Trending Topics:

Advice to British leftwingers on kicking racism out of their anti-Israel rhetoric

Activism
on 187 Comments

Too often I see those in solidarity with Palestinians lose the plot and allow opponents to grab the agenda and deflect attention from where the suffering really exists.

That’s exactly what’s been happening in Britain this week as a row over antisemitism in the Labour Party has dominated the news.

My initial reaction to Naz Shah, Labour member of Parliament, and Ken Livingstone, former London mayor, was sympathetic. The whole thing felt hyped up, out of all proportion and part of the ongoing attempts to undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party. See Asa Winstanley’s article at Electronic Intifada for a compelling account of this.

But after days of news coverage about Zionism and antisemitism, none of which has shed the slightest light on the plight of the Palestinians, my sympathy with how some left wingers express their views on Israel has worn very thin. Their verbal antics have allowed distraction and deflection to triumph as an exaggerated crisis about antisemitism in Britain rules the airwaves.

I don’t believe the Labour Party in Britain has a “problem with Jews”. Antisemitism in Labour is not “endemic”, or “toxic”, or “institutional”. Or at least no more than it is in the Conservative Party.

But I do believe some comments expressed by some Labour members in support of Palestinians have been crass, ignorant, and yes, antisemitic.

The right wing opponents of Corbyn, and those who can’t stand his pro-Palestinian sympathies, are undoubtedly making the most of every stupid social media post and comment they can dig up.

It does feel like a witch-hunt has been unleashed with Labour politicians now lining up, like a parody of a scene from Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’, to say how antisemitism must be “rooted out of the Party”.

If the Palestinian people are ever to get the attention and respect they deserve then those who claim to support their cause need to clean up their act, learn some history, avoid own-goals and stay focused on achieving a just peace in Israel/Palestine.

Self-Made Bear Traps

There’s a way to talk about Israel that’s honest and defensible even though it won’t avoid you escaping every accusation of antisemitism. And then there’s a way to talk that leads you into a massive bear trap of your own making.

Language and history are incredibly important when it comes to Israel/Palestine and being sloppy with either gets you into a heap of trouble that ought to be avoidable.

So let me offer three pieces of advice to help British left wingers kick racism out of their anti-Israel rhetoric.

  1. Never mention Hitler and Israel in the same sentence. Ditto Zionism and Nazism.

Just don’t go there. There really is little to be gained and much to lose. And ask yourself why are you trying to make such comparisons anyway? Who is it going to help? Who will it upset for no great benefit? Does it convince more Jewish supporters of Israel that you are right and they are wrong? Does talking about Hitler ever bring liberation for the Palestinian people an inch closer?

Factually, Ken Livingstone’s comments this week that the Nazis were talking to Zionists in the 1930s about getting Jews out of Germany is not in dispute. It’s true that Hitler would have agreed with Zionism’s assessment that there was no place for the Jews on European soil.

But Ken, that didn’t make Hitler a Zionist.

Hitler’s views on Jews did not originate from the same political place or personal experience as the 19th and early 20th century Zionists thinkers. For Hitler, the Jews were sub-human carriers of  disease and corruption. That hardly sounds like Zionism. And whatever the encounters between German Zionists and Nazis in the early 1930s it certainly didn’t save any card carrying Zionist Jews in Europe from being murdered by the Nazis a few years later.

If you start trying to link Zionism and Nazism as political allies (as Ken Livingston did this week) you are taking the whole debate down a hopelessly unhelpful road. You may score a debating point against your hard core pro-Israel opponents but everyone else out there who’s trying to get their head around why the Palestinians are having a hard time will switch off or dismiss you as a fool. And they’d be right to.

Of course, supporters of Israel are more than happy to mention Hitler and Israel, Nazism and Zionism in the same breath. For them, the existence of the first will always justify the importance of the second. And if you support boycotts against Israel (as I do) it will not take long before you are accused of being “just like Hitler”. But never play tit for tat with the Holocaust. The fact that Israel supporters will sometimes play the ‘Holocaust card’ to close down your arguments is not a reason to enter into a competition about who is really the biggest Nazi.

Occasionally, very occasionally, and only in very skillful and sensitive hands, a comparison between the actions of the Nazis and the behaviour of Israel can be compared with some ethical integrity. See my article and interview with the Jewish song writer and left-wing activist Leon Rosselson. But for everyone else I’m strongly recommending you drop this particular line of rhetoric.

2. Remember, one person’s Settler Colonial project of land appropriation is another person’s expression of national self-determination.

And both are correct.

That’s why debating Israel/Palestine is so fraught and why the definition of Zionism is such a battlefield.

But if you’re going to talk about Zionism it’s pointless (and counter productive) to paint it as nothing more than another version of fascism, a racist ideology no better than National Socialism or the white 19th century colonialists of Southern Africa. If you do you, you’re heading straight for that bear trap again.

You can argue that a ‘return’ after 2,000 years ignores a great deal of Jewish history that makes the whole idea intellectually and historically questionable. I’d agree with that. You can argue that there are better ways to secure Jewish self-determination than state building. That’s also true. And does anyone still believe that the ‘returnees’ were arriving in ‘a land without a people, for a people without a land’? Dispossession was essential for Zionism to succeed as the earliest Zionist Pioneers knew full well. Have a read of Yitzhak Epstein’s speech to a Zionist conference in Basel in 1905. 

But if all you do is sloganise about Zionism being nothing more than a hateful ideology then you will never have the sensitivity and nuance required to build a just resolution to the conflict.

And there’s no benefit in trying to ignore the fact that more than a 100 years after those first Settlers and 70 years since the creation of the State of Israel, there are generations of Israeli Jews who know and have no other home.

Moving Jewish Israelis to America, as suggested by the Facebook post Naz Shah MP shared in 2014, to which she added the comment “problem solved”, just treats Jews with the same contempt and disregard that Zionist thinking has shown towards the Palestinians. Shah, to her credit, now seems to understand this. But many don’t and still imagine that a ‘Palestine free from the Jordan to the sea’ is also a Palestine free of Jews.

So unless you think it’s okay to commit a second (Jewish) Nakba in order to address the original (Palestinian) Nakba your anti-Israel rhetoric needs to factor in a very strong human rights agenda for all the inhabitants of the land. I know it may stick in the throat of same, but even Settler Colonialists (and their descendants) deserve human rights.

3. Resist conspiracy theories (especially those involving the words ‘Zionist’ and ‘controlled’)

I worked as a journalist at the BBC for ten years and I never noticed that there was a Zionist cabal controlling the newsroom agenda on Israel/Palestine. That doesn’t mean there isn’t bias against the Palestinians at the BBC, or in other newsrooms, but it doesn’t happen because there’s a ‘Zionist controlled media’. It happens through a more complicated set of circumstances which includes the efforts of very hard-working pro-Israel lobbyists from the Board of Deputies to the Israeli embassy itself. Whether you like it or not it’s perfectly legal activity in a democracy. But it isn’t Jewish control of the media.

Once you start talking about Zionist control of anything you’re deep into some of the oldest  expressions of antisemitism. Criticise the lobbyists by all means but don’t succumb to conspiracy theories. It’s the politics of fools.

So my plea to those on the left is to stay focused and don’t lose the plot or sight of the prize by adopting a debased and antisemitic political vocabulary. There’s far too much at stake.

This piece first appeared on Robert A. Cohen’s site under the title, “Three pieces of advice to help British leftwingers kick racism out of their anti-Israel rhetoric.”

Robert Cohen
About Robert Cohen

Cohen is a British writer. He blogs at Micah's Paradigm Shift. http://micahsparadigmshift.blogspot.co.uk/

Other posts by .


Posted In:

187 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    May 2, 2016, 10:58 am

    Remember, one person’s Settler Colonial project of land appropriation is another person’s expression of national self-determination.

    And both are correct.

    Hunh? The best you will allow the anti-Zionist to say is that (expulsive) settler colonialism is not justified by national self-determination?

    “Once upon a time there was a man who robbed a bank and built an orphanage with the money he stole. He was a robber and a philanthropist. Both are true.” Hmmm. Usually, if we catch them, we throw robbers in jail.

    If you treat Zionism as an enterprise of self-determination of, for, and by (some) Jews which, in the very nature of things [1] is worth while and above criticism and [2] required expelling most of the Palestinian people (i.e. the “existing non-Jewish population of Palestine”) — then what’s to criticize?

    If, OTOH, you don’t believe that expulsion of a population was a right and proper thing for ANYONE to do to ANYONE ELSE at that time (which was 1948, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was being negotiated), and especially if you also refuse the propriety of “self-determination” for a scattered group of people loosely connected by religion or social ties who (in your view) do not constitute a national group, who did not speak a single national language at the time (not even Yiddish), and especially not a national group with a better claim to Palestine than the Palestinians have) — then you make the standard anti-Zionist arguments.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      May 2, 2016, 12:30 pm

      Remember, one person’s Settler Colonial project of land appropriation is another person’s expression of national self-determination.

      And both are correct.
      ———————————————

      Both cannot be correct, since the right of self-determination in no way licenses the expropriation of another peoples’ territory nor the denial of another peoples’ right to self-determination.

      The creation of a Jewish State in Palestine was in direct contradiction to the principle of self-determination–and that was explicitly recognized at the time.

      The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine’s report of September 1947, in appraising the Arab case against partition, concluded:

      With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the “A” Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there.

      Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle. [emphasis added]

      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

      The UNSCOP nevertheless recommended partition on the basis, in large part, of the validity of the “sui generis Mandate for Palestine.”

      And what was the basis of the validity of the “sui generis Mandate”?

      The UNSCOP explains, quoting Balfour:

      The spirit which prevailed at the creation of the Mandate for Palestine was explained by Lord Balfour at the opening of the eighteenth session of the Council of the League of Nations as follows:

      “The mandates are not our creation. The mandates are neither made by the League, nor can they, in substance, be altered by the League. . . .

      “Remember that a mandate is a self-imposed limitation by the conquerors on the sovereignty which they obtained over conquered territories. It is imposed by the Allied and Associated Powers themselves in the interests of what they conceived to be the general welfare of mankind and they have asked the League of Nations to assist them in seeing that this policy should be carried into effect. [emphasis added]

      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

      Thus, the legitimacy of the “sui generis Mandate of Palestine” was ultimately derived from the British Empire’s supposed dedication to the “general welfare of mankind”, a highly dubious proposition, to put it mildly.

      Cf. “Balfour and Palestine, a legacy of deceit”– Anthony Nutting

      […] the British Government never intended to allow the Arab majority any voice in shaping the future of their own country. ‘The weak point of our position’, Balfour wrote to Lloyd George in February 1919, ‘is of course that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination’.[ 14] If the existing population were consulted, he added, they would ‘unquestionably’ return an anti-Zionist verdict. And in reply to Curzon, Balfour stated quite categorically that

      in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country …. The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land’.

      [emphasis added]

      http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-and-palestine/

    • Emory Riddle
      Emory Riddle
      May 2, 2016, 2:13 pm

      “But I do believe some comments expressed by some Labour members in support of Palestinians have been crass, ignorant, and yes, antisemitic.”

      Give me a break. Absolutely confirmed facts about the relationship of the Zionists with the German Nazis is smeared as anti-Semitic.

      We need to ban use of the term anti-Semitism. It has nothing to do with people hating Jews just because they are Jewish. It is only a tactic to gain power and to smear opponents.

      • lysias
        lysias
        May 12, 2016, 7:00 pm

        The really important thing to bear in mind about the Transfer Agreement is that, but for it, the Nazi government in Germany might have fallen within months of taking power. In 1933, the German economy was woefully short of foreign exchange, which was needed for imports to keep the populace happy and also for the rearmament program with which the Nazis won the support of the German military. Without the foreign exchange that the Transfer Agreement provided Germany, the worldwide Jewish boycott of Germany which was organized in 1933 could well have toppled Hitler before he had had a chance to consolidate his power.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 18, 2016, 5:06 am

        Mooser :

        “So you should be able to tell us, by your own standards, everything we need to know about you in one or two words. So what are you waiting for, tell us about your genetic make-up and DNA which will tell us everything! Like you know all about ours.

        So what are you waiting for “Silmacuz”? You really should, cause my Spidey-sense tells me you are on pretty thin ice, commenting-wise. They might put you back in the sock-drawer.”

        I have to tell you? According to which rule?

        Look, I have no issues divulging my ethnic identity, gender and sexuality, religious leanings or political convictions but only under the term where every other commenters are obliged the same. These information must be easily and readily available for all participants of the site to be able to access and (cross) refer to.

        I honestly think it is a good idea for MW to implement in order to visualize commenter bias with relations to their identity and it’s predispositions.

        For example, I have a strong feeling that among white, male commenters, there is a predominant stance that America is not a white supremacist, settler-colonial regime that mirrors Israel, or there is no white privilege in the same manner as there is (European) Jewish privilege in Israel.

        However, among POC and white women it’s totally different. We are more open in agreeing with the illegality of the American state institutions, the white supremacist social order that serves as the foundation the nation, the status of indigenous Natives as the rightful owners as the land etc.

        Another important difference I have observed is, among POC we do not pay too much attention to the Jewish vs Muslim/Arab aspect of IP conflict, and we tend to focus on the conflict as secular and politically rooted in European imperialism and anti-black, anti-Orient cultural racism that were ubiquitous in Europe when Zionism was took form as a complete ideology.

        There are many such differences in opinion and outlook that strongly correlate with a person’s larger identity, and if we can effectively show that such correlation exist, people would not be so offended and angry at individuals (like myself) for possessing opinions that are fundamentally different from theirs.

  2. talknic
    talknic
    May 2, 2016, 11:17 am

    “2. Remember, one person’s Settler Colonial project of land appropriation is another person’s expression of national self-determination.

    And both are correct.”

    Not when the Settler Colonial party illegally appropriating territory the territory of the other party already has a defined state. In fact, it’s illegal.

    “So my plea to those on the left …”

    No one on the ‘right’ believes in upholding Internationa Law? AMAZING!!!

    • silamcuz
      silamcuz
      May 2, 2016, 12:52 pm

      Either all settler colonial establishments are wrong or none of them are. I honestly don’t see how is International Law relevant in this convo considering the it has consistently failed in delivering any form of justice to the oppressed. Israel is a settler colonial state but it is far from the only one at this given time. So is the North American states in addition to Australia and New zealand. Focus on Israel’s settler colonialism all you want but you must atleast acknowledge that these other states are also similarly illegitimate and illegally founded. Israel has Gaza, the US has its reservations and inner city ghettos and Australia has desert slums for its natives and a Guantanamo inspired detention camp in Nauru for women and children for seeking refuge from the country.

      • Emory Riddle
        Emory Riddle
        May 2, 2016, 2:16 pm

        Sorry silamcuz but pointing to horrific crimes against humanity that took place in the 15th thru 19th centuries does not mean we should support a similar crime going on today.

        The USA should certainly be apologizing and paying reparations to the Black citizens and native peoples (maybe we could if we were not sinking so much into the Greater Israel project) but we cannot undo the past. We can, however, do something about the present.

        Do you get that we can only do something about the present and not the past?

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 2, 2016, 2:36 pm

        || silamcuz: Either all settler colonial establishments are wrong or none of them are. … ||

        All of them are. Israel should end its occupation of territory outside of its / Partition borders and withdraw to within them.

        In response to a similar post of yours, I asked you:
        – To within which borders of the U.S. should the U.S. withdraw?
        – To within which borders of Canada should Canada withdraw?

        You have yet to reply. Please do.

      • pabelmont
        pabelmont
        May 2, 2016, 4:23 pm

        silamcuz and Emory Riddle: the difference between 19th century and mid 20th is what I meant (my comment above) to point out as a reason why a currently established settler colonial regime was illicit — and the drafting of the UDHR (adopted December 10. 1948) was certainly on-going in the post WWII period when the long planned but never until then put into effect Zionist seizure of territory and expulsion of that territory’s inhabitants took place.

        To silamcuz’s list we might add China (Tibet), but most of the list were Anglo (!), so convinced of our rectitude were we that we could wipe out less militarily-prepared people without blushing. And our government is still doing it, world-wide, but keeping it a secret from the more polite (or kindly) public.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 3, 2016, 8:03 am

        Eljay

        “In response to a similar post of yours, I asked you:
        – To within which borders of the U.S. should the U.S. withdraw?
        – To within which borders of Canada should Canada withdraw?

        You have yet to reply. Please do.”

        You have shown your dishonesty and complete disinterest in helping liberate those under colonisation by the US and Canadian government through your infantile rhetorics.

        First of all, for the US or Canada to withdraw to a set border would mean that there was a precursor to the current arrangement that gave the government(s) legitimacy it has since lost. This is totally not true. There was no legitimate government representing itself as the USA or Canada in any point of time within history and there were no rightful borders in the first place. The question is fundamentally flawed and disingenuous.

        The only solution to the current colonisation is political empowerment of the colonized, namely the natives, blacks and their allies. Beyond that, it’s up to them to set the terms of their liberation, whether it’s to draw new borders for themselves or force reform onto the political system of the state(s). One form of empowerment would be the financial reparations and land reforms which have been long demanded by the victims of US and Canadian colonisation, but have been consistently ignored by the governments. Secondly is the provision of education system that caters specifically to the interests of the colonized, which would produce a politically conscious generation that will be more assertive and organized in demanding for their rights.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 3, 2016, 9:05 am

        || silamcuz: … You have shown your dishonesty and complete disinterest in helping liberate those under colonisation by the US and Canadian government through your infantile rhetorics. … ||

        You previously wrote: ” … you should also acknowledge that as a Canadian with no ancestry to the First Nation peoples, you are as much of a settler-colonist as the Jewish settlers in the West Bank … “

        You defined the terms of the discussion, I followed them…and that makes me a colonialist sympathizer who employs “infantile rhetorics”.

        Interesting.

        Your manipulative tendencies are showing, silamcuz. I’m not sure “your people” (whoever they are) would approve.

        || … The only solution to the current colonisation is political empowerment of the colonized, namely the natives, blacks and their allies. … ||

        Surely you mean that only the “blacks and their allies” who have ancestry to the First Nations peoples should be empowered, yes? Because, according to you, those “with no ancestry to the First Nation peoples … are as much of a settler-colonist as the Jewish settlers in the West Bank … “

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        May 3, 2016, 2:31 pm

        @em

        “Do you get that we can only do something about the present and not the past?”

        If you don’t understand how patently absurd this statement is, wether events from 150 years ago in the US, 100, 70 or 50 yrs in the ME, you are clueless, hopeless and most of all frighteningly shallow. wearing your heart on your sleeve will not help you or your fellow sympathizers.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 4, 2016, 8:35 am

        Eljay

        “You previously wrote: ” … you should also acknowledge that as a Canadian with no ancestry to the First Nation peoples, you are as much of a settler-colonist as the Jewish settlers in the West Bank … “

        You defined the terms of the discussion, I followed them…and that makes me a colonialist sympathizer who employs “infantile rhetorics”.”

        My original claim was that these establishments are settler-colonialist regimes with no historical links to the land they occupy.

        To that, you responded with this :

        “To within which borders of the U.S/Canada. should the U.S./Canada withdraw?”

        If the US was established as a settler-colonial regime, it would mean the government started as an illegal occupation of land belonging to others, and did not exist as a political entity prior to the occupation that it can retreat to. The origins of both government are in Western Europe, specifically the UK, but even then, it doesn’t really count as their legitimate borders.

        This shouldn’t be hard to understand, especially considering your interests in the IP conflict. The only reason the Zionist regime is afforded the 67 borders to itself is because it managed to secure agreement with the Palestinian leadership through various peace deals. Even then, there are still considerable voices within Palestine that strongly disagree with the agreement and lay claim to the entirety of the land of Israel/Palestine with completely valid reasoning. Therefore, you should not be so assertive in stating that Israel’s legitimacy is within its 67′ borders especially considering you are not even a Palestinian.

        In the US, there are no political entities that specifically represent the interests of Natives or Blacks in the same way as the PLO, PA or Hamas does for Palestinians. In addition, the power imbalance between these communities and that of the US government is far greater compared to that between Palestine and Israel, hence the state doesn’t even bother trying to arrange any sort of agreements to define its legitimate borders.

        This is why the only way forward to achieve justice in the USA and Canada is empowering these communities so that they can fight for themselves and secure their liberation on their own terms. Your obligations as a privileged settler-colonialist is to actively support them in every stage of their empowerment until justice is served.

        || … The only solution to the current colonisation is political empowerment of the colonized, namely the natives, blacks and their allies. … ||

        Surely you mean that only the “blacks and their allies” who have ancestry to the First Nations peoples should be empowered, yes? Because, according to you, those “with no ancestry to the First Nation peoples … are as much of a settler-colonist as the Jewish settlers in the West Bank … “

        No, you are wrong. Black people are just as colonized as the natives of North America, since they were unwillingly transplanted en masse onto the land by Europeans, and citizenship were forced on their descendants. With that, they were made to obey the laws of the regime and pledge allegiance to its oppressive institutions they had absolutely no hand in creating. Settler-colonialist refer to primarily those of European descent who formed the bulk of the political base for the US and Canadian government.

        TL:DR ~ People of European descent are not legitimate inhabitants of North America, and are part of a massive settler-colonialist project that dwarf Zionism. These settlers owe justice to the natives just as much as European Jews does to the Palestinians.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 4, 2016, 9:32 am

        || silamcuz: … My original claim was that these establishments are settler-colonialist regimes with no historical links to the land they occupy. To that, you responded with this : “To within which borders of the U.S/Canada. should the U.S./Canada withdraw?” ||

        I very clearly referred to comments made on a different thread.

        || … This is why the only way forward to achieve justice in the USA and Canada is empowering these communities so that they can fight for themselves and secure their liberation on their own terms. … ||

        Fair enough, that’s how it should work within the USA and Canada and Partition-borders Israel. Doesn’t change the fact that the occupation and colonization of non-Israeli territory must end.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 4, 2016, 10:00 am

        || silamcuz: … Black people are just as colonized as the natives of North America, since they were unwillingly transplanted en masse onto the land by Europeans, and citizenship were forced on their descendants. With that, they were made to obey the laws of the regime and pledge allegiance to its oppressive institutions they had absolutely no hand in creating. … ||

        Hmmm…I was unwillingly brought onto this (North American) land by Europeans, and citizenship was forced upon me. With that, I was made to obey the laws of the regime and pledge allegiance to its oppressive institutions I had no hand in creating.

        But enough about me. Regardless of how black people got to North America, they and their descendants are no more its indigenous population than are white Europeans and their descendants.

        While black people are entitled to fight against the white man’s oppression, IMO they must show the same deference as the white man to North America’s indigenous population.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 4, 2016, 10:11 am

        Eljay

        “I very clearly referred to comments made on a different thread”

        Yeah, you clearly referred to the comments by not even bothering to quote them in your reply.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 4, 2016, 10:33 am

        || silamcuz: … Yeah, you clearly referred to the comments by not even bothering to quote them in your reply. ||

        refer: mention or allude to

        That’s correct: I clearly referred to the comments. Perhaps I should have quoted them as well, but I didn’t claim that I had quoted them.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 4, 2016, 11:16 am

        Eljay

        “Hmmm…I was unwillingly brought onto this (North American) land by Europeans, and citizenship was forced upon me. With that, I was made to obey the laws of the regime and pledge allegiance to its oppressive institutions I had no hand in creating”

        Your equating your existence due to your ancestors coming to America by their own choice, starting a family by choice and procreating you by choice to those whose existence in America is due to their ancestors being kidnapped and transported onto the continent in chains, bred like cattle, raped and impregnated by their owners?

        Also, if you are in any way oppressed by the institutions of the state it would be more logical for you to focus your energy in bringing awareness onto the oppressive practices and fight for your rights, instead of discussing Middle Eastern politics with strangers on the internet.

        “While black people are entitled to fight against the white man’s oppression, IMO they must show the same deference as the white man to North America’s indigenous population.”

        Nah. Black people have absolutely no obligations to defer to anyone but themselves considering they had nothing to do with the state of the natives today. It’s white people who started all of the mess, and its white people who are benefiting from the genocide of natives, theft of their land and slavery of the blacks.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 11, 2016, 9:15 am

        || silamcuz: … Your equating your existence due to your ancestors coming to America by their own choice … to those whose existence in America is due to their ancestors being kidnapped and transported onto the continent in chains … ||

        No, what I did was correctly state that I had no choice in my coming to North America. I am here because of the actions of others.

        || … Also, if you are in any way oppressed by the institutions of the state it would be more logical for you to focus your energy in bringing awareness onto the oppressive practices and fight for your rights, instead of discussing Middle Eastern politics with strangers on the internet. … ||

        Thanks for telling me what I should and should not be discussing. Do you also tell blacks and natives what they should and should not be discussing, or do you save all of your disdain only for “whitey”?

        || … Nah. Black people have absolutely no obligations to defer to anyone but themselves considering they had nothing to do with the state of the natives today. … ||

        This is good news! Since I had nothing to do with the state of the natives today, I have absolutely no obligations to anyone but myself. Thanks, silamcuz, you’re the best! :-)

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 11, 2016, 11:53 am

        Eljay

        No, what I did was correctly state that I had no choice in my coming to North America. I am here because of the actions of others.

        You do realize that applies to every single individual in the world right? Why not go a bit further since we are being philosophical. You look the way you do because you received all of the genes for your hair, eye and skin color, nose shape etc etc from your parents, who brought you into existence by having sex with non of your help. People treat you the way they do because of your appearance and behaviors, that are purely because of the action of others. And you react to their treatment of you in accordance to your environment and your hard-wired behavior. No choice in any of these.

        You behave the way you do because your mom gave birth to you in a country that prerequisites a certain set of values and behavioral attitudes, along with the genes that are responsible for the way your brain reacts external stimuli such as interaction with family, friends and colleagues as well as random strangers in your life. You also had no choice in neither the fact that you were born and raised where you were, or the specific DNA set that formed the basis of your personality and behavioral traits you inherited from your parents when you were conceived in your mother’s uterus.

        You will have no choice on the circumstances that may affect you in the future, nor would you be able to choose your response to the circumstances considering you have been hard-wired to react to every event major or minor in a certain way due to your specific genetic makeup. In a nutshell, you had no choice in existing and will have no choice while you exist. Your statement is indeed correct, I suppose.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 11, 2016, 12:03 pm

        || silamcuz: … You do realize that applies to every single individual in the world right? … ||

        No, because not every person in the world is in North America.

        || … Why not go a bit further since we are being philosophical. You look the way you do because you received all of the genes for your hair, eye and skin color, nose shape etc etc from your parents, who brought you into existence by having sex with non of your help. … ||

        I’ll agree with that.

        || … In a nutshell, you had no choice in existing … ||

        Correct. Coming into existence was not my choice.

        || … and will have no choice while you exist. … ||

        Incorrect. I will have choices while I exist. Everyone does – even blacks and indigenous people.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 11, 2016, 12:20 pm

        “You will have no choice on the circumstances that may affect you in the future, nor would you be able to choose…”

        Yeah, yeah, I know:

        There is nothing wrong with your television. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. Controlling all that you see and hear…..

        But whatever you do, “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 11, 2016, 12:30 pm

        “You behave the way you do because your mom gave birth to you in a country that prerequisites a certain set of values and behavioral attitudes”

        Ho-Kay, “silmacuz”, you finally set out some ‘good bait’! Response racism I don’t do, but “your mom”? I am always ready to talk about yo’ Mama, if you’re ready to talk about “eljay’s”!

        “Silmacuz”, shall I tell you about yo’ Mama? Cause I can, you know, now that you’ve opened the door. And how you turned out, thanks to yo’ Mama?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 11, 2016, 12:41 pm

        “or the specific DNA set that formed the basis of your personality and behavioral traits you inherited from your parents when you were conceived in your mother’s uterus.”

        Why, of course! That must be why some men are born to be masters, and some born to be servants and slaves. Thank you, “silmacuz”, you have made me feel a lot better.
        Since nobody can change, everything will stay in the current hierarchy you so well describe, huh?

        “It’s white people who started all of the mess, and its white people who are benefiting from the genocide of natives, theft of their land and slavery of the blacks.” “silmacuz”

        Oh well, too bad, “silmacuz”, blame your Mother.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 11, 2016, 1:10 pm

        || Mooser: … Response racism I don’t do, but “your mom”? I am always ready to talk about yo’ Mama, if you’re ready to talk about “eljay’s”! … ||

        No worries, Mooser. Although she wasn’t perfect – nobody is – my mom was a nice lady who could cook like nobody’s business: Her lasagna was to die for, and this one soup she used to make was heaven on earth!

        No amount of silamcuz can change that. :-)

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 11, 2016, 2:03 pm

        “Her lasagna was to die for, and this one soup she used to make was heaven on earth”

        Exactly! And, as the axiom goes, you are what you eat. That makes you “heaven on earth, to die for”.

        Perhaps “silamcuz” eats his Mom’s DNA. I wouldn’t know.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 11, 2016, 2:33 pm

        ” In a nutshell, you had no choice in existing and will have no choice while you exist.”

        Damn, that Progressive Marxist dialectic inspires me! Now, that’s the kind of talk to rally the oppressed peoples with!

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 11, 2016, 3:15 pm

        || Mooser: Exactly! And, as the axiom goes, you are what you eat. That makes you “heaven on earth, to die for”. … ||

        I’ll buy that…but I’m pretty sure my wife won’t. ;-)

        || … Perhaps “silamcuz” eats his Mom’s DNA. I wouldn’t know. ||

        I don’t want to know.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 12, 2016, 2:40 am

        Eljay

        “Thanks for telling me what I should and should not be discussing. Do you also tell blacks and natives what they should and should not be discussing, or do you save all of your disdain only for “whitey”? “

        Yes, I am telling you that you shouldn’t be discussing internal affairs of people that does not pertain to you or yours especially in a forum that were designated for non-white, marginalized voices. Shouldn’t be that hard, considering your voice and opinions as a white cis-male are welcome just about everywhere else, unlike those of blacks, natives or Palestinians. Recognize your privilege.

        This is good news! Since I had nothing to do with the state of the natives today, I have absolutely no obligations to anyone but myself. Thanks, silamcuz, you’re the best! :-)

        You are still being privileged from the oppression of natives, due to the present system of white supremacy. You enjoy all the benefits of the oppressive system, yet you claim you have nothing to do with it. It is through your complicity and tacit support, the white supremacist system is still standing.

        Genocide of natives and theft of their land are not merely minor black spots in American/Canadian history.

        These were the fundamental events that laid the foundation of the country, and shaped the future of blacks, natives and white people, and their relationship with each other. The repercussions of these founding events are still strongly affecting blacks and native groups today, and only a revolution…a complete dismantling of the white supremacist entity can liberate these folks from perpetual oppression.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 12, 2016, 9:30 am

        silamcuz: Yes, I am telling you … ||

        I know you’re telling me. My question was: Are you also telling blacks and natives what they should and should not be discussing, or do you save all of your disdain only for “whitey”?

        || … You are still being privileged from the oppression of natives … ||

        So are other non-natives. Stop hating on me just because I happen to be white.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 12, 2016, 10:56 am

        “So are other non-natives. Stop hating on me just because I happen to be white.”

        Of course, every time people call white people out on their privilege, they scream oppression. You are too predictable and boring, frankly speaking.

      • annie
        annie
        May 12, 2016, 11:21 am

        eljay, silamcuz is merely employing a hasbara tactic developed by luntz and other propaganda specialists to own the bookends of the discussion by determining who can and cannot say what. this is rife in all his comments (“I am telling you that you shouldn’t be discussing internal affairs of people that does not pertain to you or yours” and “You are still being privileged”) etc etc.

        he has no power to determine who gets to say what. he’s continually branding anyone who he thinks is white and trying shut them up. think about how powerful that positioning would be if only people of color were allowed to legitimately advocate for palestine — if he could effectively shut us up. it would eliminate legitimate activism for all white people — purely based on their ethnicity. which is stupid and destructive. palestinians never ask for that. just ignore him, he’s a troll.

        he’s been banned twice here for this same racist crap cloaked in his BS anti colonialist garb, trying to tarnish people who advocate for a free palestine as being inherently racist — and he keeps coming back — unfortunately.

        and p.s. contrary to his allegations, this is non “a forum that were designated for non-white, marginalized voices” — it’s a forum where everyone is welcome to share their opinion and can do so anonymously (as he does) without ever disclosing their ethnicity (which he takes full advantage of).

        if anyone around here acts privileged, it’s silamuz and he’s not. he’s a spamming troll.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 12, 2016, 11:22 am

        || silamcuz: Of course, every time people call white people out on their privilege, they scream oppression. … ||

        But I’m not privileged – no more so than any other Canadian – so what you’re actually hearing is the sound of your anti-white racism screaming hatred at me.

        || … You are too predictable and boring, frankly speaking. ||

        You are too blatantly racist, frankly speaking.

        But you’re also too funny, like a clown. :o)

      • annie
        annie
        May 12, 2016, 11:39 am

        eljay, quit buying into it. listen to his words — you didn’t scream oppression he’s just positioning himself and flailing to position you beneath himself. you told him to stop hating (that’s not screaming oppression) and he’s twisting your words. it what he does.

        the hypocrisy here is that he’s white himself (ie; “enjoy[s] all the benefits of the oppressive system”) and speaking like a privileged supremacist — under the pretense of being “other”. when he’s not.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 12, 2016, 11:33 am

        || Annie Robbins: eljay, silamcuz is merely employing a hasbara tactic … just ignore him, he’s a troll. … ||

        Hi, Annie. Yeah, I know he’s a troll, but he’s so funny. Watching him trip and stumble all over his own hypocritical, racist, anti-white “logic” is entertaining. :-)

      • annie
        annie
        May 12, 2016, 11:45 am

        i don’t find it entertaining. thread after thread after thread of this crap. i’m so over it.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 12, 2016, 11:51 am

        || Annie Robbins: i don’t find it entertaining. thread after thread after thread of this crap. i’m so over it. ||

        I get that he shouldn’t be allowed to clutter MW up with his racist and diversionary crap, but that’s up to the site’s moderators to deal with, IMO.

        As far as taking him seriously or feeling intimidated by him, I don’t and I’m not.

      • annie
        annie
        May 12, 2016, 12:07 pm

        i am not the only one who moderates here and either people have different standards for what constitutes spamming, racism and/or harassment or it’s not always apparent the entire context of the different threads — it would be impossible to keep track of all the conversations. it’s not about being threatened by him per se, but the implication of normalizing this kind of racist speech is threatening to the site and the movement imho. it’s certainly nothing i’ve ever heard from movement leaders as i described here: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/it-is-time-to-stop-celebrating-jewish-dissent-in-the-palestine-solidarity-movement/#comment-837209

        keep in mind, he doesn’t do this randomly, he does it on popular articles with lots of comments. it’s a tactic to break up the conversation and lead/divert and set traps to demonstrate advocates for palestinian freedom are racist. that’s the upshot of it. silencing speech.

        and i’d like you to consider how, you’ve served his mission of diverting this conversation into one about anti zionism/anti semitism/zionism into one about white privilege. think about that. you walked right into it.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 12, 2016, 12:35 pm

        Eljay (a white male)

        But I’m not privileged – no more so than any other Canadian – so what you’re actually hearing is the sound of your anti-white racism screaming hatred at me”

        Sigh. Please read these and try again.

        – Why White People Downplay Their Individual Racial Privileges –

        Research shows that white (Americans), when faced with evidence of racial privilege, deny that they have benefited personally.

        “But in a new study, Stanford researchers found that on an individual level, whites do not think that the privileges extend to them.

        The research by L. Taylor Phillips, a PhD student at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Brian Lowery, the Walter Kenneth Kilpatrick Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford GSB, found that whites exposed to evidence of racial privilege responded by claiming their own personal hardships. Those surveyed didn’t deny the existence of racial privileges held by whites as a group, they just came up with other reasons — namely, personal obstacles — why they should be considered differently from that overall group.”

        “Despite this reality, policy makers and power brokers continue to debate whether racial privilege even exists and whether to address such inequity,” the researchers noted. “One reason for this inaction might be an unwillingness among Whites to acknowledge racial privilege — acknowledgment that may be difficult given that Whites are motivated to believe that meritocratic systems and personal virtues determine life outcomes.”

        Extracted from Stanford Graduate School of Business Insights, author Kerry A. Dolan https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-whites-downplay-their-individual-racial-privileges

        I thought this statement described you to a t, Eljay :

        “White privilege is the other side of racism,” author Paula Rothenberg wrote in her book White Privilege. “It is often easier to deplore racism and its effects than to take responsibility for the privileges some of us receive as a result of it.”

        Extracted from MIC – This New Study Explains Why White People Deny Their Privilege http://mic.com/articles/122149/new-study-explains-the-denial-of-white-privilege#.Qryk7yKtf

        Here are Canada-specific articles to further assist in your education on white privilege

        – Why We Must Talk About White Privilege –

        The idea that systemic racism has victims but no beneficiaries is a lie we must confront and destroy.

        It is because of white privilege that some white people are skeptical of or offended by equity programs that assume racialized residents may face greater challenges than their white counterparts. Their presumption is that all races are equal, because that is their real experience as the invisible but dominant racial group. As a result, those who object to these programs argue that phenomena like the racial imbalance among government employees is the result of picking the “most qualified person for the job”—as if qualified people of colour are simply the losers in an unbiased hiring environment.

        “Let us also work to destroy the deadly myth that our unequal society is a reflection of merit. Black and brown people experience disproportionately high rates of poverty, underemployment, and poorer health outcomes. It is the height of privilege to defend a social system that produces such skewed outcomes as “fair.” We need aggressive employment equity targets and an explicit commitment to anti-racism in our public and private workplaces, we need zoning strategies to ensure grocery stores and not just fast food outlets are within walking distance of every Torontonian—we need to remake every social system to provide equal access and opportunity, instead of assuming that merit will win out of its own accord.”

        Here’s more reading material just in case you are still confused on what is white privilege :

        – What is white privilege? –

        Sonia Ellis-Seguin of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Toronto led a session for educators on recognizing that white people are given opportunities that aren’t offered as easily to others.

        The lesson is that white privilege can be an invisible but insidious form of racism.

        “White people will have benefit or have advantages within society purely because they are white,” she said.

        Extracted from CBC News Toronto http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/what-is-white-privilege-1.2852643

        Are you still going to deny your white privilege now, Eljay?

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 12, 2016, 1:41 pm

        || silamcuz: Sigh. Please read these and try again. … ||

        Sigh. You’re an anti-white racist and a hypocritical apologist for non-white privileged people and non-white oppressors. So there’s nothing to “try again”.

        But you’re still funny. :-)

      • annie
        annie
        May 12, 2016, 1:56 pm

        non-white privileged people and non-white oppressors

        eljay, are you referencing (jewish) zionists, because lots of them are white. anyway, i’m done here.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 12, 2016, 2:06 pm

        || Annie Robbins: … eljay, are you referencing (jewish) zionists, because lots of them are white. … ||

        No, my comment was focused on North America, where…
        – white people get hated by; and
        – comparably-privileged and -oppressive non-whites get a free pass from,
        …silamcuz / rugal_b / a4tech.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 12, 2016, 4:06 pm

        “trying to tarnish people who advocate for a free palestine as being inherently racist” “Annie”

        Thanks, “Annie”. Got it in one.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 12, 2016, 4:28 pm

        “Sigh. You’re an anti-white racist and a hypocritical apologist for non-white privileged people and non-white oppressors. So there’s nothing to “try again”.”

        Sigh! Sigh! “Eljay” didn’t “Annie” just ask you to not “buy into it”?

        Don’t you get it, “eljay” “silamcuz” does a very bad imitation of an “anti-white racist” to try and draw a racist response. So far he hasn’t gotten it.

        Haven’t you noticed that “silamcuz” is pretty much exactly how an extreme right-wing person would caricature a social activist, or an activist for POC? That hasn’t struck you?

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 12, 2016, 5:05 pm

        || Mooser: Sigh! Sigh! “Eljay” didn’t “Annie” just ask you to not “buy into it”?

        Don’t you get it, “eljay” “silamcuz” does a very bad imitation of an “anti-white racist” to try and draw a racist response. So far he hasn’t gotten it.

        Haven’t you noticed that “silamcuz” is pretty much exactly how an extreme right-wing person would caricature a social activist, or an activist for POC? That hasn’t struck you? ||

        silamrugaltech strikes me as being anti-white and a few bricks short of a load. I guess I’m just not well-versed in how to identify people pretending to be other people. Well, except for Potato-man. I liked his schtick. :-)

        Anyway, for the good of MW I’ll try to avoid getting into any discussions with him.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 12, 2016, 5:14 pm

        “Of course, every time people call white people out”

        “Every time people call white people out
        … now there’s an interesting schema. You’ve got your “people” and then, of course, those “white people”.
        “Silmacuz”, you may have noticed, is for the “people”.

      • annie
        annie
        May 12, 2016, 5:53 pm

        speaking of anti whiteness, has everyone been following azaelia banks freak out on zayn malik?

        i am a huge malik fan (literally) and intercepted this early on. wow. anyway, today she got banned from twitter so she’s took to instagram and “says she’ll be publishing an essay titled “Whiteness is a mental illness.” – then she made her instagram account private. just google her name or malik’s name, it’s all over the place from buzz feed to the atlantic to cnn to usatoday.

        but here’s her response to being banned:

        http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/azealia-banks-responds-to-her-twitter-suspension-news.21594.html

        there’s something about being lectured on whiteness by a flaming racist that’s challenging for many people. the atlantic wrote “you never want to offend is One Direction fans”, but there were a lot more people than that she pissed off.

      • just
        just
        May 12, 2016, 6:22 pm

        Annie~ I cannot read her response @ your link, but I have had this in my peripheral vision. She’s dreadful, to put it mildly.

        Good for twitter! Go Zayn.

        (She’s probably not fully aware who the new mayor of London is, either)

      • annie
        annie
        May 12, 2016, 6:32 pm

        you can’t read it because she made her account private, but if he’s quoting her i believe him. the twitter tirade she went on was just horrendous. #AzealiaGotSuspendedParty is trending on twitter (over 50 million tweets) — i wasn’t even aware she had pissed so many people off in the past. many, but this is an amazing response. i will find a link later to her cached tweets, which are all deleted now.

        i’m listening to michael ratner now. it’s hard to comprehend he’s gone. gotta go

        http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11546

      • just
        just
        May 12, 2016, 6:41 pm

        A much more important and worthy endeavor, Annie.

        I see what you mean, and don’t really need to know more. ;-)

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 13, 2016, 11:33 am

        Annie

        i am a huge malik fan (literally) and intercepted this early on. wow. anyway, today she got banned from twitter so she’s took to instagram and “says she’ll be publishing an essay titled “Whiteness is a mental illness.”

        Do you find anti-whiteness to be problematic? Just curious, because anti-whiteness is not synonymous with anti-white FYI, and many distinguished writers and thinkers can be argued to hold beliefs aligning with anti-whiteness and these folks are often white themselves.

        Anyways, I found the media’s response to Banks distasteful and unfair. She is obviously posing herself as a troll, and deliberately using inflammatory language to vent and cry for attention at the same time. The outrage is overblown I think, especially when you consider the fact that we have a guy who openly advocates racial violence towards Muslims and Mexicans and he gets to run for the presidency because of it.

        Also, please be aware that the media is always looking for the opportunity to pit POC groups with each other, whether its brown folks vs black, Asian vs brown etc hence they amp up stuff like this. Was Banks wrong to tweet those nonsense? Well I suppose but the reactions from the mainstream are uncalled for.

        Not to mention that anti-blackness is rife within the South Asian community, as a result of centuries of European colonialism and internalization of white supremacy. Banks through her ill-worded tweets, brought some much needed awareness of this issue to the wider audience. She did the community a favor albeit in a twisted, offensive way.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 13, 2016, 12:43 pm

        “Also, please be aware that the media is always looking for the opportunity to pit POC groups with each other, whether its brown folks vs black, Asian vs brown etc hence they amp up stuff like this.”

        Yup, darn that bad old media! That darned old media says stuff like this:

        ” anti-blackness is rife within the South Asian community, as a result of centuries of European colonialism and internalization of white supremacy.”

        Whoops, that’s not the “media”, that’s “silmacuz” in the same comment!

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 14, 2016, 8:53 am

        Mooser

        Well just look at the millions of white people tweeting even worse stuff about Muslims, blacks and Mexicans, they never get banned from Twitter on the basis of protecting free speech.

        Why is Trump, a person who has publicly threatened to enact institutional ban against 1.6 billion Muslims (many of these are South Asians, including Zayn and his family) travelling into the country, advocated torture and killing non-combatants in war against terror, allowed to keep his Twitter, but not Azealia Banks? How does this work, calling someone names is worse than institutional oppression and state sanctioned murder?

        When a black woman tweets some stupid shit, she immediately gets banned by Twitter (note that Zayn didn’t even ask her to be banned) and articles after articles are pumped out by the media covering her rather inane tweets. As if her dumb tweets serve to hurt Zayn or South Asians any more badly than living in a white supremacist western nation does.

        It’s bizarre how frenzied the media becomes when it sees a troubled black woman trip and make a mistake, ruthless jumping on her as if she is the devil. What makes it worse if that they don’t even bother to ask why would her tweet offend Zayn or any South Asian?

        If Zayn is genuinely hurt by her tweets, it will be only because he is reminded of the institution oppression he and his people face living in a white supremacist society. Her tweets serves to remind South Asians of the systemic violence they are subject to, not by her, but by the police, by the education system, by the government, by Hollywood, by every structure of American society. Hence, if the media is feeling so self-righteous, they should be demonizing the actual system that harms South Asians, not gang up on a black woman who has no institutional power beyond herself to hurt Zayn and his fellow brown folks.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 14, 2016, 3:40 pm

        I didn’t know who Azealia Banks was, so I did a bit of googling and youtubing. From what I’ve gathered:
        – she’s an attractive, intelligent, talented and successful black woman; and
        – she repeatedly and deliberately abuses her position of privilege to viciously attack and demean people she dislikes.

        I find silamrugaltech’s fervent defense of Ms. Banks and her repeated and deliberate abuse of her position of privilege interesting for a couple of reasons:
        – He strips her of her intelligence, her will and her privilege by reducing her to a “black woman” / “troubled black woman” who “tweets some stupid shit”.
        – He compares her to Trump, as though Trump’s atrocious behaviour – which deserves to be condemned – justifies her own. Whataboutism – the ol’ “murders exist, so it’s OK to rape” defense favoured by Zio-supremacists – is never a valid excuse for unjust or immoral behaviour.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 15, 2016, 1:19 am

        Eljay

        Alezia Banks beauty, intelligence or success is irrelevent because we are talking about how the media and system discriminate against the collective POC when claiming to check bad behavior. This is not much about her personally but more about black or POC women in general who are constantly being painted as the villains just because they dare to challenge the status quo. What happened to Banks had happened to countless POC or black women before, and we as social justice activists should be cognizant of this.

        Banks got banned from Twitter despite her right to free speech, despite many other users tweet even more harmful material, especially white men in power such as Trump, despite Zayn not expressing any grievances over the whole debacle. She got banned frankly because she is a black woman, and she got all the intense media scrutiny because she is a black woman.

        You are missing the point when you claim Banks cause of offense is because she said bad things when she had the privilege to do so. This is not the case at all. Her words were meant to trigger a reaction from South Asians from the systemic oppression they have faced and are facing due to white supremacism, colonialism and imperialism. So when she calls Zayn a refugee, smells like curry etc, it reminds South Asians of the common stigma and oppression they face in the West due to Western destabilization of governments, bombings of civilians under the guise of fighting terror, profilling all brown folks as potential terrorists and sharing on big monolithic brown (curry eating) culture etc. If her words are harmful, it is only because they are underlied with immense systemic violence by the white countries towards South Asia and Pakistan specifically. Instead of focusing on these systemic violence that afflict the South Asian community that produced the social stigma against their culture (such as “curry” smelling bad) and their political aspirations in the first place, the media is disgustingly jumping on her personally as some sick modern witch hunt.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 15, 2016, 5:33 am

        Eljay

        “– He strips her of her intelligence, her will and her privilege by reducing her to a “black woman” / “troubled black woman” who “tweets some stupid shit”. “

        The issue is whether it was right for Twitter to ban her, and if she had the right to tweet those words without expecting personal attacks on her by the mainstream media and fellow Twitter-users. What does her “intelligence, her will and her privilege” has anything to do with it? Please explain your reasoning to mention these words here.

        “He compares her to Trump, as though Trump’s atrocious behaviour – which deserves to be condemned – justifies her own. Whataboutism – the ol’ “murders exist, so it’s OK to rape” “

        I am not comparing Azaliea Banks to Trump per se. I am comparing the treatment by the mainstream media and Twitter towards a black woman,Banks and white people like Trump for publishing offensive, harmful tweets. Note the difference.

        I am not justifying Banks remarks towards Zayn because it does not need to be justified. It was a personal attack, that’s between her and Zayn (and South Asians by extension). She is not an elected official, or a public figure that is obligated to conform to a set code of conduct due to her position. So why ban her and deny her the freedom of speech? If South Asians hated her tweets, they can ignore her, boycott her concerts, stop buying her albums etc. But on what basis did the neutral party, Twitter ban her?

        Now Trump, he is vying for an elected position that will give him institutional powers to commit violence on Muslims, such as banning them from travelling (a fundamental human right btw), legalize spying on their community, bomb their homelands etc. He is as harmful as any individual can be, to a major sector of American demographic. As in his words, or tweets translate to real-world violence on Muslims, and Mexicans and other POC. Yet, he is able to keep his Twitter account and continue publishing offensive tweets that serves as a means for him to reach his Islamophobic, racist and xenophobic goals.

        This is what I am talking about…this whole drama is just white supremacy trying to pit POC against POC, while it quietly sit back and revel in the spectacle. I honestly don’t care about neither Banks or Zayn, I’m just focused on dismantling white supremacy.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 15, 2016, 12:10 pm

        || silamcuz: The issue is whether it was right for Twitter to ban her … ||

        Correct. Did she intentionally and repeatedly break Twitter’s rules? If ‘yes’, they were right to ban her; if ‘no’, they were not right to ban her.

        It had nothing to do with whether her behaviour is better or worse than Trump’s, or whether she’s a “black woman” / “troubled black woman” who “tweets some stupid shit”. So aside from wanting to stir sh*t up, there was no reason for you to have gone there. But you did. And you still do.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 15, 2016, 1:56 pm

        “silamcuz” uses so much circular logic, he’s always running headlong into himself coming the other way.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 16, 2016, 3:23 am

        The above is a clear example of why white people, especially white men have no place in the field of activism for social justice and liberation of oppressed.

        If you honestly do not see anything wrong with a black woman being banned from Twitter for using offensive language, while millions of white people are allowed to do the same without similar repercussions, why do even bother inserting yourself in progressive forums and engaging in liberation politics?

        But seriously, Eljay actually believe that white privilege do not exist, so it’s not surprising for him to be blind to the systemic discrimination against blacks, especially black women.

        In closing of this rather sad set of comment chain, I want to ask Phil Weiss one question:

        Is denying white privilege an offense in the same manner on your site, as denying the Holocaust or the Nakba? Please clarify, thank you.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 16, 2016, 6:18 am

        Mooser

        ““silamcuz” uses so much circular logic, he’s always running headlong into himself coming the other way.”

        No circular reasoning here. It’s fairly straightforward, POC and progressives are sick of white supremacy dictating the terms of what are punishable offenses and what falls under free speech.

        We are sick of seeing white people be afforded one standard of conduct, and POC and especially black women be afforded a completely different set in a discriminatory fashion.

        In the end of the day, Azaelia Banks got banned from Twitter. But we progressives kinda expected that, no way a black woman would get away saying the things she said in public. What we demand now is the same standard be applied across the board, where ALL of those engaging in verbal abuse and inflammatory, hurtful rhetorics be banned from using Twitter. This must include powerful figures such as Trump , and regular people such as his many bigoted, racist supporters.

        Here’s some excerpts from a really well-written article for your enlightenment on this issue

        “While I celebrate that festivals have dropped Banks as a headliner and Twitter promptly suspended her account for her actions, I find it absolutely disgusting that I can pull up my mentions right now and point out several white people who have tweeted to me that I am a worthless nigger with no future and looking for a handout—and no matter how many times I report them, the response is the usual, “this is not a violation of policy.” Oh-ho really? Raise your hand if you have ever been personally victimized by white privilege on social platforms. Everybody who isn’t a straight white male better have both hands waving in the air, lemme tell you, but Twitter and Facebook won’t see you. They’re too busy vigilantly protecting our rights!

        That is, they’re protecting the rights of every of every male user who threatened to rape and murder women during the infamous Gamergate. That’s “freedom of speech,” but heaven forbid a woman posts a picture of her breastfeeding to Facebook. That’s like porn or something! They’re protecting the rights of that one white female user I reported to Facebook, who called me a hateful nigger bitch and let me know in no uncertain terms that she had a Glock next to her with my name on it. Alrighty then, that’s free speech? But heaven forbid someone type “Black Lives Matter.” Facebook was so vigilant on censoring these words that Mark Zuckerberg actually sent a letter to his employees to tell them to chill out.

        Yet, for their commitment to free speech, they are equally committed to getting rid of hate speech. That’s why all those Pro-Black Facebook pages are erased and the Black Panther party is referred to as a terrorist group. Never fear though, those white power and pro-men’s-rights-to-rape groups are still going strong. YAY FREEDOM! DOWN WITH PC CULTURE! We must protect the Ku Klux Klan (who, unlike the Black Panthers, have started no community projects beyond a bloody history of torturing and lynching). They’re simply a group with an unpopular opinion, am I right or am I right?”

        Source : Azealia Banks’ Twitter Ban Reminds Us Freedom Of Speech Is For Whites Only by Carol Hood, written forThe Establishment http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/05/13/azealia-banks-twitter-suspension-reminds-us-that-freedom-of-speech-is-for-whites-only/

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 16, 2016, 9:55 am

        || silamcuz: … Eljay actually believe that white privilege do not exist … ||

        Privileged silamcuz actually lying because Eljay never say he actually believe that white privilege do not exist.

        || … Here’s some excerpts from a really well-written article for your enlightenment on this issue

        “While I celebrate that festivals have dropped Banks as a headliner and Twitter promptly suspended her account for her actions … “ … ||

        Re-read that really well-written sentence and enlighten yourself.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        May 16, 2016, 10:47 am

        “silamcuz” uses so much circular logic
        —————

        Mooser, you are a formidable logician (and, of course, a brilliantly incisive humorist), let me ask you–could any conclusions might be drawn from these facts:

        1) Silamcuz tells us: “I reserve all my love and energy to my people, and my people only ”

        2) Silamcuz repeatedly refuses to explicitly name his beloved People (unless I missed it), but at the same time repeatedly declines to contradict assertions that he is in fact Jewish (white, or de-whited).

        3)Silamcuz spends a huge amount of time and loving energy here at MW, ostensibly fighting Zionism in the name of POC, anti-White Supremacy, and a racialized version of progressive politics–not in the name of his own beloved People.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 16, 2016, 10:57 am

        Eljay,

        What you are doing is labelled as derailing. The contentious issue here is not the individual behavior of Azealia Banks, yet that’s where you are continuously diverting the discussion towards so you can present yourself in opposition of her bad behavior, and me as a supporter of her bad-behavior.

        I neither support or object to her tweets, because none of them interests me. The issue I am pushing is the discriminatory fashion she is being treated by the mainstream media, and by Twitter for her decision to those offensive material. I think it’s pretty clear, but I know you deliberately are missing the point, so I won’t bother arguing any further. There a lot of ways to wake a person who is sleeping, but what can you do to person who is faking sleep?

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 16, 2016, 11:06 am

        Eljay

        “Privileged silamcuz actually lying because Eljay never say he actually believe that white privilege do not exist.”

        Hmmm, OK. Could you explain what you mean when you said you are no more privileged than any other Canadian, as below, in response to me claiming that you as a white Canadian benefit from white privilege?

        “But I’m not privileged – no more so than any other Canadian – so what you’re actually hearing is the sound of your anti-white racism screaming hatred at me”

        So you don’t deny white privilege exist, but it’s just happen to not apply to you personally?

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 16, 2016, 11:15 am

        || silamcuz: … Could you explain what you mean when you said you are no more privileged than any other Canadian … ||

        Exactly that. I am an average Canadian with no more privilege than any other average Canadian. My station in life here in Canada is better than the station of some Canadians and worse that the station of others.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 16, 2016, 11:18 am

        || silamcuz: … Eljay, What you are doing is labelled as derailing. … ||

        No, that’s what you’re constantly doing.

        || … The contentious issue here is not the individual behavior of Azealia Banks … ||

        And yet the discussion was precisely about the individual behaviour of Azealia Banks until you derailed it. Like you always do.

        Thanks for the laughs, funny man. :-) This is the last time I will address you or any of your comments.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 16, 2016, 11:36 am

        Sibiriak

        “fighting Zionism in the name of POC, anti-White Supremacy, and a racialized version of progressive politics–not in the name of his own beloved People. “

        Zionism is closely related to White Supremacy, and as such, you cannot oppose one without doing likewise with the other. Same way you can’t be anti-racism but pro-religious supremacism.

        Actually, I know many people who actively engage in anti-Zionism, but maintain a neutral or positive stance towards white supremacy. We in the activist field try to stay away from these folks the best we can, just as JVP, SJP, MW etc stay away from Alison Weir and countless other anti-Israel white supremacist / white nationalist groups existing today.

        What does “racialized version of progressive politics” even mean? Where in the world is race (by its many definitions) not an integral part of politics?

        Are you suggesting we be colorblind and deliberately refrain from discussing racially-sensitive matters (such as school-to-prison pipeline, environmental racism in Flint, Eurocentric national curriculum, black-white wage gap and unemployment rates etc etc etc) in politics?

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 16, 2016, 12:31 pm

        Sibiriak

        ““fighting Zionism in the name of POC”

        Why wouldn’t this be the case when the victims of Zionism are almost exclusively POC (namely the Palestinians, the non-white Jewish Israelis, Arabs as the major ones) ?

        Are you implying the fight against Zionism should be a white-centric movement?

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 16, 2016, 1:01 pm

        Eljay:

        I am an average Canadian with no more privilege than any other average Canadian

        Except you are totally wrong. As an average white Canadian, living in Canada you enjoy all the benefits of white privilege that are not shared by your fellow average black or First Nation Canadians.

        White privilege is not exclusive to the USA, just so you know. It’s prevalent in all white majority settler colonial establishments, from Canada all the way to New Zealand.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        May 16, 2016, 1:07 pm

        silamcuz: Are you suggesting we be colorblind…
        ————-

        No, I’m merely suggesting that you, as a white Jewish Zionist playing a deceptive “intersectional whataboutery” game, who says he reserves all his love and energy to his people, and his people only , yet spends tons of energy pretending to fight for other peoples–you have a huge credibility– or should I say laughability– problem. Huge!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 16, 2016, 4:14 pm

        ,” I want to ask Phil Weiss one question:”

        You could try reading the “about” page, linked at the top, and you should make an attempt to read the “comments policy”

        That should answer your questions.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 16, 2016, 4:20 pm

        “But we…”

        Oh, come on. Remember when the Lone Ranger said “We’re surrounded by Indians!” and Tonto riposted “What you mean’um “we”?”

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 16, 2016, 5:00 pm

        I think “Silmacuz” is every inch, to the life, the “progressive” and/or “social activist” that right wingers conjure up to lambaste.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 16, 2016, 5:16 pm

        “Are you implying the fight against Zionism should be a white-centric movement?”

        Let’s ask “silmacuz”! How about it. “silma””:

        “Racist white folks threatening Palestinians are white activists problem to solve. Zionist Jews supporting the occupation of Palestine are Jewish activists problem to solve.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/silamcuz/?keyword=safe+distance#sthash.Vtgi4jcZ.dpuf

        Now, there’s an effective and efficient division of labor and application of resources! Made with, I am sure, the best intentions of helping Palestinians.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 17, 2016, 12:16 am

        Mooser, get over yourself. Palestinian are more than capable of helping themselves. This is not about who gets to help who, its about assigning responsibility for the current predicament of Palestinians and holding these those who are responsible accountable.

        Jewish, especially white American Jews are responsible for the power and influence of Zionism, simply because they are Jews. Hence many millenial Jews take on this responsibility and hold themselves accountable by rejecting Zionism overtly. Many of them despise Israel and everything it stands for, and want to make it right for the Palestinians.

        You seem to be obsessed in proving me wrong, to the point of malice. Always conflating, deflecting and denying. It’s a shame there are no moderators to monitor and call out these sort of unproductive, unethical and deviant behavior in the comments.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 17, 2016, 2:51 am

        Sibiriak:

        “No, I’m merely suggesting that you, as a white Jewish Zionist playing a deceptive “intersectional whataboutery” game, who says he reserves all his love and energy to his people, and his people only , yet spends tons of energy pretending to fight for other peoples–you have a huge credibility– or should I say laughability– problem. Huge!”

        So it boils down to you having problem with me, as a person and not my political or ideological stance. Fortunately I really don’t care about what random strangers think of me, not in real life and definitely not online.

        However, I do think you should refrain from launching personal attacks and ad hominem arguments without evidence of wrongdoing or any basis really.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        May 17, 2016, 9:16 am

        silamcuz: So it boils down to you having problem with me, as a person and not my political or ideological stance.
        —————————————–

        No, nothing personal: it is precisely your stance that is objectionable– a fake, deceptive Zionism-serving “intersectional whataboutery” and faux-racialized- ludicrously -PC- progressivism.

        If others wish to play along with you, fine. I have no intention of doing so.

        Silamcuz writes:

        I reserve all my love and energy to my people, and my people only.

        That’s quite an ideological stance. Bravo!!

        What is the name of your people?

        Why do you love ONLY them, and give your energy ONLY to them?

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        May 17, 2016, 10:22 am

        Sibiriak :

        “No, nothing personal: it is precisely your stance that is objectionable– a fake, deceptive Zionism-serving “intersectional whataboutery” and faux-racialized- ludicrously -PC- progressivism.”

        This is quite a serious charge to throw at someone, without a lick of evidence to back you up. Fake, deceptive, racialized…you surely threw all you got in that vicious indictment, didn’t you.

        I wonder what you think of Phil Weiss’ stance on the IP conflict, or JVP, or SJP or any other leading progressive voice in the nation, as I happen to derive a huge portion of my ideals and political stance directly from these fine folks.

        Silamcuz writes:

        I reserve all my love and energy to my people, and my people only.

        That’s quite an ideological stance. Bravo!!

        What is the name of your people?

        Why do you love ONLY them, and give your energy ONLY to them?

        So you admit that you do not know who I am referring to when I stated that I reserve my love, ultimately to my own people.

        Yet, you are so quick to judge and antagonize me for saying so, as if I am not allowed to have agency when it comes to choosing who I love. Or are you one of those people who believe that by loving a certain group you identify the most with, you automatically hate everyone outside of that group?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        May 17, 2016, 11:37 am

        silamcuz: So you admit that you do not know who I am referring to….
        —————-

        No, it was a rhetorical question (see my previous comments).

        But you are still free to answer it– if you can muster the honesty.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 17, 2016, 11:59 am

        “Mooser, get over yourself.” “silmacuz”

        Dude, you’ve got no idea how hard that is. I’ve got soul, and I’m super-bad!

        Sometimes, I just wanna jump back and kiss myself.

        ” It’s a shame there are no moderators to monitor and call out…”

        Complaints about commenters are best made, we have been told, in a personal e-mail to the Editors. You go ahead and let them know how badly you are being treated by this “deviant”.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 17, 2016, 12:34 pm

        “So you admit that you do not know who I am referring to when I stated that I reserve my love, ultimately to my own people.” “Silmacuz”

        So what are you waiting for? Tell us who you are!, AFTER ALL, AS YOU SAY:

        “You behave the way you do because your mom gave birth to you in a country that prerequisites a certain set of values and behavioral attitudes, along with the genes that are responsible for the way your brain reacts external stimuli such as interaction with family, friends and colleagues as well as random strangers in your life.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/advice-to-british-leftwingers-on-kicking-racism-out-of-their-anti-israel-rhetoric/#comment-166091

        So you should be able to tell us, by your own standards, everything we need to know about you in one or two words. So what are you waiting for, tell us about your genetic make-up and DNA which will tell us everything! Like you know all about ours.

        So what are you waiting for “Silmacuz”? You really should, cause my Spidey-sense tells me you are on pretty thin ice, commenting-wise. They might put you back in the sock-drawer.

    • silamcuz
      silamcuz
      May 18, 2016, 6:52 am

      Mooser:

      “o what are you waiting for? Tell us who you are!, AFTER ALL, AS YOU SAY: “

      I would be happy to state my ethnicity, religious stance, gender identity and sexuality and my political leanings, so as long as everyone else are also required to do so in order to participate in the comment section. It is only fair then, when everyone’s biases and interests are right there out in the open, for anyone to look at and refer to easily and readily, without the need for offensive questioning and interrogations.

      So I have to leave this out for the site admins discretion.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 18, 2016, 11:03 am

        “I would be happy to state my ethnicity, religious stance, gender identity and sexuality and my political leanings, so as long as everyone else are also required to do so”

        Why on earth should they? You have already done it for them!! You’ve made pronouncements about the sex their parents had, their Mother’s, their upbringing, their DNA, the inflexible racial and societal web they are trapped in with no options. You’ve talked about “whites”, “POC” “East-Asians” and stood them at the judgement!

        “I would be happy to state my ethnicity, religious stance, gender identity and sexuality and my political leanings,”

        Uh, “silmacuz”, that’s the whole point. You don’t really need to. The only question is why you won’t be honest about it

  3. eljay
    eljay
    May 2, 2016, 11:29 am

    2. Remember, one person’s Settler Colonial project of land appropriation is another person’s expression of national self-determination.

    And both are correct. …

    One person’s serial rape is another person’s expression of sexual self-determination. And both are correct.

    I disagree.

    … if all you do is sloganise about Zionism being nothing more than a hateful ideology then you will never have the sensitivity and nuance required to build a just resolution to the conflict. …

    Zionism is about Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine. Zionism is definitely more than just a hateful ideology – it’s also an unjust and immoral ideology.

    Instead of humouring Zio-supremacists with sensitivity and nuance, apply justice, accountability and equality to I-P to build a just resolution to the conflict.

  4. John O
    John O
    May 2, 2016, 11:38 am

    Robert Cohen talks much sense but this sticks in the throat:

    “Remember, one person’s Settler Colonial project of land appropriation is another person’s expression of national self-determination. And both are correct.”

    This is the same feeble argument Jonathan Freedland was using in the Guardian last week – settler colonialism succeeded in the USA and Argentina, so cut Israel some slack. If European colonists in the US and Argentina or Australia, or anywhere, were killing and driving out the indigenous population right now, would we all stand aside and say “It’s just an expression of national self-determination.”?

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      May 2, 2016, 2:25 pm

      @John O

      Freedland’s articles have been particularly pathetic. Even if this national self determination argument sticks the people making it aren’t havingany truck with the one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

      I have some (a lot really) sympathy for the Jewish argument for a homeland. That doesn’t mean I support Israel in the least.

      It rather boils down to an argument of stop picking on us. And we will define when we’re being picked on.

      No acknowledgement of crimes that were perpetrated in the past. No acknowledgement of the crimes being perpetrated on a daily basis. No plan or support for ending those crimes and providing justice to it’s victims. No acknowledgement of the Palestinians right to free themselves from oppression and colonisation by all means available to them.

      Nope… Just more pleading for special privilege. A privilege not accorded to others who have invaded and attempted to annex territory.

      History has shown that the privilege was abused to commit even more, and worse, crimes.

      No more privilege. No more crimes. Justice for Palestinians. Peace for all sides.

      • John O
        John O
        May 3, 2016, 7:12 am

        A good letter responding to Freedland’s article in today’s Guardian :

        “Jonathan Freedland (My plea to the left, 30 April) asks us to imagine if a country far away was created for black people and asks if the left would treat it as it does Israel. As a Palestinian I want to tell him that if, instead of a country for Jews, a country for black people or any other group had been created in our homeland without our consent, we would have objected and resisted as Palestinians with the same vigour.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/02/a-palestinian-view-on-the-antisemitism-row?CMP=share_btn_tw

  5. Blake
    Blake
    May 2, 2016, 12:31 pm

    From the very beginning prominent members of the British Labour party fully endorsed this imperialist-colonial project in Palestine.

    The 1947-48 ethnic cleansing of Palestine was carried out under British Labour Party’s watch. Ken Livingstone’s hero, the late Labour politician, Tony Benn sold nuclear material to the Zionist regime when he was a government minister in the 1960s.

    The Haavara agreement lasted from 1933 until the start of the second world war, but the British Labour endorsement of Zionist colonialism began before the 1920’s and has continued to this day. So why is Ken Livingstone and his ilk keen to drag out Zionist collusion with elements in the Nazi regime yet never broach the subject of the British Labour party’s actual facilitation of the Zionist colonial project in the same period?

    It wasn’t the Nazis who issued the Balfour Declaration – it was Great Britain. Nazis didn’t have 20,000 soldiers in Palestine in the 1930s, the British did. It wasn’t Nazi Stormtroopers that proudly walked round with smashed Palestinian brains in their tobacco tins, it was Tommy. It wasn’t the Nazis that denied and crushed the Palestinian request for representative democracy in the 1930s, it was Great Britain. When Palestine was ethnically cleansed it happened under British Labour party watch, not Nazis. These are facts Livingstone and his wing of the British Labour Party could do well to note if they are to avoid accusations of anti-Semitism because let’s face it, the only truth Zionists have (or most likely, appropriated) is that some in the anti-Zionist movement are nothing but anti-Semites. A truth Ken Livingstone has provided credence to over the last week.

    https://churchills-karma.com/2016/05/01/ken-livingstone-and-zionisms-only-truth/

    • John O
      John O
      May 2, 2016, 2:49 pm

      “The 1947-48 ethnic cleansing of Palestine was carried out under British Labour Party’s watch.”

      So, yet again, it’s all somebody else’s fault.

    • pabelmont
      pabelmont
      May 2, 2016, 4:40 pm

      Blake: Thanks for pointing out the starting point of outside help for Zionism — Balfour.

      However, at the moment that WWII was over and Zionist terrorists were hitting the Brits and convincing them it was time to go home, Britain was not (outwardly) granting the nationalist-Zionist wish for a state but, instead, passing the buck to the UN. So Balfour promised “a national home for the Jewish people” which it greatly pleased the nationalist thread of Zionism to interpret as a promise of a state. But the action (first to expel Britain, then to expel most of the Palestinians and seize as much territory as possible) was not done by Nazis, not done by Brits, not even done by UNGA (which after all only made a recommendation in UNGA 181 (partition)) — but was done by the Zionists themselves.

      And, please note that UDHR (12/10/48) which says that [1] everyone has a right to leave any country ALSO says that [2] everyone has a right to return to (to enter) his own country. And Israel made much use of the first provision (to get Russians out of USSR and into Israel) but has refused to honor the second provision ever since 1948.

  6. oldgeezer
    oldgeezer
    May 2, 2016, 12:56 pm

    In response….

    1. Agreed although I do believe Israel is descending, or has descended into facism.

    2. “2. Remember, one person’s Settler Colonial project of land appropriation is another person’s expression of national self-determination. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/advice-to-british-leftwingers-on-kicking-racism-out-of-their-anti-israel-rhetoric/#comment-166091

    Sure. Just as one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. The fact remains that the way in which it was done was with a massive campaign of armed force/terrorism waged against civilians and in contravention of international law. While it may have been national self determination it was a war crime and crime against humanity. There is no justification or excuse for that just as there is no justification or excuse for the subsequent 70 years of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    3. I tend to agree to a point. Control doesn’t need to mean owenership. The effective efforts of “very hard-working pro-Israel lobbyists from the Board of Deputies to the Israeli embassy itself.” is a form of control. As is corporate advertisers acting in large numbers to remove advertising support. That said speaking of Jewish (or Israeli) controlled media tends to be counterproductive.

    Finally on that point you seem to gloss over the fact that the leaked sony emails (via wikileaks) showed that there was indeed a media conspiracy which impacted on a large swath of the media sector.

    I see no reason to carry out the conversation of zionist, or Israel supporters, terms. I’m not trying to convince them. We’ve talked to them for 70 years and all we have received in response is the middle finger and, not only continued war crimes but a ramping up of war crimes.

    I want to stop them. I see no need to drive Jews into the sea. As you said many of them are second, third generation. What is needed is to force Israel into compliance with international law and have them withdraw all, or most of, it’s illegal settlers into it’s declared boundaries. Land swaps are no longer viable.

    The only upside to the current situation in the UK is that the malicious efforts of those attacking Corbyn will open a lot of eyes to the way that we are forced to support a rogue state not only with our dollars but with our policies. If this was any other state, say Russia or Iraq, sanctions would have been in effect decades ago.

    It is sad that Israel and Israelis fear acting legally. Don’t expect respect until you do. Do expect to gain less and less respect as time goes on.

    • pmb1414
      pmb1414
      May 2, 2016, 2:21 pm

      “If this was any other state, say Russia or Iraq, sanctions would have been in effect decades ago.”
      Exactly. International sanctions are the only way to move the Zionist mountain, but it will only happen with committed US participation.
      One can only hope that someday pigs will fly.

  7. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    May 2, 2016, 12:56 pm

    I too have difficulty in seeing why Livingstone – he’s a strange man – chose to mention Hitler’s supposed support for Zionism in his (Hitler’s) supposedly rational phase.
    The following all seem to me to be true – a) Hitler facilitated Z through the Haavaara Agreement b) Hitler, a major dictator, was – even in his supposed rational period – very hostile towards Jews, seemingly blaming them for the 1918 defeat c) Churchill sympathised with Z d) Stalin facilitated Z very effectively in 48 e) Stalin, a major dictator, was always very suspicious of Jews, thinking that they were natural supporters of his main adversary Trotsky f) Hitler took some steps to improve the position of German pensioners.
    None of these, severally or together, imply anything at all either way about the merits or faults of Z either at the time or now. Nor does f) imply that UK pensions should be raised or lowered now. False propositions can imply true ones, bad moral maxims can imply good ones – a scheming man whose schemes are furthered by helping a deserving cause is still a bad guy acting for bad reasons but the cause is still deserving.
    However, Livingstone is not creating a genuine apologia for H unless he thinks that H was acting for purely good and true reasons, which, since truth cannot imply falsehood, would mean that Z was good. That’s not what he thinks.
    As for the ‘one man’s this is another man’s that and both descriptions are correct’ argument, it is false in this case. Descriptions with conflicting factual or moral implications – and in this case the conflict screams at you – cannot both be true.
    I think Naz Shah’s remarks about the fantasy map, moving the East to the West, were legitimate satire on the reality that Israel is in many ways the West in the East.
    I think Mr. Cohen’s concern with words in Western ears rather than facts before Palestinian eyes and lashes applied to their backs – these appear only to vanish – is morally mistaken. All in all, his remarks make me quite uneasy. If he only wants to show pro-Palestinians how to argue effectively the uneasiness actually increases.
    We sometimes say on Mondoweiss that the effectiveness of the ‘Anti-Semite!’ accusation is declining or that it arouses only ridicule. It looks very effective in this context.

    • John O
      John O
      May 3, 2016, 12:16 pm

      It appears that Naz Shah found that image on Norman Finkelstein’s website. Here’s his take on the current brouhaha, with a dig at Jonathan Freedland for good measure:

      “You can see this overlap between the Labour Right and pro-Israel groups personified in individuals like Jonathan Freedland, a Blairite hack who also regularly plays the antisemitism card. He’s combined these two hobbies to attack Corbyn. Incidentally, when my book, The Holocaust Industry, came out in 2000, Freedland compared it to Mein Kampf. Although he appears to be, oh, so politically correct now, he didn’t find it inappropriate to compare a book by the son of Nazi holocaust survivors to Mein Kampf. We appeared on a television program together. Before the program, he approached me to shake my hand. When I refused, he reacted in stunned silence. Why wouldn’t I shake his hand? He couldn’t comprehend it. It tells you something about these dull-witted creeps. The smears, the slanders – for them, it’s all in a day’s work. Why should anyone get agitated? Later, on the program, it was pointed out that the Guardian, where he worked, had serialised The Holocaust Industry across two issues. He was asked by the presenter, if my book was the equivalent of Mein Kampf, would he resign from the paper? Of course not. Didn’t the presenter get that it’s all a game?”

      https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda

  8. Mooser
    Mooser
    May 2, 2016, 1:00 pm

    I’m still confused.
    Is antisemitism so enervated, so discredited, that the slightest expression of it will invalidate the Palestinian movement, or is antisemitism such a powerful and malign force that any expression of antisemitism in the Palestine movement will turn it into an anti-Jewish crusade?
    Which is it, or is it both? Like colonialism and self-determination.

  9. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    May 2, 2016, 1:41 pm

    RE: It does feel like a witch-hunt has been unleashed with Labour politicians now lining up, like a parody of a scene from Arthur Miller’s ‘The Crucible’, to say how antisemitism must be “rooted out of the Party”. ~ Robert Cohen

    ■ BOOK (1692)

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Cotton Mather]:

    Cotton Mather, FRS (February 12, 1663 – February 13, 1728; A.B. 1678, Harvard College; A.M. 1681, honorary doctorate 1710, University of Glasgow) was a socially and politically influential New England Puritan minister, prolific author and pamphleteer; he is often remembered for his scientific role in early hybridization experiments, his stance as an early proponent of inoculation in America, and for his role in the Salem witch trials. . .
    . . . Bancroft notes that [Cotton] Mather considered witches “among the poor, and vile, and ragged beggars upon Earth,”[41]:85 and Bancroft asserts that Mather considered the people against the [Salem] witch trials to be witch advocates.[41]:85 . . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Mather

    P.S.
    Statement on “Labour’s problem with antisemitism”
    From the Jewish Socialists’ Group (jewishsocialist.org.uk)
    Posted: 28 April 2016

    Antisemitism exists and must be exposed and fought against in the same way as other forms of racism by all who are concerned with combating racism and fascism.

    Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

    Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not antisemitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the antisemites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.

    Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of antisemitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm a supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.

    A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism.

    The accusations do not refer to antisemitic actions but usually to comments, often made on social media, long before Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership. Those making the charges now, did not see fit to bring them up at the time, under previous Labour leaders, but are using them now, just before mayoral and local elections, when they believe they can inflict most damage on the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.

    The attack is coming from four main sources, who share agendas: to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Labour; to defend Israeli government policy from attack, however unjust, racist and harmful towards the Palestinian people; and to discredit those who make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy or Zionism as a political ideology. As anti-racist and anti-fascist Jews who are also campaigning for peace with justice between Israelis and Palestinians, we entirely reject these cynical agendas that are being expressed by:

    • The Conservative Party

    • Conservative-supporting media in Britain and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources

    • Right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community

    • Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party.

    The Jewish Socialists’ Group recognises that ordinary Jewish people are rightly concerned and fearful about instances of antisemitism. We share their concerns and a have a proud and consistent record of challenging and campaigning against antisemitism. But we will not support those making false accusations for cynical political motives, including the Conservative Party, who are running a racist campaign against Sadiq Khan, and whose leader David Cameron has referred to desperate refugees, as “a swarm” and “a bunch of migrants”. The Conservative Party demonstrated their contempt for Lord Dubs, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, when they voted down en masse an amendment a few days ago to allow 3,000 child refugees into Britain while Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gave total support to Lord Dubs and his amendment.

    The Jewish Socialists’ Group sees the current fearmongering about antisemitism in the Labour Party for what it is – a conscious and concerted effort by right-wing political forces to undermine the growing support among Jews and non-Jews alike for the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, and a measure of the desperation of his opponents.

    We stand against antisemitism, against racism and fascism and in support of refugees. We stand for free speech and open debate on Israel, Palestine and Zionism.

    SOURCE – http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/news/item/statement-on-labours-problem-with-antisemitism-from-the-jewish-socialists-g

  10. Citizen
    Citizen
    May 2, 2016, 1:48 pm

    @ Sibiriak

    Balfour stated quite categorically that

    ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country …. The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land’.

    There’s the core of it all: racism. A double standard for the principle of self-determination. All people are human, but some people are more human than others, more worthy collectively.

    Again, @ Sibiriak :

    Both cannot be correct, since the right of self-determination in no way licenses the expropriation of another peoples’ territory nor the denial of another peoples’ right to self-determination.

    The creation of a Jewish State in Palestine was in direct contradiction to the principle of self-determination–and that was explicitly recognized at the time. Why don’t the great powers start with this by publicly recognizing it as the lead sentence or step in coming to a reasonably just solution, a balancing ,taking into consideration one side has been, is atop the teeter-totter in the playground, the other, stays scraping the bottom of that playground?

  11. lyn117
    lyn117
    May 2, 2016, 2:00 pm

    Do we leave Zionists a free field to bring up Palestinian-Nazi ties? Such as the infamous al-Hajj Amin?

  12. ritzl
    ritzl
    May 2, 2016, 2:37 pm

    I agree with the notion that some craft and discipline is required to argue and persuade on this issue, BUT…

    What audience do these rules seek to accommodate and/or influence?

    Hardcore Zionists follow none of them. Is being nice and civil meant to make those racist zealots reevaluate their positions?

    The “beartraps” are not of the left’s making. They’re created and sprung PRN by Zionists intent on derailing ANY debate on the wrongness of their perverse, virulently racist, 19.C ideology. These Zionist traps are career-ending, ad hoc, power-flexing strawmen that are vastly more vicious than anything Shah or Livingstone said (and what Livingstone said was just flat out brain-dead stupid). Why does this article accept that viciousness as a metaphysical/environmental/unavoidable/insatiable given and counsel “the left” to avoid what everyone who has ever argued this issue knows is simply unavoidable.

    I don’t understand the calculus of that presumption.

    I wonder how many Palestinians were killed on the day these transgressions were uttered.

    The problem is Corbyn’s pro-Palestinian leanings. The charges of Labour “anti-semitism” are just backfill to thwart that tendency. No amount of playing nice would or could change that or dissuade the zealots from making something up to suit their perceived need. The pile-on charges of “pervasive” are all anyone needs to understand that fact.

    Zionist accusers follow ZERO rules of etiquette to accomplish their goals, so it’s really hard to accept any counsel other than, “If they grab your rhetorical balls, you punch them in the rhetorical throat.” Any other response is a loser. Not fighting back* is a far worse negative influencer to a far larger audience than not being unilaterally nice is to the much smaller audience this article seems to be concerned with influencing.

    * That does NOT mean using Nazi analogies, it means a “mistakes were made…moving on”/dismissive response commensurate with the severity of the infraction and the sincerity of the accusation which in this case were not very and not at all, respectively.

    —–

    So, assuming everyone reading this adopts all these recommendations completely all the time:

    – Who are we going to convince?
    – What will be the real-world effect of convincing them?
    – How long will it take to: a) convince them; and, b) realize those effects?
    – How many Palestinians will have been killed during this process?

    There’s so much more to say on this – what the factual nature of “nice”/civility is. Why sugarcoating the harsh factual daily reality of Palestinian life – no matter who it upsets – serves no one’s interest. etc. Maybe others will say it.

    talknic started to get into the open-ended, ever-expanding definition of “self-determination” hogwash. That’s a great start.

    Articles like this say (probably unwittingly, but that’s yet another discussion) to Palestinians, “Just hang in there for another generation. Help really is on the way [this time].” It’s very disheartening.

  13. gamal
    gamal
    May 2, 2016, 3:16 pm

    “everyone else out there who’s trying to get their head around why the Palestinians are having a hard time will switch off”

    I think Cohen is trying to put a spell on me

  14. hophmi
    hophmi
    May 2, 2016, 3:23 pm

    I admire Mondoweiss for printing Robert Cohen’s common sense piece on how irresponsible and antisemitic speech takes the focus away from Palestinians. I’ve made similar points here many, many times.

    Judging by the reaction here, it’s a lesson few anti-Zionists will learn. Antisemitism is endemic to the BDS movement. Zionism/Nazism analogies are endemic to it. So are narratives about ethnically cleansing Jews from Israel. And sometimes it seems like anti-Zionism wouldn’t be anti-Zionism without complaining, as Mondoweiss does almost daily, about Jews controlling the media. The New York Times has a highly assimilated Jewish owner! This explains its liberalish editorial position!

    But Mondoweiss seems tethered to bigotry and to the incorporation of classically anti-Jewish views into the BDS movement and into the anti-Zionist movement. So sad.

    • Keith
      Keith
      May 2, 2016, 4:53 pm

      HOPHMI- “Antisemitism is endemic to the BDS movement.”

      Spurious charges of anti-Semitism is endemic to the Zionist movement, as is anti-Gentilism. One way to tell who has the power and who doesn’t is to observe who can make the most scurrilous accusations without fear of reprisal versus who must choose their words with care lest they suffer severe consequences.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        May 3, 2016, 10:52 am

        […]

        “Disproportionate Jewish presence and influence in the media is beyond dispute”

        No one disputes that many Jewish people work in media-related jobs. As usual, it’s not an empirical argument to claim that the religion of a particular person is evidence that the people who subscribe to that religion work as a group to “influence” anything. That’s the bigot argument, and phrases like “Jewish-controlled” are bigot phrases.

        “It is hardly an exaggeration to say that at the very least that this Jewish presence strongly suggests a Jewish bias, ”

        What’s a Jewish bias? What is it that Jews are biased towards? You speak of Jews as this group that has this bias, that “controls,” that “influences.” And then you complain when I point out the obvious bigotry here.

        “Is anti-Semitism also endemic to all goy populations?”

        I’m sorry, but do you think that BDS and “goy” are the same thing? You seem confused.

        “Yet they are also not suppose to engage in BDS, a nonviolent form of resistance against the same thing. ”

        Who are these Palestinians who have adopted non-violence as a primary strategy? Which ones have said that they eschew violence for non-violence? That’s what non-violence is. You either choose it or you don’t. It’s not a talking point for Western audiences. It’s a choice. Martin Luther King didn’t say “nonviolence, but if people choose to kill white children, it’s ok.”

        “What do you suggest they do, given their daily circumstances, something that would/t include said endemic quality?”

        Well, actual non-violence might actually be helpful to them. The Palestinians have never adopted such an approach. A few have. But it’s always been a small minority.

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 3, 2016, 5:07 pm

        HOHMI- “Yes, yes, the usual projective claptrap from an antisemite about he can’t stand himself. Next?”

        You just can’t stop, can you, even if you wind up proving my point? Or are you making a demonstration of Jewish power to let me know that you can make scurrilous accusations without fear of reprisal or even moderation, even though you continue to violate Mondoweiss comment policy with surprising impunity. Ah, gilded victimhood, available only through birthright.

        HOPHMI- “…the religion of a particular person….”

        Religion? Jewish atheists aren’t Jews? You bounce between religion and peoplehood as suits your propagandistic purpose. Does Israel define Jews based solely upon religion? Zionism is about Jewish peoplehood, as you are well aware and try to obfuscate so that you can conflate tribalism with religion.

        HOPHMI- “What’s a Jewish bias?”

        A tendency to view reality from a Jewish perspective, usually involving “Is it good for the Jews?”, and nowadays support for Israel. From the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations website:

        “Every day, the Conference of Presidents Fund works publicly and behind the scenes addressing vital concerns with US and world leaders, key opinion molders and the public about Israel’s security and vitality, threats posed by a nuclear Iran, global terrorism, anti-Semitism and the delegitimization campaign, making a critical difference at home and abroad. http://www.conferenceofpresidents.org/about

        And make no mistake, the so-called fight against anti-Semitism is but a pretext for the making of scurrilous accusations designed to intimidate in order to achieve political objectives, as is the case with this disgraceful attack on Naz Shah, Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn. A quote and a link to Norman Finkelstein who discusses this very issue.

        “But lo and behold, in the blink of an eye, right in the wake of the Pew poll showing that antisemitism in the UK is marginal, the hysteria has started up all over again. The reality is, there is probably more prejudice in the UK against fat people than there is prejudice against Jews.” (Norman Finkelstein) http://normanfinkelstein.com/2016/05/03/finkelstein-breaks-his-silence-tells-holocaust-mongers-it-is-time-to-crawl-back-into-your-sewer/

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 3, 2016, 7:54 pm

        “without fear of reprisal or even moderation, even though you continue to violate”

        Instead of asking the Mods to become unpaid editors for “Hophmi”, why not take the attitude that the very worst thing the Mods can do to “Hophmi” is print his stuff as is?

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 4, 2016, 10:54 am

        MOOSER- “Instead of asking the Mods to become unpaid editors for “Hophmi”, why not take the attitude that the very worst thing the Mods can do to “Hophmi” is print his stuff as is?”

        Perhaps if I wasn’t having moderation problems I would feel differently. Particularly since the nature of my offense isn’t clear to me. I continue to cross invisible lines, apparently giving offense while Hophmi rampages recklessly and offensively with little or no consequences that I am aware of. Something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 2:05 pm

        “problems” — seriously keith — you get one trashed the other day and moan about it. if the nature of your offense isn’t clear to you why not just rephrase and try again.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 4, 2016, 2:45 pm

        “while Hophmi rampages recklessly and offensively with little or no consequences that I am aware of”

        Holey Cannoli! “Keith”, please don’t make me say: try to have the courage of your convictions. M’okay?

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 4, 2016, 5:59 pm

        ANNIE- ““problems” — seriously keith — you get one trashed the other day and moan about it. if the nature of your offense isn’t clear to you why not just rephrase and try again.”

        Are you kidding? If it was just that one yesterday, I wouldn’t even have mentioned it, even though I can’t see why it was rejected. After all, I am not Hophmi who expects to be privileged. This is a pattern of rejection that didn’t used to exist. I had six comments in a row rejected on the Rachel Sandalow-Ash thread http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/we-were-not-allowed-to-hear-palestinian-peers-rachel-sandalow-ash-on-american-jewish-censorship/ , and five more since, in spite of rewriting/phrasing several of the six. The last to get tossed on the Sandalow-Ash thread was me questioning why there were only a total of six comments that were approved. I have had similar experiences when commenting in defense of Greta Berlin where everything I said was trashed, so don’t give me this “rephrase and try again” crap. You have previously said that you consider a re-submission an attempt to sneak something by and automatically reject it. Of course, it is your right to do so, but don’t pretend that it isn’t happening or that my rejected comments are somehow in violation of the guidelines. How many of Hophmi’s comments are rejected? Hell, he complains if they are even slightly delayed in moderation. Once again, I am not challenging your right and obligation to moderate the comments and reject mine as required, but I emphatically object to your dishonest implication that this is a rare phenomenon and I simply a whiner. I place a high value on honesty and intellectual integrity and get upset with those who don’t. Will this comment pass moderation?

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 6:58 pm

        keith, we generally don’t host long conversations about our moderation policies in the comment section, so we’re not going to be hosting an extended conversation here (sorry). that said, i didn’t know you had so much hostility surrounding this nor that so many of your comments (according to you) have been trashed. i have not been moderating very much lately (at all) so i would suggest taking some examples of what was trashed and sending them to phil and adam and asking them why.

        before i commented to you, having no recollection of trashing your comments, i checked the trash and went back a few pages and found only one comment. that’s why i wrote what i wrote.

        re rephrasing and trying again — i meant that. there’s a difference between resubmitting a trashed comment over and over “this got trashed before but here it is again:” and something rephrased or reworded. and try not announcing you’re re issuing an idea that got trashed before. perhaps your comments on the Sandalow-Ash thread sounded angry or something, i have no idea. i just read the article and thread for the first time today — just now when you linked to it.

        as for hops, please take that up with phil and adam. if i had my druthers mondoweiss would be a primarily zionist free commenting space, especially rude and insulting zionists who load up on ad homimens.

        sorry for your frustration.

        (end of moderation discussion)

    • Keith
      Keith
      May 2, 2016, 5:00 pm

      HOPHMI- “And sometimes it seems like anti-Zionism wouldn’t be anti-Zionism without complaining, as Mondoweiss does almost daily, about Jews controlling the media.”

      Disproportionate Jewish presence and influence in the media is beyond dispute, to claim otherwise is to claim that empirical data is anti-Semitic. First a quote.

      “…they (Jews) make up one fourth or more of the writers, editors, and producers in America’s “elite media,” including network news divisions, the top newsweeklies and the four leading daily newspapers (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal).

      …In an October 1994 Vanity Fair feature profiling the kingpins of the new media elite, titled “The New Establishment,” just under half of the two dozen entrepreneurs profiled were Jews. In the view of the magazine’s editors, these are America’s true power elite, “men and women from the entertainment, communications and computer industries whose ambitions and influence have made America the one true super-power of the information age.”

      And in a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation.” (p280, “Jewish Power,” J.J. Goldberg)

      It is hardly an exaggeration to say that at the very least that this Jewish presence strongly suggests a Jewish bias, and very likely a pro-Israeli bias. Arguing that it doesn’t, as you do, is akin to arguing that the overwhelmingly white media control doesn’t reflect a white bias. Furthermore, we are not just talking ownership. Organized Jewish-Zionist power can very effectively pressure the media to avoid saying or doing things which will generate flack. To continue to deny the rather obvious reality is pure Zionist propaganda.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      May 2, 2016, 5:19 pm

      @ hophmi

      Endemic? Regularly found, as a disease, in the BDS movement? Is anti-Semitism also endemic to all goy populations? Isn’t that the premise to justification for the Zionist State? Palestinians are not suppose to use violence against the occupation, or their dispossession. Yet they are also not suppose to engage in BDS, a nonviolent form of resistance against the same thing. What do you suggest they do, given their daily circumstances, something that would/t include said endemic quality?

    • pjdude
      pjdude
      May 3, 2016, 9:55 am

      of course you like it. in the end he is another zionist jew trying to suppress criticism of Israel. only 3 is a valid concern. for the second colionalist endevors and self determination are mutual exclusive. as for the first whine about all you want there are rather strong signifigant parrals between certain nazi actions and Israeli policies. while there is no comparison between treatment of jews by nazis and Israeli’s treatments of the palestinians. how ever some rather strong comparisons between nazi policies in poland in regards to the polish and Israeli treatment of palestinians do exist. and saying they shouldn’t be mention is trying to suppress criticism. should these claims be handled with the upmost care yes but to wholesale they shouldn’t be made is wrong

    • eljay
      eljay
      May 3, 2016, 10:12 am

      || hophmi: I admire Mondoweiss for printing Robert Cohen’s common sense piece on how irresponsible and antisemitic speech takes the focus away from Palestinians. … ||

      Irresponsible and anti-Semitic speech takes the focus away from Palestinians.

      Zio-supremacists…
      – who despise justice, accountability and equality and oppose its application in I-P; and
      – who advocate, commit, justify, excuse and/or defend the past and on-going (war) crimes required to secure Jewish supremacism in/and a religion supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine,
      ….take lives and livelihoods, homes and lands, and human rights and freedoms away from Palestinians.

  15. Mooser
    Mooser
    May 2, 2016, 3:55 pm

    “I’ve made similar points here many, many times.”

    Yes, and given Phil lot’s of free psychoanalysis into the bargain.
    I’m telling you, that Phil has got to be one ungrateful guy to refuse to take your editorial advice after you so sweetly explained to us, and him about his “self-hatred” and “internalized antisemitism”.

  16. Kay24
    Kay24
    May 2, 2016, 5:40 pm

    Sadiq Khan, a Muslim candidate for Mayor in London gets falsely accused of being pro extremists by his rival, and David Cameron joins in those false attacks in parliament. Bigotry is alive and well in the UK too. These is so shameful. How low will these people go to win?

    Owen Jones calls them out on it.

  17. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    May 2, 2016, 6:36 pm

    Mooser: As to “self-hatred” and “internalized antisemitism”.
    What did Marx say about joining clubs? Oh, yes: “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”

    Well, that’s how I’ve been feeling about the “tribe” since it adopted the loyalty oath requirement, you know, how all Jews gotta loooooove Israel and never, never, say it nay.

    And if I’m not a member of the club (or “tribe”) does that make me “self-hating”? No. Surely not; “tribe-hating” at most (where the “tribe” is just the anxiously-pro-Israel subset of the larger “Tribe” of Jews).

    BTW, there’s a great new movie out called: “How to stop worrying and not love Israel.” (But I heard it bombed in tel Aviv.)

    Don’t know where that leaves Phil.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      May 2, 2016, 6:54 pm

      “Don’t know where that leaves Phil.”

      In a bad condition:

      “Self-hatred is a disease. It is a sad disease borne of many generations of persecution, but it is a disease. And Phil is afflicted with it, as many Jews have been in the past. And it is usually the self-haters who cause the worst damage to the Jewish community, precisely because of how small it is.

      American Jewry, and the American-Israel relationship will survive the Phils of this world. American Jews, long a positive force in American society, will continue to be, far into the future, and Israel will endure, far into the future. The Phils will fall away, as they always do.” “Hophmi”

      Good-bye Philumbus! Good-bye, Philumbus!

  18. Donald
    Donald
    May 2, 2016, 9:11 pm

    I agree with most of this. Point 1 is right– there are way too many Nazi comparisons in politics and on this issue by both sides. It isn’t antisemitic, usually. It’s just people in an argument going over the top.

    On point 2, I think people are getting stuck on his ” it’s both” statement and not reading his explanation. He clearly doesn’t think Zionists had the right to expel Palestinians — I don’t think he is just saying that the impulse behind Zionism wasn’t racist, but to establish a place where Jews could live in peace. Theoretically this could have been done in some peaceful way without expelling anyone. Maybe. But anyway, given the history of antisemitism I think Cohen is only arguing that Zionism was an understandable reaction, and not defending how it actually ended out working.

    On point 3 he seems to be saying that hard working lobbyists did have an effect in creating an anti- Palestinian bias, but we shouldn’t use terms like Zionist conspiracy. Fine with me. I’d rather hear details about how the influence works than use nebulous paranoid sounding terms.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      May 2, 2016, 11:15 pm

      “It’s just people in an argument going over the top.”

      Not always.
      Zionism and Nazism both proceed from the same origin, i.e. early 19th-century Romantic German nationalism; the points where they are in contact and agreement are more than one can count in a short time. Much more importantly, the practice of both are extremely similar on many points.
      This means that as a frame of reference and a comparison for Zionism, the Nazi experience is unavoidable because it is the naturally occurring one.

  19. Shmuel
    Shmuel
    May 3, 2016, 1:32 am

    But Ken, that didn’t make Hitler a Zionist.

    Livingstone did make a mess of things, but “Hitler supported Zionism” is not the same as “Hitler was a Zionist” (an interpretation of Livingstone’s words I’ve seen twice already in Haaretz). The former is perfectly consistent with “For Hitler, the Jews were sub-human carriers of disease and corruption” (as Cohen puts it); the latter is not.

    Years ago, I heard an interview with the Grand Wizard (or Dragon, or whatever the hell they call themselves) of the KKK, and he came across as an ardent supporter of Zionism — because “This is a white, Christian country, with no place for Jews.” That did not make him a Zionist, just a racist thug who liked the idea of ridding the US of all its Jews.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      May 3, 2016, 1:54 am

      As Tom Segev points out in One Palestine Complete, some of the British support for Zionism, leading up to the Balfour Declaration, was motivated by anti-Semitism.

      • DaveS
        DaveS
        May 3, 2016, 11:48 am

        Yes, Shmuel, thanks for pointing out what should be obvious but somehow is not, that “Hitler supported Zionism” is not the same as “Hitler was a Zionist.” Even worse, I have seen repeatedly that Livingstone equated Zionism and Nazism. With such logic, stating the fact that the US and Saudi Arabia are allies is equivalent to saying that the US and SA have the same or similar political/economic/social systems. Whatever Livingstone’s gaffes actually were, those who feel they have to grotesquely exaggerate what he said to condemn him should be exposed for their own dishonesty.

        I also like your comparison to the KKK leader’s statement. Another old saw of hasbara is that while not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, all anti-Semites are Anti-Zionists, as if to say, even if there is not irrefutable proof of an anti-Zionists’s anti-Semitism, there is sufficient guilt by association. Not only is the smear logically indefensible, it is factually wrong. There are plenty of anti-Semites who have no problem with the concept of a Jewish State because they think their fellow Jewish citizens should move there. They may not be Zionists in any genuine intellectual sense but they sure aren’t anti-Zionists.

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 3:00 pm

        david, There are plenty of anti-Semites who have no problem with the concept of a Jewish State because they think their fellow Jewish citizens should move there.

        and all those left behind evangelical christian zionists who think (after all the jews move to israel) any jew who doesn’t accept jesus will get burned to a crisp, along w/the rest of us non believers.

      • straightline
        straightline
        May 12, 2016, 6:49 pm

        In fact, Livingstone did not even say “Hitler supported Zionism” and what he did say in that regard was taken out of context. What Livingstone actually said was “Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

        Since Zionism’s objective was, and still is, that “Jews should be moved to Israel”, there is absolutely nothing in this that anyone could object to unless they were out to make trouble.

  20. Jabberwocky
    Jabberwocky
    May 3, 2016, 3:15 am

    Zionists continue with their delusions and want everyone to speak nicely to them and accept their delusional state of mind as valid.

    Seek therapy and get over the indoctrination of lies that form the basis of Zionism.

    Zionism is to Judaism as Islamic State is to Islam.

    And Zionism deserves the same fate as Islamic State.

  21. Jabberwocky
    Jabberwocky
    May 3, 2016, 3:30 am

    National self determination was a founding principle of the United Nations and intended to free people from colonial rule of their own lands.

    This principle was established before Israel declared its foundation but well after the founding of the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – all countries that have recognised the nature of their founding and have attempted to ‘compensate’ the original inhabitants of their countries.

    Israel on the other hand was declared after the UN foundation and in direct contradiction of the UN founding principles. The right of self determination does not extend to a geographically dispersed group that is / was connected purely by religion. Especially a group that practices discrimination and human rights abuses against the indigenous population. That was meant to have been recognised as an unacceptable aspect of history. Hopefully it will still be so if Israel is forced to accept equal rights for Palestinians and the return of their property. The Jewish National Fund has a big bill to pay and lots of land to reallocate.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      May 3, 2016, 11:36 am

      “The Jewish National Fund has a big bill to pay and lots of land to reallocate.”
      Okay, let’s peek in at JNF headquarters the day the bill comes due, the mail person has just placed today’s mail on the President’s desk:

      JNF Pres.: “Oy Gevalt here it is! (opens envelope, scans contents) Feh! The decision has gone against us, and here is the bill, and we can’t possibly pay this! What can we say?”
      JNF Vice Pres.: “I know what I’m saying from now on! Merry Christmas! Have a Happy Easter!”
      All exit office, singing.

  22. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther
    May 3, 2016, 6:16 am

    Stop telling people how to talk.

    • Keith
      Keith
      May 3, 2016, 11:01 am

      DAN CROWTHER- “Stop telling people how to talk.”

      Ah but Dan, one of the prerogatives of power is being able to instruct the little people in the proper etiquette of discourse when discussing their betters so as not to offend and, perhaps, suffering the consequences of insubordination.

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        May 3, 2016, 2:38 pm

        To me, it’s a threat, and it shows how shallow the “commitment” to justice in this case is among “liberal zionists.”

        “We’ll support you, as long as you adopt our platform, language and tact; any deviation from this, or any statements made in anger regarding the group who carries out these injustices and it’s FAH-Q”

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      May 3, 2016, 11:25 am

      It is just amazing. Zionists can ignore morality, legality, American law and International law, but everybody else has to consult the Zionist Etiquette book before they open their mouths.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        May 3, 2016, 12:17 pm

        Spot on. They call Palestinians snakes, beasts, and call for them to be bombed back to the stone age, but no one can dare to say the same, or even mildly criticize zionist policies and nasty ways.

        They are even able to get officials from the US/EU/UN to apologize immediately, or if it happens to be someone from the media, they are immediately attacked from all sides and kicked out of their jobs. This is some form of thuggery and intimidation.

      • WH
        WH
        May 4, 2016, 2:43 am

        To be fair, one of the main concerns of the article seems to be a pragmatic rather than moral one, namely choosing one’s words in a way that isn’t counterproductive, doesn’t make people think of the wrong things, doesn’t alienate listeners etc. One can argue about what things do or don’t harm the Palestinian cause, but I think we can agree that some statements are worded more effectively than others.

    • straightline
      straightline
      May 12, 2016, 6:54 pm

      I am fairly convinced that most of the critics of Livingstone were part of the “Je suis Charlie” brigade.

      “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink”
      ― George Orwell, 1984

  23. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    May 3, 2016, 11:43 am

    HOPHMI- “And sometimes it seems like anti-Zionism wouldn’t be anti-Zionism without complaining, as Mondoweiss does almost daily, about Jews controlling the media.”

    I have been reading the UK times for the last two weeks and the level of coverage of this so called newsworthy story has been cringeworthy and it stinks to high heaven of a concerted plan by Jews/Zionists/Israeli firsters call them what you like to conflate anti – Israel opinions/statements and activist movements,specifically BDS , with anti – semitism. What has muddied the waters has been the disgusting behaviour of the notionally centrist Blairite Labour MP`s who have stoked up the controversy in order to undermine Jeremy Corbyn`s leadership and status within the Labour movement. The usual suspects in the UK press have been their normal predictable hypocritical bores in their handling of the “story”. The Tories have been restrained and are simply sitting back and enjoying the spectacle of the Labour Party once again at each others throats. As I said the real bastards in all of this have been the so called centrists in the Labour Party such as Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper ( incidentally defeated and dismayed candidates for the Labour leadership ) who have demonstrated that their number one priority is political gain. I do not consider myself to be a leftist in any shape or form and have doubts and disagreements with them on a range of policies but I admire Corbyn and Livingstone for sticking to their guns on the issue and I hope that continues despite the dirty tricks campaign.

    As for Jews controlling the media. I thought until the last few weeks that this was quite clearly the case in the US but was not yet a major problem here in the UK. The farcical coverage in the UK Times and other dailys of this non issue over the last two weeks has changed my mind.

    Even the usually balanced David Aaronovitch has been spewing garbage on this one. Have not yet seen an article by the cerebral Melanie Phillips. Perhaps the Times is keeping her in reserve and in due course we will get the archetypical paranoid Iranian treatment ( eg if we had not relaxed sanctions then the poor terrified Jewish community in the UK wouldn`t be facing this apocalyptical growth in ant- semitism ).

    • hoya saxa
      hoya saxa
      May 3, 2016, 11:02 pm

      Jews control the media? IS that why I get to read that abbas is a moderate, netanyahu a right wing hawk. Settlements are awful, iran deal is good? Hmmm..something is amiss if you think jews control the media…have you ever read the articles in huffington post or ny times? They read like electronic intifada.

      • amigo
        amigo
        May 4, 2016, 3:34 pm

        “have you ever read the articles in huffington post or ny times? They read like electronic intifada. “hoya saxa

        Obviously you have read neither.

        Question??, is hoya saxa an anagram for , “say a hoax “.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        May 5, 2016, 3:41 am

        hoya saxa: “have you ever read the articles in huffington post or ny times? They read like electronic intifada.”

        You are extremely right (pardon the pun) … from Meir Kahane’s point of view.

  24. JimMichie
    JimMichie
    May 3, 2016, 11:43 am

    Absolutely incredible, Robert Cohen, the way you dismiss Zionist Israel’s six-decade brutal, ruthless, racist, genocidal, ethnic cleansing, fascist military occupation and rule (control, if you like) of Palestine and its defenseless people by stating “. . the Palestinians are having a hard time.” Really?

    Not that it matters to you, but I view your piece as a clever, but highly transparent, attempt to shift and quell some of the rapidly growing heat being felt by your Zionist Israel (of its own making) from around the world.

    Moving right along, “Occasionally, very occasionally,” you state, “and only in very skillful and sensitive hands, a comparison between the actions of the Nazis and the behavior of Israel can be compared with some ethical integrity. I’m strongly recommending you drop this particular line of rhetoric.”

    Balderdash! “Fascist state” is a short, accurate and legitimate term describing your Zionist Israel. My definition of a “fascist state”: brutal, ruthless, racist, genocidal and ethnic cleansing. Like it or not, Robert, so was Nazi Germany and so is Zionist Israel to its “neighbors”, the Palestinians.

    And then you state incredulously: “Remember, one person’s Settler Colonial project of land appropriation is another person’s expression of national self-determination.” Far more accurately stated: Wholesale grand theft of the land of an indigenous people by a foreign armed force is acceptable in national self-determination.

    Lest we forget Robert, Zionist Israel’s ongoing grand theft and colonization of what remains of Palestine violates international law and the Geneva Conventions—countless times over the past six decades:

    Illegal occupation: U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the Palestinian territories occupied [by Israel] in the 1967 conflict.

    Illegal “settlements”: Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Article 85 of the First Protocol to Fourth Geneva Convention further stipulates that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention” shall be regarded as one of the “grave breaches of this Protocol” that “shall be regarded as war crimes.”

    Again and again, Robert, you attempt to dispel the long recognized fact that your Zionist Israel is a racist apartheid state, a long-established trait of fascism:

    “But if you’re going to talk about Zionism it’s pointless (and counter-productive) to paint it as nothing more than another version of fascism, a racist ideology no better than National Socialism or the white 19th century colonialists of Southern Africa.”

    Globally, your Zionist Israel has come to be known as “another South Africa” and, in the words of South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu, “Israeli treatment of Palestinians is worse than South African apartheid.” As distasteful and abhorrent as you may find it, Robert, “Zionism” = racism, and has finally come to be known so around the world.

    Early on, in your piece, Robert, you state: “For Hitler, the Jews were sub-human carriers of disease and corruption.” And, as you and most of the world know now: for Zionist Benjamin Netanyahu, his minions and too many of his predecessors, Palestinians are “sub-human and terrorists”. That’s racism, Robert. When it comes to Zionist Israel’s horrific military occupation and control over Palestine, I see no evidence of Benjamin Netanyahu and far too many other Israeli Jews practicing Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.” Talmud, Shabbat 31:a Worst case by far, Robert, is Zionist Israel’s on-going 10-year siege/blockade of Gaza from its sister territories of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and the rest of the world. Surrounded by concrete walls, barbed wire, Zionist troops and armor, 1.8 million Palestinians are imprisoned in this small piece of land, five miles wide and 25 miles long, bordered by Zionist Israel, Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza is the world’s largest concentration camp. Subject to merciless attack by Zionist Israel, some 2,200 Palestinians, 565 of them children, were massacred and thousands more wounded in Zionist Israel’s 52-day brutal assault on Gaza in the summer of 2014. Yet, you have the chutzpah to state in your piece: “even [illegal Israeli] Settler Colonialists (and their descendants) deserve human rights.”

    You end your Israel’s-not-so-bad piece with: “Once you start talking about Zionist control of anything you’re deep into some of the oldest expressions of antisemitism. Criticise the lobbyists by all means but don’t succumb to conspiracy theories. It’s the politics of fools.” Really, Robert? Well it sounds to me like you’re politicking for Zionism status quo. In other words, we should never criticize Zionism for its brutal, ruthless, racist, genocidal, ethnic cleansing, fascist control of what remains of Palestine, or we’ll be labeled “anti-Semitic”. Now that’s what I call a raw catch-22, Robert! So go ahead and label this gentile “anti-Semitic” because I truly am anti-Zionist and all of the ugly treachery it stands for. And, by the way, I pride myself in not being a “fool”!

    As a footnote (meant to be constructive): Could it be, Robert, that you, like so many other Zionists, suffer from abject denial and cognitive dissonance, in light of what Zionists have done to—not for—the Palestinians?

    • John O
      John O
      May 3, 2016, 3:36 pm

      Thank you, James.

    • hoya saxa
      hoya saxa
      May 3, 2016, 11:03 pm

      I like your buzz words..you even put genocidal in there..hmmm…not even 20,000 total deaths in 70 years if you include jews and arabs…but this is a GENOCIDE! I guess. 1.8 million gazans and after 50 days all israel can do is kill 2200…half of them terrorists but sure..genocide.

      • JimMichie
        JimMichie
        May 4, 2016, 12:06 pm

        Oy Vey, hoya, you got it right! Genocide goes hand-in-hand with ethnic cleansing, racism, brutality, ruthlessness and FASCISM perpetrated by Zionist Israel as it continues the grand theft of what remains of Palestine! And by the way, your Zionist Israel’s indiscriminate merciless massacre of Gazans–most of whom WERE civilians, 565 of them children–is viewed as GENOCIDE around the world.

      • hoya saxa
        hoya saxa
        May 4, 2016, 3:31 pm

        They gave back gaza…you celebrate hamas monsters too? I mean you PRETEND to be liberal but its illegal to be gay in gaza and have long hair if you a male and listening to rock music..but sure israel is the bad guy..I mean they offered a state to arabs how many times already but sure they are the bad guy. Keep loving sharia practicing monster terrorists and keep bashing the only place where people are equal and free…what a useful person you are in life. Terrorists best friends. I like that you use buzz words too…oh and and genocide..and and ethnic cleansing and and and apartheid. Sure buddy….half the battle is burbling out a word..the hard part is actually showing it. Good luck.

        ACtually look up GENOCIDE. 500 kids dead wont qualify…ignorant one. Holocaust probably had more than 500 kids right? Darfur, Rwanda, Syria…they tend to be hundreds of thousands or millions..right? This would be the smallest genocide by a few exponents if you think THAT qualifies. and way to ignore my point that if israel WANTED to kill gaza, gaza would be dead. 2200 out of 1,8 million..about half were terrorists….but dont mind facts..your mind is already made up and you support the car ramming knife stabbing terrorists.

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 4:36 pm

        hoya, it’s not illegal for men to have long hair in gaza. there are quite a few artists there w/long hair. for example graffiti artist Belal Khaled has long hair. and i don’t think rock music is banned. they have hip hop groups and such.

        anyway, we’ve all heard your rant before (and i especially appreciate your impressive capitol letters, that’s so effective) — but you should check the definition of the “crime of genocide” http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx (see article II) because, while arguable, what israel is doing there does qualify under parts of the definition. and just because it’s slo-mo compared to germany’s death machine, doesn’t mean we don’t see what’s happening.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 4, 2016, 5:21 pm

        “ACtually look up GENOCIDE. 500 kids dead wont qualify…ignorant one.”

        Ahhh, there’s that, err… ummm… Zionist compassion I hear so much about.

        Hey “hoya saxa” how many dead Jewish kids does it take to make a “genocide”?

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 4, 2016, 8:02 pm

        @ hoya saxa

        “not even 20,000 total deaths in 70 years if you include jews and arabs…but this is a GENOCIDE! “

        You really are quite a Ziomoron. Even one death can be genocidal. Read the UN definition. Israel is a UN Member state BTW bound in every respect to adhere to the UN charter in its entirety, that includes all UN resolutions that re-affirm and/or emphasize International Law and the UN Charter and relevant GCs

        ” 1.8 million gazans and after 50 days all israel can do is kill 2200…half of them terrorists”

        Fighting an invading force is not terrorism. In fact, it is illegal to bombard un-defended villages, towns etc. Israel can only carry out its regular slaughterfests if Hamas or a similar military organization exists. Laws of War, Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

        Why are supporters of Israel’s illegal acquisition of non-Israeli territory so stupid?

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 4, 2016, 8:28 pm

        Why is it Zioidiots afford so many opportunities to show people who’re genuinely interested in peace and justice, how bl**dy stupid hoya saxa and his pals are

        @ hoya saxa

        “They gave back gaza…”

        “gave” it was never Israel’s to ‘give’ buddy. It was in fact required under International Law emphasized in UNSC res 242 and subsequent UNSC resolutions that it’s illegal to acquire territory by war.

        “.. you celebrate hamas monsters too?”

        Fighting an occupying power is monstrous. Say let’s apply that to Israelis should Israel ever be invaded, which thus far it hasn’t. Israel’s wars have been in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        ” its illegal to be gay in gaza”

        Cite the law … thx .. I’ll wait …. and wait …… and wait ……….

        ” and have long hair if you a male and listening to rock music”

        Bullsh*t is your forte!

        “I mean they offered a state to arabs how many times already”

        Never. States are not offered by Occupying Powers. The Occupying Power has a “sacred trust” to foster the independence of and protect the properties and the inhabitants of the territories they occupy http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.html

        Israel has only offered to swap occupied territory for occupied territory so Israel can keep occupied territory. Like a car thief offering you the spare tyre of your car so they can keep the rest. Like an idiot you’d obviously be OK with that arrangement

        ” the only place where people are equal and free…”

        Keep lying to yourself pal http://imeu.org/article/discrimination-against-palestinian-citizens-of-israel

        “ACtually look up GENOCIDE. 500 kids dead wont qualify…ignorant one. “

        You’ve obviously never read the UN definition of genocide. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=UN+definition+of+genocide&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=g5IqV-HUF8atmAXfuri4BQ
        Israel is a UN Member State BTW.

        What a sad ignorant crapblabbering idiot you’ve turned out to be.

  25. Keith
    Keith
    May 3, 2016, 4:25 pm

    Norman Finkelstein has posted a response to this whole anti-Semitism brouhaha that stands as a useful counterpoint to this Robert Cohen article. I quote two paragraphs from this excellent article along with the link.

    “Compare the American scene. Our Corbyn is Bernie Sanders. In all the primaries in the US, Bernie has been sweeping the Arab and Muslim vote. It’s been a wondrous moment: the first Jewish presidential candidate in American history has forged a principled alliance with Arabs and Muslims. Meanwhile, what are the Blairite-Israel lobby creeps up to in the UK? They’re fanning the embers of hate and creating new discord between Jews and Muslims by going after Naz Shah, a Muslim woman who has attained public office. They’re making her pass through these rituals of public self-degradation, as she is forced to apologise once, twice, three times over for a tongue-in-cheek cartoon reposted from my website. And it’s not yet over! Because now they say she’s on a ‘journey’. Of course, what they mean is, ‘she’s on a journey of self-revelation, and epiphany, to understanding the inner antisemite at the core of her being’. But do you know on what journey she’s really on? She’s on a journey to becoming an antisemite. Because of these people; because they fill any sane, normal person with revulsion.
    ….
    In order to put an end to this, there has to be a decisive repudiation of this political blackmail. Bernie Sanders was brutally pressured to back down on his claim that Israel had used disproportionate force during its 2014 assault on Gaza. He wouldn’t budge, he wouldn’t retreat. He showed real backbone. Corbyn should take heart and inspiration from Bernie’s example. He has to say: no more reports, no more investigations, we’re not going there any more. The game is up. It’s long past time that these antisemitism-mongers crawled back into their sewer – but not before humbly apologising to Naz Shah, and begging her forgiveness.”
    (Norman Finkelstein) http://normanfinkelstein.com/2016/05/03/finkelstein-breaks-his-silence-tells-holocaust-mongers-it-is-time-to-crawl-back-into-your-sewer/

  26. Stephen Shenfield
    Stephen Shenfield
    May 3, 2016, 4:45 pm

    “And whatever the encounters between German Zionists and Nazis in the early 1930s it certainly didn’t save any card carrying Zionist Jews in Europe from being murdered by the Nazis a few years later.”

    In fact, Zionist-Nazi collaboration (which was certainly not confined to the early 1930s) DID save some “card-carrying Zionists” from being murdered. Rudolf Kastner, who led the Zionists in Hungary, made a deal with Eichmann by which he would facilitate the murder of most of his fellow Jews in exchange for a train to Switzerland for 1600 Jews chosen by himself, including friends and relatives, colleagues in the Zionist movement, and businessmen who could pay their way.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      May 3, 2016, 6:37 pm

      Stephen Shenfield- If you think your representation of kastner is fair, then you’re wrong. to call him a collaborator is wrong and you are way wrong.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 3, 2016, 9:20 pm

        If you think your representation of kastner is fair, then you’re wrong. to call him a collaborator is wrong and you are way wrong.

        “Yonah” is is apparent that “Stephen” has never heard the Talmudic prescription: “He who saves the balebatisheh yiden saves the whole world!”

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        May 3, 2016, 9:48 pm

        kastner was no hero. but he was no collaborator. to blame him for facilitating the murder of Hungarian Jews is just malarkey. he was a tool used by the nazis who hoped they might exchange jews for trucks, a deal that never had a chance and that in fact failed. (the original negotiator for the deal was not a zionist and only when the nonzionist negotiator was unable to carry through the necessary task did the zionist kastner come forward. it was not his zionism that was key to his role, but his personality.) (the only jews who might have been fooled by kastner were those who were convinced not to run across the border, this limits the number of Jews whose death kastner facilitated to those who lived near the border and who trusted kastner personally. in fact kastner was not known by very many of the hungarian victims of the nazi genocide.) kastner’s choice of Jews was not limited to the rich and to the Zionists and to kastner’s family but according to bauer, yehuda who is/was a real historian and not a polemicist like hecht, the proportions of those saved represented all major jewish groups and not just the rich and zionists. this is just part of the rigamarole of the antizionists who read one book on the issue and thus feel free to malign zionism because of the personality of kastner, whose real sin was not anything he did during the war, but only the fact that after the war he wrote a letter to the Allied judge to be lenient with the nazi who in fact did not deserve leniency. those who lived in freedom their entire lives who know enough to condemn kastner based upon reading a few paragraphs on some anti zionist web site, really should limit their mouths to something they know something about, which does not include people with families controlled by the nazi murderers. he was not a collaborator. he was a hostage whose family was a hostage. he was human and fallible and imperfect. not a hero. a negotiator. an imperfect negotiator.

        (yehuda bauer- “jews for sale? Nazi jewish negotiations 1933-1945. New Haven. Yale university press, 1994)

      • annie
        annie
        May 3, 2016, 9:58 pm

        yonah, this was certainly not the opinion of the judges presiding over the trial. their condemnations were quite harsh.

        did you ever get a chance to read any of the transcripts? see the footnotes of perfidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy_(book)

        The book draws heavily on transcripts from the trial, and concludes that in 1944 Rudolf Kastner deliberately withheld from the Jews in Hungary that the trains the Nazis were putting them on were taking them to death by the gas chamber, not to a fictitious resettlement city as the Nazis claimed, and that Kastner then lied about it under oath. One of the supporting facts presented is that, in the Supreme Court appeal of the original verdict implicating Kastner, all five Supreme Court Judges upheld Judge Halevi’s initial verdict on the “criminal and perjurious way” in which Kastner after the war had testified on behalf of Nazi war criminal Kurt Becher.[1] Judge Silberg summed up the Supreme Court finding on this point: “[respondent Malchiel] Greenwald has proven beyond any reasonable doubt this grave charge.”[2]

        of course it is well known that posthumously, after he was murdered, most of the judgment was overturned. he was an embarrassment to the state so his reputation has been somewhat resurrected. but it was a very famous and highly scrutinized trial in israel (like oj simpson), not something historians will be forgetting — although some have been rewriting it.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        May 3, 2016, 10:02 pm

        the judges were forced to act in the place of historians. but they were not historians.

      • annie
        annie
        May 3, 2016, 10:54 pm

        you’re not making sense. the judges were not forced to act as historians or anything else. they acted as judges in the present.

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 3, 2016, 11:45 pm

        YONAH FREDMAN- “kastner was no hero. but he was no collaborator. to blame him for facilitating the murder of Hungarian Jews is just malarkey.”

        Your ignorance is appalling. For cry sakes, get a copy of “Perfidy” by Ben Hecht and deal with reality rather than Zionist mythology.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 4, 2016, 12:04 pm

        “Your ignorance is appalling.”

        Are you kidding? “Yonah” is a Doctor! He gives out heroic doses of the very best medicine.

        And “Keith” are you taking into account the quality of the people Kastner “saved”?

        ” this limits the number of Jews whose death kastner facilitated to those who lived near the border and who trusted kastner personally.” “Yonah”

        Yup, if there’s one thing you can count on in this flusheggana world, it’s tribal unity! It never fails us!
        (Thanks for the laughs, “Yonah”, you never fail me)

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 10:58 pm

        he was no collaborator. to blame him for facilitating the murder of Hungarian Jews is just malarkey. he was a tool used by the nazis

        perfidy is the most horrific book. the thing i find so upsetting about kastner, is he knew the jews were not going to some refugee camp. he never told the people. the least he could have done was let people decide on their own so they could take the risks if they wanted to, run for the hills or whatever. he didn’t tell them. i find that absolutely inexplicable. i realize he saved a trainload of people but at what expense and was it for him to decide as the local zionist official what to tell them? and what happened in hungary the last summer of the war was so beyond horrific — like 100k lives a month or something — i can’t recall the exact figures. but it’s inexcusable.

        i don’t think he was an evil man and i’m sure his position was daunting and it was a horrible time and position to be in. but as an official he should have told the people and not had them packing their bags thinking they were going to some holding camp. i wonder how many people would have gotten on that train and how many would have escaped or at least tried to — either way they should have had the opportunity to choose for themselves. relatively, there were few nazis in hungary. the whole thing is beyond horrific. i cried buckets reading that book and thinking about it afterwards. it wasn’t a sophie’s choice that’s for sure. he could have done more, at least let the people decide for themselves.

  27. Stephen Shenfield
    Stephen Shenfield
    May 4, 2016, 6:43 am

    I do not judge anyone. I only want to affirm the fact that there were Jews who collaborated with (i.e., helped) the Nazis — above all, most members of the Judenrate (Nazi-appointed and controlled Jewish Councils) and the police and others in their employ.

    Not all Zionists collaborated, many fought the Nazis, but of those Jews who did collaborate most were Zionists. Traditional religious Jews did not collaborate, nor did leftists (Bundists, communists, etc.). This was because the Nazis had already established a pattern of cooperation with Zionists in the 1930s, so now they again called on their services. The exception was occupied Soviet territory, where Zionists could not readily be identified, but it is no coincidence that that was also where the Jewish Councils were least reliable and most inclined to use their positions to help the Resistance (as in Minsk).

    Nazis and Zionists had compatible worldviews, they could find a common language. Both regarded Jews as a separate and degenerate racial group. The difference was that most Nazis believed that Jews could not be regenerated and therefore had to be exterminated. That was Hitler’s view. The Zionists thought Jews could be regenerated by colonizing Palestine. However, in the 1930s there had been influential Nazis, even in the SS, who shared that hope and sincerely (not just opportunistically) admired Zionist efforts in that direction. Before his death Eichmann gave an interview to Life magazine in which he expressed admiration for Kastner and other “idealistic” Zionists with whom he had dealt, so although he obeyed orders he was apparently still influenced by this pro-Zionist tendency within Nazism. In Germany today there is also a group of pro-Zionist Nazis called “National Socialists for Israel”.

    • hoya saxa
      hoya saxa
      May 4, 2016, 12:25 pm

      tell us how many members this national socialist for israel group has. So we can decide if your whole baloney argument is based off a fringe miniscule irrelevant numbers. Im guessing yes.

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 1:32 pm

        it’s not baloney it’s common knowledge amongst educated people. http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2016-05-03/the-true-anti-semites-past-and-present/

        – a historical truth that for a period of time Hitler and the Zionist movement shared enough common ground that they held negotiations about transferring Jews to Palestine.
        Livingstone said the following on radio:

        When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.

        There’s a lot of information about this out there – Lenni Brenner even wrote a book on the subject. Livingstone’s mistake was both to express himself slackly in the heat of the moment and to refer to a history that was supposed to have been disappeared down the memory hole. But what he is saying is, in essence, true.

        – See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2016-05-03/the-true-anti-semites-past-and-present/#sthash.7mqLQIol.dpuf

        fringe miniscule irrelevant numbers

        hitler was only one person. 1 is not a minuscule irrelevant number if that one person is in power. same goes for the zionists who collaborated w/nazis. it doesn’t really matter how many there were. and a terrorist group like the irgun, one could argue they were fringe minuscule irrelevant in numbers.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        May 4, 2016, 6:24 pm

        The size of National Socialists for Israel is not crucial to my argument. It is just one of a number of examples showing that Nazism and Zionism are close enough to make their reconciliation possible. I don’t know how many members they have, but it is more important to ponder the ideas in their German-language blog. Their introductory statement starts by saying that strong peoples deserve to live and weak peoples deserve to die and continues to argue that the Jews have proven themselves a strong people in “endless wars.” Therefore they deserve respect. Hitler was wrong in assessing their quality. They are not against genocide in principle, but it should be reserved for peoples that really are weak and degenerate, like the Romanies and the Palestinians.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        May 5, 2016, 5:06 am

        Mind you, even if it were proved that Hilter was a Zionist to the core and that support for Zionism among his followers was massive this would not show that there was anything wrong with Zionism or (even if you add the contentious claim that Zionism is good) anything good about Hitler. Truth can’t imply falsehood but falsehood can imply truth. Anyone can do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      May 4, 2016, 1:51 pm

      stephen sheinfeld- “of those jews who did collaborate most were zionists”. do you have numbers or a link to a historian to back this up?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 4, 2016, 2:18 pm

        “Stephen sheinfeld- “of those jews who did collaborate most were zionists. do you have numbers or a link to a historian to back this up?”

        “Yonah” you are a glutton for punishment. Oh well, up to you.

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 2:47 pm

        do you have numbers or a link to a historian to back this up?

        yonah, you’re being foolish. the numbers are irrelevant given the historical data. it’s not how many there were, it’s who they were and what they did.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/livingstone-supported-zionism/#comment-837818

        Naftali Lubentschik, a representative of the Stern Gang (one of the Yishuv’s terrorist orgnaizations) led by Avraham Stern, had met with German Nazis, Otto Von Hentig and Rudolph Rosen in Vichy controlled Beirut and proposed that in exchange for military aid and freedom to recruit European Jews for Palestine, the Sternists were prepared “…to take an active part in the war on Germany’s side…and [this cooperation] would also be in line with one [of Hitler’s recent speeches which] stressed that any alliance would be entered into in order to isolate England and defeat it.”

        The proposition presented to the Nazis pointed out that “the establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.” (Quoted by Klaus Polkehn, “The Secret Contacts: Zionist-Nazi Relations, 1933-1941” as well as Lenny Brenner, Zionism in the Age of Dictators, Westport, Conn., Lawrence Hill & Co., 1983, p. 267 and Yediot Aharnot, February 4/1983). The Nazis rejected the Stern Gang’s proposal.

        Following Stern’s death at the hands of the British in 1942, three of his lieutenants (one of whom was Yitzhak Shamir) took over leadership of the Gang. It is revealing to note that despite Avraham Stern’s ignominious record and his flirtation with the Nazis, Ben-Gurion later referred to him as “one of the finest and most outstanding figures of the era.”

        zionist collaboration with the nazis effectively crushed the jewish boycott against germany.

      • hoya saxa
        hoya saxa
        May 4, 2016, 3:24 pm

        wouldnt you love annie to CITE that alleged meeting other than one book…is it in an encyclopedia or any normal media outlets? Ill wait annie…or are you just going to cite more blogs and hate sites? like this one.

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 4:44 pm

        CITE that alleged meeting other than one book

        oh, sorry you had to wait. i just saw your comment. here’s one other source, but they are available elsewhere. ie:

        For the Sake of Argument: Essays and Minority Reports
        By Christopher Hitchens http://www.amazon.com/Sake-Argument-Essays-Minority-Reports/dp/0860914356

        under the heading “Berlin’s Mandate for Palestine”:

        https://books.google.com/books?id=8haLsgCsae8C&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=Naftali+Lubentschik&source=bl&ots=Lp1j3YGwq6&sig=hYa3Q4Hld4AE5YYg8l8heXaSrPs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1tI7So8HMAhUQwmMKHVRWDpcQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=Naftali%20Lubentschik&f=false

        i hope that’s helpful.

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 5:03 pm

        i’d also recommend Tel Aviv University history professor Yaacov Shavit’s “Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement 1925-1948” he writes about the meeting. see chapter “The Undergrounds: their Politics and Methods — a) Lehi the Stern Group”

        https://books.google.com/books?id=SS2AAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=Jabotinsky+and+the+Revisionist+Movement+1925-1948&source=bl&ots=wTJa8JB9qJ&sig=SbCqU-lZEBjjXberrzF-lm_e7EM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBWoVChMIqPmPipLjyAIVSYI-Ch2_UQ_C#v=onepage&q=Jabotinsky%20and%20the%20Revisionist%20Movement%201925-1948&f=false

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        May 4, 2016, 7:30 pm

        I got this view from Lennie Brenner’s “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators” (the book Annie mentions) and Isaiah Trunk’s “Judenrat: The Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe Under Nazi Occupation.” His table on p. 34 suggests that about three quarters of Judenrat members were Zionists. The typical council member was a community leader with “respectable” conformist bourgeois attitudes that inclined him toward cooperation with the authorities (whoever the authorities might be). I should acknowledge that the Zionist far left, e.g. Poalei Zion, did not participate in the councils and fought in the Resistance.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        May 5, 2016, 9:02 am

        Stephen, thanks for the name and page number from the isaiah trunk book.

  28. annie
    annie
    May 4, 2016, 1:42 pm

    Never mention Hitler and Israel in the same sentence. Ditto Zionism and Nazism

    never say never mr. cohen, and you just broke your own rule — twice.

    • eljay
      eljay
      May 4, 2016, 1:51 pm

      || Annie Robbins:
      Never mention Hitler and Israel in the same sentence. Ditto Zionism and Nazism

      never say never mr. cohen, and you just broke your own rule — twice. ||

      Good one, Annie. :-)

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 3:26 pm

        guess who else is breaking the rules: https://mobile.twitter.com/ArielZigler/status/727926265701863424
        (google translation)

        Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Golan: “What scares me the memory of the Holocaust is so appalling identification processes, Europe in general and Germany in particular and finding evidence of them here among us today”

        tweeted by IDF Radio reporter @GLZRadio

      • lysias
        lysias
        May 4, 2016, 5:25 pm

        There’s a Ha’aretz article on Yair Golan’s speech: Ha’aretz: IDF Deputy Chief: Daunting to Identify in Israel Trends Prevalent in pre-Holocaust Europe: ‘On Holocaust Remembrance Day, we ought to discuss our ability to uproot the seeds of intolerance, violence, self-destruction and moral deterioration,’ says Maj. Gen. Yair Golan.:

        In an unusual speech in honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day on Wednesday evening, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen.Yair Golan likened recent developments in Israeli society to processes that unfolded in Europe before the Holocaust.
         
        “If there’s something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance it’s the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then – 70, 80 and 90 years ago – and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016.”

        Golan said that the Holocaust “must make us think deeply about the responsibility of leadership, the quality of society, and it must lead us to fundamental thinking about how we, here and now, treat the stranger, the orphan and the widow, and all who are like them.”

        “There is nothing easier than hating the stranger, nothing easier than to stir fears and intimidate. There is nothing easier than to behave like an animal and to act sanctimoniously,” he added.

        “On Holocaust Remembrance Day we ought to discuss our ability to uproot the seeds of intolerance, violence, self-destruction and moral deterioration,” Golan said.

        Just as Yom Kippur is a day for personal atonement, Golan said, “it ought to be and in fact it’s actually essential” for Holocaust Remembrance Day to be a national day of atonement.

      • annie
        annie
        May 4, 2016, 5:37 pm

        wow

      • John O
        John O
        May 5, 2016, 8:41 am

        @annie and lysias

        He’s now backtracking.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/05/israeli-military-chief-yair-golan-nazi-germany-comparison

        He’s lucky he’s not a member of the British Labour Party.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 6, 2016, 11:28 pm

        Perhaps Golan is alarmed by all the “Death to the Left” signs he sees at rallies in Tel Aviv.
        Yair Golan know the value of tribal unity!

  29. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    May 4, 2016, 2:30 pm

    Noticeable that the Yahoo appears to be keeping his head down on this one ? As the “Leader of all the World`s Jews ” one would have thought that he would be press conferencing left right and centre ( no pun intended ) to highlight this monstrous threat to UK Semites.

    Could it be that he is a wee bit timorous that his similar ” Nazi Apologist” comments about Hitler and the Grand Mufti might come back to bite his fat ankles ?

    It appears that his only input may have been to instruct his pet wallaby, Mark Regurgitev, now happily based in the UK , to do one of his cute little Hasbara numbers.

  30. Kay24
    Kay24
    May 4, 2016, 3:44 pm

    OT but someone needs a big kick on the posterior too:

    Drumpf has been sucked in to the dark side (most probably driven by his son in law)
    and champions the apartheid nation and their illegal settlements

    Trump Says Israel Should “Keep Moving Forward” Building Illegal Settlements
    So much for being the “neutral guy.”

    I guess brutal occupier wants to make sure the Drumpf and the Woman with unwavering support, will both be their servants, and betting on both sides is easy for them.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-israel-settlements_us_572a03ede4b096e9f08fc693?iu9etjs0dnz6c4n29

    It should make people shudder.

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      May 5, 2016, 1:26 pm

      Thanks for reference, Kay, horrifying indeed. A very revealing phrase is ‘Keep moving forward’ – very explicit. If the Israelis keep moving forward the Palestinians must keep on moving back, presumably until they are right out of the territory. So it would seem that Trump is preparing the way for the real Israeli plan – parody of a peace plan – whereby the Palestinians are ‘finally’ moved out with ‘compensation’ that Trump would call a ‘deal’. Clinton would surely go along with this too, so we should prepare ourselves for a big contest with the next President.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        May 5, 2016, 2:36 pm

        It is unjust and we should be ashamed that the US was complicit in the biggest land scam in our time. Drumpf has most probably been brainwashed by his zionist son in law, who played go- between AIPAC and Drumpf, and apparently Drumpf’s speech to the zionists in American clothing (AIPAC) was according to AIAPC’s script. Now he sings a different tune, it is the same tune our politicians sing. The devious zionists are hedging their bets on both candidates, so that it will be a win-win situation whoever wins. The Palestinians may finally be driven out of their own lands.

  31. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    May 5, 2016, 4:03 pm

    R. Cohen writes:
    《But after days of news coverage about Zionism and antisemitism, none of which has shed the slightest light on the plight of the Palestinians, my sympathy with how some left wingers express their views on Israel has worn very thin. Their verbal antics have allowed distraction and deflection to triumph as an exaggerated crisis about antisemitism in Britain rules the airwaves.》

    I agree that what he said was not strategically wise, helpful, or necessary.
    I know someone could use L.Brenner’s work and theoretically make an argument for it.

    But I think the best way to understand the statement is to notice IJAN Holocausr survivor Hajo Meyer’s reaction and outburst when he was being peppered by accusations that he was anti-semitic for being antizionist.
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TOoAuSJ7hJ0

    Meyer is making the kind of borderline statement that is not very helpful, but that some people can find arguments to support, ie that antisemitism today is coming from mistaken foreign policies. This is what the Rev Bruce Shipman scandal at Yale involved.

Leave a Reply