Trending Topics:

Glen Weyl’s agonizing journey to boycott the country he loves

on 62 Comments

A week ago we picked up a landmark article in the Washington Post: two Jewish scholars at Harvard and Yale who described themselves as lifelong Zionists came out for boycott of Israel because it permanently denies rights to Palestinians. Though they seek to save the Jewish state from its leaders, the authors’ preference for “full democratic citizenship to Palestinians living in a single state” over occupation will surely be a depth charge in the Jewish community; and create space inside mainstream Jewish organizations for boycott of Israel and the growth of anti-Zionism.

On his twitter feed, co-author Glen Weyl, 30, an economist at Yale, said that he and co-author Steven Levitsky, a 47-year-old Government professor at Harvard, “spent 6 months agonizing over every word of this piece.”

As it turns out, the junior author has been on the path toward this decision for a long time– and Israel is his favorite place in the world even as it is dominated by a political culture he calls “fascistic.” Weyl is widely described as an economics prodigy, an emerging establishment figure who went from the University of Chicago to Yale this year and has a top research job at Microsoft, whose operations in Israel he opposes.

For all his mainstream success, Weyl is a sincere and open person. His Facebook posts in the last year or so tell a lot about his progress.

Weyl visited Israel before the Gaza onslaught of summer 2014. He had no comment on that war but the subsequent reelection of Benjamin Netanyahu last March staggered him, convincing him that Israeli society was on the wrong course.

Anyone who, like me, believed my people would voluntarily choose to drink from the cup of justice has been proved naïve,” he wrote after the election, and then announced that he had joined the BDS movement: 

After last night’s election in Israel I have joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement and will be boycotting both Israeli products and trips to the country that I love to visit most in the world.
I had committed myself to this if the election returned the right to power, but thought it would be a very hard decision. In the event it turned out to be easy, given the behavior of Prime Minister Netanyahu in the last few days, as he promised that a Palestinian State would never be established under his watch and decried the “Arab droves” voting in the election. Netenyahu has now fully embraced the fascist ideology of his coalition partners.
In the Israel of David Ben-Gurion, the Israel I have loved, this behavior would have been taken as a sign of desperation and would have led to a complete rejection of such a leader. In the past days I was sure this is what would happen. But instead it led to the strongest showing for the right in many years. After this outcome, no one can doubt the choice the Israeli people have made and where they stand.
There is now an overwhelming majority of 71 seats for parties (the fascist right of Likud, Jewish Home and Yisrael Beiteinu, the ultra-religious of Shas and UTJ and the joint Arab list) that are fundamentally opposed to a democratic, secular Jewish homeland that is a member of the international community and at peace with its neighbors. This is the only vision of Israel I can support and the people of Israel overwhelmingly do not share it.
Anyone who, like me, believed my people would voluntarily choose to drink from the cup of justice has been proved naïve. Anyone who believes anything short of overwhelming international pressure will make Israel ever give even a scrap of decency and independence to those whose land its prosperity is built on must understand that the people of Israel have resoundingly rejected this path. The Israeli electorate had a clear choice and they turned out in their greatest numbers for years to choose the path to a nationalist and militarist damnation.
Now is the time to stand with the struggle of the Palestinian people in their international struggle for justice. Only clear solidarity of humanitarian Jews around the world with the cause of those who are enslaved by our elected representatives can begin to absolve us of their continuing crimes.
Please see my next post about which elements of BDS I endorse, namely its methods but not its end solution (arguably though not explicitly) of one state and an unlimited right of return.

That endorsement stirred up a lot of comment. Weyl responded that he was endorsing BDS “in solidarity with the Palestinian leadership” and spoke then of the hatred of Arabs inside Israel:

I think that the continuing relative calm despite the oppression of the Palestinians has normalized Israelis to this situation and increased their hatred of Arabs.
And I think Netenyahu very intelligently harnessed this. This is probably why the exit polls were off: people are still a bit embarrassed of these views so didn’t want to tell pollsters, but they voted that way.

He said that the same rightwing trends were visible in the U.S. but Israel is worse, and it’s the country he loves. He also commented on South Africa and the importance of doing something to alter Israel’s conduct:

I object to those things in the US, but not nearly as much as I object to the direction Israel is going. If I did, I would leave the country.

And there were periods during the Bush administration where I was coming close to feeling that way…but never nearly as much as I feel this way now with Israel. And I feel much more emotional about Israel than about the US, because honestly I feel much more at home there than in the US.

…they are my people, I feel closer to them than any other in the world including the US, and that is why I take their choices so to my heart.

On BDS I do not see any alternative to make a personal statement about how strongly I feel about this. And I do feel this is as bad as South Africa, and more important to me. I don’t think anything else has worked or will. Will this? I don’t know.

At that time, a commenter named Jesse Wolfson said that many Jews were coming to Weyl’s position:

Glen, thank you for posting this. It is a brave stance to take, one which I think more American Jews are coming to, and one which I hope more will come to as they consider things in the context of our moral heritage.

Weyl later amended his enorsement to make clear that his BDS was consistent with the two-state solution: 

I want to clarify, given many have commented on this, that while I feel the only action I can take to show my strong opposition to the increasingly fascistic Israeli regime and support for the cause of the Palestinians who oppose it is to join the BDS movement, I do not support the end aim that some have argued it has of one state or of an unlimited right of return. I support the international consensus and widely Arab-supported peace plan of two states for two people roughly along the lines of 1967, a solution now officially repudiated by the openly racist Netanyahu government which also includes even more extreme elements from Yisrael Beiteinu and Jewish Home. In the call for BDS it is very open to interpretation whether they favor a one-state or a two-state solution; this is why I am comfortable endorsing it. However, I want to be clear on my views. Here is the statement of what they call for:

“These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

“1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
“2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
“3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”
This strikes me as consistent with a two-state solution

(Omar Barghouti, a leader of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, has lately said that Weyl and Levitsky’s endorsement is not consistent with the BDS call of 2005, for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions).

Last May, Weyl posted an article from Haaretz about young Jews who had gone on birthright and ended up endorsing BDS, saying: “This is the journey I followed.” Among the comments that followed he stated:

I am still a Zionist and Israel is still my favorite place in the world

But this government is destroying it

He pointed to the appointment of the “truly totalitarian” Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked.

She is unbelievable. To have a pro-genocide justice minister in a country founded on the idea of saving a people from national destruction is almost unimaginable. But it is happening.

Marshall Steinbaum then asked Weyl:

I am put off by the unchallenged reference to Israel as “the land of our ancestors.” I am American; my “ancestors” have been American for three or four generations, and before that they were European. One of my dearest and most faithfully Jewish friends is a convert, so Israel isn’t “the land of her ancestors” either, and in fact she would not be considered Jewish there since their Rabbis did not perform her conversion. It bothers me that Judaism has metamorphosed from a religion with diverse adherents from many different ethnic and national backgrounds to an ethnos with an invented common pre-history. Consider the lengths that Israeli archaeology has gone to establish the notion that Israel was a unitary Jewish state in King David’s time and thereafter. Israel now and Israel then are both modern creations.

Weyl responded:

Marshall, to a large extent I agree. My connection to Israel comes from the choice of the modern Jewish people to make it their state. But that choice comes with responsibilities which that polity is systematically refusing to accept

Last year Weyl had seemed to endorse an announcement from the liberal Zionist group J Street. But on June 4, he endorsed a Jewish Voice for Peace video that honored Jews’ desire to move to Palestine but described the Nakba and expulsion of Palestinians as a fundamental cause of the conflict.

On July 4, Weyl noted with irony the reasons people love being Americans:

Today I am delighted to celebrate our nation’s collective satisfaction at being the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world, a satisfaction that Michael Clemens [a development economist who studies migration] has shown many if not most people on earth would be willing to take a one-in-three chance of dying to share in. Congratulations, my fellow Americans, on winning the lottery of birth.

And then last week, Weyl announced his Washington Post piece:

“My very personal take, with Steven Levitsky, on the disturbing state of a country I love more than the US. In tomorrow’s Washington Post.”

On Wednesday Weyl sought to amend his piece, stating that he did not support BDS as such.

In response to many comments on our op-ed, I wish to clarify a two points:
1. We were extremely space-constrained in our op-ed so we did not discuss the Palestinian side of the issue. I want to be clear about this. We have absolutely no sympathy for Hamas or any other form of radical Islam and never support any form of violence against Israeli civilians or military. We only sympathize with purely non-violent resistance, of which sanctions, divestment, reduction in aid and boycotts are one well-recognized form. We also support other non-violent Palestinian civil disobedience, of which there has been far too little. We find many faults in the current PLO and PA leadership, from corruption, to lack of charismatic non-violent resistance to intransigence at some points. Israeli leadership bears some responsibility for the poor leadership on the Palestinian side because the best leaders, such as Marwan Barghouti, have been kept in jail. Please remember that the leadership of the ANC was weak for a long time and quite violent as well, and had substantial communist elements. None of this excuses either the failures of Palestinian leadership or the terrible failures of Israeli leadership.
2. While I briefly was sympathetic to the BDS movement, I do not and Steve does not support the movement now. We concurrently support the boycott, divestment, sanctions and especially reduction in or elimination of US aid. However, this does not in any form imply that we support a one state solution unless this is the democratic and freely agreed-to will of both sides, which seems a very unlikely outcome. Nor do we endorse or sympathize with anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, or anti-Jewish elements of this movement.

Then Weyl noted that some had pointed out he was married to a non-Jew (the scholar Alisha Holland). His response:

On a more personal note, many people have questioned my Jewish identity because a) I married a non-religious woman of Christian heritage and b) I identify as Jewish Unitarian Universalist ( not as a practicing Jew. These attacks are very strange. My grandfather fled Germany because the German government took our family’s factories and tried to kill them because they were Jews. Apparently the fact that my grandfather was not practicing did not affect their attitude. Apparently it also did not affect Birthright Israel’s willingness to sponsor my visit there. Nor the Latke Hamantash debate’s willingness to have me defend the latke. Nor invitations from Chabad and Hillel many times at Chicago to have me speak as a Jewish faculty member. It appears that the definition of a Jew is not about religion but about whether you support the policies of an extreme right-wing government that is destroying the country I love.

Weyl added this clarification three days ago:

I want to add one more clarification. We emphatically reject any form of boycott against individuals, most importantly we oppose an academic boycott, a boycott of cultural products (so long as they are not commercial) and any boycott of travel by Israelis to the West. These exchanges are crucial for progress and a boycott against them would be harmful to the cause we support.

I would only venture that the rock has not finished its tumble down the hillside.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

62 Responses

  1. Maximus Decimus Meridius on November 2, 2015, 12:06 pm

    “. He had no comment on that war but the subsequent reelection of Benjamin Netanyahu last March staggered him, convincing him that Israeli society was on the wrong course. ”

    Well, better late than never I suppose, but what is it about these people who see nothing wrong with killing 500 children in 51 days, but see the re-election of a man who – in substance but not style – is little different to Israel’s so-called ‘liberal’, ‘leftist’ leaders, as something thoroughly objectionable? For them, it’s all about the ‘soul of Israel’ and their self-image of Jews as a morally superior people, that matters.

    The comment about ” the Israel of David Ben-Gurion, the Israel I have loved” says it all. Ben Gurion, as everyone here (but not, apparently, Mssrs Weil and Levitsky) knows, was a war criminal, an ethnic cleanser who sent hundreds of thousands of innocent people into exile, just so these two could have the Jewish Disneyland that they ‘love’.

    Maybe I’m being harsh, but all I see here is the usual ethnocentric naval-gazing we have come to expect from Zionists, however ‘liberal’ they may like to think they are.

    • Emory Riddle on November 2, 2015, 12:31 pm

      Pretty scary that a 30 year old American kid would claim to love Israel more than America.

      I was hoping that was an attitude that was dying out among the younger generation but it seems the conditioning continues quite effectively

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on November 2, 2015, 12:44 pm

        I was thinking that too. Along with my usual thought whenever I hear an American or European Jew tell us how they ”love” Israel so much: Why aren’t you living there then? If I ”loved” a country above all else, and could immigrate there and obtain privileged status there any day, I’d be off faster than a shot from an Israeli sniper.

        I think when these people say they ‘love’ Israel, what they really mean is that they love the IDEA of Israel. A liberal democracy created from the ground up by the surviors of the holocaust, struggling against all odds to be a bulwark against anti-semitism for the noble Jewish people….. you know the refrain. They don’t actually want to live the provincial little kip, but they do enjoy the occasional pilgrimage to Jewish Disneyland.

        And because they have such an absurdly idealised image of Israel – one they would have been disabused of years ago, had they only bothered to look – they become so butthurt when they see a freakish, cartoon wielding nutter become the international symbol of Israel. They would SO much prefer to have a mild-mannered, polite guy like Rabin or Herzog, even though their policies regarding Palestinians are little different to those of Netanyahu. So while I suppose it’s a good thing that these guys have ‘agonised’ over Israel and come to support BDS, at the end of the day, it’s all about them and ‘what’s good for the Jews’.

    • Keith on November 2, 2015, 3:15 pm

      MAXIMUS- “Maybe I’m being harsh….”

      Not at all. Weyl comes across to me as a kind of Jewish Brahman who prefers that his peace and tranquility not be disturbed by the loud and obnoxious type of Zionist such as Netanyahu, preferring instead the more refined, liberal version. This highly privileged member of the US elite appears to savor his gilded victimhood. Perhaps I am being too harsh, however, I detect more than a whiff of narcissism emanating from the good Dr. Weyl. An economic prodigy? Why do I suspect that he probably loves neoliberalism as much as “his” people? This is Phil’s Ashkenazi knight riding to save the day? Good luck on that.

      • annie on November 2, 2015, 3:22 pm

        he probably loves neoliberalism

        hmm, he was chosen as one of america’s top innovative thinkers under 30. neoliberalism is old school and has been around a long time. my hunch is he’s very smart and plays by his own rules. his wife is brilliant also. i read a fascinating paper she wrote (first chapter of a book) on her website about politicians non compliance of rules in south america as a form of welfare. (that’s paraphrasing from memory, i read it about 10 days ago). it was really very interesting — fresh thinking.

        i think the person should be judged for his own words and ideas and think ‘Ashkenazi knight’ is really rude and myopic.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on November 2, 2015, 3:28 pm


        “Weyl comes across to me as a kind of Jewish Brahman who prefers that his peace and tranquility not be disturbed by the loud and obnoxious type of Zionist such as Netanyahu, preferring instead the more refined, liberal version ”

        Agree completely.

        Even now, after congratulating himself on his ‘agonising’ ‘soul searching’ (so very typcial of the ‘liberal Zionist’ narrative) he STILL can’t see that it’s not about this leader or that leader, or this policy or that policy, but about the deep wrongs that are inherent in Zionism itself. Like all ‘libzios’ he’s really only interested in the ‘soul of Israel’, and Palestinians only exist as a blot on the ‘conscience of Judaism’ (or whatever).

        Oh, and I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if a year or two from now (or maybe sooner) he does a mini-Goldstein and completely retracts his statements.

      • Chu on November 2, 2015, 4:06 pm

        Reminds me of the other chivalrous knight, Peter Beinart.

        And the ‘My People’ shtick sounds a bit dated for a 30 year old prodigy
        for having ‘spent 6 months agonizing over every word of this piece’.

      • Keith on November 2, 2015, 4:49 pm

        ANNIE- “hmm, he was chosen as one of america’s top innovative thinkers under 30. neoliberalism is old school and has been around a long time. my hunch is he’s very smart and plays by his own rules.”

        Neoliberalism is old school? Are you joking? Neoliberalism is the current ideology of empire which is driving the planet to ruin. It is embraced by the Council on foreign Relations, the IMF, the World Bank, Wall Street and Microsoft where Weyl works. This guy comes from an Ivy League/ University of Chicago background where neoliberalism reigns supreme. If Weyl opposed neoliberalism, he wouldn’t be lauded by the neoliberal establishment as a top innovative thinker. And he sure as hell wouldn’t be working for Microsoft, a key supporter of these neoliberal trade agreements. But, just to be sure, I did a quick Google search. Read on.

        The first quote and link concerns an article he co-wrote with Eric Posner concerning Thomas Picketty’s study and recommendations. They feel Picketty’s recommendations for a wealth taxation is all wrong. What is need is to stimulate innovation by increasing the rewards to our innovative elites. This is actually beyond neoliberal and reeks of Ayn Rand. Some “innovation.”

        “Piketty’s conjecture that we will reach the same or worse levels of wealth inequality than in the nineteenth century is implausible. Moreover, his focus on inequality misses that something great is also going on—that more and more people can live off society’s accumulated wealth and so don’t have to work. The real danger is not inequality per se but bad policy that suppresses growth and thus the accumulation of wealth, delaying this utopia for the masses longer than necessary. So while progressive taxes may serve as a short-term palliative, we should focus on giving the most capable part of the population better incentives to innovate, while allowing everyone else to benefit from their brilliance as rentiers.” (Eric Posner and Glen Weyl)

        Another article by our two right-wing authors involves their recommendation that we essentially import low wage workers to raise their income even as it reduces US worker’s income. Jeez, you can’t get much more corporate friendly and neoliberal than that! Needless to say, neither Bill Gates nor Glen Weyl would be negatively effected.

        “But the most powerful force to reduce inequality worldwide has gone largely unrecognized by the West, even though their value has been proven in the Gulf nations: open migration laws that are coupled, paradoxically, with caste systems.”

        “Intellectuals and leaders in OECD countries need to think carefully, and in a politically realistic way, about how to reconcile their commitments to rights and the agenda of reducing inequality. The GCC model of accepting migrants on economically and politically subordinate terms, though not humanitarian on its face, has proven so in practice. If this model were adopted in rich countries, then inequality—both political and economic—would dramatically increase within our own societies. This could undermine some of the liberal character we all prize, and it would certainly make all of us even more uncomfortable about inequality than we already are. But the benefits for the world’s poorest people would be vast.” (Eric Posner and Glen Weyl)

      • Mooser on November 2, 2015, 7:20 pm

        “I would only venture that the rock has not finished its tumble down the hillside.”

        A rock never saves damsels in distress, it simply tumbles down the slope after it exceeds the ‘angle of repose.’ Not a lot of chivalry in that.

      • Mooser on November 2, 2015, 7:36 pm

        Keith, all that notwithstanding, “Ashkenazi knight” was still, well, a little worse than unnecessary.

      • Sibiriak on November 2, 2015, 8:52 pm

        Keith: Neoliberalism is old school? Are you joking? Neoliberalism is the current ideology of empire which is driving the planet to ruin.

        Great post. Those articles you found speak volumes.

        “But the most powerful force to reduce inequality worldwide has gone largely unrecognized by the West, even though their value has been proven in the Gulf nations: open migration laws that are coupled, paradoxically, with caste systems .”

        This idea of creating new ” caste systems ” in advanced “liberal democracies” is a leap beyond neoliberalism, which always in theory argued for equal rights for individuals in free market societies. This is heading directly towards neo-feudalism ( aka neo-Keithism.) I definitely recommend people read the article in its entirety and ponder its ominous logic.

      • gamal on November 2, 2015, 9:00 pm

        ” “Ashkenazi knight” was still, well, a little worse than unnecessary.”

        but whats even worse is an Ashkanzi Knight riding a gamal, there are no countermeasures. Entitled and boorish, the ultimate solecism.

      • Marnie on November 3, 2015, 12:35 am

        I agree Keith. Mr. Weyl doesn’t sound like his so-called journey has had any agony involved at all. How can anyone in their right mind continue to profess love for a country that has been murdering the native people of that country for 70 years, and has elected the most racist government in its history? If that’s love, then the meaning has changed and I think in Mr. Weyl’s case, “love” is an insurance policty. It seems folks like Mr. Weyl will continue to support the zionist state just in case things get to be not so good for the Jews in America and they have a place to run to. I don’t see that as a possibility, so to continue supporting the SoI is to continue supporting murder.

      • annie on November 3, 2015, 4:05 am

        Neoliberalism is old school? Are you joking? Neoliberalism is the current ideology of empire which is driving the planet to ruin.

        “old school” and “current ideology of empire” are not mutually exclusive terms keith. yes, it’s old school in my book. it’s last century and the cause of the 2008-09 global finiancial crisis among other awful things. it’s hey day was ronald reagan and margaret thatcher.

        i think of Weyl more as a social thinker and explorer merged with an economist. the ideas- the problems he explores are critical and i think he’s driven(slight obsession w/inequality). i’m not going to underestimate him because you throw words at me like ivy league, IMF, World Bank and Wall Street. it’s too confining. i am not an expert in economics nor qualified to critique his ideas but i thought the last 2 paragraphs –the way you presented them, were a tad disingenuous because you did not indicate there were any (7) paragraphs between them. the article – about global economic inequality and open migration are critical issue this century (whether we like it or not, it’s happening and the implications are daunting). i recommend reading this, a lot of grist for the mill, some of it scary

        we need answers and solutions. his imagination is expansive and his wife is really smart. that counts a lot on my book.

      • Keith on November 3, 2015, 10:37 am

        MOOSER- “Keith, all that notwithstanding, “Ashkenazi knight” was still, well, a little worse than unnecessary.”

        Really? How so? I was making reference to Phil’s ongoing search for a Jewish white knight to ride to his aid in slaying the Zionist dragon. I don’t see how using Ashkenazi to replace Jewish and white (after all, what is Ashkenazi?) should be offensive insofar as Phil seems to be highlighting Ashkenazi Jews. I am more than a little surprised that you and Annie have taken such umbrage. Apparently, I have inadvertently crossed some unspoken rule of protocol. Speaking as if I was inside the Mondoweiss tent rather than outside the ethnic tent within the tent. Interesting.

      • Mooser on November 3, 2015, 11:29 am

        ” (after all, what is Ashkenazi?)”

        Damned if I know! It’s a great big mystery, and it sure is troubling me, the-meaning-of- “Ashkenazi”. The meaning of Ashkenazi!
        I wish somebody could tell me what “Ashkenazi” means.
        Probably not a lot. Than why buy into it, Keith? I think I remember in “How I Stopped…” Sands contends that “Ashkenazi” has switched meanings over time.

        And the time to bring the whole Ashkenazi thing is when they bring it up, first. That’s all I meant by “a little worse than unnecessary.”

      • Keith on November 3, 2015, 11:29 am

        ANNIE- “we need answers and solutions. his imagination is expansive and his wife is really smart. that counts a lot on my book.”

        Don’t get too enamored with his Harvard educated wife. After she got her B.S., she went to work for Human Rights Watch, a totally co-opted NGO with ties to the Clinton administration and the Council on Foreign Relations. At this stage of the game, HRW is effectively an imperial NGO. While in South America, she either wrote or co-wrote a report for HRW trashing Hugo Chavez, essentially repeating the State Department line. She has since obtained a PhD at Harvard, an Ivy League institution of imperial indoctrination. She and her Princeton PhD husband can best be described as an upwardly mobile power couple employed within the imperial doctrinal system. Except for the names and a few other changes, Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power come to mind. Now if you choose to embrace Glen Weyl’s assertion that our descent into a rentier economy is a good thing, that’s your business. I would have hoped that you had a little more common sense than to believe that we have been moving in the right direction for the last 30 years, simply not fast enough. Personally, I think this guy’s ideology is an absolute disaster for the 99%. Virtually everything he says is wrong, wrong, wrong, however, he and his highly compatible wife will likely earn a very good living doing what they are doing.

        ANNIE- “i thought the last 2 paragraphs –the way you presented them, were a tad disingenuous because you did not indicate there were any (7) paragraphs between them.”

        I am not a professional writer and am not sure how to indicate a jump in the text. However, the way I presented the information, along with the link, did not at all misrepresent his ideas and I think your highlighting this issue is tad disingenuous in attempting to inflate its importance in order to minimize your admitted lack of knowledge on the subject and, therefore, taking Weyl’s BS on faith. And, yes, I encourage everyone to follow the links and see for themselves. All one really needs is a little common sense to understand that we are heading in the wrong direction and need to reverse course, not speed up.

      • annie on November 3, 2015, 12:38 pm

        keith, the way to indicate a break in text is to place “…..” gap between paragraphs. otherwise text reads as tho one paragraph continues into another. like this:

        The major approach of the West to international justice has been through its commitment to human rights. Western countries have ratified human rights treaties and created international institutions like the U.N. Human Rights Council with the purpose of creating a legal framework that compels the governments of all countries to respect the rights of their citizens. While the treaty regime does not explicitly address inequality, it does require countries to guarantee health care, fair wages, pensions, and education.

        But this system, which has been in place for decades, has failed to stop widening inequality within countries, and has done little to improve the rights of people, as one of us argues in a new book.


        If the OECD countries copied the migration policies of the GCC countries, they would reduce global inequality by much more than their welfare systems do within their borders. For example, if OECD countries welcomed migrants in proportion to their GDP at the same rate and from the same poor nations as Qatar does, this would reduce global inequality by about twice the amount that eliminating all internal inequality in the OECD countries would—and by twice the rate that taxes and transfers in these countries reduce global inequality. If they adopted the same per-citizen rate at which the UAE takes migrants, they could accomplish much more. By taking in the 60 percent of the global population who make less than the bottom five percent in the United States and paying them $5,000 per year, the U.S. and Europe would reduce global inequality by roughly a third.

        We citizens of OECD countries take pride in our political and civil rights, and our generous welfare systems. Yet we maintain our high standard of living by giving no rights and trivial money to people who live outside our arbitrary borders. While we fuss over whether we should raise or lower our marginal tax rates, we ignore the plight of the most desperate people in the world. And yet we are surprised that leaders of China and the GCC accuse us of hypocrisy when we criticize their records on human rights.

        it’s probable mass human migration is almost inevitable over the next century, unlike anything mankind has ever witnessed. especially with the advent of global warming. some people (lots of them) want closed borders. but i think it’s likely borders will begin to disappear. it just looking/exploring the big picture. because “we are heading in the wrong direction” is not support for the argument his ideas are necessarily going in the same direction. inventors invent. they do that by seeing what’s happened before and looking at patterns (some of them inevitable). i don’t know what he will do in the future, ask me in ten years. i’m just not willing to believe everyone who went to an ivy league college or worked for a year at hrw is in the same box. if i was glued to my identity — what i was doing with my life in my 20’s — i’d probably be in jail but it got me to where i am today.

        humanity has failed at human rights, failed at equality. there are millions living in extreme poverty. some people focus on one country, others the whole globe. i don’t know the answer.

        and need to reverse course, not speed up.

        there is no going in reverse we can only move forward. things are only moving faster, time doesn’t stand still.

        you can have the last word.

      • Chu on November 3, 2015, 1:17 pm

        Good point about rentier ecomony (income without labor/ those who get rich in their sleep) and this quote is disturbing:
        “…So while progressive taxes may serve as a short-term palliative, we should focus on giving the most capable part of the population better incentives to innovate, while allowing everyone else to benefit from their brilliance as rentiers.”

        This is worth reading about neoliberalism and reniers:

        ‘Phil’s ongoing search for a Jewish white knight to ride to his aid in slaying the Zionist dragon.’
        I’ve thought the same thing before about this penchant to find this mythical warrior, this David character that stands up to the zionist Goliath. Perhaps you need to call this fabled unknown entity, the Messiah of Anti Zion, because it follows that tradition of Judaism where one searches for a messiah/moshiach. But, I think in reality it’s more like Waiting for Godot.

      • Mooser on November 3, 2015, 1:33 pm

        “Phil’s ongoing search for a Jewish white knight to ride to his aid in slaying the Zionist dragon.

        Why don’t we search Phil’s archive for “Jewish white knight” and/or “Ashkenazi white knight” or variations? You might come up with something from a long time ago, but I sorta doubt it. And in the context of “searching” for one? Ummmm, I don’t know…

      • Keith on November 3, 2015, 2:54 pm

        ANNIE- “keith, the way to indicate a break in text is to place “…..” gap between paragraphs.”

        Thanks, I will hereafter do so.

        As for the mass migrations, these are a direct consequence of neoliberal globalization. All of the more radical folks I read, including Chomsky, Pilger, Michael Hudson, David Korten, et al, agree on this. And the notion that we have to remain on the neoliberal path is nonsense. This is the Thatcherite (There is no alternative) school of thought. Unless we can stop neoliberal globalization, we will spiral downward into a neofeudal economy. Don’t forget that Glen Weyl teaches economics at the rabidly right-wing University of Chicago, the home of the “Chicago Boys” who destroyed the Chilean economy under Pinochet, making it “business friendly” (corporate dominated), while claiming, of course, that this was beneficial development. Of course they say that. They always say that. And some of them can be persuasive. Whether or not they believe their own BS is another matter. I may not be credible to you,but when you seek advice from the “Chicago Boys” such as Glen Weyl because he argues persuasively, while simultaneously ignoring the writings of Chomsky, et al, you are making a big mistake. I’m done.

      • annie on November 3, 2015, 3:48 pm

        I’m done.

        that’s a relief

      • Keith on November 3, 2015, 3:25 pm

        MOOSER- “Why don’t we search Phil’s archive for “Jewish white knight” and/or “Ashkenazi white knight” or variations?”

        Because I am not quoting Phil, I am characterizing these people as fitting the accepted definition of “white knight” as a person or thing that comes to someone’s aid. Since Phil is specifically highlighting liberal Jews who he thinks are being won over, Jewish white knight seems to me to be an appropriate description. You disagree? Fine, but that wasn’t the question concerning my alleged rudeness or, in your words, “a little worse than unnecessary.” And your comment at 11:29 that “I wish somebody could tell me what “Ashkenazi” means,” is disingenuous. If you Google it you will discover that it refers to Eastern European Jews, as I’m sure you are aware since the word is in common usage, hardly controversial. When your two comments are combined, it becomes obvious that you are evading the question of why you (and Annie) took umbrage. I simply can’t believe that your comment that “Ashkenazi knight” was “a little worse than unnecessary” simply revolved around the definition of Ashkenazi. But if you don’t want to get into it, why bring it up?

      • Mooser on November 3, 2015, 4:00 pm

        “Because I am not quoting Phil, I am characterizing these people…”

        And then try to make Phil Weiss responsible for your characterizations. But let it go. The important thing is “I am not quoting Phil”. I didn’t think so. I was unprepared to be wrong, of course, but I didn’t think so.

    • inbound39 on November 3, 2015, 12:45 am

      What I see is a person who realises he is in a disasterous position with the World turning against him and he is attempting to place an each way bet to minimize his losses.

  2. Krauss on November 2, 2015, 12:19 pm

    As I read on, I get more and more cynical. Maybe I’m jaded. But I’ve read too many “shoot and cry” Zionist accounts by now to even pretend not to see the hypocrisy at play.

    The man just never stops backtracking. I’m disarmed by his honestness – that’s an admirable character trait – but he is still embracing the mythology that everything went wrong with Likud. Very convenient. Very Zionist.

    The settlements, the colonisation project – all began by Labor and his beloved Ben-Gurion. The right-wing in Israel is correct about one thing: if Ariel is a settlement then so is Tel-Aviv. All of it was stolen from the native population. All of it. Are you going to make arbitrary categorisations based on a few decades apart? People have been living there for thousands.

    One final question: if he cares so much more about Israel, then why not move there? I don’t wish to be rude but if he is in America only for economic opportunities, then what is the point? Does America need someone who openly admits he cares far less for the American people than for the Jewish-Israeli people(which isn’t the same as Israeli people, because that includes Arabs. And as much as he’d like to pretend, when he talks about “my people”, he doesn’t talk about Arab critizens in Israel, even if he probably wants to delude himself that he does).

    I don’t think “saving Israel from itself” works. But at least it would be more consistent from his PoV. I’m of the old-fashioned opinion that the duty of citizenship cannot be reduced to taxes and being lawful. In the end, it’s about loyalty and sentiment. It’s about affection. If America isn’t that country for you, then take that to its logical conclusion and save all of us the hassle.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on November 2, 2015, 12:50 pm


      I made much the same points above, both about the hollowness of this ‘soul of Israel’ critique, and about the ”If you love Israel so much, why aren’t you living there?” question.

      At the end of the day, what does it really mean to be a Jewish Zionist who chooses not to live in Israel? It all feeds into the ugly sentiments we discussed on the ”Why I am a Zionist” thread. These people believe that their ability to feel all warm and fuzzy in America is more, much more, important than the right of innocent Palestinians not to waste away in refugee camps and be shot at every so often.

      And that isn’t even an exaggeration.

    • diasp0ra on November 2, 2015, 2:08 pm

      My thoughts exactly, well put!

  3. eljay on November 2, 2015, 12:44 pm

    Glen Weyl is no different than Peter Beinart: Both men talk a “kinder, gentler” talk, but at the end of the day they remain Zio-supremacists committed to the idea of Jewish supremacism in/and a supremacist “Jewish State”.

    The only difference between Weyl & Beinart and hard-core Zio-supremacists is that the former will be “holding their noses” while the latter do the dirty work.

    Glen Weyl: … There is now an overwhelming majority of 71 seats for parties … that are fundamentally opposed to a democratic, secular Jewish homeland that is a member of the international community and at peace with its neighbors. This is the only vision of Israel I can support …

    He’s very clear about where he stands.

  4. Ossinev on November 2, 2015, 1:29 pm

    Additional factors in their decision to stay in the good old USA and not move to beloved but misguided Israel
    1) They will be conscripted and have to face the terrifying bloodthirsty Palestinians with all their sophisticated high tech stones and “knives”
    2) They will have to live alongside and perhaps horror of horrors in the midst of these strange Arab people
    3) Worst of all they will see the reality of ugly Israel on their cherished Holy Ground up close and personal and be forced to kiss goodbye to their heartfelt Zio dream

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on November 3, 2015, 7:55 am


      I said much the same above.

      These American Jews may say the ‘love Israel more than anything’ but of course they don’t actually mean that. If they did, they’d be living there – they are exactly the sort of white, educated Jews that Israel would welcome with open arms. What they actually mean is that they love their absurd idea of Israel the Jewish Disneyland which American Zionists can visit for a few weeks every year or so, to indulge in their ethnocentric notions of ”Jewish identity” or whatever. They certainly do not ‘love’ the ugly, provincial, real-world place that Israel actually is, complete with military conscription and violent skinheads. That would utterly mess up their comfortable ‘liberal’ ideas of ”Israel” and ”Jewish morality”. So for them, Israel is best enjoyed only a little at a time.

      Take a look at Weyl’s CV, which ‘just’ posted below. Princeton, Harvard, you name it – this guy is right at the top of the US elite. He could never have had the life he has had he grown up in the country ‘he loves more than anything else’, and he knows it.

      • Mooser on November 3, 2015, 10:44 am

        “What they actually mean is that they love their absurd idea of Israel the Jewish Disneyland which American Zionists can visit for a few weeks every year or so,”

        I agree, Israel has a tremendous dual-loyalty problem.

  5. David Doppler on November 2, 2015, 1:31 pm

    For some reason, events of the last several months inspired me to read Flavius Josephus, The War of the Jews; Or the History of the Destruction of Jerusalem.

    First hand reports are always a fascinating and challenging way to study history, but an essential one.

    One thing that resonates with reading Mondoweiss today is how passionately divided the Hebrews were then, even as Titus with his Roman legions, having destroyed various outlying strongholds, encircled Jerusalem, to the extent that warring factions occupied different parts of the Temple throughout, maintaining open violent conflict among themselves, even in the face of a true “existential threat.” Another is how often the opportunity to save the Temple and City, and a reported 1.1 M lives, was rejected due to what can only be characterized as thoroughly muddled, but deeply passionate intensity.

    Zionists would do well to re-read this history, and ponder how to improve upon Israel’s track record, in the nation-building-and-sustaining department, and whether there might be lessons from more recent, American and Western European history, to serve as a better guide, in addition to the Torah and the Talmud.

  6. Xpat on November 2, 2015, 2:50 pm

    “There is now an overwhelming majority of 71 seats for parties (the fascist right of Likud, Jewish Home and Yisrael Beiteinu, the ultra-religious of Shas and UTJ and the joint Arab list) that are fundamentally opposed to a democratic, secular Jewish homeland that is a member of the international community and at peace with its neighbors.”

    Lumping the bullies Netanyahu, Bennet and Avigdor Lieberman together with their target Chanin Zoabi and the entire Israeli Palestinian population is plain weird under any circumstances.

  7. Maximus Decimus Meridius on November 2, 2015, 3:13 pm

    Just noticed this:

    “honestly I feel much more at home there than in the US.”

    To me, this sums up the bizarre combination of utter self-involvement and lack of introspection so typical among these ‘liberal Zionists’. So he, a citizen of the world’s most prosperous liberal democracy, feels more ”at home” in Israel? Aw, shucks! Putting aside the question we asked earlier (if he feels so ‘at home’ in Israel, why isn’t he living there?), has it never occured to Wyal that millions of people – who, unlike him, can trace back their ancestry there for generations – hae been made permanently homeless just so an American like him can feel ‘at home’ in his cute little East Med fairyland?

    I would love to ask him about this. But I feel he would be unable to respond.

  8. Mooser on November 2, 2015, 3:19 pm

    What Glen Weyl fears is that Zionism and Israel might turn out to be something very ordinary, and not suis generis, not unique. When that happens, who is he?

  9. Kay24 on November 2, 2015, 4:13 pm

    Talking of boycotts, this is a great billboard in Detroit. It is supposed to be so large it can be seen from 8 miles. Wonderful idea. I wish there were many more around the country. No surprise the ADL seem to have it’s knickers in a twist about this:

    • inbound39 on November 3, 2015, 12:59 am

      What a wonderful explicit and exquisite piece of art Kay! It would be wonderful to mass produce them and put them up all over the country to remind the Politicians what their job is. $1 BILLION DOLLARS OF THE THREE Israel gets per annum would well and truly put Detroit and other hard hit cities back in the game. I can’t help thinking that since its inception Israel has been gifted trillions by America and oddly and is it coincidence? America is trillions in debt. The American Government would find it difficult to dodge a gross malfeasence charge brought against them by the people.

      • Kay24 on November 3, 2015, 8:03 am

        I wish there were many more of these billboards all over the country. It is pro US and simple enough for people to get the point. This was a great idea.

        When reading this report you can sense that we are paying for the very existence of Israel, in every way, resettlement of Jewish people from other nations, weapons, loans, and every damn thing they seem to be constantly needy about. Which makes me wonder why we must do so, considering they are considered a wealthy nation, with a diaspora full of billionaires and millionaires, who seem (we have our share of them, too) to be totally devoted to Israel.
        They did it so easily when they cut aid to the Palestinians for “incitement”.
        The average joe in the US is totally ignorant of these facts, and deliberately given the impression that Israel is a victim, and must be protected and supported. What a joke!


    • annie on November 3, 2015, 4:13 am

      kay!! you’re so reminding me how late i am. had a wee interview w/daniel mcgowan over the weekend and just have not finished drafting the article yet. today perhaps.

      • Kay24 on November 3, 2015, 7:17 am

        It will be interesting to know the results of that interview. I fully understand just how much you guys must be under pressure, with so much going on, and trying to meet deadlines.

  10. wondering jew on November 2, 2015, 8:16 pm

    Compliments for Phil Weiss for presenting Weyl’s views without disparaging remarks.

    As for the reactions of the comments section I recall that there were two different attitudes expressed by two different books of the gospel made by Jesus regarding those who were not in his camp. One was “he who is not with me is against me” and the other is of the type “he who is not against me is with me”. For the crew here: he who is not with me is against me is definitely the prevailing attitude.

    • Mooser on November 2, 2015, 10:17 pm

      “As for the reactions of the comments section I recall that there were two different attitudes expressed by two different books of the gospel made by Jesus…/… For the crew here: he who is not with me is against me is definitely the prevailing attitude.”

      “Yonah” I’m very sorry the Mondo commenters aren’t good enough Christians to satisfy you.

      Naturally, Zionists, not being Christians, aren’t bound by those same strictures about loving enemies. All makes perfect sense.

      • kalithea on November 2, 2015, 11:47 pm



    • kalithea on November 2, 2015, 10:50 pm

      You’re quoting Jesus now! You’re right in this. He wouldn’t reject a work in progress.

      But this didn’t stop Jesus from trying to save this work in progress with the truth, and often…the truth hurts.

    • Mooser on November 2, 2015, 10:56 pm

      “made by Jesus regarding those who were not in his camp.”

      “Those who were not in his camp”? “Yonah”, do yourself a favor, stay away from New Testament exegesis.

    • inbound39 on November 3, 2015, 1:04 am

      Yonah I think it is more true to say that Zionism is no more appealing today than National Socialism was to the World in 1939. Both deal and dealt in Ethnic Cleansing and no right thinking human being would support it. But by all means rationalise and justify your distorted perception anyway you wish. One day you will have to face the truth of what you are and have been supporting.

    • Emory Riddle on November 3, 2015, 10:16 am

      How about “he who is a racist tribalist is against justice”?

  11. kalithea on November 2, 2015, 10:05 pm

    A couple of days ago I wrote the following:

    Tens of thousands of homes were destroyed, children mutilated, deprived and traumatized, born into military captivity and as refugees throughout decades so these entitled Jews can feel wistful about a land inhabited 3,000 years ago by some tribes who happened to share the same religion they practice and that’s it.

    I was precisely referring the type of Jew like Mr. Weyl. This is not a case of that the rock has not finished its tumble down the hillside. This is a case of one step forward, two steps back and he’ll never let go of his precious Zionism. The power and entitlement that Jews enjoy with Zionism is irresistible and therein lies the moral issue and this is why it must be wrapped in victimhood, because it helps to deceive and forget how much suffering it causes others.

    I almost choked when I read In the Israel of David Ben-Gurion, the Israel I have loved… How can he say this? He wasn’t even born or living then! If he were honest with himself he would have written instead: In the Israel of David Ben-Gurion, the Israel I could never have loved, when Ben-Gurion obsessed over the expulsion of the Arabs; repeating that expulsion was necessary for the creation of a purely Jewish state that he didn’t see anything immoral in compulsory transfer; a euphemism for what really happened. Ah the days of Ben-Gurion, the authoring of Plan D, blueprint for the Nakba, and lots of lovely massacres like Deir Yassin that got rid of hundred of thousands of Palestinians!

    This is an intelligent Jew or Zionism dumbs down intelligence?

    Weyl should lose his wistful gaze into the xanadu Zionism of yore that never was and stare reality in the face: Zionism was a black pit of destruction then; same as it is today. Zionism was bad to the bone from day one; it was racist then; it’s racist now, and it only got worse with U.S. funding and advances in military technology!

    We don’t have a prayer with this wishy-washy kind of commitment to justice and humanity.

    • just on November 3, 2015, 12:49 am

      Thanks, kalithea.

      I had to go and attend to something else and came back to read your comment.

      This is mine:

      All that I really see is that Weyl is only now getting to the point of understanding the injustice of his “favorite country”~ a country that he values more than his own. Even though:

      “E. (Eric) Glen Weyl is a Senior Researcher at Microsoft Research New England. He is on leave as an Assistant Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Chicago. In 2016 he will move to Microsoft Research New York and will resign his position at Chicago to become a Visiting Senior Research Scholar and Lecturer at Yale University.

      Glen was born in San Francisco on May, 6 1985 and raised in the Bay Area before attending boarding school at Choate Rosemary Hall in Connecticut. He was valedictorian of Princeton University’s 2007 class, receiving an AB in economics, followed by an MA and PhD in 2008. He then spent three years as a Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows and three years at Chicago before joining Microsoft.”

      A veritable cornucopia of opportunity at the best that his birth country has to offer~ it’s wonderful that he had the talent(s) to avail himself of it. Yet, he loves Israel best. Funny, that. Or, not so funny.

      Was he blind to the 95% that cheered the latest massacre in Gaza, hoping that the other schmuck, Herzog, would win??? Hasn’t it been predictable, nay certifiable, that this is how it would play out? Only one who is brainwashed by the fairy tale of Israel could gulp so willingly and thirstily from the cup of Ziomania. And to think that he’s considered a “prodigy”. Heaven help us if he’s the sort of “emerging establishment” person that we have to look forward to!

      I’m glad that some are happy that this genius threw his half-hearted and back- tracking support behind BDS, but he’s got a looong way to go.

      The road to justice is paved with honest action(s) and genuine desire to make right the myriad wrongs done to the Palestinians, beginning with deprogramming oneself and trying to do the same for others who are similarly afflicted.

      • lysias on November 3, 2015, 11:19 am

        It says a lot that he misused the golden opportunity that being at Princeton offered to study the false science of economics.

        I was struck by the first paragraph of Martin Sandbu’s review of Dani Rodrik’s Economics Rules in last weekend’s Financial Times:

        The economics profession lost a lot of lustre when its practitioners failed, with only a few exceptions, to foresee the global financial crisis of 2008. That failure shocked a good many non-economists (including, famously, the Queen), who may have blithely thought that economists understood the economy; it also added to the credibility of those who have long argued that economics is a deeply flawed discipline, built on a misrepresentation of people as selfish beings and ideologically constituted to conclude in favour of free-market policies.

        Sandbu goes on to defend economics against such charges, but they strike me as quite accurage.

      • RoHa on November 4, 2015, 1:07 am

        The failure of prediction is, of course, the key point. It shows that the economists are (to use a technical term) talking crap.

        Prediction is the touchstone of scientific method. This is how it works.

        Like most human activities, real science starts as an attempt to impress girls. Our keen scientist is at a party, and trying to make conversation with a girl. He tells her about some odd phenomenon he knows about.

        She says, “Coo”, and looks around for a way of escape.

        Desperately he says, “And I think it’s because ..”, and hastily cooks up a wild guess at an explanation.

        She says, “Uh –huh”, and wanders off to drool over some glossy character with the IQ of a retarded turnip.

        The next morning, when the scientist wakes up (alone), he thinks about that explanation, and decides it wasn’t quite as crazy as he thought when he was saying it.

        This is now his speculation.

        He then works on making that speculation more precise, until he has reached a formulation that enables him to make predictions of the type “if we do X /look at Y we will see Z”.

        Not “we might/could/ possibly catch a glimpse of something resembling Z”


        This is now a hypothesis. We know exactly what observation will prove it false. (And that is one way you can tell the scientist from the mountebank. If what he says ain’t falsifiable, it ain’t science.)

        The next step is to do X /look at Y.

        If the scientist sees Z, he says “Whoopee!” It doesn’t mean his hypothesis is correct (Z could happen for some other reason), but it does mean he can carry on making predictions to test the hypothesis.

        If his hypothesis passes all the tests and shows great predictive and explanatory power, it gets upgraded to a theory. If the theory survives long enough, eventually it will be regarded as an approximate representation of part of the truth about reality.

        Still won’t impress the girls, though.

        But if the predictions fail, if Z is not seen, then the hypothesis is wrong.

        It matters not how elegant the hypothesis is, how neatly it fits into a world view, how fashionable it is, how many PhD-bearing scientists endorse it, or how many soy-latte-drinking pseuds write articles about it in the Sunday papers.

        The rude facts show that the hypothesis is false.

        Of course, scientists who have committed themselves to the hypothesis, spent a good portion of their lives developing it (instead of chasing girls), or staked their reputations on it, are not going to give it up easily. They will try to find ways to save it, and so they should. A well-made hypothesis should not be abandoned lightly. But if the evidence really is against it, then the hypothesis has to be given up.

        And that will not impress the girls, either.

      • kalithea on November 4, 2015, 1:28 am

        Very well put. If he’s as brilliant as he is on paper; he’ll realize eventually that he’ll have to let go to be an asset to real justice. His infatuation with Israel and the entitlement that Zionism offers together are really a millstone for his conscience and moral integrity.

      • eljay on November 4, 2015, 1:12 pm

        || RoHa @ November 4, 2015, 1:07 am ||

        Are you related to Douglas Adams? If not, perhaps you should be. :-)

      • RoHa on November 5, 2015, 4:14 am

        No, but I am an Adams fan.

        Be that as it may, the above is an accurate account of how scientific method is supposed to work. Sadly, it is also accurate in stating that science is not the best strategy for reproductive activities. If you want a horde of teenage girls screaming and throwing their knickers at you (and what heterosexual male, at some stage, has not?) then science is not the way to go.

        Nor, I should add, is philosophy. Discussions about the epistemological implications of Gettier examples, or Kripke’s use of the concept of the rigid designator to argue that names are not just definite descriptions, seldom win fair lady. Some girls just don’t care!

        Hang up philosophy. It cannot make a Juliet.

        Dancing sometimes works.

        Or you can try art and architecture. If they fail, you can do what this guy does, and offer money.

      • RoHa on November 5, 2015, 4:33 am

        Scroll to the top for the bower bird.

        And logical arguments don’t work, either, as Donne noted.

    • inbound39 on November 3, 2015, 1:09 am

      You have expressed it all wonderfully Kalithea…thankyou! :))

      • kalithea on November 4, 2015, 1:30 am

        :)) I enjoy reading you too.

  12. Ossinev on November 3, 2015, 7:12 am

    “But if it signs up to treaties or international conventions,it should stick to them. If it no longer likes their terms it should remove itself from them,not try to weasel out of its obligations while pretending that it is doing no such thing ”

    Wise words indeed to describe the correct moral stance and duty of a country and its leaders if the country is a signed up member of the UN for example.

    Strange then that this should be penned by one Melanie Phillips in an article in yesterday`s London Times criticising UK government ministers for “trying to wriggle out of international law obligations”. Phillips being a notorious and frankly quite nauseating Zionist shrill here in the UK MSM is this a sign of a changing mindset amongst Zionist shrills ? I fear not. I watched her on a recent BBC question time programme (available on YOU Tube) when she nearly jumped out of her underwear when a softly spoken member of the audience suggested that she was being”paranoid” about Iran.

    Her comments in the article are worth archiving though as they can be thrown back in her face whenever she is encountered in the I/P debate. No doubt she will get the aforesaid underwear in a twist qouting San Remo/ Balfour declarations/British perfidy etc etc. But notwithstanding that it will be worth the effort just to wind her up.

    Even better would if she is wound up just enough to convince her to pack up her bags leave the anti – semitic horrors of England and seek asylum in her beloved little Israel.

  13. oneangrycomic on November 3, 2015, 2:03 pm

    Maybe these two Zionist scholars could join Park Slope Food Coop and help them decide what is and isn’t appropriate to debate there? lol…

  14. Doubtom on November 5, 2015, 3:11 am

    Why is it considered “rude or myopic” to refer to someone as an ‘Askanazi Knight’, who has publicly declared his love for Israel over that of his native country? What would you call him Annie? A patriot perhaps?

Leave a Reply