Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4154 (since 2011-11-07 00:34:23)

Peace, social justice, belonging, human rights, homeland for the peoples of the Holy Land. To discuss Mondoweiss articles further, please come to the Mondoweiss Friendfeed page: https://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed

Showing comments 4154 - 4101
Page:

  • 'So wait, the Nakba is…?': Listening to Israelis discuss the Nakba
    • This reminds me of lack of recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Israeli government, which Israeli professor Yair Auron showed in his book "The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide". He discusses times when the government has actively blocked private commemoration efforts.

  • Settlers Supporting Settlers: Towards an explanation of the US/Israel relationship
    • Hello, Jimmy, thanks for responding.

      The US and the Israelis both were or are settler societies, and since the pro-globalist US isn't so strongly anti-colonial, Israeli settlerism isn't a serious issue. I suppose if the US had an overt pro-settler world ideology, the US would not even pretend to object to Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.

      But I think this isn't my main point, which is that the settler aspect of Israeli society isn't really what drives US support for it. I think it's more a matter of domestic politics and global dominance.

      First, it's true that the US supports Canada and other white settler societies, but I think that it's because they are seen as "white", and not because they are settlers. Even if Canada would be considered for some reason to no longer be a settler society, the US would still have an equally intense relationship with Canada because it's Anglo and "white."

      Second, as you said: "Israel wasn’t an important US ally until the 1960s (coinciding with Ashkenazi assimilation into whiteness in the decades after WWII)." That leads one to conclude that prior to the 1960's, the US was not helping the Israelis for being "white". And in fact US help to the Israelis was a serious phenomenon, because Truman went against his state department over the issue, seriously damaging American interests in the Middle East. If the US wanted to carry out a settler policy in the Middle East in the 1950's, this was counterproductive because as the State department saw, it damaged US influence in the region. Arguably, it still does, despite all the wars we have had there.

      In any case, thanks for an interesting essay.

    • I am skeptical of the claim that the US - Israeli relationship is based to a major extent on US history of its own settlement. Back in the 1950's, was settler ideology a major open aspect of Roosevelt's and Truman's thinking on supporting the Israelis? It seems rather that it has been based on justifications like domestic politics, the Holocaust, and geopolitics in the Middle East.

      Meanwhile, back in the cold War the USSR also supported the Israelis in 1946-1949, helping to found their country militarily and at the UN, even though the USSR was not a settler colonialist. In both cases the US and the USSR were driven by other factors like geopolitics. The Israelis though chose to be with the more powerful US, and the US more than accepted that relationship. I suppose you could say then that the relationship was chosen because of US power, and note that modern settler states like the US, Canada, and Israelis are often quite powerful, their successful settlement enterprises being a reflection of that power.

      Furthermore, to emphasize shared settler colonialism as a driving force behind the "special relationship" would not explain why the US took a much different position on India's independence due to the US' ideological opposition to colonialism, when around WWII

      serious tension erupted over American demands, led by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that India be given independence, a proposition Prime Minister Winston Churchill vehemently rejected. For years Roosevelt had encouraged Britain's disengagement from India. The American position was based on principled opposition to colonialism, practical concern for the outcome of the war, and the expectation of a large American role in a post-colonial era. However, in 1942 when the Indian National Congress launched a Quit India movement, the British authorities immediately arrested tens of thousands of activists.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      I do think that the way the Israelis present themselves to the US as a western-style, modern "democracy" with European/Western non-Oriental culture goes along with preferences in the US toward other "Western" "modern" societies. However, the fact that the Israelis are colonists doesn't necessarily mean that they receive greater favor than if they weren't. I don't think for example that the French or British would receive greater US sympathy if they were settlers on their own territory.

      Alternately, I don't think that the Chinese would get greater empathy from America because of any settlement projects in Tibet or Southeast Asia. The fact that the Japanese tried to colonize lots of nations in the Pacific by force actually gave them a more negative view in America.

      So while I think that the Israelis' self-presentation of being a European-style Western nation (a bit ironic for a settler group whose claims rely on partial Middle Eastern origins) plays a big role in campaigning for US support, I am quite skeptical that whether the Israelis are settlers or not is a factor increasing that support. Instead I would look to both domestic US politics and geopolitical power and strategies.

  • In Israel, racism is standard procedure
    • I was using some humor in the first part.

    • She looked over it without a second thought and my female friend was given the same treatment. We were quickly waved through to enter the party. As soon as she saw our male friend’s ID, she clucked and shook her head slightly. I knew exactly what had happened; she saw his city of residence and his name, both of which are distinctly Arab.

      The more important question is what you are doing with an Arab male in the first place. Don't you respect the anti-miscegenation campaign?
      link to youtube.com

      Actually, it's neat that your friend is from the Christian village of Taybeh. If the Israelis' conflict was against Muslim radicals, why are they discriminating against Christians?

  • Spanish Jews resisted oppression in tunnels and, exiled, clutched their keys
    • I thought it was an interesting article with some good pictures and I liked the allusion to keys and mention of Ali Abunimah. But I worry about what Laurent Weppe mentioned above: merely showing the history of Jewish past persecution is insufficient, because as Laurent mentioned in his comment above, Israeli nationalists are aware of that history and drew the opposite conclusion: that one must oppress in order to avoid oppression. Indeed, the story of past Jewish oppression, while important to remember, is also a key staple of conservative Israeli ideology. Netanyahu's father even wrote a book on Spanish persecution of Jews. It's necessary to explain in such articles and flesh out all the analogies in order for people to make the right, ultimately humanitarian conclusions. I understand that the story has a lot of personal meaning, but without the full fleshing out of analogies, it can easily become a reinforcement of the Israeli nationalist narrative that we are feed with movies and news reports ranging from Netanyahu's father's book, all the way to movies portraying Muslims as villains.

    • I have a hard time arguing against you. Herzl's idea was that Jews were oppressed in Europe as a national minority by nationalist governments. So his answer was for them to go and make a nationalist state of their own, ignoring whatever people lived in the territory he claimed.

      For the Europeans I suppose the Zionists were refugees who didn't like Europe, but for the Arabs, they were colonizers who came to conquer and rule as a governing religious community.

    • ". The Jews who fled to safety in places like Tunisia and the provinces of the Ottoman Empire held onto the keys to their homes along with the hope that they would someday return" - See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

      One of the staples of rightwing Israeli cuisine is that the Muslims and Arabs always persecuted Jews. I suppose this example serves as a counterpoint, when Muslims and Arabs provided tolerance.

  • Sanders is leftwing on economic issues, but sees Israel as up against ISIS
    • In that video, Sander's face is red, his voice is halting and tense. He is not a happy camper hearing liberal objections to Israeli abuses and has difficulty handling it.

    • "I think the answer is generational: Sanders is an old"...
      Correction, you hope the answer is generational. What politician from a young generation could run for president and openly go against Israeli abuses?

    • Mostly you could get that kind of pass in the US based on income levels and systemic prejudices. For example, whether you can hire folks like PEP Dershowitz or not.

      There was a writer on this site maybe a month ago who wrote a glowing article on Adelson and talked in the comments section about his generally well endowed liberal pro-Israeli demographic makes, say, 60% of Democratic party donations. Probably he and Adelson are the kind of folks more likely to get free passes, but they would not admit or maybe even realize that. Lots of unrecognized free passes out there.

  • David Horowitz to OSU: 'Jews didn't expel the Arabs in 1948' and 'the occupation is a huge lie'
    • Apparently Horowitz introduced a friend, who was an book-keeper, to some individuals who were at the periphery of the Black Panthers. This friend’s murdered body was later found in the Bay

      So what's the real story?

    • Horowitz, like many pro-war Neocons, enjoys seeing his opponents crushed. I wonder what really made him go from being Leftist to joining the Mcarthyist camp? Was it when the Left decided that the 1967-? Israeli occupation was wrong?

    • Mooser,
      Considering he is pro-war and teaches that the occupation is a lie, is he perhaps teaching martial artifices (c)?

      Would you, as the discoverer of Ziocaine Syndrome, consider OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Dishonesty) to be one of its chief symptoms?

      If so, what is curious to me is how long he suffered from OCD and whether it went back to before he began taking Ziocaine.

    • I suppose it's like the hardcore PEP folks. On the outside it seems like they are nice moderate liberals, but in reality they are ultra conservative on Palestinians as Horotwitz is. One example may be Dershowitz, who copied Joan Peters' book. They have this same information you are talking about, but how much hjonesty does Dershowitz have? It makes one wonder what to think about their liberalism and what it's really like to work with them personally. Do you know what I mean?

    • Pabelmont,
      What does that mean about when he was a Trotskyist though? Does that mean that back in the 1960's some of the Trotskyists were really pathological liars instead of honest heroes opposing the Machine? It's strange.

      I know that back in the day there was much more support for the Israelis among the socialist Left. But the Israeli narrative as you see says things like Palestinians don't exist, and justifies the Nakba. So were those leftists secretly very dishonest in other ways, on just on the Israeli issue? I am confused now.

    • What was Horowitz like in person as a Trotskyist, I wonder. He wrote:
      From Yalta to Vietnam (1965)
      The Free World colossus. A critique of American foreign policy in the cold war.
      By: Horowitz, David. Published: (1965)

      He did a 180. What a backflip to go from Trotskyist to hardcore Neocon?
      And not only that, but look at the kind of (plainly dishonest?) things he says now, like "the occupation is a lie".
      It makes me wonder what he was like inside Trotskyist circles back in the day in person.

  • Night of horror at Ben Gurion airport for two French music students
    • Western countries don't usually wash the mattresses?

    • ". Here we are locked up, with no notion of time in a dirty place, covered with fleas"

      The fleas thing was something new for me to hear.

      Every ay you can learn something new about the Israeli system.

  • Adelson told Jeb Bush that Baker's speech to J St speech cost him 'a lot of money'
    • I can see that the super-Pro-Israeli groups may want to fund Jeb Bush less for Baker talking to a liberal, "pro-peace, pro-Israeli" group.
      To give an example, facebook is certainly an influential company nowadays.
      link to communitarian.ru

      The meme of "standing with Israel" sounds much more conservative and uncompromising.

  • Combatants for Peace responds to Memorial Day report
    • No, because armed conflict with Palestinians, blockades of Palestinians like in Gaza, serious yearly casualties, etc. are ongoing. Can Palestinians get tax free status for being deprived of their homeland? And at least conservative pro-Americans today realize Amerindians "exist" as an ethnic group. I would definitely rather be an Amerindian at a memorial for US soldiers from the Indian wars, and find ways like "military honor" or modern "romanticizing" of Amerindians to make it more palatable.

    • I appreciate CFP for at least writing here a response. But here is another thing I don't understand the original interview about the CFP event says:

      Retired Israeli police officer Haim Blair, 60, from Gan Yavne criticized the Israeli Jews in Combatants for Peace as naive and that the presence of Palestinians at the event was inappropriate. Wearing a white muscle shirt that read “I ♥ Israel,” he explained, “Today is meant to remember IDF soldiers and the warriors of the underground groups (a reference to pre-state Zionist militias Lehi and Haganah) … and everyone who lost their lives here and elsewhere by the terrorist groups, who they [the attendees] are now backing.”

      Isn't the police officer correct about the definition of the Israeli memorial day, in that it's for Israeli soldiers, not Palestinians?

      If so, I am confused what the purpose is of bringing Palestinian attendance for the holiday. It seems like bringing Amerindians to a holiday occasion memorializing US soldiers fallen in the battle against Indian tribes, war parties, raiders, etc.

      I think that the holiday is one of the main events for CFP? Or is there a holiday for Palestinian fighters (eg. who fell in the 1948 and 1967 wars) that CFP gives equal attention to?

    • The letter by CFP says that the original interviewer misunderstood their positions, and that their actual position is that:
      "Supporting BDS will undermine our efforts especially in the Israeli side, and in different circles around the world."

