Trending Topics:

Racism is at center of Israeli settler-colonialist venture — Ronit Lentin

on 28 Comments

According to the internationally applied (yet irredeemably clumsy) definition of Anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”, could amount to anti-Semitism. 

By this standard, Ronit Lentin, associate professor emeritus of Sociology at Trinity College Dublin, could be accused of Anti-Semitism for publishing her recent book “Traces of Racial Exception – Racializing Israeli Settler Colonialism.” (Bloomsbury, 2018).

Lentin’s book is rather dense in its citing of various theorists of race and settler-colonialism (with nearly 750 footnotes), making a clear case for race being a central element in the Zionist settler-colonialist project, manifesting as the State of Israel.

Lentin is Israeli-Irish. Born in Mandate Palestine in 1944, she emigrated to Ireland in 1969, and is Jewish and white-Ashkenazi. She is very conscious of all these elements and regards herself as belonging to the upper stratum of the Israeli society (even when she doesn’t live there – remember, the “Jewish Nation”) – a recognition of the privilege provided to her at the top of the multi-layered fabric of the racialized Israeli society. The layers descend from white-Jewish at the top, ‘Mizrahi’ (non-European) Jewish, Black Jewish, then non-Jewish in various shades, including Palestinian citizens, African refugees, Palestinian non-citizens including occupied, besieged and expelled refugees, etc.

The suggestion that Israel is an essentially racial state, is one that Israel apologists obviously seek to bury. The UN commissioned report of 2017 concerning Israeli Apartheid by US professors Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley, concluded in no uncertain terms that Israel, from its very inception, “has both effected and veiled a comprehensive policy of apartheid directed at the whole Palestinian people”. That report was taken down from the UN website after the former US Ambassador Nikki Haley pressed the UN General secretary to do so. She boasted about it to AIPAC. Having described how she blocked the appointment of a Palestinian to a UN political mission in Libya, whom she had “booted out” with her racist “high heels”, she then said:

So then they [UN] tested us again. And a ridiculous report came out, the [Richard] Falk [and Virginia Tilley] report. I don’t know who the guy is or what he’s about, but he’s got serious problems [massive laughter in audience, including host]…goes and compares Israel to an Apartheid state. So the first thing we do is we call the Secretary General and say ‘this is absolutely ridiculous, you have to pull it’. The Secretary General immediately pulled the report and then, the director has now resigned!” [cheers from the crowd and a thumbs up from the host].

So this is clearly an important discussion, one that Israel apologists want to avoid – so as to maintain that “veil” that Falk and Tilley refer to. The success of the racialized system is dependent upon its veiling through PR means, generally known as Hasbara.

Veiling racism as mere policy can also be seen in US President Trump’s recent overtly racist suggestions that Congresswomen of color who were critical of his policies could just “go back” to their “broken” and “crime infested countries.” The statements were defended by Trump’s senior adviser Stephen Miller as “not racist” on Fox News. Chris Wallace stated that Trump was “playing the race card” and brought up the Obama ‘birther’ theory, but Miller responded: “That’s not a race question!” Miller continued in his attempt to veil the racism:

I fundamentally disagree with the view that if you criticize someone and they happen to be a different skin color, that that makes it a racial criticism. If you want to have a colorblind society, it means you can criticize immigration policy, you can criticize people’s views, you can ask questions about where they’re born and not have it be seen as racial. 

Miller’s response, resembling Trump aide Kellyanne Conway’s “What’s your ethnicity?” response to a reporter asking about Trump’s racist rants, shows how important it is to accentuate and emphasize the issue of race as central to policy. The racist policy makers will usually try to trivialize the issue when they are challenged. Their trivializing will naturally ignore or underplay the racial discrimination already inherent in the society, and thus claim a disingenuous “colorblindness”.

In the Israeli context, the supposed colorblindness entails the claim of “security”, that is, we have to do this because it’s about security. It’s not about them being not Jewish, it’s not because we’re racist.

In Lentin’s book, race is theorized not primarily as being, but rather as doing. Here she leans particularly upon scholars such as Patrick Wolfe and Alana Lentin (incidentally her daughter), seeing race as a performative matter. In other words, it’s not so much a question of one’s being racist, as in saying typically racist things. One can be heading a patently racial, racist policy or even venture, and not say a racist word throughout.

This notion dismantles the idea that racists necessarily need to act as such overtly. This idea is often the veil which racial ventures apply – as in the “enlightened colonialist” idea.

Lentin connects her theory to settler-colonialism in general. Colonialism of the past 500 years is a paradigm in which the perpetrators are overwhelmingly white-European, and the affected are overwhelmingly non-white people from the global south. By theorizing the Zionist venture as essentially settler-colonialist, Lentin connects it to the inherent racism of the overall colonialist paradigm. In order to enhance this perspective, she also focuses upon black scholarship and global south perspectives of colonialism in general.

Inside the general paradigm of colonialism, there exist variations. Settler-colonialism, that is colonialism that does not involve a ‘mother-country’, is generally known to be the more deadly variant, in that it is inherently eliminationist regarding the native population, whereas in other variants there is that ‘mother-country’ option to go back to. Lentin defines the Israeli example as special in its multi-faceted racialization of both white supremacy and Jewish supremacy, yet under the overall paradigm of colonialism, and particularly settler-colonialism, she does not view the Israeli example as particularly special, nor surprising. And its eliminationist aspect is inherently genocidal, she says, though the project was not necessarily about making all the natives disappear at once.

In the chapter titled Settler Colonialism, Race, Genocide, Lentin writes:

This was obvious in the post frontier period of the Zionist settler colonization, when it became clear that the Palestinians had to be expelled or otherwise excluded (from access to land ownership and other resources) not only because the Zionist settlers wanted their territory, but also because their presence sullied what European Ashkenazi settlers imagined as racial homogeneity, already challenged by intra-Jewish heterogeneities with the arrival of Arab and Mizrahi Jews. (P. 82).

Lentin cites Raphaël Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish jurist who coined the term “genocide” and defined it as a subject of international law:

Speaking of the “destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed” as the first stage of genocide, the second being “the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor,” Lemkin might as well be describing the genocidal nature of settler-colonialism: “this imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals”. (P. 104)

She further notes:

Precisely due to the derivation of genocide from the racial concept of genos (in the case of Israel the racialization of the Palestinians as a racially inferior genos), the discourse of genocide is increasingly being applied to the elimination and continued targeting of the Palestinian natives by the state of Israel.

Lentin does not shy away from citing social media. In this context she applies a summary by activist Tali Shapira on the Israel Genocide? Facebook page, which cites the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and lists various relevant and current examples: hundreds of Israeli executions, thousands of political prisoners, house demolitions, hundreds of thousands of settlers, Gaza and its unlivable conditions, massive displacement of whole communities, etc. These things, when looked at in combination, arguably fulfill at least three of the items of the Genocide definition: (a) Killing members of the group; (b Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Lentin’s book could be a dry intellectual exercise, if it were not filled with current examples from beginning to end. Her occasional citing of social media activists adds a certain popular, down to earth sense, and cuts across what could otherwise be perceived as academic distance. Thus her first chapter begins with the Elor Azarya case, the Israeli soldier-medic who in 2016 was caught on video murdering an incapacitated Palestinian suspect. Azarya was sentenced to 18 months in prison for “Manslaughter”, and eventually got out after 9 months.

Lentin’s third chapter opens with the Israeli police-murder of the Bedouin citizen Yaqub Moussa Abu Al-Qia’an in Umm al Hiran, 2017. Abu Al-Qia’an’s house was being demolished as part of an ethnic-cleansing operation to make space for a Jewish-only settlement called Hiran. The police had framed his execution as a prevention of a “terror attack”, which Israeli leaders had even framed as ISIS-affiliated. 

Lentin also includes stories from the first years of the state, like the gang-rape and murder case in Nirim in 1949. This case opens her 5th chapter, titled “Beyond Femina Sacra: Gendering Palestine”, where she theorizes the colonization of Palestine in terms of a gendered assault – a notion that is often disregarded and downplayed, yet again by those who would veil it in terms that are “gender-blind” in addition to “colorblind”.

Lentin observes these events as well as the societal and institutional response to them (cover up, symbolic sentences etc.) as one story, of race and racism. Once again – the assaulting group seeks a righteous veil, or a veil of complete darkness, to hide its inherently racial act, and the racism is both in the initial assault as well as in its veiling.  

Even her concluding chapter opens with a current event on social media:

As I am writing this conclusion, a B’Tselem video from March 19, 2017 appears on my Facebook feed showing a force of some fifteen IDF soldiers seizing the 8-year-old Sufian Abu Hitah as he was wandering about barefoot, looking for a lost toy outside his grandparents’ Hebron house. Two soldiers grabbed Sufian and dragged him to the al-Harika neighborhood and demanded that he point out children who had allegedly thrown stones and a Molotov cocktail at the Kirat Arba Jewish settlement earlier. [P. 166 – Lentin is referring to this case].

Lentin has come to see race as a critical lens through which to view the Palestinian-Israeli issue:

For many years I have attempted to understand the puzzle of the Israeli-Zionist rule over Palestine that persists unabated and uncensored by the so-called international community despite the growing global civil society solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinians. I have come to the conclusion that the only way of theorizing it is by using the lens of race. [P. 7]

Reading Ronit Lentin’s “Traces of Racial Exception” has for me opened up new perspectives of how to think about Zionism. How you define something is not an intellectual exercise. It is your statement about what something essentially is, beyond the veils. That has been a central issue concerning Trump, as even some Republicans saw the racism of his comments. Of course, his supporters claimed that it was not racist, and that stance is aimed at protecting Trump from impeachment. The same applies with Israel. Israel’s apologists know that defining it as a racist endeavor could be dangerous to its existence, which is why they seek to avert the discussion, applying the famous ‘anti-Semitism’ charge. Ronit Lentin breaks through that glass ceiling, and her book is essential reading.

Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

28 Responses

  1. eljay on July 22, 2019, 12:57 pm

    It should come as no surprise to anyone that when you set out deliberately to establish a religion-supremacist state and you do so using tools such as colonialism and (war) crimes, you end up with a colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist state.

    • Talkback on July 22, 2019, 2:25 pm

      Jonathan: “According to the internationally applied (yet irredeemably clumsy) definition of Anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”, could amount to anti-Semitism.”

      That’s not what the IHRA actually accepted. The IHRA only accepted this definition:
      “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

      “The clarification provided by the IHRA now reveals that these examples were never adopted by the plenary of its members. However, they have been widely perceived and handled as if they were part of the “IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.”

      • MHughes976 on July 22, 2019, 5:52 pm

        But in the UK at least there is no possibility of locking that stable door. The key moment in the great tide of accusation against Corbyn was in his attempt to adopt the first part without the ‘examples’.
        The first sentence of the ‘definition’ could be regarded as almost conventional – most people would always have applied the word ‘anti-Semitism’ to any hatred of Jews. There is a question about who judges, and whether disavowals – ‘I hate no-one’ – could be accepted. There is a question whether we are talking about a ‘perception of Jews’ in the form of an idea about ‘what it is to be Jewish’ or in the form of a view of some people who are Jewish in fact.
        The second sentence seems to add nothing to our understanding of what A/S is. It just says, seemingly by way of factual observation not definition, that A/S has manifestations and is directed at targets.
        The ‘examples’ are what gives these forms of words, now close in status to the definition of a crime, their teeth and their bite.

      • Talkback on July 22, 2019, 7:39 pm

        MHughes976: “But in the UK at least there is no possibility of locking that stable door. The key moment in the great tide of accusation against Corbyn was in his attempt to adopt the first part without the ‘examples’.”

        Corbyn probably didn’t know that the definition was only this first part.

        MHughes976 : “The first sentence of the ‘definition’ could be regarded as almost conventional – most people would always have applied the word ‘anti-Semitism’ to any hatred of Jews. There is a question about who judges, and whether disavowals – ‘I hate no-one’ – could be accepted. There is a question whether we are talking about a ‘perception of Jews’ in the form of an idea about ‘what it is to be Jewish’ or in the form of a view of some people who are Jewish in fact.”

        The definition is vague and stupid and plays into the hands of self righteous “hate” accusers.

        The core of any real antisemitism is a defamatory view of Jews as Jews which can lead to verbal or physical attacks (even on Nonjews). The rest is just a Zionist wishlist to defame criticism against real existing Zionism.

        MHughes976: “The ‘examples’ are what gives these forms of words, now close in status to the definition of a crime, their teeth and their bite.”

        It says: “Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OVERALL CONTEXT, include, but are not limited to:”

        If someone claims that noone except the citizens of Palestine had the right to a state in Palestine it’s obviously not antisemitic. But when someone claims that Jews don’t have this right, because they are [insert any antisemitic defamation] than it is obviously antisemitic. It’s all context dependent.

        This antisemitic defintion actually has no bite at all when it comes to silencing criticism of Israel if one knows how to circumvent its traps.

      • LiberatePalestine on July 22, 2019, 8:14 pm

        Indeed, why should a definition of anti-Semitism be needed? Doesn’t everyone know what it means? People can reasonably disagree over whether something constitutes anti-Semitism or not, but noöne really needs guidance on what anti-Semitism is.

        Definitions are imposed just to change the meaning of the well-understood word for political advantage. No reasonable person would say that anti-Zionism is necessarily anti-Semitic, so that position has to be imposed through manipulation of definitions.

        But one can establish almost anything by definition. Examples:

        A opposes Zionism.
        Our handy-dandy politically approved definition holds that opposition to Zionism is anti-Semitic.
        Therefore, A (or at least A’s position) is anti-Semitic.

        A square has four right angles.
        I define a circle to be a square.
        Therefore, a circle has four right angles.

      • Mooser on July 22, 2019, 8:34 pm

        “A opposes Zionism.”

        Then A should be happy. Oh, so happy! Laughing, Ha! ha!
        Chaffing, Ha! ha!Nectar quaffing, Ha! ha! ha!
        Ever joyous, ever gay, happy, anti-Zionist A!

      • Jonathan Ofir on July 23, 2019, 2:16 am

        Thanks Talkback for that nuance. Nonetheless, I would say that with all this understanding of what the (working) definition was meant to be, it got taken as a one whole by various governments, with its examples.
        Indeed, the framed “definition” was opening a door to all manner of interpretations, in its vagueness – as the source you provide notes:

        “We suggest (see point 4 below) that this vagueness and obscurity of wording can only be seen as deliberate. It is of no value in identifying antisemitic acts or statements. But it does provide an apparent necessity to accompany the definition with an interpretative explanation, that is, an opportunity for introducing concepts that would otherwise be unconnected with the understanding of antisemitism.”

        I agree with MHHughes976, that the horses have bolted here. The very reason for this definition being so popular amongst the Israel apologists is precisely its examples, which conflate critique or condemnation of Israel with anti-Semitism, that is, simply, hatred of Jews.

        Here is the link to the document once again, to be sure everyone sees it:

        I have also linked to it in the article, in the first link, where my piece links to it in the second link. On the one hand, it’s important that people see it. On the other, it doesn’t make much of a difference in my view. The reason is, that this is one document titled “Working Definition of Antisemitism”. You can demand that all people only relate to that framed definition of 40 words, but in practice, the application of it is widely demanded to be the full page, for the mentioned reasons (and the example of Corbyn wanting to accept it with dissent on examples is a good one – dissent to some of the examples was itself considered an extension of the anti-Semitism allegations to support the witch-hunt).

        And it’s not as if it matters what it’s called exactly. This is not based in international law anyway. It is something that has reportedly served as a working definition, an almost verbatim repeat of another working definition (so called EUMC) that was never actually adopted by the EUMC. The EUMC was replaced by the EUFRA which clarified that it was never adopted, and has removed the document from its website in 2013.

        IHRA could be doing the same as EUFRA. In the meanwhile, this is having its own life.

        This is not a discussion of what the law says, because this is not law. That it is sought to be incorporated into law, is another problem.

        I believe that with the word “could”, my formulation was careful enough so as to skip upon this maze of considerations and appraisals of what is, and what is not, the IHRA definition.

      • MHughes976 on July 23, 2019, 12:22 pm

        The bolting horses have pretty much trampled Corbyn. The campaign just doesn’t stop and is seriously affecting our whole political life, even world politics because of our involvement in the Gulf/Iran campaign.

      • MHughes976 on July 23, 2019, 1:07 pm

        I don’t think that there would be any overall context in which the IHRA would consider the claim the foundation of Israel was a racist endeavour not to be anti-Semitic.
        Anyone may choose to inform the world that he chooses to use a certain word a certain way. This was the choice of Lewis Carroll’s H Dumpty – his stipulations can be understood with an effort, though if he had claimed that they were normal or part of common usage he would have been making a false statement of fact.
        The statement that an actual referred-to item falls under a given definition is also a debatable matter of fact, requiring evidence. Thus a square is a rectangle with equal sides may be a definition but the statement that the ground plan of the Temple was square needs evidence. Someone may stipulate that the term ‘anti-S’ means ‘hatred of Jews’ but cannot then merely stipulate but must argue that the ‘racist endeavour’ theory expresses hatred.
        You can try it the other way round: ‘a square is whatever shape the Temple was’/‘anti-Semitism is what is expressed by the ‘racist endeavour’ theory’. However, you may then find that the argument shows you that there can be a five-sided ‘square’, if the archaeologists finally determine that such was the Temple’s shape, or that there is truth in the r-e theory and therefore some validity in what you are calling ‘anti-S’.

      • Talkback on July 24, 2019, 3:09 am

        Jonathan, I like to add the following article:
        Why the man who drafted the IHRA definition condemns its use
        “According to Stern it had originally been designed as a ”working definition” for the purpose of trying to standardise data collection about the incidence of antisemitic hate crime in different countries. It had never been intended that it be used as legal or regulatory device to curb academic or political free speech.”

        And this from Wikipedia about Stern, the lead drafter:
        “Kenneth S. Stern of the AJC, a human rights lawyer, was critical of the EUMC’s original definition, as it was confusing about when attacks on Jews related to the Israel/Palestine conflict could be considered antisemitic, and required investigators to know the intentions of attackers.”,_Porat_and_Bauer_version

        Stern’s original version of this workling definition that was picked up by the EUMC didn’t even include “taking into account the overall context”. It was the EUMC which added it and made it even more vague.

      • Jonathan Ofir on July 24, 2019, 10:04 am

        Talkback, thanks, I am aware of the Kenneth S. Stern dissent.
        Yet the question arises: If an event may or may not be anti-Semitic, and if it is commonly understood what anti-Semitism consists of (hatred of Jews), and if it is already encompassed by hate-crime (notice: ‘hate-crime’ suggests that you know that there is a particular hate-motive), then why this whole clumsy definition in the first place?
        The definition, in the frame, is, I repeat, irredeemably clumsy, and the examples only make it worse. It is clear that it is a desperate attempt at opening the door to all kinds of other possibilities, which are not actual anti-Semitism, but are suggested as suspicious, and that’s where the advantage comes for the Israel apologists. It helps them insinuate that a critic of Israel MAY BE anti-Semitic, and the road from there to calling them that is short.

        This whole definition should be trashed. Definitively and wholly. If anyone was in doubt whether it could lead to trouble, then its recent history shows precisely that it has.

        I have no sympathy nor time for the likes of Stern, who toy with this ‘anti-Semitic’ game, where they fish for possibilities. Then someone takes their little fishing-rod and starts fishing for political big fish, and they complain it wasn’t meant for that. Then demand to have it trashed, wholly.

      • Mooser on July 24, 2019, 1:44 pm

        And now Boris Johnson (American tax emigre) will be Prime Minister.

      • MHughes976 on July 24, 2019, 5:54 pm

        Johnson will be heading our most pro-Israel government in our history, with Priti Patel, our Nikki Haley, playing a prominent part and in an atmosphere where people accused of anti-Semitism are being sought out and punished. This doesn’t seem to me to be Zionism’s losing the argument. O mi God!

      • Sibiriak on August 3, 2019, 11:56 am

        The IHRA antisemitism definition in action:

        UK council refused to host Palestinian event over antisemitism fears

    • Misterioso on July 23, 2019, 10:57 am

      @eljay, et al

      Off topic, but priceless!!

      I can hardly wait for Donald Jr.’s words of wisdom!!

      “Donald Trump Jr. to become an author this November” CNN Politics, July 22/19
      (CNN) “Donald Trump Jr. will become the third member of his family to write a book during his father’s presidency, the eldest Trump son announced Monday.

      “‘Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us'” will come out on November 5, just in time for Christmas and just under a year before ballots are cast in the 2020 election. It will be his first book.

      “According to a description of the book, Trump ‘will expose all the tricks that the left uses to smear conservatives and push them out of the public square, from online ‘shadow banning’ to fake accusations of ‘hate speech.’

      “The President’s eldest son is a staunch and vocal defender of his father, becoming a visible and outspoken surrogate during the 2016 campaign, and since then amplifying his hard-charging, unfiltered persona on social media and warming up friendly crowds at 2020 campaign rallies. Like his father, he frequently rails at Big Tech for what he calls social media censorship.

      “Trump will discuss how his childhood summers in mother Ivana Trump’s native communist Czechoslovakia shaped his political views, per the book’s description.

      “‘This is the book the leftist elites don’t want you to read!’ he tweeted Monday.

      “‘Triggered’ follows Ivanka Trump’s ‘Women Who Work,’ which came out in May 2017, and Ivana Trump’s ‘Raising Trump,’ which came out in October of that year.”

      • eljay on July 23, 2019, 11:30 am

        || Misterioso: @eljay, et al
        Off topic, but priceless!!
        . . .
        According to a description of the book, Trump “will expose all the tricks that the left uses to smear conservatives and push them out of the public square, from online ‘shadow banning’ to fake accusations of ‘hate speech.’ ” … ||

        I wonder if he’ll expose the fact that “the left” employs the same tricks as and for the same reasons as “the right”.

  2. Ossinev on July 22, 2019, 3:33 pm

    Would it be deemed A/S under the IHRA definition to suggest that every religion should have its very own bespoke discrimination definition from Muslims through to pagans ? Oh and not forgetting those of us who have no religion. Looking forward to someone coming up with an Anti Atheism definition.

    • MHughes976 on July 22, 2019, 5:35 pm

      An all-party group of MPs has – with undue haste, according to the National Secular Society and others – a definition of Islamophobia that makes a form of racism which targets Muslimness. This has been adopted by some local authorities, it seems. There was an article in the Independent by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a leading Muslim personality in the mainstream Press, saying that this would exclude all critique of Islam, which would in her view be very wrong. But maybe an objection to Muslim teaching would be permitted under this definition if it treated ‘Muslimness’ without reference to race: the sort of thing the lawyers would argue over if this definition became the definition of a legal offence. I wonder if the National Secular Society would indeed be drawn into claiming that any suggestion that atheists have no moral compass should be prohibited too? It would all become rather grotesque, as Ossinev implies.

    • LiberatePalestine on July 22, 2019, 8:01 pm

      You’re looking for something like this, Ossinev: «Any criticism of the Vatican City as a state, including any comment on the artificiality of extending statehood to a few blocks of Rome inhabited temporarily by a few hundred temporary male «citizens», constitutes personal hatred of all Roman Catholics.»

      As another atheist, I’m eager to see our self-serving definition of anti-atheism. How far can we extend it to our advantage? Can we use it to steal another nation’s land? After all, if there is to be chauvinist settler-colonial genocide in this wretched world of ours, it should be an equal-opportunity endeavour.

  3. LiberatePalestine on July 22, 2019, 6:30 pm

    → US President Trump’s recent overtly racist suggestions that Congresswomen of color who were critical of his policies could just “go back” to their “broken” and “crime infested countries.”

    Their country, the US, is indeed broken and crime-infested. More people there are imprisoned than in China and India combined, despite the huge difference in populations. For decades on end, the US has had the world’s highest rate of imprisonment.

  4. RoHa on July 22, 2019, 8:10 pm

    “the US has had the world’s highest rate of imprisonment.”

    Not high enough. Considering what Americans get up to when they go out into the world, I think they should all be locked up. Except for Annie.

  5. DaBakr on July 25, 2019, 2:03 am

    What a joke. Commissioning anything about Israel by Richard Falk is like Commissioning Louis Farrahkan to report on jews. He is practically relegated to crack-pot status by many on the MSM*

    *and sure there are zionist crackpots as well and some idiots take them at face value.

    • Jonathan Ofir on August 3, 2019, 4:32 pm

      DaBakr, what a lousy, empty response.
      I don’t know whether you noticed that Falk is Jewish as well – not that this is the point of it all.
      Professor Falk makes sound, logical and morally sound arguments. For you that’s just nuts.
      In a way, it makes total sense – I’ve never seen a conment from you that was either sensible nor moral.

      • Keith on August 3, 2019, 5:19 pm

        JONATHAN OFIR- “DaBakr, what a lousy, empty response.”

        Nasty, baseless ad hominem attacks are a Zionist’s stock-in-trade.

      • DaBakr on August 6, 2019, 12:30 am


        Right. The only think that Falk made any sense about is his idea that the feckless UN should move out of the US and set up headquarters in Turkey. Lol. Great idea from a ‘jewish’ (not that that’s the point) crackpot.

        P.s. The commenters here don’t seem to understand the meaning of “ad hominem” attack. I have done nothing of the sort. Maybe there are some sensitive babies here but I attacked nobody in particular but may have attacked their views. Latin anybody?

      • Talkback on August 6, 2019, 8:52 am

        DaBakr: “The commenters here don’t seem to understand the meaning of “ad hominem” attack. I have done nothing of the sort.”

        Commissioning anything about ad hominem by DaBakr is like Commissioning Louis Farrahkan to report on jews. He is practically relegated to crack-pot status by many on MW.

        That wasn’t ad hominem either, was it?

  6. edwardm on August 13, 2019, 12:10 pm

    remember not to “single out” Israel for criticism wrt its entrenched racism.
    Hey Israel! You’re not special! there. there there.

Leave a Reply