Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4818 (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 4818 - 4801

  • Pelosi blasts Netanyahu speech as 'insult to intelligence of U.S.', Amanpour calls it 'dark, Strangelovian'
    • The primary problem with the speech was that it took place, not its content.

      I'm sure that one or two of the commentators here are experts in nuclear war theory and in negotiations history and can actually give us information about what could be expected if this current deal is approved by Obama and Kerry and rejected by the congress. But they have not made their presence known yet with any thing approaching erudition that convinces me that they have such knowledge. Until then I believe that it is entirely feasible that the US can get a better agreement if they apply sanctions for a few more years. I doubt that the world, meaning the other plus 5 are really willing to push for a better agreement. Netanyahu is saying that the alternative is not war but a better agreement.

      But if you have erudition to show me that I'm wrong, I'll listen.

      I think if the US had not attacked Iraq in 2003 it would be in much sounder shape in terms of being tough with Iran in these negotiations. The war weakened the US and if an agreement is reached with Iran it will probably reflect that weakness.

      And btw Iran is a very real issue and not just a fake issue used to cover up the only thing that matters: the West Bank. This is just rhetoric. Netanyahu is truly concerned about Iran and the bomb.

  • Why Iran is not and has never been Israel’s #1 enemy
    • Note to self: never give mooser an excuse to spit some spitballs. He does it without an excuse. But give him an excuse, and what do you expect when you play games next to a khaleriya dreck.

    • Note to self: never give mooser an excuse to spit some spitballs. He does it without an excuse. but give him an excuse, and expect him to act like his spitball self.

    • Kay24- Jewish boys do not grow up dreaming of being President of the US. There has never been a Jewish president. Jewish boys dream of being Secretary of State or they dream of being rich enough to tell the president what to do if he wants campaign contributions.

    • Iran 2015 is not as bad as Iran 1979. Iran 2015 is not as an immediate a trouble maker as ISIS 2015.

      But Iran with a nuke is a threat to Israel. Iran supports Hezbollah. I support Israel making "peace" or cease-fire with Hezbollah (and Hamas), but do not pretend that Iran is not a player in the immediate battle that Israel is arrayed with against Hezbollah (and Hamas). [Because Gaza was occupied for so long and is still besieged, Hamas's struggle against Israel is of a different nature than Hezbollah's threat against Israel.]

      I have not studied the evidence, but I assume that Iran was connected to the terrorist attacks in 1994 against the Jewish center in Buenos Aires. If this is true, Iran is not only an enemy of Israel's, it is an enemy to any Jew anywhere who walks into a Jewish community center.

  • Bipartisanship is dead, as Netanyahu, AIPAC, and GOP square off against Obama over Iran
    • Bibi wants to stop this deal between the US and Iran. Was this speech the best way to try to accomplish this? I doubt it. I don't trust that Bibi's judgment was unclouded by the election campaign in Israel, his animosity for Obama and his habitual desire for the limelight, his propensity to think with his elbows. All these might have played a larger role in this decision than his strategic thinking.

      Meir Dagan, ex Mossad chief, who is someone who opposes a deal with Iran, (although he himself could tell you precisely what kind of agreement Israel would be able to "live with" and I would not know precisely how many centrifuges and kilos of enriched uranium is acceptable to Dagan's conception of a feasible agreement.) But Dagan certainly opposes a deal with Iran that would lead to an Iranian bomb, was quoted in Haaretz as saying that he felt that Israel should not be the prime mover in trying to stop this deal. My gut tells me that Bibi is wrong on this. I think this moved the Democratic party a few years closer to its inevitable break with Israel. (Something that can't be proved. Especially because a real break between the elected officials of the national Democratic Party: president, congressmen and senators, and Israel is still closer to 10 and maybe 15 years away than it is to 2 years away.)

  • Netanyahu's speech and the American Jewish condition
    • Elliot- What do you think of people who were in the same time frame as the Holocaust who were traumatized by the event? I'm thinking specifically of Saul Bellow. I consider his move towards neo conservatism a result of the Holocaust (rather than old age and financial success) and his specific formulation of the shame of the Khurban as necessitating a masculine response (of militaristic Israel).

      I was raised with a heavy dose of Judaism, much heavier than the average American Jew. My people came over relatively late: in the 1920's and in 1941. I am also born not long after the Khurban and branches of my family were lopped off and it was not that distant from the adults in my childhood life. So it could be that some Jew born in 1995, should in fact deal with it as ancient history.

      On the other hand, if a Jew is attracted to Judaism, that is, he finds something in the tradition that calls to him, that person will study the history and identify with something that occurred only 70 years ago. In the history of America 70 years is 30% of America's total lifespan, but to a Jew who takes tradition seriously enough to make it a major focus of their lives, 70 years only represents 3.5% of the post Temple period.

    • There is no inherent contradiction between power and vulnerability. Israel's nukes could not stop the second intifadeh. A millionaire's son can be kidnapped. If some Jews are incapable of holding both ideas: power and vulnerability, in their minds at one time, this is no excuse for antiZionists to blind themselves to the reality that both situations can exist at the same time.

    • here's the link to the sternhell article:
      link to

    • lysias- Phil was referring to the period before WWII and as such your cold war reference is an anachronism. But I could see where someone in 2015 would use 1963 terminology and not 1939 terminology, even when referring to 1939.

    • Zeev Sternhell, wrote in Haaretz a few weeks ago that a change in Israeli policy vis a vis the territories will have to wait until pressure is exerted by the United States. I defer to his judgment. As such it will require very uncomfortable tension between the US and Israel in the near future.

    • Nixon's effort to institute a right of return is questionable: the quote is: Nixon told an NSC meeting in June 1970 that failure to solve the Palestinian refugee question was one of the “major lapses” of the post-World War II era. - See more at: link to
      This is not an effort to institute but a historical condemnation of the failure to institute.

    • I'm unsure of the official nomenclature, but where I come from Vienna and certainly Berlin and even Prague are considered Central Europe, you have to get to Warsaw before it's called Eastern Europe.

  • White House says Netanyahu offers no alternative but military action (and Liz Warren won't say if she's attending speech)
    • Why not just officially call the MW comments section Mooser's Spitball Emporium?

    • If Mooser doesn't get told at least once a week to get hit by a bus, he begins to misbehave.

    • If I might interpret the AIPAC official's words:“This is AIPAC’s Day of Atonement,” one of the heads of the organization told me in a private conversation after the invitation was publicized. “This is the lowest point we have ever reached.” I think he is referring to the Yom Kippur War and Israel's low point at that time. Otherwise Yom Kippur is not known as a low point.

  • Israel's new Asian allies
    • Walid- In Ezekiel 5:5, it is obviously Ezekiel who quotes God and not Jeremiah.

      As far as navel of the world, the lowest spot on the planet, the Dead Sea, is part of the land and as such the analogy to the navel of the world is apt.

      The fact that this land was halfway between two major ancient civilizations: Sumeria and Egypt and was at the easternmost part of the Mediterranean certainly influenced the role that this land played in the development of 2 of the 3 major monotheistic religions. It was in the midst of the nations. The word in Hebrew is b'tokh, within, I am not enough of a scholar to tell you how often that means "center" and how often it means "in the midst of".

  • No matter who wins the Israeli elections, Palestinians lose
    • Due to all the failure of the peace process until this point of time cynicism towards the Livni-Herzog ticket is apt. Yet, these articles telling us what the government that will never come into being is going to be like are a waste of time. Do you really think that if Livni Herzog and Meretz gathered 61 seats that they would let the opportunity pass them by without making a major effort to reach an agreement with Abbas and even Hamas?! They would make a major effort. But not going to happen. They will get barely thirty votes between the two of them. And thus their policy statements are aimed towards those who will end up voting for parties to their right.

    • Page: 48
  • Netanyahu flips off Harry Truman
    • . JeffB wrote: “There is nothing anti-Semitic with blaming Jews for stuff that Jews institutionally support. … Not holding the Jews responsible for Jewish policy on the excuse that “well some Jews didn’t agree” is denying them agency.”

      a) Do you consider this assertion – that all Jews can be blamed and should be held responsible for the actions of some Jews – to be anti-Semitic, or do you consider it to be acceptable?

      I consider it stupid to blame anyone for a policy that they do not support just because major ethnic organizations of their ethnicity support that policy. It is stupid and racist. I do not consider it acceptable.

      b) If the latter, would it be just as acceptable for a non-Jew to make the same assertion? If not, why not?

      2. JeffB wrote: “Hopmi and Yonah are Zionists. They get that Israel is the agency by which Jews as a nation take collective action. … What we do, we do as a people.”

      I disagree that there are implications to the individual Jew. The collective actions do infer a degree of responsibility to have an opinion. but even this is nothing that can be imposed. The Zionist movement has never waited for all Jews or most Jews to sign up. They acted and acted on their own based upon their own assessment of what would be best for the group. But to imply that this action is therefore automatically the responsibility of all individual Jews is stupid. But similar but not identical with an American who should have an opinion about the policies of America, a Jew should have an opinion about the policies of Israel, but if they do not live in Israel this obligation to have an opinion is certainly less than the obligation of a citizen who lives in America.

    • Shooting a Jew (outside of Israel) because you know he is a Jew and because you assume that as a Jew he supports Israel, is murder and I'm not a lawyer in order to tell you that it is a hate crime, because I'm not sure why there should be two separate laws regarding murder, one for hate crimes and one for just regular murder, but certainly as a Jew when someone kills a Jew as a Jew I take particular offense.

      To call support for Israel a Jewish cause has a certain accuracy to the statement, because most Jewish organizations support Israel, but I would override that accuracy and say that it is accurate because if you ask American Jews, "do you support Israel's right to exist?" most would say yes, and so support for Israel is a Jewish cause because of that predictable response to a pollster's question.

      Now that I have described some reactions to the general topic I will parse JeffB's statement:
      There is nothing anti-Semitic with blaming Jews for stuff that Jews institutionally support. ... Not holding the Jews responsible for Jewish policy on the excuse that “well some Jews didn’t agree” is denying them agency.

      Blame is a loaded word. I would think that some type of cause and effect to achieve change would be the first step. Name not blame. Name and figure out a strategy.

      But if you're in the blame game, I think the fact is that regarding Israel's existence it is safe to blame the Jews in America, because they support Israel's existence. So if one says, "Fuck the Jews, they support Israel," there is some truth to the statement. Still I would take offense and try to convince you that aside from getting your jollies blaming the Jews, what is your next step for fixing what you wish to fix.

      I think that attacking the Jews in America for this summer's attack on Gaza is a bit much, for there really is no micro management of Israel's policy being exerted by America's Jews. The conduct of the war is not something as basic as Israel's existence. So even if Aipac and Jewish institutions support it, those institutions are not representative of a majority of American Jews and thus to blame American Jews for the conduct of the war I think would be wrong. I think American Jews are tied in a basic way to Israel's existence, by which I mean 48, but regarding 67 most American Jews do not support the settlers, so therefore institutions are not the better part of the story.

      If I am not clear, I will try to be: I don't think institutions are the key, I think polling is the key and most Jews would answer you in a poll that they support Israel's right to exist and inferring from this that America's Jews support Israel is accurate. But Jewish institutions in themselves are insufficient to say, see the institutions support Israel, therefore we can blame the Jews. America's Jews in their masses have not been key to America's support for Israel, but enough of America's Jews with money have put their money where their mouths are and backed candidates that supported Israel. The mechanics of the support for Israel from the US is based more upon the donations of 5% of Jews rather than on the support when questioned in polls of 51% of Jews. Nonetheless, since 51% (or more) of Jews support Israel's right to exist, one can "blame" (if you find blaming useful as a basis for your next step of action) American Jews.

    • JeffB- America's support was key to the passage of the partition resolution.

    • eljay- I do not read many of JeffB's comments. If you link me to the comment itself rather than your paraphrase of what he said, I will be able to judge and tell you what I think.

    • mooser- I never said that Zionism saved millions. Zionism saved hundreds of thousands. And i suggest that you make sure to include a link.

      People who refer to Ben Gurion by some shortened form would call him B.G. never Ben.

    • A discussion of Ben Gurion's motives and results is perfectly on topic, but irrelevant to the point being made by Bibi in his ads.

    • The key contributions that the US made to Israel's birth were the partition vote at the UN and recognition within minutes after its declaration. If Ben Gurion had had a different frame of mind he would have acceded to the US wishes to replace the British rule with some UN trusteeship. He did not. He was single minded in his determination to see the birth of a Jewish state. His priorities and Truman's priorities in the spring of 48 were different. If Ben Gurion had acceded to US preferences Israel would not have been born, or certainly not in May of 48.

  • Jewish groups that blindly support Israel make US and European Jews potential victims of violence -- Avnery
    • Islam's basis is not anti Jewish in the same way that Christianity's basis is. Christianity blamed the Jews for the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus, so there is a wide difference between Christian Jew hatred and Muslim Jew hatred.

      Citing circumstances 500 or more years ago at the time of the expulsions from Spain and the golden age of cooperation is relevant, not besides the point, but also not the point. Islam in its home town of the Arab speaking world is in deep trouble because those countries are in deep economic and cultural trouble in adjusting to the western world. Under such circumstances, acts of aggression towards those who "represent" the West: Christians and Jews would have been on the increase without the development of Zionism. But certainly ignoring the influence of Zionism on current Arab Islamic hatred for Jews is anti reality.

      Still the recent habit of kill a free speechnik and add on killing a few Jews as a sort of dessert, as a sort of buy one get one free, as a sort of "while I'm here already, might as well kill a few Jews", certainly casts these murders in a light of callousness and this aspect should at the very least be mentioned.

  • Hate in the aftermath of Chapel Hill
    • old geezer and mooser- you are two sick dudes. thank god your sickness is limited to verbal symptoms exhibited here. i would have to guess your sickness manifests itself in your lives as well and so the wheel keeps on turning. congrats for circulating toxic air and thoughts in the universe. It all started with adam and eve or kubrick's monkeys and thank god or hitchcock you are around to keep the sewer stirred. may your work go on forever!

    • just,

      gaza is a f*** up. i know that those of you who hate Israel like to call it a war crime, but i'm no hater of israel and no lawyer, so I call it a f*** up. I have not figured out how to stop it and turn the policy around. I have figured out what I would do, or at least who I would ask if I had the power. (I would ask ari shavit and former mossad chiefs as well as avrum burg and uri avnery (and amira hass and ahmed tibi) and peter beinart and bradley burston, and finally amram mitzna. That's how i'd decide with mitzna getting the last word.) what i haven't figured out is how to turn my attitude into something that i can incorporate into my life: as in: all the people i know who support israel are not nearly as troubled by gaza as I feel and my "communication" here on mondoweiss is with people some of whom I would call debating opponents, but others i would call enemies. ("Blowback" as it is used by these enemies in terms of Paris and Denmark means that you are drawing a bull's eye on my back here in the golus. and thus you are threatening the peace of me and my city with its mixed Jewish and Muslim populations.)

    • oldgeezer- It's always fun commenting here, so that I can get a j'accuse tossed my way. it's nice you can live in canada protected from history and hiding behind a mask fake name and toss J'accuse at me. bravo, hero.

      you raise two issues, totally unrelated to what these good people are doing in norway. the ultimate way that Jews and Palestinians will be able to have peace and coexistence on a piece of turf, very different than protecting a civilian population from madmen operating against the law.

      gaza is almost 6 months in the past and i still have figured nothing out about it: there is nothing to indicate that the suffering there will stop soon. if your tossing gaza at me would solve something I would propose that you throw your accusations at me day and night. It doesn't work that way. but i have no answer to gaza, the dead of this past summer and the suffering today and the next round's dead as well.

    • thanks, bornajoo

    • These are brave and righteous people. Instead of some sociological cure that will take 20 years (if it will work), instead of mouthing off, "the galut has it coming to it", these people are willing to take themselves and put themselves on the street for at least one night and stand up for their neighbors.

    • Rabbi Menachem Froman, peace be upon him, used to say that since one of God's, Allah's names is peace, that the cry Allah hu Akhbar is a cry for the greatness of peace.

  • Liberal Zionist arguments against one state are born of moral or political weakness
    • "They project a crimson light on history until 1945". Really Ahmed Moor, do they really need to project a crimson light? You do not discern that light, but only see the crimson a result of a projection?
      Gimme a break.

      Yes, we are in 2015.

      And you apparently separate the Palestinian struggle from the Arab world. The Arab world is in turmoil and that is a kind word. (There are many causes for this turmoil, but few solutions.) Of course you are here to attack liberal Zionists and including the sad state of affairs in the Arab world does not help your argument, therefore the primary argument of the nonliberal Zionists is simply omitted. Liberal zionists are engaged in two losing battles under current circumstances: losing against Netanyahu (nonliberal Zionists) and losing against the world opposition towards the occupation of 67.

      Which brings us back to 48. Yes, it needs to be mentioned and remembered again and again. but my upshot comes to the following: 67 years later you can only scoff at Jews who want an army in Israel and scoff at Jewish history. You can only offer an analogy to South Africa which seems like some paper written by academician and nothing to do with reality in Israel.

      Scoffing is the first step towards dialogue? I don't think so.

  • One-state 'fantasy is very dangerous' because it cannot tell us what the military looks like -- Manekin
    • thumbs up. one like

    • Mooser has proved that he can be a liar/comedian without being uncivil. bravo, moose. keep up the good work.

      i come from four grandparents. my paternal grandfather's immediate family emerged from the hitler genocide unscathed. my paternal grandmother only lost a mother. my maternal grandfather only lost a brother. my maternal grandmother lost her entire family. (careless, huh?)

      my maternal grandfather's four siblings who survived the war only did so because of Zionism. Any temptation i have to wish Zionism had never been born includes wishing these cousins dead. I will not do that. (for simplicity sake i keep this comment on the topic of close relations, but zionism did not only save my cousins, they are but an example. Zionism saved hundreds of thousands and their offspring in the millions.)

      besides new york where i have spent a majority of my life and chicago (7 years) and winnipeg (8 years) i have spent time in Israel (about 8 years). Israelis consider me a foreigner, but my second language is Hebrew.

      It would be difficult for me to imagine my life without Israel, without my 8 years in Israel, without my four siblings and their kids living in israel, without my parents retiring to israel, but i really would be perfectly willing to imagine it out of existence and imagine all those siblings, nieces, nephews and parents living in the states. but whereas this imagination would result only in a major change for these relatives, the antizionist imagination that you concoct for me would condemn my cousins to death. this i will not do.

      but go ahead. you now have some material to make fun of. let's see if you can do it and remain civil at the same time.

    • walid, I am not familiar enough with JeffB and ivri and mayhem and jon s. and hophmi to testify how often they are merely going through the motions and on the other hand how often they are in fact dealing with issues head on.

      but i am familiar enough with myself to know that the anti-dialogue i experience here is not something that should be easily dismissed.

      after 9/11, a half a year later, with the launch of operation defensive shield (sharon's military reaction to the intifadeh) the demonstrations followed in the US and union square in new york became a place where a "free Palestine" demonstration became a set piece near the park every Saturday. And there were idiots on the Palestinian side and there were once in a while sensitive and intelligent people on the Palestinian side. And making excuses for the idiots, just cause they are on your side, is a waste of your breath and my time.

      to be specific: if someone makes the atmosphere here toxic, i don't see how that helps. unless you get your jollies from watching verbal toxicity being spread by your colleagues here. if so, fess up and say, i enjoy cruelty when flung against my enemies.

    • The external political power which established Israel was not represented by Brooklyn settlers. If you wish to cite external political powers you might be valid citing (Lord Balfour or) those who pressured Lord Balfour to publish his declaration and to take that declaration seriously when the powers found themselves in Versailles dividing up the territory seized from Turkish/Ottoman rule. If you wish to cite those who contributed to Truman's election campaign in 48, that might be valid as well. To cite an anachronism (post 6 day war settlers confused with the establishment of the state) is to confuse the issue. Maybe you just like citing Brooklyn as so many anti Zionists like to mention Brooklyn in their scorn. The primary current tense (post 67) pressure on American foreign policy comes from those who contribute to senatorial, congressional and presidential campaigns, not from the settlers. To confuse the two is to confuse the issue. Those settlers don't represent the external political power, they represent the most visible element on the West Bank. The immigration to Israel that established Israel in 48 did not come from Brooklyn, it came from Eastern Europe and Germany. The immigration from 48 to 67 came from the Arab world. Only in the post 67 period, particularly in regards to the West Bank that immigration of Brooklyn Jews played a role, but the real power is finances from US Jews who do not live in Brooklyn. But you are merely throwing red meat to the Jew haters who love to hear Brooklyn Jews getting put in their place.

    • Mooser, I can understand why the US state department and the indigenous Palestinians were opposed to the Zionist project.

      Let me ask you this: there are six letters in your "name". are there also 5.9 letters in your name?

    • I suppose to be greeted by whoopie cushions is preferable to the other alternatives.

      Those who are interested in dialogue are present in the comments section. those who are uninterested in dialogue are also present here.

    • Buenos dias muchachos,

      Israel was established out of the need (or perceived need) for Jews to have an army. This perception was based upon the European experience, in particular the Eastern European experience, the choice of a territory was in a way secondary. One need only read Jabotinsky's Iron wall to realize how key the use of violence, which he called bayonets, was to the acquisition of a territory. So the army needs a territory and the territory needs an army.

      Fast forward 80 years or so, the countries surrounding Israel all have distinct elements of self definition as Islamic countries. (Not all. Lebanon's self definition is evolving.) Particularly during a time of Islamic turmoil, which is certainly the case in all the countries surrounding Israel, for Israel to all of a sudden endorse an identity that is similar to America circa 2015 is to imagine radical change rather than plan feasible change. No it is natural for Israel vis a vis its army to define itself as a Jewish state.

      (the evolution of the United States of the holy land, as in a federation that is served by a unified army of Jews and Palestinians, is certainly a worthwhile thought experiment, a way to stretch and exercise our imaginations. That such imagination is accompanied by a total disdain for dialogue makes your imagination even further removed from reality, imho.)

  • Boteach and Israeli ambassador say everything from BDS to Abbas places Jews under threat
    • american- Morgenthau, who wanted to punish Germany for killing millions of Jews and starting WWII, and the congressmen who wanted to impose sanctions on Germany due to their anti Jewish policies were not Zionists (or only incidentally Zionists). They may have reacted to the mistreatment of Jews differently than their fellow Americans might have chosen to do so because of identification with those Jews in Germany that an American of nonJewish persuasion would not have felt, but to identify them as Zionists based on this identification, rather than on a policy of statehood on the parcel of land known as Israel/Palestine and also an attitude towards the indigenous of that parcel of land that they had/have less rights on that land than Jews, that person is a Zionist. A desire to punish Germany for its mistreatment of Jews is not Zionism and to use the term Zionist to describe a Jew of such a policy is to confuse Zionism and Jewish identity. And such a confusion leads to Jew hatred.

    • bornajoo, the uri avnery piece contains much wisdom and also some foolishness. adolph hitler was not an antisemite. he was a Jew hater. that section is fatuous. (i've never used that word before and I will have to look up if that refers only to a person or can refer to an inanimate object like an op ed piece.)

      there is no question that antizionism is the basis of 50 to 88% of the Arab antisemitism on display in the world today. maybe even more. i have two alternate histories in the nonzionist parallel universe: in one the Jews act like middlemen between the west and the Arab world and the result is a smoother west/Arab relationship. the other, more likely is that the Arab world's lag behind the west plus the west's thirst for oil would have led to conflict and the Arab world (Islam) would have lashed out at Christianity and at Jews at the same time as representing the west. Jews as representatives of the west would still be a target, but not nearly as vicious a hatred as that aimed at zionism.

      but if you're a little old Jewish lady who goes to the deli and get shot by one of these demented jihadis, she's dead because she's a Jew circa 2015. being a Jew circa 2015 has different implications than a Jew circa 1942 and a realistic view of the global dynamics at this moment should help us rationally discuss what's happening.

      in my ideal world i can convince the right wingers of the righteousness of the two state solution and i am preparing my rhetoric to convince them and there is no way that i would go down the road of trying to explain to them that that "little old lady in the deli was killed for being Jewish" is false because she was killed because of Zionism. I would not go there and argue that, it's a losing argument and raises all kinds of emotions and smells of appeasement and in my soul I do not like this kind of appeasement. so yes, i want to discuss the reality and the dynamics. but i also need to keep your appeasing thoughts out of my mind.

    • bornajoo,
      These last two killing of Jews, (post Charlie Hebdo, Denmark) particularly because they served as a type of punctuation to the targeting of the free speech (blasphemy) killings, is a bit much to take. When some jihadi or colin ferguson (long island railroad black murders white people in 1993) type goes and kills Jews, (in Tolouse, for example) there is a type of hot headed aspect to the killing that gives it a colin ferguson feel, meaning insane, sick dog, what can one expect? it happens. but these last two killings were not hot blooded in the same way, they were, "and a partridge in a pear tree", part of the refrain, a reflex action, let me kill a jew, to add another familiar note to this chord or perfume: kill a free speech-nik and a Jew to boot. (buy one get one free)

      So I view it as cold blooded in a way that tolouse was hot blooded.

      then I hear you label it as blowback. please spare me merriam webster for a moment. this word blowback sounds like an excuse and even as a declaration of war.

  • Three Muslim-Americans murdered in North Carolina by gunman (Updated)
    • I've decided to discontinue my participation in this comments section given current circumstances.

      I owe tree a dissection of the analogy of the treaties of 39 and 67.

      I owe myself a response to seafoid's declaration of a vengeance free fire zone in the Yehudi galut in response to Gaza.

      I wonder how a website that espouses dialogue can be moderated by someone who cares not a whit about dialogue.

      I wonder how a website is supposed to deal with commentators who ignore the rules.

      adios muchachos.

    • annie- To tell you the truth, I think you have the sensitivity of a bull in a china shop. How about I say that the four black girls killed in the birmingham church on a sunday in 1963, that that was not a racist act, but a political act. how would you react to that? why emphasize the personal or the racist, why not call it political?

      don't take it personal.
      you are obtuse and proud. that's all i can come up with.

    • I'm wondering if the Overland Park Kansas April 13,2014 shooting counts for anything. Or if because the shooter only killed nonJews who were going to a Jewish Community Center, that Jews who are uptight as a result of what happened that day are merely being paranoid.

    • Though Annie Robbins has not commented here yet, I am reminded of these "touching" words that she wrote to me days ago

      try not to take it so personally.

      what if i wrote to you now try not to take it so personally.

      Of course she gave a context for her "touching" words:

      jews fear of racism against them doesn’t have any more value than a black person or a muslim being scared of people hating them … just because they scream about it more and the press keeps writing about it and it has it’s own separate label. bigots are everywhere, you’re no different than anyone else in that regard.

  • Muslims are Nazis, 'USA Today' jokes
    • mooser- 3 versions of the jazz singer. jolson and neil diamond and danny thomas.

    • The level of death aimed by Israel towards Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 has been demoralizing. Israel seems not to know what it's doing and seems to be set on a "violence is the only way" path. Because the roots of Gaza's abnormal status are intimately connected to 1948 even Israel's center-left is not able to break away from its pattern of wishing gaza to disappear. the killing of journalists in gaza should be seen in that context. The fact that gaza is controlled by Hamas and also that gaza is legally connected to the West Bank and will not/cannot make a separate peace with Israel are factors as well. But i would not have fought the war against gaza and i think israel's policy on gaza needs a major rethink, which it will not get from bibi. (herzog is grasping at straws.) yes, i am opposed to killing journalists in gaza.

    • In depth analysis of the similarities and differences of political systems is within the realm of the thinker. Superficial analogy usage serves a purpose other than thought- it is a way to declare dialogue and nuance forbidden, for just as dialogue with the Nazis is unacceptable, dialogue and nuance in regard to Zionism is also unacceptable. I think this negation of dialogue is wrongheaded and nihilistic insofar as it will lead to more deaths rather than less deaths. some may feel that negation of dialogue is the path to less deaths. those are differing assessments of the situation.

    • Giles- It's a stupid cartoon and i feel that those who use nazi analogies at the drop of a hat are in no position to be respected in their umbrage at the careless use of nazi analogy. and those who tolerate nazi analogies without fail are hypocrites for their sudden umbrage in this instance.

    • oldgeezer- I have no idea what you are talking about. i never said jesuischarlie, though i believe in free speech to the extent that i do not favor murdering cartoonists. if this does not clarify, then put some more words in a sentence so that i can figure out what you are saying and i can approximate whether you are trying to communicate or merely heckle. (heckling is good too, but just so that i can tell what your intent is.)

    • annie- not everyone here makes nazi analogies, true. but no one but the zionists object when they read nazi analogies here.

  • Gideon Levy's argument for Netanyahu
  • Let liberal Jews weep for their dream of Israel, and move on -- Alice Rothchild
    • Certainly being on the right side of the Atlantic during the years 1939 to 1945 makes a big difference and for accuracy sake certain idioms don't entirely fit. my mother and her parents got to the right side of the atlantic in 1941, so i guess they're allowed to say that they lived through it. my father's mother, had her mother murdered, so immediate family is a certain connection that we all recognize and accept. now my father's father lost no one immediate in the war. but before the war he had a "hometown" in the ukraine and after the war he had a mass grave on the edge of his former hometown. that is a rather remarkable before and after.

    • annie robbins- "frankly, i am going to be relieved when that generation passes on." It comes as no surprise that someone opposed to dialogue tells us the next best thing: wishing the other dead.

  • Biden will skip Netanyahu's speech
    • Currently it is the Israeli left that is failing in its duty to present a clear alternative to Bibi and his pro occupation policies. The Israeli left (those who favor a two state solution based upon the 67 borders and negotiated land swaps) should come out and say, "Borders First" Israel must negotiate the borders with the future Palestine first. If such a map could be signed, this would designate the specificity of the future Palestine and thus would indicate: today there is no border because there is no peace, but some day there will be a border and this is it.

  • Ros-Lehtinen removes pro-Palestinian activists from Congressional hearing on punishing PA for joining ICC
    • seafoid- You are unclear regarding your position. Let me restate for clarity sake. The killings are definitely anti semitic in result, as in, the result was clearly a fulfillment of a wish to kill Jews qua Jews. But you are saying since the motivation was not hatred of Jews qua Jews but rather the hatred of Jews qua representatives of Zionism, therefore you feel the motivation should be recognized as the essence rather than the result. but certainly the results are antisemitic.

  • Chair of Democratic National Committee opposes Jewish intermarriage and MSNBC showing Gaza carnage
    • I accept the overwhelming (in this comments section) opposition to Zionism as the means for keeping the Jewish people alive because it treads on the Palestinians. But the opposition to preferring endogamy as a means to keep the Jewish people alive leaves me with the impression that you's all just want the Jews to disappear from history.

      If a group of Jewish billionaires gave free Jewish education from grades K through 12 for hundreds of thousands of Jewish children who took advantage of the billionaire's largesse, that would cut the intermarriage rate for the participants by let's say 10-30%. I would be in favor. But all you's here, you just wish the Jews would disappear. Jews, your whole shtick needs to be flushed down the toilet, you are saying. Forget your language, forget your customs, stop all that religious and ethnic stuff and disappear already. that's what I'm hearing.

    • Kids from a mixed marriage where the mother is Jewish I would refer to as halachic Jews, as in Jews according to Jewish law. i might say technically Jewish especially if that person does not identify as Jewish. Jews from a mixed marriage born from a Jewish father I call half Jews. (half Jewish- the wrong half.) Sorry if too honest.

    • seafoid- you are relatively uninterested in dialogue. mooser is firmly opposed to dialogue. .

    • hophmi- Mooser has carte blanche. why? when it comes to anti zionists who aren't anti semitic there are no rules in this knife fight.

    • The ethnicity of those accusing me of racism is relevant primarily for this reason: The white globalism of Britain, France, Spain and America captured much of the world and imposed their culture and obliterated many cultures and even today undermines many cultures. And I belong to a culture that is seeking to survive despite the voracious appetite that the predominant cultures have for consuming and obliterating cultures. I would say, that those who call me "racist" are merely attempting to obliterate my culture by discouraging its survival. They are part of a global movement whereby many tiny cultures are obliterated and my desire to see my culture survive is against their goal of world dominance and their "racist" epithet is a means to the end of their destruction of my culture.

      In fact, globalism will triumph and is triumphing, and Jewishness is a culture that will continue to be obliterated by the waves of time and by the pull of the market place of billions compared to the small pond of millions and certainly the nature of religion in the west, which is on a losing streak, has a lot to do with this, and certainly the nature of Judaism, which in the time of Jesus was noted for seeking out proselytes and after that given environmental factors (euphemism) cut their outreach activities to naught and changed their orientation away from the globe and towards isolation, that nature of Judaism has something to do with this too.

      But the Jewish people will survive if only as a small group and the Jewish religion is not a tool that can be ultimately destroyed by the west if the west keeps its credo of freedom, but the size of the Jewish group is in question and the desire for the size of that group to be .02% of the world population rather than .01% of the world's population does not strike me as racist, but merely an attempt to keep a culture alive.

      (Those percentages are bogus. actual jewish population is closer to .2% than to .02%, but i think my point is still valid.)

    • yes, american "some" and "all" are almost identical words. they both have one syllable.

    • mooser- Let's say that 80% of american white gentiles are not antisemitic and 16% of them are antisemitic. that's my approximation, but we can go to the polls and find out more exactly. but gentiles are not funny. jews are funny. like jackie mason and don rickles. ha, ha.

    • philemon- There is a chance of them raising their kids Jewish: about 14% or so. 27% raised Christian and the majority raised with no religion. (these are from memory. i will look up the stats another time. i don't think i am way off.)

    • Philemon- What ethnic group do you belong to? I'm betting you're white.

    • I do not advocate or plan to go to city hall and break up all marriages of jews with nonjews. and i am not going to put an ad in the paper saying, "Yehudi, keep the flame alive, kick your nonJewish girlfriend out into the street."

      but, I approve of the movement to emphasize jewish education certainly and i approve of the movement to maximize the potentiality of jews marrying jews. - jewish day schools and jewish summer camps and yes, trips to israel, that are all designed to get jews to hang out with jews and thus increase the odds of two jews marrying. two jews marrying are likely to raise their kids as jews. a jew marrying with a christian, not much chance of raising their kids as jews.

    • mariapalestina- he lived in nyc. are you saying that he was lying or that i am lying? are you saying that everyone has the same experiences that you have had in your life. i was not trying to prove that jew hatred exists, i think it's ridiculous for you to claim that it doesn't exist. history proves that and i don't need anecdotes to prove that. I was not trying to prove that jew hatred is pervasive. different times different places different people different cultures different degrees of the existence of jew hatred, in pre war poland jew hatred was pervasive for example. I would assume in wyoming people don't spend much time talking about jews unless they're truly obsessed and messed up. in nyc there are lots of jews and so the ethnicity of prevalent neighbors might just come up in a conversation. but that was not my point.

      i was merely citing one aspect of my friend's confusion/ambivalence towards his own half jewishness and that is one of the first things that i remember about him on the jewish topic.

    • eljay- thank you, i said "some nonJews" and "American" remembered "all nonJews". "American's" memory has played with him and he owes me an apology.

    • That's a lie, "American". I never wrote that or said it.

    • The rate of jewish intermarriage is 58%, if I prefer that that number would be 43%, does that make me a racist?

      i know that "one of my best friends" is ridiculed, but...
      one of my best friends was the son of an intermarriage ("was" because he's now dead). he was a great guy and i really miss him. he told me that when he hung around nonJews and they would diss Jews, quite often he would just let it slide, not let anyone know he was half Jewish. This does not exhaust this discussion, and I realize that just this one little anecdote reveals very little, but if we are going to put our attitudes on the table to discuss (assuming that we are going to have a real discussion and not a dissing match) i have to start somewhere.

      if you want the Jews to disappear, as in those who say, "stop speaking those tiny languages and adopt the languages that dominate the planet, stop antisemitism by stopping to be jewish" are enemies.

      those who watch the disappearance of Jewish languages and Jewish culture and say, "easy come easy go", really are bystanders.

      the dedication to a culture and preservation of that culture is one of the organizing principles of the human species until this point of time. america's melting pot (which in fact is more mixed salad than melting pot) is something new and it can be the new organizing principle for many.

      the problem of nonassimilating muslim enclaves in europe who have individual members who shoot up journalists and kosher markets and jewish schools is quite real. the problem of jews who are intermarrying at the rate of 58% and some people want to reduce that rate to 56%, that is not a real problem. just because there is a concept of assimilation involved in both issues, doesn't mean that they are the same. simplicity and simple mindedness are really not the same thing.

  • Netanyahu 'babysitter' ad warns that Labor will give away Israel's house and carpet
    • I'm no fan of Bibi, but the commercials are effective. There are not many voters who are choosing between Bibi and Herzog/Livni. Those who are still undecided are bordering between Bibi and Jewish Home and/or Lapid or Kahlon or Lieberman. But using Herzog/Livni as his foil is effective advertising.

      I think the two state Israeli left needs to come out and say, "Borders First". Israel should negotiate the borders of the Palestinian state first and then other issues can be resolved. This way there will be a defined future Palestine where settlements will be problematic or forbidden and an Israeli border wherein settlements will be less problematic or allowed. I don't expect Bougie/Livni to advocate this, but Meretz should advocate this.

  • Lawrence Summers says BDS movement is 'persecuting' Israel
    • Maybe my language was not clear.

      The term Zionist refers to a specific land and a specific attitude of preference towards the greater rights of Jews to that land rather than the rights of the indigenous.

      There are other forms of Jewish racism that have nothing to do with that land. Sometimes that racism is called Zionism even if it has nothing to do with the land. The confusion of the term Zionism with any other form of Jewish racism is a confusion, a perversion of terms.

      58% of jews in the united states intermarry. if i prefer that that number would be 56%, does that make me a racist? what if i want that number to be 50%, what if i want that number to be 20%? but in any case my attitude towards intermarriage has nothing to do with the term zionism.

    • So then American, you agree that if a Jew is opposed to intermarriage, then he is a Zionist. and to use the word Zionist in that context is perfectly okay.
      this is precisely what I was referring to.

    • Some people attack Zionists and mean Zionists, others attack Zionists and mean Jews. Historical fact number 1, the Russian show trial of Slansky who was accused of Zionism. google slansky trial and you'll see the details. Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) was an antiZionist and an antisemite and he used to confuse the words Zionist and Jew much of the time.

      It is not uncommon here in the MW section that the term Zionist is used to describe any Jew who is concerned with the Jewish ethnic group and Jewish ethnic continuity.

  • Israel gets trashed at the 92d Street Y
    • I'm sure Shmuel has his own reasons for limiting his participation here.

      I do recall a certain discussion on Jewish New Year's when a certain Moose in effect said to Shmuel, "Who you calling we. You're the Jew, not me." Forget all about that, Moose?

  • Palestinians to take Israeli settlements to the ICC following announcement of 450 new units
  • Nabi Saleh march highlights Palestinian children, including 14-year-old girl in Israeli custody for a month
    • mooser- thought experiment. let's say you had a blog on some issue and you considered dialogue one of the primary goals of the comments section. what would you do to encourage useful dialogue?

    • hey amigo,

      the destruction of palestinian homes in response to terrorist attacks is wrong. the different applications of the destruction of homes in response to terrorist attacks is wrong.

      the prosecution of those who did that dastardly act last July, I assume, is proceeding apace.

      and, no, I don't care to enlighten you, turkey.

  • 'Great American villain' Henry Kissinger faces citizen's arrest inside a Senate hearing room
    • hey Mooser, I kind of doubt you really wish to engage in a real conversation/discussion, but if you do, try this: You mentioned the difference between assimilation and acculturation a few weeks ago. Which do you prefer?

    • annie robbins- if mondoweiss tolerates your grassy knoll column without a hint of retraction or regret, how high a standard does that set?

      i apologize to eva. rereading her occasional comments reveals her as an opponent of Jews but not blind to history. giles considers history a joke.

    • my comment in regards to giles stands. my comment in regards to eva is wrong. she tries to be historically accurate although her rhetoric is oppositional and not tending towards dialogue. my inference that she has secret sympathies for the nazis was wrong. but my comment in regard to giles stands.

    • shalom's comment left him wide open to comments about other war criminals prosecuted at 90. the demjanuk case was a fiasco, no question.

      if some people other than giles or eva had raised this topic i would not have commented.

    • hey mooser, how you doing. long time no see. remember all those wonderful deep thought provoking discussions we used to have. oh, i miss them so much. keep up the good work.

    • why is it no surprise that giles and eva find their way to bash those who prosecute Nazi guards?

  • 'NYT' perpetuates myth Israel was 'fighting for its very survival' during 1967 war
    • tree- Let me get this straight- Saddam Hussein blameless vis a vis the war against him by the US. Are you referring to Gulf War I or Gulf War II.

    • Saber rattling is a form of aggression too. Maybe unrecognized by a court of law, but very real in the life of a country like Israel in May of 67. To ignore the effect of Nasser's assertions and indeed of Cairo's radio broadcasts on the Israeli public, is certainly accurate from a legal point of view. (Courts of law would not allow it into evidence. But these laws of evidence do not reflect the laws of cause and effect and to pretend that Nasser's moves did not have an effect is quite clearly untrue.) The pressure placed on the Israeli public by Nasser was quite real.

    • tree- It gladdened my heart to learn that your only bias is a bias against lies. But apparently your Minster of Truth was on vacation when you appointed your Minister of Analogies. Any analogy between the peace treaty signed by Hussein in Cairo on May 30, 1967 and the treaty between Poland and England in August of 1939 was guided by some bias other than truth.

    • tree- to add to what i wrote yesterday. the legal and historical question as to whether the closing of the straits of tiran is legally an act of war is interesting and not irrelevant, but not the entire story. because lives of millions have been affected by the 67 war i understand that it is the cause of much grief and as such to say, "nasser got what he deserved" seems to indicate that the millions got what they deserved and they did not.

      but your refusal to condemn nasser, nor even to say a negative word about him, indicates a bias, an anti historical bias. of course given today's arab world where islam is ascendant, a secularist like nasser comes off looking good. but in fact, he was a dictator a demagogue and an adventurist. he wanted to control the entire middle east. what was his little fiasco in Yemen all about?

      But back to Israel. rather than the legal question i think we should at least shine the light for a second on game theory. (probably misusing the term, when all i mean is strategy.) ask 1000 strategists: given the history and the players, what should nasser have expected as a result of the three acts: 1. kicking out the UN, 2. closing the straits of tiran. and 3. signing a treaty with jordan and 999 if not 1000 would answer that he should have expected war.

      your whitewash of nasser indicates your bias. your attempt to dismiss the treaty with Jordan as "why not? what's wrong with a treaty?" indicates your bias. signing of treaties in the midst of a crisis is not something that can be treated with a "why not?" attitude unless you are ignorant of history (which is not the case) or a biased person (that's the case.)

      as for my bias: i am 100% pro zionism up to 1945. it saved many cousins of mine. any alternate history would have to include zionism intact up until 1945 for that personal reason. that's my bias.

      to talknic- I'm sorry for writing May 15th without specifying the year. the famous may 15th is 1948 and it was natural to assume that i was referring to the birth of Israel, but i was referring to the celebration of the birth of Israel 19 years later, when nasser began his brinksmanship which resulted in the war.

    • tree- There was plenty of blame to go around in the year leading to the 6 day war. the dynamics of Israel's military bent under ben gurion and continuing under eshkol are factors. but in fact the drumbeat to war that began about the 15th of May was some kind of stupid gamble by someone on the Soviet or Arab side that there would be a benefit from this saber rattling and ultimately this is what led to the war. to pretend that merely referring to Israel's post 67 sins is sufficient to exculpate the Soviets and Nasser indicates a type of bias. The cause for that bias on your part is known by you. of course i infer that the bias is related to your favoritism towards Vidal and Lindbergh. But i do not know that for a fact.

    • misterioso- Could you please link to the Israeli statements marking a turnaround on the issue of withdrawal from Sinai and the Golan before Khartoum. You infer that settlements were built in the Golan before Khartoum. I doubt that Israel's turnaround occurred before Khartoum and I doubt that settlements were begun in the Golan before Khartoum. Please clarify.

    • And the three No's of Khartoum, is that a lie too?

    • tree- what a pleasant tone you have. do you actually spit while you are writing or are you able to communicate spit without physically doing so?

      yes, israeli actions in 1966 were aggressive and contributed to the atmosphere of tension in the region.

      Egypt and Syria (meaning their peoples) and the West Bank and Gazans did not deserve the war, but it was Nasser who brought it on, and I think that is rather clear historically.

      Do you deny that the Soviets lied about the Israeli troops? Do you deny that the western powers assured Israel of free passage through the straits of tiran before israel agreed to withdraw in 57?

      And your thing about Jordan signing a treaty with Egypt, as if that had nothing to do with the war, how many historians agree with that piece of crap?

      Nasser wanted... actually I have no idea what Nasser wanted to do (nor do I learn any more about his motivations from your rant). Maybe he thought he could get some advantage without firing a shot. Maybe he believed in some general who thought that this was a good idea. Maybe the soviets just led him up to this and he didn't think it through. In any case he got what he deserved even if millions of people suffered as a result of his saber rattling. Maybe he was just saber rattling because of his misadventures in Yemen and he got carried away with his own rhetoric.

    • I do not believe that the 6 day war was a war of survival. Israel could have survived without going to war. But to ignore the series of events from the false report of Israeli troops gathering on Syria's borders that was spread for whatever reason by the Soviets, Nasser's dismissal of the UN troops and U thant's feckless overnight acceptance of that dismissal, to the closing of the straits of tiran (if not legally an act of war, then certainly accepted by the powers who guaranteed the end of the 56 war that it was a political act of war), to the alliance between Nasser and Hussein of Jordan, there is no way to ignore the causes of the war, unless you are willingly blind. Nasser was playing chicken, and he got what he asked for.

  • Netanyahu speech scandal blows up, and 'soiled' Dermer looks like the fall guy
    • Some people find occasional utility out of the zionism=Nazism equation. But this Heinrich Himmler and Abe Foxman statement is a clear example of the facile childish destructive nature of this type of loose talk. It is suited to a street corner and not to intelligent conversation. But I know that aspiring to intelligence is shunned upon on MW.

  • That thrilling, anti-elitist Shas campaign video
    • Unlike the US two party system, where Obama must assert that he has the middle class in mind and Schumer attacks Obamacare as having helped the poor but done nothing for the middle class, Israel's system has a party that aims its message at the poor. (There are advantages to a multiparty system, but disadvantages as well.)

  • French Jews, surrender to terror in the baguette capital and move to the land of legal terror!
    • seafoid- I think that the internal thinking of a large portion of jews living in israel vis a vis: "chosen people" does not help. but...

      the urge to survive is natural to all groups (as groups and not just as individuals).

      the constant war situation involved in the choice of that piece of land rather than Uganda is what creates a vacuum on the side of those who say, "give peace a chance" and the constant war situation creates a need for purpose that is filled too often by the group who consider the chosen people as part of their core self definition.

      this is all besides the point of someone raising this word. it is raised not in order to discuss but as a prick point. read eichmann in jerusalem and see how often the nazis referred to the jews as the chosen people. this is rhetoric that can either be discussed intelligently or used as blatant jew baiting. blatant and ancient.

      because there is no dialogue, the use of this terminology gets the kosher grade from MW.

    • to annie robbins (aka grassy knoll journalist)- this was my way of saying, the alarms go off in my head when someone drops in "chosen people" when it is not relevant to the discussion.

    • Statistics show that 9 out of 10 nonJews who use the phrase "chosen people" in reference to the Jews are in fact people who hate Jews.

  • Phila Inquirer publishes a lie: 'Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same'
    • Zionism in 2015 implies satisfaction or at least acceptance of the Nakba of 1948. As such anti Zionism can be specific to rejection of the Nakba or of that satisfaction or of that acceptance and as such is not antiSemitic.

      Because i felt like participating in some discussion about Hannah Arendt a few weeks ago, i commented without having read enough of her magnum opus: eichmann in jerusalem and was called out on my illiteracy and thus shamed i have been delving into her book and briefly skimmed the book eichmann before jerusalem by stangneth. i was struck by the pro Arab position taken by the post WWII Nazis. I realize that the conclusions one takes from this support should not be absolute, but i would insist that a level headed view of zionism should have an analysis of the last 140 years of history prepared to deal with the roots of zionism. such level headed seriousness is really not found around here and to pretend that it is found around here is silliness.

  • Tell your congressperson: Don't attend Netanyahu's speech
    • straightline- it seems that you are not interested in my opinion. you are interested in making blanket statements.

      if you wish to discuss the "shame on Jewish manhood" it will take more than your oblique statement to consider this a discussion.

      if you want me to condemn jeffB for being as stupid as giles, then it's not going to happen.
      if you want to tell me that the US did a lot for the jews between 1933 and 1945, (was that the point of your link?) then you are obtuse.

    • straightline- I would not write those words that JeffB wrote.

      The destruction that the Nazis wrought on the Jews of Europe was rather devastating and among other things was a mark of shame upon Jewish manhood. The inability of US Jews to exert anything near enough power during the years 1933-1945 was a mark of shame on them.

      I think the world is guided by power politics and being stateless is a disadvantage. there is of course soft power along with hard power and the Bibi crew (Ben Gurion too, but Bibi especially) seem to denigrate hearts and minds and value only tanks and walls, but let us not pretend that the first language of the world is anything but power.

      The line i wish to repeat in regards to giles: he thinks history is to laugh.

    • straightline- are you an american? do you live in america? were you born in america?

      actually i commented about giles, not about you. i do not recall reading anything by you that stuck in my mind. not for the good and certainly not for the evil. (on the other hand i just started getting to it with giles. he has more gems. i just showered and don't want to deal with his feces right now, but if you insist we can enter his archive for more.)

      this is the internet. some dude shows up with a name giles and thinks he can preach to the jews how they should change their ways and stop doting on their jewishness and embrace the brotherhood of man. please. give me a break. this is some kind of juvenile do gooder, who thinks that history is to laugh and the present moment only lacks one good preacher, himself. why should i treat such a piece of leftist detritus like anything but detritus? okay, so i exaggerate and call him a hater, rather than an opponent. one good thing about the term antisemite is that it implied opposition rather than hatred. up and up, giles is against the jews unless they are willing to be metaphorically baptised by the waters of brotherhood. go jump in the lake and go play in the traffic. that's to him and not to you, straightline.

    • atrocity. yes, i know what the dictionary says, but check out its usage and i bet you that you'll see that atrocious is given much greater leeway than atrocity. atrocity- deir yassin and my lai come to mind, not a meeting of the houses of congress. If you really think the use of the word makes phil look level headed, then you are right to dispute me. I think it makes him look silly. but i guess you're right, phil looking silly helps my cause.

    • straightline- Here is giles anti Jewish comment number 1:

      Jewish collective memory is delusionary.

      An abiding belief that "their people" have been the victim of the "Other" for 2,000 or 4,000 years.

      It is ridiculous. Jews are, in America, white people, and get all the privileges that go with it.

      They faced a far easier time of it when they first arrived than did the Irish or the Italians, never mind the horror that was visited upon black and brown peoples.

      And, whether they will admit it out loud or not, they long ago replaced the WASPs as the ruling elite in America and in many other Western nations.

      They expect -- and receive -- special privileges above all others. We see this time and time again.

      I don't think we do anyone a favor by going along with their delusions. They need to stop being so damned ethnocentric and focus on the brotherhood of all mankind.

      - See more at: link to

      straightline- anyone who won't even reveal his own ethnic group and goes and tells jews that they're too ethnocentric and need to focus on the brotherhood of all mankind, well, maybe you don't know that he's an antisemite and in fact there is a .01% chance that he is not, but 99.99%, he's a jew hater and an enemy.

    • straightline- I realize that i owe you some source material on giles. the reply button here is really difficult to get to, so i will bring you the comments of giles down below.

    • tree- regarding lindy, I never asserted that Philip roth's estimation of a lindy presidency was accurate, but i did assert that his des moines speech was obscene to the nth degree and you twisted his words to turn toxic words into innocent words. If you wish to go back and fight about filthy lindy's words, let's at it.

    • straightline- I have not read anything about bibi's role in Israel's nuke. but i have read giles comments here and he is primarily a jew hater. so i prefer not to react to him.

      (y'know what let me retract that, because now i will be forced to link to giles stupid comments. he is the nicest kindest man i have ever met and it is totally silly of me not to answer such a straight shooter and lover of mankind.)

    • no response to giles and just.

    • As far as annie robbins quotes of me above: My Omar Barghouti comment was stupid. I was reacting to the atmosphere of the comments section, which means i lost my temper and said something stupid.

      As far as the "mea culpa is the only Yiddish Phil Weiss knows". I think it is my best ever argumentative sentence and you can quote it all the time if you wish.

      I have focused on the word atrocity rather than the gestalt and that is nicht gut, so I will give a general view.

      Proposed: Iran's nuclear bomb is my enemy. (Logic: I have flesh and blood in Israel. Iran's nuclear bomb is their enemy. Iran's bomb is my enemy.) Bibi is dedicated to obstructing that bomb. So bibi is doing me a service.

      Response: Obstructing Iran's nukes requires the best strategy rather than the most vulgar strategy. Aligning Israel with America's interests may be a better strategy than pushing Israel's face (Bibi's face) into the Congress versus President and the Democrats versus Republican divide.

      Further: The response to 9/11 was an attack on Iraq, an ongoing debacle. If instead the response to 9/11 had been worrying about Iran's nuke, then obstructing that nuke would be a nearer goal. Instead the attack on Iraq taxed, tired and tried the impatience of the world-weary US public, so there is insufficient American juice opposing the Iranian nuke and the Israel (Bibi) juice is not sufficient to make up for it.

      Campaign donations is the basis of too much of the US Congress support for Israel (Bibi). Campaign financing is a shame and a scandal. Congress should support its constituents' views and not campaign dollars. Bibi and his in your face politics is stupid to the eighth power in terms of vulgarity rather than nuance and subtlety.

      I really, really, really dislike Bibi and this move of his to speak to the Congress and how it was unveiled. I actually suspect that this move has more to do with his reelection campaign than with Iran's nuke. That is: he is risking Israel's long term interests not for the short term interest of obstructing a nuke, but for the selfish short term interest of getting reelected and if that is indeed the case, he's even lower than I thought before.

    • tree- i will take your mention of lascivious and bloodthirsty to give doctor salaita his due. salaita wants to combine jackie mason and fritz fanon and also plausible deniability, like he's taking a fifth amendment, the right not to self incriminate. he wants to tell you, i hope your children go missing and then say, oh, i meant, this and that. whereas the essence of the 140 character message is that it can be taken more than one way and now he wants to tell us, "like i teach my students, you cannot know what the author meant, he might have meant something else." mealy mouthed plausible deniability.

      and tell me something tree. who do you love more charlie lindberg or gore vidal?

    • annie robbins- What's a miserly pinchbeck?

      btw- i believe that there is a real journalist on staff- James North. Let him comment on the word atrocity. He won't. He knows it's over the top.

      in fact usage of the word "atrocious" and "atrocity" is quite different. If a teacher would say, your handwriting is atrocious, this is acceptable. if a teacher says, your handwriting is an atrocity, he is using rhetoric.

    • True to form. If you have no answer, go straight to ad hominem.

      You really think the word atrocity does not make Phil look bad, like a street corner nut agit prop idiot rather than an intelligent Harvard journalist? Ask a real journalist what they think of Phil's use of that word. This isn't singing to the choir it's screaming to the choir.

      And you and your echo chamber attitude towards MW. You don't care about dialogue or nothing like it. Sharpen your agit prop skills, that's your state of mind.

Showing comments 4818 - 4801