Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4959 (since 2009-08-12 22:27:08)

yonah fredman

"i am a zionist who believes in a two state solution." This was my profile sentence for the last three years. Here is my update: The two state solution is striking in its simplicity and its legal basis on the 1947 partition resolution and UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967. A US president should certainly pursue this direction. But unelected to the US presidency, I am not so limited. Recent calls from various parts of the Israeli political spectrum to grant the right to vote (in Israeli elections) to West Bank Palestinians appeals to me. The trick is to turn this idea into a policy of the state. Granted this would not solve Gaza or the refugees, but it would be a giant step, if not a leap. Another addendum: Shlomo Sand is the last person I thought would "buck me up" in my Zionism, but he has. The attempt to dismantle Israel in the one state plans offered will not result in a solution, and I think that at some point the situation will clarify itself into forcing israel to turn itself into a nation of its citizens and to get Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. As Sand says things don't look good from here.

Showing comments 4959 - 4901

  • Pro-Israel wealthy Jews feature in 'Forward,' Christie roast, and U of Michigan censorship
    • I am of course guilty of talking about Jewish wealth publicly - See more at: link to

      the referenced article was antiSemitic in any number of ways. weiss has talked about jewish money in politics many times for many years, but the article in question was a Jew hating article in many ways aside from the topic that Weiss is focusing on here.

  • No Palestinians need apply to new Israeli government-- and American liberals don't notice
    • The Joint Arab List is a nonZionist or anti Zionist party.

      They are not natural allies to the right wing government of Netanyahu and to highlight this issue at this time is a bit tone deaf. (Or more precisely, what a great time to highlight this issue even if it is really irrelevant in this dynamic.)

      But it is a real issue and the key media moment portraying this racist attitude towards the Arab parties by the central parties was enunciated by Lapid in 2013 with his "we're not joining the Zoabis". Comparisons to apartheid or Jim Crow 1964 are modes of mobilizing energy against Israel, but not real attempts at analysis. As long as Arab citizens are considered a demographic threat, Israel has a real racism problem and there is no covering that up. Real problem, superficial analysis.

  • A response to the 'Washington Post' blogger who calls me an anti-Semite
    • The essence of the original post seemed to be: the problem with Israel is not nationalism nor colonialism but something wrong with those sneaky Jews. Tell me what I'm missing.

    • Journalism is supposed to be the first rough draft of history. With his Passover post Weiss shows that sometimes his journalism is the first rough draft of Father Coughlin's Sunday night sermon.

  • 'BirthWrong' in the Cradle of Jewish Culture: Jews gather in southern Spain for tour that aims to repudiate Zionism
    • Ironic that they would pick Spain as their destination. How many Jews live in Spain? More or less than lived there in 1492? Spain is certainly not a shining light for the Jewish Diaspora existence at least since the Christians took over and the last I looked, although post Christian might be more accurate, the Christians still control Spain. A strange place to assert the beauties of the Jewish Diaspora?

  • David Horowitz to OSU: 'Jews didn't expel the Arabs in 1948' and 'the occupation is a huge lie'
    • Kris- Actually I don't wish to be invited to discuss issues. I truly wish to discuss only the issues that I choose to discuss without invitations. (This is not totally true. If Donald Johnson were to invite a discussion I would accept. There are decent people in this comments section.)

      I think that the word hasbara-ist is superior to the word hasbarist.

    • David Horowitz is classic ba'al teshuva: one who repents. A convert from the red diaper days of his youth due to the murder of someone by the Black Panthers in Oakland, back in the 70's, he is uncorked. There is a need for reasonable criticism of Israel embodied by Peter Beinart and the criticism of Israel of Ari Shavit is also in accord with my thinking. David Horowitz really does not help. Neither does Kris with her demand for a comment from me or others. Kris, are you somehow interested in dialogue of any sort? Demanding- why aren't the hasbara-ists commenting here is street corner manners and certainly not a first step to a conversation.

  • Two videos to challenge my liberal Zionist friends
    • socialconscience- I have never communicated with you before and you did not exactly start us off on the right foot. If in fact you desire to communicate rather than to pontificate, I will consider the slate clean. No, I do not have a blog. But yes, I am allowed to comment about Phil Weiss's blog. I will discuss my Zionism at length, but prefer not to at this time. and you, all I can tell is that you are impressed with yourself enough to give yourself a highfallutin' nom de blog. I've met an anti Zionist or two in my life that I got along with, but let's see if we can't exchange a thought or an idea or two before calling me names. Tell me something about yourself. Do you come here often?

    • mooser- I know that my comment to phil was public, but it really wasn't meant for you or others, it was meant for Phil. Here he has explicitly invited, or challenged liberal Zionists, which means me and not you. and I answered. but i also told him, that if he really wants to challenge liberal zionists he ought to cut out the self indulgent cultural jew hatred.

      no, he did not use the word "kike". but the column was deeply offensive to me and to the other liberal zionists who reacted to it. and if all he wants to do is communicate with the amen chorus, fine. but then don't come two days later and challenge the liberal zionists, as if all is well and peaceful. it's not all well and peaceful, phil. your column this week was really off the mark and if you want to turn around two days later and challenge the liberal zionists, then go right ahead. but it's not okay with me. mooser approves, so challenge him with some question, if you want to challenge liberal zionists then stop with the Jew hatred crap.

      journalism is supposed to be the rough draft of history, phil. but your column two days ago was the rough draft for Father Coughlin's sunday evening Jew baiting speech.

    • Phil- The sins of the occupation (Hebron) and of the Nakba (1950) are not confessed by all liberal Zionists, but I accept that a full human response to the Palestinians requires facing up to these sins. In fact as a liberal Zionist I do not have an alternative to posit to the BDS that you propose.

      That is why it seems to me that the cultural antiSemitism that you promoted earlier this week is exactly the wrong route for you to take. link to It is self indulgence. This is your blog and if you feel an urge to diss Jews or aspects of Jewish culture, no one can stop you. It's your blog. But if you wish to communicate with Jews who do not like the Lillian Hellman types calling low class Jews, "kikes" then you will have to control yourself. But if your object is self expression keep those antisemitic tropes coming as long as your heart desires to express itself. If you wish to dialogue or communicate with Jews who don't like hearing "kike" (or even the equivalent of "kike" from this week's column) then stick to arguments like this one and avoid the self indulgent self expression.

  • Obama's role model to journalists -- Dorothy Thompson -- turned against Zionism and was silenced
    • irishmoses- You drop the names of Arendt and Einstein as if to imply that you and Dorothy Thompson deserve to be known in the context of their greatness. But your snippy little response reveals your true level.

    • irishmoses- To compare Dorothy Thompson's change from Zionist to antiZionist to the changes that Arendt and Einstein went through is unhelpful (euphemism for silly).

      Arendt was all over the place in her Zionism after Biltmore 1942. During the 6 day war and Yom Kippur War her sympathies were with Israel. When the AJC offered Arendt a forum to defend herself in the aftermath of the Eichmann articles, she politely explained to the AJC that she still believed in Jewish peoplehood, despite her differences with Israeli policies.

      I have no evidence that Einstein ever changed his point of view. He was a binationalist Zionist of a Judah Magnes type to begin with and continued as such until his death. But there's a whole book on Einstein's Zionism that I have not read and maybe you read it and you can tell me what kind of Zionist he was at the time of the establishment of Hebrew University and how he changed after the Nakba.

  • Forgiving the anti-Semites
    • Giles- Not one link. You made a contention and backed it up with nothing.

      fortune 500, who owns those companies? who runs those companies? provide us with facts and statistics. but no. that's beneath you.

    • Giles- Please attach links to your statistics.

      Is it your contention that only the billionaires control America and not the rest of the top 1%. What percentage of the top 1% is Jewish. Again, please include links to your statistics.

      The only aspect that Jewish control in politics is exerted is regarding Israel. If there was some other Jewish angle to politics that the Jews controlled then I might agree with your assessment. But there is not. The only aspect of politics where Jews exert control is regarding Israel and that is a major problem. But that does not make them the controlling elite or the ruling class.

      The marketplace rules America. Jews are prominent on Wall Street and at the Fed. Would someone nonJewish at the Fed change the policy of the Fed?

      Giles, should I call you by some other name in order to make us even? Is obtuseness your form of manners?

    • mooser- "I" am "betting" that I will use "quotation marks" in a way that you will not "approve". I will "try" to use them more judiciously.

      (reminds me of Chris Farley "hygiene" "shower enough")

      Now on your serious question. Actually I think the thing that worries me the most is that Israel will become less and less democratic. But it does not serve my emotional purposes to get into the crux of the problem and I prefer to deal with secondary issues like Phil playing hopscotch with the line between the Jew hating and Israel bashing.

      But ask yourself, mooser, dear human with an animal name to protect your face, are your anti Zionist credentials better than Donald Johnson's antiZionist credentials? And if you agree that he is as good an antiZionist as you, why is it that he thinks that Phil should ease up on the cultural antisemitism and you give it "two thumbs up"? Oh, he's a softie and your a shtarker? I see. Now it's clear.

    • Giles- The American ruling class is currently Jewish. Quote.

      No, this is not true. The American ruling class is disproportionately Jewish, (meaning that, just picking numbers out of a hat here, instead of 2% of the ruling class being Jewish, 20% of the ruling class is Jewish), but it is not currently Jewish. And please provide statistics to back this up, if you really think it's true. And admit that you're wrong if you lack those numbers.

    • This is one for the time capsule.

      In the future when studying early 21st century blurring of the lines between anti semitism and anti Zionism, this column by Phil Weiss and the comments by the "crew" will be cited as a great example of this blur. Congrats, Phil and "crew"! Great job!

    • So, let's take a final tally.

      Jews run the media and are guilty of neglecting Hiroshima and overemphasizing Auschwitz. Insider trading is the only thing that is noticeable about the success of Jews on Wall Street. Some Jewish businessmen stole from the record industry by pretending the records they could not sell were actually damaged and years later other Jews laugh about it. Herzl curried to the anti Semites in his appeal for Zionism. Some Jews spend heaps of money in order to eat heaps of food on Passover. The Hagadda has a worse sense of morality than a 6 year old. We must consider US 2015 before reaching any conclusions regarding the history of the Jews up until 1945.

      No comment.

  • Marking Memorial Day in Tel Aviv with Kahanists and Combatants for Peace
    • To Dan Cohen the views of Combatants for Peace is not sufficiently anti Israel or pro Palestinian. But the building of friendships and relationships between Israelis and Palestinians is a good thing and Cohen's critique is besides the point.

    • oldgeezer- I was unaware that this demonstration was held this past week. I doubt these demonstrations take place once a month, but the once a year demonstrations on Jerusalem Day are bad enough. I am not sure how the government (besides monitoring its own incendiary statements and policies) should react to demonstrations of this sort in Israel proper. East Jerusalem presents its own complexities.

  • 'NYT' runs piece of unadulterated propaganda for Israeli army
    • though never forget that Jim Clancy lost his job at CNN for using the word hasbara - See more at: link to

      Not sure why Clancy lost his job. Could it be that he used the word hasbara where it was meant to fend off an assertion, an assertion that was in fact accurate and should have been analyzed on its own basis rather than attacking the person making the assertion? he used the word to fend off the truth rather than as a way of describing an article or anything of that nature. So if we should never forget the great Jim Clancy and the terrible loss that he suffered, let us at least remember the context of his use of the word hasbara, not as description as Phil Weiss is using it here, but as a weapon against an assertion that should have stood (or fallen) on its own merit, not on the word hasbara tossed at a person who had every right to participate in a conversation.

  • Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: An argument
    • sycamore- I'm sorry for nitpicking. In general I agree that I don't know how the Palestinians should or will deal with their oppression.

      but nitpick I will: the Palestinians are under the longest military occupation in the world. - See more at: link to
      What about Tibet?

  • Graham and Rubio are dependent on pro-Israel money in bid for White House
    • mooser- in convivial surroundings I would be more than happy to talk about my Jewish self hatred. but these are not convivial surroundings.

      and read the essay by adrienne rich and tell me what you to

    • Doubtom- When Lillian Hellman referred to Jews who were lower class than her as kikes, does that not amount to self hate. In fact much self hate is merely hatred of those from your group that you don't like. But Adrienne Rich in her essay on her Jewish identity "Split at the Root" laments that her parents (her Jewish father and nonJewish mother) had trained her in the talent of passing as a nonJew but had taught her nothing about identifying. She calls out her father as a self hating Jew. Check out that essay and tell me what you think.

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • Trying to determine the validity of historical theories regarding World War I is above my pay grade. When someone offers no names of historians or a name of a historian that doesn't even measure up to a google search, then we are dealing in wisps of air. I will concede to irishmoses superior knowledge to that of my own regarding the causes of World War I. I have meager knowledge of that time frame and almost anyone who shows just a modicum of knowledge probably knows more than me about the causes of that war. Still I will not credit theories of causation based upon mere assertion. Which is what this turns out to be.

    • irishmoses- Please name a historical work (or two or three) that attribute Wilson's decision to enter WWI on Brandeis's influence.

  • Love letter to a Zionist: NYU project seeks to bridge Israel divide within Jewish families
    • MHughes- Thanks for clarifying your familiarity with Alter's scholarship and defense of Israel on previous occasions.

      Was Judah Magnes a Zionist? Was Buber a Zionist?

      A definition is either accurate or inaccurate might not apply to an ideological term. What is the definition of a believing Jew? One who believes that God and the Jews have a special relationship? One who believes that the Torah is word for word dictated by God? One who believes that God gave Moses both the oral law and the written law? One who believes in the resurrection of the dead and the other 12 dogma delineated by Maimonides?

      But back to Zionist. If one opposed the Nakba or voted in favor (in the cabinet) of letting the refugees back in, did that make one not a Zionist? I think precision is not necessarily a useful term in regards to ideologies and minimal versus maximalism is precisely the best way of relating to a definition.

      of course definitions are not the be all and end all. ultimately Israel's actions will be judged rather than the validity of Zionism as an ideology of uncertain definition.

    • MHughes- Robert Alter was not defining his brand of Zionism. He was defining the minimal definition of Zionism. Was Judah Magnes a Zionist according to Alter's definition? Not sure. Maybe Magnes's concept of a binational confederation would not have fit Alter's definition. But to say. "I don't think Alter would be satisfied with that" is first of all, unseemly, because you don't know anything about Alter's stand on Zionism, but also irrelevant, because he was not defining his own brand, but the minimal definition.

  • Just like the Nazis, Iran 'plans to exterminate six million Jews' -- Netanyahu
    • Keith- It is certainly possible that many of those who favor a militaristic policy regarding Russian intentions in the Ukraine also favor Israel's existence. But to promise a complete reordering of US society with its implied threat, based upon the fact that there are Zionist neoconservatives who view a battle in Eastern Europe through lenses that are too hawkish for your taste, is in a totally different realm than the furor about Israel lobby and the Iranian nuke program. If you wish to blame Zionism for the US policy towards Russia vis a vis the Ukraine, you are out to lunch. If you are merely reminding me that a militaristic attitude of Zionists is not limited to the Middle East, then fine, point taken.

    • Giles- Your inclusion of Ukraine as a goal of war by the Zionists is the tip off. you're unbalanced.

    • I disagree with Netanyahu's logic in comparing Iran with Nazi Germany. This web site would have more credibility condemning Netanyahu if you would admit that there is something for Israel to fear. Netanyahu takes a reasonable fear and pumps it into unreality. This web site treats a reasonable fear as if it were paranoia.

  • Obama's long & passionate Monday with Saban, Foxman, Hoenlein and other Jewish leaders demonstrates power of Israel lobby
    • If you had asked Yitz Rabin why he pursued the Oslo agreement, he would have told you, because the Palestinians don't pose an existential threat, Iran's nuke poses the existential threat and to meet the existential threat we must make movement on the Palestinian issue.

      The Iranian nuke is a highly unusual circumstance. Netanyahu's gauche unthinking visit to the Congress served notice at least of this: the Iranian nuke is a highly unusual circumstance.

      My own reaction is precisely (like Peter Beinart's) that the American people's opinions should be reflected by their elected representatives. I also must insist that the war against Iraq weakened American strength and resolve and if the Axis of Evil speech had been truly serious (it wasn't, it was merely an excuse to go to war against Iraq, but if it had been) that would have been the moment to declare the necessity of Iran agreeing to dismantle its nuclear program. Resolve at that moment would have paid off more handsomely than this agreement which seems to make Iran a threshold state in 13 years.

  • Marco Rubio and AIPAC allied in effort to insert poison pill into Iran deal
    • The Israeli fear of an Iranian nuke seems normal rather than right wing to me. The Israeli tendency to see the cure to an Iranian nuke through military means is militaristic and you have termed it as right wing. But right wing usually means something a little bit more than just militaristic.

  • Gunter Grass became 'persona non grata' for 2012 poem exposing Israeli nuclear hypocrisy
    • I suppose a journalist would know best as to what should come first in an obituary. The Iran-Israel conflict on the issue of nukes is on the front page and its timeliness might have propelled the obit writer to include it early in the article. Because the Waffen SS fact and hiding of the fact was a major stain on his career and had to be mentioned early on, the Iran-Israel poem fit into that kerfuffle (if only as an accusation) and thus was included early on in the obit.

  • My personal journey of transformation
    • Anyone who thinks that the new Palestine after the dissolution of Zionism is going to resemble the US is living in a dream of unicorns and candy canes and rainbows and happy pretty people singing kumbaya.

  • Israel could reduce anti-Semitic violence by not calling itself the Jewish state, Finkelstein says
    • Sibiriak- It is indeed easy to differentiate between anti Semitic rhetoric and anti Zionist rhetoric. But if someone (in this case an Islamic fundamentalist murderous fanatic) goes into a Jewish kosher market and kills Jews and some people say, "this is blowback for Gaza", in essence they are saying, an antiSemitic act cannot be isolated from an antiZionist context. That's what I was saying. If the rhetoric of Paris's suburban Islamic slums interweaves anti Zionism and anti Semitism, we can bring a microscope and parse each comment for its comment. But when suggestions of "why doesn't Israel stop calling itself a Jewish state?" are offered tongue in cheek, and are taken seriously, then it becomes obvious that the attempt to differentiate between anti Zionism and anti Semitism in particular in western Europe is a difficult task.

    • Walid, I don't think Shmuel was offended. I did not mean to offend him and I don't think he was offended. It's kind of like two blacks (in America) calling each other , Hey Nigger. kind of like that. something that white people can't get away with, but african americans can and do.

      but it could be that I did offend Shmuel, who knows. it was my way of saying hello to a fellow Jew.

      I had a friend in Jerusalem who wished me a happy yom hashoah once and i did not take offense and it was offered in the same vein, with a self deprecating smile.

    • Shmuel- It always adds to have more information and your input regarding those who marched in support of Palestinians who suffered violence is useful knowledge. But the topic discussed by Norman Finkelstein was the question of the violence suffered by the Jewish community.

      In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo killings (or in the latter phases of the killing before the killers were apprehended) a kosher market was attacked and four Jews were killed there. These were not people who were demonstrating their political preferences (something that should be assured by the police in a society that believes in free speech) but they were killed because they were Jews. In Jeffrey Goldberg's article re: should jews leave europe, he includes the fact that he was hanging out (interviewing) Alain Finkielkraut at the time that the news of the killings (or the hostage taking) had occurred at the kosher market and Finkielkraut commented, "But of course". But of course at the time of murdering cartoonists for their anti Islamic cartoons, but of course, some supporters of that frame of mind would jump on the bandwagon to express their alienation from society by going into a kosher store and shooting up some Jews.

      This is the frame of mind on one side of Finkielkraut on one side and Finkelstein on the other side.

      I don't take Finkelstein's comments seriously on this issue. Israel is not going to announce tomorrow that it is not a Jewish state. In fact, its policies of immigration are explicitly oriented towards its Jewish status and is Finkelstein expressing a desire to see Israel change its immigration policies? Of course not. He is merely speaking his mind and not proposing anything that anyone is really going to consider.

      Most Jews support Israel at least to the extent of rejecting BDS. Are they all worthy targets? Certainly it would be useful for those Jews (in Europe, it's not really an issue in the states yet) who oppose BDS to wear a "Not in my name" symbol, so if they ever go into a kosher market or take their kids to a Jewish school or attend a Jewish temple, the murderers will know to avoid killing them. but of course I jest. it is not serious. the murderers are out to kill Jews and if they kill a BDS Jew, it won't bother them so much.

      yes, it would be ideal to separate between Jew haters and haters of Zionism. But there is no practical means of doing so at this time.

    • In Roman Polanski's "Fearless Vampire Killers" of '67, there is a Jewish vampire. when someone tries to protect against his advances with the help of a crucifix, he says, "boy, have you got the wrong vampire."

    • hey Shmuel. i'd wish you a happy yom hashoah, but some would take it the wrong way.

      i think the dynamics of france are decidedly different than the dynamics in Italy. I don't have the figures for accurate demographics right off, but i'm quite sure that france's problem of assimilating a large north african muslim population dwarfs the issue in italy. as far as violence, there's been more violence in the u.s. with the attack on the jewish community center in kansas two years ago than there's been in italy. (true paris is probably closer to rome than kansas is to brooklyn.)

      jews in the diaspora in the main are going to be supporters of Israel no matter naftali bennett and avigdor lieberman etc. if one cannot separate antizionism from attacks on Jews in Europe then we cannot expect the change to come from policy statement by Israel or by the mainstream jewish organizations. there might be some ideal that can envision a different world in this respect, but it won't take place anytime soon under current conditions.

    • Finkelstein told us on a previous occasion what he thinks about European Jews of 2015: link to "In the face of so much ineffable suffering in the world today, I couldn’t care less about the “state of Jews in Europe”. So obviously whatever suggestions that he is making are offered as a form of argument, but not out of any concern with the fate of European or Diaspora Jews. But somehow we are supposed to take his suggestions seriously.

    • annie- here's what walid wrote: It’s somewhat as what happened in Sabra Shatilla to the Palestinians. Technically, it was the Lebanese militia that did the butchering but they were able to do it only because the Israelis held the Palestinians down, provided night lighting and other logistical support that made the butchering possible. So you could say that it was actually the Israelis that were responsible for the massacres even though the Lebanese did the killing. - See more at: link to

      It is true that Walid was not commenting on Zionism but on the specific acts at a particular time by Israel. But although the implications of the analogy are indeed unclear. It seems clear that Walid seemed to be saying, just like the Jews at the time of Jesus were ultimately responsible for Jesus's death, so the Israelis at the time of Sabra Shatila were ultimately responsible for the killings by the Phalange.

      my first intention is to communicate with Walid, who seemed to have no problem with the question that I posed. then, if you want a quote, in my good time, that's how this delayed communication works with me. i write, i wait a day, i read, i add a quote, i wait a day. you call me poisonous. i react. i wait a day. it's very zen, annie. this is the pace that works for me. sorry.

    • Walid- No, from reading your comments in the past I would say that your hatred of Zionism measures between 99 and 100 on a scale of 100 and your hatred of Jews measures somewhere between 5 and 20 on a scale of 100.

      Utilizing the Christ killer meme to attack Zionism is classic antisemitism in the service of anti Zionism.

      By the way: Luke is filled with certain pro Jewish comments that are missing from the other gospels: primarily: some of the pharisees warned Jesus that the Herodians are out to kill you and Jesus said, "nonetheless I cannot hide my glory out of fear". paraphrase.

      also: the thief was a freedom fighter. Barabbas fought for the zealots and the term thief was used to denigrate, like terrorist today. the zealots were famous in Jerusalem and Jesus was an unknown. the Jews voted to free Barabbas, a freedom fighter and not some magician enigmatic preacher rabbi from Galilee. That's called all politics is local and freedom fighter wins out over multiplying loaves and fishes.

      Those who cite the new testament to condemn the Jews display an awesome blindness regarding the politics of the day in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin, even if the gospel reports are accurate about their culpability, were nonetheless status quo politicians backing Herod and the rule of Rome. These were quislings, not representatives of the people. If a similar situation occurred today anywhere in the world you would right away pick up on government and anti government dynamics and tell a full story with all the politics complete. but the new testament and its tendency towards hate allows you to skip any political analysis. bravo stupidity and ignorance. long may you reign.

    • walid demonstrates precisely the overlap of jew hatred and antizionism. this one belongs in a picture book: behold the overlap.

  • Stanford Hillel defied Hillel guidelines by hosting Gottlieb -- 'and no one burst into flames'
    • Phil- Obviously just complaining about your use of [gangster[ is insufficient. Let me try this. Could you provide us with other current or historical politicians that you would also use the word [gangster[ to describe them, then I might be able to get a better handle on your use of the term. It doesnt have to be a politician, just someone whose name I recognize so that I can get an understanding of what you are getting at.

      heres the quote
      It’s happening, no matter what the gangsters at Hillel International want students to think or say. - See more at: link to

  • Who cares what Jeffrey Goldberg and Netanyahu don't like about the Iran deal?
    • Actually at this point all we/they have is a framework and there are many details needed to be filled in. Read David Ignatius in the Washington Post. link to A delicate path ahead on Iran. Those who wish to exert pressure might be best advised to take the framework as the starting point and pointing out: well, if the final agreement based upon this clause is x then Obama has appeased again, but if it is y then we will see that he did his best.

      I still assert from a 20-20 hindsight point of view that the US should not have attacked Iraq in 2003 and should have used the world's empathy and its own citizens' rage for a targeted sanctions campaign against Iran that would have resulted in a much more severe limitation on Iran's nuclear program. It is the weakened fatigued US of 2015 that is negotiating this agreement and thus the brevity of the period of severe limitations on Iran.

  • Faithwashing: the Muslim Leadership Institute and the academic boycott
    • Donald- The Palestinians of Gaza want an end to the siege. Israel wants assurances that weapons are not imported into Gaza. Would you be in favor of trying to satisfy both these wishes?

  • Italian BDS activists call on Unicef to pull out of cartoon festival honoring Israel
    • Walid- 1. The decision of the Jewish Zionists in Israel to pursue statehood in 47 and 48 is understandable and even today if I was standing next to them I could not tell them to do otherwise. By that point in time they had achieved sufficient size and confidence that there was really no turning them back. I admire Judah Magnes and his predictions about the nature of statehood have proved true. But I could not tell Ben Gurion "You are wrong. Magnes is right." Not that my saying it would have made any difference, but the moment of history had arrived and Ben Gurion grabbed it.
      2. The decision to pursue statehood and the Nakba, that is the exile or expulsion or ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians from the new state of Israel cannot really be separated from one another. That is: the state that Ben Gurion wished to proclaim was not going to be one in which there would be a significant Palestinian population. It is feasible that had someone else been at the head of the Zionist movement that the war of 47 to 48 might have been fought without the goal of exiling the Palestinians. But this was one of Ben Gurion's goals of how the new state would come into being: with the expulsion of the majority of Palestinians.
      3. I see Deir Yassin in that context.
      4. Without that context: I see the battle for Jerusalem to be a battle for the survival of the large Jewish population in Jerusalem and the battle for Deir Yassin in that context.
      5. The trained, disciplined soldiers of the Hagana and the Palmach were capable of cruelty and were cruel on different occasions. the untrained troops of the Irgun and Lehi (Stern Gang) had their own histories of cruelty and included in that history is what occurred at Deir Yassin.

  • Iran is 'congenital cheating' 'Islamic power bent on world domination' -- Netanyahu tells US media
    • marc b. - It's theoretical at this point, but the US squandered a lot of good will from European allies and others by attacking Iraq. Making an effort to curtail the Iranian nuke program would probably not have involved an attack, but sanctions are a form of aggressive policy and that policy might have yielded better results if the US had not already expended its energy on a war with Iraq.

    • Let me present my overall reaction to the story of the proposed framework:
      1. I think it is natural for the Israelis to fear Iran. Obama agrees with me. (I am assuming that Obama was not lying when he spoke to Tom Friedman.)
      2. The US shot its wad in 2003 on the stupid war against Iraq. If not for the natural fatigue that has followed that debacle, if instead the US would have garnered its strength and anger after 9/11 and focused on Iran, then there might have been a much better agreement with Iran.
      (My definition of a much better agreement is a first phase of 20 to 30 years instead of a first phase of 10 years.)
      3. It is not clear what the Congress can do to block the agreement. (The agreement is not a 100% done deal, but it has to be given an 80% likelihood to be signed approximately on July 8th.)
      4. The Iranian regime is not nearly as apocalyptic and dangerous as it was in its early stage when Khomeini was alive. (Nonetheless their rhetoric is still in the cesspool too much of the time and it is difficult to prove to those who have valid fears that the words of Iran's imams are innocent, when in fact, they are not.)
      5. I do not have sufficient knowledge to allay my own fears vis a vis Iran's nuke, let alone to compete with Ari shavit and Jeffrey Goldberg who know more than I do about nukes and war games and balance of power. I did not sit at the Passover seder with people who are to my left, but with people who watch Fox news and who consider Obama an enemy to Israel and there is no way that my dependence on Barak Ravid's "it's not such a bad agreement" can allay their fears.

      6. There is a wide gap between the interests of the US vis a vis the Iranian nuke and the interests of Israel vis a vis the Iranian nuke. If I felt those interests were identical I would be willing to fight the agreement, but I will not do so because if it is in the US interest, but against Israel's interest, I don't feel right lobbying my congressman and senators to fight for Israel's interest rather than the US interest. I envy neoconservatives who consider the US and Israel interest as identical, because they are free to fight this agreement without reservation, but I cannot.

      7. I am not sure what role American Zionists who are opposed to the settler movement should play in the Iran context. Peter Beinart seems rather sure of himself and whereas on the issue of settlements and resolution 242 I am not far from Beinart, I have nowhere near sufficient self confidence on this issue to go full steam ahead and say that this is the best possible agreement.

  • 'NYT' describes Congress as Netanyahu's wind-up toy
    • traintosiberia- you have misspelled Shlomo Ben Ami. Although the english version of this name is Solomon with a vowel between the "s" and the "L", the Hebrew has no vowel between the "Sh" and the "L".

    • The decisions to be made re: Palestinians, will revolve around the question as to Security Council resolutions, as in a new resolution to replace 242 or to be specific regarding 242's ambiguities, and as such is totally in the purview of the president (nothing can be done by Congress to block the president, such as sanctions in the case of Iran). Democrats in Congress will by a wide margin support Israel and oppose Obama if he indeed backs a new UNSC resolution. Only a handful of democrats will back Obama on that issue. Iran is something different. First the role of Congress because of sanctions is much more central than regarding UNSC resolutions, and very few democrats will back Obama if he tries to reshuffle the decks in regards to 242.

  • Now Obama needs to 'compensate' Netanyahu -- NYT pipes Israeli propaganda (Update)
    • annie- "There's nothing american about her" apparently is an innocuous sentence that deserves indifference or respect. it is i who am bloviating when i consider it an act of exclusion.

      Listen. mondoweiss touts itself as the war of ideas. but you fight your war, in the comments section, by not allowing me to comment in real time and then you accuse me of hopscotching and ad hominem attacks, when i have only attacked words, ideas and policy statements and not people. How can I hopscotch when you determine when and if my comments are published. how is this a war of ideas, when you insist on fighting me on your terms and not on level (real time) playing ground. you are incapable of fighting an even field war of ideas. only by tying one arm behind my back (delaying my comments) are you able to fight me. your idea of a war of ideas, is playing childish games and pretending as if you are about ideas.

    • Back in the day, 1968 or so, if some student screamed "Ho, ho, ho chi minh, ho chi minh is going to win," that student could be accused of treachery of being a traitor. but i would not go so far as to say, "there is nothing American about her". Do you really think that rudoren's disrespect towards the president by going into a narrative voice that accepts them both as leaders as the understood and wishes to label them purely by their nationality rather than including their leadership position, do you really think that this is worse than "ho, ho, ho chi minh..." or do you think that student can be described as "there is nothing american about her." i think such a description is a mark of intolerance, a mark of someone who does not accept nuance, who is so intent on "whose side are you on?" that he has gone into the language of hatred, exclusion and excommunication. by law rudoren is american, by culture rudoren is american, but citizen now is not only citizen but in charge of who gets to keep their citizenship and who gets to be called an american. and you defend him?! or maybe it's only my awkward phrasing that you are attacking and you too realize that citizen's words are words of intolerance.

    • citizen tells us: There's nothing American about her. As if American is a purely militaristic state of mind. ultimately the charge of dual loyalty is whose army and whose bullets do you favor? america's or israel's? and if you favor israeli bullets then your loyalty belongs there. but now citizen tells us that there is nothing american about her. thus it is revealed that bullets is all that counts to citizen. there is nothing cultural about america, there is no content to america except that american bullets are citizen's bullets and american bullets are not rudoren's bullets.

    • The implied story is that Bibi is threatening to do his utmost to undercut the treaty in the Congress, unless Obama promises to cease and desist on his plans to impose a two state solution through a UN security council resolution. The idea of punishing Bibi might provide some of the emotional energy of the administration in the direction of a new UN security council resolution, but in fact 242 was a failure and a new resolution is in fact necessary. This article in the times is a reflection of a type of negotiation that's going on about the content of that UN security council resolution. akiva eldar and others including the late david landau in rather colorful language are in favor of imposing a solution on israel (and on the palestinians) and bibi's misplaying of his cards has created a golden opportunity for the US to step into the breach of the historic moment and pass a new UN security council resolution that has the specificity that 242 lacked. how specific can obama and the french, who will be the primary negotiators, get? i don't know. but that's the scene behind the scene.

  • When occupation becomes apartheid
    • tree- If I say your mother comes home late every night. She oughta watch herself. A lady that age going out so late in this neighborhood. She ought to take better care.

      If I am the local cop telling you that, then it's one thing. But if I am the local thug telling you that, it's quite another thing. You think Lindbergh was some innocent and the interpretation of his words is irrelevant to his heart. I do not care about his heart. I care about the threat implicit in his words.

      The Des Moines speech was the lowest point in American Jewish history in terms of a famous public figure threatening the Jews.

    • tree- you are an intelligent human being plus you are an American and you believe in the unity of the human race. three bravos.

      anyone who defends Lindbergh's infamous Des Moines speech of september 1941 in the disingenuous fashion that you at first attempted until scaling back to merely obnoxious falls into the antiJewish category. (i'm sure that out of every 1000 people who would defend that speech at least 3 of them don't have a jew hating bone in their body. but i'll bet you're one of the 997.) if only your refusal to see that speech from the standpoint of American Jews it paints you as someone who refuses to see things from the vantage point of the Jews. I asked you what people you belonged to in an attempt to fathom the variety of Jew hatred that lies at the basis of your opposition to the Jews. There are 31 varieties of ice cream at Baskin Robbins and there are many varieties of Jew hatred, some attached to ethnic origin and I was curious if you learnt your Jew hatred from the newspapers or from your grandparents or from Toynbee or Voltaire or the New Testament or from your concept of the better world where the past can be dismissed as so much flotsam. In the good old days when i used to haunt the pro Palestinians on east 14th street on saturdays in manhattan, I was able to meet the haters face to face and i got all kinds of input to add to the words they spoke. the nature of written communication is different.

      at this point of time there is no real problem with antisemitism in america, as in: it does not measure up to the occasional killings in western europe and certainly not to other eras of recent history, so your hatred of the Jews is relatively harmless.

      (I use jew hatred because antisemitism is not specific enough and judeophobia is a silly word. in fact jew hatred is probably too harsh a term, antiJewish would sum it up in a less loaded way. )

Showing comments 4959 - 4901