Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1585 (since 2010-03-21 11:32:36)

Showing comments 300 - 201
Page:

  • You won't have Ethan Bronner to kick around anymore . . .
    • Correction. The Qatamon, Jerusalem house is NYT's or so they claim. Bought in 1984, with Thomas Friedman present. ei:

      The New York Times-owned property Bronner occupies in the prestigious Qatamon neighborhood, was once the home of Hasan Karmi, a distinguished BBC Arabic Service broadcaster and scholar (1905-2007). Karmi was forced to flee with his family in 1948 as Zionist militias occupied western Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods. His was one of an estimated 10,000 Palestinian homes in West Jerusalem that Jews took over that year. And ei then quotes NYT: “Neither The Times nor Mr. Friedman knew who owned the original ground floor prior to 1948.”
      http://electronicintifada.net/content/ny-times-jerusalem-property-makes-it-protagonist-palestine-conflict/8705 (link by munro)

      The "NYT" house you're are gonna live in, Jodi Rudoren, is a spoil of war, looted, stolen, terrorised into emptyness, "absentee property", Nakba history. And fenced by the NYT, who "do not know about prior to 1948" (which might actually be true, although deliberately then).

    • Thank you, munro, glad you checked me.

      The trailer on youtube of the movie 5 Broken Cameras:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQampNYtcYk

      All this while Ethan Bronner was sleeping in Jerusalem.

    • Auspicious? Note that the tweet is about Bronner's piece, not the film. And of course, on January 23 both writer and tweeter knew that this transfer was coming.

      Jodi Rudoren wanted to hoard some credibility in her suitcase and tweeted positive about something resistence related (related as in: I am related to Obama).

      And Ethan Bronner? Time for Ethan to clean up the house and finish some loose ends. A murder is mentioned in his piece, but it seems to have ended up there by coincidence, lost. Well, it was a murder by Israel at the Bilin protests he did not write about when it happened in 2009.

      This whole piece is again on "coexistence" as in July 2009, and Bronner took the time to note that the protesters had caused "$60,000 worth of damage" to the Apartheid Wall in August 2009. But about the murder, the violence, the occupation, the raids, the uprooting of trees, the nightly arrests, the land theft the film is about: not a word from Bronner. When it was his job.

      Oh, and Bronner and Rudoren both must have smiled about the grand journalistic trouvaille Bronner had wiggled in, near the end.
      In late 2008, [the movie maker] Burnat accidently drove a truck into the separation barrier [damage! eG] and was badly injured. A Palestinian ambulance arrived at the same time as Israeli soldiers, who [...] took him to an Israeli hospital. “If I had been taken to a Palestinian hospital,” Mr. Burnat said, “I probably wouldn’t have survived.”

      You see, those occupiers saved his life. Because Palestinians don't even have a hospital, Burnat the protester says it himself. And THIS Bronner turn is what Rudoren tweeted about: "fascinating".

    • Will he give back his Jerusalem house to the Palestinian owner?

  • University president promotes hasbara event with Israeli soldier in campus-wide email
    • Sgt. Benjamin Anthony a "motivational" IDf speaker? He is director of "Our Soldiers Speak".

      He spoke at Hampshire College MA, 2/3/2011. No recording was allowed but a picture of everyone in the public was taken.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8UOQJGC1Zg

      Here is his their own video about this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0yMuUa_ZkL8
      Says a card: "Most alarmingly ... at 02:13 a Jew descending of Holocaust victims protests the event" (actually she says: "Never again for anybody" -- very alarming indeed, if you are IDF).

      Then there is the text "Jewish and pro-Israeli students were made to feel intimidated for holding their views". But their own video does not show a single example.

  • The 8th annual 'Israeli Apartheid week' is focused on BDS
    • Israeli Apartheid Week starts on February 26th and runs until March 3rd

      That is, in the US that is IAW. In other regions, dates differ:
      Europe: February 20 - March 10
      Palestine: March 12-19
      United States: February 26 - March 3
      Canada: March 5-9
      Arab World: March 5-11
      South Africa: March 5-11

      http://apartheidweek.org/en

  • Hasbara PennBDS wrap-up: Pro-Israel students are ignorant
  • After 55 days of hunger strike MSM finally reports on Khader Adnan
    • Adnan’s imprisonment without charge ...

      Alan Dershowitz, six days ago: "I am against torture, but if you do it all I ask is be sure you have a legal paper for it". Dershowitz, someone needs you. Stand up now or shut up forever.

  • Bruising Judt, Fukuyama says Arabs aren't ready for liberalism
    • Fukuyama: but [Judt] seems to think that his own Jewishness [and ...] give him the authority to be as morally obtuse in return.

      He "seems to think that"? Nowhere in the piece does Fukuyama quote or reason anything that supports that statement. He is connecting Judt's Jewish background (not quoted in intself, just entered by Fukuyama) with a self-fabricated explanation for Judt's attitude.

      Now, when you use someones Jewish background to ''explain'' behaviour, unsourced, there is a word for that and it is not "smearing". But of course, anti-Semitism is OK when you are a supporting Zionism.

