Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ piece on stonethrowing leaves out ‘occupation’

US Politics
on 39 Comments

“Israel Acts to Combat Violence in Jerusalem” is The New York Times headline on Isabel Kershner’s story on the latest Israeli rules re firing on stone-throwers.

The article is wrong starting with the headline. It should say, “Palestinians Continue to Fight Back Against Military Occupation of Palestine.” Israel and its occupation are the cause of the violence; it doesn’t come from nowhere. The Times portrays Palestinian stonethrowers as just faceless terrorists committed to a “cycle of violence.”

The subhead should read, “The vast majority of Palestinians continue non-violent resistance, but there is some stonethrowing.”

The word “occupation” occurs nowhere in the article.

And Kershner’s timeline on the latest violence begins with the kidnapping of the three Jewish teens in the West Bank in 2014. Thus she ignores the occupation that has been going for nearly 50 years.

James North
About James North

Other posts by .

Posted In:

39 Responses

  1. amigo
    September 25, 2015, 11:16 am

    Kershner gets her articles direct from the nearest Israeli embassy.She just puts her name to it and checks her bank account for the electronic deposit .

    Nice work if you can get it but harbour no guilty feelings about being dishonest or a spinmeistress.

    Disgusting people.

  2. JLewisDickerson
    September 25, 2015, 12:49 pm

    RE: “Israel Acts to Combat Violence in Jerusalem” is The New York Times headline on Isabel Kershner’s story on the latest Israeli rules re firing on stone-throwers. The article is wrong starting with the headline. It should say, “Palestinians Continue to Fight Back Against Military Occupation of Palestine.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: I recently saw/heard a reference to a Bible verse about Jews throwing stones at their Roman occupiers. I believe it might have been John Hagee reciting that verse (about Jews throwing stones at their Roman occupiers) in his “blood moons” video, but I just don’t have the stomach to listen to it again to find out. – See more at:


    P.P.S. John Hagee is barking mad! ! ! If you have the stomach to listen to Hagee’s “blood moons” video above, shortly after the 23 minute mark Hagee says that God caused 9/11 (“First he attacked the physical”) to “get this country’s attention because this country was walking away from God”! ! ! Begin listening at about 20:30 to get the full impact of what this loon was saying.
    Also, all y’all go to the 26 minute mark on the video and y’all all buy your prayer shawls (“designed by God himself”) to support Big John’s “ministry”! ! !

    • MHughes976
      September 25, 2015, 3:04 pm

      Not in the Bible, I think, JLD, but in Josephus’ account of the incident in the Temple that led to thevJewish War. Josephus thinks that the Romans missed many chances to restore order before everything went wrong.

      • JLewisDickerson
        September 27, 2015, 5:56 pm

        Yes, I think you’re right! Thanks for the clarification.
        I still don’t have the stomach to listen to Hagee’s “blood moons” video again.
        Perhaps I never will.
        John Hagee gives me the heebie-jeebies big time!

      • JLewisDickerson
        September 27, 2015, 6:10 pm

        Heebie-jeebies (idiom)
        A feeling of anxiety, apprehension or illness.
        SEE –

      • JLewisDickerson
        September 27, 2015, 6:32 pm

        P.P.S FROM WIKIPEDIA (Peter Gabriel):

        [EXCERPTS] Peter Brian Gabriel (born 13 February 1950) is an English singer-songwriter, musician and humanitarian activist who rose to fame as the original lead singer and flautist of the progressive rock band Genesis.[2] After leaving Genesis in 1975,[3][4] Gabriel went on to a successful solo career . . .

        • Politics

        Gabriel has been described as one of rock’s most political musicians by AllMusic.[20] In 1992, on the 20th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday tragedy, Gabriel joined several left-wing figures such as Peter Hain, Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Benn, Ken Loach, John Pilger and Adrian Mitchell in voicing his support for a demonstration in London calling for British withdrawal from Northern Ireland.[57]

        At the 1997 general election, he declared his support for the Labour Party, which won that election by a landslide after 18 years out of power, led by Tony Blair.[58] In 1998, he was named in a list of the biggest private financial donors to Labour.[59] However, he subsequently distanced himself from the Labour government following Tony Blair’s support for George W. Bush and Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War, which he strongly opposed.[60] Gabriel later explained his decision for funding Labour, saying, “after all those years of Thatcher, that was the only time I’ve put money into a political party because I wanted to help get rid of the Tory government of that time”.[61]

        In 2005, Gabriel gave a Green Party of England and Wales general election candidate special permission to record a cover of his song “Don’t Give Up” for his campaign.[62] In 2010, The Guardian described Gabriel as “a staunch advocate of proportional representation”.[63] In 2013, he stated that he had become more interested in online petitioning organisations to effect change than traditional party politics.[60]

        In 2012, Gabriel condemned the use of his music by conservative American talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh during a controversial segment in which Limbaugh vilified Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke. A statement on behalf of Gabriel read: “Peter was appalled to learn that his music was linked to Rush Limbaugh’s extraordinary attack on Sandra Fluke. It is obvious from anyone that knows Peter’s work that he would never approve such a use. He has asked his representatives to make sure his music is withdrawn and especially from these unfair, aggressive and ignorant comments.”[64]

        Gabriel has declared his support for the two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 2014, he contributed songs to a new compilation album to raise funds for humanitarian organisations aiding Palestinian Arabs in Gaza. Gabriel was quoted: “I am certain that Israelis and Palestinians will both benefit from a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. We have watched Palestinians suffer for too long, especially in Gaza. I am not, and never was, anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic, but I oppose the policy of the Israeli government, oppose injustice and oppose the occupation… I am proud to be one of the voices asking the Israeli government: ‘Where is the two-state solution that you wanted so much?’ and clearly say that enough is enough.”[65] . . .

    • JLewisDickerson
      September 29, 2015, 9:18 pm

      P.P.P.S. ALSO SEE: “John Hagee’s Controversial Gospel”, by Sarah Posner,, 12 March 2008
      An excerpt from Sarah Posner’s book, God’s Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters.

      [EXCERPT] . . . One former member of Hagee’s church, fearful to talk on the record because Hagee is “really powerful” and has “got so much clout,” described Hagee as “very angry” and “not approachable.” The former member, who attended Cornerstone for about ten years, recalled that she had been going to Cornerstone for six years before she actually met Hagee. “I said, ‘Oh, Pastor Hagee, I’m finally getting to meet you after six years,’ and he said, ‘Oh, I’ve been back here every Sunday’ and turned and walked off.” Her husband is bipolar, and when they went to marriage counseling, the church “told him he was a loser and an infidel.” The counselors encouraged the former congregant to leave her husband, but “thankfully, I prayed enough. … I began to see trouble, you know, I began to see things that wasn’t right.”

      About the tithe, the former Cornerstone member recalled, “That’s a shame issue there if you don’t tithe. … We’ve heard him say, … everybody who’s got their tithing envelope, wave it in the air. So that’s shame on you” if you don’t tithe. Yet Hagee, before he converted his nonprofit Global Evangelism Television into a church in 2004 (thus relieving him of the obligation to file a publicly available tax return), was known to be the highest-paid nonprofit executive in San Antonio, making nearly $1 million a year. Now, because of the conversion, his salary remains a secret. In 2000 his John C. Hagee Royalty Trust, whose trustee is Hagee’s brother-in-law Scott Farhart, spent $5.5 million on a ranch in Brackettville, Texas. The property includes the Hagee-owned LaFonda Ranch, which has its own private airstrip, where televangelist and Hagee friend Kenneth Copeland landed his aircraft for a weekend of hunting rare exotic game.

      Another component of Hagee’s ranch is a cattle-raising operation. For that project, Hagee formed a nonprofit — run only by himself — called the Texas Israel Agricultural Research Foundation, which he claims works on joint research endeavors with an Israeli university. Water consumption is highly regulated in the parched section of the state where the ranch is located, but San Antonio legislator Frank Corte introduced a bill that would have exempted Hagee’s outfit from the state’s water use laws. To move the bill, Hagee enlisted the services of one of San Antonio’s most powerful lobbyists, David Earl. Members of Hagee’s church sent more than eighty nearly identical letters — some from the church’s fax machine — to the Texas House of Representatives committee considering the bill, urging its passage. The letters argued that the bill would “protect Texas agricultural research projects that have entered into agreements to share information with Israeli organizations.” The bill stalled in committee, and Hagee’s lobbyists were forced to apply for permits from the local groundwater control board in Kinney County to pump water on the property.

      Other Hagee ventures operate through trusts and companies run by Farhart and involve prominent San Antonio businesspeople. These ventures include a failed investment in a proposed hotel in downtown San Antonio and a planned development near his church. In another venture, Hagee crossed a group of local businesspeople who sought to market their beauty products made from salt from the Dead Sea through Hagee’s ministry. They charged in a 2006 lawsuit that they entered into the deal after Hagee billed himself “as someone that had a lot of political connections,” making the group “aware of his rubbing shoulders with people influential in the Bush Cabinet,” according to the group’s lawyer, Jesse Castillo. Castillo said that his clients claimed that Hagee backed out of the deal because the church was facing tax problems due to “a concern that they were mixing the business interests of the church with the business interests.”

      The former congregant whose husband is bipolar said that even though she and her husband wrote a big check to the church after they sold their house and tithed close to 10 percent of their income, “We never prospered there.” Most of the people she knew there were struggling financially, including some who were evicted from their apartments because they couldn’t pay their rent. Hagee, she said, has a “very powerful hold, and you don’t even realize it. … We were there ten years, and I knew something was wrong, but I couldn’t figure out what it was.” She even feared speaking to a reporter: “If I say too much about him, God’s going to get me. … [Hagee’s] got so much money and he’s so powerful, he could take everything we have in a minute.”

      Another former member told of tithing even when she had to borrow out of her 401(k) plan to make her mortgage payments. At one point, she said, “at Christmastime I didn’t have gifts under my tree. Two small gifts for my kids, that was it. I was so broke, and I was tithing.” At the time, she believed that tithing would result in her own blessing. Still another former member, a single mother divorced from an abusive husband, told of tithing out of her child support checks, even though she was living in an apartment with subsidized rent. Contrasting her small apartment with Hagee’s home in an exclusive San Antonio subdivision and his multimillion-dollar ranch, she added, “I don’t even have a house! My kids grew up on top of each other like sardines. … I just want a little house.” She added, “I thought something was wrong with me. Why am I still [living like this]. I’ve given and given and given and tithed and tithed and tithed.” But while attending Cornerstone, she, like the others, felt guilt and enormous pressure not to question Hagee or his doctrine, and that atmosphere was reinforced through multiple church services each week and mandatory meetings with smaller cell groups whose leaders were vetted on the basis of classes, tests, and the faithfulness of their tithing. As a result, the former member said, “I looked to Pastor Hagee as a god.”


  3. Eva Smagacz
    Eva Smagacz
    September 25, 2015, 6:16 pm

    I noticed way the many MSMs link words – it’s never stones, it’s always “stones and firebombs”, so that it appears that firebombs are as common as stones.

  4. JWalters
    September 25, 2015, 7:02 pm

    I appreciate Mondweiss articles monitoring the NYT. Israel’s capture of the American mainstream media is a major part of this story. Israel’s continuing horrific crimes would not be possible without this capture. The widespread trashing of America’s freedom of speech, and thereby democracy itself, is an integral part of the “Zionist project”.

    These articles will be very helpful to the historians who will be digging into the details of this whole sorry historical episode. I look forward to hearing their talks on C-SPAN. These historians are relentless in their pursuit of detail. Once they are freed from the Gaza of the mind being imposed by Israel.

  5. straightline
    September 25, 2015, 9:16 pm

    @JWalters – And I guarantee that when the shift happens – as it will – the same pundits who were actively participating in the trashing of freedom of speech and democracy in honour of the great god Israel will be in the MSM disavowing any involvement in it.

  6. talknic
    September 26, 2015, 1:38 am

    The occupation did not begin in ’67. According to official Israeli Government statements occupation began in ’48, before Israel became a UN Member state, before the UNSC could directly censure Israel. The UN/UNSC cannot directly censure non-Members for their actions and it cannot censure Members in retrospect for their actions prior to membership. Occupation never the less existed.

    Official Israeli Govt statement to the UNSC. May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766 .

    Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?

    “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel , are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel

    “international regulations”; Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III

    “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

    12 Aug 1948

    Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948

  7. talknic
    September 26, 2015, 1:49 am

    The NYTimes appears to be careful not to allow comments on articles so easily torn to shreds

  8. ckg
    September 26, 2015, 7:20 am

    O/T: Today Sep 26, 2015 at 2:45 pm EDT, C-SPAN 2 will re-broadcast the Aug 13 taping of a book discussion of Max Blumenthal’s The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. The broadcast was originally aired Aug 31. The complete 109 minute program can also be seen on the C-SPAN web site.

    • just
      September 26, 2015, 8:45 am

      Thank you, ckg.

      “Israeli Soldiers Filmed Attacking Two AFP Journalists During West Bank Demonstration …

      Israeli soldiers assaulted two journalists working for AFP during a West Bank demonstration, the French news agency said late Friday.
      According to AFP, Italian video journalist Andrea Bernardi suffered bruised ribs and an injury to his eye after soldiers threw him to the ground, where he was held down while a knee was compressed against his chest until he managed to show his press card.

      The soldiers also reportedly pointed their weapons at him and his colleague, Palestinian photographer Abbas Momani, bothof (sic) whom were wearing body armor marked “Press.” 

      The soldiers destroyed and seized the journalists’ equipment, but the incident at Beit Furik, near Nablus, was filmed and posted online by the Palmedia camera crew.
      AFP protested to the Israeli military over the incident and said it intends to file an official complaint.

      “Disciplinary measures will be taken,” IDF Spokesperson Lt. Col. Peter Lerner told the agency, adding that “the highest levels of command are aware of the incident.”

      In April, two IDF soldiers captured on video assaulting two photographers, one from AFP and the other from the ActiveStills photography collaborative, at a demonstration in the Palestinian West Bank village of Nabi Saleh, near Ramallah, were sentenced in disciplinary proceedings, in which footage from one of the news photographers was used. 

      One of the officers was sent to military prison for 14 days while the other was confined to base for 30 days.”

      read more:

      That sort of “disciplinary measures” is only evidence of more impunity. They love their IOF and give them free reign to murder and maim ANYONE who is not of their tribe.

      (They also really, really hate the truth.)

      • just
        September 26, 2015, 1:34 pm

        This headline is rather unusual in that it is pretty darn accurate. Finally.

        “Israeli soldiers attack journalists on West Bank”

        Peter Beaumont’s article goes on:

        “Video shows AFP staff walking towards a demonstration in village of Beit Furik before being attacked and having their equipment smashed

        A dramatic video has emerged showing Israeli soldiers make an unprovoked assault on two journalists working for Agence France-Presse during a demonstration on the West Bank.

        According to AFP’s bureau chief, Thomas Cox, the two men – Andrea Bernardi, an Italian videographer working for the organisation, and Abbas Momani – had arrived in the village of Beit Furik near Nablus on Friday to cover a demonstration that followed the funeral of a Palestinian who had died after being shot by Israeli security forces a week ago.

        The video – shot by a Palmedia camera crew from the demonstrators’ side – shows the two men walking down the road towards the protest before having their equipment seized and smashed. During the encounter, which is under investigation by the Israeli army, Bernardi was punched in the neck and face by a soldier.

        “They had passed the first checkpoint of the border police with their press cards without problem. Andrea paused to check his camera settings and as he was doing so a soldier immediately arrived and told him to stop filming and pushed his camera. He then took the camera and smashed it.

        “They thought these are crazy young soldiers so, as you see on the video, they left. But the soldiers came and at this moment took the stills camera and took everything in the photographer’s pocket – batteries, memory cards. Andrea then came back to recover his destroyed camera. At this point a soldier jumped on him and put a pistol on his face and attacked him.”…”

        More @

        It’s the second time in a week that cameras and Palmedia came to rescue and preserve the truth and expose the criminal IOF. As we all know, the IOF and the GoI are consummate and inveterate liars.

  9. James Canning
    James Canning
    September 26, 2015, 1:55 pm

    Is there any doubting NYT helps the Lobby keep under the rug the problem of OCCUPATION.

    • just
      September 26, 2015, 2:09 pm

      No doubt at all, James. They should rename the rag.

      Neither do any of the Presidential hopefuls:

      “Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush unveiled his Jewish support team on Friday, vowing to “confront anti-Semitism wherever it exists” and “restore our alliances around the world, especially with the brave and democratic State of Israel.”

      Dubbed the “National Jewish Leadership Committee,” the group consists of 71 prominent members of the United States Jewish community, among them former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Sam Olens, Attorney General of the state of Georgia.

      The new team gathered for a pre-launch dinner on Thursday at the home of Glenda and Ronnie Krongold in Miami Beach and held its first meeting on Friday morning.

      “When I launched my campaign, I was proud to count some long-time friends as my supporters,” Bush said in a statement posted on his website “They have been with me since my earliest days in Florida, and we have shared great memories together.
      “Among them include members of the Jewish community who have welcomed me into their homes for Passover Seder, taken me as a travel companion to Israel and worked with me on issues of shared concern, such as religious freedom, school choice and economic opportunity. Having their support has meant so much, and we are looking to build that team.”

      The purpose of the group is to raise funds and support for Bush’s campaign within the American Jewish community.

      Bush has reportedly been met with skepticism from some major Jewish donors because of the inclusion of former Secretary of State James Baker in his inner circle. Baker is widely seen as a critic of Israel and spoke earlier this year at a convention of J Street, a progressive Jewish lobby that is anathema to many Republicans.

      “I am privileged to know Jeb Bush,” Cheryl Halpern, a major GOP donor and former national chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), said in a statement. “I am certain that Jeb will not only be a staunch defender of America and American values, but will also be a ‘Shomer Yisrael,’ a guardian of the special relationship with the State of Israel as well.”…”

      read more:


      “Jeb Bush Jewish Leadership Committee

      Yitz Applbaum, Scott Arogeti, Harold Beznos, Joshua Bolten, Eric Cantor, David Carmen, Adam J. Chill, Renee Evans, Steve Friedman, David Gemunder, Sander Gerber, Ron Gidwitz, Doniel Ginsberg, Ken Goldberg, Sherry Goldberg, Adam Goldman, Al Goldstein, Michael J. Granoff, Yudi Gross, Reuven Hahn, Cheryl Halpern, William H. Heyman, David A. Javdan, Mark Kaplan, Autumn Karlinsky, Fred Karlinsky, Jeremy Katz, Joia Kazam, Joshua Kazam, Jay Kislak, Jonathan Kislak, Fara Klein, George Klein, Glenda Krongold, Ronald Krongold, S. Randy Lampert, Michael Lebovitz, Jay Lefkowitz, Leora Levy, Steven M. Levy, Ken Lipper, Jason Lyons, Ethan A. Marcovici, Bernie Marcus, Larry Medvinsky, David A. Metzner, Michael Mukasey, Sam Olens, Morgan Ortagus, Jeffrey Rosch, Thane Rosenbaum, Jason J. Rosenberg, David Schulman, Brian Schwartz, Betty Sembler, Brett Sembler, Mel Sembler, Michael Sevi, Florence Shapiro, Ned L. Siegel, Stephanie M. Siegel, Barry Silverman, Jeffrey Silverman, Scott Singer, Keith Sonderling, Gordon D. Sondland, Marc I. Stern, Jay Stieber, Eric Tanenblatt, Barry Volpert, Jonathan R. Weinberger, Alex Weiss, Anat Zeidman, Fred Zeidman, Jay Zeidman.”

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        September 26, 2015, 5:39 pm

        I think one cannot get elected president of the US without strong Jewish support. However, one wonders how many of these supporters of Jeb Bush want Israel to wreck its democracy by annexing the West Bank, and therefor favor hiding the OCCUPATION from the American public (as much as possible).

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        September 27, 2015, 12:56 am

        James Canning- Maybe true in 2016, but wasn’t true in 2000, George W Bush did not have strong Jewish support. that might have changed a bit in 2004, but still even then, I don’t think there is evidence that Jewish money made the difference that got him elected. The defeat of his father in 1992 might have turned the son into a more pro Israel politician than the old man and he mollified the Jewish money sufficiently to fend off a vociferous Jewish opposition, but I don’t think one can say that he had major Jewish support.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        September 27, 2015, 1:11 pm

        yonah fredman – Situation today is indeed different from that of 2000. And defeat of GHW Bush in 1992 had a good deal to do with the Israel lobby, which punished him for wanting to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
        Clearly there is powerful apparatus in place to block the nomination of any candidate who appears insufficiently “supportive” of Israel.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        September 29, 2015, 9:03 pm

        James Canning- Regarding the election of 1992, apparently the Bush family, meaning George the son, aka W, considered this (meaning the dictum “Ignore the Israel lobby at your own peril”) as one of the outstanding lessons of that election. But I do not. Jewish voters and Jewish money were alienated from the Republican party in 1984 and 1988 and that alienation had very little to do with the Israel lobby. in 1992, after 12 years of a Republican, the Democratic party was really hepped up on defeating Bush and this was the cause for his defeat, IMHO. Some attribute the Bush defeat to the candidacy of Ross Perot. Zero Israel Lobby link there. But I grant you that if that was the lesson that George the son took from the election, then it cannot be neglected, but to reiterate my opinion:

        George Bush the father was defeated in 1992 because 1. he was out of touch with the American people and 2. he was always very weak on the “vision” thing and 3. his veep was Dan Quayle and 4. The country was tired of Republicans and 5. his sole advantage was his foreign policy experience and with the defeat of the Soviet Union in the cold war and the deft quick victory in Iraq, foreign policy had receded as an issue for the American people.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        September 30, 2015, 1:12 pm

        Yonah Fredman – – You make some valid points, about the 1992 election. However, some powerful elements of the Lobby wanted GHW Bush taken out, given his strong desire to end the occupation of the West Bank.

  10. just
    September 26, 2015, 2:25 pm

    “Ted Cruz Threatens to Kill the Ayatollah

    Senator Cruz was full of swagger this morning, promising to investigate Planned Parenthood, abolish Common Core, and kill the leader of Iran if he doesn’t tear up the deal.

    Ted Cruz does not like the Iran deal.

    That’s an understatement.

    In front of a crowd of religious voters on Friday morning, Senator Ted Cruz had some pretty extreme things to say about the Iran nuclear deal, namely, he threatened to kill Iran’s leader if he didn’t give up plans for a nuclear program.

    “If the ayatollah doesn’t understand that, we may have to help introduce him to the 72 virgins,” Cruz said at the annual Values Voters summit, adding that he would rip the Iran nuclear deal “to shreds” on his first day in office. …

    … Earlier in the speech, Cruz referred to President Obama as “the world’s most powerful communist” and that he should be incarcerated. He also suggested the Democratic debates be held at the Leavenworth prison, which has recently been scouted as a potential transfer point for those detained at Guantanamo.

    “If they can project a rainbow on the White House, maybe they can put bars on the windows,” Cruz said.

    Among Cruz’s other vows: rescinding whatever he considered to be illegal and unconstitutional executive actions, including a compete repeal of ObamaCare, demanding the Department of Justice investigate Planned Parenthood, and telling the Department of Education, which he says “should be abolished,” that Common Core, which details what students should know at the end of each grade, ends immediately.

    The crowd cheered throughout.”

    Hello, DOJ and Secret Service? Is there anybody out there?

    • Kay24
      September 26, 2015, 2:38 pm

      It seems the side Cruz is supports looks like real losers. Russia was smarter, it made a good deal with Iran, and it is business as usual. Netanyahu and his supporters are disregarded, their opinion of no consequence to most of the world.

      “Iran has signed contracts worth $21 billion to buy satellite equipment and aircraft from Russia, Manouchehr Manteghi, the managing director of Iran Aviation Industries Organization, said in an interview with Russian agency Sputnik on Saturday.

      Manteghi said the contracts had been signed at the MAKS-2015 air show in Russia last month.

      The contracts involved satellite-related equipment as well as the Sukhoi Superjet 100 regional passenger aircraft, Sputnik said.

      Russia and Iran have been working to boost economic ties since Tehran signed a deal with six world powers in July, which offers Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for curbing its nuclear program”

      Netanyahu’s interference and manipulation has failed badly. The world moves on leaving Israel and the Republicans (plus the shameless few Democrats) with egg on their faces.

      • just
        September 26, 2015, 7:49 pm

        Yep. It’s a whole new ball game, Kay24.

        More from the Summit of and for the extremist loonies of America:

        “Values Voter Summit: cheers for Boehner exit and boos for Trump

        A group that acts as the lead weight on the US political scale showed support for Ted Cruz and offered Mike Huckabee several standing ovations

        … Rubio wasn’t the favourite here, of course. Nor was Donald Trump, who was booed for the first time in this campaign. These people are more for Ted Cruz – the Texas senator won the summit’s 2016 straw poll, in which the absent Florida governor Jeb Bush received just five votes, only two more than the socialist Bernie Sanders – or Mike Huckabee. When he spoke, the former Arkansas governor was greeted with several standing ovations.

        But in his well-received, if not adored, speech, Rubio got to announce that the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, had said he would step down. The audience was made up of Republicans, but the news got a huge cheer. …

        That was not an oddity. The crowd at the VVS are right-of-the-right, capital-C conservatives. Many could be described as being to the right of Ghengis Khan, except that Khan would probably strike them as not sufficiently supportive of Israel. They hated Boehner. They made his life hell. This segment of American conservatism was the ideological root of several planned coups against him.

        At the Omni, no one had a good word to say about the soon-to-be-former speaker. They saw him as practically treasonous, for failing to stand up to the Obama administration on the issues they hold most dear, especially and most lately Planned Parenthood, over which Boehner was unwilling to push the government to yet another shutdown.

        For the Values Voters, that was a Boehner-killer.

        That was a red-meat moment, a roar of rightwing joy. Otherwise, soothing Frank Sinatra piped into the Omni’s subterranean corridors, where young volunteers held signs directing punters.

        An exhibition hall held booths from groups like the Liberty Institute, the Family Research Council and Evangelism Explosion International, Christians United for Israel and the One Nation Under God Foundation.

        Anti-gay marriage groups with names like God’s Original Design Ministry and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays sat next to those promoting abstinence and stalls piled with books with names like God Bless America and Rebound.

        As in a Las Vegas casino, in the artificial lighting, it was easy to lose track of the time.

        Among the pressure groups were the candidates: Kay Daly, looking to unseat a more moderate Republican in North Carolina’s second district, showed the Guardian her latest campaign ad. It featured her firing a shotgun.

        Female attendees presented a certain look. Vivid blue, cream or mauve dresses; kitten heels; ubiquitous pearls; Sarah Palin blonde streaks and bangs.

        The men, meanwhile, fell largely into two categories. The party operators were sharp-suited and cheap-shod, with ties in TV-friendly block colours. Some sported bowties.

        Rarer were the Duck Dynasty-types – with unkempt beards, weathered faces and gnarled hiking-sticks, their jungle camouflage jackets, covered in patches proclaiming support for Israel and the second amendment, clashing with the sumptuous pink carpeting.

        Outside the hotel, Jeff Smith stood on a street corner with a 6ft poster of a bloody, aborted foetus, bearing the legend “MURDER”. He had driven from Wichita, Kansas in a borrowed van. He didn’t have a ticket to the event – he hadn’t been inside – but he had come, he said, to reach out to the “small proportion of people who support the message”.

        Inside, with the halls temporarily empty over lunch, Christopher Inman was throwing a toy aeroplane around the cavernous corridor. A Texan from Dallas, he is the president of the Amerival Group. His company is like an investment firm for projects that project conservative values: freedom, faith, family and free enterprise.

        For him, none of the candidates who came to kiss the conservative ring had all those qualities.

        “[Mike] Huckabee touched on faith. Ted Cruz touched on family,” he said. “Donald Trump touched on free enterprise. I think [former senator Rick] Santorum touched on freedoms.”

        He grinned.

        “I’d love to see all of them combined.””

      • just
        September 27, 2015, 11:17 am

        The more I read of events (that the US MSM seems confused and mystified by), the more I feel/know that a huge and necessary shift in US foreign policy in the ME/Levant has occurred. The balance of power just went upside- down & inside- out.

        Rapprochement with Iran was the catalyst, imho.

        (Thankfully, Israel and the myriad warmongers did NOT win this time around. I don’t think that a SOP false flag op will be tolerated, either.)

  11. Keith
    September 26, 2015, 7:58 pm

    HEY EVERYBODY- I just read something over at Znet which I feel is of great importance to Mondoweiss and Mondo commenters. Apparently, there is a push in the US to ban certain types of speech critical of Israel, Jewish power, etc. as anti-Semitic, similar to the laws in some European countries. Specifically, Glen Greenwald is reporting on this effort at the University of California system being pushed by Dianne Feinstein’s multi-millionaire husband Richard Blum. This whole business is no joke. Many of the comments on Mondoweiss would qualify as “anti-Semitic” under the proposed rules which, I should add, would likely make BDS against the law. There is also a link to the current US State Department definition of anti-Semitism which includes such things as comparing Israeli behavior to the Nazis and denying Israel’s right to exist, among others. If enacted, students violating these prohibitions would face suspension or expulsion. First California, then the rest of us? Further proof of our decline into a totalitarian state. A quote followed by a link.

    “One of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling collection of 10 campuses which includes UCLA and UC Berkeley. The University’s governing Board of Regents, with the support of University President Janet Napolitano and egged on by the State’s legislature, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that – in the name of combating “anti-Semitism” – would formally ban various forms of Israel criticism and anti-Israel activism.”

    “The effort to formally re-define “anti-Semitism” to include certain criticisms of and activism against the Israeli government has been coordinated and deliberate. That history is laid out with ample evidence here by the non-profit group Palestine Legal; here by Ali Abunimah’s book, The Battle for Justice in Palestine, the relevant portion of which was published by The Intercept; and here by the writer and activist Ben White. In essence, this re-definition was first promulgated by Israeli lobbyists and academics, imposed with varying degrees of success on the EU, and then successfully imported into the Clinton-led State Department.” (Glen Greenwald)

    • annie
      September 26, 2015, 9:39 pm

      thanks keith, it’s a great article and a topic i started a post about yesterday and then saw glen’s article. the regents meeting was last week and this is an issue that’s been going down for awhile involving the UC system here in calif. ben norton wrote an article about it here in july too. plus, we’ve covered the UC system and all that led up to it in many articles here. the bottom line is, after one failure after another beating down the BDS movement on UC campuses, including investigations regarding anti semitism going all the way to the WH and all of them being dropped — they are now trying to change the definition in UC tolerance policy (they’ve already tried to change it in the states legislature). here’s some background:

      • Keith
        September 27, 2015, 5:25 pm

        Thanks for the link. I guess that I didn’t fully appreciate the importance of this when I read Ben Norton’s account. Greenwald mentioning the Richard Blum/Dianne Feinstein connection brought me to my senses. I have begun to re-evaluate my opinion on anti-Semitism. Heretofore, I have downplayed the issue in view of the relatively low incidence of US anti-Semitism. Lately, I am beginning to focus more on the ideology of anti-Semitism as the core of Zionist organization and power. As such, it is a very important topic, one which we ignore at our own peril.

      • annie
        September 27, 2015, 6:17 pm

        it’s a real battle on US campuses keith, and they’re probably using california as a test ground for the nation. also, out here in the west coast, aside fron stanford, the UC system is our ivy league. so this is a serious battle they are waging for years. their aim is to threaten the UC system with cutting off funds which can be done if the school is shown to be violating certain laws. so the attack isn’t really against the students, it’s against the schools themselves. for one thing the schools have money to fight these battles where students do not. this is a very big deal. but i have confidence we’ll win. and yes of course applying the anti semitism label “conjures up the emotional response” but i don’t think it will prevail in curtailing freedom of speech.

      • Keith
        September 27, 2015, 5:41 pm

        Some additional thoughts. In labeling more and more actions as ‘anti-Semitic,’ the initial effect is to psychologically apply the old definition to new categories. So that while criticism of Israel or analyzing Jewish/Zionist power hardly demonstrates ‘Jew hatred,’ attaching the anti-Semitic label to these new categories nonetheless conjures up the emotional response consistent with the old definition of ‘Jew hatred.’ It is the same as with the term ‘Holocaust denial,’ which now supposedly includes denigrating the Holocaust by comparing it to other instances of mass-murder. It is because of insanity such as this that the Zionists (and other Jews?) refer to Norman Finkelstein as a “Holocaust denier” in spite of his family history. These labels have consequences.

      • lysias
        September 27, 2015, 6:01 pm

        Ah, but the more the labels are overused, the fewer consequences they have.

    • Sibiriak
      September 27, 2015, 1:33 am

      KEITH: I just read something over at Znet which I feel is of great importance to Mondoweiss and Mondo commenters. Apparently, there is a push in the US to ban certain types of speech critical of Israel, Jewish power, etc. as anti-Semitic, similar to the laws in some European countries.

      Thanks. And I agree–this issue is of paramount importance. These unrelenting malicious, sinister efforts to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and suppress free speech are absolutely intolerable. They must be combated on every level.

    • tokyobk
      September 27, 2015, 3:31 am

      Keller-san — while you are exaggerating (there is no potential ban in the US against critiquing Israel or your favourite topic “Jewish Power”- you’re good so carry on) there certainly is a heinous effort to slander criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic in the UC system.

      Zionists who attempt to label all criticisms of Israel (I would say any) have diluted the meaning of anti-semitism, and understandably made anti and reverse-zionists like you and Annie suspicious of any claim anywhere.

      By the way I love this quote from you. I could not have said it better.


      “My knowledge of Judaism is relatively slight, one of my primary sources is “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” by Israel Shahak…”


      “I am unfamiliar with Emmanuel Levinas or how he relates to the historical core of Jewish religious teaching.”

      And that is exactly why I am flippant and not “scholarly” with you, my friend. If you know Shahak but you don’t know Levinas than you are indeed the guy who knows Hirsi Ali, the word “Taqquia” and a few weak Hadith but nothing, really, about Islam.

      • annie
        September 27, 2015, 5:26 am

        what’s are “reverse-zionists”? i googled the term and it was unavailable.

      • Mooser
        September 27, 2015, 12:54 pm

        “And that is exactly why I am flippant and not “scholarly” with you, my friend.”

        ROPTFLMSJAO! “scholarly”? Okay! A graduate of the Yale Lox Company.

      • Keith
        September 27, 2015, 4:47 pm

        TOKYOBK- “And that is exactly why I am flippant and not “scholarly” with you, my friend.”

        Has it come to this? You now stoop so low as to blame me for the poor quality of your comments? Not “scholarly?” What, have you got only two speeds, scholarly or dreck? If that is the case, then by all means bring on the scholarly! At the least, knock off the strawmen and proof by labeling.

        Additionally, it wouldn’t hurt for you to provide some basis for your opinion at least occasionally. So your comment that “(there is no potential ban in the US against critiquing Israel or your favourite topic “Jewish Power”- you’re good so carry on)” is typical of your lack of substance. Why do you say there is no potential to mislabel anti-Zionist and anti-Israel critiques as anti-Semitism? They have such laws in Europe and are trying to get them enacted here. I have quoted and linked Glen Greenwald who, in turn has linked the State Department Zionist inspired definition of anti-Semitism. Do you intelligently respond to any of this? No, you simply dismiss it while proceeding to dishonestly assert that “Jewish Power” is my favorite topic. More ad hominem.

        You then engage in one of your favorite tactics, you quote me from a different thread which has no relevance to the topic at hand. Strange that you didn’t comment on that thread where it would have been more appropriate. So that when I respond, you will have successfully thread jacked this thread and/or my comment calling attention to Greenwald’s article. As for the quotes, no I am not a Talmudic scholar, however, I know just enough to know just enough to make reasoned judgments concerning Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. I further note that other than your typical ad hominem insults, you have never made a convincing counter argument. Your one attempt to appear scholarly as you attempted to defame Israel Shahak fell flat when it was easily demonstrated that you either hadn’t read or couldn’t comprehend your own source who, in effect, validated Shahak’s analysis, even as he engaged in pilpul of the worst sort.

        Getting back to you being “flippant not scholarly” with me. What is the implication of this? That you are some heavyweight intellectual who is holding back? That when you falsely claimed that I promulgated “Jew lists” like the einsatzgruppen and that I am a “Jew Hobbyist,” that this was your way of not offending me? Well, partner, you can stop holding back. If I am as ignorant as you claim, and you are as smart as you imply, then refuting me should be child’s play for you. So, stop holding back. Go for it. All I ask is that you stop the ad hominem, stick to the topic and present the facts supported by references and/or reasoned argument.

      • Mooser
        September 27, 2015, 6:16 pm

        “what’s are “reverse-zionists”?”

        They are, of course “Jew hobbyists” who have put their entire collection on e-bay. With no reserve!

  12. Mooser
    September 27, 2015, 12:50 pm


    “Tokyobk” you are one of the most, uh, uh, ‘original’ people I know! Nobody else can throw out a term like it was in common use, and then get no Google hits on the term. A true original.
    Or a complete bullshitter. Hard to know, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply