Trending Topics:

NYT decontextualizes (ethnically-cleansed) Jaffa in hipster fashion piece

Israel/Palestine
on 34 Comments


Jaffa was once the pride of Palestinian culture, the bride of the sea. Then it was ethnically cleansed in 1948, by Zionist terrorist militias. A lot of the folks who lived there are in Gaza. You’d never know any of this from watching this new video of hipsters in Jaffa, on the NYT website, “Free Style in Tel Aviv.” A year ago the Times did the same thing, bringing Clare Danes to Tel Aviv. Going Rogue! 

Unintentionally-sardonic excerpts from the latest promotion:

Omri Aviv. Hipster. “I really love the Jaffa area because it’s funky with a true Israeli look. … funky and authentic.”

Ofir Siman-Tov, on wearing women’s clothes in Jaffa: “This neighborhood is relaxed, chilling, and there’s freedom in the street.”

Tmima Svitelman: “There’s certainly an eclectic style here that I like very much, and I hope they preserve it.”

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

34 Responses

  1. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    October 16, 2013, 10:07 am

    “…a true Israeli look. … funky and authentic.”

    If only the natives had been a little more “funky and authentic” maybe they would have been allowed to stay.

  2. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    October 16, 2013, 11:14 am

    Jaffa didn’t only contain people (Palestinians) who lived there. It also (as all other Palestinian areas did) contained land which was owned by Palestinians, land mostly confiscated by Israel in 1948 (I suppose). This raises all the questions of land ownership in Israel (Jewish land ownership in particular) in relation to the idea (and Israeli-Jewish fear) of a Palestinian right of return (PROR).

    Here’s how I understand the history of much Jewish land tenure in Israel. Please correct me where I am wrong.

    After 1948, much Palestinian land was confiscated (by the new state) as “absentee property” and then donated (by that same state) to a private (Jewish) organization which I shall call Jewish Land Trust (or, perhaps, Jewish National Fund). Thereafter, no-one else “owned” the land, non-Jews were forbidden to own or even to lease or even to sleep overnight upon any of this land, and Jews merely leased land from the trust. On this understanding, a Jewish family which today lives in a Palestinian stone house in Jaffa doesn’t own it but leases it from the trust.

    There are several interesting points about this.

    First, the state grabbed something not its own. It is reasonable to consider returning it to the proper owners, particularly in regard to PROR.

    Second it donated these lands to a private trust (which was to hold the lands in perpetuity for the benefit of the Jewish people. That is to say, something nominally owned by the state (and thus by all the citizens of that state) was donated to a private trust which held the land for “the Jewish people” (whatever that means) but NOT for the citizens of the state of Israel.

    Third, none of this land is today owned by individual Jews in Israel, but is still held by the trust.

    If all this is so, then giving land back to Palestinian refugees (for example, land leased today by HIPSTERS in JAFFA) is merely a matter of judicially reconfiguring the trust so that its primary (and, in this case, its distributive) beneficiaries become the original Palestinian owners of the land. This could be individual people or villages, because much Palestinian land was held as communal land for grazing.

    Perhaps the present leases, if not unduly lengthy, could be continued, but with realistic rents payable to the Palestinian owners. In that case, the Jewish residents could continue — for a while — to reside in JAFFA (even as HIPSTERS if they so chose). For a while. But ultimately, the reversion would be complete. And these Jews would be in the street (where the Palestinians are today).

    That’s the best I can do to “respect” the “rights” of Jews who took (leases to) land in Palestine from the government (actually from the trust) knowing that the land had been confiscated by the government and then “alienated” by the government to the trust. The current Jewish lessees (or owners if there are any such) should not imagine that their title is good upon such a known history.

  3. hophmi
    hophmi
    October 16, 2013, 11:27 am

    You’d never know from articles about hipsters in Williamsburg and on the Lower East Side that Native Americans used to live there.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      October 16, 2013, 12:08 pm

      “You’d never know from articles about hipsters in Williamsburg and on the Lower East Side that Native Americans used to live there.”

      Yeah, well, he attempted genocide by the israelis happen a few years ago, not a few hundred.