  • Mustafa Tamimi's brother arrested in Nabi Saleh
  • Would you buy a used metaphor from this warmonger? (Niall Ferguson's 'creative destruction' echoes Rice's 'birth-pangs')
    • Most probably, he doesn't know how to tell bow from stern.

    • So he wants to counter the argument that, in case of a war ...
      3. The world economy would be dealt a death blow in the form of higher oil prices.

      He and his friends can easily put their money where their mouth is. After all, money is your specialty. Just promise, Niall, YOU pay the rise, worldwide.

    • In the same issue: his wife Ayaan Hirsi Ali The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World.

      "Christians are being killed in the Islamic world because of their religion. It is a rising genocide".

      "In Iran dozens of Christians have been arrested and jailed for daring to worship outside of the officially sanctioned church system".

      "Instead of falling for overblown tales of Western Islamophobia, let’s take a real stand against the Christophobia infecting the Muslim world".

  • Abunimah highlights 'turning point' boycott conference
    • Ali Abunimah opens referencing a question put to Dershowitz, last Thursday. He said he had the quote not verbatim.

      The question was the last one of the evening. At 1:21:25 in the video, the question was, literaly: "If an Arab student comes up to me and says: ‘you took my land’, and I respond back, ‘yeah, but we support gay rights’, how does that add up?”.

      Indeed Dershowitz responded with the plain Nakba denial Abunimah noted.

  • Organizers say pro-Israel filmmaker with controversial past deceives, disrupts Penn BDS conference (UPDATED)
    • What to make of this. So the Michael Cherney Foundation (president: Michael Cherney) sponsors Palestine Media watch (PMW). Other than the connection mentioned in the Ali Abuminah post (Himel uses PMW printouts. Ali points to the president) I have not found, but let us take a look at this sideway.

      With the president, in the board of the Michael Cherney Foundation are:
      Prof. Wolf Moskovich, "Head" and "Director" in Russian and Slavic Studies of the Hebrew U in Jerusalem. -- He is emeritus (retired) by now, and the institute does not mention him as "Head". "Chairperson" is Alexander Kulik.
      Prof. Jacob Allerhand, Vienna U, Austria. -- Died in 2006.
      Prof. Mikhail Dmitriev, Moscow State U.
      Prof. John D.Klier, U College, London. -- Died in 2007.
      Prof. Vladimir Petrukhin, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow. -- Interestingly, he has researched the Khazar-Jewish history. For example, he is mentioned as third author of "Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century" (Norman Golb & Omeljan Pritsak, ISBN 0801412218, 1982). http://www.khazaria.com/golbpritsak.html Schlomo Sand uses this source (I cannot check to what extend). Anyhow, maybe Vladimir Petrukhin can explain to his paymaster Michael Cherney (from Ukraine) that maybe he is wrong by invention when saying "I am proud that I am a Jew - heir of the creators and generators of the human civilization during millennia".

      So, the foundation that supports PMW is guided by a board including two dead persons (didn't they notice, in four years?) and a fugitive president.

    • Abunimah's personal account of the set up, linked to, also mentions:
      Himel presented me with what he claimed were anti-Semitic cartoons from [the site of] “Palestinian Media Watch.” Palestinian Media Watch, I told Himel, is notorious for anti-Palestinian propaganda and is funded principally by a man currently on the run for money laundering.

      PMW is supported by the Michael Cherney Foundation
      http://www.cherfund.org/english/antifascism/antifascism11.htm

      Chairman and sponsor of the fund is Michael Cherney, which is spelled "Mikhael Cherny Semenovitch" on the Interpol Warrant site (Israeli now, born 1952 in Uman, Ukraine). He is searched for: "Organized crime/transnational crime, Money laundering, Money laundering, Organized crime/transnational crime " [sic, both twice].
      http://www.interpol.int/Wanted-Persons/%28wanted_id%29/2009-21842

    • As Ali Abunimah pointed out in his keynote: professor Ruben Gur in his piece was singling out jews for being jews, and that is anti-Semitic. And Ali now notes that as Himel used "I’m just as tough on the Jews when I interview them", that is anti-Semitic.

      So, to save this Israel they are sending out anti-Semites. If it helps Zionism, it is permitted.

      And Ali Abunimah concluded: if this is the best they can come up with, we are winning the argument.

    • Winnica: I’m documenting all my comments

      No you do not. You just throw in personal observations, suggestions and sometimes a link. In your 65 now published links, there are only 7 links and most of these are of a nature that is not "documenting". Most of your texts are evasive or unsourced statements and conjectures.
      http://mondoweiss.net/profile/winnica

      If you mean to say that you document them "at home", please go ahead. That home is a cubicle at Hasbara Central Office probably, and we already know the SOP of your office's outlets. So far, that SOP does not include documented smears. Even worse, as Ali Abunimah yesterday pointed out, they might include anti-Semitism.

  • Live tweeting from the Penn BDS conference
  • Archbishop Desmond Tutu endorses PennBDS conference
  • Dershowitz justifies war on Iran (and Iraq? again?)-- and Mort Zuckerman rides shotgun-- in fresh attacks on BDS conference
  • Barghouti: Attacks on the Penn BDS conference reveal panic that Israel is losing hearts and minds
    • Boycott Israel on Campus, there is something in all your comments that doesn't fit. They show a strange attitude towards BDS.

      Your posts only make sense to me when I assume you are an agent provocateur, trying to invoke a physical confrontation.

  • When Desmond Tutu got the ‘Penn BDS’ treatment
  • Penn's president condemns article likening BDS conference to Nazism as 'counter to her personal values and civility'
    • I've taken the task to see the speech. Some notes:
      Moderator is Robert Traynham from MSNBC.
      28:30. D. enters.
      35:45. On BDS (or "DBS" as he calls it): "Why not against Syria, Iran, China, Cuba". That is about the only remark he does on the topic of BDS.
      41:10. "I was one of Nelson Mandela's legal team. I know what Apartheid is".
      53:50. He reacts to Max Blumenthal's piece "A.D.: torture and violence advocate" in The DP. "I am against torture, but if you do it all I ask is be sure you have a legal paper for it". He needs two minutes for all this - well done, Max.
      58:00. Q&A begins
      1:21:25. Final Q: "If an Arab student comes up to me and says: 'you took my land', and I respond back, 'yeah, but we support gay rights', how does that add up?".

    • Indeed, she doesn't even write it herself. While, within eight hours after the Kapo publication, she was firm enough to write a evading letter herself. http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2012/02/your_voice_protecting_speech_we_may_not_like

      Now come the tough part when to take a stand, she is out of office.

  • 'NYT' gives Israelis its magazine to make an attack on Iran 'normal'
  • Abunimah and Woolsey debate BDS in the 'Philadelphia Inquirer'
    • This blogger ("he", sounds like a singular?), is probably the neighbouring department and are payed by the same fund as the Winnicas are although Winnica might not know.

      They don't even know the difference between the State of Israel and the Jewish state.

      And, why did they start the blog in March 2009, right after the Gaza Massacre?

  • Dennis Ross: Still present, but not accounted for
    • Dear Mondoweiss.

      Of course the war on Iran will happen. My question is: how will that war be related to the US president election? (due Tue November 6, 2012). Will Israel trigger a war before to force the hand of Obama? Or at election day (as they did in 2008, breaking a truce, and oh remember what they did to the Gaza strip in the interbellum)? Or after, whatever elected president while he is on Hawaii?

      This is what I want to read more about. Israel does not behave solely. Israel acts & reacts to the US election.

  • 'Invented' Palestinian confronts Gingrich at GOP debate
    • Tags: OT, Arab, Angry Arab, ME culture, Bright talking.

      Here is a video by "Angry Arab" As'ad AbuKhalil in Oxford, UK (this Angry Arab is Lebanse, and a professor in California). Using the sound as a radio will do.

      To me, a fresh view on the ME. His site already explained to me that the "Arab ME" quite differs between the Persian Gulf states and the Mediteranian Maghreb states. I must note that his rejection of "Al Jazeera" TV channel (from Gulf state Qatar) pertains to the Arabic language channel (took some time for me to discover he was criticizing the Arab! language cannel. AJE is more OK, and is especially good for US I'd say).

  • Security expert formerly in Bush I administration says Holocaust rationalizes Israel's nuking Iran
    • Winnica: An Iranian-instigated war wouldn't be ... Iran did not instigate a war in centuries. You are distracting from the issue.

      As the Angry Arab recently said in England: "Since I was born in 1960, Israel attacked: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, Syria, Tunis."

  • Video: Atlanta Jewish Times publisher's tearful anti-apology
    • Winnica: I watched only the first half of the interview. And still you know what it is about (and you posted four times).

      Winnica, welcome you new troll. Glad Hasbara Central withdrew eee.

    • Hi Winnica.

      I think you are a troll. Are you payed to write here?

    • Winnica, you did not get the point of Charons link. Which incidentally is convenient for you.

      This is the essence: veterans put Andrew Adler, the USS Liberty attack and Pollard together in a list. Not only were they messing with the US, they were messing with the US military.

    • Winnica: Charon - [...] I never heard [Pollard] passed nuclear-related information to anyone

      Nor did Charon say that. What are you doing here, Winnica?

  • Report: Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran because Netanyahu doesn't trust Obama
    • Winnica: all the elderly Jews from the former Soviet Union who lived through WWII

      Claims Conference was fast enough to claim for these Russians, and any neighbor who spoke their language. http://www.forward.com/articles/144331/ Read Norman Finkelstein on where the Swiss money was spend.

      We both agree, Winnica: the money did not meet the persones it was paid for.

  • MLK and the peace process
  • Killing of nuclear scientist in Tehran heightens threat to American's life -- says 'Washington Post' Iran bureau chief
    • ToivoS, he may be a fool, but not a 100% fool. He ALSO is an Iranian, and a US marine, and an Iraq and Afghan veteran. Now you say he went there as a child? US-govt did not KNOW their Iraqian Iran/Afghan-vet marine was going there? What is passport control for then?

  • Egypt's history through British-colored glasses
  • Throwaway line in 'NYT' story suggests that Israel is pressuring U.S. on war with Iran
    • Jon Stewart was keeping the war on the agenda Tuesday, and just that. No mentioning of Israel. Least funny section candidate for this year. He had to use Fox News seriously to make a point.

  • Israel's national theater to bring 'Merchant' to World Shakespeare Fest in May
    • This is the London 2012 run up to the Olympics. No objections allowed. So expect snipers, dressed in 16th century Venetian outfit and part of the backdrop. Already the London performing arts are a bit nervous for protesters, so the Hebrew spoken checkpoints and cages at the entrance will add to reality and put it nicely in modern times.

  • Dumb as rocks ('Washington Post' says giving Palestinians access to quarries will 'advance the peace process')
  • Spouse of 'NYT' correspondent calls on Israeli gov't to wage 'war' on int'l threat to its image
    • So Hirsh Goodman [...] moved from South Africa (where he opposed apartheid), to Israel.

      How did he oppose Apartheid? Goldstone did too, we are told. When did he move, and why?

  • VIDEO: Activists protest massive new Shu'fat checkpoint
  • Israel's mythological borders: an interview with Rachel Havrelock
    • A note about the interview/transcript edits by David Zlutnik.

      I’ve seen most of the video multiple times. Read some of her published pages. Only now I’ve read Zlutniks “edited transcription”. To me, his transcription does not sound like her story on the video. Like something in between is missing. Or added.

      Why is the title here changed into Israel's mythological borders? The book's title is quite different, and if the title be changed, it should better be about "biblical borders". Anyway, the book is called River Jordan: The Mythology of a Dividing Line. I think introducing "Israel" into the title does not help the interview as a clarifying intro. It might help sales though.

      She wrote, 2007: "My Home is Over Jordan: River as Border in Israeli and Palestinian National Mythology" -- Don't expect people be allowed to cross Home Over Jordan river westward though. That's not her thing.

      2009: “Pioneers and Refugees: Arabs and Jews in the Jordan River Valley" -- Sounds like another Joan Peters try for "Arabs just migrated there". Like, a river without people for peoples without a river.

      Anyway, her chapters should be well-versed by now. Enter the interviewer/transcript editor.

      Factually: he does not write about her “Eastern border” gaffe. On video, when talking about the ME region, in her talk and mind Jordan river is about an Eastern border (i.e. the Israeli/West Bank border, but not the State of Jordan border to which it is a Western border). While Jordan valley is about as much as her professoral chair. So far for her “regional” "stateless" thinking. The editor left this out, unchallenged. Also factually, she says Britain “promised” two states “during WWI”, quad non. He left this out unchallenged.

      Rachel Havrelock (RH): How is it that in both Israeli and Palestinian national traditions that the Jordan is a central border that seems to define […]. Huh?

      Allow me to comment. How is it that in both Israeli [who what? Not Jews/Jewish? Palestinians included? Arabs included?] and Palestinian [no Arabs included this time?] national traditions [both Israeli an Palestine national aspirations are only some hundred years old, sure you do not mean say Jewish and Muslim?] that the Jordan is a central border [a “central border”? Is not a “border-border”? Now was it central, or was it a border? For Irgun Jordan river was central and NOT a border. For RH, Jordan river is, by her POV, the “Eastern border”] that seems to define […]. Glad the interviewer clarified this.

      Well again and again and again: this river, being a border or not, did not define any nationality she mentions in her book and will mention in her life. Even to her it is the current EASTERN border of a land she wants to eh see expanded freely. The interviewer should have clarified this. Start asking questions, don’t manipulate the transcription.

      Transcript: RH about European anti-Semitism ca 1900 (pogroms, Dreyfus). Not in the video. Does not support her biblical claims about Jordan river and borders and national aspirations.

      Not transcript, not video: not asked nor written a single word about Palestinian or Arab national aspirations.

      People of Los Angeles, take care. There is something with the bread you are given here.

    • Hostage, I am sorry for distrusting and even smearing you here re "1%" and such. Writing 3rd person is of the same low level and worth and extra sorry. Topping this is being late with this excuse, in internet time this page has died already.

      If I were that right, I could have pointed it another way. Hope this site allows me some other conversation with you.

    • (warning, I am entering the hairsplitting department) So I studiously ignored what Prof Havrelock actually said about the irrelevance of the national myths and those ancient borders?

      I concluded here that if she wants to erase Jordan river border, then the Eastern ex-border is open to cross for Jewish "needs". (She does not rule out national projections at all, just national states). It was you who concluded "So Jordan and Mesopotamia are no longer relevant", which is not what I concur with.

      For having to split hairs over such wordings and what she said, I blame her. We are stuck with her weasel talk and cloud reasoning. I pity her students.

    • I get the idea by now. I stand corrected (I) that the borders were drawn by oil interests, even in the western part of the ME for the Mosul-Haifa pipeline corridor, and by European powers. The corridor is visible in the maps, the part of Jordan protruding eastwards to Iraq. And I stand corrected (II) that areas East of Jordan river were part of a "Palestine" by British drawn borders, and that Jordan river was used as one in Ottoman times (III).

