Trending Topics:

D.C. scribes party with red wine, vinyl, and image of a terrorist

Israel/Palestine
on 72 Comments
Eli Lake wearing Menachem Begin t-shirt

Eli Lake wearing Menachem Begin t-shirt

Last week Rosie Gray of Buzzfeed tweeted the photograph above of four American journalists partying with red wine and vinyl: (from left) Jamie Kirchick, Eli Lake, Rosie Gray, and Liz Wahl, the RT anchor who resigned on-air.

In the discussion on twitter, lots of folks pointed out that Lake wears a t-shirt with the image of rightwing Israeli PM and terrorist Menachem Begin. Noah Pollak of the Emergency Committee for Israel said he bought it for Lake in Israel. (Neoconservatives look out for one another.)

The terrorist bona fides? Begin (1913-1992) was prime minister of Israel in the 70s and 80s, but during the 1940s he was a leader of the Jewish terrorist group the Irgun. In his book The Revolt, Begin takes credit for two famous massacres of civilians: the bombing of the King David Hotel in July 1946 and the Deir Yassin attack of April 1948.

The King David Hotel bombing killed 91 people, including many British officers and Jewish and Palestinian civilians. Benny Morris, a pro-Israel historian, writes in the book 1948:

“The… explosion, which brought down one of the hotel’s wings, was the single biggest terrorist outrage in the organization’s history. The IZL [Irgun] subsequently claimed that it had given the British ample warning but that they had failed to evacuate the building; the British maintained that no adequate warning had been given.”

In his book The Revolt, Begin explains that he was shocked by the human cost of the massive bombing but attests his innocence of murder because warnings went out– 25 minutes before the bombing.

“[I]t is clear that we did all we could to ensure the early and complete evacuation of the hotel; that the warnings were given and received in time by the authorities; that they had time enough to evacuate the hotel twice over; that somebody, for some dark purpose, or because he had lost his head, or to protect a spurious prestige, ordered that the hotel should not be evacuated.”

In the Deir Yassin case, the Irgun captured a Palestinian village west of Jerusalem in an event that epitomizes the Nakba to this day. Morris says that 100-120 villagers were killed in the assault on the town, and a number of women and girls were raped.

“The conquest of the village was carried out with great cruelty. Whole families–women, old people, children–were killed… Some of the prisoners moved to places of detention, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors,” Morris quotes the statement of a Haganah Intelligence Service commander. “The atrocities were condemned by the Jewish Agency, the Haganah command, and the Yishuv’s two chief rabbis,” Morris relates.

Once again, Menachem Begin stated that the victims were warned.

“One of our tenders carrying a loud speaker was stationed at the entrance to the village and it exhorted in Arabic all women, children and aged to leave their houses and to take shelter on the slope of the hill. By giving this humane warning our fighters threw away the element of complete surprise, and thus increased their own risk in the ensuing battle…. Our men were compelled to fight for every house; to overcome the enemy they used large numbers of hand-grenades. And the civilians who had disregarded our warnings, suffered inevitable casualties.”

Begin says many lies were told about Deir Yassin, but that stories of Deir Yassin helped the Jewish forces in the end.

“In the result it helped us. Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel… [T]he Arabs began to flee in terror, even before they clashed with Jewish forces… [W]hat was invented about Dir Yassin, helped to carve the way to our decisive victories on the battlefield.”

Historian Shira Robinson notes that David Ben-Gurion was thankful to the Irgun for the massacre. He later said, “If we didn’t have Dayr Yasin, we would be a minority in this country.”

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

72 Responses

  1. Krauss
    Krauss
    March 25, 2014, 10:34 am

    To have Begin on your T-shirt is like to having David Duke on your T-shirt.

    Actually, scratch that. That’s an unfair comparison to Duke, who, to my knowledge, has not carried out mass atrocities(not that I doubt that he would if given the chance like Begin).

    But once again, the real shock is how a prominent MSM journalist can get away with a T-shirt like this. It proves, once more, that there is an enormous amount of slack given to Jewish racists within our establishment the way there isn’t for any other ethnic group.

    Even blacks, whom white liberals agonize over a great deal(sometimes with genuine affection, sometimes for show), aren’t allowed to celebrate people like Jeremiah Wright, who is hardly free of racism, but doesn’t even come close to Begin’s murderous rampages.

    Zionism is breaking out these hidden reservoirs of racism inside the American establishment that for a long time were forbidden to trespass, because the only critics in the elites who were capable of doing so were whites, who had their own magnitude of racial baggage and thus bigots inside my community could shield themselves by playing this domestic aspect up(and if need be, just invoke the Holocaust, which was pretty effective for way too long in the post-war era).

    In our new multi-ethnic era, these reservoirs are becoming visible and bigots like Lake or Pollak are finally held accountable.

    But we should also ask ourselves, how would the reaction be if Lake came with that T-shirt to an establishment party filled with “liberal” Zionists? Would they really protest? Maybe arch their eyebrow at most but most likely not react in horror, which they would if the neocon had come with a picture of Duke or Rev. Wright or Farrakhan on it.

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride
      March 25, 2014, 11:34 am

      Krauss,

      To have Begin on your T-shirt is like to having David Duke on your T-shirt.

      Actually, scratch that. That’s an unfair comparison to Duke, who, to my knowledge, has not carried out mass atrocities(not that I doubt that he would if given the chance like Begin).

      This is the truth: white nationalists like David Duke are much less extreme in their ethnic nationalist (and racialist/racist) views than mainstream pro-Israel activists and Israeli government leaders, who enjoy the full support of the Jewish establishment.

      When are Americans and Europeans going to begin to notice this bizarre situation?

      Zionism at its ideological core is radically in conflict with fundamental American and modern Western democratic values.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        March 25, 2014, 11:41 am

        “This is the truth: white nationalists like David Duke are much less extreme in their ethnic nationalist (and racialist/racist) views than mainstream pro-Israel activists ”

        This is the truth: comparing David Duke and Menachem Begin is a game for stupid people. Different people, different places, different contexts, different ideologies.

        Begin believed in self-determination for the Jewish people. Duke believes in persecuting the Jewish people. Comparing the two . . . it’s another of the self-discrediting arguments that are common currency here.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 25, 2014, 12:08 pm

        “This is the truth: comparing David Duke and Menachem Begin is a game for stupid people. Different people, different places, different contexts, different ideologies.”

        One’s a Jew, one’s not, so we know which one you’ll be defending, don’t we, hoppy.

        “Begin believed in self-determination for the Jewish people. Duke believes in persecuting the Jewish people. Comparing the two . . .”

        LMAO. You could just as simply (and truthfully) said “Begin believed in persecuting Palestinian people. Duke believes in persecuting Jewish people. Comparing the two… is appropriate.” But then you wouldn’t be providing your usual service, would you, hoppy.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        March 25, 2014, 12:27 pm

        hophmi,

        You, like Menachem Begin, Eli Lake and Jamie Kirchick, are a Jewish nationalist — you have organized your politics around promoting your narrow ethnic nationalist interests. On what logically consistent ethical and moral grounds can you possibly object to members of all other ethnic groups from emulating your behavior?

        Do all ethnic groups get to play? If not, why not?

        Do some ethnic groups enjoy special privileges on these matters that can’t be explained on rational grounds? Perhaps the Bible can be used as a mystical pretext to go whole hog on one’s own ethnic nationalism while condemning the ethnic nationalism of others?

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        March 25, 2014, 12:56 pm

        Your right they are different begin was a terrorist who believed in the made up right of jewish self determination to steal Palestine. Duke was just a bigoted thug

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 25, 2014, 1:01 pm

        “Begin believed in self-determination for the Jewish people. Duke believes in persecuting the Jewish people. Comparing the two ..”

        Hophmi once again inadvertently shoots himself in the foot. Begin believed in the self-determination of the Jewish people by denying the self-determination of the Palestinians. For hophmi, the comparison with Duke is only relevant in that it involves what they thought about Jews–not what they thought about human rights in general, where Duke and Begin were /are both tribalists.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        March 25, 2014, 1:50 pm

        Donald wrote:

        For hophmi, the comparison with Duke is only relevant in that it involves what they thought about Jews–not what they thought about human rights in general, where Duke and Begin were /are both tribalists.

        The pre-Enlightenment mindset of many ethnic and religious nationalists is unable to look at the world through an objective and fair-minded lens, applying universal ethical and moral standards to all peoples. Everything for them is filtered through a narrow, warped and self-interested agenda.

        Many Zionists have no problem rationalizing their outrageous double standards and hypocrisy on ethnic and religious nationalism — they have been heavily indoctrinated with a culture that promotes self-deception and self-hypnosis. Don’t even bother trying to reason with them — it’s like banging your head on a concrete wall. They comprise a chauvinistic and xenophobic cult. They live in a bubble.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        March 25, 2014, 4:15 pm

        “For hophmi, the comparison with Duke is only relevant in that it involves what they thought about Jews–not what they thought about human rights in general, where Duke and Begin were /are both tribalists.”

        The comparison isn’t relevant at all, unless you’re a neo-Nazi with a guilt complex. Duke is a neo-Nazi in a huge country that has long had a multiracial and multiethnic history, and where white people face no threat whatsoever.

        Begin was an activist for Jewish self-determination in a community of Holocaust survivors and assorted refugees where Jews were attacked almost from the moment they evinced any collective political consciousness by a competing nationalist grouping that was more exclusionary than he was. When Begin was Prime Minister, he made peace with Egypt and gave back the Sinai desert. His conflict is a national one, not a racial or ethnic one. His country is the most diverse in the region.

        The two are not remotely similar, not in thought, not in context, not in action, not in background, and not in accomplishment.

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 26, 2014, 11:44 am

        “His conflict is a national one, not a racial or ethnic one. His country is the most diverse in the region”

        Irrelevant. People can be bigoted in various ways–by nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, you name it. Begin cared about the group called “Jews” and not about the group called “Arabs”, so he was cavalier about killing members of the latter.

        Duke and Begin share a common tribalist attitude towards human rights. How they define their tribe is different.

      • tree
        tree
        March 25, 2014, 3:07 pm

        Most people tend to limit the discussion of Begin’s terrorist credentials to the King David Hotel bombing and the attack on Deir Yassin. However, although they both involved a large number of civilians killed, they were but a small part of the numerous terrorist actions that the Irgun committed, starting in the late 1930’s.

        Here’s a small sampling of some of the Irgun’s terrorism in the late 1930’s:

        1938, June 26 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa. [14]
        1938, June 27 1 Arab was killed in the yard of a hospital in Haifa. [14]
        1938, June (late) Unspecified number of Arabs killed by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Jerusalem. [15]
        1938, July 5 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel Aviv. [14]
        1938, July 5 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem. [14]
        1938, July 5 1 Arab was killed in another attack in Jerusalem. [14]
        1938, July 6 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab melon market in Haifa. More than 60 people were wounded. [14][16][17]
        1938, July 8 4 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jerusalem. [14]
        1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [14]
        1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][18]
        1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa. [14]
        1939, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem. [19]
        1939, May 2 9 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem.
        1939, June 2 5 Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem. [14][20]
        1939, June 12 1 British bomb expert trying to defuse the bombs killed, during a post office in Jerusalem was bombing [14]
        1939, June 16 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Jerusalem. [14]
        1939, June 19 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][21]
        1939, June 29 13 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks around Jaffa during a one-hour period. [14][22]
        1939, June 30 1 Arab was killed at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [14]
        1939, June 30 2 Arabs were shot and killed in Lifta. [14]
        1939, July 3 1 Arab was killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [14][23]
        1939, July 4 2 Arabs were killed in two attacks in Jerusalem.

        More at source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

        More than 250 people were killed by the Irgun in the two and a half years between March 1937 and September, 1939, the majority of them civilians, and a large portion of those civilians were indiscriminately killed by bombs planted in Arab markets. The Irgun has been credited with the first successful use of the car bomb, as well as the first successful use of the letter bomb.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 25, 2014, 3:56 pm

        But, tree, most of those on your list were just Arabs. Killing Arabs hardly counts as terrorism, does it?

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        March 25, 2014, 10:47 pm

        How they conveniently forget. The hypocrisy is so obvious. Israel calls every Palestinian they kill, a threat, and more often a “terrorist”, even little boys.
        The recent killing of Jordanian judge was first justified as a terrorist being killed, and that he attacked the poor (armed) soldier, then the story changed, and we heard the usual false apology by Bibi Netanyahu, saying he regretted the killing. Let us not forget Ariel Sharon and his notoriety for being a butcher and that Sharon’s career was built on massacres–from Qibya in 1953, to Sabra and Shatila in 1982, to Jenin in 2002.
        If it is an Israeli, they will treat him like a lovable scamp, all others will be branded a terrorist.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 25, 2014, 11:24 pm

        @tree —

        Most of what you are listing is from the ’36-39 Arab revolt. Both sides were targeting each other’s civilian population. The Palestinians engaged in attacks to stop Jewish migration. The Jews ignored this during 1936. In 1937 they abandoned classical colonial aspirations then decided to to hit back hard enough so as to fundamentally alter Palestinian society so that they would be unable to engage in military coordination. One of the major steps towards the Nabka though the actual cleanings wouldn’t happen for another decade. The marketplace bombings were part of undermine social structures where people met to trade information. That’s taking out a communication system. Terrorism would be a few marketplace bombings, destroying mass meeting in marketplaces for a society is war.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 26, 2014, 1:46 am

        Tree

        I presume all of those Arabs were actually Palestinian.

      • kalithea
        kalithea
        March 25, 2014, 11:18 pm

        Why is there censorship for clear-minded, genuine thinkers who dare to ask questions like: what constitutes a selfless Jew, for instance? and free speech for those who believe that self-determination for any people, never mind the Jewish people, at the expense of destruction of life and property, ethnic cleansing and brutal occupation is something noble to be admired?

        And to allow this injustice as well in regards to free speech is to further delay justice, because when one is discussing the topic of the endless suffering of human beings at the hands of others, one should exercise the highest integrity in this context. How can the dichotomy presented by this individual hopmi exist in the conscience of anyone pretending integrity? You can’t feel some common ground with this individual and then also embrace the righteous view; you can’t have such a contradiction if you want to effect change. There can be not the slightest duplicity in this context of human suffering. There can be no acceptable past or present justification for the injustice that Zionism generates, and this fact must be clear in everyone’s mind, because then it’s like saying, one great tragedy justifies another. You can’t do that if you want to evolve the consciousness of humanity.

        it’s another of the self-discrediting arguments that are common currency here

        When I read this kind of hubris; I think, this individual senses weakness, like a shark smells blood in the water and kind of like an abuser senses low self-esteem. If he sensed unquestionable integrity; he would fly off in other direction and use this guilt trip on someone else.

        Can someone explain the following to me? How does an individual like hopmi further the cause of alleviating the suffering of others and working on behalf of justice and human rights? It seems to me that such an individual pulls everyone and the discussion into his dark space, his limited consciousness when what we should be doing is trying to elevate the discussion to an ever-higher level of enlightenment, honesty and self-awareness in the Jewish context that might encourage others to do the same and therefore provoke real change to end this hopeless situation.

        Individuals like hopmi are here to keep everyone exactly at the status quo, because he really doesn’t present a challenge; he really doesn’t further the consciousness of Jews in any way. All he does is make other, more Liberal Jews or Zionists feel good about themselves. Oh, look at him; we’re so much better than that! He certainly isn’t around here to challenge self-awareness and encourage progress on the issue discussed here.

        Must the discussion continuously be dragged into the gutter-level of defensiveness against such ignorant hubris? Isn’t it time to stop defending the righteous viewpoint with individuals who don’t even come close to wanting to embrace it, unless of course the discussion hasn’t achieved that level yet because a shadow of dishonesty still prevails, which would explain why this cause moves so slowly and why this type of individual is drawn to this site.

        I would imagine that we should have reached the stage where we no longer have to justify anything to these hasbarist characters, when we can kiss the hasbara goodbye and start embracing the challenging discussions necessary to provoke real change.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 26, 2014, 8:15 am

        @ hophmi
        Why don’t you show some link evidence to support your claim that Duke believes in persecuting the Jewish people, as distinguished from being a self-proclaimed advocate for White Christian Americans?

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        March 25, 2014, 11:51 am

        “Historian Shira Robinson notes that David Ben-Gurion was thankful to the Irgun for the massacre. He later said, “If we didn’t have Dayr Yasin, we would be a minority in this country.””

        Total and complete nonsense for which there is zero support. There is no evidence that Ben-Gurion was thankful for the massacre, and even Robinson admits that right after Ben-Gurion was alleged to have said this, he distanced himself from the massacre. He also apologized to King Abdullah for it, and used it to try and keep the Irgun out of the government.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 25, 2014, 12:11 pm

        Except, no, you’re wrong, as usual hoppy:

        Q. You quote a line about Dayr Yasin from Ben Gurion– If we didn’t have Dayr Yasin, we would be a minority in this country. For me that’s a smoking gun.

        A: To be fair, in the next line of that passage from the Knesset transcript — which I don’t quote — he says of course the Haganah didn’t carry out Dayr Yasin, that was the Irgun and the Stern Gang [two more radical militias that split from the Haganah in the years prior to the war], not us. I don’t quote it for two reasons. One, Ben Gurion’s attempt to distance himself from the massacre is undermined by evidence that the Haganah approved of the attack on the village in advance. Two, which is more important, he is still acknowledging the way in which the Jewish public profited profoundly from the massacre. And in that sense you can say he’s directly or indirectly endorsing the results of it.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        March 25, 2014, 4:19 pm

        Robinson’s own interpretation is not support for the general statement that Ben-Gurion was “thankful” for Deir Yassin.

        Neither does it substantiate the statement, which has not been provided here.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        March 25, 2014, 12:57 pm

        So israel didn’t name roads after him? Oh wait they did. The applaud him as a national hero

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 25, 2014, 1:03 pm

        “There is no evidence that Ben-Gurion was thankful for the massacre, and even Robinson admits that right after Ben-Gurion was alleged to have said this, he distanced himself from the massacre. He also apologized to King Abdullah for it, and used it to try and keep the Irgun out of the government.”

        None of which disproves that Ben-Gurion was thankful for the massacre. There were many Zionist massacres in 48 and many more afterwards and they were necessary for the existence of a Jewish state.

      • amigo
        amigo
        March 25, 2014, 4:10 pm

        “He also apologized to King Abdullah for it, and used it to try and keep the Irgun out of the government.”Gullible Hopknee

        And you believe a lying zionist war monger.Zionists also kept Lehi terrorists out of the Government but later issued the Lehi Ribbon in honor of those Jewish terroreeests.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 25, 2014, 11:58 am

        It’s like having Charlie Manson or Jeff Dahmer on a tshirt .

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        March 25, 2014, 2:24 pm

        seafoid,

        It’s like having Charlie Manson or Jeff Dahmer on a tshirt.

        According to Albert Einstein, it’s like wearing an Adolf Hitler t-shirt:

        In November 1948, Begin visited the US on a campaigning trip. During his visit, a letter signed by Albert Einstein, Sidney Hook, Hannah Arendt, and other prominent Americans and several rabbis was published which described Begin’s Herut party as “closely akin in its organization, methods, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties” and accused his group (along with the smaller, militant, Stern Gang) of preaching “racial superiority” and having “inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community”.

        [Wikipedia; Menachem Begin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin ]

      • Krauss
        Krauss
        March 25, 2014, 5:54 pm

        Sean,

        Who should we believe? Albert Einstein or Hophmi the Jewish racist who defends one of his own(in Begin)?

        Seafoid: It’s like having Charlie Manson or Jeff Dahmer on a tshirt

        No, Begin’s crimes are on many times worse and bloodier. Plus, Manson was a psyhopath but he picked his victims by random.

        Begin was not only a much more brutal murderer, he was also a racist in his selection of his victims. Race for him was a central aspect of life, and those of an “inferior” race are targets for mass murders.

        No wonder why Albert Einstein compared him and his party to the Nazi party. Same mindset, even if the crimes pales in comparison. Racial dominance is the mission and violence is the primary mechanism to achieve this aim.

        Also, just to re-reemphasize the shocking aspect… a MSM journalist celebrates one of the leaders of this murderously racist ideology and gets away with it?

      • kalithea
        kalithea
        March 26, 2014, 12:01 am

        racial superiority

        Yes, that is what Zionism is really about, isn’t it? In order to defeat Zionism, one must stop allowing the past to prejudice or manipulate one’s conscience and definitely have to quit with tribal thinking.

        What one must honestly do is weigh the pain that Zionism causes against the status of Jews in the Diaspora today and ask: Is this worth it? Because if one clings to the notion of Jewish suffering in the past instead of Palestinian suffering in the present, when the present status of Jews now couldn’t be better and further from a by-gone reality, then one is a hypocrite and can never advance this cause; and the cause will forever be mired in that inability to move forward. Other people will then increasingly recognize that staggering hypocrisy and resent it more and more and so a threat then emerges for Jews not Zionists if one should distinguish, for Jews will begin to suffer serious consequences to their reputation for the crimes that Zionism generates.

        But then in a better world, the motivation to defeat Zionism i.e. supremacy should be compassion for others and that is what defeats all forms of supremacist ideology – selflessness and compassion for others and not a concern for the reputation of one’s tribe. That approach won’t work, because it won’t be sufficient to provoke the real revolution that’s required to bring down a power-based ideology. Power/control is a magnet for resistance to change and without change Zionism wins, the Palestinians are doomed and Jews will increasingly be put under the microscope for their impotence to end injustice generated on their behalf.

  2. Philip Munger
    Philip Munger
    March 25, 2014, 10:45 am

    First encountered that image last week (March 19th) in the article by Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal which revealed a lot of meddling and background support by James Kirchick in the run-up to Liz Wahl’s on-air resignation on RT.

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/how_cold_war-hungry_neocons_stage_managed_liz_wahls_resignation_20140319

    Of note re Max and Rania’s article is that it seems to be at least part of the basis of an article published Monday in The Tablet, written by Liel Leibovitz, titled Jamie Kirchick for Abe Foxman!

    Dear Anti-Defamation League new National Director search committee members,

    I am writing to inform you that you may now stop looking. I’ve found your man: the next Abe Foxman must be Jamie Kirchick.

    Further down:

    Which bring me to Kirchick’s second qualification for the job. This being the 21st Century—the fact is sometimes lost on Jewish organizations—it’s best to give the helm to someone who knows how public discourse unfurls these days. Often, it unfurls online, on Twitter, in interconnected ways that can grow from 140 characters to front-page news within hours. For evidence of Kirchick’s mastery of this new media ninjitsu, google Liz Wahl: by advising the RT anchor to listen to her conscience and quit the benighted broadcasting operation, and by showcasing Wahl’s decision on various platforms soon after she herself announced it on the air, Kirchick delivered a fiery, focused, and proactive campaign.

    And you, dear ADL, are going to need more and more of those to thrive. You’re going to need someone who can deliver the fight to the doorsteps of the biased and the vile. [emphasis added]

    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/167160/jamie-kirchick-for-abe-Foxman

  3. talknic
    talknic
    March 25, 2014, 10:46 am

    Lemme see now…

    They say they warned the Brits to vacate the hotel. But the Brits didn’t vacate the hotel.

    So they bombed it anyway.

  4. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    March 25, 2014, 10:47 am

    And vinyl?

    • MRW
      MRW
      March 25, 2014, 11:02 am

      Lake’s media player to match his midriff and mindset.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        March 25, 2014, 1:43 pm

        Now don’t knock vinyl – it can sound better than CD, but it won’t on that budget turntable.

  5. amigo
    amigo
    March 25, 2014, 10:49 am

    “By giving this humane warning our fighters threw away the element of complete surprise, and thus increased their own risk in the ensuing battle…” Menachem ,war criminal Begin.

    How often do we hear this claim that Israel,s brave heroes announce out loud there intention to attack.Is that why they always attack refugee camps circa 2am.

    Not one word of truth can be expected from these slime.

    Zionism does not do Humane.

  6. eljay
    eljay
    March 25, 2014, 10:57 am

    “[I]t is clear that we did all we could to ensure the early and complete evacuation of the hotel; that the warnings were given and received in time by the authorities; that they had time enough to evacuate the hotel twice over; that somebody, for some dark purpose, or because he had lost his head, or to protect a spurious prestige, ordered that the hotel should not be evacuated.”

    It’s funny how, in the mind of a Zio-supremacist, the “dark purpose” is not the Jewish terrorist bombing of the hotel and the resulting devastation and carnage caused by the Jewish terrorist bombing of the hotel, but the refusal of the people in charge of the hotel to be intimidated by Jewish terrorism.

    One can be 100% certain that the blame would be reversed if the terrorist were a Palestinian suicide bomber and the target were a Tel Aviv pizzeria whose owner refused to evacuate the premises.

    “One of our tenders carrying a loud speaker was stationed at the entrance to the village and it exhorted in Arabic all women, children and aged to leave their houses and to take shelter on the slope of the hill. By giving this humane warning our fighters threw away the element of complete surprise, and thus increased their own risk in the ensuing battle…. Our men were compelled to fight for every house; to overcome the enemy they used large numbers of hand-grenades. And the civilians who had disregarded our warnings, suffered inevitable casualties.”

    Poor Zio-supremacists, “compelled to fight for every house” they wanted to steal, and forced to use “large numbers of hand-grenades” to slaughter the civilians who refused to let their homes be taken from them. :-(

    Historian Shira Robinson notes that David Ben-Gurion was thankful to the Irgun for the massacre. He later said, “If we didn’t have Dayr Yasin, we would be a minority in this country.”

    In the immortal words of “liberal Zionist” RW:

    The nakba that occurred in 1948 was accompanied by the independence, the liberation, of the Jewish community. So, I primarily celebrate …

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      March 25, 2014, 11:21 am

      Great comment, eljay.

    • pabelmont
      pabelmont
      March 25, 2014, 12:03 pm

      The BAD is not the terrorist act itself (especially after the alleged warning) “but the refusal of the people in charge of the hotel to be intimidated by Jewish terrorism.”

      Well, not exactly. It is the FACT that the failure of the Brits to evacuate the hotel might (in some eyes) have made the terrorists look bad, just as if (as some commentators surmise above) no advance warning had actually been given at all, hem, hem. Maybe, in those early days, bringing down a building without killing human persons (Jews and English and Arabs) was a sufficient goal for terrorism and therefore the bombing needed to be made to seem like an attempt to do only that much damage. So whether or not warning was given, the post facto announcement of a ante-facto warning was needed to make the bombing conform to (some) societal norm of “OK terrorism”.

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      March 26, 2014, 12:38 am

      Supremacists never view their victims as human, and in this case, historical reference is permitted in the evidentiary sense rather than trying to milk it to justify present injustice. Supremacists justify their crimes by pretending they are doing the world a favor by neutralizing and cleansing therefore containing and ridding the world of what they estimate are inferior beings, sub-human species which they can’t bring themselves to call human. They might refer to them as animals or dregs and if they dare resist in their ghetto confinement, terrorists, shet-disturbers to be killed in a bloodbath, massacre or slow genocide.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      March 26, 2014, 1:48 am

      “If we didn’t have Dayr Yasin, we would be a minority in this country.”

      and they are a minority again

  7. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride
    March 25, 2014, 11:25 am

    The aura surrounding them — the ‘tude — is loaded. With what is the question. How to describe it? What exactly are they celebrating and gloating over?

    Hyped-up ethnic nationalism, arrogance and chauvinism seem to be part of the vibe — it’s a match for quite a few photos of wound-up Israeli settlers, particularly of the religious variety.

    Most of the current campaign to whip up hatred of and conflict with Russia is a neocon op. Exhibit A: this photo and the events surrounding it. For the neocons, it’s just one damned war after another on behalf of Israeli objectives that are often quite murky and obscure. It’s all about their innate aggression and appetite for bullying others.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      March 25, 2014, 11:39 am

      “Most of the current campaign to whip up hatred of and conflict with Russia is a neocon op”

      Yes, that’s right. Protesting Putin’s invasion of Crimea is a Zionist plot. LOL.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        March 25, 2014, 12:09 pm

        hophmi,

        For a superb analysis of the neocon role in instigating and exploiting the Ukrainian crisis, see Robert Parry’s article on Consortiumnews here:

        [What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis http://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/ ]

        “LOL” won’t be an effective rebuttal.

        There is much more:

        [Google; neoconservatives Ukraine http://www.google.com/#q=neoconservatives+Ukraine ]

        Dig in and learn.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        March 25, 2014, 4:25 pm

        Thanks and no thanks, Sean. I’ve heard this pro-Russia argument many times, including the antisemitic Elders-of-Zion version, which has the “neocons” fomenting the Ukraine crisis behind the scenes.

        I’ve heard the pro-Russia argument from plenty of sources, including Mondoweiss, which only confirms what I’ve long said, which is that, on the left, the older people involved in the pro-Palestinian movement are largely retreads from the pro-Soviet movement that acted as perpetual apologists for Soviet human rights violations and Soviet spies here in the United States, and also downplayed Soviet antisemitism and claimed that it did not exist.

        And there were plenty of assimilated Jews in that execrable movement too.

      • Keith
        Keith
        March 25, 2014, 6:32 pm

        HOPHMI- “Protesting Putin’s invasion of Crimea is a Zionist plot. LOL.”

        There appears to me to be an overwhelmingly strong correlation between support for Zionism and support for American imperialism. Your attempt at justifying the eastward expansion of NATO and the illegal coup in the Ukraine are reprehensible but predictable. And trying to characterize critics of US warmongering as “retreads from the pro-Soviet movement,” is yet another example of your profound intellectual dishonesty.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 25, 2014, 6:38 pm

        “the antisemitic Elders-of-Zion version, which has the “neocons” fomenting the Ukraine crisis behind the scenes.”
        Not behind the scenes. Victoria Nuland, officially neocon herself and married to Kagan, fcol. Telling it all in the open. Busted phone call. Acknowledged. Openly plotting a putsch to install as puppet a certain Arsenny Yatsenwatchamacallit, officially Zionist.
        Also acknowledged, busted phone call by the other whore (this one probably unjewish, relax) promising genocide to 8 mil Russians.

        “Assimilated Jews” is a deeply racist, hateful term. You mean secular people, non-tribals. Human beings. You caveman.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        March 25, 2014, 7:16 pm

        hophmi,

        How can you characterize Robert Parry’s article in an informed and persuasive way until you read it carefully and engage with it? It’s not “pro-Russian” — it’s an informed investigation into the role that neoconservatives have played in instigating the current Ukrainian crisis. These are the very same neocons who led Americans into the disastrous Iraq War and who have been pushing relentlessly to get a war with Iran underway.

        Did you bother Googling into the many articles that have been written during the last few months on the neocon angle on the Ukraine story? Generally it’s a good idea to get one’s facts in order before expressing opinions — unless one has a fetish for being repeatedly humiliated and beaten down in Internet discussion forums.

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        March 25, 2014, 7:43 pm

        hophmi,

        By the way, if you want to understand my views on core Jewish issues (issues that are much more important in my opinion than the endless Zionist/anti-Zionist squabbles), see this:

        https://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed/46994133/i-would-fight-to-death-for-phil-weiss-express-his

      • amigo
        amigo
        March 25, 2014, 1:32 pm

        “Yes, that’s right. Protesting Putin’s invasion of Crimea is a Zionist plot”

        Dead right hopknee.How could Zionists possibly condemn invasions and annexations.

        Pot/ Kettle, eh hoppy.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 26, 2014, 8:54 am

        @ seanmcbride
        I read the first page of the discussion on your friend feed site–very interesting. Does one have to join to read more there?

      • seanmcbride
        seanmcbride
        March 27, 2014, 11:08 am

        Citizen,

        I read the first page of the discussion on your friend feed site–very interesting. Does one have to join to read more there?

        You can read it without joining — and feel free to participate or even start new threads with your own original posts:

        [Mondoweiss on Friendfeed https://friendfeed.com/mondoweiss-on-friendfeed ]

        Comments appear instantly with no moderation and you are free to edit them at any time in the future.

        In no way is that site intended to compete with the great and illustrious Mondoweiss — it’s available for pursuing discussions that are off-topic for MW.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        March 26, 2014, 12:50 pm

        I have read it. It is another one of those silly pieces whereby one detail is amplified to the exclusion of many other more rational explanations in order to serve a political purpose, the purpose here being to blame the neocons for the ills of the world.

        Putin’s foreign policy has been clear since he took power. He has invaded former FSU republics before under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians. His entire foreign (and domestic) policy has always been based around re-asserting Russian power through a strong central government. He’s very much a traditional thinker with regard to Russian foreign policy, and he knows that he can argue that past Western ventures that were questionable from the standpoint of international law, like Serbia, mean that he can invade other countries to protect his interests, particularly the Ukraine, since Crimea is historically part of Russia anyway, and since its relationship to Ukraine is the product of Khrushchev’s whim. He also knows that, at the end of the day, no one is stepping in to save Crimea, especially not the EU, because Russia has become the EU’s gas station.

        Ukraine didn’t erupt into protest because the neocons pushed. They erupted into protest because Yanukovich ran a country that was already very deeply divided, and he ran it like a dictator. He threw the opposition in jail. He censored the press. And he was clearly Russia’s stooge in a country where about half the people detest the Russians.

        No one should be surprised that the Ukraine, which experienced the Orange Revolution in 2004, and has been fractious since then, erupted in protests. The notion that the neocons are responsible for the state of affairs there is beyond ridiculous, belied by hundreds of years of history, and a disservice to those Ukrainians who want out from under Russian domination.

      • kalithea
        kalithea
        March 26, 2014, 12:42 am

        Only if you believe that most neocons are Zionist, which you obviously do, otherwise you wouldn’t have been so quick to assume that’s the case. So then, you must know something.

    • oneof5
      oneof5
      March 25, 2014, 1:48 pm

      sean,

      They are celebrating the power to influence that they believe they have …

      Being the fools that they are, they fail to recognize that any such power may only be fleeting at best …

  8. hophmi
    hophmi
    March 25, 2014, 11:38 am

    So if a Palestinian wears a t-shirt with Yasir Arafat’s face on it, you’re going to write a post about how they’re partying with the image of a terrorist, right? Didn’t think so.

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      March 25, 2014, 12:01 pm

      In 2084, when msm scribes party down with Arafat’s image, we will certainly post, as we did the Harvard students’ visit to Arafat’s tomb.

      • Krauss
        Krauss
        March 25, 2014, 5:59 pm

        Phil you will live forever. What’s your secret?

    • K Renner
      K Renner
      March 27, 2014, 1:21 pm

      More whining, I see.

      As far as people like you are concerned, people like Begin and Shamir and Sharon are absolute saints of the state, and people like Arafat or Abbas or Meshaal are devils and about as bad as Hitler.

      Is this not the case?

      As far as I’m concerned, you’re only to be taken at all seriously when you and other people in the pro-Israel camp stop playing silly, stupid games and start actually talking realistically.

      As it is– Begin and Shamir and Sharon and a good deal of the other big-name “founding heroes” did whatever they did because they thought they had more right to the land then anyone else living there, and they would have it by any means available to them.

      Palestinians engage in any form of armed resistance, justifiable or unjustifiable, because of their situation, very largely created by the realization of the “Zionist dream” and the Israeli state. Their actions of any sort are reactions, and to me that makes them far more understandable and I see Palestinian leaders as far more sympathetic in general.

  9. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 25, 2014, 11:42 am

    Red wine with a nose highly suggestive of the stench of dead refugees rotting in the Beirut sun and a persistent final note of mental breakdown.

  10. ritzl
    ritzl
    March 25, 2014, 11:43 am

    For a sec, I thought Lake was wearing a picture of himself on his T. My mistake.

  11. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride
    March 25, 2014, 12:04 pm

    What this photo communicates: we’re defiantly part of a slippery neocon cabal and we’re damned proud of it. We pulled one over on the world. If you don’t like it, kiss our asses.

    Eli Lake looks like an evil sniggering troll. Jamie Kirchick looks like an infant.

    Why in the world did they permit this photo to be taken? On Twitter they have taken a major beating:

    [Twitter; Liz Wahl https://twitter.com/search?q=liz%20wahl ]

  12. OlegR
    OlegR
    March 25, 2014, 8:33 pm

    Speaking of terrorists
    I wonder if Phil ever owned a Che Guevara t-shirt

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      March 26, 2014, 12:10 am

      Am repulsed by Che Guevara shirts and other pop images of him, but your point is?

      Phil or whataboutery ?

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      March 26, 2014, 12:25 am

      Who cares you blockhead?

      Che Guevara is an icon. Begin is a terrorist schmuck from that shitty little Levantine country club.

  13. alizarin
    alizarin
    March 25, 2014, 8:37 pm

    Shooting and crying.

  14. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    March 25, 2014, 11:44 pm

    When Harvard students visit Arafat’s grave, we are regaled with how stupid the Israel supporters are for objecting to the visit (unless it was merely the rhetoric of the supporters rather than their mere objection). When a journalist wears a Begin t-shirt, we are regaled with how objectionable this is. Could the bias of this web site be more apparent?

    Begin’s accomplishments (positive rather than negative) include: Peace treaty with Egypt and 2. not fighting a civil war against Ben Gurion and the Hagana and 3. Sitting in the minority in the Knesset for 29 years before winning the prime ministry for himself and the Likud party.

    (Although some wax nostalgic for the British rule of Palestine, others clearly see that the moment for kicking the Brits out of Palestine was ripe in the aftermath of WWII. The specific target of the King David Hotel involved many civilian deaths, but the cause of kicking the Brits out of Palestine was “logical” at that moment of history.)

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      March 26, 2014, 12:03 am

      Begin’s accomplishments? He was forced into a corner and had to sign a peace treaty with Egypt at conditions he had refused earlier.

      Not fighting a civil war? Peacocks were vying for power. He was dedicated to the Zionist ideology and understood fighting among rabid Zionist ideologues would be the end of the colonial dream.

      Waiting In the Knesset for almost three decades before becoming PM? Thai is an accomplishment ? So what . One could spin that “accomplishment” any way you want.

      As for the Zionist terrorism against Britain: what logical right did a bunch if Polish Zionist terrorists have to murder British citizens and Palestinians , not to mention the later murder of others such as UN officials and US citizens deemed to be in their way.?

      However, Begin was pure to his ideology and te Zionist cause, and not a corrupt functionary milking a personal fortune from the Zio project like many who followed him.

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 26, 2014, 1:00 am

      The deaths of Begin, Shamir, Sharon, and the whole bunch are deeply regrettable: they couldn’t wait for the scaffold, as fully deserved as the Nuremberg hangings. Let’s hope for a long enough life for the incumbents Netanyahoo, Barak, Livni etc. until they get judged.

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      March 26, 2014, 1:02 am

      You didn’t only kick the Brits out of Palestine; you created generations of refugees, i.e. endless misery. And then you opened the floodgates for all Jews to rush in and appropriate the others’ land and homes and enjoy the fruits of the others’ labor while you denied these original inhabitants re-entry condemning them to a hopeless life of yearning for their land until death.

  15. biorabbi
    biorabbi
    March 25, 2014, 11:59 pm

    If you accept Phil Weiss’ definition of a terrorist, what does this make the Palestinian leadership and a Palestinian electorate who votes for the lovely Hamas and their multiple Jew references in their politics, charter, TV? I want to know what he, Phil Weiss, thinks about the latest revelations about the liberal Icon in chief FDR and his “not-so love affair” with the Jews?

  16. kalithea
    kalithea
    March 26, 2014, 1:11 am

    Not sure if any of you have read Alison Weir’s latest article at Counterpunch. I found it quite enlightening.:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/21/the-origins-of-the-israel-lobby-in-the-us/

    Hopefully, it’ll challenge some frank discussion.

  17. ymedad
    ymedad
    March 27, 2014, 6:07 am

    Since I don’t have the time to do a thorough research, can anyone tell me if Arafat is also described here as a “terrorist”?

Leave a Reply