 - 1