      However, did the original interview actually say that this was the opinion he got from CFP, and then state that he disagreed with this CFP position, which CFP has just reiterated here?

      Secondly, I assume that BDS will undermine any of CFP's efforts bringing in Israelis who support the occupation, since those Israelis don't want to be sanctioned for the occupation. However, is that really a reason to avoid supporting BDS? If you are in South Africa and you actually believe that your society is discriminatory and your goal is to reconcile ex-SA police and ex-ANC rebels, then why would you oppose or be lukewarm about the international community pressuring your country to follow international law?

      As for "different circles around the world", the only ones I can think of that would be seriously hurt by your message as a result of BDS would be conservative pro-Israeli ones like CUFI, AIPAC, etc.

      Now, I suppose if you are the Red Cross it makes sense that you don't want to take a position on BDS or other political issues because you have a vital job to do about being totally apolitical to cross borders and give humanitarian aid. But CFP is not the neutral Red Cross, it's a self-proclaimed organization of those who are against the occupation - unless I am mistaken and CFP doesn't even have a position on that.

  • Marking Memorial Day in Tel Aviv with Kahanists and Combatants for Peace
    • There is so much irony in that. CFP is an ex-combatants group, right? So it is made of people who thought it's wrong to fight, right? So why are they going to a memorial for people on the conquering side only who died for making that "wrong" choice?

      And isn't this memorial one of the main events for CFP? Are they also bringing Israelis to a memorial for Palestinian fighters?

      So what is the purpose behind an "anti-combat" group doing that for the conquering side's combatants only?

  • The moral hypocrisy of American Muslims for Palestine on the Armenian Genocide
    • Dear SAMI:

      The argument I would make from a pro-Palestinan perspective is this:

      Large numbers of Armenians came to Palestine as refugees from their homeland and composed a large portion of the pre-Israeli population. Then when the Israelis conquered Palestine and imposed the Nakba, the Israelis deported thousands of Armenians. You can find photos of Armenians in "transit" camps in Haifa awaiting their ethnic cleansing out of Palestine by Israelis.

      Next, I would point out that the Israelis impose discriminatory policies on the Armenians in Jerusalem even though there is a historical Armenian quarter. As a result of these harsh policies, the Armenian citizenry there are dwindling.

      So the argument you should make to Palestinian organizations is that Armenians have borne the impact of Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestine just like other Palestinians, both in the Nakba and today. In fact, based on the Palestinian Authority's definition of "Palestinians", Armenian inhabitants are "Palestinian" too, since the P.A. defines Palestinians as the people living there before the time of the mass Israeli settlement project in the 20th century. The Armenian quarter long predates that. As a result, Palestinian organizations have a duty to respect the hardships imposed on Armenians not only by Israelis but by the Israelis' ally, Turkey. One of those hardships has been the persecution of the Armenians by Turkey which forced them to move to Palestine in the first place.

      Please let me know if you read this.

      Regards and Respect.

  • Leading American rabbi issues first public criticism of apartheid conditions in Jerusalem
    • Yes, Mooser.
      I know personal cases of that with Palestinians and either their families or their own fears and prohibitions about others knowing their human rights concerns on the topic. They don't want to get under government surveillance for supporting other Palestinians- a concern the rabbi wouldn't have.

      Phil is right that they don't have to worry about family members shunning and hating them for being "wrong", but they have other more problems and risks that can be worse like Odeh had.

    • These rabbis are deeply immured in a communal conversation, which is why I think people should respect for Ellenson making this public break. Obviously it gives him pain to issue the criticisms that he does. (BTW, Palestinians who support the right of return don’t have to break with their siblings, parents and grandparents; no, they affirm that community by doing so.) - See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

      I take umbrage at that. The statement is true that they don't face pressure from close relatives on speaking out if their relatives are other Palestinans. BUT Palestinians have tons and tons of pressure from speaking out publicly about Palestine in a way that people raised in "pro-Israeli" communities do not. Namely, when the Palestinian says it, their opponents, who can be very hardcore PEPs and Neocons, may label them as being supporters of terrorism, Hamas, etc. etc. This libelous charge of being an Arab "pro-terrorist" can damage them in a wider American "pro-Israeli" society both in terms of reputation, job loss, fear of criminal charges, etc. in a way that a mere "ex-pro-Israeli" or rabbi would not face. A good example of this is the case of the "Holy Land" society in the US where Arab Americans were charged with supporting Hamas terrorism when they gathered humanitarian support for Gaza.

      So the good rabbi has it backwards when he says critics coming from the pro-Israeli community have it harder. While yes, Palestinians don't have to deal with relatives' support for Israeli abuses, their relatives actually have in some cases demanded that their children not talk about Palestine for fear of serious recriminations in the US.

    • Israel: The Danger of Idolatry
      Rabbi Arthur Waskow | 2/20/2015

      After looking at the specific question of the Netanyahu Speech, I will look more deeply into the distinction between seeing the State of Israel as an achievement to be celebrated and criticized, or as an idol to be worshipped.

      The Talmud also tells the story that the ancient rabbis hunted for the yetzer hara, the evil impulse, of idolatry. They thought that if they could find it, they could kill it – and end idolatry. They did finally find it – hidden in the Holy of Holies, at the sacred center of the Holy Temple.

      It is easier to make an idol of something greatly valuable than of something trivial. We face a choice between celebrating Israel when it is a worthy instrument for justice, peace, and Jewish culture — or worshipping it as an idol no matter how it acts. Idolators do not criticize their godlets. Torah sees idolatry as the worst of sins, for it leads to all the others. Greed. Lies. Slander. Robbery. Murder. God forbid that we turn the State of Israel into a Jewish idol.
      link to theshalomcenter.org

  • Jewish and Palestinian women are segregated in Israeli maternity wards -- Chomsky
    • Maxine,

      The problem with (a) mixing up the babies is that it creates the prince and the pauper "tragedy". The children in the Prince and the Pauper analogy have the same ethnicity, but due to noble birth, one is selected to rule the land and the people in it. Palestinians and Israelis very often do have the same ethnicity. There are many cases of Jews and Arabs converting to eachother's religions over the centuries and interbreeding. However, in the Israeli ideology, one cultural-religious community is the "rightful" owner of the land and thus those of "correct" birth must be kept separate from those who are born to be the ruled/dispossessed. That's the ideology. If you are Israeli, then God or the Balfour declaration or history has made you the "rightful" ruler of the land and your state must be dedicated to your group alone, after which over 50 laws have been imposed that separate you from the other groups who are ruled.

    • Anyway, it's obvious why they do this. They would not want even the possibility of a mix up where Isr./Pal babies are switched at birth like in the movie THE OTHER SON. You could risk the possibility of a baby with Israeli background being raised in a Muslim home, brought up in Islam/Christianity, treated as a Palestinian Arab / second class citizen by Israeli society and its law enforcement, etc. That should not be allowed to happen.

    • What's up with DaBakr and MAYHEM writing in to deny clearly established facts (see below) without actually providing evidence that specifically refutes Chomsky's claim?

      (eg. just because Dabakr says that the doctors aren't segregated doesn't mean that the patients aren't)

  • There is no better way than boycott
    • Some liberal forces had proposed that the "answer" was to replace Netanyahu with a liberal candidate for the prime minister's office, and they put their hopes on Livni/Herzog. However, Netanyahu is still considered the winner of that election.

      Their expectations of that election are a bit confusing for me. They should have known from the poll numbers that Netanyahu would either win or have a close enough outcome that he could rule with a coalition. Yet, to make a coalition, he would have to ally with some forces to his Left.

      My question is: What happened to the parties to Netanyahu's Left so that Netanyahu still was able to form a coalition with some of them? Did he form a coalition with Kahlon or Herzog? If not, then did Herzog and Kahlon consider forming their own coalition of centrist and left parties that would have more votes than Netanyahu and could rule the government?

  • Fingerhut boycotted J Street because 'millions of dollars' were on the line
  • Calling out Pamela Geller's hate speech in Philadelphia
    • Does anyone think the city's response and that of the interfaith center were adequate?

      I don't know what more one could expect. I suppose they could include discussion and criticisms of Geller's ads, but actually they did to some degree.

      To do more they could have called out "pro-Israelis" and how they have been pushing us to war and conflict with Muslims, but that's a lot to expect.

    • If you combine the two rulings it means this:
      1. Ads attacking Muslims do not cause a reaction of security threats.
      2. Ads criticizing Israeli abuses can cause a reaction against those displaying the ads. (eg. threats were called in to the bus company)

      Thus, the court rulings lead to the conclusion that pro-Israeli forces are an actual threat, while pro-Muslim forces aren't enough of one to censor speech.

  • Approaching Easter and Passover
    • As with Passover for Jews, the triumphal language surrounding Palm Sunday and Easter should be toned down. -Marc Ellis

      Israeli security forces are doing a fine job of that blocking native Christians from Easter in Jerusalem.

      "Remnants of Christendom continue apace in Christian Zionism and beyond."
      Aren't majority "Christian" societies from Russia to Argentina "Christendom", not just Christian Zionism. No need to overgeneralize or conflate everyone with that. Christian Zionism is probably a fraction of all Christendom.

      It is curious, though, how the most obvious aspect of Jesus confronting the contemporary occupation of Jerusalem is highlighted while Jesus’ Jewishness is barely acknowledged and rarely, if ever, emphasized.

      Jesus' Jewishness is acknowledged over and over again by basically all Christianity, the theologians of all denominations, Church fathers, etc. It comes up whether you read St Jerome in the 4th century or Fr. Meier's JESUS: A MARGINAL JEW in he 20th.

      BUT he did have views different than the religious mores of his community in terms of, say, observance of the Torah. The concept of ritual cleanliness did not seem very strictly enforced. He did have his followers do the handwashing ritual of phariseeism and modern Judaism, for example.

      The other thing is that Christianity teaches that we are to all be one in Christ whether we are Jewish or not. So in that sense, what is the spiritual need of emphasizing Jesus' Jewishness far beyond the way that our scholars and preachers and writers repeatedly already do?

  • Video: Max Blumenthal on the ways Zionism exploits anti-Semitism
    • Hi Yonah,

      If someone is against Jews simply for being Jews, particularly in their ethnic make- up, then they are anti-semitic. Anti-semitism, after all, is a form of racial enmity. They could express this different ways.

      I might as well ask you the same thing I asked Hophmi. Don't you think actual anti-semites and hardcore pro-Israelis are some of the most intense, often unhinged posters on the internet?

    • Hello, Hophmi.

      I did seriously ask for other peoples' views on this for more ideas and information.

      But as to you, it would be interesting to know whether you would agree that many pro-Israelis are really really really really intense about being pro-Israeli and avoid criticizing their political system and policies.

    • OK, up until 2:34, it was good, and it's important to be against anti-semitism like he explains. But then he says Gilad Atzmon is inciting against Jews. However, if Max is wrong and Atzmon is not making incitement, then Max is unfortunately also misusing the term anti-Semitism and labeling people who aren't.

      In reality, Atzmon (who is Jewish) does not criticize all, Jews, but directs much attention against those who create secular nationalist organizations because he believes that solidarity organizations should not be divided based on one's nationality, and that to do otherwise is exclusionary (what he calls "tribalism"). Now I think Atzmon is too strong in his criticism, but in any case, do you actually think that he is inciting against people for being Jews?

  • White House will go after AIPAC next -- Newsweek
    • "But in a January court response to IRMEP, the Defense Department said it was seeking Israel’s OK before releasing the document."
      Right. Because the Administration needs approval from the higher-ups before it can take such steps.

  • CUFI Leader John Hagee confirms Christian Zionism is anti-Semitic
    • For better or worse, JeffB is generally right on this one.

    • Ben,

      You wrote:
      Farah resolutely maintains that Christian Zionism is, in its very essence, an anti-Semitic ideology, as, in his view, it is an “anti-biblical position” to claim that Jews are not automatically damned to eternal suffering in a lake of fire merely by virtue of their being Jewish.

      This of course is incorrect. It is not virtue of merely based on being Jewish that the "Christian" Zio Evangelicals think this happens, but rather on whether one believes Jesus is the Messiah or not. Certainly, they would not consider Messianic Jews to be condemned. The parallel to this kind of thinking are Israelis who believe that Christianity is idolatry and that Christians get condemned.

      Thus, the Christian Zionists are not so much anti-semitic as intolerantly anti-Judaism, and unfortunately there are parallels on the Israeli side.

  • American Jews are taking back their power from Israel
    • Why is this rupture happening now? Why didn’t it happen during any number of earlier provocations, from the building of Har Homa settlement outside Jerusalem to the fomenting of the Iraq war to the slaughter of Cast Lead?

      One reason was how brazen Netanyahu was. Obama wants peace with Iran, and Netanyahu decided to run a full-house concert style applause session against Obama. There are other things, but that definitely played a big role.

    • Phil is the best regular writer here (no surprise, I suppose) with the way he writes about insider politics.

  • Netanyahu's victory ‐ what is the cost?
    • UNVERIFIED,

      In some ways it's better than Alabama, in other ways worse. It's better because slaves were directly owned by the whites. But it is worse than the slave days because Alabama wanted a black population to do work, and thus it had to avoid ethnic cleansing.

      So in some ways it's better, in others worse.

  • An American translation of Netanyahu's racist get out the vote speech
    • Thanks N’yahoo for taking off your mask and showing the world what you’ve always stood for. Now no one can pretend they didn’t know.

      What more could you ask for about him revealing himself? Coming to the US Congress and literally saying something like "I am your Prime Minister"? That would be too much. Although he could have said "Right now I am the 'leader of the free world' because we are on the front lines against Muslim extremism", and I think the Congress would have applauded.

    • Yes, it's huge.

      I think FInkelstein was previously parroting Chomsky on BDS because he said Chomsky was his ideological mentor now that he left Maoism. For him, the affect of such a strong mentor could be like reading that George Washington, the Bible, and Lenin were all against BDS. (and BTW this is not to denigrate Chomsky's good contributions otherwise)

      So I am simply skeptical that Finkelstein was so opposed to BDS all on his own. I think that someone who studied the issue so well as a radical should know better. But then, who knows. He used to be starry eyed about the peace process (to the extent that he thought it was realistic even if not ideal). Now Netanyahu has crushed Finkelstein's faith in the Israelis achieving the 2SS.

  • Netanyahu's honesty towards Palestinians casts unwelcome light on American Jewish leadership
    • Take comedienne Sarah Silverman for example. who tweeted last week “ISRAEL! If you are a Meretz supporter you NEED to VOTE MARCH 17. Every vote counts. If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” Now, I love Silverman and her sick comedy really speaks to me. And Meretz was one of the two parties I considered voting for. I certainly didn’t want this essential player in Israeli politics to fall beneath the electoral threshold. But there was something so insulting about Silverman’s tweet that I was glad I had already decided not to vote Meretz.

      Silverman, like every other person in the world, can express a view on another country’s internal politics, but going as far as to suggest to the citizens of that country how they should actually use their vote is crass and in extremely bad taste.
      (Anshel Pfeffer, "Diaspora Jews butted in but Netanyahu won the elections anyway")

      I don't get it. The Israelis call themselves the state of the world's Jewish people, so how is it crass for Diaspora Jews to weigh in on "their" state's elections? After all, Netanyahu says openly that he represents the world's Jews.

    • Nice article.

  • Netanyahu's victory marks the end of the two-state solution
    • Drug use has in some cases like early industrial China ruined societies and made them very weak.

  • Who can save Israel now?
    • Citizen,

      Net's popularity went up 2 percent points among republicans and down by what, 10 among Democrats.

Showing comments 4154 - 4101
Page: