Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 407 (since 2010-09-28 14:53:20)

Woody Tanaka

So long, everyone. Keep fighting the good fight. ¡Hasta la Victoria Siempre! -Woody

Showing comments 300 - 201
Page:

  • Among US expressions of outrage and condolence, Obama, Kerry and Rice identify with Israeli parents
    • Interesting. No doubt not one of these people had any such expressions of grief and regret when the Palestinians boys were murdered on Nakba day. (Mr. Boteach, how many of you rabbis condemned their murderers???) They must have all been busy getting the car washed or something.

  • Missing Israeli teens found dead near Hebron; Netanyahu: 'Hamas is responsible and Hamas will pay'
    • LMAO. Can we conclude that the noob, "jon66" is really Bradley Burston??

      Too bad he excised the second comment, taking it out of context, and missed the whole point of my comment, which had nothing to do with "kidnap denial" or "blaming the victim."

    • "I assume that Mahane Yehuda1 was expressing his pride in the high degree of empathy and solidarity expressed in Israeli society on this day."

      To hell with Israeli society. Where was that "empathy" when your terrorists in uniformed murdered those boys on Nakba day??? Nowhere; they weren't Jews so no empathy for them. Where was that "empathy" for those suffering through this pogrom?? Nowhere; they're not Jews so no empathy for them. Go stick your "empathy."

    • Netanyahoo: "They were abducted and murdered in cold blood by human animals."

      So we can use dehumanizing language now? We can call Zionist murders of innocent Palestinian "rats" and "animals" and "vermin"??

    • I propose a change in US law that requires the US government to treat supporters of the Zionist state in exactly yhe same way the Gazans are treated. maybe then they'll get it.

    • "I hope your children never get kidnapped."

      I'm not a participant in the theft of the land of and oppression of another people so I think I have much less to fear there than those who do...

    • Exactly what has changed, yonah? what evidence is there as to who killed these kids (if, in fact they're dead. Given the denial by Oren was ok even when murder is caught on tape, it must be applied here, too)

      Or is it sufficient that a Jew has blamed it on a non-Jew? Do you require no other evidence when that happens?? I guess Arabs are genetically guilty in your bigoted brain?

    • "However, when the focus of the article is about 3 Israeli boys, it’s reasonable to compare that to murdered Palestinian children."

      The situations are directly related (and demonstrate the hypocracy in the coverages of the two near identical stories.)

      "Can’t we be sympathetic to three mothers who lost their children without trampling on their graves."

      No. When have the Zionist Jews been sympathetic to the mothers of dead Palestinians??? When they begin, then the feeling should be reciprocated. Until then it simply playes into the bigoted Zionist narrative.

      And more specifically, I don't have pity for these parents, I hold them in contempt. If they were not willing participants in the theft and occupation of Palestine, their kids would not be dead. But they loved their demonic ideology more than they loved their children.

      "I think the appropriate response at a time like this is a simple, ” I’m sorry for your loss”."

      Yes, and when that is the response we get from the Zionists when one of their thugs murders some Palestinian -- rather than getting the pig, Oren, telling that dimwit, Blitzer, that we don't know if the kids are dead, or if they are, they were murdered by Arabs for "Pallywood."-- then maybe they'll earn the same in response.

      But since this people have never treated the Palestinians with basic human decency, I say to hell with them.

    • Who? What?? What kids?? Those Arabs aren't Jews so they don't count...

    • "Coverage of the discovery has included confirmation of something Mondoweiss first reported June 23 – Israeli officials have long suspected the missing teens were already dead. Sheera Frenkel reports for BuzzFeed"

      which, of course, means that when the parents of these three met with Netanyahoo, and Benji was all smiles, yukking it up with the parents for the cameras and for the political gain it got him, I'm guessing he failed to tell them that their children were most likely dead. But, he got a little PR bump, but what is manipulating a parents emotions compare to that??

    • Hey, does anyone know if Obama sent a personal expression of grief on behalf of the American people to the family of the Palestinians who were murdered by the I"D"F terrorists, either the ones on Nakba day or those who died since this disappearance?

    • Does anyone know if J Street send out their "thoughts & prayers" for the families of the boys murdered by the Israelis on Nakba Day? Just wondering...

    • As I asked Oleg earlier, so, did the Israelis identify who murdered the boys on Nakba day yet??? (I guess it goes without saying that the ZIonists don't intend to release any actual evidence regarding the three missing males, to demonstrate that all the people who they're about to murder and whos lives they're about to destroy were responsible for anything, other than the most unforgivable of sins, of course: being non-Jews...)

  • In 'NYT' tale of two mothers, the occupation is a human-relations problem
    • "the kidnapping by hamas". and what evidence is there to support this claim?

    • "The term 'appropriate Zionist response' is chilling."

      Yeah, well a truthful boast: "we are going to make their streets flow with their blood and that of their children" is a bit too on the nose, even for Zionists.

    • No, I think that Abbas is about to learn what happens to someone who trusts a jackel.

    • "I fear many more innocents will die before this whole sorry story ends."

      Well, few things that the Israeli government does doesn't involve a gush of innocent Palestinian blood, so why should this be any different?

    • They can't stand to have the Palestinians unified, so the Zionist leadership is dancing in the streets, now that they have their excuse to go and celebrate finding the bodies by murdering more Palestinians. (Do we know if they are really dead? Have we seen any evidence yet? as Michael Oren would say)

    • Did they indict the I"D"Fers who murdered the two teens on Nakba day yet, Oleg??

  • A settler grazes his cattle on Palestinian crops, as Israeli soldiers look on
    • You're the one talking nonsense. You pulled out the Jews solely so that you can turn Gaza into part one part Warsaw Ghetto and one part shooting gallery, so that you psychopaths can kill Palestinians for sport.

      And I know all about your history and the roots of your conflict: a hundred some years ago a group of European Zionists thought it would just fine and dandy to genocide or ethnically cleanse the land of Palestine from its sole rightful owners and you've been working at your theft and murder ever since.

    • The problem with you and your ilk is that you'll shout to high heaven about these little fire crackers but you don't give the first damn about the crimes you commit, which are dozens or hundreds of times worse. Stop committing crimes against the Palestinians and these fire crackers will stop. Otherwise, you people are getting much, much less than you deserve.

  • Glib, simplistic, and extreme -- the world according to Richard Landes
    • "And Seafoid, where in your quote of Netanyahu or anywhere else does Shoah exploitation figure into it?"

      LMAO. Yeah, because Israelis NEVER misuse the memory of those killed in the Holocaust to push its evil policies...

  • Israeli officials threaten return to Intifada-era policy of demolishing suspects' homes
    • Yup. That seems to be the national moral pathology of Israel: We can be evil if we can find someone who's more evil.

    • Well, then I guess we'll hear no more about "innocent" Israelis being killed by so-called "terrorists." The Israelis, by this policy, have made every single Israeli a legitimate target.

  • Hundreds of Israeli soldiers raid Hebron as West Bank crackdown enters second week
    • "Alternate title: 'Hundreds of Israeli soldiers raid Hebron as search for three kidnapped boys enters second week'."

      LMAO. Except for the fact that (1) there is no evidence that they have been kidnapped, (2) they're not "boys," and (3)the uniformed terrorists of the Israeli regime are commiting serial war crimes and crimes against humanity in Occupied Palestine. ("Crackdown" is too tame. "Pogrom" is probably most accurate, although Czar Benji might not approve.)

  • Israel announces identity of suspected kidnappers, still no evidence of abduction made public
    • "The other thing about her speech I didn’t like was the unilateralism of the call for justice. Either we are all sacred or nobody is."

      And that is the problem with the Israelis and, it seems, Zionists in general. They are absolutely unwilling to give justice to the Palestinians, but demand it for themselves. She is a morally repugnant person.

    • "And what kind of “proof” are you looking for exactly? Netanyahu has named two Hamas members as the kidnappers"

      Big deal. He is a known liar and anti-Arab bigot. The fact that he named two names does not prove that they had anything to do with the disappearance of these males.

      if he had any proof that they were involved, then he should either presented or shut his face.

      " you can’t elect a government that runs on a platform of waging jihad against the Jewish people, and then complain when Israel reacts to a cowardly act of terrorism against its children."

      you got it all backwards. The Zionists of the world have declared war on the Palestinians, and continue to wage the most brutal and heartless type of war against the Palestinians and their children. The Zionists are crazy to expect that they will not reap what they have sown.

      If you do not wish you and your children to be attacked. in retaliation, then stop attacking Palestinians and their children. If you can't, then you should shut your face.

    • So we're just supposed to trust that the Isreali Gestapo is telling us the truth??? LMAO. A claim by the Shin Bet without evidence tells me that these men are probably quite innocent of anything (Other than their unforgivable non-Jewishness, that is.)

  • The Ramallah bubble just popped: Reflections on a city under siege
    • "I knew, of course, that anything could happen here, but had wrongly assumed that Ramallah was to some extent off-limits,"

      You gave the Zionists too much credit. Hell, giving them ANY credit to act like decent people or even human beings is giving them too much credit.

  • 'Washington Post' conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism
    • no, that's not changing the subject. The subject here is Matthew's article and the fact that the Washington Post is highlighting a clearly anti-Israel and not anti-Jewish video to support its thesis that this person is anti-simitic and is indicative of rising anti-Semitism in Europe. Given the fact that the jurisprudence of the states is to violate people's right to free speech and free thought but only where it involves the Holocaust, I think that subject is well within the realm of what we are talking about.

    • "In one case. He’s been sentenced to fines several times for antisemitic remarks."

      And very telling that you're more concerned about Matthew than the fact that the State is fining people for thought crime.

    • "What does it matter?"

      Because the point of the article was anti-semitism, not opposition to Israeli's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

      "which the Post DOES NOT claim is antisemitic"

      If it's not being claimed as antisemitic, then it has no business being there, and is a slur by tying opposition to Isreali criminality to antisemitism.

    • "Yes, the two concepts are distinct and yes there is plenty of legitimate anti-Zionism, but to pretend there is not a huge overlap is foolishness."

      No, to pretend there is a big overlap, or that the overlap is anything more than a fringe, is foolish.

    • "But the general tone is flip and not serious."

      You're out of your mind. "Flip and not serious"??? How about the part where he talked about his father and uncle and brother getting murdered and their house getting burned down. That was "flip and not serious"????

  • Reform Jews offer no proposal to end occupation, says Jewish Voice for Peace
    • Really? In an article pointing out the failure of Reform Jews to provide any guidance in solving the problems created by the Crimes of the Occupation -- crimes which are, right now, this very second, destroying the lives of millions of people -- the concern of you, oh man on the "Israeli left," is whether it was wrong not to include religious honorifics in the label of two men who've been dead for forty years?? That's where your concern lies?

  • Oldman labels himself an 'A-hole' for saying Jews run Hollywood
    • First Jonah Hill, now Gary Oldman. It seems like Jimmy Kimmel's show is the place for the "couch-pology."

    • Foxman:
      "[Oldman's] reference [in his first apology] to the Neal Gabler book he was reading only reinforces the notion that Jewish directors, producers and financiers are there in Hollywood as Jews. They’re not..."

      This is totally disingenuous. While, no, they are not there as exemplars of Judaism or as the agents of a monolith, they are, in fact, Jewish. That's not something that can be totally separated out of the equation of their day-to-day life, because it is part (to some degree or another) of who they are, just as all of our backgrounds help make us into the people we are. And because it is a creative industry, the output of the industry reflects the people (and their backgrounds) of those who are in power in that industry.

      If the industry was not disproportionately Jewish, (and disproportionately gay, and young, and urban, and politically liberal, and "irreligious" [both in terms of people with no faith and those for whom faith is not a particularly large part of their lives]) then the library that makes up the history of American film simply would not be what it is.

      And actors are acutely aware that they are employees, and that if they say something that would offensive to Jewish people, that would be detrimental to their desire to continue to be a part of the film industry because of the fact that there are so many "Jewish directors, producers and financiers," who are able to determine or influence who is hired and who is not and what projects are made. (The same is true for the other disproportionates, as well, which is why, in a country that is overwhelmingly Christian, with about 1/4 of the people Evangelical and 1/5 Catholic, movies with overt and explicitly Christian themes and religious stories are rare, but films with themes which would appeal to gay people or Jews or urban liberals or young people are not.) That is what Oldman meant by "run Hollywood."

      There is nothing nefarious in the reality that whatever sensibilities that people have gotten from their backgrounds will affect the way they do their jobs, it's common sense and human nature. But to suggest, as Foxman does, that the fact that these people are Jewish is just incidental and has no affect on the industry, is simply silly.

  • Jeffrey Goldberg leads the charge on latest BDS smear: Presbyterian Church divestment is anti-Semitic because David Duke supports it
    • "There is also Christian schmaltz, made of pig fat."

      Mmmm lard, the cooking fat and shortening of God himself. If you're baking with anything else, you're not really baking.

    • It's not a "charge" it's a "slander."

      Goldberg should know that David Duke wears clothes, so Goldberg best be going naked or expose himself as a crypto-Klansman.

  • 'About 60,000 Americans were murdered' by Palestinians in Israel, says Shmuley Boteach
    • "Did he miss the words “the equivalent of”?"

      Yes. Mr. Boteach is a patent moron.

      And even to that, I'd say, yeah, but only because the equivalent of 120 million Americans have been held under military law with no freedoms, random killings, no human rights or liberty for three generations. I would then say, "Wow, that's pretty good. The Palestians have really been acting with kid gloves, because if someone held 120 million Americans hostage for 70 years, you can be damned sure that more than 60,000 would have been killed in that fight. Hell, you'd have 60,000 dead out of Texas alone."

  • 75% of visitors to Israel's Canada Park believe it is located inside the Green Line (it's not)
    • Mik heil,

      Wrong. The Zionists have jurisdiction but not soverignty over Western al-Quds and neither over the Eastern half. And if the idea to make it a corpus separatum is "null and void" it is so due to the fact that the Zionists, given their nature as incorrigable liars, never intended it to be so at all, as much as by anything the Palestinians did. Further, the acts by the neighboring Arab states against the Zionist entity was due to nothing more than the fact that the Jews were attempting their Plan Dalet genocide and were rightfully stopped. The only sad part is that they weren't able to destroy forever that Judeo-fascist regime.

    • "Please, ask the peoples there who is the only people that declared Jerusalem as a capital twice in the history of this city."

      Well, we know the Zionists did, and the Palestinians declared their capital in Eastern al Quds. I think that the ancestors of both declared it a capital, back in the 20 minutes in the bronze age when this cross-roads backwater wasn't owned by one of the empires surrounding it.

      So it's actually 3.

  • 'Forward' editor says Presbyterian vote was anti-Semitic
    • Well yonah, it's nice that you admit that you are the anti-Christian equivalent of an anti-Semite. Admiting it to yourself is the first step.

    • Donald, I think that what you're describing is simply the fact that there are racists everywhere (thankfully fewer now than in the past.) I don't think that any region is immune due to region, but some regions are worse than others. However, I think one thing that is unique in the racism in the South was the official and overt involvment of govenrment officers and governmental institutions in putting racist policies in place and enforcing them.

    • "The reason is simple, none of those three countries are under constant threat, no one of them experiences terror attacks and missile attacks."

      LMAO. Nope. The reason is because none of them have a fifth column lobby working to stick up the US taxpayers to pay for your filthy Apartheid government.

      "None one of them has to deal with an enemy that don’t want to recognize their existence, refuse to do peace and settle all the problems."

      Are you a liar, a moron or crazy? The Arab Peace Plan has been out there waiting for you people to accept it for over a decade, yet you -- who oh, so want peace -- refuse to accept it. Why? Because then you wouldn't get to oppress Palestinians.

      "It’s about the time that people here start to understand that we, the Jews, are in our homeland,"

      No, you are in Palestine. The fact that some Jews used to live there a few thousand years ago doesn't change that fact. THAT is what YOU have to understand.

      "but we want to live in peace with our neighbors."

      No you don't. If you did, you'd have accepted the Arab Peace Plan a decade ago. What you want is to steal all the land, oppress all the people and have them agree not to shoot back at you; you don't want peace because that would mean having to give justice to your prey.

      "The ball is in their hands: Recognizing the Jewish state of Israel and start (real) peace process."

      Oh, go stuff that nonsense. What you want is abject surrender and they aren't game. Good for them. If you're not willing to offer justice to the Palestinians, you people should experience even one minute of peace.

      But

    • "Actually, in many respects, the Soviets were worse human rights violators ... during World War II than the Nazis."

      I disagree with this. I think that in the six years between 1939 and 1945, that the human rights violations of the Germans clearly exceeded those of the USSR (which is not to say that the USSR did not commit any during this time (as it did, especially against the Poles in the parts of Poland it seized as part of the Nazi-USSR Partition) nor is it a comment on the period before the war.)

    • "“Israel suffers a fraction of what it inflicts on Palestine and Palestinians.”

      [its also completely subjective...] "

      No, it's true as an objective matter. Anyone who denies that is kidding himself, lying or is crazy.

    • "Correct!!! All of these events happened in Judea."

      Learn some geography and history. Most of these events occurred in Galilee.

    • "there are a few who seem to relish the idea that many Jews who are Zionist feel ‘pain’ or especially ‘fear’ from the results of this vote. "

      I think that's simply the way of expressing hope that the long history of Israelis committing crimes against humanity with impunity is coming to an end. They're hoping that these people feel the just consequences of their acts.

    • Oh, FFS, not this nonsense again.

      Here's exactly why this woman is a moral degenerate, in one paragraph:

      "when they singled out only Israel’s actions, troubling though they may be, at a time when the region is aflame with tribal violence, they did hold one nation to a standard that others are not obliged or expected to meet. How is that not unfair and hypocritical? How does that not undermine Israel’s legitimacy?"

      What you have here is three generations of killings, assaults, and oppressions on the Palestinians, for no reason other than the fact that they are non-Jews, and for which she can only muster a concession that they are "troubling." On the other hand is the charge that the critic is unfair, hypocritical and undermining the state's "legitimacy" on the other. Based on that, she actually believes that the latter outweighs the former; that the need to be "fair" to a state is more important than trying to ensure that Palestinian babies aren't burned to death with white phosophorus, that Palestinian teens aren't shot for sport, and that mass retaliatory pogroms in the West Bank aren't held. Again, she's a moral degenerate.

      So she calls it antisemitism?? Who cares. If they're making people wears stars or otherwise oppressing people because because they're Jews, then it's antisemitism. I'm there. I'm opposing it. But if the claim is made because someone objects to what Israel is doing? Then if you can't demonstrate beyond doubt that the criticism is solely based on an animus against Jews, my responose is "oh, just shut the hell up already."

  • Oldman says Hollywood is 'run by Jews,' then offers over-the-top apology
    • "It made a lot of money."

      So that's something wrong with it?

      "It was a soft core S and M film."

      You're disgusting. One wonders if someone created a film which displayed the most important moment in history for the Jewish faith, in a stark and unflinching manner, you would be so flippant if someone insulted it in such a disgusting way.

      "There was a lot of controversy about one of the verses from Matthew that was expressed in the film in Aramaic"

      So? To Christians like Gibson, it's part of the Christian scriptures, inspired by God. Who are you to tell a Christian that he must abandon that portion of his scriptures because you don't like it?

      "The history of passion plays and the role played by the villain Pharisees or Sanhedrin or those labeled as Jews is a long one and the history of Jew hatred that accompanied those passion plays is also a long one."

      So what? I mean, yes, that is a historical tragedy, but that is, at most, a condemnation of the societies in which they happened, not of the art itself, and certainly not of this film, which was a powerful masterpiece.

      "one cannot deny that the controversy, if not the verse from Matthew and if not the rest of the film, was significant."

      The "controversy" was a disgusting attempt by the likes of Abe Foxman to tell someone else what they were permitted to hold as part of their sacred scriptures and religious believes. (And, of course, if one were to demand that the Jews of the world excise the who portion of their religion about being "chosen people" and about Palestine being "given to the Jewish people" and whatnot, then you know Foxman the hypocrite would damn that person as an antisemite, but he never gets the point that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.)

      He, and all of those who condemned this film for the reasons you suggest here, should be ashamed of themselves.

    • yonah,

      You have cause and effect a bit mixed up here regarding Gibson, the Passion of the Christ and the police officer. What you had there was a man with a particular religious upbringing and strong religious beliefs who has, unfortunately, an addiction to alcohol and anger-management issues. He then creates the most personal piece of art of his life, one which encompasses everything which he values and holds holy about his faith. Then, you have Jewish organizations slandering it in the most unfair, unwarranted and merciless ways, insulting not only him and his film, but his very religion in the process.

      Having experienced months of the most personal of attacks by people who claim to speak for or behalf of the Jews, one would have to be rather stone-hearted to not develop some negative attitudes (warranted or not) towards those who have been attacking him. Add a lot of alcohol, the aforementioned anger-management issues and a innocent bystander cop who happens to be Jewish and ugliness ensues.

      So, no he certainly should not have said what he did, but you're trying to blow smoke up everyone's butt by trying to blame his father when the real guilty parties are Mel Gibson himself and, to a lesser extent for instigation, those who leveled wrongful and slanderous attacks against him.

    • "The ‘power structure of Hollywood’ is dominated by the CEOs of the corporations that own the studios."

      LMAO. No it's not. Although those people are important, do they know how to put a picture together? To market it? To get a star interested? No, no and no. Among the most powerful in Hollywood are the heads of the film divisions and people like Harvey Weinstein, Katherine Kennedy, some of the top directors and stars. Probably the most powerful person in Hollywood over the last few years has probably been Kevin Feige, who runs Marvel Pictures.

      It is, in fact, false to say that "the Jews" run Hollywood, like a monolith. But to suggest that there are not a lot of Jews in the film business in powerful positions is more false, bordering on the comical. The film business is, compared to the general population, disproportionately Jewish. (It's also disproportionately gay and disproportionately young (among those in the production side.)) And those who take issue with Oldman's statement are bordering on the comical, because it can't fairly be read as saying anything other than "There are a lot of powerful people in Hollywood who are Jews and Gibson was stupid for ticking them off."

    • "Foxman amplified those remarks on Wednesday: 'While his apology may be heartfelt, Mr. Oldman does not understand why his words about Jewish control were so damaging and offensive, and it is therefore insufficient.'"

      Oh, Gary, you have to read your Orwell to understand the likes of Foxman and Hier. It's not enough that you obey Big Brother; you must love him.

    • LMAO. This is great. The first half of the letter says, "Sorry if you're offended, but yes, Hollywood is run by Jews. Always has been. In fact, Neal wrote a book about it."

      As for the second half, oh, I so hope that it is intended as the kind of mockery that it comes off as. It's just so over the top and nonsensical to be, but yet not so far that the dolts at the ADL would catch on that they're the targets.

      "first to hear God’s voice, and surely are the chosen people"!!! LOL. It'll probably never occur to the ADLers, as they're pumping out their chest and strutting like cocks on the walk, that Gary Oldman is an atheist and, as such, the line can't really be read seriously or any way other than dripping with wry contempt. But with plausible deniability, which it the brilliant part.

  • From Mississippi to Gaza -- Dorothy Zellner reflects on 50 years of struggle
    • "Anybody recall how the vets of WW1 had to march on Washington DC just to get any help from the government?"

      And any young folks who learn how the bonus marchers were treated should have reason to pause when the call to join up to fight for our "freedom" comes along once again...

  • In life and death, some are more equal than others at the 'NYT'
    • Who cares? He was an adult, living illegally on stolen land. This idea that these people who are living in these settlements or whatnot are to be considered innocents is frank nonsense. They're the sword pointed at the heart of Palestine, they're no less occupation forces than the goons and terrorists in uniform and they should be treated exactly the same.

  • Israel can’t force-feed occupation to those who hunger for freedom
    • "If I say they should be force-fed, you don’t like it; if I say they shouldn’t, you don’t like it… Seriously, do you have any point or just oppose anything Israel does?"

      My point is that you and the other dimwits in the Zionist entities should actually use what brains you have and what morality you can pretend to scrape together and understand that this is not about whether they eat or not, but about how they're treated. What I want is for not to take a position on whether they should be force fed, but on whether they, and the rest of the Palestinians, should be as grotesquely mistreated, against all sense of human decency, as they are by you psychopaths.

    • Of course the whole issue of human rights never play into your consideration. Typical Zionist.

    • That's on hold so that Netanyahoo can run his blood-libel pogrom in the West Bank.

  • 'It is Time for Accountability': International 'Month Against the Apartheid Wall' marks 10 years since ICJ ruling
    • "I could hardly swallow watching Dershowitz portrayed as this upstanding civil rights attorney fighting for justice and the “underdog,” as he claims."

      LMAO. He whored out his talent to a rich client when even his assistant on the case, Jim Cramer (yes, the tv money guy), admitted to himself that von Bulow was "supremely guilty." I'll leave to to you to figure out what Dershbag's motives where, but "justice" and fighting for the "underdog" were hardly it, in my opinion.

  • Three critical responses to 'Growing Jewish support for boycott'
    • "For anyone interested in ending the occupation (whether you are referring to ’48 or ’67) and building new political and economic realities between the River and the Sea, Jewish-Arab partnership is the only possibility. If for no other reason than the fact that none of us are going anywhere."

      Then, given the vast power disparity, the onus is on the Jews there to bend over backwards to build that partnership. But I have my doubts, as they are hell bent destroying any chance of that, just to show the Palestinians that the Jews are boss. What a stupid, stupid set of policies. Had they given the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza a real and substantial stake in peace between the communities starting 40 years ago, things might be different today. But like the fool who shoots himself in the head just to prove to himself how tough he is, they've decided, instead, that a Scorched-Earth-and-War-Crimes strategy against the Palestinians is going to result in that partnership. What sheer stupidity.

    • "If so, and if the BDS platform is grounded in international law, why is it silent on the question of Israel’s rights?"

      The BDS platform is silent on most aspects of international law. (The absence of any statement on riparian rights is OUTLANDISH!!) I see no reason why is should discuss this.

    • It's time these parasites pay for their own weapons. The US is broke and I see no reason why a US kid has to go to school is a run down school or why American roads and bridges aren't being repaired or US citizens aren't getting health care, because our tax money is spent to keep these ingrates from the response that their own policies have brought them. No one dime to save the whole lot of them, I say.

  • Israel maintains gag order in missing teens' case, leading to charge of media 'manipulation'
    • "Israelis may be el-cheapos, just, but nobody can say that American or Canadian Jews aren’t charitable, they are probably the most charitable, especially when it comes to sending tax-free dollars to Israel and other beneficiaries. "

      This is old news. The state is a first world economy not from any racist "Jewish mental superiority" nonsense or "start-up entrepenureal spirit" but through a favored access to work capital markets, massive transfer of wealth from its diaspora, an influx of educated individuals whose education was paid for by others, and by lobbies sticking up the American taxpayer both directly and indirectly, as the case here.

      I have no problem if someone wants to send that state the donor's own money (so long as there is no barrier to similar donations to those opposed to it, without restrictions) but the scandal should be that the American taxpayers are getting soaked to support the Apartheid State.

    • @talknic

      "But not necessarily brought up, educated and allowed practice enough to be one."

      Perhaps, but if he is competent to know right from wrong, then the onus is on him to think beyond the propaganda.

    • "How many states are leaded by a dictator that kills his own people?"

      Well, I know one headed by a Netanyahoo that's killed 5 for no reason over the past few days. Oh, wait, not "for no reason" but "for being non-Jews in land coveted by Jews."

      "How many states the Christian communities are under constant threat? (Don’t say “In Israel”, check the situation in Arab countries)"

      Why not "in Israel"? Are the human rights violations against Palestinans Christians not "real human rights violations" to you?

      "How many states treat their own citizen like in Darfur?"

      Well, you're piece of crap state has held onto millions of people for 40 years as virtual serfs, so don't go comparing.

      "Do you compare Israel to N. Korea, Sudan, Myanmar, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lybia, Cambodia, Cuba, China, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, etc. etc. ????"

      Yes. Birds of a feather.

      "Please, check the human rights situations in all those and many other countries and you will find that Israel is better than all together,"

      LMAO. Sure, if you're a Jew. If you're a non-Jew, not so much.

      "a stable and secure country that keep high standards of human rights."

      Again, sure, if you're a Jew.

      "Don’t believe? ask the Israeli-Palestinians, Muslims and Christians."

      You mean the ones who are suffereing from second-class citizenship as tokens in pre-67 occupied Palestine or the ones you people treat worse than dogs in post-67 occupied Palestine?

    • "do you think this “council” is serious? It has no ability to deal with real human rights violations around the world, only with Israel."

      The fact that you don't think the crimes you people commit constitute "real human rights violations" demonstrates your lack of humaneness. Those are actual people you oppress, occupy, murder, steal from, and ethnically cleanse, you monster. How dare you suggest that the criminal activity of your Zionist mafia does not constitute "real human rights violations"??

    • "A council of clowns!!!"

      And all correct on the facts in criticizing your Apartheid state. So the fact that you people are correctly criticized by the likes of them makes you the biggest clowns (if by "clowns" we mean criminally racist barbarians) of them all.

    • "We three mothers have come here before UN and world to ask everyone to do whatever they can to bring back our boys."

      My Response: First, evacuate every Zionist, settler and terrorist-in-uniform alike, from beyond the green line; end the occupation, the illegal starvation blockade of Gaza; and fully compensate all the Palestinians for everything you've taken from them since 1947 and then we can find time to find these males. Otherwise, wait your turn. Maybe we'll get to them in 70 years or so, after the tragedies you Zionists have inflicted on the Palestinians have all been rectified.

    • "Legally. However, some parents don’t allow their children full responsibility and freedom to live where they would if they could even though they’ve reached the legal age of adulthood."

      He is an adult. If he chooses not to act like one, and instead permits his parents to dictate his life, that does not absolve him one whit. He is legally liable as an adult settler for the crime of living on stolen land and morally reprehensible for not telling his parents to mind their own business and to stop meddling in his life.

    • "The three youths if innocent of anything..."

      The 19 year old is an adult and, as such, is fully responsible for his acts and should be prosecuted and imprisoned along with all the other settlers for their crimes against the Palestinians, starting with their presence in Palestine and moving on to any other crimes they committed.

  • Victory's unintended consequences
    • "the only places PCUSA would consider for 'human rights' divestment are Sudan and Israel. Can you imagine?"

      Well, just goes to show how disgusting Isreal is on their human rights abuses. Maybe if they and their supporters stopped trying to lie, slander and make excuses and deny the humanity of their victims, and used that energy to stop being barbarians, then maybe the world would be a better place.

  • 'This is not looking for the missing settlers, it is just trying to punish us': A report from ten days of lockdown in Hebron
    • "No, though apparently it could use one if obvious mistakes like that keep getting through."

      Refusing to agree with the propagandistic definition of "settler" you and Israel are trying to push does not constitute a mistake of any kind. It shows good judgment.

    • "Thank you for confirming that two out of three of the kidnapped teenagers are not settlers, as they live to the west of the Green Line."

      Where they live is irrelevant. They're settlers because they attended school on occupied Palestinian lands. Hence, they're settlers.

    • Zach S,

      It might benefit the Zionists to define "settler" that way, but that is a reason to reject that definition. I don't agree with Israeli's false definition, because it purposefully limits the damage done to the Palestinians by, for example, excusing these little religious-nuts-in-training, simply because their parents live on land stolen before 1948, rather than after 1967. I prefer one that takes into account the reality on the ground. These males acted like settlers by not asking the Palestinians for permission to attend thier indoctrination center, which was on stolen Palestinian land, so they should get treated like settlers, no different than any of the other squatters and criminals.

    • “Two out of three of the missing teenagers are not settlers.”

      Bull. They’re attending an indoctrination school for religious extremists on stolen Palestinian land. That makes them settlers, regardless of where their parents live.

  • In West Bank raid, soldiers kill mentally-disabled man, as toll rises to 5
    • "The Israel Air Force struck nine military targets, among them command centers, in response to Sunday’s cross-border missile shooting, which killed an Israeli teenager and wounded his father and two other civilians in the Golan Heights."

      Well, if Syria shot a missile into the Golan Heights, it wasn't a "cross-border missile shooting;" it started in Syria and landed in Syria. If these Israeli "civilians" don't want to get shot with missiles, they should stay out of occupied Syria.

  • 'Washington Post' suggests Presbyterians voted against Jews and peace
    • "And if you want, as I do, to see a reconciliation between the church and the Jews, put an end to an alliance that is leading you astray and generating resentment in the Jewish world."

      The issue I see is whether the Christian World will accept a "reconciliation" (and there is tons to say about the use of that word...), between the Churches and the Jews, on terms which should be objectionable to the Churches. Frankly, if the "Jewish world" (putting aside for the moment, all of the problems inherent in determining what that phrase means) states that reconciliation can only take place on conditions which violates the Christians's professed ethics (and unconditional support for Israeli acts against the Palestinians most certainly would be so violative), then the only acceptable response for the Churches is to say, "Okay, fine, then we won't reconcile. Feel free to call us up when you change your mind." But they don't seem to have the guts to do that. Why? Who knows. Misplaced guilt, maybe?

  • Why I pull against the U.S. in the World Cup
    • Yes, and your notion that it is silly that the demonym for the people of the US is "American" is silly. It's appropriate, given the name of the State.

      And yes, people played baseball in many places, but in 1903 only the USA, only the USA had major-league professional baseball. Professional baseball did not begin in Japan until the 1920s.

      So, again, as far as major league professional baseball, when the World Series began, the winner truly was World Champion.

    • "All the continent belong to us, so to say."

      Nonsense. There is no continent called "America." They are called North America and South America.

      "And then the 'World Series' of baseball as if the world only stretched from New York to LA."

      No, the world extends at least as far east as Maine and as far West as the Aleutian Islands. And, of course, when the World Series began, major-league professional baseball existed solely in North America, so the winner truly was the World Champions.

  • In 'turning-point' vote, Presbyterians divest from occupation-linked corporations
    • "“Will divestment come at the cost of our relationship. . . .A rabbi in my town asked me if PCUSA is against Judaism” (or words to that effect)."

      And the response should have been "If our relationship requires me to approve Israel's brutality, in order for you to wish to continue it, then it is you that is destroying that relationship. I will do right and you can do what you will."

  • Observations on the Met’s cancelation of the 'Klinghoffer' simulcast
    • Walid, my point was simply that depiction is not glorification just as explaination is not approval. (And, indeed, as satire exists, sometimes glorification isn't glorification...)

      Accept of reject the message of the art as you will, but a complaint of glorification seems off base to me.

    • "Glorifying it in any way is wrong."

      How is creating art with "it" as the subject matter "glorifying it."

      Did Picasso glorify the bombing of Guernica?

      Does Goya's The Third of May, 1808 glorify reprisal summary executions?

  • What evidence is there that teens were abducted?
    • Everyone should use "allegedly". Given the fact that the only thing that we know is that there was an allegation, the parents are all smiles, yukking it up with Peres, coupled with the fact that the actions of the Israelis in the West Bank appears to have nothing to do with finding some supposed, allegedly kidnapped people and more to do with arresting members of Hamas and attempting to destroy the Palestinian unity deal, "allegedly" is being kind.

    • How is that question in any way relevant? If Israel is behind it, they would have no doubt gotten some of their secret police experts to impersonate "Arabs" (as they are known to do) and are now holding the three males now, keeping them quite scared but not physically harmed, waiting for the signal from Netanyahu that his persecution and pogrom against the Palestinians is over, at which point they will either "escape" or be "rescued." The mothers no doubt believe it is real.

  • Reform Jewish leader offers alternative to Presbyterian divestment: meet Netanyahu
    • This woman's column is exactly the kind of offensive, Orwellian nonsense that we were discussing in the "permission" column, including, disgustingly enough, instructing people as to what is and is not important enough for one's concerns. (Oh, and if you have to ask, according to Hertz, we can care about the treatment of Palestinians only AFTER there is no longer a concern (presumably anywhere in the world) about how women and homosexuals are treated.) And even though she calls for "political balance" in criticizing her holy Israel, she never once -- NOT ONCE -- suggests that the Zionists have a duty to balance or to police themselves for their anti-Arab bigotry.

      The most infuriating part of this disgusting column is the plain fact that the manner in which Palestinians are treated in Palestine and Israel is far, far worse than how Jews are treated in Europe. Yet you will never, ever see someone like Hertz argue that "not taking a stand against Israel is categorically not an option."

      So, to Noreena Hertz, I say, Go to hell and don't presume to tell me what to think and how to think it.

    • If Mr. Jacobs is so opposed to the settlements, why is he so willing to meet with Netanyahu who has championed stealing more and more of the Palestinians' land to build those demonic settlements?

    • The cowardice of the Met (actually, I suspect that the real answer is that its General Manager, Peter Gelb, is simply a bigot of one kind or another) is worse than that: they claim that they "don't think the Opera is antisemitic, but {mumble, mumble, mumble, concern, mumble, mumble, mumble, Europe, mumble, mumble, mumble, antisemitism, mumble, mumble, mumble, Foxman}" therefore they cancel it.

    • I wonder if Mr. Jacobs ever met with not only the Palestinian and Muslim leadership, but regular Palestinians who are oppressed every single day by Netanyahu? Ever stood for a moment and experienced that which they are forced to endure the IOF's terrors? My guess is that Mr. Jacobs is a hypocrite and that the answer is "no." He seems to think that "interfaith" means "the Christians permit themselves to be used to advance Israel's goals against the Palestinians."

  • Make 'hasbara' a household word
    • Of course they are exploiting the tragedy of those girls and weakening the use of the technique. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    • "But you guys are antisemites. When it comes to the Jews, you always see some vast, organized conspiracy."

      Go play in traffic. When the Israeli state, through a public university, runs a program on how to be an internet ambassador for the Apartheid state, it's not antisemitism to point it out, it's reporting. What is rank bigotry is your attempt to slander those who are pointing it out, because you are doing so knowing that these programs exist.

  • Hunting for missing justice
    • "The upshot of all this? We may never know exactly how many Israelis there are in America."

      Great. As if their proxies in AIPAC weren't bad enough, they're establishing forward troop deployments!

  • I’m a Lutheran member of a Jewish organization, and I support Presbyterian divestment
    • If the peace process has any goal, it is to create here, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, two national entities. It is to forego any fantasy of a single binational state and to make room for two independent nations – each with its own aspirations – that covet the same land yet represent distinct legitimate national identities. The process of peace negotiations requires that each side relinquish its claims to the whole land and be willing to live with only part of the geographical space which it claims as its own. Once a territorial compromise is in place, each of these two peoples must recognize the other as a legitimate sovereign national entity; anything less fails to fulfill the essential aspiration of the peace process.

      The Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state seems therefore, at first glance, not only reasonable but also an essential part of the peace process.

      Hartman if full of nonsense, which is why your conclusion is full of it, too. But if Hartman is right, then by all means, tell the Israelis to pull back until they only occupy half of this land and forever foreswear any interference in the Palestinians' soverignty, in any way, on the other half or be exposed as a hypocrite.

    • "I don’t think anyone needs permission Jewish or otherwise to follow their conscious. I also think in general Jewish feelings are less important than Palestinian rights."

      Then I suggest that the next time you hear a Zionist talk about "sensitivity" or "new antisemitism" or conflating "anti-Israel" and "anti-Jew" or suggesting that criticism of Israel demonstrates antisemitism because of "singling out" or all of the myriad ways in which they use people proper distain for antisemitism as a shield to protect this state from criticisms of its actions agains the Paletinians, they you should take them to task. They are the problem.

      "However, your examples don’t really fit because you are considering the Jews as Israelis and thus like the other power abusers you mentioned."

      No, I'm not. I'm saying that the Israelis are the power abusers and they attempt to paint any criticism of Israel as a bigoted attack on Jews, leading to the insanity of people asking "permission" of Jews on whether it's okay to be critical of Israel. That's the Orwellian evil that I'm trying to stomp on.

      "The context for Jewish permission is Jews having been historically victims in the Christian world"

      No, we're not talking about Jews, we're talking about the Israeli state. It is you, here, that is conflating the two. And that is the problem.

      "and therefore the correct analogy would be a white person saying he or she does not need black permission to have an opinion about say Affirmative Action."

      Nonsense. You fail to grasp that it's not about "having an opinion that the other person has an opinion on." It's about "a state acts barbarically, and the other person has a favorable opinion of that state."

      If you want a correct analogy integrating African-Americans, you'd have to do something like imagine an alternate history where an African-American state was created in, say, Oklahoma and they were oppressing the Native Americans there. Would a white person need the "permission" of African Americans to criticize that oppression? Nope.

      "I do think especially Lutherans should speak with humility regarding Jews and rights, given their history and the ideas of their founder."

      I think that's a horrible position to take. No one should lower himself or censor himself because of what someone else did or someone else thought. A person who is Lutheran is not, therefore, Luther and does not bear any of the guilt for Luthers's sins. To say, "you deserve to be criticized, the criticism is morally valid, the criticism is being leveled in good faith and with no improper animus, but I will not say it because you are a Jew and I am a Lutheran" is not only twice bigoted, but also is harmful to anyone who might have therefore benefited from the criticism.

      "There is nothing wrong with asking people to be sensitive especially when their own histories regarding others are tainted as pretty much all of ours are."

      I disagree, unless the specific subject matter under discussion is that history. If you're talking specifically about that history, then sensitivities are appropriate.

      I think if the person making the criticism are doing so in good faith has no obligation other than, perhaps, to be fair in the criticism (and that I'm not totally sure about, as there is benefit in hyperbole.) I think that the person receiving the criticism has an obligation to accept the criticism in good faith and inquire whether there is truth to the criticism.

      To say, "I don't have to consider whether the policy of {insert subject here} is evil because I am {insert identifier} and that person, by his background probably just hates {repeat identifier}." is not a valid, reasonable argument; it is an excuse not to think. And that's true regardless of how those blacks are filled in. (It doesn't mean you have to agree, though. You just have to consider it in good faith.)

      Any time you run into such a situation, such as, for example:

      "I don't have to consider whether the policy of occupying Palestine is evil because I am Jewish and that person, by his background, probably just hates Jews."

      or

      "I don't have to consider whether the policy of waterboarding prisoners is evil because I am American and that person, by his background, probably just hates Americans."

      You're probably go about things wrong.

    • "well, the same can be said of the USA but it doesn’t mean its not a great nation."

      Perhaps not, but we can say that Israel is not a great nation in any sense of the word.

    • Dabakr: "hardly jim crow."

      No, worse than Jim Crow. And hiring a Druze to do your dirty work doesn't change that. They've long collaborated with you. The Jim Crow comes from how you treat Palestinians Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike.

    • "and as if I need to affirm the state of Israeli democracy "

      it's no democracy. When you don't hold 4 1/2 million people without a say in the government that controls their lives, having done so for three generations, then you maybe get to call yourselves a democracy. Until then, it just means you're a run of the mill liar.

    • The "permission" part is interesting. Clearly it is the result of a concerted effort by the Zionists to cause potential critics to self-censor. They prey on the fact that most people are decent people and those decent people who would be appalled at the barbaric treatment by Israel of the Palestinians are also not antisemites and would be appalled at the suggestion that they were. By doing everything in their power (slandering critics of Israel as antisemites; constantly raising the issue of the Holocaust where inappropriate; lying about Palestinians and Arabs; etc.) to conflate criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, they hope to get the decent people who are appalled at Israel's barbarism to hesitate and question whether they should keep quiet, because they don't want to be slandered themselves.

      But upon a moment's serious reflection, it is self-evidently foolish to self-censor or even to seek permission. Would you seek permission from white people to criticize the KKK? No, of course not. Would you seek permission from German-Americans to criticize the Nazi state? No, of course not. Would you seek permission from Japanese people to criticize the acts of the Empire during WWII or from Korean-Americans for permission to criticize the North Korean government?? No, of course not.

      Because in each case, you instinctively know, and it is self evident, that you're making a valid, moral criticism and you harbor no improper bias or animus. The same is true in the case of the Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israelis, but, in that case, you've been bombarded with endless examples, subtle and overt, accusing critics of Israel as being antisemitism, false and improper references to the Holocaust, lies about the Arab and Muslim worlds, all the way to fools on the internet who respond to the mildest of criticisms of the policies of Israel with "Yeah, blame THE JOOOOOSSSS, NaZi!!!" and then you self-censor. Because who would want that to fall on them?

      Well, for me, screw that. The Zionist don't get to tell me how to think or control when I talk, and if they believe I'm an antisemite because I believe that it's wrong to oppress someone simply because they're Palestinian living in Palestine, then they can go to hell. I know it's false and their opinion doesn't mean squat. Ask permission? Hell, no.

    • Oh, bull. You get, as neighbors, millions of people you are oppressing in their very own land, based on the fact they're not Jews, as you and your demonic ideology justifies stealing more and more of their land, murdering more and more of their children and destroying more and more of their lives. You're a typical lying Zionist, but I wonder why the mods let you people post your lies here. It's quite disgusting that they permit you to poison the proceedings so.

Showing comments 300 - 201
Page: