Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 8322 (since 2010-09-28 14:53:20)

Woody Tanaka

Just a regular guy interested in this issue.

Showing comments 8322 - 8301

  • Southern Poverty Law Center takes Blumenthal's side against smear campaign
    • I think there is a fundamental difference between factual reporting which reinforces ones bigotries (as in the case with Max) and being inspired by one's ideology and policy recommendation (as was the case with Pipes). It's the difference between saying "what is" -- "here is what Israel is doing" -- and opining as to "what aught to be" -- "there are too many Mulims in Europe and America anf they represent a threat."

      So I think that Pipes is wrong on that point but he is not responsible for Breivik.

  • Tensions rise on Temple Mount as rightwing Jews seek to hold Passover rituals there
    • yonah, it's cute that you pretend this is merely a historical debate, and not the Zionists laying the groundwork for the biggest, worst act of cultural terrorism in history--the theft of al Haram ash Sharif, its desecration and/or the destruction of cultural treasure for all humanity, al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.

    • "The location of the temple on the Temple Mount is not in dispute."

      that should read "the former location of the temple...". It stopped being the location of the Jewish temple 2,000 years ago and belongs to the Muslims alone, now.

  • Mark Halperin excommunicates Rand Paul, over Israel
  • 'NYT' abided by Israeli gag order even as 'EI' scooped it repeatedly
    • "Absolute bs. The US press is ‘not bound’ by any ‘gag order’ of a foriegn government."

      That's exactly right. Now, if the NYT printed, the Israelis could have kicked the NYT out of the country, but that's not the same as being bound. And, in fact, if the NYT was ANY kind of decent press outfit, it would have specifically chosen to print every story it possible could that is under such "gag orders" and dared the Israelis to kick them out. Because then THAT would be journalism in action, showing what kind of loonies are in charge over there. (Of course, NYT readers : Israel :: pre-teen girls : Justin Bieber, so there's no chance they'd actually act like real journalists.)

    • Nothing that Rudoren does surprises me. (Well, if she actually covered something without a pro-Isreali bias... that would surprise me.) This is just confirmation of something that was clear a long, long time ago: the New York Times is an organ of the Israeli government as far as its coverage of the goings on in Palestine.

  • Reports of anti-Semitism in Ukraine and Hungary
    • "You don’t need the CIA to find antisemites in Ukraine."

      How is that relevant in any way? lysias didn't say, "Look! an antisemite in Ukraine! That person must be a CIA plant!" Had lysias said that, then your comment might be relevant.

    • A friend challenges:

      “...If I were a Hungarian Jew, I’d probably feel like the option of emigration to Israel is something I’d want in my back pocket, even if I was an Hungarian patriot fighting the good fight. And that would not be dysfunctional psychology.”

      ...The short answer to my friend’s challenge is that the best guarantee for safety is that minority rights everywhere must be protected, including the Roma and those Russian Orthodox Christians. I too might want a second passport if I were in Hungary. But, I’d hope, not to another intolerant society.

      Absolutely right. And I'd go one further, and say that anyone who would value the existence of an Jewish-state-as-backup, but who also doesn't fight for the complete liberation and freedom of the Palestinians is committing a grievously evil and bigoted act, because he would be saying that the suffering of Palestinians in Palestine is acceptable if it prevents suffering to Jews in Hungary. The notion that one people must be made to suffer so another can benefit is, it seems to me, a core bigoted concept, and the only way that one could solve that dilemma is to provide for the safety of all.

  • Palestinian youth say the talks with Israel are futile
    • "@Woody, who is a hypocrite?"

      You, asherpat, you paranoid, slandering freak. You cheer on one of the most powerful militaries in the history of the world as it attack an essentially defenseless population for sport, and you have the nerve to complain because of the t-shirt this woman is wearing? You are the hypocrite.

      And no, outsourcing part of the oppression of the Palestinian population to the PA while allowing an invasion of lunatic settlers to steal the Palestinians' land is not, in any way, advancing a true and just peace.

    • asherpat, you are a typical Zionist: a hypocrite who questions another's commitment to peace when you and your state have never done a single thing, in the entire history of the conflict, to advance a true, just peace.

  • Stephen Walt: publishing 'Israel lobby' ended any thought of serving in US gov't
    • "And as far as I know, Walt may be a great guy-but its hard to believe he worked on such a large thesis and then was completely surprised there were any-both positive and negative-repercussions. "

      And why should there be any repercussions -- aside from the thanks of a grateful nation -- from a factual account of the effect that a lobby for a foreign power has over the US's foreign affairs?? Sure, that lobby might be miffed that it's plans were sent awry, but he shouldn't have any fear from fellow Americans, right? And certainly, if they disagree with him, they will simply politely note their disagreement, right?

  • Haaretz joins Rush Limbaugh and company in trying to link Max Blumenthal to KC shooter suspect
    • MHughes,

      Interesting response. Not one of those reasons stand up to scrutiny, but I think you've done about as well as anyone can.

    • "...the world’s only state with a Jewish majority, a state of refugees..."

      No, the refugees were the people that that "Jewish majority" terrorized and ran out of occupied Palestine at the end of a gun, in order to steal the Palestinians' land and houses.

    • "The last remark by Blumenthal is bound to incite every potential latent Israel-hater to new inspired heights of Israel abuse. Is he bothered by the collateral damage he causes?"

      What collateral damage? That people might think? Because Max is absolutely right.

      I'll pose the question to you, Mayhem and all your fellow Zionists here: What could possibly be your objection to instituting, in the United States, a country for "White Christians" if we stipulate that Jews and African Americans would suffer exactly that which the Zionists imposed on the Palestinians: First, they would be subject to martial law for a generation and most of their property would be seized by the state, then they would split into two groups - one half would become second-class citizens but subject to discrimination in dozens of different ways, and the other half would be subject to occupation of their land, oppression in every way, restriction on travel, random killings, destruction of their economy and way of life, and that would go on forever, but 47 years at a minimum.

      What possible problem would you have to treating American Jews and African Americans in this fashion?

    • "As if to call Jerusalem Jerusalem or Yerushalayim is to rename it, because it was called al quds by the Arabs. That’s just plain stupid. "

      That's right. It should be called by it's proper name: Aelia Capitolina.

    • "Your beef is nomenclature?"

      Oh, this is nothing, yonah went off once on whether someone's writing was propaganda based on the use of the capital letter "L" in the word "lobby."

      link to

    • During slavery days, people like Rosenberg would have affirmed the "right" of the whites to enslave the blacks, bought their cotton and helped to make the slavers rich, but merely pressed for a few less whippings, lighter chains and a two-minute "saying good bye forever" period when a parent or spouse is sold away, all the while flattering themselves for their approach and having the gall to insult William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass for insisting that the whole sticking ideology and institution had to be destroyed.

  • Updated: Remote-control gun installed atop wall near Bethlehem -- Ma'an
    • "Pardon the interruption, but now that we have established that it’s a water cannon, why does the headline still refer to it as a gun?"

      I think that we're trying to correct larger problems, like the fact that an ethno-religious Apartheid state has been oppressing millions for fifty years. I'm sure once that is corrected, the headline will be next.

    • "your argumentative skills rival that of many Jews I know. "

      Wow, what a bigoted statement.

      'its not presumed that anybody or group has any right to own land in any capacity and all borders should cease to exist. "

      Where is anyone making that argument? The argument which is being made is: Simply because Jews have a connection with that land (be it through history, religion or whatever), that does not give them the right to possess that land.

    • "Israel is the real thing and has always yearned for peace."

      LMAO. Israel is a phony state and there has not been one moment -- not one second -- during its entire existance that it has not been in the process of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

      "It is the neighbours who have a predilection to violence."

      No, it's the thief and rapist who can't understand why the family of the woman whose life it destroyed doesn't like it.

    • " But then Israel should absolutely take no measures to protect its soldiers from enemy fire."

      maybe if it pulled back behind the green line, ended it's illegal blockade and stopped oppressing the Palestinians, it wouldn't need to protect its terror forces.

    • "Lets put it this way: I would rather be hit..."

      I would rather you Zionists stop being so bigoted and withdraw to the Green Line and leave the Palestinians alone.

    • Page: 83
    • "The Jewish people originated in a country."

      Debatable, because it presupposes that "the Jewish people" is an identifable thing with a definite and finite orgin, an assumption which is frankly unsupportable. The religion and its culture began in the region, that we can say.

      Despite [insert parade of horribles here] some people, like you, perhaps, forgot that the country was the Jewish homeland."

      False. Everyone understood that this is where the culture and religion practiced by Jewish people (by this time almost universally outside of this region) originated. No one "forgot" that fact. That is a falsehood.

      "Jews never did and all our cultural, historical and religious memories, customs, practices and ritual all revolve around this land."

      Very good, but wholly irrelevant to the question of one's rights.

      "Many European anti-Semites knew that when they told the Jews in their countries to 'go back to Palestine'."

      Irrelevant and false, in any event, to the question of rights. White racists in America telling Black Americans to "go back to Africa" does not give those Black Americnns the right to seize land in Africa from the Africans who are its sole rightful owners.

      "The Arab illegal occupation never erased this right that wasrecognized de facto and finally, de jure."

      This is false. The spread of Islam did nothing but chance the religion practiced by the people who lived there. They "originated in [that] country" and they had the sole and only legitimate right to that land. The fact that people in Europe and North America -- who were aliens to the lands in the Levant, including Palestine -- still practiced the religion and parts of the culture which arose there does not confer upon then the right to possess that land.

      "Jesus, the Jew, was born in Judea and was never a Palestinian."

      What does that have to do with anything?

    • "Ottoman Turkey went to war and lost."

      So what? They had no right to occupy the Palestinians' land, so their defeat could not pass along that right to anyone, be it Great Britain, the League of Nations, or the Jews of the world who coveted the land because it featured in their religious stories.

      "In any case, I think that Christianity actually originated on the road to Damascus (Acts 9)."

      And you would be wrong. All that event did was start the Ministry of St. Paul.

    • "Er, talknic, you seem to start your history in “mid-life”. Try 1920"

      Even that's "mid-life." You have to start with the time when a bunch of Europeans decided to invade and steal a country to which they were complete aliens and had no connection with at all, save for the fact that they claimed that their ancestors once lived there.

      "Jewish right in the Jewish historic homeland recognized by both the League of Nations and the United Nations"

      Well, neither of those two colonialist powers had any right to give any of Palestine to the Jews, so their views are irrelevant.

  • Friedman prepares American Jews for a divorce from zealot Israel
    • "(including both Pals and Jews)."

      RZ, if you are going to use ethnic slurs, then kindly insult both sides. Might I suggest this: "(including both Pals and Heebs)." That way, both sides are offended.

      Or you could stop being such a big fat bigot and not slur anyone.


    • "but to dismiss the building of the wall as something irrational is wrongheaded and certainly narrow minded."

      No, it was completely rational, it just had nothing to do with security. It was designed to steal land from the Palestinians over the green line with the intent that the Israeli's Final Solution to the Palestinian Question would be to make that wall the border. Since then Israel has move so far to the right that the right wing cannot even foresee liberating the Palestinians at all.

    • "Israel has 2 choices: withdrawal or annexation.... Given the unpalatable nature of the two choices,"

      The casual bigotry is what always shocks me. yonah, your statement essentially says that either liberating the Palestinians from oppression or giving them equality are both unpalatable. Disgusting.

    • "Can someone tell me what giving the Israelis another three years will accomplish?"

      The only thing it could do is give those who would normally balk at demanding that the Israeli state not act barbarically (i.e., Uncle Sucker) some cover or a basis to say that Israel has been warned.

  • Roger Ailes demands NY village official take down 'Facebook' post. She says no
    • I think that the State Supreme Courts, attorney ethics agencies, etc., have to start stepping in to disbar lawyers who send out c&d's where there is not even arguable merit, like this case. The lawyer has to say "no, they have a right to say this" and if they don't, they shouldn't be lawyers anymore.

  • Palestinian writers bring Gaza's hardships to American audience
    • "Of course it is understandable, Gaza is a territory that is extremely hostile to Israel and its people, there are no reasons other than humanitarian to permit entry to Israel."

      Nope. Not understandable at all. First, the reason that there is that hostility is because of Israel and its' people's acts. So if they have an issue with the hostility that they have created, then the solution is to stop creating it.

      Second, if Israel and its people decided to destroy the Gaza's airport and illegally blockade it's port, then I'd say on general principles it has an obligation to permit transit through Israeli terroritory on a combination of the principle of "you broke it, you bought it" and "it's immoral to create a 21st century version of a Warsaw Ghetto/open-air prison."

      "And I apologize for the Egypt comment, I should have been more clear so it would not go over your head. What I meant to communicate is that the essay above has nothing to say about Ali’s attempts to leave Gaza through Egypt."

      No, it didn't go over my head. I think I was trying to be too clever in my response. Look, pointing to Egypt only relocates the issue, it doesn't resolve it, because Egypt has become an indirect vassal state of Israel, though the US.

    • "Barred (understandably) from entry to Israel to travel to Jordan. "

      Nothing understandable about it. Destroying the Gazans' airport (and doing to the runway the equivalent of painting a swastika on a synagogue) and them locking them in an open air prison is a crime against humanity.

      "No comment on whether Egypt barred entry to fly to Jordan."

      LMAO. Yeah, no comment.

  • Fear of Arab-Americans in the public square
    • @hoppy "Meanwhile, Jews are about six times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate crimes in America."

      Absolutely false.

      Since there are between 2.5 and 4 times as many Jews as Muslims in the US, taking the gross reports of hate crimes into account, the number is actually only about 1.9 times. (And it's only correct to say that Jews are 1.9 times more likely than Muslims to report a hate crime, because the statistics track reporting, not occurrances.) But even if we put the distinction between reporting and occurrances aside, it wouldn't even be correct to say that Jews are 1.9 times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate crimes in America.

      Almost three-quarters of the number of hate crimes which are attributed to anti-Jewish animus are, basically, vandalism. However, when it comes to crimes against the person -- murder and nonnegligent homicide; aggravated assault; simple assaults and intimidations -- a Muslim is 1.47 to 2.32 times as likely as a Jew to suffer such a crime against his person.

      So, again, it is probably okay to say that "a Muslim is 1.47 to 2.32 times as likely as a Jew to suffer a reported murder, non-negligent homicide, aggravated or simple assault or intimidation based on anti-religious animus, while a Jew is between 2.7 and 4.3 times as likely to suffer a reported hate-crime property crime for such animus."

      But even those statements are likely to be false. Because when you examine the data, of the 1,100 anti-religious incidents reported in 2012, about 350 of those reports came out of New York City, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, and these places were the only places in the entire country, where any signficiant number of hate crimes were reported, where the number of anti-religious hate crimes outnumber the number of anti-racial hate crimes. No state other than New York reported more anti-religion hate crimes than anti-race hate crimes, yet New York City, Nassau and Suffolk reported 5, 3 and 2 times as many anti-religion crimes.

      (And interestingly enough, when the numbers for anti-religious hate crimes are excluded from the figures for those NYC and LI places, the hate crimes reported for animus based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability are in line with the reporting for the rest of the country. Likewise, when the numbers for New York City, Suffolk and Nassau county are excluded from the New York State numbers, the resulting numbers are in line with the rest of the country. So it seems that it is only the reporting for animus based on religion in NYC, Suffolk and Nassau counties that are so out of whack.)

      So either the number of anti-religion hate crimes is being under reported everywhere in the entire united states except for New York City and Long Island or those places are over-reporting anti-religion hate crimes. Either way, it appears that there are big, big problems with the hate crimes reporting.

    • "I also got a kick out of how he thinks anti-semitism is so much worse a problem in the US than Islamophobia, based on the hate crime statistics."

      And that's troubling, given the fact that those hate-crime statistics are almost certainly faulty, owing to a rate of anti-religious hate-crime reporting in Nassau and Suffolk Counties and in New York City that is literally too high to be normal. (For example, the rates of anti-religious reporting in those two counties and the city of NY as a whole is equal to about 2/3 of the all the reported anti-religious hate crimes reported for the rest of the entirety of the USA.)

      Anyone who takes these figures on their face is crazy. Basing policy on them is nuts.

    • "Any taker as to why he didn’t quote such statements by Hirsi?"

      LOL. Whenever you come across a description which characterizes a perception, rather than the thing itself, check the primary source.

  • Palestinians can have an embassy in Jerusalem, but God forbid not a capital -- Israeli mayor
    • puppies,

      I appreciate your position and I don't disagree that the Zionist project has been illegitimate from the state and that the state of Israel is, was, and ever shall be illegitimate; but as far as I'm concerned, if the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people made the tactical decision to accept it, then I respect their decision.

    • puppies,

      At this point, the Palestinians, through their governmental organizations, have already accepted the Green Line. I see no reason to be "more Catholic than the Pope" on this issue.

    • "Let’s try that the other way around. If you have no problem with what the Jordanians did with the indigenous Jewish population then you have no right to assert the non-existent RoR."

      First, note: it's "the Right of Return." Using "non-existent RoR" is simply Nakba denial and your use of it makes you morally the same as those who refer to the "Holohoax."

      Second, your statement further reveals you are projecting your bigotry. My position is that, upon signing the armistice, that all the people, whether they were Jews or Palestinians, had the absolute right to return to their former place of residence if they were willing to live in peace with their neighbors.

      So if the Israelis had not interfered with the exercise of the Right of Return by the Palestinians and made it known, as they did, that they intended to violate international law in this regard, then the Jordanians' acts would have been wholly without excuse. But given the Israeli refusal to satisfy their responsibility regarding the Right of Return by the Palestinians, their is no basis to criticise the Jordanians alone for their decision to reciprocate. So, again, If you’re not willing to accept a full Right of Return by the Palestinians, then you have no room or basis to complaint about the Jordanians’ acts.

    • "When the Jordanians controlled part of Jerusalem they were very tolerant of the Jews."

      The Jews had just started a war and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, expelling them from their homes. If you're not willing to accept a full Right of Return, then you have no room or basis to complaint about the Jordanians' acts.

    • "Here I agree with the mayor."

      Of course you are, you're as much of an igornant bigot as the mayor.

      "The Arabs have Mecca and Medina"

      Mecca and Medina are Saudi cities. What does that have to do with Palestinians? Unless you're such a racist that you view all of the Arabs and interchangable, which you clearly do

      "(which used to be a Jewish city until the Muslims killed all the Jewish men in the 7th century)."

      No it didn't. Stop making stuff up. There was some Jewish tribest there, and they lost a political and military conflict and suffered appropriately in the fashion of the times.

      "Let the Jews keep Jerusalem."

      No. The Israelis should be satisfied with that portion which is to the West of the Green Line.

    • "Refreshing honesty."

      And your editing is the exact opposite of honest.

      "BDS is intended to eliminate the state of Israel."

      And if the choice is between 1) a state where all are free and where everyone's human rights are protected, but Jews so not have exclusive power and 2) a state where the Jews have the power, but many Palestinians do not have freedom and human rights, which would YOU prefer. Answer honestly...

    • "Let me take you back 3,000 years. Jerusalem is the capital of the world..."

      The man is delusional. The city of Jerusalem has never been more than a provincial, backwater nowhere; important to the tribes that lived there, sure, but no more meaningful to the rest of the world than any other trade-route crossroads.

      And 3,000 years ago, it did experience a brief moment when the larger, more important civiliazations around it were in decline or had yet to ascend -- civilizations such as Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Babylonia, Greece and Rome -- and at that time the city was the capital of the minor tribal kingdom, and in few hundred years fell and was then serially conquered by the major powers of the region.

      Of course, it was an important religious site, but, again, only for the locals. It was not until the first few hundred years AD that it had any regional religious meaning.

  • Alterman says BDS is helping Netanyahu
    • "This is why I recommend paying the Arabs to leave. "

      No, the reason you recommend this is because you're an anti-Arab bigot, as you prove with every post.

    • "The 'West Bank' refers only to the brief period: 1948-67 when Jordan held the area, calling it the West Bank of Jordan’s sovereignty. The 'West Bank' is an ahistorical term, especially since Jordan does not want the area back."

      Nonsense, it is the English language term that the only rightful owners and residents of the land -- the Palestinians -- wish it to be called. The fact that you favor the racist dog-whistle term used by the Zionists is no surprise, given your well-established bigotry, but it's wrong.

    • "the Arabs in the area are nuts... This is why I say the only humanitarian solution is to pay them Arabs to leave."

      Or you could, I don't know, stop being such a raging bigot.

    • Alterman's excuses are all just racist nonsense. Israel did nothing, ever -- before BDS or during it -- to move along the path of liberating the Palestinians. So the notion that BDS is somehow to blame is self-evident nonsense.

      PEPs and "liberal" Zionists like Alterman are happy with the result because they get to continue to pretend that they actually value decency, human rights, humanity, etc., but, at the same time, they get to indulge their lust for tribalism and nationalism. And by invoking this excuse, they are free of even having to blame their fellow tribesmen, like Netanyahu and Lieberman, and blame the Palestinian victims for their own oppression.

    • "What Israeli politician wants to be smeared as a latter-day Nazi ethnically cleansing Jews out of their patrimony? 'How can you do this to a fellow Jew?'"

      No doubt these politicians thought this. This demonstrates bigoted thinking, because it presumes that a criminal act by a Jew should not be punished if the authorities are also Jewish. It is a shame that the Zionists have so many bigots among them.

      Also, stop using racist dog-whistle terms like "Judea and Samaria." The area you are referring to is either "Palestine" or "the West Bank."

  • Passover for Palestine
    • How revolting the Zionist terror forces to cheapen this religious holiday with this video.

  • China Miéville: It's become a cliche to talk about Palestine as a dystopia, but when you see Hebron you know where the cliche is coming from
  • Alleged K.C. killer: 'If Jews can have a state of their own, why can't we have a White Christian state?'
    • "Well for starters, he just murdered three victims that were members of his own so-called 'White Christian' constituency."

      What does that have to do with anything? It seems to me that he set out to murder some people and he suceeded in that. I don't think that the nature of what transpired here is in any way altered by the fact that the deceased were of any particular background.

      "Speaking objectively, in terms of the actual objects of his attack, and subjectively, in terms of his ideology, I’d have to score this outcome as a completely botched or unsuccessful hate crime"

      You're talking as if he's said that his goal was to kill Jews and that he laments the fact that the people he murdered were non-Jews. I haven't seen anything to sugget that, and frankly I doubt if he holds white people who don't hold his kind of racist views in any high regard anyway.

      (And, frankly, I apologize if I'm taking it out on your post, but my reaction to your post may be colored by my reaction to the infuriating comment by Richard Kopf -- the federal judge who made waves earlier this month for sexist comments about the dress of female attorney's -- who, disgustingly, quipped in his blog about the "irony" of this man "mowing down Christians," and even actually stated, after describing the three people murdered, "Thankfully, no Jews were killed or injured." -- as if the religious background of the victims was somehow a silver lining to a mass shooting.)

    • Max's article does present an interesting thought experiment to the Zionists and supporters of Israel: Take this guy's ravings at face value and suppose that America was turned into a "White Christian" country and Jews and African Americans were treated exactly the way that the Palestinians are treated -- about half are given second-class citizenship but no meaningful voice in the state, about half are held as stateless peasants, occupied, oppressed and abused, and a bunch are held in an open-air prison, a blockaded enclave where only the minimum necessary for life is permitted. Would the treatment of such Jews and African Americans be acceptable? If not, then why aren't you rethinking your support for Israel?

    • "This one was unexpected, and completely unsuccessful:"

      How was he completely unsuccessful? He succeeded in killing three people. Let's not lose sight of that fact. The attacks were motivated by anti-religious animus and three people died as a result. The fact that these people were not Jews is kind of irrelevant to the larger point that these people are dead.

    • Yes, annie, that was basically my point. It's insane to link Max with Miller simply because Miller read Max's reporting. It's a low, cowardly act.

    • "My associating me with Pamela Geller, are you implying I’m an Islamophobe?"

      Do you denounce Pamela Geller's Islamophobia whenever you have the opportunity?

    • "Did anyone say anything about Palestinians causing this? People have pointed out that the alleged shooter cited Max’s work."

      Yes, they have, as talknic notes. But smearing Max by association is a low cowardly act. The fact that this person cited Max's reporting is insane, because the thing that the shooter cited were the facts which Max uncovered. It's therefore stupid and lazy for someone to criticize the reporter. If someone had admired Richard Nixon, been inspired by the Watergate crimes to commit other crimes, and cited to the reporting of them, it would be stupid and lazy for someone to criticize Woodward and Bernstein or somehow blame them, simply because they were the ones who reported the facts which inspired the later crimes. Same here.

    • "That incidents like these would be ten times as frequent without the existence of Israel."

      Nonsense. Israel's actions are more likely a net cause of these incidents, both those which are taken in solidarity with Israel's victims in Palestine and those -- like these murders and like those murders by Anders Breivik -- which are taken in admiration of zionism and/or the racist policies of Israel.

    • @hoppy: "You also seem to gloss over the fact that a Jew is six times more likely to be the victim of hate crime in the US than a Muslim is."

      False. First in absolute numbers, since there are between 2.5 and 4 times as many Jews as Muslims in the US, the number is actually only about 1.9 times. But, second, the FBI reports the number of reports of hate crimes, not the occurrance of all hate crimes themselves. So it may be correct to say that Jews are 1.9 times more likely than Muslims to report a hate crime.

      And if one digs into the reported data, it is clear that a disproportionate number of anti-Jewish crimes reported are 1) destruction/damage/vandalism, 2) simple assaults and 3) intimidation. For example, although, in 2012, there were more reported anti-Muslim crimes than anti-Jewish crimes that were categorized as "Murder and nonnegligent homicide" and "aggravated assault," there were double the number of reports of anti-Jewish "simple assaults" and "intimidations" and, there were approximately fourteen times as many reports of anti-Jewish vandalism as anti-Muslim vandalism. Indeed, anti-Jewish vandalism accounts for 73% of the total number of anti-Jewish incidents and 72% of the total religion-based vandalism claims.

      So clearly these statistics suggest that of anti-Jewish hate crimes, there is a hightened reporting of lesser offenses against the person and of property offenses, and that the vast majority of these incidents are vandalism.

      Further, when you examine the geographic breakdown, New York City, Suffolk and Nassau County accounted for approximately 1/3 of all anti-religion hate crimes reported in 2012 in the entire nation.

      Indeed, Suffolk County, and its 1.4 million people, reported over twice as many anti-religion hate crimes as Los Angeles, California, with a population of 3.7 million. And NYC is off the charts. LA only reported 25 anti-religion hate crimes in total. But New York, with a little over twice its population, reported over ten times as many -- 260 -- anti-religion hate crimes.

      Indeed, a perusal of the available statistics suggest that the norm is for the number of anti-race incidents to be at least twice the number of anti-religion incidents in any jurisdiction with any significant number of hate crimes reported and usually more than that. For example, in 2012, DC reported 13 anti-race hate crimes and 6 anti-religion; Seattle reported 47 anti-race hate crimes and 13 anti-religion; Pheonix reported 59 anti-race hate crimes and 8 anti-religion hate crimes; the entire state of Florida reported 77 anti-race hate crimes and 16 anti-religion hate crimes.

      New York City, by contrast, reported 45 anti-race hate crimes and almost six times that number -- 260 -- anti-religion hate crimes. So, clearly, there is a concerted effort on the part of the people of New York City and Long Island to report incidents of anti-religion hate crimes. (Indeed, New York is clearly the hate-crime capital of America. I wonder why the cops and the DAs haven't stopped this outbreak?)

      Given all of these statistics, it is false to say that "a Jew is six times more likely to be the victim of hate crime in the US than a Muslim is" and probably fairer to say that per capita, a Muslim is 1.47 to 2.32 times as likely as a Jew to suffer a reported hate-crimes crime against his person, but that a Jew is between 2.7 and 4.3 times as likely to suffer a reported hate-crime property crime.

      Further, it is fair to say that the vast and overwhelming majority of hate crimes reported by Jews are of property damage/vandalism, and that there seems to be a strong effort on the part of New Yorkers and Long Islanders to report anti-religion incidents. (Whether there is a connection between these last two is uncertain, given the limitation on the data, as the state-by-state breakdown does not further breakdown the anti-religion category into the various religions.)

  • 'Secret' London conference seeks to link BDS to... terrorism
    • "how to push what seems like a legitimate campaign of protest "

      No, it actually IS a legitimate campaign of protest.

      "disguising the fact that the movement actually DOES call for the destruction of Israel as the nation/state of the Jewish people"

      If that is the euphamism you've chosen to mean "end the anti-Palestinian Judeo-supremacism within the greenline and the occupation and oppression of Palestinians outside the greenline, then there is no disguising that fact. Yes, BDS supporters are explicitly calling for the liberation of the Palestinians from the oppression of the Zionists.

      "In fact-if bds was not linked to the complete delegitimization of Israel it would probably be an even more effective strategy to bring about peace."

      The problem is that you Zionists define "peace" as: the Palestinians being grateful to suffer under whatever oppression you desire to inflict on them, but you promise that the lash will be a supple one.

      "its not just about a negotiated settlement"

      It's never been that, except for some over-lawyered Zionists who are looking for another weapon to use against the Palestinians and are just po'd that they won't give it to you.

      "Its about returning whatever the number now is-6 million?- descendants of Palestinians from pre-48 back to inside the green line while also giving up the old Jewish quarter of Jerusalem along with all of the WB ……AND!! the elimination of Jewish sovereignty over ANY of the land. period."

      No, it's about the people of Palestine having justice. The problem is that the Zionists are unable or unwilling to provide justice to those they've preyed upon. Stop blaming other people because you are unwilling or unable to provide justice to your fellow man.

  • About that special relationship...
  • To reach the 'moveable middle' in Jewish life, you must be inside the tent
    • "“Someone who’s a “voter and more likely to vote Democrat” voter who voted for Nader essentially cast a vote for Bush.” That’s a very silly thing to say."

      No, it's a very truthful thing to say. It's the reality that people who get caught up in the passion of vanity 3rd Party runs fool themselves about.

      "What about the voter more likely to vote Republican in a 2-party system who voted Nader?"

      Both of those people essentially cast a vote for Gore.

      "You guys are assuming that the unmitigated disaster of the Democrats is preferable to the unmitigated disaster of the Republicans. It isn’t."

      If that's your view, you're welcome to it. I believe that is self-evidently wrong. The Democrats may be a disaster, but not an unmitigated one; the fact that a Democratic president prevents a Republican from nominating Supreme Court justices, for example, is one giant bit of mitigation. Nader's vanity run permitted George Bush to nominate Alito and Roberts and changed the Supreme Court for decades and constitute a bitter true-life demonstration of Voltaire's quip about making the perfect the enemy of the good.

      "If anything, the latter is preferable."

      Baloney. The thesis that if you let the reactionaries abuse power, they'll destroy the country sufficient that a truely progressive politics will be ushered in is nonsense. It doesn't work that way.

      "It’s not a two-party system, it is a single party dictatorship as much as in old Russia. It already was that in 2000:"

      While I think fact-less hyperbole has a place in political discussion, there is no real way to respond to it.

      "did you vote for Lieberman? Give me Palin any day."

      That's just nuts. For every issue Lieberman would be bad on (and there are many), Palin would be bad on them and problem 2 or 3 more.

    • "There was no 7. It was a 5/4 split."

      There were two different issues in the case: there was a 7-2 decision on the question of whether there was an equal protection violation if each county was using its own standards for judging voter intent. There was a 5-4 split on what the appropriate remedy was and whether there could be a constitutionally-implimented recount in the time alloted.

      "The only other time a similar situation happened in our elections it was sent to congress to cast the votes. Forget what year that was but reading all about it when this debacle took place."

      Yes, and in part to counteract the problem, the Congress permits states the "safe harbor" provision which says (basically) that if the state has their returns in by a certain date, it will be considered conclusive. The problem in Bush v. Gore was that the Supreme Court found that Florida had indicated its public policy was a desire to fall within that safe harbor, so the only way that the certified results could be overturned was to do a constitutionally-appropriate recount by that date, which was the day after the Supreme Court decision was released. Basically, there was no time to do it, so the certified results had to stand. (Again, I don't necessarily agree with that result, but it makes a certain amount of sense.) That's what was decided 5-4.

      "But in general I am with Hostage on the 'antiquated' electoral system being the big problem When it should be a direct vote of citizens that elect the President."

      I disagree, on practical grounds. If every vote everywhere counted the same toward electing the president, then functionally, we could have a Bush v. Gore situation every couple of elections, and not just limited to Florida, but in every county in the US. Imagine how the 2000 election might have gone, but with every vote, in every county up for grabs. The fact that the popular vote winner didn't win only once in the modern era shows that it works pretty well. One change I would make, however, to make it closer to the popular vote winner, would be to make each state's electoral votes a function of its population only.

      "Nader had every right to run and every right to stay in the race."

      He had that right. Absolutely. He also had the responsibility to consider what might result if he exercised that right and the responsibility to determine whether the potential negative ramifications outweighted whatever it was he believed he was trying to accomplish by staying in such a tightly contested race, when he had absolutely no chance of winning.

      At the end of the day, he is entitled to think that there's not a dime's bit of difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency, but the rest of use are entitled to think he's nuts and to blame him for the cloudiness of his vision. (Imagining a Supreme Court without Alito and Roberts puts the notion that the two parties are equally bad to rest, in my opinion.)

    • "A Supreme Court Judicial coup. A selection of a President not an election."

      I don't think so, given the case they had before them. I think the fault lies in the cockamamie set up that the Constitution and the Legislative branch has in resolving those questions. (Concerning the selection of electors, the time limit, etc.) I agree with the 7 judge majority that there was an equal protection problem in the recount that used different standards, and the fact that there was a statute in place concerning the timing and Florida's desire to take advantage of the safe harbor provision makes the decision defensible, in my opinion, even though I would have ordered a different remedy, if given the choice. The ultimate problem, in my mind, is the lack of any uniformity in election law and the American system of multiple sovereigns, which presents numerous opportunities for mischief.

      "Anyone who blames Nader was not paying attention."

      I disagree. Nader was running a vanity campaign and in a country which was as equally divided as the US was in 2000, he had to understand that his presence in the race could split the vote on his side of the right/left divide. US elections are always "lesser of two evils" elections by the nature of the US system, and Nader knew that. Someone who's a "voter and more likely to vote Democrat" voter who voted for Nader essentially cast a vote for Bush.

  • Florida university president who condemned boycott has financial ties to settlements
    • "because her non-profit family foundation, which has net assets of over $4,000,000 (link to, owns $10,000 in corporate Israel bonds (that’s one quarter of one percent of the foundation’s assets), which amounts to a dividend of peanuts every year, she has a conflict?"

      If she's getting $1 from Israel it's a conflict, because she's in a partnership with the Israeli state, through this bank.

  • Simon Schama's Israel whitewash
    • "If the treatment of 1st nations were somehow able to be linked to Jews believe me..."

      Please stuff your libels. No one believes them and you're just demonstrating that you are not acting in good faith.

    • "The tactical nature of the Ben Gurion acceptance of the partition plan could have been exposed had the Palestinians accepted the partition plan."

      So? Besides blaming the victim, what would be your point?

      "but this historical footnote is not something that I would expect any television show to include."

      Why not? Given the fact that Israeli appologists still trot the fact that the Palestinians did not want to give away half of their country as a basis for the oppression and terror that's been inflicted on them by the Jews there for three generations, would it not be a proper thing to note that the entirety of the supposed generous Jewish offer to "share" Palestine through partition was a giant lie? Wouldn't a historian seeking to actually understand "the History of the Jews" wish to explore this act of duplicity in the establishment of "the Jewish State," so-called, and the brutal and racist bigotry of "Israel's Founding Father"??

      "No, Schama is not a skeptic out to highlight the skeptical angle on the issue. That’s you, Slater. This is not a valid critique of Schama."

      Do you think it academically appropriate for someone who holds himself out as a historian to produce propaganda? To lie by omission? To pass off falsehoods because he agrees with the brutal occupiers?

    • "Schama also says: “it was not just what the Nazi’s did to the Jews, but what everyone else failed to do that made the moral case for Israel”"

      This libel is one of the worst libels in history. Scores of millions of people died fighting to stop what the Nazis were doing to the Jews (and others) and millions of others had their lives forever destroyed. Dozens of millions of people. Who did the only thing that could have been done to save the Jews who were able to be saved. And for some little ... like Simon Schama to have the gall to not only question that sacrifice, but to spit in the face of those who made it??? Disgusting. Lower than the lowest.

    • Absolutely right, Max. But when push comes to shove, they're always faced with the question: which do you abandon, your ethnocentrism or your liberalism and it is stunning to me how many just abandon their liberalism, as if the ideology which should be at the core of their very being as thinking and caring people can just be discarded like an old Band-Aid.

    • Yes, it really matters, because people matter. And although you Zionists deny it by act, if not always by word, Palestinians are people with the absolute right to every human, political and civil right that is due to humans. And unlike the countries you mention, the terror and ethnic cleansing in Israel is ongoing, and with the aid of the Americans. So opposing the Zionists' crimes is, as an American, cleaning my own house first.

    • "Personally I have never seen a Zionist who didn’t ‘whitewash’."

      Of course they do. Because their ideology mandates Jewish supremacism and if they don't whitewash, the only other end point is "might makes right." And when "might makes right" meets an ethno-supremacism, the result is, as examples as varied as the antebellum South in the US to 20th C. Germany attest, a moral obscenity. So rather than question their premises, they whitewash, but eventually, at some point, on some issue, they all seem to always get to that point anyway.

    • So when PBS does a series, "The Story of the Germans" and, in the section covering the 20th Century, completely ignores the Holocaust because it's NOT "The Story of the Jews" then we won't hear a peep out of you???

    • I don't expect better of Schama; you can't blame a pig for wallowing in shit. But, Jerome, I do have to take issue with this statement of yours:

      "The fifth and last program begins with a discussion of the origins of Zionism, and makes the case that the history of the persecution of the Jews justified the creation of the state of Israel, an argument I agree with–but not with Schama’s failure to even mention the problem created by creating that state in a land already the homeland of another people."

      How can you, with your belief that the creation of the Israeli state was somehow "justified" take issue with this? If one recognizes the problems that invading the Palestinians' land and stealing it from them poses, then one could not reasonably say that that invasion and theft was justified. The way I see it, Schamas is simply being true to his ideology. To him, the Palestinians have no rights, as humans or otherwise, if it inconveniences those Jews in their Zionism project. (similar sentiments were aired by racists, bigots and supremacists of all kinds throughout history.) Your objection seems to rest on a desire to do the impossible: to find the creation of Israel "justified" and yet to condemn the human costs and the injustices which the creation of that state inevitably caused and for which there is no justification.

  • 6 DC heavyweights tell Kerry, Netanyahu in West Bank is like Putin in Crimea
    • "Yes I’ve been saying for months the process of nation formation is the same for all people through all time. Everyone does the same thing. They have to."

      Then be sure to tell all the Jewish organizations to shut the hell up with all this complaining-about-the-Holocaust nonsense. I mean, the Nazis were no better or worse than any other state, like Canada, in your view, correct?


    • "I think the idea of keeping people trapped in states they hate and reject is grossly immoral and a true danger to world peace."

      Yeah, they should just occupy them and destroy their lives and deny them their human rights and you'll be all for it!! (As long as the oppressors Jews and not the oppressed, natch!!)

  • 'There's a lot of anti-Semitism out there' -- Johansson reviews her role as 'new face of apartheid'
    • "Kudos to Johansson for calling it like it is. The notion that BDS and anti-Sodastream activism is anything other than thinly veiled antisemitism is absurd. "

      Exactly, and criticism of Apartheid pass system in South Africa was nothing but anti-Afrikaner prejudice.

    • This is nonsnese. There may be a lot of antisemitism in the world, but people don't criticize her or this company because of it. Time for the bots to cut the excuses and face the evil that the israelis do.

  • 'In every generation they rise up against us' -- Passover and the Jewish imagination
    • "But a good start would be to acknowledge historical antisemitism, and to leave Jews alone for once in history, instead of projecting the collective insecurities of guilt-ridden Europeans with their colonialist and genocidalist past, onto Israel."

      What does the one have to do with the other? Does the history of the Jews give them license to oppress another people? Do Africans, for example, with their history of oppression, have license to, say, invade Fiji and oppress the Fijians or invade the Southern Cone and drive half of the Chileans into Argentina, and then when called to cease their oppression, do they get to respond by spewing nonsensical garbage about the speaker's insecurity and guilt-ridden Europeans??

      Or is it, perhaps, that you are using the memory of those Jews who suffered antisemitic acts in the past in lands far from Palestine as a way of excusing the bad acts committed by the Israelis today, not because of any cosmic or moral squaring of accounts, but because you simply don't want to find the criticisms of the Israelis to be valid because you believe that the cruelty and barbarism of the Israelis benefits Jews and you favor that, the cost to other people be damned?

      Because the way I see it, once one recognizes and acknowledges the history of antisemitism and the history of bigotry and hatred and prejudice against all those who have suffered for it, as one should, then one should be obligated to not just say, "this should not happen again to Jews" but "this should not happen again to anyone." And that includes Palestinians.

  • State Dep't tries to clean up Kerry's 'Poof'
    • "It has offered to trade territory in pre-1967 Israel for territory in the West Bank."

      Nonsense. It's demanded that the Palestinians give up prime real estate and agree to give the Palestinians land it stole from them in 1948.

    • "So why is the State Dept now trying to replace Poof with Spoof."

      Because the AIPACniks have, no doubt, activated the Fifth Column calling circle and Washington, DC is taking massive fire on behalf of this alien state.

    • "If this were a normal situation Kerry wouldn’t care how Israel handles its indigenous population."

      Nonsense. 1) The Palestinians in Palestine aren't Israel's indigenous population. 2) The US often cares (or at least claims to) when a minority is oppressed.

      "In a normal situation, Kerry would see Israel’s construction projects as a purely internal matter."

      Nonsense. They aren't occurring inside Israel, they are happening inside Palestine, so they are not "internal matters."

      "The best course of action would be for the USA to give Israel 1 year to either officially annex whatever territories in the West Bank they are taking and everything else formally repudiate claim to, including bases."

      Too bad for you international law prevents that.

      "But it is the USA that’s asking Israel to engage with the Palestinians on their terms."

      No, it's simply not willing to engage in the fiction that you're spinning here that the Zionist entity is in any way a normal, natural or legitimate state. While the US pretends, because of politics and donors and cowardly politicians, it's not, never has been and won't be until such time as justice comes to the Palestinians.

      "If Kerry would just follow USA law and when Israel announce construction in E1 tell the world that it isn’t his policy to comment on where in Paris France builds or where in Beijing China builds that would end the nonsense with our being involved."

      Except that Paris, France and Beijing, China are the capitals and sovereign territory of those states. Arab East Jerusalem is neither the capital (nor part of the capital) of Israel nor does Israel have sovereignty over it.

  • 66 years ago today 42 members of my family were slaughtered in Deir Yassin
    • "The Holocaust is a key part of World War 2 because Hitler blamed the Jews and scapegoated the Jews as the main goal of the whole war which involved the entire world."

      Your history is wrong. The destruction of the Jews was not Hitler's main goal; his main goal was the political world dominance of the German state and people. While this involved his hatred of the Jews, that hatred was not his main goal. Indeed, if his plans had gone they way he wanted, the destruction of the Jews would have been one small part of the larger scores of millions of deaths he had planned.

      But while I agree that there should be no linkage between the Holocaust and the Nakba, not for the reasons you suggest, because one could equally say that the attempted genocide and actual ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people by those engaged in the Zionist project was one of the main causes, if not the main cause, of the problems in Palestine today and of the Middle East at large.

      "Also, the other victims of the Holocaust have never been denied by the Jews."

      That's not true. There are some people, including some Jews, who object to the term "Holocaust" being used to refer to anyone who was murdered but was a non Jew. So, to them, if a Jewish person was murdered at Auschwitz, at the same exact time, by the same exact method, in the same exact place, by the same exact reason, by the same exact people as a person who was a Roma or Sinti or Soviet POW , it was part of the Holocaust, those people who seek exclusivity over the term, would consider the Jew's death as part of the Holocaust, but not the other.

      "Everyone knows that Hitler walked out of the stadium when Jesse Jackson won his Olympic race."

      Really?? Everyone knows that Jesse Jackson -- Baptist Minister, civil rights activist and head of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition -- ran in the Berlin Olympics?? Or maybe it's just that all African Americans look alike to you... (But you've got to hand it to Jesse; it's not everyone who can win an Olympic race 5 years before he was born.)

      (Oh, and if you meant Jesse Owens, you're wrong about that too; Hitler didn't snub Owens. Although FDR did...)

      "Supporters of the Palestinian cause, hate the Holocaust because it is the eternal example of the real motives behind politically making decisions that single out and affect only Jews."

      No, most supporters of the Palestinian cause -- like all other decent people -- hate the Holocaust because it involved the murder of millions upon millions of innocent human beings. But you feel free to go on loving the Holocaust if that is what your twisted psychology requires of you.

    • "It isn’t Nakba denial to state accurately that Deir Yassin, overlooking the main road into Western Jerusalem, was occupied by irregulars and participated in belligerency, partly condoned by inhabitants."

      Yes, it is, because that is a well debunked lie. It is the equivalent of suggesting that the Holocaust of the Jews was justified because before it began, the Jews of Europe unanimously voted to try to slaughter all the Germans out of anti-Aryan hate and that, thus, the Germans were merely defending themselves. Such an assertion should get one banned, as should your lies trying to blame those murdered by the Jewish terrorists for their own murder.

    • I'd say this consitutes Nakba denial. But the zios never get booted for it, so I don't know why there's even a rule against it (or any of the other things, too)

    • May you have justice and peace and may those who committed this act of genocide suffer their just punishment. May they never know a moment's peace until that justice is done.

  • Australia opposed Palestinian UN bid because foreign policy was 'subcontracted to Jewish donors' -- report
    • @Krauss: "That’s an illogical statement to make."

      I disagree. Prejudice speaks to motivation, not truth. For example, if 10 employees are late for work at the same rate, but only those who are black are written up for it, the supervisor, when asked why those people were written up can speak the truth: "because they were late" but the fact that the white workers were also late but not written up demonstrates that the motive was prejudice and the truthful reason was merely pretext.

      As for the rest concerning hophmi and all the rest, I would agree with you. But I cannot say with certainty that truth precludes prejudice because I don't believe it does.

Showing comments 8322 - 8301

Comments are closed.