Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 99 (since 2015-03-10 13:38:00)


Showing comments 99 - 1

  • Israeli paper investigates 50-year-ago attack on 'USS Liberty,' while US papers leave it in the letters column
  • Terrorism: How the Israeli state was won
  • Netanyahu ignored US warnings and brought Israel's 'international isolation' on itself -- Ben Rhodes
  • Marc Lynch warns against the U.S. escalation in Syria
  • Let's talk about Russian influence
    • "Yakov, Phil and James comment at the on-line sites of Goldberg, Lake, and the NYTs? Did not know that?"

      Once you visit a page, I don't think whether you comment or not changes the number of hits, unless it's a separate visit - not sure though - any experts out there please correct if wrong.
      I see where commenting can lead to more visits, but so can just reading the comment section in order to follow the conversation out of interest, or to gauge public opinion, which I suspect they might do. Also, when MW writers reference, and link to, the NYT, Goldberg’s articles et. al., that leads to many more hits. Do you think they are stupid?

      My guess is that the number of hits by Hophmi and the others is immaterial to the various sites.

      "But Dan, if “Hophmi” is having a significant effect on your thinking, and is convincing you he is right, and has the right perspective on Mondo, and its readers, and is correct in his objections to Mondo, I’ll have to admit I am wrong. Is he doing that?"

      I agree with some things he's written and disagree with others.
      I doubt he, or anybody else, is going to fall for your silly “hits” by definition equals “consent” line.
      I enjoy reading some MW articles, and the comments section (including competing points of view). That's all beside the point –whether I agree with Hophmi or not isn’t relevant to your assertion that “hits” automatically confer consent. That either makes sense or, in my opinion, it doesn’t. I’d be surprised if I’m the only reader who has noticed that.

    • "The fact is, on the Internet "hits mean consent".

      Are you saying that Yakov Hirsch "consents" to Eli Lake's columns, and Jeffrey Goldberg's.

      And Phil Weiss and James North "consent" to the New York Times coverage of Israel (and the Jerusalem Post's & Times of Israel)

      I'd be surprised if they agree with you.

  • The Palestine-Israel language trap
    • "...In fact, one of the words translates – literally – as “put up with” or ‘suffer”)."

      If you're suggesting that's unique or surprising it shouldn't be.
      One of the definitions of suffer(sufferance) is tolerate(tolerance). Also endure/put up with.
      Although the usage is a bit archaic. "He did not suffer fools gladly"

      Insufferable (intolerable) continues in common usage.

  • The politics of Jewish ethnocentrism
    • "How many Palestinian Israelis does she personally know? And acted in what way?"

      I don't get your point. She's not talking about who she knows and how people she knows acted.
      She's explaining what she heard from Palestinians and Israelis
      while she was a reporter.

    • "Rudoren said there is a lot of prejudice and racism in the world but unlike other people who are racist and prejudiced the world over, we Jews are justified in our prejudices"

      I watched the video again and I think she is talking about all the people in Israel/Palestine, Jews and Arabs, not just Israeli Jews.

      She gives examples from both sides.
      You're ignoring the statement "Every Israeli I know has acted in this way."
      She is talking about Palestinian attitudes to Israeli Jews.

  • When the language of genocide offends us more than ghettoizing another people
    • Gamal
      enjoyed reading your comments - an effective critique done in a creative way. Frankly I find Marc Ellis' writing hard to follow - often don't know what he's talking about. "Exile and the Prophetic"? Does that mean anything?

      I get the point of your story about Tsong Rinpoche, but something keeps gnawing.
      Does drinking some slimy shit necessarily demonstrate lack of pride?
      Another interpretation is that drinking slimy shit was the price
      he thought he needed to pay to keep his expensive thrones and compliant prostrating devotees - and they went for it.
      Now if he had sold the thrones and taken a part time job on Pig Alley.. should he have done that?

  • Israel lobby panics about 'spoiled' next generation of American leaders turning against it
  • Israeli racism unmasks Netanyahu goodwill video
    • Echinococcus

      I never said any such thing about the Constitution - you put words in my mouth - not a tactic I would have expected from you.

      Nor do I think your opinions expressed here re the Constitution are a throwback.

      What bugs me even more than the currency is the fact that Congress has paid Chaplains on the taxpayer's dime.
      James Madison tried to prevent it, and years later argued against it "Detached Memoranda" circa 1820.

  • The 'New York Times' is dead set on marginalizing Jewish anti-Zionism
    • Mr Johnson, the voice of reason, puts an end(at least temporarily one hopes) to the whole silly debate, and demonstrates that "brevity is the soul of wit"

  • Jews need to study the Torah in order to criticize Israel, Beinart says
    • "I would suggest that it is more progressive, and potentially “transformational,” to recommend our actual American experience and political values to Israel, rather than Samuel, Jeremiah, and Judges."

      I find the above sentence baffling.
      Who is suggesting that American Jews recommend "Samuel Jeremiah and Judges to Israel"? I'm not even sure what that means.

      Beinart suggests that American Jews learn the Torah portion, etc. as a rhetorical tactic, to demonstrate their interest in and knowledge of the religion in order to deflect criticism, not to recommend anything to Israel. If it helps, why not. Doesn't sound very controversial.
      He is obviously offering this tactic to those who worry about "excommunication".

      There is nothing in Beinart's statement, as quoted here, to suggest that he is saying one shouldn't criticize Israel unless you are religious.

      Which is what PW seems to be suggesting in the following sentence…
      "...First on the need for Jews to be religious in order to criticize Israel:"
      Is that what PW is suggesting?

  • Using Rep. Johnson's innocent comment to stain his reputation was the real crime
    • “There are quite a few of us for whom the first glimpses of the beginnings of the initial approaches to the start of the foothills to very early middle age is no longer a distant prospect”

      Including me.

      It was a reference to ideology and mindset, not age – also he calls himself an “old commie” so I was playing on that.

      He seems like a throwback to me - maybe why he gets into so many spats with human rights oriented, non-doctrinaire, humane progressive types here. Anyway that’s my impression.

    • “But, Dan, both John S and Raphael are 2,000...”

      I've only read a few sentences of Raphael’s contributions - can't speak to that.
      Jon has written that his father and grandfather were born in Israel (or pre-1948 Palestine) and are buried there, but I don’t recall any mention about personal property. I guess people emigrate/immigrate for various reasons.

      Based on some of your references (“lumpenproletary”, “means of production”, “The Bund”) I suspect the real reason for your assertion that they are 2,000 years old is this - you don’t want to be the only relic from a bygone age who comments here.

    • "The guy never heard about Jesus and his disciples"

      Unless Raphael is the 2,000 year old man, it's probably safe to assume that Jon S is referring to current times.

    • "Its always the same story. Normal people make a statement with no intended malice. If they were on the “right” (correct) side of the Israeli/Palestinian divide and used the same word or phrase it would pass by unnoticed..."

      I agree - also with the basic point of the article re the Congressman's comments.
      The key should be intent.
      It's a shame that MW didn't apply the same standard to Bill Clinton's comment at the convention. He said something well intentioned about Muslims, but inartfully and awkwardly.
      Ordinarily people would just let it go at that, but some overly sanctimonious people, who view Clinton as being on the wrong side of the issue, turned it into something it wasn't.

  • Clintonites knocked out platform references to 'occupation' and 'settlements' in fear of Adelson, Zogby says
    • I'm aware the early Zionists identified as Hebrews - I haven't read they identified as Semites
      Do you have any sources on that?

      If you are correct, and Zionists did self describe as Semites, why is that self hatred.

      There is nothing offensive about the term Semite. The early Zionists did see themselves as people of ME origin. (Hence the use of the term Hebrew). Whether others agreed or not is a separate issue.

      What is offensive is what Willhem Marr thought about those he called Semites, not the word itself. Also, I don't believe Marr was the first to refer to Jews as Semites - I think August Schlözer may have been in the late 1700's - not positive about that

  • Democrats and GOP are in a race to the bottom on Israel
    • "Not sure that enough people will ever care enough to fulfill BDS’s potential"

      It seems to me there are two trends effecting BDS, in opposite directions. The first adds energy and momentum, the second saps it away.

      The first is Israel's behavior and the growing awareness of that behavior.

      The second is the March of time away from the Iraq war, away from a possible confrontation with Iran or another major US military engagement. Many people only become interested in the I/P conflict as a result of the Iraq war and subsequent events.
      As that war recedes into history only the die hard activists will probably stay engaged, others will lose interest altogether, and for many others a desire to see a change in the Middle East will remain a velleity.

  • The iron law of institutions versus Bernie Sanders
    • ...“mainstream of the nationial Democratic party” IS in fact “liberal Republican” or ” conservative democratic” "

      There is no "Liberal Republican". There might be some rare and exotic individuals here and there, but like a functionally extinct species they have no effect on the ecosystem.

  • Israeli rabbi who advocated rape of 'comely gentile women' during war becomes chief army rabbi
    • Hi Jon S.

      What do you think is the general reaction of what remains of the Israeli left (Meeretz types), to this Rabbi's appt. ?

  • Israeli scholar refuses to shut up despite university punishment for saying settlers exhibit 'psychosis'
    • "at least half of the students have totally misunderstood the main points"

      You know the old saying.

      Those who can, do.
      Those who can't, teach.
      Those who can't teach, teach Philosophy.

  • US media fail to report video of soldiers shooting desperate Palestinian girl holding knife overhead
    • "i think mondoweiss should do away with much of its comments policy page, because it truly does not mean its words."

      You've got a point. They probably came up with the one you quoted when they were just getting started and were all bright eyed and filled with good intentions. It's laughable.

  • How Israel accidentally validated my activism
    • "but Dan Dan Dan, it wasn’t civil society getting involved anymore then it was foreign goats getting involved"

      I didn't say it was - I don't have enough expertise to have a strong opinion.

      But you haven't proved that it wasn't, or countered NF's point.
      The study you cited was limited to the effects on the economy. If the study is correct then , since the economy wasn't damaged, other factors must have led to the regime folding and De Klerk leaving – which you’ve said is too vast a subject to go into.

      You are assuming that the only effects of a boycott are economic.
      I don’t believe the study addresses (correct me if I’m wrong) the non-economic effects of a boycott - ostracism, exclusion from international and professional organizations. etc, that might have had an impact.

      It also doesn't address the extent to which a civil society B/D campaign influenced govt's to put diplomatic pressure on SA, or the effect international sanctions could have on influential individuals (that wouldn't be noticed in the aggregate economic statistics).

      Unless you can demonstrate that non of the tactics I mentioned were put into place, or had an effect, you really can't conclude that it wasn't "anymore then it was foreign goats getting involved"

    • Norman Finkelstein has made the case that, historically, BDS has only worked when states have supported it. Civil society, on its own, is not sufficient. (I guess States would represent the Sanctions part). The African Union first had to get involved, which then brought in more countries and international organizations.

      I recently watched a talk with NF and Tariq Ali. Ali made the claim that what really brought down SA was the defeat of its army by the Cubans in Angola.. I haven't looked into this subject very much but that seemed like an unusual interpretation.

  • Lawmakers urge Obama to appoint special envoy for Palestinian children
    • "...I reflected on how I used the term...."
      "All I know is, I stopped using “Gentile” for a week now"

      That's nice to hear.
      If the moderator ever changes her mind on this, you probably will to.

      Of course after giving it a lot of thought. No doubt anything a moderator says will inspire you to genu-reflect deeply.

    • "Don’t worry about the Mormon guy who offended me..."

      You don't understand what offend means.
      Either that or you're right, the present can literally change the past

    • Kipling was probably referring to Germany and Russia (according to scholars who study these things)

      Why are you putting Kipling’s words into the mouths of Mormons?
      I know practically nothing about Mormon’s but Talkback said that Mormon's don't use the term as an insult.
      Do you have any evidence to dispute that or are you just smearing for fun?

      And why were you offended when Mormon’s referred to you as "Gentile".
      You still haven't explained it.
      You started out on the other thread by saying you didn't think Gentile was offensive.

      "Gentile" itself can also be offensive?

  • Front-page play for Israel battle shows that Israel has lost the Democratic Party base
    • "Again, there is a legal case that it’s not technically an’s not uncommon for journalists to avoid these judgments when the issues are controversial in nature"

      Wouldn't you agree that it's an extreme outlier, in the same way that Israel Shahak and climate change skeptics are outliers. It's not hard these days to find a real or supposed expert, here or there, to come up with an opinion that runs counter to the vast majority of experts, and then use that to claim that the whole issue is controversial.
      Internet comment boards are fueled by such things.
      Giving equal weight to the handful on one side and the many on the other, in matters like this, is misleading.

  • How Eli Lake tricks readers so as to cast realists Walt, Mearsheimer and Freeman as anti-semites
    • You don't have to agree with Eli Lake(I don't) to see some flaws in this article

      "Eli Lake made it almost through a whole sentence without giving away he wasn’t really a journalist. But then he just had to stick in “virulent” foes of Israel"
      "You’re supposed to be an objective journalist. You’re writing for Bloomberg. But the reader can sense for sure that some “smearing” is going on here"

      Mr. Lake’s byline states that he is a columnist. His columns appears on BloombergView in the Opinion section.
      A columnist who writes opinion pieces is supposed to have opinions.
      There is a difference between news content and opinion content - journalists writing opinion pieces, when clearly stated, are operating under a different set of standards than journalists writing news.

      "What is the only fact in the above paragraph? It is that Will Ruger said of Walt, Mearsheimer and Freeman “they are all respected members of the foreign policy community and the academy.” Now read the paragraph again. Who is interpreting that statement as “pushback”? Eli Lake. Eli, did you just make that up to imply that Will Ruger is “defensive” about hosting them?"

      Pushed Back doesn’t mean, or even imply, defensiveness. Defensive means overly sensitive, anxious to avoid criticism.
      “Pushed Back” just means a negative or unfavorable response.
      People can push back in a conversation with great confidence.

      Clearly Ruger is responding to questions - the next paragraph begins. "When asked whether he ....."
      If Lake asks Ruger if his think tank is providing a "platform" to W and M, and he responds in the negative, with the quote above, characterizing that response as “pushed back” seems perfectly reasonable.

  • The Making of Israel: Zionist settler colonialism in historic Palestine
    • @Sibiriak

      "nothing prevented the UN from condemning Israel annexation of territory AFTER becoming a UN member"

      Important point - adding my two cents - not only did Israel annex territory within the green line after its UN admission but, as you know, many cities/towns were built in that territory, and hundreds of thousands of citizens moved in. Beersheva, as just one example, went from a village of a couple thousand to a city of several hundred thousand.

      If that territory were considered occupied, then actions within that territory, subsequent to Israel's UN membership, and contrary to GenIV, would be subject to UN condemnation even to this day, and yet, to my knowledge, there has been none.

  • Resolution 242 does not mean what you may think it means
    • @Talknic

      “Clue “INTERNATIONAL” Law. Applies to all nations”

      Just repeating the word international, in capitals, proves nothing.
      It’s called international law because it applies between nations, distinguishing it from law internal to a nation.
      A treaty between only two nations is also international law.
      In the same way, trade that takes place across borders is called International Trade to distinguish it from trade internal to a country. That doesn’t mean that all nations participate in all International trade at all times.

      If you want to prove that “International Law applies to all states at all times, including those not involved in this particular instance” you need provide evidence and also specify which category of laws you are referring to. It probably applies to some and not others - I believe Hostage referred to Jus cogens laws. (but not sure about that). But as Shakur observed, just saying it doesn't make it so.

    • Correction - resolution 67/19 upgrades Palestine to non-member observer status

    • @David Fincham.

      "As far as I have determined so far, the PLO did not explicitly accept the idea of a Palestinian state consisting only of the West Bank and Gaza until the Clinton parameters: and that of course was part of a failed negotiating process, not a commitment to which they can be held."

      It may be too late for that.

      Palestine(as represented by the PLO) has been recognized by over 100 nations, as it has asked to be recognized, on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders, in its plea for recognition.

      Also, from its application for Admission to the UN in 2011

      "Furthermore, the vast majority of the international community has stood in support of our inalienable rights as a people, including to statehood, by according bilateral recognition to the State of Palestine on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the number of such recognitions continues to rise with each passing day."

      And from resolution 67/19 admitting Palestine.

      "Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the twoState solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders"

    • @David Fincham,

      Before commenting on this article I have a question.
      Are you a lawyer, and/or do you have any training/experience in international law?
      If so I'd assume your bio would say so, but I just want to make sure.

  • 'Either Assad or we'll burn the country' - An excerpt from 'Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War' (Update)
    • "Did a little googling around and found that Yassin-Kassab has praised Erdogan for making war against the Norther Syrian Kurds"

      I didn't find it - can you provide a citation

  • Norman Finkelstein on Sanders, the first intifada, BDS, and ten years of unemployment
    • "I doubt debates with Finkelstein, no matter how calm and scholarly, will convince him to view BDS as a useful tactic that can achieve strategic goals."

      Actually, although he doesn't make it clear here, NF has said in other interviews that he supports BDS as a tactic. He has supported that tactic (lower case bds) for years. He has also said that Israel will never change, without bds, because the occupation is the first cost free occupation in history.
      The distinction he makes is between a tactic and a goal. His criticism is with the leadership of the BDS (upper case), movement. He thinks that by remaining agnostic on Israel, they are being hypocritical, preventing the movement from reaching a broad public.

      If you are interested, watch the interview with Mehdi Hassan on Al Jazeera "Head to Head" and you will see what I am referring to.

  • Sanders is in Jewish tradition that rejected exceptionalist nationalism of Zionism
    • "And I don’t care what you say his relationship with MLK was, I don’t trust what you say about anything. Got any quotes from reputable sources?"

      For those curious the attached links from the Martin Luther King center might be of interest.

      For the second link, click the NEXT button to see the second part of the Telegraph from MLK.

    • "The AUMF made a separate Iraq vote redundant, as Bush had already certified that Hussein was complicit in 911 "

      I'm not convinced it was redundant. Not sure. The first was passed three days after 9/11 so I don't think the case that Hussein was harboring 9/11 terrorists had been made - what "certification" are you referring to? Since first AUMF was limited to organizations, nations, etc.
      connected to 9/11 that is key.

      I believe he voted for some Iraq war budget resolutions, starting in 2006, and against others - my understanding is votes for were because they included veterans benefits he had been fighting for - looking for document I read awhile back on this.

  • Goldberg on Obama's Syria credibility 'crisis'
    • David,

      Thanks for your response. The Sphinx as guardian/protector - interesting.

    • David,

      For the most part I agree with your take on Obama. Nice to see a nuanced balanced opinion, something rare in the comments section. Am confused by your use of the term Sphinx. The term Sphinx-like, or calling someone a Sphinx is usually taken to mean that they are inscrutable, hard to fathom, mysterious. What do you mean by Sphinx?

  • What Bernie Sanders should say at AIPAC (and cause a political revolution)
    • "I moved to Israel to try and build the country."

      To nitpick a bit:
      Has Sanders ever gone on record re his motivations for spending time on a Kibbutz? Three months hardly seems to qualify as moving to Israel to build the country. If he went with that intent and became disillusioned that's one thing. Per Joel Bienen, we know he wasn't a member of the youth group that would have organized new immigrants for the kibbutz, Hashomer Hatzair.
      It's possible his interest in Socialism, and therefore curiosity about the Kibbutz social and economic structure, was the motivation, not Zionism

  • Palestinian citizens of Israel respond to poll showing Jewish support for expelling Arabs from country
    • Philemon,

      "You think your average person would..."

      I was using that as an example to support my original comment re the repetitive drumbeat of: Yiddish and Hebrew are syntactically similar.
      Since we are talking about the same avg guy that "YoniFalic" (and maybe you) are targeting with those posts, then yeah, I think he might know.
      I'd like to see an experiment though.
      Get that guy in a room with you, "Yoni" and Echinoccus (after he's read Dale Carnegie).
      Let the three of you browbeat the poor fellow for 5 hours about definite articles and ablauts.
      Ask him two questions when he gets out.
      My prediction of the exchange:
      Question: What do you think of what you learned?
      Answer: Very interesting
      Question: What language do the Jews of Israel speak?
      Answer: Hebrew

      "In other words, there was no need of a common language"

      If an elderly Yiddish speaker went to the post office and the clerk, also a Yiddish speaker, refused to converse in Yiddish, then yes, that would be unnecessarily harsh and cruel.
      I don't know to what extent that went on.
      If you can offer some reputable historical studies about that I might be interested.
      Other than that spare me.
      I'm skeptical of the "historical facts" that get bandied about on websites re the I/P conflict,from both sides, especially related to more obscure subjects.
      The history has been too politicized.
      I also think it's cruel if a French speaker goes to the Post Office and on one day he is confronted with a clerk who only speaks Yiddish, and the next day only German, or Arabic.
      That's cruel and idiotic.
      But if a Yiddish creole had emerged relatively quickly, then yeah that would have addressed the issue of a common language the same way Hebrew did.
      I have no particular attachment to Hebrew one way or the other -

    • Philemon,

      I wasn't planning on revisiting this thread again but just saw your latest in the most recent comments, which I strongly disagree with, and might respond to when I have more time.
      In the meantime - re Echinoccocus - my comment "poor choice of words" was a reference to myself, not you. I used a poor choice of words in my failed attempt to anticipate your response.

      Also you asked "I don’t know if you’ve ever seen an elderly person trying to converse in a language they have only a passing knowledge of?"

      Yes, two of my grandparents, and the other two to a lesser degree, and some aunts and uncles - more later if I feel like it.

    • Philemon,
      "The Israeli state bureaucracy with orders from above insisted that the people they had forced to immigrate there learn it. They set up schools to teach it to children."

      Whatever you think of Israel and Zionism, having a common language and teaching your citizens to speak it is simply a matter of practicality and common sense.

      "Pure Yiddish" as opposed to what your call relexified Yiddish. Poor choice of words.
      You can have the last word, if you're still interested in this.

    • "Meaning that the East European nature of Zionism would have been more transparent"

      Fair enough, but to the extent that the average person thinks about these things, my guess is they look at the big picture; they already know Israel was founded by European Jews; they will notice that the letters are the same and that enough of the words are the same, and that's it, close enough. They are not going to be influenced or moved by arcane linguistic arguments.
      But if some think it is a winning strategy, so be it. Time to move on.

    • Philomen,

      I think you are missing my point.

      I said that they made a conscious decision to resurrect - that was their goal, what they thought they were doing in their minds.
      (If you can point to some evidence that it was calculated con job I'd be interested to see it)
      Whether they succeeded or not, based on a linguistic analysis, is a separate issue.

      You say it is relexified Yiddish, and I have no reason to dispute that. I never claimed otherwise.
      In fact, in my original post I said, "How could it be otherwise?", Why would you expect anything different?".

      My point is this, and it is also a response to Echinoccus' comment:
      How does pointing out, repeatedly and in multiple way, that there are syntactical similarities between Yiddish and modern Hebrew, an innocuous observation which should surprise no one, help advance your argument that the Zionists should not have developed modern Hebrew in the service of nationalism.
      If they had chosen pure Yiddish as the common language, which some wanted to do, would you feel better about the whole enterprise.

    • "YoniFalic

      I've been reluctant to commit on this because my first reaction was; why should anybody really care, so why give it more attention than it deserves, but curiosity got the better of me.

      The Yiddish speaking Jews who moved to Palestine in the late 19th/early 20th century made a conscious decision to resurrect Hebrew as a modern language.

      Naturally the updated version took on attributes of the language they grew up with, the one they spoke everyday.
      How could it be otherwise? Why would you expect anything different?

      Over the years people from around the world added to the mix, so of course the language continued to evolve.

      When you boil it down, the only point you're making is this: Hebrew was not the spoken language of the Jews of Europe.

      Everybody already knows that. That horse you keep flogging is long gone.

      I think Hebrew was already dying out as a colloquial language during the time of Jesus, replaced by Aramaic.
      If Hebrew had stopped being an everyday living language 2000 years ago, why should anyone expect it to be one in 19th century Europe.

  • The occupation is over, isn't it?
    • @Talknic

      "I didn’t say anything misleading. I think folk already knew Google Maps gave directions and that Waze was a competitor"

      So you knew that "direction" functionality is what both Google Maps and Waze have in common but you still wrote the irrelevant comment:

      "Waze gives directions, it doesn’t map, never has." in a failed attempt to show up the author when if fact it doesn't contradict or counter what he wrote. WOW

      Maybe Ritzl can explain that.

    • "The international corporate world cannot afford the demise of the Jewish State"

      I have some familiarity with the IT world, but even if I didn't I think this would strike me as a dubious statement.

      Yes, currently the Israeli high tech environment is an incubator for some cutting edge work (but of course not the only place), and if for some reason that changed, capital, both financial and intellectual, would just go somewhere else. Also I suspect that international capital is indifferent to the political arrangements on the ground, be it two states or one, so long as there is stability and legal protections for businesses.

      However to be fair to the author, and to address some more misleading comments from Talknic, Google maps also gives directions, it doesn't just map, and was a competitor to Waze before Google purchased it.There is some evidence that, as Schlomka said, Google maps has used Waze technology in a previous upgrade, although to what extent and how important I don't know.

      Quote from the Website below:
      "And there are still a lot of Wazers out there, even after Google acquired the app and rolled almost all of its best functionality into Google Maps."


  • 'In every important way Israel has failed'-- leading American Zionist says No mas
    • Talknic

      "How does one make a ‘mistake ‘ about something of which one knows nothing, something that didn’t exist?"

      Sensing danger but not knowing exactly what form that danger will take are two different things. Let's say you want to move from your neighborhood because it is deteriorating, but decide to wait until a new house is fully completed, when you could have made other arrangements. While you are waiting someone sets fire to your house. Not moving earlier, delaying, was a mistake. The fact that you didn't know it would be a fire doesn't change that.

      "So he didn’t make a ‘mistake’. How confusing."

      Being prescient and then taking action based on that are also two different things.

      You can have the last word on this.

    • @Talknic

      "In his lifetime the Nazi party wasn’t active"

      Nobody has claimed that it was.
      Herzl turned out to be prescient though.
      His belief that the Jews needed to get out of Europe turned out to be correct. Do you disagree?

      "So tell Yonah Fredman"

      No need to. My comment doesn't contradict what Yonah wrote.

      "Nope I do know none fled to Palestine".

      So what. His wife and children didn't start the Zionist movement.
      Do you even know if they agreed with Theodore Herzl regarding Zionism?
      If you don't know, why bring it up?

      Herzl wrote the following in Der Judenstaat. You can get the full paragraph by Googling it.

      "Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration."

      By "sovereign right" he meant the support of the imperial powers for his plan for a Jewish state. I believe his main focus was on the Ottoman gov't.
      By the time he died he hadn't secured that "sovereign right".

      I echo Sibiriak. I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

      You often challenge posters, appropriately at times I think, by questioning what relevance their comments have to the legal issues surrounding the I/P conflict. I ask the same of you.

    • @Talknic
      "Interesting theories. However, neither Herzl or his family saw any need to move to the Jewish People’s Historical Homeland."

      Guess he made a mistake then, since his daughter, Margarethe (Trude) was killed by the Nazis.

      But since he died in 1904; had argued against Jews moving to Palestine (or elsewhere) in a disorganized way, before the movement had the support of the European powers and/or the Ottomans; was interested in a solution (as he saw it) for all Jews, not just himself; felt that his talents were best employed in Europe, organizing the movement and working the halls of power to gain support for a state; had no particular attachment to Palestine, and would have been content with a Jewish state elsewhere, you really can’t blame him.

      As to his family, after his death – I don’t know their political views, do you?

  • Did 'Hashomer Hatzair' shape Sanders's views on socialism and Israel?
    • "But the group photo above suggests Bernie Sanders wasn’t just a simple “kibbutz volunteer,” but a member of an organized group trip"

      How does it suggest that? You don't even know if Sanders in in the picture. Do you know who the young people in the picture are? Are they from HH? There were many volunteers in those days, not all were members of HH,many non Jews from Europe also. If fact, all that is known at this point, to my knowledge, is that Sanders spent some time on a Kibbutz, for a few months I've read, although I don't know how accurate that report was. Do you even know if he was actually a member of HH.?

  • 'New York Times' picks up Bernie Sanders's 'socialist' kibbutz but leaves out the ethnic cleansing
    • Rowan,

      HH had a large pro Soviet contingent in those days. It wasn't calculated. That was the ideology.
      Many on the left had not unreasonable expectations that Israel would align with the Soviet bloc, or at least be unaligned, considering the background and ideology of its founders, the fact that the USSR had helped midwife Israel into the world (Gromyko's speech at the UN in 1947), and had provided military aid in 1947/1948.

      Much of the anti Israel sentiment amongst communist/proletarian solidarity types in the west, starting in the 50's, can be traced, I think, to feelings of betrayal when Israel aligned with the US during the cold war, the Korean War being the breaking point.

    • JWalters

      Noam Chomsky also spent time on a Hashomer Hatzair (Kibbutz Artzi Movement) Kibbutz.
      Hashomer Hatzair was in favor of a bi-national state in the 40's, and opposed the Biltmore Program.

  • Park Slope Food Coop puts up firewall against boycott of Israeli goods
  • What's the big difference between Israel's 1967 occupation and its 1948 occupation?
    • @Talknic

      "Anyone versed in the machinations of the UN knows the UN cannot censure non-members and cannot censure members retrospectively"

      Do you have any evidence to support that?

      The poster Sibiriak has asked for that evidence previously. I don't believe you ever responded. In fact Sibiriak demonstrated that you are wrong.

      Unless you can provide some documentation it's reasonable to conclude that you are deliberately spreading misinformation.

  • New Jersey teenager threatened with legal action by high school over pro-Palestine activism (Update)
    • @Annie

      It was not my intent to imply that Sibiriak deliberately "mislead".
      I respect Sibiriak and don't think he would.
      When I wrote "Perhaps you weren't aware", and "wouldn't you agree" I meant that sincerely.
      My point was, without the additional information people might jump (be mislead) to the wrong conclusion.
      I also said "in the context of the thread"; that being a discussion in which the subject of Zionist power and influence is being debated.
      I see your point though - I think Haaretz and the rest should have been more complete in their reporting, and if I had read only Haaretz
      I might have been mislead into assuming Anti Semitism was being given special treatment.

    • @Sibiriak

      "Regarding hate speech laws:.."

      Your post is misleading because it doesn't include the fact that a coordinator for combating Anti-Muslim hatred was also appointed. (David Friggieri). Perhaps you weren't aware.

      Ordinarily it wouldn't be a big deal, but in the context of this thread, I think it's a significant omission.
      Wouldn't you agree?

  • Israeli ambassador flings Nazi label at Israeli leaders, after latest authoritarian step
  • Why do Palestinians burn Jewish holy sites?: The fraught history of Joseph’s Tomb
    • @YoniFalic

      Sibiriak didn't talk about race, nor did he refer to feelings of superiority, or to looking down on others as inferior.
      He just described how people can come to identify as a community, an ethnic group, which is a separate issue from how those people then behave.

      You came to essentially the same conclusion when you wrote "While it is obvious that descendants of the Yiddish speaking religious communities share an ethnicity that persists after a Yiddish speaker or his non-Yiddish speaking descendant renounces his religion.....".

      You just limit that common ethnicity, (after the dots which I added), to the Yiddish speaking Jewish communities, and descendants (which I would add includes many Jews in North America and Western Europe), and claim it doesn't apply to other Jewish communities around the world. Sibiriak, I believe, is saying it can, if they choose to self identify.

      Fine, that's open to debate. How that distinction gets you to a rant about Nazi's and White on Black racism is not clear to me.

  • 'Why I am a Zionist'
    • @talknic

      "The Peace agreement between Israel and Egypt states that Israel will first withdraw from all of Egypt’s sovereign territory before peaceful relations are assumed"

      Can you substantiate that claim, because according to the treaty, the withdrawal took place in phases,the final phase after diplomatic relations had already been established.

      Copy of Treaty from Egypt's MFA website; Maps included.

      Annex I. Article 1
      "3. The withdrawal from the Sinai will be accomplished in two phases:
      a. The interim withdrawal behind the line from east of El Arish to Ras Muhammed as
      delineated on Map 2- within nine months from the date of exchange of instruments of
      ratification of this Treaty.
      b. The final withdrawal from the Sinai behind the international boundary not later than
      three years from the date of exchange of instruments of ratification of this Treaty."

      Diplomatic relations were established after the interim withdrawal, not the final withdrawal.

      Annex III. Article 1
      "The Parties agree to establish diplomatic and consular relations and to exchange ambassadors upn completion of the INTERIM withdrawal".(bold emphasis added)
      Article 2
      "The Parties agree to remove all discriminatory barriers to normal economic
      relations and to terminate economic boycotts of each other upon completion of the
      Interim withdrawal"
      Article 3
      "The Parties agree to establish normal cultural relations following completion of
      the Interim withdrawal."@talknic

  • Anti-WASP tropes in the 'NYT'
    • "My Protestant wife says no one speaks lockjaw except Katherine Hepburn in Philadelphia Story - See more at:"

      I think your wife is mistaken. It was a real accent representing a real group – mostly gone now. William Buckley(as noted by others), Louis Auchincloss, George Plimpton to name a few.

      "This is prejudice justified in the speakers’ minds by the belief that they are Jewish outsider"

      I don't know what the Jewish reference has to do with this. I've know a few catholic guys who would stereotype "Boston Brahmins" the same way. And no doubt there are Jews and Catholics who wouldn’t. To suggest there is something “Jewish’ about this is weird.

      I don’t think it has to do with feeling like an outsider either. I’d be surprised if Brooks does. (I assume you mean outside of power). We are talking about a stereotype of someone from another group, not an admirable trait, but not driven by insider or outsider status, just difference – you are reading way too much into this.

  • Could Syria's revolution have been different?
  • 'We should seize it' -- Obama announces Iran deal as 'new direction' for the Middle East
    • @RoHa
      "They eat Falafel in iran?"

      If you are interested in learning more about the Falafel of Iran. this PressTV promotional video , may be of interest.

  • Settlers Supporting Settlers: Towards an explanation of the US/Israel relationship
    • "If you steal even more (see the U.S. taking over half of Mexico”

      Only a real moron tells people to see something that disproves their ignorant and stupid theories. The US legally annexed Texas etc thru a referendum of the legal inhabitants of those territories. annexation of Texas — link to"

      The US also stole the territory that eventually became New Mexico, Arizona and much of Southern California. Did they also have a referendum for those populations?
      If not it is probably because Texas was a special case - it was already an independent republic by that time.

  • A response to the 'Washington Post' blogger who calls me an anti-Semite
    • "who might make up 1% (5%?) , he doesn’t say, of French Jews."

      He does say "where 80% of Jews migrated to France from the same North African..."
      I've heard anywhere between 70% and 80%

  • Forgiving the anti-Semites
    • @Giles

      Paul Volcker was never CEO of Goldman Sachs. at least according to his Wikipedia bio.

  • Marking Memorial Day in Tel Aviv with Kahanists and Combatants for Peace
    • @Mooser

      "I ask you, Dan, would that be the act of a “gentleman”? "

      I don't see why not - I probably used the term "mocking" inappropriately - too harsh a description.

      I'm not sure what you're getting at.

    • @Dan Flesher
      When I first read Mr. Wishnitzer quote it seemed strange. Here is a guy
      who is taking a former soldier who is leading member of an activist
      organization, so the quote "But what I can do as an Israeli"
      seemed incongruous. The group posted a response to the article with the quote
      “All CFP members interviewed for this story feel their words have been distorted and manipulated beyond recognition", so it is probably pointless to speculate since the quote may be incorrect, but...

      After reading the group's website, I take it to mean he is talking
      about non violence, and how to respond to the occupation as an individual.

      Soldiers have choices how they can react to demonstrators,or treat Palestinians, since they have the power.
      They can also be conscientious objectors I believe.
      Palestinians can choose peaceful or non peaceful methods of resistance.
      I think he is saying,in response to the authors criticism of the event (for supposedly promoting symmetry), that as an Israel he feels joining non violent organizations like Combatants, is the only way he knows to action and fight back.

    • "you don’t believe that, this is a joke right?"

      If you read the article, and think about for a bit, I think you'll see that Hophmi is being
      sarcastic. He's mocking the author - that's my take anyhow.

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • @Fincham
      "I do not know how that Congress came to that formulation"

      There is an account of the 12th conference politics in "Before the Catastrophe: The Distinctive Path of German Zionism" by Hagit Lavsky.
      Herzl had been dead for almost twenty years and the movement at that time
      was split between those who advocated a bi national state,and a more cultural Zionism,
      represented by Buber and others, and those who wanted a more nationalistic Zionism.

      Even though the resolution reflected the thinking of the Buber group, it is reported that he was unhappy with the final
      resolution, in that he thought it didn't go far enough.
      The resolution reflected the thinking at that early date - as circumstances changed (primarily Nazism), those seeking an independent state gained the upper hand.

      You say that Zionist has tried to suppress this document.
      That is surprising because there doesn't seem to be anything in it worth hiding.
      The virtual library has a summary page on the several congresses; they give short shrift to
      most of them, except the first, because it is meant to be a quick overview.
      Concluding that someone is trying to suppress it because you can't find copies on the internet is quite a leap. It's just not that important a document.

      Also, you seem like a fair person, but I think you present a slanted picture by using the Arab delegation report to assess the state of the economic competition or cooperation between the Zionists and the Arab population.
      They were advocates for their cause. It would be like using a Zionist report to assess the same thing.

  • Just like the Nazis, Iran 'plans to exterminate six million Jews' -- Netanyahu
    • @David Fincham,

      According to Norman Finkelstein, in his interview with Frank Barat, at about minute 20:55,
      states that the ICJ, in its 2004 ruling on the wall ruled that the June 67 border is Israel's legal border. I haven't studied it as thoroughly as he has, and he can make a mistake, but it seems
      a fair account of the courts decision.

  • Israel could reduce anti-Semitic violence by not calling itself the Jewish state, Finkelstein says
    • NF is a stickler when it comes to the law, and although not a lawyer himself he routinely cites
      qualified legal opinions to support his arguments.

      When has he advocated that the Palestinians should forgo any of their legal rights. - please cite?

      Also please cite a legal authority - analysis by a qualified legal expert or a court ruling that supports your contention. My understanding is that you do not have any legal training or experience.

    • A couple of comments about the article, but first by way of background:
      I have been following NF's career since his "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict"was first published as a book - maybe 20 or so years ago. It may have been available to some as a thesis before that - not sure.
      Have watched many of his talks/interviews on Youtube and have developed a respect for him over the years

      Other relatively recent youtube postings I think are worth viewing are the interview
      with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera's "Head to Head", and his talk at University College Dublin (good question and answer session). NF says that his views on the ME haven't changed, but the ground has shifted, so while he appeared radical years ago, what he says now is pretty mainstream, but he is the same person he has always been.

      I don't know why the author PW finds it "Remarkable" that NF would draw a distinction between the South African "two state solution" (Bantustans) and the Israel/Palestine situation. As NF says over and over,and the article alludes to, he goes by what the law says, and International Law is clear with regard to 2SS in Israel/Palestine, and borders. With the borders as recognized under law, it can be argued that Palestine wouldn't be a bantustan, although perhaps not full justice as some see it. (The situations are not analogous in other ways, besides law and world opinion, but will leave that to another post)

      "He called this “a naïve and almost silly position,”
      and one that did not reflect the South Africa experience, where a mass movement liberated the country.

      NF didn't merely say that a mass movement was sufficient. He has been more specific than that. (I'm referring to his talk at Dublin during Q/A - haven't viewed all of Wisconsin yet)
      He has said for great struggles to succeed, requires the support of state actors.
      He has argued that without the support of the African Union, the struggle against Apartheid would have failed, and without the support the USSR and China gave to Vietnam, that struggle would have gone nowhere; civil society activism alone would not have carried the day.
      In that light, the fact that no nation supports one state (as mentioned in the article) is relevant.
      If Israel had to bear a cost for the occupation, then its supposed support for one state, as the author PW sees it, would also most likely wither, because the majority of the population is against it.

  • How Obama won on Iran
    • @annie

      "Is deceptive"

      That's not fair. I am not trying to be deceptive. The original link I cited is from March 2015.
      It's a press release by the IAEA itself, on their website; and They mention the 2011 report, in the March press release. If it was such a DUD why are the bring it up.
      Fine - if you want to say the IAEA is just expressing the concern of the international community, that may be a reasonable interpretation. But I don't think other interpretations are unreasonable and only indicate a neocon mentality.

    • It's quite a stretch to say the report was "a dud".

      ""It's very thin, I thought there would be a lot more there," says Robert Kelley, an American nuclear engineer and former IAEA inspector who was among the first to review the original data in 2005. "It's certainly old news; it's really quite stunning how little new information is in there."

      "Yes, Iran is making progress, they've covered the waterfront in terms of the main technical areas that you need to develop a nuclear weapon," says Mr. Kile. "But there is no evidence they have a dedicated program under way. It's not like they are driving toward nuclear weapons; it's like they're meandering toward capability."

    • @Annie,

      I disagree. I think you making a distinction without a difference.
      They said the information was credible - If the IAEA thinks the information is credible than
      they have a concern.

      "In November 2011, he stated in a report to the IAEA Board of Governors that credible information obtained by the Agency indicated that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicated that, before the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some might still be ongoing. The report identified 12 areas of concern."

    • @ Annie - google is your friend.

      Oops - was I wrong on that one. Thanks!

    • @echinococcus

      "Where do you find even the faintest evdience that Iran will ever want to develop a nuke"

      The IAEA has expressed concerns. See link.
      They know alot more about it than either you or I. Do you think the UN agency the IAEA are a bunch warmongers and certified liars?

      I don't think you give the leaders of Iran much credit. Israel has a bomb, the US does.
      Do you think the leaders of Iran are strategically stupid. Many well meaning experts have reasonable suspicions. I don't know if they are right or wrong. I hope they are wrong.

    • Do the knee jerk critics even know the details of what is in the agreement yet? I suspect they had their responses all ready to go before the deal was announced and all they needed to do was click.

      If Netanyahu hadn’t repeatedly poked his finger in Obama’s eye (and in a sense, the US’s eye), and not played this issue for his own political opportunism, he might have had an opportunity to have a metaphorical “seat at the table” I sincerely hope it is a good deal and lasts – I don’t know enough to say yeah or nay, but I was happy to hear a deal was reached.

      However I do predict two things.

      1. The news media will do a lousy job of explaining and reporting on the details of the agreement, so we will get a lot of different “facts” on both sides about what is really in the deal.

      2. Sadly I think it will break down eventually and Iran will get a nuke – I think that is their aim. Hope I’m wrong -

  • Video: Max Blumenthal on the ways Zionism exploits anti-Semitism
    • @Kieth
      "You have yet to make any defense of your anti-Semite smear" .

      Others have made the case far better than I can.
      Hophmi has made it, Abunimah has made it, Blumenthal has made it, others have elsewhere. I'm not going to waste my time rehashing all that, because I won't convince you and I don't care what you think. My only point to Giles was that others, without a Zionist upbringing, have arrived at the same conclusion, so I think he was being unfair to Blumenthal.

    • @keith
      I was being facetious re his "Zionist upbringing"
      Obviously it is not just zionist upbringing that can lead to that conclusion.
      I can certainly understand why some people believe that BDS is the only tactic that will
      Force Israel to end the occupation. They may be right.

    • @keith

      Read my post again. Are you suggesting that lt
      Is Abunimah's Zionist upbringing that leads him to that conclusion. Apparentlly non Zionists can arrive at the same conclusion. His opinion is as valid as others- you don't have to agree. As to political considerations, perhaps he doesn't want to be affiliated with racist viewpoints, it might hurt the movement. Seems like a wise decision.

    • @Giles

      "As much of an epiphany as Max has undergone, there are still vestiges of his Zionist upbringing cluttering his thinking it would seem.

      I don't think it is his Zionist Upbringing, assuming he had one.
      Even Palestinian leaders of BDS (Abunimah and others) have denounced Atzmon as an anti Semite racist. See link

  • Netanyahu says US is part of new 'axis'!
    • @mooser

      "Why is “Dabakr” discoursing at length at “Mondoweiss” the anti-Zionist blog"

      The tagline for MW is "The War of ideas..." You can't have a war of ideas if only one side is allowed to engage. Apparently the creators and editors honor that concept more than you would like them to. Perhaps they have more confidence in their ideas than you do.

  • Open Hillel's big month: Swarthmore 'Kehilah' is born and a student resigns over Hillel restrictions
    • Restrictions placed by Hillel on debate is a foolish, wrongheaded policy.

      Let a thousand flowers bloom - especially at universities, diversity of opinion should be encouraged, and a guiding principle. Unfortunately, it is at universities these days where that principle is under siege, by both the left and the right.

  • A response to Michael Douglas
    • "I can read what is written".

      I suggest you read it again, because you haven't read very carefully, particularly the section regarding 194

    • @talknic

      "I can read what is written"

      I guess we can all become lawyers now.
      No need for training, no need to understand precedents, prior judgments, terms of definition.
      That's great - no need for law schools, for high fees, representation.
      I guess the next time you get into a legal dispute, you won't need to hire a lawyer. You'll just
      google some documents and quote out of context.

      The rest of your response does not address the points Kent makes with a counter, LEGAL argument.

    • @talknic
      "M Douglas is an actor, he has no other qualification that I know of that warrants publication of his ill formed opinion. - See more at:".

      I would agree with that.

      Along the same lines, could you please tell us your qualifications with respect to International Law.
      If you want to see how someone who actually has some expertise on the subject analyzes legal matters I suggest you read the following - please take a look at section 4.4

  • Who can save Israel now?
    • @Mooser
      I don't understand your comment.

      What is the centuries-old White-Jewish Alliance?
      What is strange about the quote that begins "We know that if Israel..."?
      It seems to be a sensible statement

Showing comments 99 - 1