    • Xpat
      Xpat
      October 16, 2013, 12:12 pm

      Jaffa is accessible to hipsters because housing is affordable; it’s funkiness is because of the still standing Palestinian buildings. Unlike tony Ramat Aviv which is new and for Jews-only. So it is Jaffa’s visible Palestinian past and its current Palestinian population that make it what it is for the Jews.
      Of course, this is an EXACT parallel to 21st century Williamsburg’s famous tepees and its Native American population.

    • Chu
      Chu
      October 16, 2013, 12:28 pm

      Billyberg Hipsters and Native Americans?

      -It’s not really a valid comparison.

      That was more than a century ago (well before mass media), and slavery was also permitted until the 1860’s. Apartheid wasn’t even a concept understood by the world until South Africa in the 1930’s. And since SA Apartheid, the world has a clear definition to label the state of Israel an apartheid state, in addition to its occupier status.

      No one is buying your bunk-o comparisons, except yourself. Israel apartheid is as dirty as the eradication of the American Indian population, but it’s not even in the same ball park – or century.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        October 16, 2013, 1:26 pm

        “-It’s not really a valid comparison. ”

        Sure it is. It’s the most valid. You say that every NY Times article on an Israeli town or city should include the history of the people who lived there three generations ago. Why stop there? You’re proving Benny Morris’s cynical theory that Israel would have been better off if it simply ethnically cleansed all of the Arabs West of the Jordan River. You’d care less in that case.

        “No one is buying your bunk-o comparisons, except yourself. Israel apartheid is as dirty as the eradication of the American Indian population”

        Now, now. It’s not nearly as bad as the eradication of the American Indian population, even by your narrative. The average American Indian today (and they’re less than one percent of the population, not 20% or 50%) is a poor guy on a reservation in the richest country on Earth, and he’s more likely than most to have a drinking problem. No one talks of giving him one of the fifty states.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 17, 2013, 6:26 am

        “-It’s not really a valid comparison. ”

        Sure it is. It’s the most valid.

        No it’s not. Many people here in Kansas and Oklahoma are descendants of persons listed on the Dawes Rolls. They just aren’t prohibited from engaging in intermarriage, like Arabs in Israel, and can live wherever they choose as fully assimilated citizens. In most cases it’s intermarriage and blood quantum laws, not genocide, that’s responsible for the reduction in the percent of the population who are still eligible for tribal citizenship.

        Several of my second cousins, whose mother was a citizen of the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation, are professional women, doctors and lawyers. Like many people of Native American descent, they don’t live on federally managed land and have no daily contact or business dealings with the Interior Department or BIA.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 17, 2013, 6:56 am

        No one talks of giving him one of the fifty states.

        I assume you are comparing Native Americans to Palestinians, because you have repeatedly claimed that Jews have the right to a state of their own.

        In any event, you can’t cite statistics about reservations and then claim they don’t exist. The US government does indeed have enforceable treaties and statutes granting federally recognized tribes their own national lands, tribal government, and self-determination. Our government has to submit periodic reports on that situation to the UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies. Some states, like Oklahoma, have even agreed to permit people living in all 77 counties to purchase tribal vehicle license tags instead Oklahoma tags. That’s because – wait for it – so many tribal citizens choose to live elsewhere, not on tribal lands.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        October 17, 2013, 9:43 am

        “In most cases it’s intermarriage and blood quantum laws, not genocide, that’s responsible for the reduction in the percent of the population who are still eligible for tribal citizenship. ”

        In most cases, Native Americans are dead. That’s the truth. That’s what true in most cases. They aren’t here because we spent centuries dispossessing and killing them. Your relatives, four centuries after all of this, are exceptions that prove the rule.

        “The US government does indeed have enforceable treaties and statutes granting federally recognized tribes their own national lands, tribal government, and self-determination.”

        It’s amazing that you would bring up treaties between the US Government and Native American tribes, given what the history has been.

        You’ve done nothing to address my main point, which is that most Native Americans were simply eliminated, and that any US policy since then has to seen in that context.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        October 17, 2013, 9:56 am

        “You say that every NY Times article on an Israeli town or city should include the history of the people who lived there three generations ago. Why stop there?”

        Because the attack by the zionists on the Palestinians people is still on-going.

        ” The average American Indian today (and they’re less than one percent of the population, not 20% or 50%) is a poor guy on a reservation in the richest country on Earth, and he’s more likely than most to have a drinking problem. ”

        Wow. You are trafficking in every stereotype. While poverty, inequality in the reservation system and alcoholism are problems to say that the “average American Indian today” suffers these things is vile, disgusting racism. You should be ashamed of yourself, bigot.

      • Chu
        Chu
        October 17, 2013, 1:54 pm

        “And he’s more likely than most to have a drinking problem. No one talks of giving him one of the fifty states.”

        Well that’s painting with broad brush strokes? They’re all alcoholics?

        A study carried out from 2002 to 2005 reported that 10.7 percent of all Native American and Alaskan Native age groups suffered from alcohol use disorder. 11 percent is doesn’t equate to “MORE than LIKELY”. This is probably why you think all Palestinian are terrorists.

        The rest of your argument is not valid (Benny Morris? Whaa..)Hostage makes another good point about assimilation of Indians, as opposed to Israel Prison Camps like Gaza.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        October 17, 2013, 2:13 pm

        “Well that’s painting with broad brush strokes? They’re all alcoholics? ”

        Let’s have an English lesson and a math lesson where we study the difference between “more likely” and “more likely than most.” More likely than most means the same as “at a higher rate.”

        If you bothered to read the rest of the wikipedia article, heck, if you bothered to read the rest of the sentence you plagiarized without attribution, you would have found that it says:

        “A study carried out from 2002 to 2005 reported that 10.7 percent of all Native American and Alaskan Native age groups suffered from alcohol use disorder, whereas 7.6 percent of other ethnic groups reported the same disorder. Alcoholism is a particular issue among Native American women. General statistics indicate that Native American women drink less than men; however, specific tribal social norms and location cause this to vary among individuals.

        For people who got through sixth grade math, 10.7 percent is 41 percent higher than 7.6 percent. That’s called “more likely than most.”

        “This is probably why you think all Palestinian are terrorists. ”

        This is probably why you think that everybody who disagrees with anything you say is a racist.

        Thanks for playing.

      • tree
        tree
        October 17, 2013, 3:40 pm

        The average American Indian today (and they’re less than one percent of the population, not 20% or 50%) is a poor guy on a reservation in the richest country on Earth, and he’s more likely than most to have a drinking problem.

        What a bundle of negative (and false) stereotypes. There’s our hophmi again, proving yet again his commitment to hypocrisy, i.e. stereotyping Jews, bad, stereotyping everyone else, a sound argument.

        The only thing he got right in that paragraph of his is that (single race) American Indians make up 1% of the US population. (Single race and mixed race American Indians together comprise almost 2%) The poverty rate of single race American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN) was 24% in 2008, not over 50% as hophmi would imply. This was slightly better than for American blacks, in line with Hispanics, and worse than for Non-Hispanic whites and Asian Americans. Likewise the median household income for single race AIAN households was $37,815 in 2008, falling within the same racial spectrum as the poverty rates – in line with Hispanics, higher than blacks, lower than non-Hispanics whites and American Asians.

        And 67 percent of the single race AIAN population lives outside of the tribal areas. Of those AIAN who are of multiple races, 92 percent live outside of the tribal areas. Hophmi struck out on all counts with his “average American Indian”.

        The American past is shameful but we are not engaged in continual ethnic cleansing and denial of rights based on ethnicity or religion as Israel is doing. All AIAN members have full and equal rights in the US today. Hophmi has no problem berating the US for its sordid past, but dare to criticize Israel’s sordid present and the hackneyed justifications of inequality come pouring out. One might believe that hophmi actually approves of inequality. He does, of course, but only when Jews are benefiting from it.

      • tree
        tree
        October 17, 2013, 3:43 pm

        No one talks of giving him one of the fifty states.

        That’s because the American solution is the “50 state solution”. American Indians can live in any of the 50 states of their choosing with full civil and political rights as US citizens.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        October 17, 2013, 3:44 pm

        “What a bundle of negative (and false) stereotypes.”

        Another one who has a reading comprehension problem. Apparently, statistics on poverty and alcoholism are “stereotypes.”

        “The poverty rate of single race American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN) was 24% in 2008, not over 50% as hophmi would imply.”

        OMG. READ. I said that Native Americans were not 20-50% of the population, not that they had a poverty rate of 50%. a 24% poverty rate is way above average. And as we know, the category of poor people is more than just people who are below the federal poverty line.

        “The American past is shameful but we are not engaged in continual ethnic cleansing”

        No, we’re not. We finished the job.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        October 17, 2013, 3:47 pm

        “That’s because the American solution is the “50 state solution”. American Indians can live in any of the 50 states of their choosing with full civil and political rights as US citizens.”

        LOL. I don’t remember America asking Native Americans what they wanted.

        I betcha full civil and political rights for the few that are left is pretty short of what they wanted.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 18, 2013, 5:23 am

        Your relatives, four centuries after all of this, are exceptions that prove the rule.

        Of course, that’s where the wheels fall off your argument. You were trying to make invalid comparisons between the USA and Israel today. Most Native Americans living today don’t have any friends or family members who have been killed, eliminated, or confined by the government. That’s not the case with the Palestinians and the State of Israel, where all of those abuses are on-going.

        Unlike Israel, the USA changed its policies a long time ago. It no longer confines Native Americans to reservations. It no longer has any anti-miscegenation laws that prohibit intermarriage. Individual Native Americans retain full civil rights as US citizens and federal laws require tribes to establish their own courts to protect those rights. Decades ago the government recognized the right of Native American tribes to self-determination. The government established the first claims commissions a century ago and the federal courts have been available to award compensation in cases involving treaty violations. Just a few years ago, the Obama administration settled a class action lawsuit involving a 4.6 billion dollar payout with Native Americans and black farmers for past mistreatment. 3.4 billion of the total went to 350,000 Native Americans.
        * Obama signs $4.6B settlement with Native Americans, black farmers http://www.kxlh.com/news/obama-signs-4-6b-settlement-with-native-americans-black-farmers/
        * $3.4B Class-Action Lawsuit Ends: 350,000 American Indians to Receive Payout https://www.diversityinc.com/legal-issues/3-4b-class-action-lawsuit-ends-350000-american-indians-to-receive-payout/

        You’ve done nothing to address my main point, which is that most Native Americans were simply eliminated, and that any US policy since then has to seen in that context.

        It’s a fact that the situation faced by Native Americans living today is vastly better than the situation faced by the Palestinians despite your dissimulation.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 18, 2013, 5:33 am

        LOL. I don’t remember America asking Native Americans what they wanted.

        I betcha full civil and political rights for the few that are left is pretty short of what they wanted.

        The point is that Israelis and their government have absolutely no intention of ever offering the Palestinians that same deal. This is just another of your hasbara failures.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 18, 2013, 5:51 am

        Another one who has a reading comprehension problem. Apparently, statistics on poverty and alcoholism are “stereotypes.”

        But the statistics do not support your proposition that Native Americans are more likely than not to suffer from alcoholism.

        “The American past is shameful but we are not engaged in continual ethnic cleansing”

        No, we’re not. We finished the job.

        No, we didn’t. There are millions of federally recognized Native Americans descended from persons listed on the Dawes Rolls. But they only constitute a fraction of the indigenous people of Native American descent.

        People of Indian/Spanish heritage (mestizo) are estimated to account for 50 to 60 percent of the population of Mexico and some other Latin American countries. That is the fastest growing segment of the US population, especially out here in the plains states and the southwest.

      • tree
        tree
        October 18, 2013, 6:28 am

        OMG. READ. I said that Native Americans were not 20-50% of the population, not that they had a poverty rate of 50%. a 24% poverty rate is way above average.

        Try engaging your brain before engaging your typing fingers . Read what you actually said, and then read what I said. I wasn’t responding to your comment about AIAN percentage of the population. I was responding to your comment that “the average American Indian today is a poor guy on a reservation,” which implies that the mean income of American Indians puts them below the poverty line. And, although you may not realize this as a lawyer, but a 24% poverty rate is NOT “way above average”. As I said, which you apparently couldn’t read for understanding, the American Indian percentage below the poverty line is less than the percentage of blacks and in line with Hispanics, but greater than the percentage of non-Hispanic whites and Asians. The median household income is within the same range as the poverty statistics, i.e. less than non-Hispanic whites, equal with Hispanics, better than blacks. And most American Indians, even the single race American Indians, DON’T live on a reservation.

        Your “average Indian” was a cock-up of negative stereotypes and not the reality. THAT was what I was criticizing. You’re the one with the reading comprehension skills.

        And apparently you also applaud the past American sins. How else can you explain your excusing Israel’s present actions by pointing to the US’s past? I take it then that it would be OK by you for the Palestinians to deny full political and human rights to Jews in the future, since Israel has done the same to them in the past and present. That’s the only place your argument is going: its OK for people to discriminate in the present and future because other people did it in the past. Its a morally bankrupt argument but its the only argument you have so you’ll beat it with a stick until its dead.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 18, 2013, 6:56 am

        Apparently, statistics on poverty and alcoholism are “stereotypes.”

        Exactly. The author of the studies in question, Philip A. May, said as much in the texts of his reports. He points out that he had to piece together data from several sources that don’t use common definitions or criteria, and as a result the data are rarely strictly comparable across sites or over time. In addition he debunks the idea that Indians living on reservations are the ones with drinking problems.

        He also pointed out that there are a number of other false stereotypes and generalizations about Indian drinking:

        Of particular importance are variables such as age, geography, social norms, and political and legal policies. Special combinations of these influences have created particular patterns of drinking and alcohol-involved injury, death, and arrest that are high to very high, and therefore perceived to be uniquely Indian when in fact they may not be (May, 1994a).

        There are some high-risk/rate groups, and there are also many low-risk/rate groups (see Levy and Kunitz, 1974; May et al., 1983; May, 1991; Kunitz and Levy, 1994; Young, 1994:Chapter 6). Studies show that the style of drinking also varies among American Indians, spanning the four commonly mentioned styles of abstinence, moderated social drinking, heavy recreational drinking, and anxiety or chronic alcohol-dependent drinking (see Ferguson, 1968; Levy and Kunitz, 1974; May, 1992).

        Many studies support the commonly held belief that alcoholism and alcohol abuse are epidemic among some tribal populations (see, for example, Brod, 1975; Lamarine, 1988; Littman, 1970; Swanson et al., 1971; Stratton, 1973; Stewart, 1964). Yet the arrest and morbidity data used for these studies are frequently not descriptive of individual behavior; rather, they are aggregate data that reflect duplicate counts of arrests and problems generated by a select number of individuals. Thus the impression is given that many more individuals are involved in the deviant behavior than is actually the case (see, for example, Ferguson, 1968; May, 1988).

        Thus there may be some Indian populations in which a higher proportion drinks than in the U.S. general population, some in which the prevalence is similar to general U.S. levels, and some in which the prevalence is lower.
        Urban Indian populations generally have a higher prevalence of drinking than do many reservation populations, whereas reservation populations generally have a higher prevalence of abstention.
        For example, the Lumbee adult study, a study among the Navajo, and Indian youth studies clearly illustrate this pattern (Beltrame and McQueen, 1979; Levy and Kunitz, 1974; Beauvais, 1992).

        — Philip A. May, Changing Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and Public Health ( 1996 ) / 11 Overview of Alcohol Abuse Epidemiology for American Indian Populations http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5355&page=235

        The epidemiology of alcohol abuse among American Indians: the mythical and real properties. http://www.falmouthinstitute.com/cdc-ihs-success/IHS/Day%203/A.%20Alcohol/Resource%20articles/Philip%20May%20article-alcohol.pdf

    • marc b.
      marc b.
      October 17, 2013, 12:58 pm

      so, you’d be in favor of returning Manhattan to the Lenape because of their ‘historical connection to that land’? I’ve read that there is all sorts of archeological evidence of the Lanape’s settlements there. maybe as a gesture of solidarity with other ancient peoples, the ADL will vacate its office in NYC and hand it over to the tribal elder.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        October 17, 2013, 2:14 pm

        “so, you’d be in favor of returning Manhattan to the Lenape because of their ‘historical connection to that land’?”

        Are you?

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 18, 2013, 8:50 am

        @hophmi ///“so, you’d be in favor of returning Manhattan to the Lenape because of their ‘historical connection to that land’?”///

        “Are you?”

        By your own criteria … YOU ARE!

  4. Mike_Konrad
    Mike_Konrad
    October 16, 2013, 11:30 am

    Yafo (as the Israelis call it) or Jaffa (as the Arabs call it) is truly a tragedy. It was a gem.

    The Israelis purchase it into primarily for its Arab mystique. They want the Arab mystique but not the Arabs.

    I can NOT fault a Jew for wanting to live anywhere in Israel; but the remaining Arabs of Jaffa were not treated rightly.

    I do not trust the narrative of either side.

    When the Israelis took over, the remaining 4,000 or so Arabs were herded into the Ajami area (which became a holding camp). The Arabs were not allowed to return to their homes. The Jaffan Arabs were only a few blocks from their homes, yet their homes were declared abandoned, and given to Jews.

    This is a real tragedy, even for the Jews. They will not be able to maintain the mystique of the Arab neighborhood without Arabs.

    Jaffo was annexed by Tel-Aviv, probably to erase the memory of an Arab municipality.

    Great video of Jaffa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kQfjryqauU

    • Walid
      Walid
      October 18, 2013, 7:09 am

      “The Arabs were not allowed to return to their homes. The Jaffan Arabs were only a few blocks from their homes, yet their homes were declared abandoned, and given to Jews.” (Mike Konrad)

      That wasn’t the worst of it. Those expelled Jaffan Palestinians (it’s OK to say “Palestinians”, Mike, you won’t burn in hell for it) once crammed into mediocre housing in Ajami had to share these quarters with Zionist families. A 3 bedroom home had to be shared with 2 Zionist families, one family to a room with everyone sharing the kitchen and the bathroom. Even “worser” than that, some of the Palestinian families had to share their quarters with Zionist militia goons whose day jobs involved expelling Palestinians from their homes.

  5. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    October 16, 2013, 12:07 pm

    “I can NOT fault a Jew for wanting to live anywhere in Israel”

    Well, I guess that makes you a heartless sociopath then.

    “I do not trust the narrative of either side.”

    LMAO. Oh, that’s right, you’re the zio pretending not to be a zio. Got it.

    “This is a real tragedy, even for the Jews. ”

    Yeah, they’re the real victims here. The god damned people who stole someone else’s land and homes.

    “They will not be able to maintain the mystique of the Arab neighborhood without Arabs.”

    Yes, that the real god damned tragedy, that the theiving squatters might have to redecorate.

    • Mike_Konrad
      Mike_Konrad
      October 16, 2013, 5:50 pm

      Mike Konrad
      I do not trust the narrative of either side.

      Woody Tanaka

      LMAO. Oh, that’s right, you’re the zio pretending not to be a zio. Got it.

      Who’s pretending? My sympathies are to Israel. Even so, I do not trust the narrative of either side.

      Mike Konrad
      This is a real tragedy, even for the Jews. ”

      Woody Tanaka
      Yeah, they’re the real victims here.

      Would not go that far, the Arabs of Jaffa are the chief victims. That being said, the Jews are culturally hurting themselves by erasing Jaffa’s Arab history; albeit the hurt is much less that the damage done to the Arabs of Jaffa.

      Woody Tanaka
      The god damned people who stole someone else’s land and homes.

      What is it with the obscenities on both sides of this issue? On other boards, I see hasbrists use vicious obscenities, as well.

      Obscenities serve no purpose except to drive reason from whatever side you are on.

      The “god damned” was out of order.

      The Jews may not be perfect – WHO IS?! – but they are far from the menace they are made out to be. I am not saying their treatment of the Arabs is wonderful; but the Jews are NOT Nazis, they are not genocidal.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        October 17, 2013, 9:04 am

        “Who’s pretending? My sympathies are to Israel. Even so, I do not trust the narrative of either side.”

        And yet you JUST SO HAPPEN to spout every lame zio talking point. Right.

        “That being said, the Jews are culturally hurting themselves by erasing Jaffa’s Arab history; albeit the hurt is much less that the damage done to the Arabs of Jaffa.”

        Vile. To even mention it is disgusting. It’s like saying, “That being said, the guy who randomly shot a kid in the head at close range is hurting himself by getting blood and brains on his shirt. Think of the dry cleaning bills…”

        “What is it with the obscenities on both sides of this issue? ”

        I know for the good people, when faced with a massive and generations long injustice, a little obscenity is appropriate. As for the bad people, the zios, I think they use obscenities because they know the evil they espouse and are trying to deny that realization by using the obscenity.

        “Obscenities serve no purpose except to drive reason from whatever side you are on.”

        Nope. It also serves other purposes such as emphasis, displaying passion, finesse and many others. Statements such as yours are a pretentious refusal to distinguish between the mode and content of communication.

        “The ‘god damned’ was out of order.”

        No. What is out of order is the century’s old theft of the Palestinians’ land by the god damned zionists and the god damned zionists occupation and oppression of the Palestinians. Disgusting that you can’t see the god damned difference.

        “The Jews may not be perfect – WHO IS?! ”

        Like I said, you don’t pass up a chance to spread some lame-ass hasbara. No one is asking the Jews to be perfect. I’m demanding that the zionists stop being barbaric; that they stop committing crimes against humanity and war crimes; that they stop stealing Palestinians’ land and that they stop murdering Palestinians.

        ” I am not saying their treatment of the Arabs is wonderful; but the Jews are NOT Nazis,”

        Oh, yeah, the zionists are not Nazis. Then that makes all the other god damn evil they do somehow okay??

        “they are not genocidal.”

        The zios sure attempted a genocide in the 1940s. They are absolutely ethnic cleansers, bigots and oppressors. That’s bad enough.

  6. DaveS
    DaveS
    October 16, 2013, 2:22 pm

    It’s always nice to know that ethnic cleansing and supremacy can be practiced with flair and style.

    This brings to mind Russell Brand’s recent speech upon receiving an idiotic award at a GQ event sponsored by Hugo Boss. “Any of you who know a little bit about history and fashion will know that Hugo Boss made the uniforms for the Nazis. The Nazis did have flaws, but, you know, they did look fucking fantastic, let’s face it, while they were killing people on the basis of their religion and sexuality.” Glenn Greenwald referred to the incident recently, and linked to Brand’s very funny recap of the event in the guardian – http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/sep/13/russell-brand-gq-awards-hugo-boss

    • Walid
      Walid
      October 18, 2013, 7:25 am

      The Hugo Boss/Nazi uniforms was news to me. Thanks.

  7. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther
    October 16, 2013, 2:39 pm

    “Such images, disturbing in themselves, are a particular problem for fashion because of its entanglement with the Nazis during the Second World War. Germany did not conquer France to get its hands on Fashion Central, but it was a not insignificant extra. Fashion had economic weight: one exported couture dress, it is claimed, would pay for a ton of imported coal, and a litre of exported perfume brought in the financial equivalent of two tons of imported fuel oil. But equally important was its prestige: it was a power in its own right. “Any power… is destined to fall before fashion,” Mussolini remarked in 1930. “If fashion says skirts are short, you will not succeed in lengthening them, even with the guillotine.” The Nazis wanted Berlin to displace Paris as the capital of style, and set about it with typical tact and subtlety, looting the industry’s Paris archives.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/news/fashion-and-fascism-ndash-a-love-story-2233481.html

  8. just
    just
    October 17, 2013, 4:53 pm

    Pitiful and sick.

Leave a Reply