      This main point stays: Havrelock suggests repeatedly that only the post-WWI, British drawn line in Jordan river is the source of nationalistic ideas. But even right after WWI, Zionism was a force that created nationalism, and it did so from Europe as a colonizing idea. She keeps putting "Jewish and Arab nationalists" together, as if they were on one side of the table opposing WWI Powers. Jewish nationalism came from Europe, not from the Jordan border. It is colonial. Irgun has Jordan river in its flag, both banks and the Mosul-Haifa oil corridor crossing. Jewish nationalism is not born by the Jordan border.

      So she asks: How did this Jordan River end up as a contested border by Israelis and Palestinians. And: And so these [British drawn] borders became the ones that are so contested and so sensitive within the I/P conflict. But no, the prepositions are not correct. Especially Jordan river, her book title, is not. As Hostages details point out, it is contested indeed as a border, but elsewhere in a minor fashion. It is not part of I/P. Actually, she herself says both peoples are on the same side of the river. Why she does not refer to borders like Green Line, Apartheid Wall, Gaza Strip nor West Bank borders as being “contested” and “sensitive” to prove and illustrate her point we do not know.

      Another problem that arises from her approach (and, I might add, by us looking only at the post-WWI documents and negotiations) is that she skips some 90 years of other developments. As if, aside from British drawing their lines and ultimately leaving, nothing happened. No UN 1947 partition, no 1967 war, no Golan Heights, no West Bank, no settlements: nothing else made borders contested or fueled nationalism. And, by referring to biblical times, she skips another few millennia in which nothing happened. So, there is only bible time, Mandate time, Today.

      As I noted elsewhere here, she suggests to drop the borders, but not the nations. Then, its going eastwards (not westwards). And all this on biblical reading.

    • If only she was as precise and correct as you are.

      Balfour wrote "national home for the jewish people" and about "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the [...] rights of existing non-Jewish communities". This was the British Foreign Secretary writing in 1917. It fully covers her own suggestion to strive for a mixed peoples region. And it is British. Now in her story (British drawn borders are problem borders) this doesn't add up, and she left it out.

      Peel and Woodward made proposals not promises for two (possible) states, in the 1930s. While she does say, at 6.40, that the British made such "promises" "during WWI" (so I think here you are wrong). I do mind her being this incorrect in a topic she wrote a book about.

      Hostage, So Jordan and Mesopotamia are no longer relevant you conclude in a paragraph, and convincingly. But it is not what she claims. She claims to talk about the "Middle East", sometimes zooms in into Jordan valley, then flips to the subregion with the "Eastern" border of Jordan river. First of all, her flipping between regions lacks good reasoning. Now, if she wants to erase Jordan river as a border, how can she leave out of view the Eastern side of that border (say the Eastern Jordan valley, in Jordan) ? This is way too sloppy reasoning by the professor. And I am not convinced that her book will be more clear.

      If I understand her well, she wants to get rid of those borders that delimit national projections (Jordan river foremost). Then there are no borders to fight or negotiate about: problem solved! Meanwhile she wants to keep national aspirations and claims on areas. These areas might well be across the Jordan, because that is not a border any more. But not a single word on how these areas (which of course have borders and are based on national principles) are governed. Just live together, as her bible wrote, is all she says.

      The "resource needs" are looked after, there will be "enfranchisement of Palestinians and a system of a just distribution of the resources". So this is what should convince Arabs and Palestinians to jump in? She only uses a religious bible (her chair) as a base for inter/national law, and from there projects a general ruling on those who do not live with that bible. Apart from rejecting those British borders, and introducing "Palestinians" and "needs" by herself, she does not step out of her religious bookshelf to test or improve her own idea.

      And the easiest chapter she could have written, she forgot. At this moment there is a country that already has multiple people and religions, a country that has declared not its borders. Partly based on laws from the bible she knows so well, including those on nationalistic governed areas within those non-borders. Easily fluiding into neighboring areas, already across Jordan river as she proposes, though not allowing people flowing in the other direction. That country, professor Havrelock, is Israel. Why do you propose a solution that already failed in real life?

    • Yes, she knows about Nakba. This is what she wrote in 2007:
      The year 1948 is synonymous with the Nakba,
      the great disaster that befell the Palestinians
      .

      "Befell": passive sense. It fell on them from the sky.

      http://www.uic.edu/depts/engl/people/prof/rhavrelock/My_home_is_over_jordan.pdf

    • Already the area West of the Apartheid Barrier, there is 8.5% of the West Bank (must say, including East-Jerusalem). http://www.btselem.org/separation_barrier/statistics

      And the Apartheid roads only take very little space. good to reduce these figures.

      Finkelstein says (1.46.45): "Those areas constitute 1.5% excuse me [NF] 1.9% of the West Bank". But these are areas the Palestinians were willing to trade (swap with Israeli areas).

      And exactly what is Hostage trying to convey here? Why is Hostage using this very selective number?

    • piotr: one should not doubt that she [Havrelock] knows the topic

      I do doubt. She did not even read the Balfour declaration. She mixes up regions, she mixes up powers (British, European, colonial), she forgets Jordan state as being even probably related to the Jordan river border, and in the video she did not bring a single point forward from a non-Jewish (non-Zionist if you like) angle.

