Trending Topics:

Do SodaStream’s workers have the right to vote? Roger Waters asks Scarlett Johansson

Israel/Palestine
on 101 Comments
Roger Waters

Roger Waters

Tonight Scarlett Johansson will roll out her support for an Israeli settlement project with a Super Bowl ad for SodaStream (which even the Financial Times says is stilted and off). Meantime, Neil Young is going to play Israel, ater a 15 year absence. “VIP tickets are going for 1,400 shekels.”

Roger Waters says he has written to both these stars asking them to say No. From the rocker and human rights leader, on Facebook:

In the past days I have written privately to Neil Young (once) and to Scarlett Johanson (a couple of times). Those letters will remain private.

Sadly, I have received no reply from either.

And so I write this note on my Facebook page somewhat in bewilderment.

Neil? I shall ponder all of this long and hard. We don’t really know each other, but, you were always one of my heroes, I am confused.

Scarlett? Ah, Scarlett. I met Scarlett a year or so ago, I think it was at a Cream reunion concert at MSG. She was then, as I recall, fiercely anti Neocon, passionately disgusted by Blackwater (Dick Cheney’s private army in Iraq), you could have been forgiven for thinking that here was a young woman of strength and integrity who believed in truth, human rights, and the law and love. I confess I was somewhat smitten. There’s no fool like an old fool.

A few years down the line, Scarlett’s choice of Soda Stream over Oxfam is such an act of intellectual, political, and civil about face, that we, all those of us who care about the downtrodden, the oppressed, the occupied, the second class, will find it hard to rationalize.

I would like to ask that younger Scarlett a question or two. Scarlett, just for one example, are you aware that the Israeli government has razed to the ground a Bedouin village in the Negev desert in Southern Israel 63 times, the last time being on the 26th of December 2013. This village is the home to Bedouin. The Bedouin are, of course, Israeli citizens with full rights of citizenship. Well, not quite full rights, because in “Democratic” Israel there are fifty laws that discriminate against non Jewish citizens.

I am not going to attempt to list, either those laws (they are on the statute book in the Knesset for all to research) or all the other grave human rights abuses of Israeli domestic and foreign policy. I would run out of space. But, to return to my friend Scarlett Johanson.

Scarlett, I have read your reposts and excuses, in them you claim that the Palestinian workers in the factory have equal pay, benefits and “Equal rights”. Really? Equal Rights? Do they?

Do they have the right to vote?

Do they have access to the roads?

Can they travel to their work place without waiting for hours to pass through the occupying forces control barriers?

Do they have clean drinking water?

Do they have sanitation?

Do they have citizenship?

Do they have the right not to have the standard issue kicking in their door in the middle of the night and taking their children away?

Do they have the right to appeal against arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment?

Do they have the right to re-occupy the property and homes they owned before 1948?

Do they have the right to an ordinary, decent human family life?

Do they have the right to self determination?

Do they have the right to continue to develop a cultural life that is ancient and profound?

If these questions put you in a quandary I can answer them for you. The answer is, NO, they do not.

The workers in The Soda Stream Factory do not have any of these rights.

So, what are the “equal rights” of which you speak?

Scarlett, you are undeniably cute, but if you think Soda Stream is building bridges towards peace you are also undeniably not paying attention.

Love

R.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

101 Responses

  1. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 2, 2014, 11:03 am

    What a Mensch.
    Defined by my Yiddish dictionary as human being, decent , respectable person
    What does that mean a Zionist is ?

  2. shachalnur
    shachalnur
    February 2, 2014, 12:20 pm

    If Waters is telling the truth,could you explain what this means;

    .”..I met Scarlett a year ago,or so….”
    “…fiercely anti neocon…”
    “…disgusted by Blackwater in Iraq….”

    From the above to her current position within “a year,or so” is a bit radical,isn’t it?

    Mainly the Blackwater mention is odd,because most people believe the US has left Iraq,and even less people know Cheney is running these dogs.

    Was it money? Was it blackmail? A spontanious change of heart ?Waters lying?

    Believe what you want.

    Because someone pointing at huge discrepancies in the official stories is being constantly moderated away by a site run by someone that supported the invasion of Afghanistan,because of 9/11.

    What makes you think you have a clue about what you’re being fed now?

    And how much damage will it cause to people if you “read” it wrong again,like you did 12 years ago?

    Why are you moderating people who are trying to warn you for this mistake?

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      February 2, 2014, 2:13 pm

      Im not the only one who runs the site.

      • MRW
        MRW
        February 2, 2014, 7:05 pm

        Neither is shachalnur, a johnny-come-lately here.

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      February 2, 2014, 2:56 pm

      The timescale of when he met SJ is irrelevant to his main point, and is not ‘a huge discrepancy’, if that is what is getting your underwear in a twist. You, on the other hand, seem obsessed with a futile attempt to smear RW with some imagined logic of your own fantasising. Perhaps you could address Water’s main point about the ludicrous claims being made by Sodastream supporters, inc SJ, that the company is somehow granting Palestinians some sort of equality with its Israeli workers.

  3. kma
    kma
    February 2, 2014, 12:34 pm

    I assume Johansson knows occupied Palestinians can’t vote. I don’t know exactly how it works, but isn’t she herself eligible to live in settlements? I don’t see how she doesn’t already know this. She chose to represent the ethnic cleansing intentionally. The only thing she did ignorantly was to try to damage BDS. Epic fail!

    Waters is getting it out in the open, as it will be more and more now!

    • mondonut
      mondonut
      February 3, 2014, 12:02 am

      kma says: I assume Johansson knows occupied Palestinians can’t vote.
      ==============================================
      They could if the Palestinian leadership would allow for elections.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 3, 2014, 3:12 am

        @mondonut – Are you really obtuse or pretending to? I am always assuming the more charitable alternative.
        When the right to vote is mentioned it has nothing to do with the dogcatcher or the current occupation representative. The right to vote, in this case, means voting for the government that holds the armed sovereign authority where you live. Given that the Zionists are exercising the single-state option in all of Palestine, no, Palestinians cannot vote, except for a minority who has only second-class citizenship.

  4. February 2, 2014, 12:37 pm

    Well done, Rog. I’ve been w you since Atom Heart Mother, a long, long time ago.

  5. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    February 2, 2014, 2:47 pm

    A lot of Hollywood celebrities donate to charity, for a variety of reasons. It helps the cause, and it is good PR. It gets the celebrity’s name out there. That’s part of the reason that Hollywood celebrities often donate to liberal causes.

    But for this to work, the cause can’t be too controversial. Being against homelessness is OK. Is anybody FOR homelessness? Being against AIDS is OK. Is anybody FOR AIDS?

    The BDS movement is making the Israeli cause controversial. The Palestinian perspective is starting to be heard. The big coverage given to Max Blumenthal’s book, Goliath, by The Nation magazine is a very important sign of the changes. And Scarlett Johansson is finding out that illegal Jews-only settlements in the Israeli-occcupied West Bank are controversial.

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      February 2, 2014, 7:46 pm

      Great comment, Nevada Ned. Legitimate controversy trumps celeb altruism, paid or otherwise. That’s a pretty proactive way to look at it.

      I never thought of it quite that way. I always thought this debate was more reactive than that. Maybe that’s changing too.

  6. MahaneYehude1
    MahaneYehude1
    February 2, 2014, 5:03 pm

    Roger Waters:

    Do I have the right to live without fear of a missile strike on my home?

    Do my daughter has the right to ride a bus without fear?

    Do my daughter has the right to eat ice cream in a coffee shop in Jaffa street in Jerusalem?

    Do I have the right to walk down the street without being attacked by a terrorist?

    Do I have the right to fight those who want to annihilate my homeland?

    Do I have the right to defend my country from those who declare “Death to Israel” and “Khaibar, Khaibar, Ya Yahood?!!!”

    Do I have the right to live in any place in Israel I want, even in Um Al-Fahem and Sachnin without fear?

    Do I have the right to re-occupy the property and homes my family left in Baghdad, Iraq when the return home to Israel in 1951?

    Do I have the right to marry any woman, regardless her religion?

    Do I have the right to live in my ancient homeland, the Jewish state of Israel?

    I appreciate if you can answer honestly my questions as well as you answered your questions to Scarlett Johansson.

    • annie
      annie
      February 2, 2014, 5:52 pm

      Do I have the right to live in my ancient homeland

      what “right” to live in an “ancient homeland” might you be referring? and does every american also have that right (because, w/the exception of Native Americans, the remaining people who survived the genocide our ancestors perpetrated, our ancient homeland is not here) does every person have this right to claim property on their alleged ‘ancient homeland’?

      there is no recognized ancient homeland ‘right’ that i am aware of. it’s an invention by hasbrats and you are a sucker for believing it.

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail
        February 2, 2014, 6:34 pm

        So if I became a Buddhist, I could go to Thailand and kick a family out of their home if they are non-Buddhists, since that belief system originated in the region? Or I could do the same in Utah if became a Mormon? How bizarre.
        If your so-called ‘right’ revolves around descendants, then clearly the best-placed people to claim rights are Palestinians whose families have lived there for generations – who can be Jewish, Christian or Muslim – their religion is irrelevant. Rights, such as they are, aren’t applicable by supposed ethnicity or religion – funny how you claim them for yourself but deny the same ones to Palestinians and non-Jews.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        February 2, 2014, 8:33 pm

        @annie, the ‘ancient homeland right’ is a paraphrasing of the widely recognised right of the indigenous inhabitants and their descendants of an area to the ownership of the territory there.
        It is no wonder that the Arabophiles at UNESCO have recently attempted to stop an exhibition about the profound historical Jewish ties to Palestine – refer
        http://www.timesofisrael.com/author-of-unescos-nixed-israel-exhibit-decries-appalling-betrayal/#ixzz2r5sKOnKu.
        They, like yourself, don’t want to give too much publicity to the
        Jews, who have the major claims to Palestine by far. [….]

      • annie
        annie
        February 2, 2014, 11:05 pm

        the bottom line of the exhibition was stating that the Jewish people dwells in its homeland by right, because of the culmination of a long and intense attachment, and not by conquest, a sinister colonial project or because of the Holocaust. The US traditionally recognizes tha

        well, there’s a good reason not to hold the exhibit. ‘long and intense attachment’ doesn’t give anyone a right to kick other people off their land and anyone who thinks israel isn’t on most of that land by conquest has rocks for brains. it is ‘a sinister colonial project’.

        also, the US is bound by congress not to give unesco any money. that little factoid was missing from the article.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 3, 2014, 12:29 am

        Mayhem:

        the ‘ancient homeland right’ is a paraphrasing of the widely recognised right of the indigenous inhabitants and their descendants of an area to the ownership of the territory there.

        I dispute that such a right is widely recognized. Please cite evidence (specific documents) for the recognition of an “ancient homeland right” (paraphrase) as you describe it. And please define your terms “indigenous inhabitants”, “descendants”, and “ownership of the territory”.

      • annie
        annie
        February 3, 2014, 5:57 am

        the ‘ancient homeland right’ is … the indigenous inhabitants and their descendants of an area to the ownership of the territory there.

        so, iow if my dna suggested my ancestors originated in Luxembourg or ireland, according to you i have a right to ownership of the territory? and what if the locals disagreed with that. would i be justified in ethnically cleansing them from the land? demolishing their homes? abducting their livestock and appropriating their agricultural areas?

        i think we live on different mental planets.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 3, 2014, 10:30 pm

        It is no wonder that the Arabophiles at UNESCO have recently attempted to stop an exhibition about the profound historical Jewish ties to Palestine – refer

        When the Zionist Organization tried to get recognition of their legal right to Palestine recognized in the Mandate, the Allied Powers refused to do it. They explained that it had been agreed the Zionists had no valid legal claim to Palestine. So they switched to the propaganda tactic of trying to get recognition of their “historical connection” to Palestine included. Ever since, they have been peddling that myth for all it’s worth, which isn’t much. Even if there were a historical connection, it can’t be transformed into the basis for a legal right.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 2:00 am

        @Annie:

        This is the main reason why their is no peace in this land: The fact that you can’t recognize our basic right to live here. Now, let me ask you a simple question and I appreciate simple answer without juggle words and phrases: do you think we have the right to live on a piece of this land?

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 3, 2014, 3:00 am

        @Mahane whatever – No, you have no right to reside anywhere in Palestine except if generously granted by a sovereign and armed Palestinian people, and stop that whinging old hag routine.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 5, 2014, 11:12 am

        Is the term “national self-determination” defined? If not, is it just a legal “platitude”, or does it still have critical legal and/or political significance?

        The ICJ has written at length in the South West Africa/Namibia and Palestine cases about the timeline of developments in international law regarding the erga omnes obligation to respect the right of equality and self-determination of peoples. I’ve included some of the milestones below.

        This Basic Law purports to establish not only the right of national self-determination, but also the means of interpreting and applying it. It says that “This Basic Law and all other laws shall be interpreted in conformity with this provision.” In this case, it is defined as a constitutional right reserved exclusively for the Jewish people in accordance with Article 2 of this Basic Law. It’s purpose, meaning, and scope are explained in the individual articles of this Basic Law.

        The members of the Jewish people are defined in accordance with the provisions of law per “Article 5 Return” of this Basic Law. At the present time, that is Amendment No. 2 5730-1970 to the Law of Return: a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.”

        Article 1 of the Basic Law explains that the self-determination unit is “The State of Israel” defined “in accordance with its historical and cultural heritage.” The author, MK Yariv Levin, and the Likud Party Platform currently say that all of the Land of Israel between the River and the Sea lie within that historical, territorial scope. The remaining articles of the Basic Law are self-determinations regarding political status, language, allocation of resources for Jewish immigration, settlement, relations with the Jewish Diaspora, and pursuit of other aspects of Jewish economic and cultural development.

        FYI 1) The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970) defined the valid modes of exercising the right of self-determination, i.e. establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people.

        2) Article 2 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) and Common Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (entered into force 1976) explained that the right applied to determinations made by a people regarding their own political status and their economic, social and cultural development.

        Article 5 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples required the immediate transfer of powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom. The 1971 Namibia case confirmed General Assembly and Security Council resolutions which determined that conditioning participation in the democratic polity of a state on the basis of ethnicity violates obligations contained in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

        Article 6 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples explained that did not imply any right to disrupt the territorial integrity of a country. The right of self-determination does not included a license to commit ethnic cleansing or apartheid. Article I of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993) further explained that self-determination shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind.

        Article 9 of this proposed Basic Law, “Preservation of Culture, Heritage and Identity” does not grant equal rights to the whole people belonging to the territory. It makes a distinction based upon Jewish ethnicity. It also violates the right of the Palestinian people living between the river and the sea to make their own determinations regarding their political status and their economic, social and cultural development in their territory. The State of Israel reserves those rights to itself and it may “permit” the members of other nationalities to establish “communities”.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 3, 2014, 4:15 am

        MahaneYehude1::

        This is the main reason why their is no peace in this land: The fact that you can’t recognize our basic right to live here.

        Whom does “our” refer to, and where is “here”? That’s the problem. It is claimed that all of the West Bank , aka Judea and Samaria*, are part of the “ancient homeland” which belongs to all Jews , no matter where they were born or currently live and no matter if they were direct descendants of ancient Jews or not.

        But that means Palestinians have no right to self-determination and national independence anywhere in Palestine.

        Thus, the concept of “ancient homeland rights” is antithetical to peace and justice in Palestine.

        ————–
        * If you disagree that Judea and Samaria were part of the “ancient homeland of the Jews”, please tell me what the borders of that homeland were, and what you base that on.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 11:19 am

        @Sibiriak:

        I didn’t say Palestinians have no right to self-determination and national independence anywhere in Palestine. Israel or Palestine (all the area of the Mandatory Palestine) is the homeland of both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people. I, and most of the Israelis, ready to share this homeland. Hence, I support two states solutions so I don’t think that the fact Israel is my homeland is antithetical to peace and justice in Palestine. About the borders of the two states: this issue will be determined by the two parties by mutual agreement. I, and I sure most Israelis, will accept any agreement that promote peace.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 5, 2014, 2:58 am

        MahaneYehude1:

        About the borders of the two states: this issue will be determined by the two parties by mutual agreement. I, and I sure most Israelis, will accept any agreement that promote peace.

        I did not ask about the borders of the states in a 2-state settlement; I asked about the borders of the “ancient homeland” of Jews which you claim confers to present day Jews–any and all of them–a right of to live there, and which Mayhem says confers a right of Jewish “ownership”.

        So let me ask straight up: what were the borders (even approximately) of that so-called “ancient homeland” of Jews?

        Did that “ancient homeland” include the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), yes or no?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 5, 2014, 3:53 am

        I, and most of the Israelis, ready to share this homeland.

        Only on the condition that Zionists can systematically oppress and dominate dominate the non-Jewish inhabitants. There coalition agreement between Likud Beytenu and Bayit Yehudi mandates the passage of the “Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People”. It stipulates:

        I Basic Principles
        1. The State of Israel is the National Home of the Jewish People; wherein the Jewish People fulfills its yearning for self-determination in accordance with its historical and cultural heritage.
        2. The Right of national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People.
        3. This Basic Law and all other laws shall be interpreted in conformity with this provision.

        http://index.justice.gov.il/StateIdentity/InformationInEnglish/Documents/Basic%20Law%20110911%20%281%29.pdf

        Justice Minister Livni only opposes it because it’s too blatant and poses a propaganda problem. So, she has enlisted an another Zionist racial supremacist ideologue, Prof. Ruth Gavison, to draft a compromise. But Gavison has long-since stated in her own writings on the subject that maintaining a Jewish majority trumps democracy and human rights and that democracy should be redefined.
        * Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic? Ruth Gavison
        http://members.ngfp.org/Courses/Gavison/Moment.pdf
        * Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People the liberal justification
        http://www.izs.org.il/eng/?father_id=205&catid=451
        * The new basic law: It’s about time http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-new-basic-law-Its-about-time-314771
        Lawmakers to debate proposal giving Jews ‘unique’ right to self-determination in Israel
        * http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/lawmakers-to-debate-proposal-giving-jews-unique-right-to-self-determination-in-israel.premium-1.526237
        * Livni enlists Diaspora to fight bill defining Israel as ‘Jewish state’
        http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-new-basic-law-Its-about-time-314771

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 5, 2014, 6:26 am

        MahaneYehude1

        [Sibiriak: Did that “ancient homeland” include the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), yes or no?]

        Yes!! …But I ready to share the land.

        That’s touching. But with all due respect your personal willingness “to share the land” is not the issue.

        Which Israeli leader has declared, as you have, that all of Palestine is the homeland to the entire Palestinian people, as well as to Jews, and that all Palestinians have the right to live anywhere in their homeland? What percentage of Israeli Jews would agree with you on that point? I’d wager it would be infinitesimal.

        The government of Israel is promoting Jewish settlements in the West Bank while refusing Palestinians the right to settle in Israel–that’s not “sharing”. That’s Israeli expansionism and denial of Palestinian rights.

        You claim both groups have a right to live in their homeland, Palestine, but only one of those groups–Jews–can actually exercise that right, creating “facts on the ground”, because they are the vastly more powerful of the two and can, by and large, impose their will on the Palestiniansa through force or through negotiations .

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 5, 2014, 6:59 am

        MY1:
        “Hence, I support two states solutions so I don’t think that the fact Israel is my homeland is antithetical to peace and justice in Palestine. ”

        LMAO. You’re delusional if you think that the “two state solution” that the israeli people are proposing will come anywhere near “peace and justice in Palestine.”

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 5, 2014, 7:34 am

        Hostage:

        [quoting proposed Basic Law] 2. The Right of national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People.

        Is the term “national self-determination” defined?

        If not, is it just a legal “platitude”, or does it still have critical legal and/or political significance?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 5, 2014, 7:57 am

        @MahaneYehude1:

        I’m still trying to get some answers on this alleged right of any person/people to live in their “ancient homeland” . I think its fair to ask you to spell out the details of this right, since you made the claim that it exists. (Mayhem fell completely silent when asked about this.)

        1) Please spell out this what this right entails and define the terms, “homeland”, “people” etc.

        2) Can a person or people have multiple homelands, for example, a modern one as well as an ancient one?

        3)Please cite evidence (specific documents) for the recognition of such an “ancient homeland right” (outside of Zionist discourse).

        4) What were the boundaries of this ancient Jewish homeland, when were they created, where did these ancient Jews originally come from–and how do you know all this?

        5) Why would direct descendants of Jews that abandoned this territory have a right to return there some 2000 years later?

        6) Why would the millions of Jews who are NOT direct descendants of ancient Jews from Judea etc., who are, rather, in large part descendants of converts to Judaism outside of Palestine , be said to have an ancient homeland in Palestine?

        7) If a non-Jew converts and becomes a Jew today, does his/her current homeland cease to be a homeland and Palestine (Eretz Israel) suddenly become his/her homeland? If yes, why?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 5, 2014, 9:39 pm

        MahaneYehude1:

        Now, after I did my homework, to your satisfaction I hope,

        Actually, your answers were revealing but not at all satisfactory. I’ll get back to that in a separate post.

        I ask you to ask yourself what is your obsession with Jews and Israel?

        I’m not obsessed with Israel, and certainly not with Jews. It seems you wish redirect the discussion via whataboutery, which indicates to me that you don’t have confidence in the persuasiveness of your argument about an “ancient homeland right”.

        Do you analyze other peoples in such way?

        If that kind of analysis is relevant, yes. Often it isn’t. (I generally don’t look at the world in terms of conflicts between “peoples”.)

        Are you a “Pro-Palestinians” hence “Anti-Israeli”

        I’m not anti-Israel. I’m not a tribalist. I’m pro-humanity. I support a genuine two-state settlement, the elements of which I already laid out you. That’s not an anti-Israel position.

        …you are against Israel, no matter what we do?

        I don’t think of a state as a unitary, organic “we”–but no, I would support Israel agreeing to two-state settlement based on pre-1967 borders etc. I would support Israel transitioning to a full liberal democracy, away from ethnocracy and theocracy. Again, there’s nothing anti-Israel in any of that, unless you mean anti-Israeli policy. I also criticize American policies and Russian policies, for example, but that does not make me anti-American or anti-Russian.

        Would you care the Palestinians the same way if they were a people lives somewhere near Darfur for instance?

        I care for people wherever they live. Again, I’m not a tribalist, so I don’t take positive/negative views of “peoples”. I care about individuals; all life forms, actually.

        Do you really want peace?

        Yes, but not at any price. Some justice and fairness are necessary as well. I say “some” because I am a realist; full justice is an ideal rarely achieved in this world.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 3, 2014, 5:17 am

        @Kahane the Jewish settler

        You have no right whatsoever to colonize someone else’s land.

        No right whatsoever.

        Why don’t you go to any other sovereign country and start building a home there without permission from the landowners.

        See what happens and then cry and whine about antisemitism.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 5, 2014, 3:30 am

        @Sibiriak:

        Did that “ancient homeland” include the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), yes or no?

        Yes!!

        …But I ready to share the land.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 5, 2014, 9:55 am

        @ MahaneYehude1 // Did that “ancient homeland” include the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), yes or no?//

        “Yes!!”

        Pity the West Bank isn’t actually in Israel spud!

        “But I ready to share the land”

        It isn’t yours to share spud. You as an Israeli citizen, have Israel as it was proclaimed and recognized, by the borders of UNGA res 181. Israel is not prepared to share any of it with Palestine, Israel wants more Palestinian territory.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 5, 2014, 4:54 pm

        Sibiriak;

        1) I sure you, as a philosopher, know the meaning of these terms better than me. When I say “Israel is my homeland” I mean exactly the same what a Palestinian means when he says “Falastin Watani” (Palestine is my homeland), no difference.

        2) Well, I don’t know. I have to think about it.

        3) In the past, MW published a post about 1927 British Mandate coin. Please, read their my comments about the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel.

        4) Well, as you know, in ancient time the boundaries between states (the term can be different from the modern term) were not absolute. Jewish states, Israel and Judea, were in part of this area, some periods on small part and some on large part of the area you call Palestine. Today, there is a new reality, I can’t ignore the independent states surrounding Israel, hence I consider the British Mandate on Palestine boundaries as my homeland. How do I know all this? Again, read my former comments, I think I wrote enough about this issue.

        5) They abandoned this territory but never forgot it. Jews always prayed for Israel and Jerusalem. This is not a Zionist invention as many here thinks. Some of the prayers Jews used to pray were written several centuries before the establishment of the Zionist movement.
        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/framework-according-friedman.html#comment-638066

        6) And 7) Israel is the home to any Jew in the world in danger whether he is direct descendant or converted to Judaism or whatever. Did the Gestapo officer ask the Jew if he converted to Judaism before he sent him to the gas chamber? Did the Iraqi rioter asked the member of my family if they are direct descendants before he killed them in the streets of Baghdad? Did the Kozaks ask the Jews if they are from Judea before they burned their homes and killed them in Ukraine?

        Now, after I did my homework, to your satisfaction I hope, I ask you to ask yourself what is your obsession with Jews and Israel? Do you analyze other peoples in such way? Are you a “Pro-Palestinians” hence “Anti-Israeli” because you care the Palestinian people or because you are against Israel, no matter what we do? Would you care the Palestinians the same way if they were a people lives somewhere near Darfur for instance? Do you really want peace?

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 5, 2014, 6:15 pm

        @ MahaneYehude1 February 5, 2014 at 4:54 pm http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/sodastreams-scarlett-johansson.html/comment-page-1#comment-638307 Nothing you’ve written is relevant to Israel’s illegal activities in occupied territories outside the State of Israel and the need for Israel to adhere to the Law, the UN charter and relevant conventions

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 3, 2014, 10:40 pm

        This is the main reason why their is no peace in this land: The fact that you can’t recognize our basic right to live here.

        The reason there’s no peace in your land is because your state was created through ethnic cleansing and massacres and you lizard brained Zionists insist on preventing the “non-Jews” that you exiled from returning to Palestine based on their own historical connection to the land, while you persecute the hell out of those that managed to remain. There must be a directive establishing a weekly quota for comments that deny the Nakba at Hasbara central, or else you are really, really clueless.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 6, 2014, 12:46 am

        @MahaneYehude1
        ‘When I say “Israel is my homeland” I mean exactly the same what a Palestinian means when he says “Falastin Watani”(Palestine is my homeland)’

        What does a Palestinian mean by “Palestine is my homeland”?

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 5, 2014, 9:15 am

        MahaneYehude1 “The fact that you can’t recognize our basic right to live here.”

        Get this thru your thick, dense potato head. Israeli citizens, Jewish or non-Jewish, do not have ANY right what so ever to settle in territories under Israeli military occupation or in non-Israeli territories illegally acquired by war by Israel or in any non-Israeli territories not legally annexed to Israel.

        Israel’s borders have not legally changed since the day the State of Israel was proclaimed as “an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        That’s why Israel has so many UNSC resolutions giving it the OPPORTUNITY to abide by the binding laws those resolutions emphasize and reaffirm.

        Unfortunately consecutive Israeli leaders have all had thick, very very dense potato heads too. None have never taken any of the hundreds of opportunities offered the Jewish state by the UN/UNSC to abide by its legal obligations to the UN, the International Comity of Nations and the rule of law.

        You can blabber and lie and whinge and moan and pretend to be stupid and blame everyone around you, but it is entirely the fault of the idiotic Zionist Federation’s demand to have a Jewish State that now prevents any Israeli citizen from legally settling in all of the ‘historic homeland’, because quite a lot of the ‘historic homeland’ quite simply ain’t in the State of Israel.

        You will of course attempt to deny this very very simple fact. However, thanks to the internet, more and more people are beginning to understand the actual situation, despite your idiotic drivel.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 5, 2014, 11:59 am

        The idea of rights arising simply from the birthplace of one’s ancestors is absurd and if taken seriously would destroy all political organisations by making it impossible to find who was a genuine member of each. The only sort-of exception, I think, lies in inherited refugee status, provided it is reasonably well documented, where there is a right of return (since violent dispossession cannot create rights) unless and until the refugee makes a deal with another polity by which that right is given up.
        Just to mention that there was a series in Haaretz recently in which one of the journalists set out to reclaim his Sephardic citizenship in Spain. He did not end up sharing the view I’ve just expressed but he did reach the momentous and interesting conclusion that ‘blood is fiction’.
        I have never seen – I’ve said this here a bit too often – a definition of National S-D that really makes sense in any context.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      February 2, 2014, 6:19 pm

      Dear Potato Salesman/sockpuppet account,

      You are not under military occupation by the Jewish State.

      The Palestinian people are not responsible for the exodus (which included ethnic cleansing) of Jews from the ME.

      Do YOU believe Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland, which Zionism stole and which you live on top of?

      Stop denying all those rights with respect to the Palestinian people.

      You have no ancient homeland because you are not ancient.

      You are not an ancient Jew. You are the product of conversion because Judaism is a religion and not a race.

      There is no Jewish ‘land’. Jews owned less than 7% of land and property in Historic Palestine.

      The majority population of the land was not Jewish. It was Palestinian.

      There is no Jewish majority without ethnically cleansing the Palestinian majority that existed prior.

      You are a thief and a liar.

      The destruction of the Palestinian majority took place months before Israel’s declaration of statehood.

      The 48′ War was fought inside the Palestinian side of the partition mostly.

      The Arabs did not enter the war until even after the Deir Yassin massacre.

      Last week or so, you denied the Nakba by portraying the 48′ War as a war of annihilation against a helpless Jewish State.

      That is pure bullshit and no different from Holocaust denial.

      I really doubt Roger Waters is new to your hasbara. I am sure he has heard or read Israeli liars like yourself time and time again.

      Try harder, chump.

    • tree
      tree
      February 2, 2014, 6:22 pm

      I appreciate if you can answer honestly my questions as well as you answered your questions to Scarlett Johansson.

      You know what, Mehane? Palestinians in the West Bank don’t have those “rights” that you say you are denied either, so, with respect to your list, your “denied rights” are no different than Palestinians’ “denied rights”. However, all the basic rights that Roger Waters lists that are denied to Palestinians are rights that you clearly possess, so please stop trying to divert attention from the lack of basic human rights that the Israeli occupation denies Palestinians. Its a dishonest tactic.

    • Pippilin
      Pippilin
      February 2, 2014, 6:31 pm

      “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
      ― Martin Luther King Jr.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 3:31 am

        @Pippilin:

        “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

        Correct!!!

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 7:30 am

        “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

        surely this plus religion is tops

    • MRW
      MRW
      February 2, 2014, 7:06 pm

      MahaneYehude1, do Palestinians have those rights?

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 11:20 am

        @MRW:

        No, so do I. Let’s work together to end this abnormal situation.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      February 2, 2014, 8:08 pm

      “Do I have the right to fight those who want to annihilate my homeland?”

      What do you mean by “annihilate”? If you mean “change the political system to a more just system”, then no, you do not have the right to fight against justice.

      “”Do I have the right to live in any place in Israel I want, even in Um Al-Fahem and Sachnin without fear?”

      Only as long as you extend the same right to Palestinians.

      “Do I have the right to live in my ancient homeland, the Jewish state of Israel?”

      The state of Israel is not ancient. Being Jewish makes it an unjust state. If you were born in the territory, you have a right to live there, but not to maintain it as a Jewish state.

    • talknic
      talknic
      February 2, 2014, 8:41 pm

      MahaneYehude1 “Do I have the right to live without fear of a missile strike on my home?”

      Only within the Internationally recognized sovereign extent of the State of Israel as it asked to be recognized. May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “..the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ Otherwise, you’re an illegal settler in a war zone. Go cry to your stupid government spud

      “Do my daughter has the right to ride a bus without fear?”

      Until Israel signs a Peace Treaty with Palestine, if anyone serving in the IDF is on or near the bus or the bus is near any IDF facility or supply line, she could end up collateral. Go cry to your stupid government

      “Do my daughter has the right to eat ice cream in a coffee shop in Jaffa street in Jerusalem?”

      Was Jaffa “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” (ibid) ? If not and if anyone serving in the IDF is in or near the coffee shop or the coffee shop is near any Israeli military facility, supplies or supply line she could end up being collateral. Go cry to your stupid government

      “Do I have the right to walk down the street without being attacked by a terrorist?”

      If the street is “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” (ibid) ? If not you could be collateral if there are any IDF personnel facilities or logistical support nearby. It wouldn’t be terrorism. Go cry to your stupid government

      “Do I have the right to fight those who want to annihilate my homeland?”

      Israel has never actually been threatened with annihilation. Meanwhile Israel has actually illegally acquired over 50% of the territory that remained of Palestine after Israel was proclaimed “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” (ibid) The Zionist Federation, by demanding a state, annihilated your right to live anywhere in Palestine. Go whine to them

      “Do I have the right to defend my country from those who declare “Death to Israel” and “Khaibar, Khaibar, Ya Yahood?!!!””

      Your country is “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” (ibid) Israel has never legally annexed any further territories. While Israeli forces are in non-Israeli territory, the legitimate citizens of those territories and their allies have a right to attack the IDF, IDF facilities, personnel and supply lines wherever they are. Go complain to the stupid Zionist Federation

      “Do I have the right to live in any place in Israel I want, even in Um Al-Fahem and Sachnin without fear?”

      Israeli territory is only “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” (ibid). Israel has never legally annexed any further territories. You could end up collateral by stupidly illegally settling in any non-Israeli territories

      “Do I have the right to re-occupy the property and homes my family left in Baghdad, Iraq when the return home to Israel in 1951?”

      People who take up citizenship in a country other than that of return are no longer refugees. Their lineal descendants are not refugees and; Israeli law (1948 and still current) prohibits residents and citizens of Israel from entering the territory of an hostile entity

      “Do I have the right to marry any woman, regardless her religion?”

      Uh? You’re already married… no? Your daughter is from a previous marriage or born out of wedlock?

      “Do I have the right to live in my ancient homeland, the Jewish state of Israel?”

      The Jewish State of Israel is only “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” (ibid). Israel has never legally annexed any further territories. Go bitch to the Zionist Federation who, by demanding a state have precluded Israelis (Arab or Jew) from illegally settling anywhere in Palestine.

      “I appreciate if you can answer honestly my questions as well as you answered your questions to Scarlett Johansson.”

      Honest answers above. Your appreciation is awaited

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 2, 2014, 10:09 pm

        “Do I have the right to marry any woman, regardless her religion?”
        His own government says no to that.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 12:31 am

        @Puppies:

        “Do I have the right to marry any woman, regardless her religion?”

        I don’t know why you chose this sentence only from my list, but since you chose it, please answer honestly:

        Could you, please, provide me a link to the law against intermarriage in Israel by Israeli government?

        Do you know what would happen to a couple of Jewish man and Muslim woman? to Muslim man and Jewish woman?

        I hope to receive honest replies, not like those I received in the past when I asked the same questions.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 3, 2014, 3:36 am

        Could you, please, provide me a link to the law against intermarriage in Israel by Israeli government?

        According to the “Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 5713-195”: “Matters of marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel … shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the rabbinical courts”; and “Marriages and divorces of Jews shall be performed in Israel in accordance with Jewish religious law [din torah].”

        http://www.knesset.gov.il/review/data/eng/law/kns2_rabbiniccourts_eng.pdf

      • tree
        tree
        February 3, 2014, 5:00 am

        There’s also “The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (temporary provision) 5763 – 2003” here:

        http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/citizenship_law.htm

        which prevents Palestinians from the occupied territories from living in Israel with their Israeli spouses and gaining citizenship thereby. There are two well-known Jewish Israeli women who live with their Palestinian spouses in the West Bank because their spouses are not allowed to live with them in Israel.

        One of those women is Neta Golan, who is a co-founder of the ISM.

        While her family remains in Israel, Golan married a Palestinian man and lives with him and their children in the West Bank. She constantly deals with the ironies of her life: a resident of the occupied Palestinian territories, she can travel back and forth to Israel to visit with her family, but neither her husband nor her Palestinian friends can visit with their families if they are outside of the West Bank.

        https://afsc.org/story/neta-golan

        The other Israeli Jewish woman living with her Paelstinian husband and children in the West Bank is the human rights lawyer, Allegra Pacheco.

        http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/twilight-zone-from-wanted-to-welcome-1.283786

    • Sumud
      Sumud
      February 2, 2014, 10:06 pm

      Stop playing the victim Mahane.

      Your country has perpetrated a great many evils on the Palestinians – you’ve contributed some yourself.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 2, 2014, 10:30 pm

        “Do I have the right to live in my ancient homeland” is such a crock of shit.
        Do the Palestinians have the right to live in the homeland they had until 1948 ?

        My ancient homeland
        My little pony

        How come nobody else talks about their ancient homeland WTF?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 3, 2014, 12:43 am

        seafoid:

        How come nobody else talks about their ancient homeland WTF?

        Serbs and Albanians claim “ancient homeland” rights in Kosovo.

        The Albanians claim that they are consequently descended from the Illyrians and are the indigenous inhabitants of Kosovo.

        ——
        [Serbs present] the Albanians as colonisers and persecutors of Serbs, who have a historic right over Kosovo and therefore a right to live there, whereas the Albanians are immigrants and therefore have no historic right to live there.

        http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/v/vickers-serb.html

        See also:

        http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55145

        For the Serbian people, the province of Kosovo is their very ancestral heartland. The long suffering Serbs were forced to witness the witless and perfidious Western powers rip away Serbia’s heart while the hated ethnic Albanian and Muslim historical enemies took possession of it. The Serbs, in fact, call Kosovo their “Jerusalem.” That is how holy they consider their lost heartland.

        This notion of “ancient homeland rights” leads to endless conflict and has no basis in international law.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 7:40 am

        The Serbs have given up on Kosovo, sibiriak.
        They were forced to by the international community.

        Give me a better example

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 1:55 am

        @Sumud:

        No need to play since we, together with the Palestinians, are the victims of this conflict.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 3, 2014, 3:04 am

        Mahane – in reference to your original question, you have the same human rights as Palestinians, no more, and no less.

        Since you want to claim victim status can you please nominate which of your human rights have been violated and when. The list for Palestinians is a mile long. What have you got? And I mean REAL human rights, not made up ones…

        Also – please name the human right which would enable to you live in territory outside your countries declared borders against the wishes of the locals?

        The last question you asked (“Do I have the right to live in my ancient homeland, the Jewish state of Israel?”) tells you are more interested in violating Palestinian’s human rights than operating in any sort of solidarity with them. For good measure you better be a little more precise and specify the borders of this supposed “ancient homeland”.

        You support full right of return for all Palestinian refugees to their “ancient homeland”, ie. mandate Palestine, don’t you?

        Thanks!

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 11:55 am

        @Sumud:

        Look, there is an abnormal situation in my country, a long conflict between two peoples, each of them claim the land as his homeland. The consequence of this situation is that both peoples suffer. In my comment I didn’t say that the Palestinians enjoy here while we suffer, No. I just wanted to show Roger Waters that, in addition to his list of human rights violations, there are more violations which the Israelis suffer from them.

        No, I don’t think that my last question (“Do I have the right to live in my ancient homeland, the Jewish state of Israel?”) tells I am more interested in violating Palestinian’s human rights than operating in any sort of solidarity with them. No, I think they have the right for self determination and independent sovereign state. The borders will be determined by negotiation between the two peoples.

        About the return of Palestinian refugees: There is a dream and there is a reality. In the last 65 years the reality was changed and Israel can’t absorb several million (5?6?7?) of refugees as well as the Arab state governments can’t give the Jewish property back to their rightful owners. Hence I support full compensations as money or the settlement houses to the Palestinian refugees. Of course, also the Arab-Jews refugees must be compensated by Arab states for the property stolen from them by the governments. Only justice to all victims, Jews and Palestinians, will bring peace and reconciliation.

        Thanks! You are welcome, Sumud.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 11:34 am

        @Shmuel:

        Thanks for the link. All seven paragraphs refer to relationships of Jewish couple only and shall be under the Rabanuth which performs the religious laws like marriage, divorce, Halitza etc. The law doesn’t refer to intermarriage between Jewish person and other religion person.

        You lived in Israel in the past and I sure you know that there are several thousands of intermarriage couples (mostly, Jewish woman and Muslim man). There are no laws against them!!! They can marry, buy house, take Mashkanta, their children can go to school and they can live wherever they want. Indeed, many Jews don’t like this kind of marriage, but nothing happens. In contrary, you wouldn’t find any couple consists of Muslim woman. You know the reasons.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 3, 2014, 11:50 am

        “which performs the religious laws like marriage”

        There’s your problem, right there.

        “You know the reasons.”

        Yes, the systemic anti-Muslim bigotry of your state.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 12:54 pm

        @Woody;

        “which performs the religious laws like marriage” – There’s your problem, right there.

        Why? who perform marriage in Muslim countries?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 3, 2014, 2:21 pm

        MY

        “Why?”

        Because when you have an ethno-religious Apartheid system, like the zionist entity has, and half of the people under your state’s control are officially part of the oppressed people, then giving some religious body the right to decide matters of the state is both an inhumane thing, and it is, itself, a racist decision because it is codifying the judeo-supremacy at the heart of the racist zionist system.

        “who perform marriage in Muslim countries?”

        What does that have to do with anything?? We’re talking about the zionist entity, nothing else is relevant.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 3, 2014, 12:01 pm

        You’re being disingenuous, MY. The law I cited stipulates that the marriage of Jews in Israel will be in accordance with Jewish [Orthodox] religious law. This is part of the broader Israeli adoption of the “millet” system of religious authority and the lack of civil marriage. What this means is that by law, marriages in Israel must be in accordance with the religious practices of the recognised religious communities.

        1. Recognised Jewish authorities will not perform mixed marriages.
        2. Recognised Christian authorities will not, as a rule, perform mixed marriages (although there are exceptions).
        3. Recognised Muslim authorities may perform a mixed marriage if the groom is a Muslim, although, in practice, generally require conversion.

        The “reasons” that marriage between a Jewish man and a Muslim woman, performed in Israel, are not recognised by the state are because neither community of reference (decided by the state, not the individual) will perform such marriages, in keeping with their respective religious laws.

        There are thus laws in Israel (like the one I cited) that prohibit intermarriage, except in very specific (and often theoretical) cases. To claim on this basis that “there is no law against intermarriage in Israel” is, as noted, disingenuous.

        By the way, do you have any source for the claim that thousands of Jewish women have married Muslim men in Israel, besides the scaremongering of racist organisations? And do you have any source for the claim that any significant number of these women did not convert?

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 12:48 pm

        @Shmuel:

        Why I am being disingenuous? You repeat and say the same things I said. Indeed, Recognized Jewish authorities will not perform mixed marriages. Yes, it is correct. But, I repeat, if two people, Muslim and Jewish, want to marry there is no law against them!!! OK, no Rabbi will marry them but they can marry!!! (civil marriage or by Kadi) and they can receive all the rights as I wrote.

        You wrote the following: “Recognised Muslim authorities may perform a mixed marriage if the groom is a Muslim, although, in practice, generally require conversion” and you say nothing about this racist law??? What would you say about the following “Recognised Jewish authorities may perform a mixed marriage if the groom is a Jew, although, in practice, generally require conversion.”??

        No, I have no proof that there are several thousands of mixed couples. You lived in Israel in the past and you know it is truth. There are racist organizations against the mix couples but there are many organizations help them. By the way, I don’t support those racist organisations act against intermarriage couples.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 3, 2014, 1:23 pm

        MY,

        You are being disingenuous, because you are implying that the lack of an explicit law stating “intermarriage is prohibited”, or the fact that some kinds of intermarriage may be recognised by the state, means that intermarriage is legally permitted in Israel. It is not, in most cases, which means that one is indeed not free to marry whomever one may wish (which is, I believe, how this whole discussion got started).

        if two people, Muslim and Jewish, want to marry there is no law against them!!! OK, no Rabbi will marry them but they can marry!!! (civil marriage or by Kadi)

        What civil marriage? There is no civil marriage for those identified by the state as members of recognised religious communities. If the man is Muslim, a kadi may agree to marry them – or may insist on conversion (at the kadi’s discretion). If the man is not Muslim, intermarriage is prohibited by state law.

        you say nothing about this racist law???

        I do not consider religious endogamy (full or partial) racist per se. A state that enforces such rules, however, is certainly undemocratic and possibly racist. The Israeli state is both.

        No, I have no proof that there are several thousands of mixed couples. You lived in Israel in the past and you know it is truth.

        What I know is that there are some Jewish women who have married Muslim men, although I do not know how many of these women were married without conversion. I also know that the subject is blown way out of proportion by racist organisations that thrive on such propaganda. I have no idea what the real statistics are for such marriages in general or for marriages recognised by the state without conversion (i.e. “intermarriages”).

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 5, 2014, 3:26 am

        @Woody:

        Because when you have an ethno-religious Apartheid system, like the zionist entity has, and half of the people under your state’s control are officially part of the oppressed people, then giving some religious body the right to decide matters of the state is both an inhumane thing, and it is, itself, a racist decision because it is codifying the judeo-supremacy at the heart of the racist zionist system.

        Please read my original sentence “All seven paragraphs refer to relationships of Jewish couple only and shall be under the Rabanuth which performs the religious laws like marriage, divorce, Halitza etc.”

        I think you don’t know much about Israel although you pretend to know all about us. The Muslims in Israel have different religious system, different religious court (Beth Din Sharii – Mahkama Shar-iya) and all family issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance, burial etc. are discussed and determined by this system according to Shari-ya laws. I do expect from someone that comment a lot in this site to learn little about Israel.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 5, 2014, 7:44 am

        MY:
        “Please read my original sentence ”

        I have. You’re not reading mine.

        “I do expect from someone that comment a lot in this site to learn little about Israel.”

        You’ve not said a sing thing I already didn’t know. The issue is that you aren’t reading what I’m writing.

        Because when you have an ethno-religious Apartheid system, like the zionist entity has, and half of the people under your state’s control are officially part of the oppressed people, then giving some religious body the right to decide matters of the state is both an inhumane thing, and it is, itself, a racist decision because it is codifying the judeo-supremacy at the heart of the racist zionist system.

        “Separate, but equal” never works because the forces that insist in the separation (here, the tenets of zionism) unfailingly support the inequality.

    • eljay
      eljay
      February 5, 2014, 7:45 am

      Do I have the right to live in my ancient homeland, the Jewish state of Israel?

      1. “Jewish State” is a supremacist construct. No state – not even Israel – should be a supremacist state.
      2. Israel is your homeland, but it’s not your “ancient homeland”. Not only is Israel not ancient, but your parents were from Iraq.

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      February 5, 2014, 6:01 pm

      @ MahaneYehude1

      First of all, you have to paint an honest picture, not a distorted one. The situation is like this: I have occupied your home and garden, based on a set of shells, found in a nearby cave, that seem to spell ‘Da’x’x’el’.

      You want to go to the bathroom? Sorry, no can do. Checkpoint’s closed.
      You want to sleep at night? Sorry, no can do. We’ve got a night raid planned.
      You want your daughter to be safe? Sorry, no can do. She throws life threatening stones at my tank.
      You want to bring your wife to a hospital for a dire needed medical checkup? Sorry, no can do. You’ve got the wrong permit.
      You want to talk to me? Sorry, no can do. You’re a subversive, Rain loving, His BoLo embracing, tremorist. I only deal with legitimate representatives.
      You want your own home? Sorry, no can do. You were not here when we arrived, thus your claim is null and void.

      Get the picture [and I haven’t even killed anyone yet, for no apparent reason]?

  7. February 2, 2014, 5:14 pm

    I say boycott Israel not Palestine. Oxfam denies charges of hypocrisy, saying it is opposed to trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank, not Israel in general. This is in fact the real hypocrisy and the paradox. Boycotting the settlements and not Israel has the potential to hurt the Palestinians too, even though they are mostly prepared to suffer this in order to defeat Israel, their cruel occupier. It is Israel who have created the settlements so why not boycott Israel who have stolen this land from the Palestinians. It is a bit like destroying the stolen goods because you are afraid to punish the thief. The thief (Israel) is mindlessly supported by huge number of Jews (but not all Jews) and others all over the world and these partisans work tirelessly to protect Israel from criticism, often intimidating and punishing thoughtful citizens who only want to protect the Palestinians from the horrors of settler abuse and deprivation.

    • MahaneYehude1
      MahaneYehude1
      February 3, 2014, 2:41 pm

      @Shmuel:

      Still, if two persons want to marry, they can do it by other means (even, unfortunately, in Cyprus). once a couple married, they have all the rights I stated above.

      I do not consider religious endogamy (full or partial) racist per se.

      Now I understand you and I think this is the difference between us. Also the Jewish religion prohibits intermarriage, but once Jewish woman and Muslim man married, no one do nothing against it (except those racist groups that, at worse, convince the woman to leave her husband and help her when she agrees, which I condemn). Unfortunately, this is not the case in the Muslim society which has zero tolerance to marriage of Muslim woman to Non-Muslim man. I see this as racism.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 3, 2014, 3:18 pm

        Still, if two persons want to marry, they can do it by other means (even, unfortunately, in Cyprus).

        LOL. That reminds me of the old joke about how wonderful the weather is in Palestine — as long as you spend the winters in Egypt and the summers in Lebanon. The fact remains that they cannot get married in Israel (the original assertion you disputed).

        Nor do your learned observations regarding the differences between Muslim and Jewish societies change the fact that the Israeli state tells its citizens whom they may and may not marry, based on assigned religious identities.

        Now I understand you and I think this is the difference between us.

        No, I don’t think you do.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 3, 2014, 4:24 pm

        @Shmuel:

        Last thing from my side: I said and I still say: There is no law against intermarriage in Israel. You are mixing between who perform the marriage, religious laws, social conventions, tradition etc. and the rights of the mixed couple. By the way, mixed couple of Jewish and Muslim marries in Israel, not abroad. I think I was clear enough and the facts speak for themselves: mixed couple, with or without Rabbi or Kadi in the middle, lives in Israel in dignity with full rights for jobs, housing, education, mashkanta etc. No accusations would applied against a person who marries whom he chose, and no penalty would applied on him (like the laws in SA). Please, try to understand me and don’t ignore the facts which I sure you know and hope agree. Shalom.

      • gamal
        gamal
        February 3, 2014, 4:28 pm

        In answer to a question about acceptable marriage partners the Sh El Fadl (below) lays out the material, even if he cant muster the courage to state the obvious, i dealt with a few cases during my communal career, some of the Muslim families after a bit of bluster quietly acquiesced, but not those from the very insular Bengali community, who live concentrated in a few inner London council estates (projects?) and are working class,

        funnily enough a lot of Muslim women have little or no time for “the weight of consensus”, and of course Hassan Turabi told the taqlidite troglodytes to take a running jump on this and some other issues and they responded with accusations of heresy, to much hilarity in some circles. I married a woman with no religion in a registry office, she was warned of the dangers, in my presence, and our papers were marked with a “Gentleman Muslim, lady warned”, the Registrar and I had a brief discussion about Fiqh, and agreed to disagree, none of my kids are Muslim, because to me Islam is not an identity and exoteric (?) zahiri religion is a waste of time and rather damaging, in my view, in the world as it seems to be.

        http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article15021

        Al-salamu ‘alaykum sister:

        First I should apologize for the long time it has taken me to respond to your message. As you might have heard, I have been rather ill. But on a happier note, recently we were blessed with a wonderful baby boy.

        But I should confess that there is another reason for the delay. This is a difficult issue to deal with. I did receive a large number of inquiries about this same issue, and I have tended to avoid responding to them because I am not exactly very excited about handling this weighty and serious problem.

        Surprising to me, all schools of thought prohibited a Muslim woman from marrying a man who is a kitabi (among the people of the book). I am not aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on many issues, but this is not one of them.

        All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik [one who associates partners with God–there is a complex and multi-layered discourse on who is to be considered a mushrik, but we will leave this for a separate discussion]. However, because of al-Ma’ida verse 5, there is an exception in the case of a Muslim man marrying a kitabiyya. There is no express prohibition in the Qur’an or elsewhere about a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi. However, the jurists argued that since express permission was given to men, by implication women must be prohibited from doing the same. The argument goes: If men needed to be given express permission to marry a kitabiyya, women needed to be given express permission as well, but since they were not given any such permission then they must be barred from marrying a kitabi.

        The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands’) religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam. (If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law and committing a grave sin).

        Importantly, the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i jurists held that it is reprehensible (makruh) for Muslim men to marry a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. They argued that in non-Muslim countries, mothers will be able to influence the children the most. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the children will not grow up to be good Muslims unless both parents are Muslim. Some jurists even went as far as saying that Muslim men are prohibited from marrying a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries.

        This is the law as it exists or the legal legacy as we inherited it. In all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong. Muslim jurists took a very strong position on this matter–many of them going as far as saying if a Muslim woman marries a kitabi she is as good as an apostate. I think, and God knows best, that this position is not reasonable and the evidence supporting it is not very strong. However, I must confess that in my humble opinion, I strongly sympathize with the jurists that argued that in non-Muslim countries it is reprehensible (makruh) for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. God knows best–I have reached this position after observing that the children of these Muslim/non-Muslim marriages in most cases do not grow up with a strong sense of their Islamic identity. It seems to me that in countries like the U.S. it is best for the children if they grow up with a Muslim father and mother. I am not comfortable telling a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi that she is committing a grave sin and that she must terminate her marriage immediately. I do tell such a woman that she should know that by being married to a kitabi that she is acting against the weight of the consensus; I tell her what the evidence is; and then I tell her my own ijtihad on the matter (that it is makruh for both men and women in non-Muslim countries). After telling her all of this, I add that she must always remember that only God knows best; that she should reflect on the matter as hard as she can; then she should pray and plead for guidance from God; and then ultimately she must do what her conscience dictates.

        I hope this response helps answer your question. I pray to God to guide us both to what He pleases and wants, and that He helps the sister you wrote me about to find peace and tranquility with whatever decision she makes. God is the best guide and mentor–may He forgive our sins and bless us with His Compassion and Mercy.

        With my sincere regards,

        Shaykh Khaled Abou El Fadl

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 4, 2014, 5:56 pm

        @Gamal:

        Turabi described the teachings that a Muslim woman should not marry a Christian or Jew as misguided teachings intended to confuse and keep women behind. He explained that the practice has its origins in war times which were used against those fighting with Muslims, but which ceased once hostilities were over.

        It is the first time I read such liberal opinion from Muslim Shaykh about marriage of Muslim woman to a non-Muslim man, although not to Mushrik. IMO, this opinion is very rare in the Muslim world. As much as I know, most Muslims are against such marriage, rely on the following Quranic phrase:

        “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! The guidance of Allah (Himself) is Guidance. And if thou shouldst follow their desires after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then wouldst thou have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” (Qu’ran, Surat Al-Baqarah: 120).

        BTW, when the Shaykh writes Kitabi (man) or Kitabiyya (woman) he refers to the Jews and Christians which regarded as Ahel Al-Kutab (peoples of the book). Mushrik in general refers to polytheist, like Buddhist or Hinduist, but there are several opinion about who can be regarded as Mushrik.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 3, 2014, 5:51 pm

        “Unfortunately, this is not the case in the Muslim society which has zero tolerance to marriage of Muslim woman to Non-Muslim man. ”

        Really, given the abhorrent levels of official and unofficial racism on the part of the zionist state against the Arabs and Muslims in the region, you’re obsession with this small matter is bordering on the pathological.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 5, 2014, 3:13 am

        @Woody:

        You are mistaken: Indeed, I mentioned this issue in the past but always as a REPLY to others that say that we, the Israelis Jews, are racists hence we don’t allow intermarriage. In this case I remind people that the reverse is worse, meaning, while we are tolerant to the intermarriage among us, the Muslims are not tolerant at all. When people will start to tell the truth, I promise you I will not reply.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 5, 2014, 7:42 am

        “In this case I remind people that the reverse is worse, meaning, while we are tolerant to the intermarriage among us, the Muslims are not tolerant at all.”

        And you are blind to the fact that this supposed “tolerance” on your part and “intolerance” on theirs fails utterly to take into account the power imbalance favoring the Jews and the racism directed toward the Muslims, in general.

  8. karima
    karima
    February 2, 2014, 7:31 pm
  9. RJL
    RJL
    February 2, 2014, 8:11 pm

    Want a taste of something different? Check out the REAL story of Sodastream on one of several really Jewish sites-you can suffer it too, Annie. The 33% Palestinians who work there get = pay, and want the factory to remain exactly where it is. Like the Rami Levi supermarket in the Gush Etzion area, where Jews and arabs alike work and shop. Try Vos Iz Neias for some of your “zio” story, with pictures, and then tell me, “sucker”, who is telling the truth, and who is lying. If you can stomach a picture that undoes your version. If not, try something fizzy.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      February 5, 2014, 4:16 am

      Want a taste of something different? Check out the REAL story of Sodastream on one of several really Jewish sites

      Okay, here’s a Jewish site that tells the REAL story: Larry Derfner, “The cynical use of Palestinian workers in the SodaStream controversy”. http://acfgw.972mag.com/larryd/

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      February 5, 2014, 7:07 am

      “The 33% Palestinians who work there… want the factory to remain exactly where it is.”

      Well of course they do. The Jewish state systematically, and with malice aforethought, destroyed the Palestinians’ economy and these workers’ economic future, subjecting them to predation by israeli companies looking to amass wealth at the expense of Palestinian labor. You have given them the choice of either become a source of cheap labor for the zios or watch your kids starve, they choose the factory. Only a sociopath would think that this somehow shows the beneficence of the devils who destroyed that economy and made the choice an issue.

  10. schlemiel
    schlemiel
    February 2, 2014, 11:03 pm

    Roger Waters’ pompousness is legendary. This would seem to prove it.

    I’m sorry his adolescent keening is being ignored by Neil Young, but to answer his silly question, the question this website sees fit to put in the teaser for some strange reason: Yes, they do have the right to vote. Whenever the P.A. holds elections.

    I wouldn’t expect a preening celebrity to understand these distinctions, but any website concerned with presenting a modicum of objectivity instead of just rote advocacy would mention it.

    • tree
      tree
      February 3, 2014, 12:11 am

      Yes, they do have the right to vote. Whenever the P.A. holds elections.

      But not the right to vote for the government that ultimately controls their lives, Israel. They might be able to select who gets to collect the trash, or write the parking tickets, whether Fatah or Hamas or some other party, but they don’t get to vote to end their occupation by Israel, and that’s the problem in a nutshell.

    • February 3, 2014, 5:42 am

      That is exactly the problem. The partisans have no logic on their side. They are uniformly irrational. They transform every criticism into a question with a different meaning and context. Usually an over simplified question which can be answered without criticizing Israel. Then they indirectly or directly label the questioner as an imbecile. But what they have failed to grasp is that many of these people are not stupid and are not intimidated, they are merely polite. Intelligent people have been watching this silly Israeli game for years, as Israel excused its crimes as trivia, and we are now ready to inflict serious discipline on Israel. The tipping point is drawing nigh. Israel needs to learn some manners. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/opinion/israel-needs-to-learn-some-manners.html?_r=0

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 7:29 am

        It’s so interesting when they wheel out the big hitters of Zionism- Netanyahu, Lieberman , Danon and they just repeat the same garbage that we have destroyed here. They have no fresh material.

        BDS is so insidious. It weaves rings around them.

  11. Sammar
    Sammar
    February 3, 2014, 12:36 am

    “Yes, they do have the right to vote. Whenever the P.A. holds elections.”

    Sure, in theory. In practice, they are often prevented from even reaching the polling places.
    And it is the IOF who prevent them, not the PA forces. I don’t know if shemiel is a celebrity but he should understand the distinction. And if he had a modicum of objectivity instead of just rote hasbara he would mention it.

  12. mondonut
    mondonut
    February 3, 2014, 1:09 am

    Do they have the right to vote?
    Yes, They have the opportunity to vote in any election the Palestinians choose to schedule.
    Do they have access to the roads?
    Mostly yes. However, there are roads that for security reasosn are Israeli only.
    Can they travel to their work place without waiting for hours to pass through the occupying forces control barriers?
    Probably yes. Is there some eveidence that every Palestinian Sodastream worker waits for hours every day at roadblocks? I doubt it.
    Do they have clean drinking water?
    Yes
    Do they have sanitation?
    Yes
    Do they have citizenship?
    Palestinian citizenship? Who knows? Ask the Palestinians.
    Do they have the right not to have the standard issue kicking in their door in the middle of the night and taking their children away?
    Has this actually happened to any Sodastream worker? Or is this just more hyperbole?
    Do they have the right to appeal against arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment?
    Typically yes.
    Do they have the right to re-occupy the property and homes they owned before 1948?
    I doubt any Sodastream worker owned property anywhere in 1948.
    Do they have the right to an ordinary, decent human family life?
    Yes. Decent jobs provide for decent family life.
    Do they have the right to self determination?
    Yes, but no more than the Israelis.
    Do they have the right to continue to develop a cultural life that is ancient and profound?
    Yes.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      February 3, 2014, 5:16 am

      @nut

      Are you still denying the findings of all mainstream NGOs and the UN, that IDF goons systematically abuse Palestinian children?

      Yes, They have the opportunity to vote in any election the Palestinians choose to schedule.

      Which is irrelevant since it’s Israel that controls their lives.

      Mostly yes. However, there are roads that for security reasosn are Israeli only.

      Wrong. Israel has no legitimate security reasons. The Apartheid Wall annexes Palestinian land. The ‘security’ apparatus is there to protect the Jewish colonists stealing Palestinian land. I suppose in a way, thieves need security.

      The reason Palestinians do not have access to the effectively, Jewish-only roads, is because Israel wants to separate the two peoples since Jews are ruling over non-Jews.

      Probably yes. Is there some eveidence that every Palestinian Sodastream worker waits for hours every day at roadblocks? I doubt it.

      Palestinians regularly wait hours at checkpoints and roadblocks. Denying this is just sheer stupidity and hatefulness. Nothing beyond the pale for a cultist freakshow like yourself.

      Yes.

      No. Israel steals Palestinian water. Once again, your mentality is similar to that of a Holocaust Denier.

      Yes.

      Prove that Palestinians in the OPT have comparable sanitation services to the illegal Jewish colonists.

      Palestinian citizenship? Who knows? Ask the Palestinians.

      You saw fit to speak for the Palestinians thus far, but duck out of this question. Palestinians are under Jewish rule without the right to vote and without any rights in a Jewish supremacist State. Of course they have no citizenship. They won’t until you thieves leave.

      Has this actually happened to any Sodastream worker? Or is this just more hyperbole?

      This happens to Palestinians regularly. It is likely it’s happened to a SodaStream worker. Once again, you’re no different from a Holocaust Denier.

      Typically yes.

      Obviously not, but if they ever did then nothing has come of such arbitration. Israel routinely detains Palestinians and does so w/ impunity. Once again, you’re no different from a Holocaust Denier.

      I doubt any Sodastream worker owned property anywhere in 1948.

      I doubt any Jew alive today has any connection to the mythological Jewish kingdom from a zillion years ago. No Jew alive today is an Israelite descendant. No Jew alive today is indigenous to that ancient Jewish kingdom.

      And yet, Jewish terrorists and colonists uprooted and stole the land of the Palestinian people who were certainly there in Historic Palestine in much larger numbers than the small Jewish minority.

      Do they have the right to an ordinary, decent human family life?

      Decent life – no. Ordinary – no.

      There’s one SodaStream factory in the OPT afaik. That factory pays the Palestinians well, but this benefit only applies if the context of the occupation, apartheid, and Jewish colonialism are all removed.

      It’s selfish – but human nature – of the workers to continue to work there in the sense that this is more apartheid and colonialism for the people who do not work there. The workers aren’t exempt from the other mechanisms of Jewish rule, but they get some economic relief here.

      Yes, but no more than the Israelis.

      Palestinians’ right of return has not been recognized. They are routinely being ethnically cleansed from their homeland. They are killed at a ratio of 10 to 1 for children alone.

      So no, they apparently do not have a right to self-determination because Jewish terrorists like yourself deny them this basic right.

      Yes.

      If this were true, then in America, the organized Jewish community would not boycott a Palestinian CHILDREN’S art exhibit.

      That is how much you hate non-Jews that you are in competition for, for land and resources.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 3, 2014, 8:19 am

        Do they have access to the roads?
        Mostly yes. However, there are roads that for security reasosn are Israeli only.
        Note he doesn’t say Jewish. Why would roads be for Jews only outside Israel? Are there any Jew only roads where you are, Cliff ?

        Can they travel to their work place without waiting for hours to pass through the occupying forces control barriers?
        Probably yes. Is there some eveidence that every Palestinian Sodastream worker waits for hours every day at roadblocks? I doubt it.

        Classic hasbara. Why are there roadblocks is of course the question.
        Any roadblocks where you are Cliff ?

        Do they have citizenship?
        Palestinian citizenship? Who knows? Ask the Palestinians.

        Israel knows. Palestine does not exist so they don’t have citizenship/
        the question is of course why they don’t have Israeli citizenship.

        Do they have the right not to have the standard issue kicking in their door in the middle of the night and taking their children away?
        Has this actually happened to any Sodastream worker? Or is this just more hyperbole?
        another classic. Mondonut won’t admit that this is default practice so he just throws out another rhetorical dead end

        Do they have the right to appeal against arbitrary and indefinite imprisonment?
        Typically yes.

        Bullshit

        Do they have the right to re-occupy the property and homes they owned before 1948?
        I doubt any Sodastream worker owned property anywhere in 1948..
        Double standards

        Hasbaradim are insufferable hypocrites

    • talknic
      talknic
      February 3, 2014, 9:22 am

      @ mondonut // Do they have access to the roads?//

      “Mostly yes. However, there are roads that for security reasosn are Israeli only”

      It is prohibited under International Law for Israeli civilians, be they Jewish or non-Jewish to be in territories under Israeli occupation. That’s the ONLY fact one needs to know.

      IOW Israel Israel is obliged to REMOVE all its civilians out of all non Israeli territory. Quite simple really

  13. February 3, 2014, 5:21 am

    Reading those words by Roger makes me proud to be British. Roger is worlds most famous person who speaks the truth about Israel and their oppression of the Palestinians. His outspoken position sheds a light on the dramatic suppression and absence of such accurate accounts in the US media. However, if you read Max Blumenthal’s new book GOLIATH you will see the depth and cruelty of the Israeli treatment of their non-Jewish citizens and neighbors. It is stunning that Israel has been able to get away with so many outrages for so many years. Such is the power of the Israeli lobby and their Jewish supporters. Of course not all jews support them and they have other supporters who are not Jewish.

  14. giladg
    giladg
    February 3, 2014, 10:15 am

    The Palestinians workers at Sodastream did vote. They voted for Hamas in the West Bank. They and nearly 70% of Arab Palestinians voted for a terrorist organization.
    If some democracies pride themselves on extracting legal justice on those who do not perform, this was not even allowed to happen with Hamas in the West Bank because the dictator president Abbas declared that even though Hamas won the elections, they would not be allowed to take control of the West Bank and show the real face of the Palestinians. Instead, with the help of the US, democratic values were thrown out the window so that Abbas could remain the pretty face in the Palestinian shop window. Just what the #%$k are you talking about Mr. Waters?

  15. kalithea
    kalithea
    February 3, 2014, 7:35 pm

    Neil Young rightly supports Canada’s First Nations with his Honor the Treaties benefit concerts to fight the rape of their land with oil/tar sands exploitation and pipelines, standing up to the Harper Government and big oil, and now he’s going to stoop to take money from Zionist colonialists running an Apartheid system on Palestinian land and carrying out the longest occupation of other people and their land in modern history?

    Stunning contradiction. I’m asking Neil Young to look into his heart and recognize the suffering inflicted by Zionists on Palestinians as an intolerable injustice that deserves the same support he’s offering native people in Canada. Please do not entertain the masters of oppression and Apartheid with a concert and cancel.

  16. crypticvalentin
    crypticvalentin
    February 3, 2014, 11:12 pm

    this is great but when you’re 70, you might be a little bit out touch with the social mores of the time, an editor could have told you, don’t describe Scarlett J as ‘cute’..

  17. talknic
    talknic
    February 4, 2014, 1:35 am

    HIGHJACK ALERT !!! MahaneYehude1

    Marriage laws are irrelevant to the Soda Stream issue in illegally settled Occupied Territories.

  18. jayn0t
    jayn0t
    February 4, 2014, 12:08 pm

    According to the Guardian, Roger Waters is “sexist”, because he wrote “Scarlett, you are undeniably cute” but didn’t say the same thing to Neil Young.
    http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2014/feb/04/roger-waters-scarlett-johansson-sodastream-israel-palestine

Leave a Reply