      On second thought: I do not doubt. She does not know about the topic. Either by choice, by ignorance, by lack of critical comments, or by something else.

    • Hostage: Israeli settlements occupy only 1 percent of the West Bank

      Really? And using only 1% of the aquifier? Occupation only takes 1% of the time of Palestinians at checkpoints? wrt East-Jerusalem, they occupy only 1% of the housing? Without a question mark: I can understand that settlers occupy only 1% of Hebron.

    • I have listened to the video, multiple times. I have transcribed major lines of interest below, and added some notes.

      Three general notes:
      - Havrelock mixes up related terms at will, and so useful to her arguments. For example, she states that the British wanted to export oil to Europe. British are not that stupid. But by the process she smears Europe with her British Cause of Evil by Drawing Lines.
      She mixes:

      British -- European -- colonial
      Arabs -- Islamic -- Palestinian
      Jewish -- Zionist -- Israeli
      Jew -- Zionist -- Israeli
      Middle East -- Region (Israel and Occupied Palestine) -- Region (Israel, Jordan, Occupied Palestine, Syria) -- Region (now including Persian Gulf States/oil)

      - She habitually puts “Arab and Jewish nationalists” together opposite the British/Europeans (see also 1.33).

      - Author/filmer David Zlutnick left out two gaffes I noticed (A gaffe, in politics, is when someone accidentally speaks truth).

      0.24: How did this Jordan River end up as a contested border by Israelis and Palestinians? No State of Jordan involved then in this dispute. So their side of the Jordan border must be undisputed (See also 2.35).

      0.41: The British ousted them [the Ottoman empire] in WWI. Havrelock starts her reading only after WWI (see also 6.55). While in fact, everything she proposes re non-borders and coexistence existed during centuries of Ottoman rule.

      1.01: These nation states that we talk about today (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon) are ultimately products of these European discussions. Agree. Note that Israel is in the list. Israel is a European enterprise.

      1.14: The most important driving force [for the European or British handling of the ME] was the burgeoning oil economy. Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel: no oil. Nowhere does she even hint on why or how their borders, especially the booktitle Jordan river, relate to this oil thing.

      1.33: During this period of time [aftermath of WWI] Jewish as well as Arab nationalists disseminated geographic ideas, political systems, …. Jewish nationalists (aka Zionists) operated from Europe in every sense. The were part of the British/European/colonial powers.

      1.58: When the British drew the lines, including the Eastern [sic] border at the Jordan river. I thought she was talking about the Middle East region. But now she flips back to a subregion for which Jordan river is an Eastern border. What about the subregion for whom it is a Western border? (Gaffe, not in the transcript)

      2.05: Arab as well as Jewish nationalists became very certain about where their desired homeland lay. Yes. Until then Arabs did not know where they were living. The British had to point that out for them.

      2.12: It’s neither the bible, nor Islamic traditions.
      Yes. Since Islamics cannot read or write, they only have tradition, you know.

      2.35: And so these [British drawn] borders became the ones that are so contested and so sensitive within the I/P conflict.
      It was the British who introduced the “contested borders”? What actually are contested borders in I/P: Jordan river (Brit made), partition 1947 (not Brit), Green Line (not Brit), Golan (not Brit), Apartheid Barrier (not Brit), Gaza prison (not Brit)?

      2.50: The Zionists in 1919 drew a map [of biblical Israel] that in the East went to the Hijaz Railway [running North-South Damascus-Medina, approx 10-20 mi (25 km) East of Jordan river].
      I am getting your point.

      3.25: [1921, British draw the Jordan border] and the mainstream Zionist movement drops the East bank tradition.
      And Havrelock wrote this book to recover that area.

      3.57: This imperial construction ultimately determined the national aspirations of Jews (or Israelis) and Palestinians.
      “Jews or Israelis” – just call them Zionists please. It is an insult to Jews, and to Israelis who have Palestinian nationalist aspirations.

      4.35: I propose a regional approach.
      Sometimes she does. Other times, she does local approaches. Or Zionist approaches. Whatever. Best to read as a warning: “Zionists are approaching the whole region”

      4.53: stopping [with old nationalistic approach] and actually looking, who lives there and where they are [sic] and what their resource needs are.
      She introduces “resource needs” (see also 5.45). What, wherefrom is this? Last time “needs” were used, it was by Israel in the Clinton negotiations (Israel liked to talk about Palestinian needs, not Palestinian rights).
      Also, why does she say this? It is wholly out of the context she put up so grandiose. I cannot read anything else but a payoff to peoples she wants to live “peacefully” together “side by side” with Jews. But let’s not pay too much.

      5.00: Instead of aspiring a fixed separate Israel of a fixed separate Palestine [spoken spittingly], let’s admit, it’s a fluid place with all kinds of population mixtures, […] people are living side by side in the same place.
      Population mixtures, sure. Her solution is already practiced by Zionists. And exactly those Zionists, and only they, after centuries of Ottoman coexistence, started the unmixing of people. It’s Nakba, Apartheid, Havrelock.

      5.45: Full enfranchisement of Palestinians and a system of a just distribution of the resources.
      “resources” given to Palestinians. If they ask nice? Oh, by the way, will the Jordanians get anything when you cross the river?

      6.15: Borders are the construct of British Empire to help get oil to Europe.
      Britains getting oil to Europe? Why would they? It should go to Britain. (Interestingly, Britain invaded Iraq in 1914 – 1914 I say -- to prevent the Germans from getting the oil. Expect or add the name Churchill when googling)

      6.44: The British during WWI made grand promises to Jewish as well as Arab nationalists.

      6.55: So that they [the British] could maintain these promises for a Jewish state and a Palestinian state.
      A “Jewish state”? Read the 130 words Balfour wrote. Promises for a Palestinian state? This must be why she is laughing and grinning all the interview through. (Gaffe, not in the transcript).

      7.02: Partition didn’t work in 1938, 1947, it brings us to the occupation from the 1967 war.

      7.26: That [1990s-on US investments in I/P] did not relieve the burden of the occupation on the Palestinians, that did nothing to assuage Israeli fear of being under attack.
      Israeli “fear of being under attack”. What a victims they are. Having to invent and keep up a fear – occupying is not that easy.

      7.56: Ancient Israel was very fluid.
      Yes it was.

      8.53: [disavowing] the idea of a discrete land that ends at the Jordan river.
      See the Irgun flag.

    • You asking, that changes matters. I will post shortly, in a new comment. Conclusions remain: she is a Zionist, and wants to cross Jordan river.

    • I don't think this is why she brings it up.

    • (Actually, I had prepared some twelve timed quotes from the video, two of them not in the transcript, but when I finally submitted them I was logged off and they were lost. I prefer not viewing this video once again. What a Zionist troll she is.)

    • In short: it's all the British' fault, they "promised a Jewish state" (she didn't read the 130 words by Balfour; btw this is not in the transcript), 2SS didn't work because Israeli still live in "fear" of an attack (poor victims; not the Palestinians: they actually live under attacks), earlier borders like partition 1939, 1947, 1967, Green Line did not work (well, maybe that is because Zionists every time already behaved according to this proposal), and Palestinians and Arabs (she doesn't know the difference. Hey, this is no-border thinking! Out of the box!), in the region Jordan river is an Eastern border (btw not in the transcript), Palestinians and Arabs will get their "needs" and "resources" (must say, that could be an improvement), "Jewish and Arab nationalists" alike were involved in the British Mandate (forget that the Jewish nationalists -- sure there must be a name for them --, operated from Europe and were part of that European, imperialistic, colonizing powers).

      Nothing new for Zionists: Lets cross the "Eastern border" Jordan river, up to the oil regions that the British so stupidly did not include in To Be Stolen And Occupied Palestine.

    • Annie, a different ways to look at things?

      So what is new? Israel undeclaring its borders? Israel fluiding out of the Partition Lines before the '48 war, Israel fluiding into the West Bank, fluiding all over Jerusalem: brilliant new thoughts.

    • Hostage: So some of the “Palestinians” have also disputed the legality of that boundary. Thank you for clarify this, and well sourced as always. So that dispute was sort of settled then in 1945, three years before Israel was created.

      Why does she bring it back into dispute? Why does she say it is disputed in present tense?

    • 4:51 [to determine borders I propose to look at] who lives there and where they are and what their resources needs are

      Well, associate professor, where people live today is not a good measure is it? Why not look at where they actually came from? And how they obtained that "where"? Ever heard of Nakba? And the "needs" trick was played by Israel to Bill Clinton. We know by now what Israel thinks Palestinians need.

      Why not talk about international rights and human rights. That is the Need.

  • Report: 'Joker' scratched Tel Aviv-- in BDS victory
  • Riots over gender segregation. And silence over Palestinian segregation
    • hophmi: I think maybe you can’t read English very well (assuming it was the same of the hophmis as this one today)

      Did you even read the title, hophmi?

    • hophmi: what about discrimination against women in the Arab and Muslim world, Allison? It’s a much, much bigger problem there than it is in Israel.

      The biggest country in "the Muslim world" is Indonesia. Now exactly what problem is there with discrimination against women, hophmi, and how so much bigger than in Israel?

    • hophmi: discrimination against women in the Arab and Muslim world is a much, much bigger problem there than it is in Israel.

      Of course it is bigger elsewhere. Within "the Israel world", discrimination against Arab women does not exist. "Against Arabs" does it.

  • Netanyahu gets to play Superman in case of 7-year-old harassed by orthodox Jews
  • Right-wing attack group caught fabricating quotes in effort to smear critics of Israel
    • The Hasbara Buster: ... when you hate too much

      I don't think they "hate" in this. SWU people are trained and payed to look at the world this way. Long term. They know exactly what they are doing (i.e. smearing, not discussing). It's just, they got away with it, way too long. Just asking for the facts made them fade.

  • Ben-Ami: I advocate for Israel, Palestinian groups should advocate for Palestinian human rights
    • Let me sum it up:

      -apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, fresh water system, public health, what have the Zionists ever taken from us?
      - Peace?
      - Oh peace. Shot up!
      .

    • So, a liberal says he's a Zionist.

      Oh and by the way, what he said sounded more like "You know, go luck yourself" or so.

  • Swiss museum cancels competition after prize-sponsor Lacoste rejects Palestinian artist
  • Bias in the Great Library at Alexandria?
    • Walid writes ;-) the library also keeps an Arabic translation of Mein Kampf

      I'll say: Also donated by Israel to the Alexandria Library.
      Enter eee: "We're not that kind of people. Israel found it in 1948 in a house".
      I say: so Israel gives presents that are stolen goods?
      eee: "No, we have lived there for thousand years. It was ours".
      I say: ???
      eee says: "you are anti-Semitic".
      Israel says: "See, Alexandria also collects Mein Kampf. We in Israel don't have these books".

    • Next step: Israel claiming Alexandria library keeps harboring the Protocols

  • Bed Bath & Beyond flash mob: Stop selling illegal Israeli settlement products
    • hophmi: Creative? They keep doing the same thing over and over again.

      Have you seen this bridal ceremony before in BDS? Heard these lyrics before in BDS? Heard the well articulated arguments? No. Now, this is another creative bright new BDS promotion. Like.

  • Busted by Goldberg, Klein now says commas caused war in Iraq, not neocons
  • Klein: Ron Paul is surging because he opposes another neocon war for Israel
    • Weiss: And Klein is a liberal Zionist!

      Even better: this way some Zionism is saved! Can't leave that to Ron Paul, can we? Where would we be without liberal Zionism.

  • Obama's rabbi sidekick is opposed to 'too many Arabs' in Israel
    • Obama: [and] you [liberal American Jews] helped liberate Soviet Jews. Without these efforts I probably wouldn't be standing here today.

      Soviet Jews put Obama there?

  • Has NYT become an 'existential threat'? Oren says Friedman column was 'dangerous'
    • Oren: 'Israel lobby' implies [...] a Zionist cabal.

      Note that he did not dare to mention the word "Jewish".

  • 'Silly messianic superstitious nationalistic ... waste of Judaism' (Did Hitchens abandon these ideas?)
    • A "lie" would be an isolated thing. It looks more like a career step. Connecting the dots: his mother hiding her Jewish background (outside of the familie that is) to get him into the English establishment, Christopher "discovering" in 1987, moving to the US, then outing as a neocon when the time was right, then earning a US passport and Bushes' White House invitations. I think I get the red line in his career.

      And complaining that he can hear the BBC pronouncing "Wolfowitz" the anti-Semitic way. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/06/the_boy_who_cried_wolfowitz.html

    • Hitchens, at 0:12: My mother wanted to go, be a zionist, I tried to talk her out of it. It's been a thing in my family.

      Then why "discover" only in 1987, long after her death, that his mother was Jewish (as he described in Hitch-22)?

  • Important tantrum: Netanyahu adds 'NYT' and Thomas Friedman to growing list of enemies
    • Now NYT is to stand up.

      I hope they don't remove the Page Three girls, especially since they wear these awful diamonds and watches this month (That's why, The Sun, I don't buy you).

  • Video: army brutalizes demonstrators in Cairo
  • Assailed on Facebook for Tel Aviv gig, British musician Joker appears to back out
  • Is portrait of Mark Zuckerberg in 'The Social Network' anti-Semitic?
    • Weiss: Zuckerberg ... purely with jewish materials: does that include the Phillips Exeter t-shirt you mention? The dealing with the Winkelvosses is a jewish asset?

      And didn't you write WASPs are caricatured too, so it's more like everything is caricatured in this movie?

    • Brilliant answer to the task: "prove anti-Semitism in a movie of your own choosing".

      Like, altering "WASP" into "gentile", not smearing only spreading the smell ("... anti-Semitic? Well it comes close"), and referring to "those goyim" as you saw it in your time (not 2003): all good tricks. Next task is a step up: the same proof, now about "Casablanca".

  • Liberal Zionists (at last) say non-Jews have a right to criticize Israel
  • 'Christopher Hitchens's loathing for Israel...' --John Podhoretz
  • Iraq-- I'm sorry
  • Give it up to Hitchens!
  • Friedman line, 'Congress is bought and paid for by Israel lobby,' is shot heard round the world
    • Now let me get this straight. There is a jew, right, called Tom. Now he is a jew, and he writes in the New York Times. He writes like: Israel lobby has bought US Congress time & applause. And then the Internet says: eh, problem.

      MondoPhil. Again and again I say: Jews won't save Palestine.

  • When the late great creator of 'the Joker' took on the dastardly Elliott Abrams
    • Below the Abrams post, this comment was allowed through:
      December 14, 2011 at 3:09 pm
      Martin Gray responds:

      Like the other Kapos in Jewish history – Soros, M.J. Rosenberg, Beinart – Friedman joins a group more despicable then the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood. Tom, we get where you’re coming from, and believe me, we’ll deal with it and you in time.

Showing comments 300 - 201
Page: