Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2234 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)


Showing comments 2234 - 2201

  • As NY primary approaches, Clinton and Sanders separate, somewhat, on Israel
    • Exactly the sort of person I would imagine who sees himself on the far left and then campaigns for Clinton.

      Quotes from Tony Kushner on Israel and ZIonism:

      “[Israel was] founded in a program that, if you really want to be blunt about it, was ethnic cleansing, and that today is behaving abominably towards the Palestinian people.”
      — Yale Israel Review (winter 2005)

      “I’ve never been a Zionist. I have a problem with the idea of a Jewish state. It would have been better if it never happened.”
      — The New York Sun reporting Kushner comments made at a conference in NY (10/14/02)

      Kushner: Establishing a state means F****** people over. However, I think that people in the late 20th century or early 21st century – having seen the Holocaust, having seen the 20th century and all of its horrors — cannot be complacent in the face of that. Ha’aretz reporter: But you are saying that the very creation of Israel as a Jewish state was not a good idea.
      Kushner: I think it was a mistake.
      — Ha’aretz (4/7/04)

      “Zionism aimed as the establishment of a national identity is predicated on a reading of Jewish history and an interpretation of the meaning of Jewish history I don’t share. Insofar as Zionism is an idea that the solution to the suffering of the Jewish people was the establishment of a Jewish nation, I think it is not the right answer.
      — Ha’aretz (4/7/04)

      “I am not a Zionist in case you haven’t noticed.” Kushner cited “the shame of American Jews” for failing to denounce Israel.”
      — Chicago Tribune (4/10/02)

      “The existence of the state of Israel, because of the terrible way that the Palestinian people have been treated, is now in great peril and the world is in peril as a consequence of it.”
      — In These Times interview (3/4/02)

      “Israel is a foreign country. I am no more represented by Israel than I am by Italy.”
      — Ha’aretz (4/7/04)

      “The Israeli-built security wall should come down, the homeland for the Palestinians should be built up, with a strictly enforced peace, not enforced by the Israel Defense Forces, but by the United Nations.”
      — Baltimore Jewish Times (6/4/04)

      “I deplore the brutal and illegal tactics of the Israeli Defence Forces in the occupied territories. I deplore the occupation, the forced evacuations, the settlements, the refugee camps, the whole shameful history of the dreadful suffering of the Palestinian people; Jews, of all people, with our history of suffering, should refuse to treat our fellow human beings like that.”
      — London Times (5/7/02)

      “[Israel is involved in] a deliberate destruction of Palestinian culture and a systematic attempt to destroy the identity of the Palestinian people.”
      — New York Sun (10/4/02)

      “To avoid facing up to such atrocity, to sustain the refusal of any Israeli share in culpability, Zionism has produced a long, shameful, and debilitating history of denial…”
      — Wrestling with Zion – Introduction p.5

      Quotes are from a ZOA letter condemning Kushner, posted by Norman Finklestein. As far as I know they are accurate quotes. Kushner is not a Zionist, and he is farther to the left than Bernie Sanders on Israel. He is also a surrogate for Clinton. I assume that is because he thinks she would make a better President than Sanders, despite her hawkishness on Israel. I'd agree with him on that point.

      Mondoweiss has covered Kushner's views here in the past in quite a few posts. See here:

      I haven't seen Munich and don't have an informed opinion on it, other than having read some reviews of it. However, it certainly isn't the end all and be all of Kushner's political views.

  • Top Israeli officials who issued directive to execute Palestinians hang Hebron killer out to dry
    • He hasn't been abandoned, certainly not "readily and utterly". There are quite a few Israeli politicians making excuses for him. The big shots are just making noises for the international audience because it got caught on video, that's all.

    • Wasn’t he actually convicted of wasting ammunition?

      Nope. He was found not guilty on all charges, but he was never charged with murder, only minor offenses.

      An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

      The soldier, who has only been identified as "Captain R", was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.


      The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.

      more at link

  • Israeli soldier filmed executing wounded Palestinian man
    • Its worse than just withholding treatment, old geezer. According to MK Oren Hazan (Likud), the soldier who shot the Palestinian was a MEDIC!

      "Enough, stop already," Hazan responded. "Let the mother of a terrorist cry and not a Jewish mother. A combat soldier, a heroic medic, neutralized a murderer and said 'there was concern that he would blow up with an explosive.' I believe him. Period."

      Looking at the footage it appears that the shooter was in fact a medic. He is seen earlier tending to the wounded soldier at the ambulance, and his uniform is slightly different from the other combat soldiers, some of whom are nearer to the wounded Palestinian.

      Its a minute 53 seconds into the video before the medic takes his shot, and most probably quite a bit more time before the camerawoman started recording.(The ambulances are there and the wounded soldiers is already on the stretcher. Five minutes, ten minutes?)

      So after all that time, suddenly a medic is worried about a suicide vest? And he doesn't warn the other soldiers who are nonchalantly standing closer to the wounded Palestinian? If you follow his movements it looks more like he decided to shoot the Palestinian well before he was close to him. He's raising his gun well before he walks closer to his victim. Looks like a revenge killing. And no one else seems to bat an eyelash.

      A medic "confirming the kill". The IDF is a morally sick institution.

  • A history of silencing Israeli army whistleblowers – from 1948 until today
    • Got to love the caption on the photo, too.

      "Arab residents leaving Haifa, accompanied by Haganah men, April 1948."

      How considerate of the Haganah men to "accompany" the fleeing residents. And they even brought their rifles for protection. I'm sure that was much appreciated. I'm not at all surprised that Ben Gurion, according to his diary, was aghast at how all those Palestinians could have just up and left.


      And for those of you who don't do links, here's the relevant paragraph about the letter:

      The letter was sent by Ben-Gurion on June 2, 1948, a month and a half after Haifa was captured and a few weeks after Israel's independence was declared. It was addressed to Abba Khoushy, the secretary-general of the Haifa Workers' Council, and later the city’s mayor.

      “I hear that Mr. Marriot (Cyril Marriot, the British Consul in Haifa) is working to return the Arabs to Haifa. I don’t know how it is his business, but until the war is over we don’t want a return of the enemy. And all institutions should act accordingly” instructed Ben-Gurion.

    • Not sure what Jonathan Cook's source was, but I found it describe here in Haaretz:

      Here's the cached version if you don't have a subscription to get the whole article:

      On edit: What a whitewash Haaretz did of the story, quoting Shapira at length, claiming that the pathological liar Ben Gurion was SHOCKED at the lack of Palestinians in Haifa after they had been mercilessly attacked and forced out of the city.

  • Zionism's long and rich history of delegitimizing Palestinians
    • I would respond to the question by asking another one. "Do you agree with the sentiments and beliefs avowed in the US Declaration of Independence?" If so, then you agree that governments are only legitimate when they have the consent of the governed, and Israel does not have the consent of the Palestinians to govern them, and treats them as unequal, not worthy of a right to consent. Therefore, Israel, in its present form, should be abolished and a new government, respecting rights for all, regardless of religion or ethnicity, should be formed. (That should be the shared value!)

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

  • 'New York Times' whitewashes poll showing Israeli support for expelling Palestinians
    • he said he doubted many here would feel uncomfortable incriminating people ...

      is basically the same as saying

      many here would feel comfortable...

      Doubting that people would be uncomfortable is in essence the same as saying that people would be comfortable.

      personally speaking, i would not feel uncomfortable in the least incriminating someone suggesting that.

      So SteveC's doubt was correct in your case, and mine, and eljays, and at the very least I would believe it to be correct for the majority of posters here, regardless of background, religion or ethnicity.

    • Whoa there annie. I think you totally misunderstood SteveC's point.

      I doubt many here would feel uncomfortable in incriminating those who would agree with it .

      That means he recognizes that such a statement would be outrageous and "many here" would certainly "incriminate" any one who agreed with such an outrageous statement. In other words, he's agreeing that stating "Jews should be expelled from America" is totally outrageous and not subject to "problematic" interpretation. And then he's contrasting it with the Pew poll question, which the NYT is willing to obfuscate as "problematic" when an equivalent question is asked about "Arabs".

      And I've got to agree that "provocative " "normal" and "consequences" are all vague as formulated in eljay's question. What behavior is or isn't "provocative" or "normal" and what exact "consequences" is the question talking about? Thus they are subject to multiple interpretations whereas eljay's first question is exact and not subject to such multiple interpretations.

  • With hasbara robot, the 'startup nation' enters its decadent phase
  • 'What certainly influenced me' to support Iraq war, Clinton says, was Bush's billions of aid to NYC
    • Kris, I'd like to make several points in response to your latest comment, in a somewhat random order. First, you said, You’re right, I shouldn’t have said that Bush didn’t want to provide money to help NYC, since actually it was some Republicans in Congress who objected to that.
      However, neither you nor I said that. You still aren't accurately describing what I said, Hillary Clinton said, or in this case what you yourself said. You never said in your first comment that Bush didn't want to provide money for NYC.

      In fact your were incredulous that I would believe Clinton's assertion that Bush did not want to provide money for NYC reconstruction. As I pointed out in my following comment, this was NOT what Clinton said, nor what I said. Now you seem to be acknowledging that Clinton didn't say that, I think, but are asserting that you incorrectly stated that Bush didn't want to give those funds but YOU didn't say that either. You seem to be having problems following the argument and I don't quite know how to address that when you don't seem to be consistent even in describing your own statements, but I'll try again anyway.

      Second, you've twice repeated the false meme that Clinton said "that her daughter only just avoided death on 9/11 when that was not the case". She never said that. That was a lie made up by rightwing pundits. Here's the story about the pundit lies from Media Matters, complete with the transcript of what Clinton actually said.

      She said nothing about Chelsea "only just" avoiding death, but instead said that Chelsea was in Manhattan that morning, had planned to jog from Battery Park to the Twin Towers and back and had been in a coffee shop when the first plane hit, and that Clinton was understandably worried about her daughter because she hadn't been able to get in touch with her until a few hours after the attack. The rest, about Chelsea just avoiding death was a purposeful misstatement of what Clinton said, uttered maliciously by right wing pundits, in order to cast aspersions on Clinton.

      Yes, that was a lie, but not Clinton's lie, and you repeat it twice here without having checked whether its truthful or not. I think that's poor judgment on your part, and doesn't show any of your claimed disdain for lying, but rather a disdain for Clinton, even when its built on other people's lies. You sound perilously close to someone throwing stones from your own glass house, and in a political arena you'd likely be rhetorically mugged repeatedly for your own "lies".

      This is just another example of what I was complaining about with my first comment on this thread. Someone makes up a lie about what Clinton said or did and people swallow it whole, and then use that lie to reinforce the idea that any new accusation of Clinton lying must be believable, without need for question or fact checking, because she " lied before" even when she didn't.

      As for " but remembering landing in Bosnia under “sniper fire” when nothing like that happened is not normal". Clinton did misstate what happened on that occasion. Probably an embellishment on her part of an incident that happened 12 years before. According to everything I've read, others' recollections, and archival video have corroborated what she said about the incident in her 2004 book, "Living History".

      "Security conditions were constantly changing in the former Yugoslavia, and they had recently deteriorated again. Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find. One eight-year-old girl gave me a copy of a poem she had written entitled 'Peace.'"

      This later embellishment, or misstatement or whatever, was blown out of all proportion in the heat of the campaign in 2008. I see it as an example of her being held to a higher standard than other male politicians. Here's an example of that. Richard Cohen, the columnist, acknowledged that McCain had made numerous false statements and inconsistencies, but they were "understandable" while Clinton's one exaggeration on her Bosnia visit was "disqualifying" for the Presidency. (And likewise, Obama's stated position on NAFTA in Ohio, which was the opposite of what his economic adviser told the Canadian government was the Obama campaign's position, was not a "disqualifying" falsehood but exaggerating sniper fire was.)

      I can only see this as sexist treatment of a woman candidate. There seems to be no other reason for the number of vociferous lies spread about Clinton, all made while disingenuously decrying lying as being a particularly heinous fault of hers, not theirs. It reeks of projection to me as well as a double standard. I'm much more interested in policy positions that in whether or not someone embellished an incident from 12 years earlier in one comment made to the press. I just wish that more voters would ignore the war of the sound bites and the "gotcha" moments and focus on the issues. This kind of petty stuff only demeans the contest, but politics in the US seems to have devolved into an ongoing episode on Jerry Springer, or a badly scripted "reality" show, now complete with Donald Trump..

      And here's the report from Politifact on Clinton's statement on North Ireland, where again you claimed she said she was "instrumental' which is incorrect: She said she was "helpful" and several of those instrumental in the negotiations in fact agreed that she was helpful. So again, not a lie on her part.

      I think they are a bit harsh at the end in judging her statement "half true" , because they interpreted "helpful" to have implied more importance than it deserved, but in any case they acknowledged that she was in fact "helpful" as she said, according to several of those more intimately involved in the negotiations of the Agreement.

      The story right now is that Hillary thought that she could trust Bush, and voted for pre-emptive war, because Bush resisted Republican opposition and came through with funds to “rebuild” NYC .
      The story used to be (as in the Slate article) that Hillary voted for the Iraq resolution in order to strengthen Bush’s use of diplomacy.

      No, you are still not getting it. The real "story" in both instances is the same- that Bush assured everyone, including Congress and the UN for that matter, in October of 2002 that the AUMF would be used as a diplomatic tool to pressure Hussein into allowing the UN inspectors to complete their work and to enforce the UN resolutions, not to wage war. One of Clinton's stated reasons for believing Bush's assurance in this instance, whether faulty or not, was based on her experience of Bush having keep his word on NYC. It wasn't the money per se,it was that he made a promise and kept it, despite some pressure to do otherwise. In both "stories" as you call them, her belief, avowed by Bush to Congress and the UN at the time, was that the AUMF would be used as a "big stick" for a diplomatic solution, not a preemptive war as you assert. You may disagree vehemently with her reasoning, but she has been consistent over time with her rationale, even though she now admits her vote was a mistake. Again, she has gotten much more flak for her vote than any other Senator or House member who cast the same vote. Kerry wasn't considered "disqualified" in 2004 for "poor judgment" for his "Yes" vote, nor was Biden in 2008 or 2012. Nor was Obama for that matter, who chose to put all three (Biden, Clinton and and Kerry) in his Administration after their "poor judgment".

      *BTW, the wording of the AUMF resolution itself required that military force was only to be used as a last resort, after all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, and after the Bush Administration had confirmed in writing that all diplomatic options had failed. Of course the Bush Administration ignored the AUMF requirement and declared war 5 months later. He also ignored UN requirement to put the question to another UN vote at that point and refused to let the inspectors finish their work. The Administration simply created a new legal theory that the earlier UN resolutions from the 1990's justified their "right" to declare war on Iraq in 2003. They were bound and determined to go to war on Iraq and a different vote on the AUMF wouldn't ave changed their actions. Its good you protested, as did I, but those protests didn't start until January of 2003, not October of 2002.

      Again, my main point in commenting on this story is that people are buying into lies in order to justify their own reasons for choosing to vote against her. Vote how you choose on policy, don't double down on one untruth with more repetitions of old untruths you haven't bothered to research.

      And be aware that every politician at one point or another has told an embellishment or an untruth, including the saintly Bernie Sanders. It doesn't make them "abnormal". It makes them politicians. I'm planning on voting Green as I have done for the previous three Presidential elections, but I am under no illusion that Jill Stein, or any other future Green Party candidate, isn't entirely capable of exaggerating, equivocating, misremembering or even downright lying at times. If I agree with the policies, then that's how I'll vote.

    • Tree, do you really believe Hillary when she says that President Bush didn’t want to give NYC funds for reconstruction after 9/11? -

      Kris, that is not what Hillary said, nor what I said. She said that Bush wanted to and promised to give funds to NYC. It was other Republicans that were pressuring him not to. Do I think there were Republicans that didn't want to help out NYC? Yes, I'm sure there were. If you can't get that point correct then why do you think that you are getting any other point correct in this story? *

      Did you read the Slate piece or Clinton's speech on the floor of the Senate before the vote? She laid out then exactly why she voted for the authorization and it totally coincides with what she is saying now. This isn't just some story made up after the fact, as you seem to think.

      And should I take it that you refused to vote for Kerry for President in 2004, or for Obama/Biden in 2008 and 2012 because of Kerry's and Biden's similar bad judgment? Or is Clinton's "yes"vote somehow different from and more toxic than their "yes" votes? The war was the fault of the Bush Administration. Whether or not Clinton, or any other Congressperson voted for the authorization or not, the Bush administration was going to go to war. I would strongly urge you to read the Slate piece, which you seem not to have read. Again, we aren't talking about a "cognitive disorder", we are talking about the actual historical record in this case. Her description of her vote today exactly parallel's what she said when she cast her vote in 2002.

      And people don't always remember things exactly correctly. Its not a "cogniive disorder", its a human frailty. You should know that as a nurse. I used to have a nearly eidetic memory when I was younger (sadly lost since adulthood.) But I still made mistakes in my memory on occasion, even then, and certainly now.

      *And BTW, speaking of "cognitive disorders", would it be fair to claim you have a cognitive disorder because you misread something I wrote a few minutes ago and claimed it said something it didn't? I don't think so, but do you? We'd all be diagnosed with cognitive disorders if so.

      If you want to dislike Clinton for her vote, or her policy on Israel or whatever, that's certainly your prerogative. I just don't like people making up stories about "bribes" that are clearly false and defamatory. People shouldn't resort to lying to justify their own decision not to vote for someone. It's not fair nor open nor democratic. The writer of the piece that accused Clinton of admitting to a bribe did just that-lied- and that, and the widespread willingness here to accept the lie as fact, is the primary objection I am voicing here.

    • This is why I hate election seasons. People with axes to grind start writing crap and people buy into it. Suddenly it becomes an accepted "truth" when its simply a case of false political spin. I'm not saying you, David, or Phil have axes to grind. I'm talking about the original writer of the opinion piece who tried to, and, by the reactions of people here, including you David (and Phil), succeeded in planting a false story.

      If you listen to the full answer from Clinton at the MSNBC link its clear that she ISN'T saying that she voted for the War Authorization because Bush gave NY millions. She's saying that she trusted Bush to keep his word on Iraq because he kept his word on aid to NYC, even when there was significant pressure from his fellow republicans to quash the aid and go back on his promise.

      This seems to have gone down the memory hole, but at the time of the vote Bush promised that he would let the weapons inspectors finish their work and also promised to go back to the UN for ratification if weapons were found. He did neither, but Clinton, knowing that he had kept a promise to her on providing funds to NYC despite pressure to renege on that promise, believed Bush's promise that he would use the authorization in order to press Iraq diplomatically rather than merely as an excuse for war. That is what she is saying when she said she had a different experience from Sanders, who was not present for Bush's promise to provide funds for NYC. Of course he lied.

      But to insinuate that Clinton was bribed to support the Iraq War is totally false. It's part and parcel of what I complained about earlier here on the demonization of Clinton. She was wrong, and admitted as such, but so were 28 other Democrats (and all but one Republican), including Kerry, Biden and Dodd, none of whom have been raked over the coals for their votes as much as Clinton has. Even Obama cut Kerry slack for his vote when he supported Kerry in his 2004 bid for the Presidency. This "bribery" crap is just more of the same unfair treatment that Clinton has consistently gotten, and I'm sorry to see so many here lap it up without question. Criticize Clinton for her vote if you so choose but don't latch onto false propaganda and repeat it as gospel.

      If you doubt my word on this, I'd suggest reading, which has deemed the rumor of Clinton "admitting bribery" as false, here:

      Or see, which discusses Clinton's similar explanation of her vote made in February of this year.

      From Slate:
      In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

      Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

      Kaplan at Slate then goes on to explain the circumstances around the vote and quotes from Clinton's speech at the time. I'd suggest reading the Slate piece at length if you really want the truth instead of more false rumors and innuendos.

  • BDS Victory: Ahava moving factory out of occupied West Bank
    • Annie,

      my personal theory (in case you’ve not already heard it) is that a certain poster was banned the day before rugal arrived. when a person is banned their archives are wiped out (MW does that). so i think rugal sort of “inherited” the banned persons archives, probably because it’s the same poster (w/the same obsession).

      In actuality it has nothing to do with a4tech's wiped archives. It's his new moniker that is the problem causing a lack of archives. The underscore before the b is what throws the archive program for a loop. It ignores everything after the underscore and goes looking for comments by "rugal", a nonexistent commenter, rather than rugal_b, and there are no such comments so his archive is blank. This problem with the software program has happened before. I mentioned it a few years ago but apparently it hasn't been corrected.

      Creating a name with an underscore in it when commenting on MW should not be allowed until or unless the archiving system figures out a way to handle archiving names with underscores.

      Speaking of rugal_b, why hasn't he been banned by now? I've never seen anyone here make as many racist comments as he does. You don't even need an archive with him to see it, because he violates rule number one of the comments policy in nearly every other comment.

  • As Trump takes on the neocons, Kristol likens him to Hitler
    • I'm quite sure that rugal b is a young white male.

      ...and a troll with two purposes- create divisions between white and black supporters of Palestinian resistance (while at the same time promoting white Jewish support for Palestinian resistance as somehow more noble and sincere than non-Jewish white support)- and guilt non-Jewish whites into ignoring Palestine until every problem in the US is solved.

  • Can we take 'Avi does the Holy Land’ seriously?
  • Neocon savages Christie for failing 'months and months of careful coaching' by foreign policy experts
    • my edits didn't work in time.

      For clarity, the third paragraph begins the quote from the Washington Post, starting with "In Washington..."

      And here's Gabbard's statement after Netanyahu's address to Congress, including the usual boilerplate, “The United States’ relationship with Israel must rise above the political fray, as America continues to stand with Israel as her strongest ally.”

      People are grasping at straws and assuming that an endorsement of Sanders implies a less hawkish foreign policy outlook. It doesn't. Certainly not in the case of Gabbard.

    • Hillary will be the last democratic nominee who’ll be a tool to the neocons. Tulsi Gabbard is endorsing Bernie and she’s the future of that party.

      Be careful before touting Gabbard as the future of the party. You may not like the result anymore than you'd like Clinton. She's socially conservative and has a Muslim problem.

      In Washington, Democrats no doubt noticed how great Gabbard looks on paper and television. She was elevated quickly to top jobs like vice chair of the DNC and to important committee assignments that fit with her military experience. “I think she’s wonderful,” House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) told Vogue.

      House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told Vogue that Gabbard is "an emerging star" and invited the then-congressional candidate to speak at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. “Some fresh recruits stay and some go," Pelosi said. "It’s hard to tell what route she'll choose.”

      So far, Gabbard is choosing her own route, and it's not one Democrats hoping to groom her for leadership would have her take. Especially with regard to foreign policy, Gabbard often sounds more like a hawkish Republican than a potential future Democratic leader. She has blasted President Obama for failing to talk about Islamic extremism. And she recently tweeted this criticism of the president's perceived weakness and hypocrisy in Syria:

      "Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Obama won't bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget"

      "But enough US has not been bombing Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in Syria. But its mind boggling that we protest Russia's bombing of these terrorists."

      Needless to say, for Democrats it's awkward to have one of their most visible stars and a top DNC official saying things like this. In that sense, Gabbard is really a singular figure in her party.

      hat's more, Gabbard has been glorified in the conservative media. Her criticism of Obama's failure to cite "Islamic extremism" earned her appearances on Fox News, and in April, the conservative National Review wrote a glowing profile about the "beautiful, tough young" Democrat "who's challenging Obama's foreign policy" (though the magazine's adjective-heavy headline didn't earn them any favors with feminists).

      This shouldn't be a complete surprise though. Gabbard's political background is non-traditional. Her conservative Democratic state senator father led the charge in Hawaii against same-sex marriage. Gabbard said she generally aligned with social conservatism until she deployed twice to Iraq with the Hawaii Army National Guard. In 2012, she described what Honolulu Civil Beat called her "leftward journey" to the paper:

      “Some of these experiences living and working in oppressive countries, not only witnessing firsthand but actually experiencing myself what happens when a government basically attempts to act as a moral arbiter."

      When she says " when a government..." here she's not talking about the US government intervention. She's talking about other countries' social conservatism. She's just as much a hawk on the Middle East as anyone else, with no qualms about bombing people in that neck of the woods.

      From the Honolulu Civil Beat:

      U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is co-sponsor of the Zero Tolerance for Terror Act, legislation that calls for ballistic missile sanctions against Iran.

      According to her office, the action comes in response to Iran illegally firing two missiles in October and November — a violation of a United Nations resolution.

      In a press release Thursday, Gabbard noted that it had been six months since Iran and world powers including the U.S. agreed on curbing Iran’s nuclear program in exchange of an easing of financial sanctions.

      And here's a report that includes her criticism of Obama's foreign policy from a rightist perspective, and her strong support for Modi of India.

      And another from Alternet about her support for the BJP:

      I don't think that this is who you want as the future of the Democratic party.

  • Videos: Proof of Sanders's lifelong anti-racist activism breaks on eve of Nevada Caucus
    • I often had to severely bite my tongue, but I certainly never humored him.

      Same difference, Dickerson.

      I'm not talking about the Hope postcard itself, from the Hope Chamber of Commerce, which was indeed offensive to blacks. I agree with you on that point.

      I am talking about the fact that you are attempting to label Bill Clinton as racist because he took the (racially offensive) post cards as a gift from his grandmother in her nursing home and sent one of them back to her (and apparently only to her, as no others have turned up from him to anyone else) to let her know that he was doing alright at college, and thinking of her, which was probably the intent of his grandma in giving him the postcards in the first place, despite her poor taste. To call Bill Clinton racist because of that is a stretch way too far.

      How would you like it if someone accused you of being a racist because you sometimes "severely bit your tongue" when your father said racist things? Because that's the road you are heading down with all of this.

      And, really, why would you think that I would consider it reverse discrimination because a black female teenager beat you to a science award? Seems perfectly logical occurrence to me, no reverse discrimination needed or inferred from the result. Non sequitur to the extreme.

    • OK, now I must admit I'm going to do a pale imitation of yonah here, but I think your headline is inaccurate. An arrest in the 1960's during a civil rights protest does not prove "lifelong anti-racist activism". It proves that he was an activist early on, but "lifelong", no. He move to Vermont in 1968 and didn't do much "activist" work in a state with a miniscule minority population . I don't doubt that he still believes in civil rights, except maybe for Palestinians, but it doesn't prove anything beyond what he did in the early-mid sixties. His priorities seemed to be elsewhere after that time, which is OK, but its dishonest to use something from 50 years ago to prove what he is doing now and what priorities his campaign has today.

      I understand that this site has turned into an unofficial Bernie Sanders site and with it comes the sadly usual tendency to judge everything "Bernie" with rose-colored glasses while loudly booing the designated villainess. I saw it and had it up to here in 2008, all for a pocketful of broken hopes and dreams when Obama won.

      I may have to check out for several months if this kind of mindless cheerleading and constant demonizationcontinues. I really wish Democrats could disagree without having to feel that their candidate is all goodness and light and will do exactly what they want and hope even thought he hasn't actually said he would. Or disagree over ideas and platforms without making into a personal battle of good vs. evil in their minds. Its really quite juvenile thinking and I think most here are better than that in ordinary circumstances.

      Well, I've vented, so now I guess I can go quietly or just shut up and put a sock in it when people are overreacting and believing satire sites as if they are real. One last comment, though. I vociferously disagree with Clinton on a few things, most particularly on Palestine and the Middle East, and I'm not voting for her since I have committed to vote Green Party since 2008 and don't plan to change. However, I really believe that some of the really nasty animus towards her is simply the result of animus towards a strong woman candidate, however unexamined and unspoken it might be. She isn't evil-incarnate, nor is she appreciably different or worse than the sorry lot of politicians we have today, and yet you'd think she chews the heads off babies to hear people talk. What makes her so much worse than most of the bozos we have running for high office today?What makes her so much worse than Bush, Trump or Cruz or Obama or Sanders for that matter? Not much. Just her gender and I think a lot of Americans still aren't ready for a woman President. And that includes a bunch of "progressives" too.

      Of course, knowing myself all too well, I probably won't "put a sock in it", but I'll try to limit myself and remain civil if I occasionally feel the need to vent about the current manichean view of political candidates.

    • The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.

      And of course we all know that is exactly what happened when Obama was elected and now the world is perfect!

      Oh , wait...

      Obama hasn't done jack-sh*t to eliminate special interests, has he?

      Maybe we can all still hope he'll change all that now that he's got less than a year left on his 8 years. I'm sure there's plenty of time left. (snark)

      Clinton had it pegged correctly in 2008. Obama didn't even try and he's been just as guilty as any other President, and more so than some, of honoring special interests and killing people overseas. You can blame Hilary Clinton for a lot of things, but she got that right. Shooting the messenger won't make the Obama Presidency any less built on lies and broken promises.

    • The real serious blunder was made by the Nevada caucus organizers. They should have had a neutral Spanish speaking interpreter on hand but they didn't.

    • Dickerson, I don't think I've ever replied to any of your comments before. Some I find interesting, some not so much, but this particular one about Clinton's postcards has been made at least 4 times by you and and I think your implication is dishonest.

      You've never mentioned what Clinton wrote on the back of the postcard which was this:

      "Dear Mammaw, Thought I would send you one of your cards[my emphasis-tree] just to prove I'm using them! My tests are over and I'm just starting the second term. Hope you are well and happy . . . Love, Bill."

      So he sent the racially insensitive card that his grandmother gave to him back to his grandmother, no doubt because he didn't want to send it to anyone else but wanted to show his grandmother his appreciation of her gift to him despite her racial insensitivity. This is somehow supposed to show how racist Bill Clinton was or is? I doubt it. This is getting ridiculous.

      Come on, Dickerson. You grew up in Atlanta in the '60s. You never humored a racist older relative for a relatively minor offense like this? I think not.

  • Reinterpreting Truman and Israel: A review of Irene Gendzier's 'Dying to Forget'
    • No. The Arabs had the only motive for killing Wasson and Walker. Wasson and Walker were murdered the day before Chaim Weizman met President Truman in the White House to discuss a $100 million dollar loan and an end to the arms embargo against Israel.

      You're grasping at straws, Jackdaw.

      For your scenario you'd have to assume that an Arab sniper would have known that Weizmann was meeting Truman the next day for the purpose indicated, that Truman would have granted an end to the embargo and a loan, neither of which Truman was inclined to do, nor did, at that juncture . The sniper would have also had to have believed that shooting Wasson would make Truman much less likely to end the embargo, a result which was also highly unlikely and illogical , and the supposed Arab sniper would have had to believe that, of all the targets he could have hit after infiltrating into Jewish controlled area, the US Consul who was working on a truce was the most important target he could have hit in all Jerusalem. Also highly unlikely.

      And if an Arab sniper just wanted to kill Wasson he could have done that much more easily from Arab controlled territory in the Old City when Wasson was walking in the open near the French Consulate very near to the Old City Walls. No need to have to sneak into enemy controlled territory and put himself and his "mission" in danger to do so.

      Your argument seems to simply be a "pre"( as opposed to "post") hoc ergo propter hoc one. In other words, the shooting happened the day before Weizman met Truman, therefore it must have happened because of that meeting. Period. A coincidence in time equals cause.

      And BTW, I find no mention in the histories of the Israel’s War of Independence that I’ve read, of a bombing that killed 78 Arabs in Haifa, on 6-20-48.

      I’m not this bombing really happened.
      Can anyone help?

      Yes, I can. Your problem is that in this instance you have poor reading skills and a lack of knowledge of the history of the Irgun and Lehi.

      First off, Dickerson's snippet from Haaretz lists June 20, 1939, not 1948. How you got 1948 out of 1939, who knows, but you're off by nine years. If you had an adequate knowledge base of the history of those two Jewish terror groups you would know that they actively engaged in multiple terrorist bombings in the late 1930's, some of which, including the bombing in the Haifa vegetable market on June 20, 1938, were included in the list Dickerson linked.

      If you'd like to see the original article from 2011 in Haaretz you can read it here:

      You're welcome. Glad to help.

    • Jon,

      You said:I don’t know who shot Mr. Wasson, and neither do you.

      That's true, but you were the one who originally linked to the WIkipedia article on Wasson. I was responding to the content there, and your belief that it implicated "the Arab side" more than the "Jewish side" as you called them. If you really didn't want to speculate then why did you?

      The link you provided includes an “appears to be”, a “presumed ” and an “if”.

      The "appears to be" refers to what was Wauchope Street in 1948 being called Hess Street today. Your link to the main page of the Wasson WIkipedia entry positively states that "Wauchope Street [is] (now Abraham Lincoln/Hess)." If you have information otherwise please share it.

      The "presumed" refers to the telegraph the consulate sent regarding Wasson's death, presuming, quite logically, that a shot that entered his upper right arm and exited near his left costal cartillage as he was crossing Wauchope (now Hess) towards the Consulate would have come from his right, in the words of the telegram "FROM THE DIRECTION JUNCTION JULIANS WAY AND WAUCHOPE STREET'", which is now the vicinity of the Hebrew Union College. Any other direction would have been highly unlikely given the direction the bullet took through his body and where he was when he was hit.

      And the "if" refers to the improbability of an Arab being the sniper, because of the lack of a clear shot in that location from anywhere inside the Arab controlled position.

      All of these are logical deductions from the location and manner of his death.

      You yourself indulged in "most likely" when you asserted that
      That fact makes it more likely that it was enemy fire, from the Arab side. In wartime shots hitting one side most likely come from the other side.

      While this might make some logical sense as a generalization, it implies that Wasson was "on a side", which was not his function as a member of the Truce Commission. It also runs counter to the actual facts of this particular incident, which was my reason for pointing out to you that your generalization did not apply in this instance because of the implausibility of a shot from the Arab controlled area hitting Wasson in the location where he was shot..

      Another plausible scenario could be that he was shot by a sniper from the Arab side who was unaware of his identity, the sniper picking off a random target in enemy-controlled territory, as snipers do. According to the link there would have been no clear line of fire from the old city walls, but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that the sniper was positioned somewhere else.

      If an Arab sniper was anywhere else in Arab controlled territory it would have been even more impossible to get a clear shot at Wasson. The Old City wall was the closest the Arab controlled area came to Wasson's position and anything on the other side of it would have been blocked by the city walls and the same lack of a clear shot as well. It would be highly illogical for a Arab sniper to enter far into Jewish controlled area to take random pot shots when he could do this just as easily and with more safety from within his own lines.

      By the way, I think that there are more pressing issues at hand, then trying to figure out who shot Mr. Wasson back in 1948.

      And yet you considered it important enough to comment on and provide a link which we have discussed. I can understand why. The implication, backed by logical deduction, that Wasson was killed by a Jewish sniper in the Jewish controlled area of Jerusalem leads itself to the further logical deduction that it was a planned assassination rather than a "random" targeting of a European looking man. Given the assassination of Folke Bernadotte such an implication would be entirely within the bounds of reality. I think you realize that and are upset by it, thus your continued comments implicating "the Arab side" on something you claim you don't feel is a "pressing issue" and you admit you do not know.

    • Jon s,

      You said:Exactly the opposite. That fact makes it more likely that it was enemy fire, from the Arab side.

      From your response it seems you didn't read the link to the Wikipedia talk session on Thomas Wasson that I provided. So I will quote from it:

      1. The UN telegram has 'AS HE CROSSED WAUCHOPE STREET TO ALLEY ALONG WEST SIDE CONGEN'. The alley is clearly 'George Elliot'. Wauchope Street appears to be 'Hess' running East to the Hebrew Union College. The telegram also has 'THE SNIPERS BULLET PRESUMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DIRECTION JUNCTION JULIANS WAY AND WAUCHOPE STREET'.[1]i.e.what is now the Hebrew Union College.
      2. The front line at that time was the City Wall. The Scotsman reports on May 22nd that Arab irregulars had take the Wailing Wall and had begun demolition of the Tifret synagogue. The newspaper also reports that a Jewish force of about 1000 had attacked the Zion Gate during the night. Also Jewish mortars fired on the Jaffa Gate and Arab Legion armoured cars in action between Damascus Gate and Allenby Square. i.e. in front of Notre Dame.
      If the sniper was Arab, ie on the City Wall, he would have had a clear line of fire whilst Wasson walked up 'Paul Emile Botta' from the French Consulate. But once on 'Abraham Lincoln' there would have been no clear line of fire.

      In other words, Wasson was well within the Jewish controlled area when he was shot, with no clear shot possible from the Arab controlled area. Wasson often travelled the route from the American Consulate to the French one and back as part of his duties on the Truce Commission. He could have been easily shot by an Arab sniper while he was in the vicinity of the French Consulate, "which was just under the Walls of the Old City" according to Wells Stabler, a Vice Consul at the American Consulate (see my other link), but instead he was shot well within the Jewish controlled area, on a street right behind the American Consulate with no clear line of sight from the Arab controlled area, which looks like it was 1500 yards away, beyond the limit for accurate shots from a 1948 era .30 caliber rifle, even a miracle one which could shoot around corners.

      Clearly the only logical presumption is that the bullet came from a rifle fired from within the Jewish controlled area, not from the Arab controlled area, and thus most likely fired by a Jewish sniper.

    • I did, however, find this entry from the Wikipedia article darkly amusing:

      The NYP report claimed that an American Government document stated that his dying words, to the Jewish nurses at his bedside, were that he had been shot by Arabs.

      According to the report of his fatal wound, "he was shot by a .30 caliber rifle. The bullet entered his chest via his right upper arm and left level to his second costal cartilage."

      That puts the shooter to the side and slightly behind ( and possibly above) Wasson; a sniper who Wasson probably never saw nor could he possibly identify, but we are to believe that Wasson made sure with his last dying words to tell the nice Jewish nurses that an Arab shot him.

      Given the fact that the place that he was shot was in an area controlled by Jewish forces, its most likely that it was a Jewish Israeli who shot him, but it really doesn't matter.

      See the talk section of the WIkipedia article here:

      Interesting side note: He was wearing a bulletproof vest when he was shot, but the bullet hit an area unprotected by the vest.

  • Israel detains Washington Post bureau chief in Jerusalem accusing him of ‘incitement’ --updated
    • Neil,

      ‘without foundation’ means EXACTLY: no reason to think the reporters were guilty of the purported wrong (of offering to pay for a show)

      No, you are ignoring the statements made by the Israeli police spokesman because of your bias.

      Again, from YOUR link:

      An Arab woman allegedly told Booth that if he paid some of the bystanders, they would provoke the nearby police officers and start a violent demonstration, Jerusalem Police spokesperson Asi Aharoni told The Times of Israel.

      “Police officers were told that she said if you pay these youngsters, they will start the provocation and you’ll be able to take pictures,” Aharoni said.


      A passerby complained to Border Police officers, who were standing a few feet away, the Jerusalem Police spokesperson said.

      “In light of the complaint, officers detained a number of suspects to check the facts,” police spokesperson Luba Samri said.

      Its abundantly clear that the original complaint was about what the Arab woman allegedly said. There is no mention BY THE ISRAELI POLICE of a citizen's complaint that the WP reporters paid or agreed to pay anything. The passerby's complaint was about what the "Arab woman" allegedly said.

      The police statement after the fact said, according to the TOI:

      “The clarification [of what happened] was required in light of the information given to the officers, which turned out to be false,

      And according to the update above, The Israeli Police have now issued a third statement on the case: “Regarding the detaining and questioning of a Washington Post correspondent, we would like to make it clear that following an inquiry into the circumstances of the event it has been ascertained that the information which had been given to the officers was WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

      The information given to the police was that the Arab woman had offered to stage an incident for money. That is the information that the police spokesperson mentioned and this is the information that was false, even according to the Israeli police. Only your bias and your stubbornness makes it impossible for you to believe the truth when even the Israeli police make the statement. You need to check your own hatred cuz its overflowing and impairing your reasoning.

      Eglash arrived on the scene after Booth and Taha were taken aside for questioning. she did not witness the encounter with the woman; clearly stated in one of those linked articles

      She was obviously in contact with Booth and Taha, as also mentioned in the linked article(and I believe she is the woman in the video above with the two), and you acknowledged that she was speaking for those two as well as herself when she stated that they wanted to "put the incident behind them." But now you insist that she is not speaking for them when she denied the accusation, and in fact you purposely omitted her denial, and then fantasized "a conscious decision by these world class media to “neither confirm nor deny” an extremely salient point of fact about a story with international reach," when the denial was right in front of your face. This was very dishonest on your part.

      modern cell phones are amazing. lots of megapixels. everybody got one. (and the arab woman may have even offered skilled and experienced photography expertise by one of the “children”.

      And now you are fantasizing about some bizarre offer of which there was absolutely no complaint, false or otherwise. You've totally lost touch with reality because of your hatred and have the gall to accuse others of lying? Look in the mirror; you'll see a man consumed with hate.

    • One further point, Neil. I just clicked on your second Times of Israel link. Its very clear from that article that the accusation against the "Arab woman" was determined by the police to have been false. You seem to have not only missed the Mondoweiss update but to have totally ignored what was said in your own link, and misrepresented in your comment the police statement made here: (Second link of yours, paragraph four.)

      The police defended the initial detention, but apologized for any distress caused. “The clarification [of what happened] was required in light of the information given to the officers, which turned out to be false,” the police said in a statement.

      Bad form on your part. Dishonest and juvenile to boot.

    • Did you miss the Update, Neil? You seem to have become unhinged over all this.

      Update. The Israeli Police have now issued a third statement on the case:
      “Regarding the detaining and questioning of a Washington Post correspondent, we would like to make it clear that following an inquiry into the circumstances of the event it has been ascertained that the information which had been given to the officers was WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

      - See more at:

      In other words, the passerby was totally wrong about the "Arab woman offer(ing) the reporters some photogenic sumud theater for payola."

      And if you had read your own link in a reasoned matter you would have realized that Eglash, who was not in custody and could make a statement, did issue a denial. From your link to the Times of Israel(paragraphs 5 and 6):

      “Police officers were told that she said if you pay these youngsters, they will start the provocation and you’ll be able to take pictures,” Aharoni said.

      However, Eglash disputed that claim, nothing(sic- probably meant "noting") that neither Booth nor Taha is a photographer or even had a camera.

      So, Neil, obviously your reading skills are impaired at this point, perhaps because of your anger, or perhaps they aren't that good to begin with. Or perhaps you purposely left out that bit of information because it ran counter to your argument, and your argument was more important to you than the truth.

      We now know that the Post has denied the unsubstantiated claim of a passerby and so has the Israeli police spokesman. The police spokesman didn't just state that the reporters didn't pay, he stated that the information about the offer was itself "without foundation."

      I'd suggest you not impugn other people's intelligence when you get so agitated that you abandon logic yourself in order to rant from your own bias.

  • Video: Scenes from a bloody Sunday in Palestine
    • The more I read "The Mideast Beast" the more it sounds like a satire site with a decidedly Zionist bent, BTW. Markedly soft on Israel, and harsh in the satire against those who criticize it.

      Try reading this satiric article from the website:

      Israel Defense Force Commits Crimes Against Israeli Population, says Attorney

      or this:

      Israel is ‘Criminal State’

      The human rights group “We know nothing about the Middle East” or WKNATME has accused Israel’s government of being a criminal organization. 

“Being a democracy and providing a high-standard of living just cannot be done via legitimate means,” said Sandy Guinness who makes coffee for the teenager that runs their website from a truck stop café outside Dublin. “Israel is mostly Jewish, therefore mostly corrupt. Look, I don’t believe the whole ‘drinking the blood of Palestinian children’ thing but they definitely sell their organs. I read it about it on the Internet.”

      or this one:

      Radical Offshoot of Human Rights Watch Sends Strike Team to Nepal to Assassinate Victims Saved by Israel

      or this:

      Al Jazeera America to Shut Down, Citing “Not Enough Anti-Semites in U.S.”


      West Coast JAP Thanks BDS Activist for Punching Her in Face, Catalyzing Coveted Nose Job


      Israeli Wonders When Palestinian Supply of Homicidal Psychopaths Will Run Out


      Hamas Replacing Human Shields with Much Cuter Puppy Shields

      I'd suggest that Taxi not use that site as a source for anything, even satire.

    • Bornajoo,

      Platosguns lifted the "article" about the supposed letter from Clinton to Saban from a site called "The Mideast Beast".


      Here is the first paragraph from "The Mideast Beast"'s "about" page:

      The Mideast Beast (TMB) is a satire and (dark) comedy news site that produces spoof articles about or connected to the entire Middle East for comedic and entertainment purposes. We poke at anyone and everyone.

      Whatever you read on TMB is totally fictitious and you should not take us seriously in any way, shape, or form. Clear? Good. Moving on…

      I know the temptation to make Clinton out to be the vilest of all viles, but if people can't recognize an "Onion" type piece of satire when they read it, then they have obviously gone way overboard.

  • Prioritizing Palestine over the Presidency: Intersectional feminism's challenge to Hillary Clinton
    • Hi gamal,

      Please, no need to apologize. I was not clear to begin with and you responded to what you thought I intended. As they say in American basketball, "No harm, no foul."

      I always find your comments interesting at the least and often enlightening , with a unique viewpoint. To quote another meme that's probably outdated ( the only kind I seem to know), its all good.

    • Thanks for the reply gamal but its apparent that I didn't make my point very clearly. I understand what is being called "intersectionality".

      The point I was trying to make, albeit poorly, was that I have not heard a similar objection to the effort for Obama to become US President such as that made against Clinton as the "diamond-bejeweled white fist raised towards a glass ceiling which prevents privileged women from achieving the presidency of the world’s largest hypermilitarized imperial power."

      Both Obama, a black man and Clinton, a white woman, are both privileged, not because of their race or gender, but because of their positions of power and wealth that they obtained prior to their run for the Presidency. This is the context in which I called Obama a privileged black man.

      I don't consider the average black man or white woman as being privileged, but rather as unencumbered, respectively, by gender (black men) or race (white women) discrimination. I refuse to consider being unencumbered by discrimination a "privilege" when it is most certainly a human right and not simply a "privilege". Power and wealth are privileges, basic human rights are not.

      Obama's attainment of the Presidency ( of the same world's largest hypermilitarized imperial power", BTW) was for the most part applauded as a symbolic victory against racism and for equality. On the other hand, Clinton's struggle is portrayed here as somehow counter to "real feminism" and a blow for racism and elitism, even though both were campaigns by privileged people to lead a highly privileged country. It is the double standard that I am attempting to point out.

      Just to make clear, I firmly believe that it is much more important and meaningful for Palestinians to achieve their human rights than it is for a symbolic victory by either a black man or a white woman in obtaining the US Presidency.

      My point is that this, as far as I know, is only being brought up when its the goose, so to speak, that is running for the Presidency, when there was silence or acquiescence or outright cheerleading when the gander was doing the same thing.

      I also don't see the two (Palestinian rights and a symbolic victory in the US against race or gender discrimination) as mutually exclusive; although they certainly have not been (under Obama)and will not be( if Clinton attains the Presidency) mutually inclusive either.

      This is why this looks to me like women, and I mean ALL women, not just white women, are expected to fight for everyone else's rights before their own. I don't think that's the way the world should operate. And white women who root for a symbolic victory at the expense of other people's rights should get no more approbation than anyone else who does the same. If you are vocal in speaking out against this when women do it, you must be likewise vocal when others do it, or risk being guilty of the same sin you are blaming on others.

      I hope that helps to clarify what I was trying to say earlier.

    • Page: 22
    • So, did anyone make an "intersectionality" objection when Obama, as a privileged black person, sought to "achieve the presidency of the world's largest hypermilitarized imperial power", or does "intersectionality" only operate in one direction( a one way street, perhaps)? I'd really like an answer to this, because it seems quite hypocritical if this only applies to women. I missed it if the same reasoning was applied with regards to Obama.

  • Six Palestinians killed by Israeli forces over the weekend
  • Barriers to love in Israel and Palestine
    • And I just read an article from from 2013 Haaretz discussing the difficulties that a couple goes through getting permits and permanent residence status, not to mention citizenship, for foreign non-Jewish partners of Jewish Israelis. It appears to be worse for non-white spouses, but even Western European non-Jewish spouses face long waits and a daunting amount of what seems to be totally irrelevant and sometimes non-existent paperwork.

      An excerpt:

      Could the process of granting status to foreigners in Israel be considered racist? The previous interior minister never concealed his opinion that preserving the Jewish character of the country comes first; we have yet to hear the opinion of his successor, Gideon Sa’ar.

      Feller says the answer is complicated. “Israel isn’t the only country whose laws give preference to a specific ethnic group for returning to the country and granting status. Israel is exceptional in that that’s the only policy it has. This leads to a much broader question, namely is the Law of Return racist, and entire books have already written about it.”

      At the same time, the lawyer adds, “Clearly the Interior Ministry makes things difficult, it doesn’t want them here. It sees itself as a watchman at the gate that makes sure there will be as few non-Jews here as possible.”

      Elam: “I once asked someone who was on the side of the Interior Ministry why the ministry often refuses to compromise, even if the judge has clarified that he will rule against it. He replied that what interests the Interior Ministry is time: ‘If the process is supposed to last seven years and it lasts 10, we’ve gained three years. Maybe the couple will give up.’ I know couples who do. ‘Enough, we’re sick of it,’ they say, ‘there’s no more money.’”

      Says A., a former senior official in the population authority who maintains ties to the ministry to this day: “My feeling is that [former Minister] Eli Yishai couldn’t get the policy he wanted: not to accept non-Jews at all. The Justice Ministry wouldn’t have allowed him to do that. So he determined policy by not determining policy. It’s very easy to come to a branch office at the population authority and to tell them what you want, even without determining policy.”
      And when there’s no policy, he adds, “the interpretation is very broad. There’s no consistent policy ... and every official asks himself: ‘If I’m lenient, what happens? I’m likely to make a mistake. On the other hand, if I don’t approve it, will it be transferred to a higher authority?’ An employee who earns a minuscule salary sees 20 people a day and is responsible for their fate. Everything goes to the legal office of the population authority, which determines policy, in effect.”

      “The very fact that I get this runaround − not because my partner is not Israeli but because of his religion − is intolerable,” sums up Ilana. “After all, if he were Jewish he would make aliyah, receive citizenship, money, rights, and that’s the end of the story. Even if the grandmother of his sister’s aunt was Jewish in the distant past − if you have a paper to prove that, that’s it. Many countries have immigration quotas, but the emphasis on religion here is what makes this process so racist. Racism that is directed at anyone who isn’t Jewish − and at me, too, because I’m the one who brought a non-Jew to the State of Israel.”

      read more:

    • One other caveat. Even a Jewish citizen of Israel is not allowed to live in Israel with a Palestinian spouse from the West Bank or Gaza. Both Neta Golan and Allegra Pacheco (both Jewish Israelis) are prohibited from living in Israel with their Palestinian spouses, and so they live with their spouses in the West Bank.

      Of course that too is illegal according to Israeli law. For example, Neta, as an Israeli Jew, is prohibited (by Israel) from entering "Area A" , where she lives in Ramallah with her Palestinian husband and their children, but the enforcement of that law is not as strict as the enforcement of the law prohibiting her husband from living with her in Israel. Its all a matter of maintaining the Jewish "purity" of Israel, so its considered much more important to limit the number of Palestinian citizens of Israel, regardless of the sanctity of marriage, or the desires of Israel's citizens, even the Jewish ones.

  • Oscar swag bag includes ten-day VIP trip to Israel worth $55,000 (Updated)
    • I'd suggest slipping a translated version of the Tel Aviv firm's advertisement for maid service, including the lower fees for black employees, into the goodie bag. That ought to liven up the discussion, particularly this year.

    • Really TBK? You're saying that shareholders control the policies of Sony Entertainment and other media companies and not the CEO's and top executives? Do you really think that Hollywood firms are any different than any other large American company where the day to day as well as the long range planning of company policy is overwhelmingly controlled by its top executives, not by the shareholders? This comment of yours:

      0 out of the 7 corporations that truly own Hollywood have anything more than a small percentage of Jewish shareholder ownership, though several were founded long ago by Jews and Jews remain prominent as executives.

      is either an example of your supreme ignorance of American corporation power structures, or worse, an example of your ability to misrepresent in order to score a point.

      Since you mentioned Sony, do you remember this?

      Leaked Sony emails reveal Hollywood execs efforts to support Israel - See more at:

      The CEO of Sony Entertainment is not Japanese. And producing "Zero Dark Thirty" was not a decision made by Sony shareholders.

  • Bernie Sanders' spirituality is resonating with young religious 'None's
    • its like religion but you don’t inhale

      Funniest, and best, definition of spirituality I've ever encountered!

  • Jewish West Bank settlers are as smug as white South Africans in 1980
    • Shmuel- A specific proposal to prohibit Israelis from entering Western Europe is that what you are proposing?

      Good lord, yonah, do you ever bother to try to understand what others are saying to you? There was no "specific proposal" from Shmuel , just an anecdote about the troubles of a South African woman going through passport control in various Western European countries during the Apartheid period. His anecdote didn't even mention the woman being 'prohibit(ed) ... from entering Western Europe.'

      You seemed to miss the point as usual.

  • The Israeli government is as responsible for Duma murders as those who threw the firebomb
    • Exactly right, Diasp0ra, Chief Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was another Mizrahi Jew of Iraqi ancestry with some nasty bigoted ideas.

      And I think rugal, nee a4tech, comes to us via Spencer Sunshine's Political Research Associates. A troll with a mission.

      Dear Roha,

      Yes, I ought to have said "ought" not "aught". Too late to edit.

    • only a white Rabbi would be saying these things

      Rugal sweetie, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu is Mizrahi. His grandfather was an Iraqi Jew. His father, Mordecai, who had similar genocidal views, was the Chief Sephardic Rabbi in Israel for ten years, until 1993.

      Any human being is capable of vile and hateful thoughts. It doesn't require one to belong to a particular race. To suggest such a thing is itself a racist statement. You really aught to clean up your own racism before lecturing the rest of us here on how progressive you are.

  • Israeli group Ad Kan continues attacks on anti-occupation activists with 'expose' of Anarchists Against the Wall
    • Basically what they said!

      And right back atcha, diasp0ra. You probably phrased it better than I did.

    • There is no such thing as a Jewish privilege.

      Bullshit. Israel was built on an ideology of Jewish privilege. My sister was welcomed there because she was Jewish, not because she was white. If she had come as an avowed Christian she would not have the privileges she has now.

      Your ideology is transparently simplistic. Saying there is not Jewish privilege in Israel, only white privilege, is akin to claiming that there is no male privilege, only white privilege. As if a dual system of privilege can not exist, when they certainly can and do.

      You also seem to think that only one system of racial privilege- white privilege- exists in the world. You need to get out in the world more and notice that systems of privilege exist in many places... even (gasp!) among non-white populations of the world. Every human society is capable of prejudice and systems of privilege. To reduce everything down to white privilege is in fact a racist belief as well as incredibly lazy thinking.

      In Israel the primary determinant of privilege is Jewishness. A black Jew has more privilege than a white Palestinian in Israel. And a black Ethiopian Jew has more privilege than a black Sudanese refugee who can't claim any Jewishness. To deny this Jewish privilege is to deny reality.

  • Updated: Former French Justice Minister should face questions in NY about law barring BDS speech
    • Hi ex-pat. My understanding of the laws and their scope comes from comments and links made by Hostage. See here for some of his comments on the subject:

      My understanding of the 1976 anti-boycott amendments to the Export Administration Act and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1977 Tax Reform Act, garnered from his comments and links, is that it only applies to persons or companies complying with foreign boycotts of Israel, most specifically the Arab boycott.

      It prohibits complying with certain foreign requests to comply with the Arab boycott of Israeli goods when participating the import of goods into Arab countries. When Hostage mentioned that "transnational businesses figured out how to game the system a long time ago", my understanding of that statement, gleaned from his links, is that these companies can bypass the law by stating that they are simply complying with the legal requirements of entry into the port of said Arab country, without explicitly mentioning the boycott provisions of that country, or, alternatively, by positively certifying the imported freight's country of origin to said Arab country (if that origin is other than Israel) rather than negatively certifying that its origin is Not Israel.

      In any case, both amendments refer to complying with foreign countries' boycotts, specifically the Arab countries' boycott of Israel. They do nothing to prohibit a civic boycott against Israel (or any other country) based on its violation of international law and it poor human rights record . That is why no anti-BDS organization has attempted to use them against BDS. They just don't apply in the case of BDS.

      I hope that helps to answer your question.

      This link of hostage's was very helpful to me in understanding the scope of the two amendments:

    • You're welcome, Mooser.

      Just a side note but every time you put quotes around my name I have a minor existential crisis that I may not really be here. ;-) You can call me tree.

    • BTW, this is one reason why the PA does not itself call for a boycott of Israel and the plea comes from Palestinian civil society instead. There is a fear that direct PA sanction or call would trigger the two 70's era US laws.

    • No, your statement is incorrect. It is only illegal in the US for a company to enter into an agreement with the Arab League, or any foreign county, to boycott Israeli goods without prior US sanction for such boycott. It is not illegal for any US resident to decide to boycott Israeli goods on his/ her own volition, nor is it illegal for such citizen/resident to advocate that others boycott Israel, hence it does not "penalize civil appeals not to buy Israeli goods".

      The applicable law you are incorrectly referring to is here:

  • Among the settlers
    • "Mooser is pronouncing it the way Zionists pronounce “Hamas”. "

      I thought it was a combination of chutzpah and huevos.

      Cheuvos. If it isn't a word already, maybe it should be. We can give Mooser credit for adding to the English language.

  • British Parliamentarians pay homage to Dick Cheney during debate over ISIS
    • I doubt they would also erect a statue of Powell and Rice to commemorate their contributions to the allied foreign policy.

      The British didn't erect a statue of Cheney either.

      You didn't read the article, did you? You just looked at the headline and the picture and assumed the statue was something that the British erected. Wrong. The statue was the most recent addition to the long line of busts of US vice presidents, commissioned by the US. Every past Vice President gets one eventually. This was explained in the first two paragraphs:

      "On 3rd December 2015 at the United States Capitol in Washington a statue was unveiled in honor of Richard “Dick” Cheney, former vice President to George W. Bush. In line with all other past vice-presidents a marble bust will now rest alongside all other United States vice-Presidents.

      Coincidentally, the previous day witnessed the British parliament, specifically the House of Commons, inadvertently honor Cheney..."

      Reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit.

  • African asylum seekers fear for safety with racism on the rise in Israeli society
    • I’d say it’s firmly based in historical experience.

      So hophmi, does that mean that if a Palestinian believed in eternal and irrational Israeli Jewish bigotry against them you wouldn't be the first one to cry "Anti-semite!" or even claim that the belief was anti-semitic at all?

      After all, it would be "firmly based in historical (as well as personal) experience".

    • late edit:

      "And yet in actuality a small number of German Jewish children were brought to the US, but no British children were" is incorrect. Should read, "In actuality the number of German Jewish children brought to the US was roughly equivalent to the small number of British children brought here",

    • No, Froggy, it is you who are mistaken, and if you read your own quoted passage you will realize that Mooser was right in saying that the quotas set in 1921 and then toughened in 1924 were quotas by country.

      What you are citing is a bill to MAKE AN EXCEPTION to the country (or "national") quota for immigrants from Germany based on the suffering of Jewish German children, allowing them to come to the US regardless of the numeric limitations of the quotas. It didn't pass but that didn't mean that German Jewish refugees weren't allowed into the US in excess of the country quota for German immigrants.

      I'll quote an earlier post of mine rather than rehash yet again what I said earlier on this subject:

      The US never barred foreign Jews from entering the country on the basis of their religion.

      It did erect quotas in the 1920's which severely limited immigration from Southern and Eastern European countries, enacted during a post WWI era of WASP nativism and anti-communist hysteria. It was just as much of a blow to Catholic immigrants as it was to Jewish ones in the 1920's. German immigration was limited as well, but not as much as Southern and Eastern European immigration. Asian immigrants were barred completely and earlier Chinese immigrants to the US were barred from ever obtaining US citizenship. Its totally Judeocentric to describe the US immigration policy at the time as particularly biased against Jews. It wasn't.

      And as I have mentioned before, despite the quotas and restrictions, here and elsewhere during the Great Depression, between 1933 and 1940 some 432,000 German Jews, nearly two thirds of the Jews in Greater Germany (Germany and Austria with over 700,000 Jews) were able to immigrate to other countries in Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. It should be noted that up until late 1939, the only Jews who were believed to be in danger from the Nazis were the ones in Nazi Germany. Few if any thought that Nazi Germany would soon control much of Europe outside of its own borders.

      The US alone took in at least 126,000 German Jews during this time. Some 90,000 were admitted from 1934-1939, with nearly half of those coming in 1939 (with numbers in excess of the US quota for German immigrants) and with an additional 36,000 in 1940. In fiscal year 1939, Jewish immigration to the US totaled 44,000 out of a total of ALL US immigrants from any country or religion, of 83,000. In other words, more than 1 out of every two immigrants to the US in 1939 were Jewish. In fiscal year 1940, US allowed in a sum total of 71,000 immigrants, and 36,000 of them were Jews.

      Data on number of Jewish immigrants to the US and elsewhere found here, from the American Jewish Committee, which kept records on Jewish immigration:

      Please, this idea that the US didn't allow in Jews is false. The US certainly could have done more, but it didn't do "nothing", and it did more for Jewish refugees prior to and during WWII than it did for any other of the millions of refugees of the time. Jews were not the only ones suffering during this time.

      - See more at:

      (I might suggest reading some of my other posts under the same link, as they elaborate somewhat on this topic.)

      As for your example of the planned evacuation of British children in 1940, it should be noted that Great Britain had the highest immigration quota under the 1924 Immigration Act, and bringing British children into the US in 1940 did not require upping that generous quota, as did the proposed Wagner-Rogers Bill. And yet in actuality a small number of German Jewish children were brought to the US, but no British children were.

      Again, during the 1939-1940 time frame the number of Jewish refugees allowed into the US exceeded the country quotas, and with 80,000 Jewish immigrants out of a total of all US immigrants of 154,000 , 52% of the all US immigrants in these two critical years were Jewish.

  • 'Netanyahu at War' on PBS was dreadful but not without interest
    • To say...

      Wow, two whole paragraphs to misquote Roha while saying absolutely nothing of substance at all! ( And a negation of first paragraph in the second paragraph.) Sunshine must be proud!

      Please don’t be so ignorant and make such outrageous statements.

      I'd suggest you rework that sentence and make it your daily affirmation, rugal. Stand in front of the mirror each morning and repeat: "I will not be so ignorant nor make outrageous statements today." It might help.

  • Facebook censors cartoon critical of Israel
    • BTW, according to the Observer the "Stop Israelis" FB page has now been closed by FB.

      The pages were both opened on 12/29, self-reported on 12/31, with, according to Shurat Hadin, the "Stop Palestine" page closed that day, and, according to the Observer, the "Stop Israelis" page closed on 1/6 or before. It looks like the Observer was the only news source that actually checked to see if the "Stop Israelis" page still existed as claimed by Shurat Hadin.

      Also, if you view the video made by Shurat Hadin the two accounts do not have "identical" posts as claimed, but simply similar ones, and the video also equates incitement against Israelis with incitement against Jews. It claims that there was only one difference between them, claiming one incited against palestinians (sic, they didn't capitalize the term) and one inciting against Jews (capitalized of course), and yet the title of the page was "Stop Israelis". I guess to Shurat Hadin, Israelis=Jews since they are the only Israelis who count for them.

      They also claimed the videos and pictures and posts were identical though of course they weren't as they couldn't be. Examples, using SH's English translations verbatim:

      "The Zionist bite palestine part after part and the world is silence. we'll stop them on any way we can." with the 4 maps of the disappearing Palestine posted on the Stop Israelis page.

      "Greater land israel should return soon from the hands of the muslim enemy back to jewish sovereignty! we'll do it in any way we can."
      accompanied by a satellite picture that shows a part of the Middle East including Israel, Jordan, and parts of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

      These are not "identical" posts. The only thing identical between the two is the short phrase "any way we can".

      Next example they cite:

      "Today more than ever the Zionist army uses violence against palestinien kids. These children will liberate palestine with blood and fire and demolish the zionist invaders!", accompanied by a picture of an unarmed young girl raising her fist against an armed Israeli soldier who looks bemused and is surrounded by many other smiling Israeli soldiers.

      The "identical" post? "More and more soldiers in the israeli army knows that there is a need to destroy the arab enemy. We are ready for war against the enemy!" accompanied by a picture from the neck down of an Israeli soldier displaying a rifle of some sort in what looks like his barracks, with writing on his chest. ( Exhibiting solidarity with an Israeli soldier who was lightly reprimanded for shooting an unarmed Palestinian, as occurred on Israeli FB pages a while back?).

      Not identical at all.

      Only the next posts seem to have a close similarity as they respectively state "Death to the jews" or "Death to the arabs".

      As mentioned before, both have now been taken down, and Shurat HaDin has been dishonest in claiming they were "identical" when they clearly were not.

  • Sick of Zionism’s stranglehold on Jewish culture? There is an alternative.
  • Why are American pro-Palestinian voices silent about the brutal war on Yemen?
    • I suggest that you read up on what happened in Vietnam. Not many Israelis there but there was genocide and the use of chemical weapons. .

      Yes, and it ended without the US ruling class being overthrown.

      As did de jure segregation of the Jim Crow South, and some de facto segregation in the rest of the country. As did the Korean War and Apartheid in South Africa, etc, etc. And lo and behold the US ruling class is still here. So its possible to make things better without some pie in the sky "revolution", and frankly, my experience with quite a few Marxists online and in person, who can't seem to carry on a coherent argument without insulting and belittling other people, makes me very leery of putting any of them in a position of power. Meet the new boss...

      If its possible to end individual oppressions, and it is, then let people who wish to do so, do so. Pursue your battle with the ruling class if you wish, but don't demean people for trying to do what they can to help others, including Palestinians.

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

      It’s the second set of tweets here: link to where another user asks who is disagreeing/altercating with Bethany so he can ‘square up and fight’. Bethany responds excitedly that she is sending that user the names of those people. In fact, when asked about it, she admits that she DID send that user names, but that “it was obviously just a joke” (that’s me paraphrasing here but her real quote was along those lines).

      - See more at:

      From your link: Koval said she did message the girl's name to L_Chevere, a classmate, "but of course it didn't go farther. She didn't even know the girl"

      Your explanation about the vice principal intervening because of the tweet you mentioned could make some sense here EXCEPT that the girl that tweeted Bendy that she was "ready for a fight" was a classmate of Bendy's at the same school (according to your own link above) and yet she was apparently not called in to the vice principal's office. If this was a concern about "bullying" because of a "threat" of a fight, then certainly the classmate who made this comment should have been called in as well, or even called in first.

      The vice principal clearly states, while pressuring Bendy to make a statement, that if she doesn't make a statement it will be only the complaining student's word on the record, which to me indicates that the issue that the vice principal was addressing had nothing to do with the direct message Bendy made to another student and friend and had more to do with he political statements. Otherwise there woud be a statement from the friend she DM'd as well.

  • Not the only 'proud Palestinian' in the family--Gigi Hadid's father details refugee history in Syria
    • Interesting information to know, Stephen. Thanks.

      My post was simply a supposition about motives, based on the fact that there were a few instances prior to 1948 of Jews having their homes or lives threatened if they didn't monetarily support the Jewish terrorists or if they were suspected of informing the British on them.

      A few examples, from a list of terrorist acts enumerated here:

      October 2, 1946, Tel Aviv. British military units and police seized 50 Jews in a Tel Aviv cafe after a Jewish home was blown up. This home belonged to a Jewish woman who had refused to pay extortion money to the Irgun terrorist gang


      March 10, 1947, Haifa. A Jew, suspected of being an informer, was murdered by Jewish terrorists.


      May 8, 1947, Tel Aviv. ... three Jewish-owned Tel Aviv shops whose owners refused to contribute money to Jewish terrorist groups were burned down.


      August 18, 1947, Palestine. The shops of five Jewish merchants in Tel Aviv were destroyed by the Irgun because the owners refused to give money to that organization.

    • Not to justify it in any way, but by way of possible explanation, it might be relevant to remember that while Britain controlled the number of Jewish immigrants allowed into Palestine, subject to the carrying capacity of the economy, the identity of those actually given immigration permits were controlled by the Zionist agencies. They had selection criteria that were based on good health, young age (but not too young so as to be a burden), acceptance of the Zionist ideology, and ability to contribute to the building of the Jewish economy in Palestine. The immigrants were not typical Jewish refugees, which is why they were called "settlers" by the Zionists in Palestine. This selection criteria were in effect all the way up to 1950, when the Knesset passed the Law of Return. (Which was passed not to help Jews in the diaspora, but to allow the Knesset to give citizenship rights to every Jew who was in the newly created Israel at the time while delaying any conferring of citizenship on the Palestinian inhabitants of Israel..- see Shria Robinson's "Citizen Strangers".)

      Also , as an additional point, there were situations where Jews in Palestine were extorted by Zionist terrorist groups to provide monetary and political support for them, and Jews who bucked the Zionist system faced possible "revenge" from fellow Jews. Its possible that these people were simply acting under pressure from other Zionist Jews. If so, these individual acts of expulsion of their benefactors were cowardly acts of course, but given the horrible overall Zionist ethnic cleansing, might have been the only act they could have taken without endangering their own lives. When push comes to shove its a rare human who will stand up for what's right at considerable cost to themselves.

      Of course they could have just been committed Zionists who bought the ideology that all of Palestine belongs to them, and any non-Jewish others are not important.

  • Israeli ambassador flings Nazi label at Israeli leaders, after latest authoritarian step
    • ” but for example Haifa was almost 90% evacuated before any Jewish military groups even arrived. (link to

      - See more at:

      Zaid did a good job of disproving Greg's statements, but if I could I'd like to add a bit about this particular statement of Greg's and how it shows his utter lack of knowledge of the subject. His link to the Jewish Virtual Library goes to an online version of Mitchell Bard's "Myths and Facts" which is a dishonest propaganda piece.

      But even given that, Greg is too ignorant to understand what was said in that link and what it meant. ( Of course the other possibility is that he simply thought we were too ignorant to recognize a bald-faced lie, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.) His link claimed to quote a news article in the Economist from October 1948, which mentioned that there were only 5 to 6 thousand Palestinians left in Haifa at that time. Greg used that to claim that 90% of Haifa's Palestinian population had "evacuated before any Jewish military groups arrived."

      Jewish military forces were in Haifa from December of the year prior (1947) and were engaged in skirmishes and terrorist acts that led to the departure of 10 to 15 thousand of Haifa's 70 thousand or so Palestinian residents. When the British pulled back and announced they would no long intervene to keep order on April 21st, 1948(they'd given the Haganah two days notice of their planned withdrawal), the Haganah attacked and took control of the city, causing most of Haifa's Palestinian population to flee for their lives, and many others to leave within weeks because of the looting and destruction of their homes and livelihoods, as well as the forced evictions and their relocation into ghettos in Haifa. This is why there were only 5 to 6 thousand Palestinians left in Haifa In October 1948 ( that's 6 months LATER, Greg), and its believed that the only reason that this small number were not likewise expelled was because they were needed to work in the Haifa Oil Refinery, which was then controlled by Israel.

      Greg, if you really think there were no Jewish troops deployed in Haifa before October 1948 then your ignorance is overwhelming. I suggest you stop reading Bard's propaganda and actually read some scholarly books. And try questioning what you read, because you seem incapable of doing that. Most everything you have posted here since your very first comment has been incorrect.

    • @diasp0ra “Greg, do you think Zionists have more right to a home than Palestinians?”

      That is a very good question.

      - See more at:

      And then he goes on for several paragraphs avoiding giving an answer to the "very good question". Why is the question good, but you can't give an answer, Greg?

  • 'Israel is ours'-- Dermer's settlement gift puts spotlight on Ahava
  • Israeli settlers at a wedding party cheer burning of Palestinian baby
    • The Palestinian cause is not edified by their repeated violence (going back to the 1920 Nebi Musa riots) which means Israel has no choice but to adopt its steadfast position

      The early Zionists' "steadfast position" (i.e. violence) predated the Nebi Musa riot in 1920. The JNF was already forcibly removing non-Jewish tenant farmers from purchased land, in violation of the tenant farmers' rights. The second aliyah, from 1904 to 1914, had already developed the ideology of the "conquest of land" and the "conquest of labor" which involved the forcible removal of Arab non-Jewish laborers from Jewish colonies and businesses, and the boycotting of non-Jewish produce and products.

      I'll quote yet again David Hacohen, an early Zionist and later a leader of the Mapai party.

      I remember being one of the first of our comrades to go to London after the First World War … There I became a socialist … When I joined the socialist students – English, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, African – we found that we were all under English domination or rule.

      And even here, in these intimate surroundings, I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there. … To pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the Kereen Kayemet [Jewish Fund] that sent Hanlon to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi [landlords] and to throw the fellahin[peasants] off the land – to buy dozens of dunams 12 from an Arab is permitted, but to sell, God forbid, one Jewish dunam to an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild, the incarnation of capitalism, as a socialist and to name him the “benefactor” – to do all that was not easy. And despite the fact that we did it – maybe we had no choice – I wasn’t happy about it 13.
      - See more at:

      Zionist colonialism was not the result of any actions by the indigenous Palestinians. The ideology was already in force way before 1920.

    • Not only has he denied it, but a high ranking Israeli police officer and psychologist who interviewed him numerous times believes his denial, and bases it partly on forensic reports that the child was shot.

      From a Haaretz article from 2009:

      You also met with Samir Kuntar of the Palestine Liberation Front, who murdered members of the Haran family in Nahariya and was released as part of the deal with Hezbollah that brought back the bodies of the two abducted soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

      "We turned Kuntar into God-knows-what - the murderer of Danny Haran and his daughter, Einat. The man who smashed in the girl's head. That's nonsense. A story. A fairy tale. He told me he didn't do it and I believe him. I investigated the event within the framework of the next book I am writing, about hostage-taking incidents. As far as I am concerned, it was no more than a newspaper report. I sat with him; he was very intelligent. He was a squad commander at 17. He told me that his motive for infiltrating Nahariya was to take hostages. He said [his organization] knew that would both humiliate Israel and get them media publicity.

      "He told me: 'If I had wanted to kill Danny and his daughter, I would have shot them in the house. I took them to the boat because I wanted hostages. I had no interest in hurting them. After I got them into the boat, wild gunfire started and I went back to help my squad on the shore. Danny, the father, kept shouting, "Stop firing, you crazy people." He and his daughter were found shot in the boat. I was on a small rise, shooting at your forces, and the boat was 20 meters away in the water, with Danny and the girl.'"

      So you say that Kuntar did not murder Haran and his daughter?

      "That is what he says, and in my opinion there is support for the fact that they were killed by fire from the Israeli rescue forces. You can accuse him all you like, but it was obviously the rescue forces that opened fire. There were all kinds of legends about Kuntar. People also said that he would return to being a terrorist [after his release]. Nonsense. He told me then explicitly that he would not go back to terrorism, that he was too old to execute operations - and that's also clear. For the same reason, I see no problem in releasing terrorists with blood on their hands in return for [kidnapped soldier] Gilad Shalit. I get the feeling the country is waiting for his body.

  • 2015 in Pictures: What Mondoweiss Showed The World
    • Max ,

      If you can't bother to read the links I provided which prove my points, why bother pretending you want proof? Try clicking if you really want to know, which I seriously doubt you do.

    • Apologies to Roha. Sometimes I can't help myself.

    • Let’s take a look at the violence and hatred in each photo from left to right. Top left, staged photo of hurt girl, obligatory. second from left we see smuggling weapons through a terror tunnel to attack innocent civilians and commit murder, next two show violent confrontation with Israeli forces, last on the right for the first row is a fallacy as the greenhouses left for gazans when Jews were ethnically cleansed from Gaza were destroyed and the tubing used to make rockets.

      Swallowing propaganda whole certainly interferes with your rational thinking, Max Narr.

      First photo, I suppose you think that 6 year old girls hit with stones are normally quite happy about the whole thing. 'What fun, I'm being pelted by Israeli settlers who think I'm trash and they can get away with anything! What a laugh riot! But the camera wants me to be upset. Brushes with injury and death are just so enjoyable, how will I ever look upset?' (You're sick. Your comment is a symptom of your sickness.)

      Second photo: I thought you hasbarists only called the tunnels into Israel "terror tunnels", or does the new (post Protective Edge) appellation now apply to tunnels from Egypt to Gaza, the ones that are used to provide food and other necessities to Gaza? I suppose for racists like you the thought of Palestinians having adequate food and shelter is "terrifying', right?

      BTW, that's not a weapon in the tunnel. Its a sump pump, used to pump the salt water that Egypt has been flooding the tunnels with. But I suppose facts are not necessary when you live and breathe Zionist propaganda.

      Photos 3 and 4:

      Both are the results of the IDF storming into Palestinian areas and firing tear gas. NOt exactly a kumbaya moment on their part. The first is from Aida refugee camp and the second is someone in Bilin holding spent IDF tear gas canisters after their weekly protest over the theft of their land.
      I suppose you think that the Palestinians' reaction should be to grovel and thank the IDF for storming in and polluting their homes and lungs with noxious gas, but believe it or not that not a typical human response to such violence.

      Photo 5: On this one your response is stupid on several different levels.

      I'll overlook the stupidity of the "ethnic cleansing" remark. Standard idiotic hasbara which means nothing except that you think that stealing something gives you some right to keep it, if you're Jewish of course.

      First stupidity: The "destruction of the Gaza greenhouses" you mention is a fallacy that has been debunked years ago.

      Note that both the MW piece and my linked comment cite several sources for the debunking, including the NY Times, Associated Press, and the Boston Herald.

      In summation :

      Some Israeli settlers dismantled some of the greenhouses and equipment prior to the disengagement. This was the first looting, done by Israelis, who had been paid to leave the equipment intact. Then about ten percent of the equipment in the former Israeli greenhouses in Gaza was looted by some Palestinians immediately after the disengagement, mostly by stealing plastic irrigation pipe, plastic sheeting, and water pumps .The greenhouses themselves were not destroyed. The destruction caused by both looting incidents was repaired within a month or so by the Palestinians and the greenhouses were up and running within 2 months. They were not destroyed. They exist today.

      So your insistence that there are no greenhouses in Gaza because they were all "destroyed" in 2005 just shows your complete ignorance.

      And then there is stupidity #2: The tubing looted from the greenhouses was plastic. Metal piping doesn't work well in greenhouses because of the high humidity there, and besides metal piping is needlessly expensive to use in greenhouses and requires expensive joints and elbows because its doesn't have the flexibility of plastic.

      Plastic tubing, on the other hand, while great for greenhouses, is useless in an explosive rocket. It wasn't looted to "make rockets", it was taken to be used in Palestinian greenhouses and agricultural fields that existed at the time. I don't know who convinced you that the plastic tubing was used to make rockets but whoever it was must have rejoiced at your supreme gullibility. Next thing you know you'll be telling us Palestinians make rockets out of chickpeas. Fear the hummus power!

      And finally, stupidity #3: The picture wasn't even taken in Gaza, Apparently you think that no greenhouses exist in either Gaza or the West Bank. As I said, you're extremely gullible.

      The photo was taken in Tulkarm, West Bank.

      Question for you, Max. The article linked immediately aove mentions that three times the IDF took (looted would be a good word) the plastic roofing on the Tneebs' greenhouse. Do you think the IDF used the plastic sheeting to make missiles or mortars? Or are you only gullible when it comes to believing lies about Palestinians?

  • The most memorable stories of 2015
    • Well, I'm sure that by a4tech's logic (hmm,is that an oxymoron?) all Allison's are the same. Deger, Weir, whatever, they are all whites so they all share an evil ideology.

      Clue for a4tech , Allison Deger is Mondoweiss' reporter on the scene in Israel/Palestine. Not to be confused with...

      And BTW, Allison Weir's "problematic selection" consists of consenting to interviews with anyone who wishes one and her detractors had to go back to a single interview in 2009 to hang her for what the interviewer said, not what she said. Meanwhile, JVP, on the other hand, which claims to have "zero-tolerance" for racists, accepted the invitation from J-Street, a Zionist organization, to present at their conference in 2011. "Zero tolerance for racists, except Zionists" is their type of "problematic selection" of target audience. An organization in a glass house throwing stones. Weir doesn't adopt a "biased narrative" but you do, a4tech.

  • Roger Cohen and Jeremy Ben-Ami go on the road for the two-state solution
    • Right. Any Christian who feels persecuted can just hop on a plane to any Christian country and he will be given instant citizenship as soon as he gets there. - See more at:

      Yep, Hophmi just managed to prove that Jews are given something that neither Christians nor Muslims are ever given. To quote the man himself, "That's called ignorant bigotry."

    • Spoken like a person from a country where more than 9 out every 10 Jews died between 1939 and 1945.

      Spoken like a heartless jerk defending a country that ethnically cleansed 8 to 9 out of every 10 Palestinian non-Jews in 1948.

      You really could learn something from Poland. Poles had their own country. It didn't stop Germany and the Soviet Union from both invading it in 1939, nor did it stop Poland from having 3 million of its resident Poles murdered. Note: I am excluding the Polish Jews for this number, since you claim that Polish Jews didn't have a country of their own.

      Nor did having its own country mean Poland wasn't under the sway of the stronger Soviet Union for 40 years after that. "Having your own country" isn't all its cracked up to be. Ask the Iraqis, ... or even the Japanese. When Japan declared war on the US, US citizens of Japanese ancestry didn't get to "return" to Japan. They got interned in the US. If Israel ever did something particularly heinous towards the US, its not going to be a preferred destination for anyone wishing to avoid the blowback. "Having a country" is not always considered a positive, especially if that country does despicable things. Individuals often get unfairly blamed for what "their country" did.

    • Better than the BDS movement, which leaves the Holocaust out of its historical timeline completely.

      So you seriously think that lying about the Palestinians in the "Maps" timeline is better than not mentioning the Holocaust in a non-existent BDS timeline? Lying is better. Got it. Sums up Zionism in one sentence.

      Or are you just paid to mention BDS in a derogatory way at least once in every thread?

    • History shows us that Jews as a minority eventually end up persecuted.

      Jews aren't persecuted in the US, where they are clearly a small minority.

      Modern history has shown us that Jews as a majority end up persecuting Palestinians. Perhaps they aren't ready for the responsibilities of majority status. Israeli Jews still want to be considered a minority that must be catered to by other countries, while acting the part of majority bullies in Israel.

  • Israel should give back the Golan
    • You should know better than that.

      Ha! My bad.

      Merry Christmas, from a non-believer who nevertheless enjoys the holiday!

    • The Iraqi , Yemeni and Moroccan Jews living in Israel are as much refugees as the Palestinians living in the West bank and Lebanon in that their forbears were persecuted and that they would not be allowed to return.

      This is a false statement because Iraqi, Yemeni and Moroccan Jews are NOT prohibited from returning if they so wish. In contrast to Iraq, which has been politically and economically destroyed by the US' war on it, or Yemen, which is desperately poor and also embroiled in violence, neither of which are good destinations for Israeli emigrants, Morocco has actually seen some Jews return, including some with Israeli citizenship and the Moroccan King has personally urged the former Moroccan Jews to return. Although concrete numbers are hard to find, the Moroccan Jewish population has gone from around 3000 in the early 2000's to around 5000 in 2015.

      A few articles you might want to read about Morocco and Israel:

      I have included only articles from sources which are somewhat pro-Zionist, under the assumption that someone like you who has swallowed Zionist propaganda whole (e.g. "no Palestine") would not believe other sources, no matter how factual. If I am wrong in this, I can include additional sources.

      Snippet from article above:

      Sometimes I would reveal that I’m Jewish — it is my dream, after all, to someday attend one of Morocco’s iconic Jewish pilgrimages, a hiloula. This admission was met with one of three responses: an urging to come back and go to the great hiloula of Ouazarzate; an apology or regret for the treatment and exodus of Moroccan Jews in the 1950s and 1960s; or, most frequently, a narration of the Jewish facilities still available in Morocco today. These stories were occasionally punctuated by mentions of the Jews they had met — locals, French, Israelis — or of the Moroccan-Jewish singer Neta Elkayam.

      Nowadays, Morocco has roughly 5,000 Jews, and thousands of Israelis and other Jews of Moroccan descent visit every year. But in the 1950s and 1960s, many Moroccan Jews did face great difficulty, and freedom of Jewish practice was only strengthened in the recent constitution. Morocco’s human rights record leaves much to be desired, and fundamentalists continue to seek (and have harmed) the Kingdom. Yet I was struck by the openness of Moroccans to their Jewish brethren — and to the very idea of their existence.,7340,L-4350488,00.html

      Snippet from ynet article above:

      At its peak in the 1950s, there were an estimated 300,000 Jews in Morocco out of a population of some eight million.

      With the establishment of Israel and the encouragement of Zionists, Morocco's Jews left. Some went for religious reasons to seek the long promised land, some for a better life than in economically troubled post-colonial Morocco, still others who feared persecution.

      Unlike elsewhere in the Arab world, the creation of Israel did not spark widespread animosity or attacks on Jews. There were isolated incidents but no national campaign. Many Jews left, however, after being told by Zionist agents they were in danger, said Rehihil. [Note> Zhor Rehihil is the curator of the Museum for Moroccan Judaism in Casablanca.]

      "Each time there was an Arab-Israeli war, there would be tensions and the Jews would become afraid and some more would leave," she said, adding that most had left by the 1973 war.


      The Moroccan Jews in the film do look back fondly on how well they got on with their Muslim neighbors and lament the daily violence and hatred that characterize the tense relations in Israel today with the Palestinians.

      About 1 million Jews of Moroccan origin now live in Israel. Some 50,000 Israelis – many of them Moroccan – visit Morocco every year, said Sam Ben Chetrit, the head of the World Federation of Moroccan Jewry, who moved to Israel from Morocco in 1963.

      Ben Chetrit said that on a visit last year, "we were told (by legislators) `we are happy you are here, this is your home, but make sure you bring your children too.'"

      As I see it, Israel is responsible for both the Palestinian refugees and the emigrants from Arab countries, only a portion of which would fit the definition of refugee. By creating a state which claimed to represent all Jews everywhere, and which also ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of non-Jews from its territory and encouraged, sometimes through clandestine violence, hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews to emigrate to Israel, it created an enmity between Arab Jews and non-Jews, which it used for its own racist purposes, while treating its Arab Jewish immigrants as second class citizens below the Israeli Ashkenazi Jews.

      From the Wikipedia entry on Moroccan Jews:

      In June 1948, soon after Israel was established and in the midst of the first Arab-Israeli war, riots against Jews broke out in Oujda and Djerada, and in Alcazarquivir killing 44 Jews. In 1948-9, 18,000 Jews left the country for Israel. After this, Jewish emigration continued (to Israel and elsewhere), but slowed to a few thousand a year. Through the early 1950s, Zionist organizations encouraged emigration, particularly in the poorer south of the country, seeing Moroccan Jews as a valuable source of labor for the Jewish State, despite the view of much of Israel's Ashkenazi elite that the Moroccans were "poor human material."[61]


      The Six-Day War in 1967 led to increased Arab-Jewish tensions worldwide including in Morocco. By 1971, its Jewish population was down to 35,000; however, most of this new wave of emigration went to Europe and North America rather than Israel. France for a time was a destination particularly for Moroccan Jews with European educations, who had economic opportunities there; one study of Moroccan Jewish brothers, one of whom settled in France and the other in Israel, showed that 28 percent of the brothers who settled in France became managers, businessmen or professionals (compared to 13 percent of their Israeli brothers) and only 4 percent unskilled workers (compared to over a third of their Israeli brothers).[63] Moroccan Jews in Israel, far more numerous, enjoyed less upward mobility: 51 percent were blue-collar in 1961 and 54 percent as late as 1981.[64]

      Additional note: You might be interested in this article from the Forward:

      Honoring the Moroccan King Who Saved the Jews

      The line to enter New York City’s B’nai Jeshurun synagogue on Sunday night went around the block.

      But the 700 people who crowded the sidewalk on West 88th street weren’t there for services. Or for a wedding. Or a late-night bar mitzvah.

      They came to celebrate a king — a Moroccan king, to be exact.

      The ceremony, organized by the KIVUNIM: The Institute for World Jewish Studies as part of their three-day 10th anniversary conference, celebrated the creation of The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. – Rabbi Abraham Heschel Award and its first recipient, the late King Mohammed V of Morocco, who protected the country’s 250,000 Jews from the occupying Vichy French forces and the Nazis during World War II.

  • Terrorism is an understandable response to west's wars in Middle East, realist and left writers say
    • Let’s keep things in context. We are talking about the legality of rape and abuse of slaves within societies when these institutions were still prevalent. In Islamic societies, slavery comes with its own strict regulations and laws, that prevented slaves and slave-owners ending up in situations that were analogous in the chattel slavery of the west. - See more at:


      No, you are moving the goalposts. You claimed that because there were laws on the books, that therefore slavery in Arab and African empires were not as bad as chattel slavery in the New World. You even attempted to make it sound idyllic, which is the height of bigotry on your part. I suggest you look up the Zanj rebellion, which you appear not to have heard of, and even ignored when gamal brought it up. Agricultural slaves had it worse than household slaves. That's a given whether in the Old South or Abassid era Basra. Whether the later slavery was worse than the earlier one is hard to say and no doubt varied with the particular slaveholder. We have much more info on the later one than the earlier one. In any case they were both slavery and whitewashing either one is a bigoted act on your part.

      During the White Slave Trade of the 8th to 15th centuries, young Eastern European women and boys were kidnapped and sold as concubines and eunuchs for Arab elites. If you want to pretend that this was some kind of consensual act on the part of these young women and boys then you are guilty of the same whitewashing you are accusing others of. The laws may have existed, but that doesn't mean they were always followed, as I pointed out. A young woman sold as a concubine may have theoretically been able to refuse to perform the acts for which she was sold but the alternative of being cast out in a foreign land made the "consent" far from freely given, if she even knew she had such a right. And I won't even start on the "consensual" eunuchs.

      It's the same "noble savage" crap that you tried to pull with Native Americans, who, contrary to your assertion, did not all live in peaceful acceptance of one another, which you would know if you had any knowledge at all (yeah, the "Squaw Nation", you know a lot about them).

      Every human is capable of doing horrible things, regardless of their ethnicity, race, or religion. And likewise every human can be subject to horrendous mistreatment, again regardless of their ethnicity, race or religion. This "your group is so much worse than my group" crap is just racist crap, and you indulge in it to excess. Why not address the problem instead of making up reasons to hate people based on their ethnicity, which just makes the problem worse. Your attitude is part of the problem. It isn't any nobler to hate on whites than it is to hate on blacks.

      And by the way, 10% of the Englishmen counted in the Domesday Book were slaves (and they were white). If you acknowledge them, and the other kidnapped and captured "whites" then there is no race that has not been subject to slavery, and your comment to Zaid is just another ill-informed bigoted comment on your part.

    • Even though your insinuation of the prevalence of rape and by extension, misogyny in the Arab world is idiotic and frankly racist, I will nevertheless try to enlighten you of the fact. Rape i.e. the initiation of sexual contact with any unwilling person, has been most unlawful in all of Arab societies post-Islam. - See more at:

      Rape is unlawful in all Western countries. I guess that means you think it doesn't exist in any of these countries either.

      And misogyny has been a universal human failing. I don't see why you should think that Arabs, or Muslims, as a group, are any more perfect human beings than anyone else, even those horrible "white people", Mr. Google Muslim (hat tip to gamal).

    • Jumping into the fray, I've got to say that both Dabkr and zaid are incorrect on points here. There was an earlier slave trade than the Trans-Atlantic one, in which the Arab world, then in ascendance, was a major participant. But it was not primarily Africans that were being traded in this earlier trade, as Dabkr claims. This slave trade lasted from the 8th to 15th centuries The slaves were mostly white Eastern European (hence the similarity between the word slave and Slav) pagans. The European elites were the sellers, the traders were for the most part Jews , and the buyers were Arab. By today's morality standard none of these come off clean, but slavery was a standard custom throughout much of the world then so it seems not only silly, but morally reprehensible, to try to blame people living today for the actions of their possible ethnic ancestors hundreds of years ago. It's certainly not a game any Jew, Christian or Muslim should want to play the way Dabkr is playing.

      Interesting take on the white slave trade here:

  • Top Israel advocate uses San Bernardino killings to attack Islam
    • Here's a whole two pages worth of them:

      Here's a timeline of price tag attacks in the last four years from APN, Some have videos:

      And here's a video from 2013 of haredi protesters hurling stones at an unfortunate Palestinian driver who happened to be DWA (driving while Arab) in Jerusalem. Not exactly a price tag attack, just plain old bigotry in action during a protest against the Israeli arrest of a Rabbi accused of extortion. But it is an example of Jews throwing stones without being shot and killed ( or "neutralized"). What a surprise, eh?,7340,L-4454610,00.html

      And just for good measure here's a video I found along the way from Israel's Channel 10 on the tax exempt "charity" Honenu that provides money to convicted Jewish terrorists in Israel.

  • Taking on jihadists without taking on racism is a lost battle
    • "... and wants to know if the shooters can be Islamic terrorists. "

      ...because of course, there have been absolutely no mass shootings in the US in the last 20 odd years that involved any one else but "Islamic terrorists."

      Has Tapper been living under a rock or something? Mass shootings with mundane but violent domestic motives are appallingly routine in the US. No foreign interest needed.

  • Israel's 'security' wall has provided little security
  • NYT's Rudoren says Mondoweiss critique of her recent article is 'nuts'
    • Interesting stuff about Cremisan, annie, but I don't know why you even bother trying to have a rational conversation with a4tech. He thinks there's such a thing as the "Squaw Nation". "Squaw" of course being an English word (based on an Algonquin morpheme for woman) that most Native Americans consider offensive. And he has this cartoon noble savage picture in his head where all Native Americans lived in perfect harmony with each other, when anyone with even a scintilla of knowledge on the subject knows there were often serious conflicts between tribes, disputes over usufructuary rights, and even cases of ethnic cleansing by some tribes, well before any interaction with European settlers. Not that any of that excuses the bad things that the US government did, but it shows how utterly ignorant the man is, and how willing he is to just make stuff up, which is what he is doing with this "sub-culture" schtick, as if he is familiar with Palestinian society. Next he'll be telling us about the importance of the Sharmouta hamula in Palestine.

      Remember the commenter who claimed to be a Bulgarian Jew who was oh so brilliant and worked as an accountant or some such for New Mexico ? I forget his name, but I bet you that's our a4tech the Muslim under a different alias. He's having a little joke on us.

  • 'New York Times' uncorks laughable Israeli propaganda
    • Theo, I'm assuming you aren't from the West Coast, and thus don't know that it is only the western parts of Washington and Oregon that are considered "rainy". West of the Cascade mountain range to be exact, which runs northward through the western third of both states. It's even downright desert-like in certain parts of eastern Oregon and Washington. And even in the western part, most of the rain comes during the winter months after grape harvest season is over.

      Most of the population of the two states is spread across the I-5 corridor just west of the Cascades, in the rainy area, so its an easy, but faulty, assumption to make. The wine country of Washington is in the southcentral part, east of the Cascades.

    • You on the other hand, yonah, were exceedingly rude to Kris. You asked a question. She looked it up and answered it politely. No thank you from you, just a wise-crack about "idiots" who "cut and paste". And the same towards diasp0ra, who was civil in his response to you, and clearly has earned the right to complain about Modern Hebrew taking credit for words from Arabic while Israel does its utmost to deny his humanity and his right to exist.

      And then on top of that you admit that you already knew the answer to your own question. So why get all heated with an answer that you know is correct?

      If you want a civil conversation, why not start with your own part in it? If its too much to ask of yourself, then its too much to ask of anyone else, don't you think?

    • But its more than just Finkelstein making these points. For anyone interested, there is a documentary made about the book which is available to view online.

  • David Grossman's love letter to Israel, warts and all
    • Diasp0ra,

      It would be pretty impressive cognitive dissonance to read those books and still think you have a moral high-ground to talk from, as you so often do. - See more at:

      Hophmi's been around for a long time here, but no he's never challenged himself to read anything that disagrees with him. You might want to check out this old discussion from 2011, under an article about Rabbi Elmer Berger which devolved into a discussion of Shlomo Sands' Invention of the Jewish People.

      Hophmi of course hadn't read the book but he was gung-ho to cherry-pick whatever he could to try to refute it, without a lot of luck because we kept reading his links, which didn't exactly say what he purported them to have said. Quelle surprise!

      And then there is the discussion of Max's response to Alterman's hit job on Goliath, where Hophmi defended Alterman's criticism despite Alterman's own acknowledgement that Max's book was "technically accurate" with his usual racist crap about Palestinians and "context", while never explaining what context excused Jewish Israeli racism (and of course, only Jewish Israeli racism).

      I don't think he read Goliath either. He doesn't come here to challenge himself. He comes as the self-appointed savior-cum-spokesperson for all Jews--or at least the ones that really count. Phil and others here aren't included in that number, but that doesn't stop him from occasionally speaking for them as well, and for "anti-semites" everywhere, not to mention speaking for Palestinians, cuz, you know, the Mufti. Since Hophmi already knows what everybody thinks and feels, he doesn't have to challenge himself at all. Its a hell of a cocoon he's woven himself. Never has to deal with issues of morality at all.

  • Israeli police shoot two scissors-wielding Palestinian teenage girls, killing one
    • Pretend the assailant is Jewish and you might , just might be able to come up with the answer.- See more at:

      You don't have to pretend in order to know the answer.
      An ultra-Orthodox Jew stabbed 6 people at a gay pride event in late July of this year. One of his victims died a few days later. He was subdued without being shot and was arrested, as I would expect a normal police force to do. He posed a much bigger threat than those teenage girls did, and had a history of attacking gay people with knives. None of that mattered. The big difference perceived by the Israeli police is that he was Jewish and the teenage girls were Palestinian. Typical institutional racism and Palikari condones it.

  • 'Jewish Communal Fund' seeds Islamophobia as toxic as Trump's
    • I think it’s a fairly simple thought experiment. If Jews represented 1.5 billion people and 57 countries at the United Nations, rather 15 million people and 1 country, I don’t think that there would be an international campaign to target Israel. - See more at:

      Yes, it' a simple thought experiment but, as usual, hophmi's sense of Jewish exceptionalism gets in the way of him finding the simple answer to his simple thought experiment. Since Jews are not 1.5 billion of the planet's population and won't be in the immediate future, the easiest way to test his hypothesis is to look at countries that are majority Muslim or Christian, since adherents of those two religions make up, respectively, 1.6 billion and 2.2 billion of the world's population. Then we can ask ourselves, have they ever been "targeted" by an "international campaign" like Israel?

      And of course the answer is a resounding yes, they have and the list is long. In no particular order: Apartheid South Africa (Christian), the former Yugoslavia(Christian), Iraq ( Muslim), Iran (Muslim), Libya (Muslim) , Nicaragua (Christian), Cuba (Christian), Sudan (Muslim), Palestine (Muslim). These are just off the top of my head, I'm sure others could add to the list.

      So hophmi's answer is incorrect. Not only have majority Muslim and Christian states been "targetted", some have been subject to much more violent and direct targetting (i.e. invasion and war) than Israel has ever faced. BDS is a relatively mild 'targeting'.

      His error being that the only 'targetting' that he notices is that directed at the Jewish State, since he cares not a whit about any other state.

  • 'Allahu Akbar': A Muslim family in suburban New Jersey responds to the Paris attacks
    • And then there's this shocking instance of an anti-Russian hate crime from 2014:

      Or maybe its just another illegal NYC cab driver trying to rip off a tourist.

    • Actually, oldgeezer, there are some glaring inconsistencies in Mr. Indig's version of events as reported.

      He apparently entered the taxi wearing his kippah on his head (later torn off in the altercation), but claims that the taxi driver didn't know that he was Jewish until he started talking on the taxi driver's cellphone in Hebrew. (I find it extremely hard to believe a NYC cab driver doesn't know what a kippah is, or who wears one.)

      He claims the taxi driver only got upset when he heard him speaking Hebrew. At that point Mr. Indig said he was afraid for his life and yet he remained in the cab until he arrived at his planned destination.Then the taxi driver let him out and supposedly started stalking and then attacking him. Mr. Indig claims he was worried that the taxi driver had a knife and wanted to kill him, and yet after his kippah and cellphone(!) was taken, he chased after this crazed "terrorist".

      I found a slightly different version of events from a NY Jewish publication called jp udates :

      It still carries Mr. Indig's version of events but carries some important elements that are different, or missing, from the other coverage. First off, the altercation started as a dispute in the taxi over the bill when Indig refused to pay an additional $40 over what Indig claims was agreed as the fare.

      It got physical when he exited the taxi without paying. In the NY version, the physical altercation took place right outside of the taxi, with the cab driver taking $20 from Indig's pocket and then driving off, whereas in Indig's later retelling it happened away from the taxi, after the driver ran toward him, and ended when the driver "ran away" with his kippah and cellphone. In Mayhem's link there is no mention of the $20 taken from his pocket. The NY news story also mentions that Indig was an Israeli tourist, who said he asked to use the taxi driver's phone which was "graciously" loaned to him to talk to "my doctor", because he couldn't get good service on his own cellphone. Of course none of these versions tell the accused assailant's side of the story. The inconsistencies are all in Indig's version of events. And the inconsistencies play up the "crazed Muslim" slant of the story in the Israeli publications.

      My reasonable guess as to what actually happened after reading these two versions? Mr. Indig, the Israeli, used the NY taxi driver's phone to call his doctor, in Israel, speaking to him in Hebrew. The taxi driver was upset because his cellphone was just used to make an overseas call to Israel. Whatever words were exchanged, who knows. At the end of the ride the taxi driver wanted additional money to pay for the overseas call, Mr Indig refused and then ensued a physical altercation. Or perhaps it was just a dispute over what the agreed fare was. Was it an assault by the cab driver? Probably. Was it an "anti-semitic hate crime"? Doubtful. Sounds like a dispute over money gone bad to me, played up by Mr. Indig and the Israeli publications to promote the usual racism towards Muslims.

      Three versions, the first is Mayhem's link, the last one is from the NY source:

      Anti-Semitic Violence Erupts in New York as Muslim Taxi Driver Attacks and Robs Jewish Passenger

      Muslim NYC cabbie attacks Jewish passenger

      Israeli Tourist Robbed by Taxi Driver in Brooklyn

      Even the headlines point out the differences in the slant.

  • Jewish American activists unfurl banner in support of BDS at the Western Wall
    • yonah.

      To answer your question:

      On December 1, 1948, the Jericho Conference was held (in Jericho, West Bank of course.). It was organized by the then mayor of Hebron and attended by numerous other West Bank and Jordanian officials. The attendees adopted resolutions calling for the annexation and unification of the East and West Banks. Jordan gave citizenship and voting rights to all Palestinian refugees as well as those Palestinians residing in the West Bank. They were all allowed to vote in the new Jordanian Parliamentary Elections on April 11, 1950, with half of the 60 seats allotted to the West Bank. On April 24, 1950, the newly elected Parliament voted unanimously to unite the two banks under Jordanian sovereignty. of the Two Banks

  • The idea that people living under violent military occupation must be instructed in nonviolence is problematic
    • Mooser,

      First, you convert them all to Christianity, and the rest just falls into place.

      Herzl come full circle.

  • The Case for Parallel States: Excerpt from 'One Land, Two States: Israel and Palestine as Parallel States'
    • There is nothing separate about two organisations operating on the same territory with many of the same matters of concern.

      Of course there is. If there was no separateness, then it would be one organization (or in this case, state). They may have many of the same general "matters of concern" in this plan but their perspectives are separate and different. Their separateness actually reinforces and solidifies this difference.

    • that is not what we are proposing at all in the sense that you mean a racist american style system of one group dominating another. please read again and listen better.

      Mark, from your very own writing above:

      "It is into this situation that we introduce the concept of parallel states. Can one design a scenario with a new type of two-state solution: one Israeli state structure and one Palestinian state structure, in parallel, each covering the whole area, and with equal but separate political and civil rights for all?" - See more at:

      "Separate but equal" is exactly what you are proposing in reality, and , as Mooser pointed out, such a system is inherently not equal. The Israeli Jews have been dominating the Palestinians since 1948. They have the pre-existing structures of state and the means to enforce them. Palestinians do not. Even with an assumption of considerable goodwill on the part of Israeli Jews, which is certainly a fantasy assumption, such an imbalance will simply reinforce the dominance of Jews under such a system. Not to mention that the plan itself offers infinite possibilities for extending the "peace process" by millenia through all the "negotiations" that would be required for such a complex and detailed system.

      The emphasis should not be on "separating"(hafrada) or "dividing", or treating this as merely a land dispute. The core of the problem is extreme inequality on the basis of ethnicity/religion. Israel and Israelis need to be pushed into accepting, begrudgingly or not, the concept of equal rights under the law for Jew AND non-Jew.

      One state or two is irrelevant. The reason that one state is unacceptable to Israeli Jews is the same reason why two states have never come about, and that is because Israel holds the power and it does not believe that the Palestinians must be accorded the same protections and rights as Jews. It will never agree voluntarily to a two state solution and will never agree to a "power-sharing" system where they don't control the real power.

  • 'The Palestinian body finally achieves the approving gaze of the settler'
  • 'Why I am a Zionist'
    • Jon

      To answer your question, I think racism is wrong, but I don’t think Zionism is racism.

      Actually, the question I asked in my reply to you was whether you think sexism is wrong or not. You haven't answered that one and your following paragraph doesn't shed any light on your attitudes regarding this.

      As for Dr.King and sexism, I honestly don’t know much about his position. If he didn’t address it maybe he thought it was good and maybe he didn’t think it was an area of expertise. Do you have a statement saying he thought was acceptable?

      Jon, perhaps you didn't understand this from my previous posts, but MLK was sexist in action and behavior as well statement. He didn't "address" it because he wasn't confronting it, in himself or in his movement or in the wider context of the US and the world. It wasn't a case of him not thinking it an "area of expertise". He simply accepted discrimination against women as a given not worthy of questioning. He was fallible. It doesn't make him a bad person over all, it just shows that he was susceptible to moral blind spots like the rest of humanity. He was sexist. The book I mentioned above discusses some of the sexism he participated in and condoned, but if you want a few short articles to read there are these:

      I think we will to continue to disagree on whether or not he supported Israel as a Zionist state. Given his speeches writings and the word of his close friends, I believe that he was supportive.

      My main disagreement with you is not whether he was or was not a Zionist, its that it is entirely irrelevant. He was not an expert on Zionism and knew little of its history, and apparently what he did "know" was false and he himself had moral holes in his vision. Co-opting your own morality to a formula of excusing your own beliefs by comparing them to some poorly informed man, even a "civil rights paragon" in your words, from 50 years ago is just wrong. And frankly a juvenile line of reasoning. You should be able to do better than that.

      As far as your list of biases, bad behaviors, and crimes -I have no reason to doubt you.

      I take it you mean that you were not aware of these things prior to my mention of them.* Can I ask you then, if you weren't aware of these actions and ideological beliefs of political Zionism from its very beginnings, how can you consider yourself informed enough about the concept of Zionism to make any judgment about its merits or lack of same? Maybe you need to do your own research on Zionism in order to come to a conclusion about it rather than relying on simple excuses for your own lack of knowledge by relying on your belief that MLK endorsed Zionism (on a likewise uninformed basis). Right now you are judging Zionism as not racist on the basis of ignorance. As well as on emotional grounds rather than intellectual or informed grounds, I suspect.

      The question is whether those flaws are redeemable/correctable or inherently a part of Zionism. I think Israel can be “fixed” within a Zionist framework, but I know I am a monority here.

      I think the flaws in Israel are correctable. I fail to see how they can get there "within a Zionist framework." Zionism is an ethnocentric ideology that puts Jews first above all others. How can one get to equality and justice (prerequisites for real and lasting peace) from an ideology which is so counter to equality and believes itself the state of all Jews, rather than the state of all of its citizens, regardless their ethnicity or religion? What would a "Zionist framework" look like in your opinion. A kinder and gentler occupation? Simply an end to the occupation? How could it even end the occupation when to do so would negatively impact the Jewish privilege, not to mention what equal treatment of all its citizens would do for Jewish privilege, which is the very basis of Zionism.
      It would be equivalent to "fixing" US civil rights flaws in a segregationist framework

      If you think you have a vision of what that ZIonism framework would be like I can only see two possibilities. One is merely lipstick on a pig, a more genteel racism in Israel; or two, the framework would not be a Zionist one. You can't get to justice for all by clinging to Zionist ideology. Why do you have such an attachment to it, when it has caused such grief and you are so ill-informed on it?

      * I thought about providing links for the points about Zionism I mentioned but decided against it as being too time consuming to facilitate a timely response on my part. If you want more info you can click on my name and then search my archives . I have mentioned most of these points before, usually with links. I could also recommend some books and papers you could read if you are interested in more information.

    • Sibiriak,

      One question: do you feel that Jewish anti-goyism is inherently racist and is the taproot of Zionism? - See more at:

      Sorry for the delay in answering. Between my struggle with writer's block and lack of time, my reading and commenting here is someone constrained. I alwaus try to answer questions directed at me but don't always get the chance.

      I guess I would have to answer yes and no. Yes, I think that most Jewish anti-goyism is racist (using racist in its broadest term here.) I don't think it was the taproot of Zionism however.

      A taproot is the primary root of something and I think Zionism had multiple roots, rather than one taproot. I see its beginnings firmly rooted in the era of its time within European thought, deriving its ideation out of the concepts of scientific racism, polygenism, and romantic nationalism. Contrary to how it is pushed and perceived today, it was originally more interested in "improving" the Jewish "race" or "nation" than it was providing a refuge. The assumption being that this "new Jew" would obviate any need for a refuge in the first place. I see elements of Turnerism, eugenics and a simplistic form of epigenetics at play in the belief that hard physical outdoor work could create such a collective change. I also think it was influenced early on by concerns about losing traditional tribal Jewish cohesion through loss of religious belief and through communism. Zionism chose ethnocentrism as its way to cement tribal cohesion, and ethnocentrism is a form of racism. I think Akiva Orr describes it well here:

      Certainly Jewish prejudice against non-Jews was a significant factor in early Zionism, and its beliefs and actions towards the Palestinians, who were certainly seen as inferior. At this point I see the same general "anti-goy" prejudice, as well as the lack of any real acknowledgement of this prejudice, as the core reason why there is such pushback for Zionism and against treating all people as equal before the law and the state in Israel. That includes the prejudice of some American Jews and non-Jewish Zionists, and sometimes even among those who oppose Zionism.

      Rabbi Alissa Wisse's speech to the Friends of Sabeel several months ago highlighted this lack of confrontation with Jewish prejudice. She talked about being told that no one helped the Jews during the Holocaust and how much that traumatized her. Of course she was taught that by her Jewish day school and still considers herself getting over her trauma. She doesn't seem to recognize that what she was taught was not only incorrect, it was a manifestation of Jewish bigotry against non-Jews. She lauded the Christians there for "getting out from under" the Christian church's anti-semitism, but only mentioned getting over her "trauma", rather than getting over the anti-goyism of her Jewish childhood schooling. She isn't facing her own prejudices, but instead urging others to do so with their own (non-Jewish) prejudices, in a setting concerned with helping Palestinians overcoming real and deadly consequences of Jewish bigotry. Cluelessness doesn't even begin to describe her obvious thought patterns.

      I see a positive feedback loop feeding all this prejudice. The accepted positive stereotype is that Jews are more interested in social justice and not prejudiced the way non-Jews are. At the same time there is the negatiee stereotype that most non-Jews are anti-semitic on some level. Therefore when someone criticizes Israel or Zionists or an individual Jew or group of Jews , particularly if they point out the massive discriminatory or racist actions of a Jewish State, those who are invested to some extent in this stereotype as part of their self-identity can't accept that. The critic MUST be wrong, because 'Jews don't do that'. So why are these other people falsely criticizing Israel, they ask themselves? It must be because they are anti-semitic, they think because they already believe that non-Jews are inherently anti-semitic at core. Thus a circular reaffirmation of their own prejudices occurs. Which is not to say that no Jews ever question the prejudice they might have been taught, or that might still exist in their own beliefs, but the number that haven't confronted this prejudice in their environment and their own thought processes is significant. Its the vast majority in Israel and possibly even a majority in the US. White prejudice had to be confronted by whites on an individual as well as a group basis in order to accomplish the goals of the civil rights movement. And the majority of whites during that time did harbor various degrees of racism. The confrontation of those white prejudices has certainly not been complete, even at this late date, but so far there is very little self-confrontation of Jewish prejudice. I see that as a necessary component of attaining justice and equality for the Palestinians. It all boils down to a question of Jewish self-identity, and confronting the reality rather than embracing the stereotype.

      Sorry for the long and somewhat rambling response.

    • Jon

      You didn't really answer my question about sexism except in a vague and roundabout way. Can I assume that you agree that sexism is wrong and that women's rights are a subset of human and civil rights?

      You yourself called King a "civil rights paragon" and yet he had a blind spot with regards to women's civil rights. This doesn't make sexism right or acceptable so why do you assume that Zionism is acceptable just because you believe, rightly or wrongly, that King was Zionist? Or am I wrong and because King was sexist then its A-OK to be sexist as well, because you feel that you can relinquish your own responsibility for all your moral decisions to a simple question of "What would MLK think?".

      And BTW, calling MLK sexist is just being honest about a moral flaw in a man who lived 50 years ago, when such a moral blind spot was commonplace. It isn't "demonization". So why do you claim that calling Zionism a form of racism and calling Zionists racists is "demonization"? It is just as accurate a description as calling someone who harbors sexist attitudes a sexist.

      I don't know whether I'd call MLK an "expert" on racism, but he was a civil rights leader who called for equality of opportunity and for economic justice, and yet he failed on these two civil rights when it came to his attitudes towards women. He obviously could be fallible and mistaken on civil rights issues. Women's rights are not some foreign subject so different from racial civil rights that could justify the difference you are attempting to claim between him being so wrong on women's rights and yet somehow right by default of being a civil rights "paragon" and an "expert" in your words with respect to racism.

      And I would be willing to bet significant money that one subject on which MLK was clearly not an expert was Zionism. Frankly there were very few experts in the US on the intricacies and history of Zionism back in 1968.

      I doubt that King knew that the JNF, in its founding charter in 1901, demanded restrictive covenants on the land it bought in Palestine, preventing non-Jews from living or working on such land, and preventing non-Jews from ever purchasing that land in the future. I doubt he knew that Zionists evicted Palestinian tenant farmers from lands they and their ancestors may have worked for centuries; farmers who had clear usufructuary rights to work that land under Ottoman and earlier Muslim land law. I doubt that he knew that the Zionists called that discriminatory policy the "conquest of land" and they likewise engaged in the "conquest of labor" which not only advocated boycotting of non-Jewish labor by Jewish businesses, but also advocated that the British government give preferential employment to Jews over Arabs and pay Jews a higher wage than it paid non-Jews. I doubt that he knew that the Zionists opposed Great Britain instituting an agricultural loan program in the early 1920's to help the Palestinian farmers who were hurt financially by the end of Ottoman agricultural loans, unless those loans were administered by the Zionist Anglo-Palestine Bank and distributed loans to foreign Jewish farmers as well, even though the Zionist apparatus already provided loans to foreign Jews, and only foreign Jews, itself. I also doubt that he knew that the Great Arab Revolt of 1936 against Great Britain began as a direct result of efforts by the Zionist Jewish Agency to forcibly, and sometimes quite violently, displace Palestinian workers in Jewish owned businesses in the mid 1930's. I likewise doubt that he knew that numerous ZIonist founders and executives talked about the transfer of Palestinians out of the country for decades before the Palestinians were violently displaced en masse in 1948. I doubt that he knew that Israel's "Law of Return" was originally formulated not to provide refuge for those who might have needed it, but to solve Israel's problem of how to provide citizenship for all the Jews that then lived in what was then Israel while denying the same to the the vast majority of Palestinians who should have had exactly the same citizenship rights as the Jews who lived there. I likewise doubt that he knew Israel only accepted the Partition Plan with exceptions, including no agreement to the territorial limits of the Jewish state, or the guarantee of civil rights to non-Jews. In other words, all the Zionists "agreed to" was what they wanted in the first place, a Jewish state. I also doubt that he knew that from 1948 through 1966 the Palestinian non-Jewish "citizens" of Israel were ruled under military law, unlike all the Jewish citizens. Or that since 1948, not only has Israel confiscated land owned privately by the Palestinians who were forced out of the country, but also the majority of the land owned by its own Palestinian citizens, and for the most part it did so and continues to do so to provide more housing for Jews only. It's refused to connect some Palestinian villages in Israel that existed prior to Israel's creation to the same electrical , water and sewage services that it routinely provides to all Jewish localities in Israel and even to the majority of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, regardless of whether Israel even considers those Jewish settlements legal or not. I also doubt that he knew that the IDF shot and killed thousands of Palestinian refugees simply trying to return to their homes in the early 1950's.

      I could go on and on with the racist things that Zionism, and the Israel that it created in its image, did prior to 1968 which exactly fit the definition of racist and discriminatory acts. Either MLK was completely ignorant of these things or he was one of the biggest hypocrites of all time, excusing and even supporting Jewish racism. I think its more likely that, like the vast majority of Americans, he was mostly ignorant of all this, and fed instead with the false narratives of eternal and universal Jewish innocence and high moral character. These points I mentioned are the facts of Zionism's existence and its lack of morality. Trying to convince us all that Zionism isn't racism despite its own actions and ideology just because MLK was supposedly a Zionist is an immoral folly.

      Again, the question is not what did MLK think of Zionism, but are all these actions I have enumerated, as well as the numerous ones I haven't mentioned here, and the ones committed by Israel since 1968, acts of racism or not? I say they are and if you support an ideology that underpins and commits these racist acts, then you are supporting a form of racism, which honestly makes you a racist. Whether you like the label or not, it is an entirely accurate one.


      To Roha and Mooser, thanks for the kind comments.

      I strongly agreed with your eloquent comment above, Roha, although I must confess the occasional desire to invade Russia myself. Too much Dostoevsky as a child, I'm afraid. ;-)

    • Jon, you are using an appeal to authority to justify the racism inherent in Zionism. The question is not was MLK a Zionist or not, but rather is ZIonism a form of racism and if it is, which I and most of us here agree it is, is Zionism wrong? Is racism wrong?

      Even civil rights icons can be imperfect and subject to fallacies and petty prejudices, whether positive or negative. MLK himself was clearly sexist in orientation despite also being a civil rights hero. Does that make sexism OK?

      No, it merely illustrates that even heroes and moral icons can have faults and and their own areas of moral blindness. Just as Thomas Jefferson could write the Declaration of Independence, declaring all men equal and yet own slaves, and ignore Native Americans' rights (as well as women's rights).

      This doesn't mean that one can today pretend that acceptance of slavery or prejudice against people based on ethnicity or gender is just a matter of opinion on which reasonable people can differ. And yet that is your position on ZIonism. Is racism wrong in your opinion, or is it acceptable if Jews are the ones doing racist acts and governing a racist state?

      As an aside, concerning King's statements at the Rabbinical Assembly, which were answers to questions rather than a speech, its clear from the time frame of his answers and the things that King said that when he was referring to the "Middle East Crisis" in March of 1968, he was referring to the then recent 1967 Six Day War, and his belief in the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state. He does not mention Palestinians at all, and when he mentions Arabs it is in the context of Arab nations, which no doubt referred at that time to Egypt, Syria and Jordan. His reference to Israel as a beacon of democracy and brotherhood was, as Donald points out, completely erroneous and only illustrates either profound ignorance on his part, or a pandering to his audience, or at worse case an expression of prejudice in favor of Jews, whom, in this assembly at least, were his allies in the US movement. I don't see it as an endorsement of Zionism. I'm sure, if asked, he would have also averred his belief in the US's right to exist as a sovereign state as well. It would be utterly ridiculous to therefore assume that he was a segregationist just because the US was in many ways and many places a segregated country in his lifetime. Israel does not need to be Zionist to exist, anymore than the US needs to be racist, or Italy needed to be fascist, etc, etc, in order to exist.

      To quote Michael Eric Dyson, who wrote about the sexism in the US civil rights movement, and the sexism of MLK himself, in his book, "I May Not Get There with You":

      "We need not idolize King to appreciate his worth; neither do we need to honor him by refusing to confront his weaknesses and his limitations. In assessing King's life, it would be immoral to value the abstract good of human perfection over concrete goods like justice, freedom, and equality -- goods that King valued and helped make more accessible in our national life."

      Whether or not MLK approved of ZIonism is not the important factor in judging Zionism. Zionism and what it stands for is the only moral basis on which to judge it. It most emphatically does not stand for justice, freedom and equality, and stands for racial/religious privilege (often in extreme and violent form) and thus is racist. If MLK was in fact a ZIonist, which is still unproven, it only illustrates a weakness of his, just as his sexism illustrated one of his weaknesses. It in no way exonerates Zionism, which must be judged by its own merits or lack of same, not whether someone you might admire endorsed it or not.

  • A majority of Palestinians support armed intifada as means of self-defense
    • I agree with Annie. Hophmi's not dumb, although he's not the brightest bulb on the tree either.

      He's purposely conflating non-violence, which is a tactic, with pacifism, which is a belief system, in order to attack BDS, which is not even mentioned in this article except in Phil's last sentence.

      I participated in demonstrations against the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and against Israel's numerous incursions. All were non-violent and I only participated in them because they were intended to be non-violent. That has nothing to do with the fact that I am not a pacifist and believe that the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and even the US and Israel have a right to defend themselves violently from a violent attack. (Although the US and Israel's concept of "defense" is highly problematic to say the least.) People can be non-violent and yet not pacifistic, despite Hophmi's implication otherwise, and I'm sure he knows that, but won't admit it in the case of Palestinians.

      I'm sure that Hophmi has attended demonstrations supporting Israel. Maybe he's even done so as a member of his "outreach group". He supports Israeli violence against Palestinians. He wouldn't be so silly as to claim that he or his outreach group wasn't non-violent because of that. That kind of silliness he reserves for his arguments against anyone who opposes the crap that Israel does, in the hopes of convincing susceptable people with false equivalences and strawman arguments.

      Hophmi's a lawyer. Whether he does this stuff here because he's paid or because he's so rapped up in his own Jewish brand of prejudice that he can't see straight and does it out of a perverted sense that he is defending something other than bald-faced institutional racism, who knows. He's been doing this for years here.

    • Do you consider your support for Israel violent because you support an armed and violent Israel, hophmi?

  • Letter to J.K. Rowling: For the sake of all Palestinian children who love Harry you need to say their lives matter
    • Good letter. I would have added that if Rowling is a believer in dialogue then she needs to speak those very things that the letter writer mentioned as part of that dialogue. If the dialogue isn't is honest then it does nothing. And the dialogue needs to expand beyond just the Palestinians and the Israelis. Rowling has the fame and fortune to expand many ordinary people's understanding of what is going on in I/P.

      Also, if Rowling is against boycotts, then she should likewise be against Israel's blockade of Gaza, which is so much more punitive than BDS. She should state that loud and clear as well as part of the dialogue she supports.

  • Palestinian Harry Potter fan challenges J. K. Rowling on BDS using lessons from Hogwarts
    • "revoked for his or her inability to navigate."

      Or, in this case, revoked for daring to speak Spanish that idiotic Israeli passengers can't understand. How dare he! Off with his head.

    • Hilarious. The Israeli passengers hear things that aren't there and get offended.

      About a place they claim never existed.

      Haunted by their guilt and prejudice. Everyone is against them, even when they aren't.

  • Boston-area conference aims to change the US political equation on Israel and Palestine
    • He sounds like a white person insisting that whites were "more effective advocates" in the condemnation of Jim Crow racism. There's the extreme hateful prejudice of Jim Crow - and of Israel - and then there's the more genteel variety, of which MJ is a classic example.

  • Video: Israeli mob attacks Eritrean, mistaking him for Bedouin assailant
    • "However, because the rioters thought he was a terrorist, we must remember the moral principle that every IDF soldier is taught: After the enemy is neutralized and is no longer a danger, he should not be harmed,” Shelah said.

      Is every IDF soldier taught that before or after they are taught how to "confirm the kill"? If it wasn't so tragic this kind of moral cluelessness would be hilarious.

      From 2006:

      Not guilty. The Israeli captain who emptied his rifle into a Palestinian schoolgirl

      An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

      The soldier, who has only been identified as "Captain R", was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.

      The manner of Iman's killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.

      After the verdict, Iman's father, Samir al-Hams, said the army never intended to hold the soldier accountable.

      "They did not charge him with Iman's murder, only with small offences, and now they say he is innocent of those even though he shot my daughter so many times," he said. "This was the cold-blooded murder of a girl. The soldier murdered her once and the court has murdered her again. What is the message? They are telling their soldiers to kill Palestinian children."

      The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.

      Capt R's lawyers argued that the "confirmation of the kill" after a suspect is shot was a standard Israeli military practice to eliminate terrorist threats.

      more at link below.

      This ("confirming the kill")has been standard practice for the IDF for decades.

      ‘Another paediatrician and another baker
      Got a bullet in the face from a paratroopers unit
      All day we search houses and kill children’

      - Extract from a song of an Israeli paratroopers’ unit that participated in Operation Calm Waters in Nablus, beginning of 2004.

      On 16 September 2005, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot published an interview with the commander of the IDF paratroopers unit that came up with that song. “Commander R” described the extraordinarily permissive open-fire rules under which his unit operated when they were based in Nablus, which on some nights mandated the killing of any Palestinian who happened to be seen on the street:

      “My team killed six innocent people, or probably innocent,” says “R”, a commander in an elite paratroopers’ unit. “We would joke about it and give them code names: the baker, the woman, the child, the old man, the drummer. Some of them by mistake, but as I see it, they were simply executed on illegal orders.

      “There were many nights on which we received orders that whoever we see on the street between two and four in the morning is sentenced to death [dino mavet]. Those were the exact words…”

      "The Baker” whose death provided such a source of amusement for the Israeli soldiers who killed him was a 25-year-old Palestinian named Ala Adin Masud Adawiya. He was walking to his job at the a-Silawi Bakery in Nablus at about 3:00am on 18 December 2003 when he was shot once by an IDF sniper, then eight more times from close range as he lay wounded on the ground by IDF soldiers who arrived on the scene in a Jeep to “confirm the kill”. Adawiya was shot because, unbeknown to him, he was walking to work on one of the nights when soldier R’s paratroop unit had received orders that whoever we see on the street between two and four in the morning is sentenced to death…

      Note: The two alias "R"s in these separate instances are not the same person.

  • Critics hammer 'NYT's Rudoren for daring to convey Palestinian experience
    • Yes, quite interesting in comparing the editions. Thanks. The NY Times already appears to have softened the article by eliminating words and sentences here and there which reflect the predicament and sentiments of the Palestinian East Jerusalemites.

      As for the 3 sentence paragraph you mention, the 2nd one (since eliminated) is probably the most accurate, although even that one is not entirely accurate.

      The first is incorrect because Israel only offers the right to apply for citizenship, not the right to guaranteed citizenship itself, to resident East Jerusalemites. As I have mentioned elsewhere, two thirds of the Palestinian East Jerusalemite applications for citizenship are denied by Israel.

      And although residency does entitle them to similar social service benefits, their residency can be revoked for failing to maintain Jerusalem as the their "center of life", including attending higher education overseas for 7 years, or maintaining a residence in other parts of the West Bank, even if it is just outside the municipal border. When Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem, they expanded the borders 10 fold, but sliced the territory in such a way that West Bank village agricultural land was annexed, but the village itself was not, creating a larger Jerusalem at the expense of the Palestinians without having to give those so harmed any rights of residency.

      Also, residency was only granted to Palestinians who were present in East Jerusalem on the date at which Israel conducted their census. Anyone outside of the area, even for that one time, were denied residency rights. Residents must meet certain conditions to pass their residency on to their children, and a West Banker marrying an East Jerusalemite does not gain residency rights him/herself, but must apply for "family reunification", which is a long and difficult process. Otherwise they have no right to live with their East Jerusalem spouse, according to Israeli law.

      And as for the 3rd (since removed) sentence, while voting in municipal elections might gain the Palestinian East Jerusalemites some municipal influence, in the larger picture, budgets are set at the national level and would counteract any possible municipal gains.

  • Set up? Video appears to show Israeli soldier placing object next to Palestinian killed in Hebron (Update)
    • The Italian Air Force bombed Tel Aviv and killed over 120 Jews.

      More about the bombing:

      Starting in July 1940, the Italian bombings in the British Mandate of Palestine were primarily centered on Tel Aviv and Haifa. However, many other coastal towns such as Acre and Jaffa also suffered.[1][2]

      The last Italian bombing on the territories of the British Mandate of Palestine occurred in June 1941. Haifa and Tel Aviv where hit, but with few damages and casualties.

      Bombing of Haifa

      Haifa was hit many times by the Italians, because of the port and refinery, starting in June 1940.

      The 29 July 1940 issue of Time reported a bombing at Haifa by SM82 bombers during the previous week, with a dozen casualties.

      According to Time Magazine, the Italians claimed a huge success which the British did not deny.

      Where the British oil pipeline from Mosul reaches tidewater, "Ten big Italian bombers, flying at great altitude from the Dodecanese Islands, giving the British bases at Cyprus a wide berth, dumped 50 bombs on the Haifa oil terminal and refinery."

      The bombing started fires which burned for many days afterward, and the refinery's production was blocked for nearly one month.
      British fighters from a base on Mt. Carmel were too late to overtake the Italians returning to their base in Italian Dodecanese.[3]

      Bombing of Tel Aviv

      On 9 September 1940, a bombing raid on Tel Aviv caused 137 deaths.[4] There was another raid on Tel Aviv on 12 June 1941 with 13 deaths, done by the Italians[5] or by the French, based in Syria.[6]

      Historian Alberto Rosselli [7] pinpointed that the bombing of Tel Aviv that caused 137 death was because the Italian bombers were on their way to the strategic port and refineries of Haifa, but were intercepted by British aircraft. Forced to go back, the Italians received orders to drop their bombs on the port of Tel Aviv, but in attempting to avoid the attacking British planes they dropped the bombs by mistake on a civilian area near the port.

      Its quite telling that Jackdaw only mentions the deaths of Jews, as if they are the only civilians that matter, and as if the Italian bombs (and bombers) purposely dropped them on Jews and no one else.

    • After Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage in 1994, it came out in testimony before the Orr Commission from the IDF soldiers in Hebron that they were given explicit orders when serving there that they were not to return fire or attempt to stop any Jewish settler there who was committing an act of violence against Palestinians. They were told to huddle down and protect themselves but otherwise not to interfere.

      The commander of paramilitary border police in Hebron, where the Feb. 25 massacre occurred, said standing orders prohibit security forces from firing upon Jews whatever the circumstance--whether to stop an attack on Palestinians, to prevent a crime or even to defend themselves.

      "If a Jewish settler fires his weapon . . . at locals (Palestinians) to the extent that he is shooting with intent (to do harm) and not just firing warning shots in the air, it is still forbidden to shoot at him," Chief Supt. Meir Tayar testified.

      "You take cover and wait for the clip to finish or for the gun to jam," Tayar continued, explaining what was required under the orders, "and then you stop him in some other way, but not by shooting."

      Lt. Col. Yemini Canaan, the army's operations officer for West Bank forces, testified later that the order was confirmed and enlarged immediately after Israeli settlers from Hebron and nearby Kiryat Arba rampaged through central Hebron in December, attacking Palestinian residents and shooting wildly in the densely populated city. "The order was not to fire in any event, in any circumstance, against the settlers," Canaan said. "It was absolute."

      In his testimony, Tayar said of the Hebron massacre, "Even if I had been there, I could not have done anything--there were special orders."

      Tayar said the unwritten instructions, acknowledged Thursday by both paramilitary border forces and army officials, were issued by Meir Khalifi, the army battalion commander who testified earlier and never mentioned this point. Canaan said similar orders were given in all units operating on the West Bank.

      The IDF soldiers' sole job there is to protect the settlers, regardless of what violence those settlers perpetrate against Palestinians. They only protect Jewish settlers, and in some instances the settlers issue orders to various IDF soldiers, who are expected to respect those orders, if they don't want to face repercussions. That's why Hebron is considered the worse posting for the average IDF soldier.

  • On Bret Stephens' hate speech
    • “We understand {the power of hatred} especially when it is the hatred of the powerful against the weak.”

      Did Stephens really write that?

      Yes, and for two reasons that I see. Number one, it gives him an excuse to mention the Holocaust. Number two, he's blaming the weak(Palestinians) for being trampled by the strong (Israeli Jews). Its his way of expressing his feelings of Jewish moral supremacy.

    • We should keep in mind that while Bret Stephens mouths white racism in support of Israel’s efforts to eliminate the Palestinian people,

      It's not white racism. Its Jewish racism. He isn't bemoaning the death of whites, he's upset about the deaths of Jews and calling all Palestinians evil for wanting to "kill Jews". Why is there this need to call it "white racism" when the compelling factor in the whole horrible mess in Israel is Jewish racism, there and here? If we can't name the problem but instead feel the need to blame it on white racism, which is at fault for its own set of problems, then how are we ever going to confront it and overcome it?

  • NPR fails to mention occupation-- while Barghouti says in Guardian it is 'root cause' of violence
    • That’s their choice, not Israel’s. Palestinians in East Jerusalem are free to become Israeli citizens anytime they choose.

      This is false. JeffB tried to peddle the same garbage and provided a link which actually refuted his claim.

      I'll quote again from the link, from page 22 of the International Crisis Group Report, second paragraph and footnote 205:

      "Assessing the extent to which applications for Israeli citizenship among East Jerusalemites have trended upward during the last decade is difficult because the government has released contradictory figures. About 13,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem (roughly 5 per cent of the Arab population) are reported to have citizenship,203 though it seems likely a significant proportion are members of Israel’s Palestinian minority who have moved to Jerusalem for work or family reasons.204 In terms of applications,the interior ministry said that almost 7,000 individuals applied for citizenship between 2001 and 2010 205 – a relatively small number – yet two thirds of these applications were made from 2008 2010.206 "

      Footnote 205:"Roughly one third were approved, one third were denied and one third were deferred. Central Bureau of Statistics response to Crisis Group question.

      So even among the small number of Palestinian Jerusalemites who applied for Israeli ciizenship, two thirds were turned down by the Israeli government. Israel has total control over who becomes a citizen in East Jerusalem, not the Palestinians themselves.

      And as Yoni points out, the application process itself is time consuming and expensive, thus discouraging many from applying in the first place, not to mention the fact that any Palestinian Jerusalemite who happens to have Jordanian citizenship, or the possibility of future Palestinian citizenship must renounce that citizenship in order to apply for Israeli citizenship.

      Hophmi doesn't deal in facts when it comes to Israel. He prefers to peddle hasbara about his fantasy Israel.

  • Hectored by Zionist wannabe archaeologists, 'NYT' recasts article on Jewish temples
    • He can only get employment in Tablet. Speaking of which, what happened to the Jewish press?

      I thought Liebowitz was part of the meritocracy Phil talks about.

    • Muslims sacrifice millions of animals during the holiday of Eid-ul-Adha.

      I think you are confusing ritual slaughter with animal sacrifice. Ritual slaughter includes human consumption of the meat of the animal, animal sacrifice involves making the animal a sacrifice to God, not humans. Eid-ul-Adha, celebrating the sacrifice of Abraham, has the animal meat divided into 3 parts with a third going to the family, a third to friends and neighbors and a third to the needy.

      I don't know if the contemplated "animal sacrifices" would include ritual slaughter or not, but all kosher meat must follow ritual slaughter techniques, and the same goes for halal .

    • Sibiriak and echinococcus,

      If you look at the comments section of Sibiriak's link to you'll notice that either "benedict" is richard's commenter "eli" and he cut and pasted his own comment from November , 2013 in the comments here, or else they both cut and pasted it from some other source, maybe the hasbara manual.

      From that link I also found a link to what seems to be the BBC documentary MDM is talking about. For anyone interested its here

      Warning: it has the irritating propensity to abruptly shove a commercial in here and there.

  • Salaita, Khalidi, Bayoumi appearances make this a landmark week in NY
    • Again, if I heard him say “we are not calling her an anti semite” then a few sentences later say ” we have the right not to associate with an anti-semite and white supremacist,” I would infer that the “anti-semite and white supremacist” phrase refers to Clay Douglas.

      But the question never was "Does JVP and ETO have a right not to associate with Clay Douglas, or agree to an interview with him?" so stating they have a right not to associate with him makes no sense. The question has always been about the banning of association with Weir. It sounds like Abunimah is trying to claim that he ISN'T calling her an anti-semite and white supremacist, while implying that she is. A sort of non-plausible deniability. Its a hypocritical stand, but then the whole JVP stand is highly hypocritical, since they have associated with JStreet and attempted to associate with Hillel, both of which are Zionist. And Zionism is a form of racism. So they have nothing against "associating" with certain types of racists (Zionists) And that associaion goes way beyond Weir's couple of radio interviews from 6 years ago.

  • Iran Deal coalition breaks apart, and J Street looks more and more like AIPAC
    • To be more precise, you have to accept JVP's framing of both issues; that Weir didn't sufficiently challenge and that focusing on American interest is chauvinistic (and/or racist-I'm not entirely clear on JVP's reasoning here). Then, if you accept their framing you have to decide if those two points are sufficient to ban all collaboration. Then you have to likewise decide if JVP's similar actions and statements (accepting similar interviews as well as speaking at J Street events and their framing of their involvement in terms of Jewish connections and values) violate the very same principles that it accuses Weir of violating. If so, then you have to ban all collaboration with JVP, or cut everyone, including JVP and Weir, some slack, slap a few wrists and get on with the job of fighting bigotry and oppression. And read the book.

  • 'Al-Aqsa mosque belongs to Muslims' is rallying cry for widespread protest
  • Amnesty: Killing of Hadeel al-Hashlamoun was 'extrajudicial execution'
    • Little known historical fact: The Soweto Uprising in 1976 South Africa started as a protest by high school students against a new decree by the government that Afrikaans must be the language of instruction in all black high schools. Another fact from the uprising- the students threw stones at police in response to tear gas. What is most remembered is that the South African police then shot over a hundred of the 20,000 some students who protested.

      I think many people agree the oppressed had a right to protest having to use the language of the oppressor, and they had a right to throw stones without being shot and killed. Too bad the usual apologists for Israel don't apply the same reasoning to Palestinians that they are willing to apply to black South Africans.

    • JRD

      One thing you will notice if you post here regularly is that the clearing of comments is rather haphazard. The place is understaffed for moderators and they aren't always available so there may be a backlog. Then, when someone is available and comments do get cleared, they don't always get cleared in the order in which they are posted.Sometimes new comments get cleared before older comments or comments on a more active thread are cleared faster than those on other threads. And a few longtime posters have their comments cleared in a more streamlined system. I'd suggest not taking it personally. It isn't intended that way, its just a part of the vagaries of a small volunteer moderation system.

  • How Israel legitimizes vigilante terror
    • A day after deir yassin 78 docters etc. where murdered in the Hadassah convoy. No arab leader condemned the massacre.

      From Wikipedia( yes I know its not the best source, but in this case it provides valuable context):

      The Hadassah convoy massacre took place on April 13, 1948, when a convoy, escorted by Haganah militia, bringing medical and military supplies and personnel to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus was ambushed by Arab forces.[1][2]
      Seventy-eight Jewish doctors, nurses, students, patients, faculty members and Haganah fighters, and one British soldier were killed in the attack. Dozens of unidentified bodies, burned beyond recognition, were buried in a mass grave in the Sanhedria Cemetery. The Jewish Agency claimed that the massacre was a gross violation of international humanitarian law, and demanded action be taken against a breach of the Geneva Conventions.[1] The Arabs claimed they had attacked a military formation, that all members of the convoy had engaged in combat, and that it had been impossible to distinguish combatants from civilians. An enquiry was conducted. Eventually an agreement was reached to separate military from humanitarian convoys.[2]

      More on the inquiry:

      (T)he Jewish Agency requested that the Red Cross intervene over what they called a grave Arab violation of the conventions. An inquiry conducted among the Arabs, Jews and the British suggested the circumstances were more complex. The firefight had lasted several hours, indicating that the convoy was armed. The Arabs claimed that they had attacked the military formation by blowing up the armoured cars. They were unable to make a distinction between military and civilians because, they maintained, all the Jews, including the medical personnel, had taken part in the battle.[2] The Jews claimed that they had the right to protect their medical convoys with troops. They admitted in the end, according to Jacques de Reynier, that they had been relieving the unit at the Hadassah hospital and furnishing the troop there with ammunition with the same convoys as those of the Red Shield. This practice was justified, they said, because the role of that troop was exclusively one of defending the hospital. De Reynier repeated the position of the Red Cross, that a mobil medical unit must move around unarmed and always separately from combat units. One had a choice between having recourse to armed protection or the protection of the Geneva Conventions and the Red Cross flag. Both staging troops in a position of strategic importance, and refurnishing them with supplies, de Reynier argued, had nothing to do with the hospital's functions. The Jewish Agency had been prepared to have the troop stationed there withdrawn and its protection entrusted to the Red Cross, but was overruled by the Haganah, which insisted that convoys to the hospital could not pass unless they went under military escort. De Reynier then volunteered to put this to the test with a practical proof that an unarmed convoy could pass. The following day, without warning the Arabs, he led a small column of vehicles, under a Red Cross flag, while the following cars displayed the red shield. Their passage passed without a shot fired, and de Reynier argued that this was proof that the Arabs respected the Red Cross. The result was that leaders on both sides eventually ordered that military operations were to be separated from activities associated with medical assistance and the Red Cross.[2]

    • To be completely factual the 254 number was quoted at the time by members of the Irgun and Lehi, who were responsible for the massacre. Apparently no one at the time asked the surviving villagers how many were killed.

      Several decades later, in 1988, in a research study from the Palestinian Bir Zeit University, the surviving villagers of Deir Yassin were actually asked to number and name those who were killed. According to villagers' memories the number killed was 107. Pretty much immediately afterwards this new lower number was glommed onto by various and sundry Zionists , including the ZOA. (Perhaps the first case of the ZOA accepting Palestinian sources.) Of course in this case it was because the 1988 Palestinian figures were lower than the professed Irgun numbers reported by international newspapers immediately after the massacre.

      At present time some Zionist apologists even try to imply that the larger number was the result of "Arab propagandists" rather than from the perpetrators themselves, and ignore the fact that the lower number was the result of a Palestinian study, not an Israeli one. The GOI has still refused to declassify any documents (including pictures taken after the massacre) from Deir Yassin, despite the fact that it is now nearly another 30 years past the usual 30 year mark for declassifying Israeli government documents.

      As a personal aside, I'm not sure that a number arrived at 40 years after the fact is necessarily the most accurate either. I would suspect it to be somewhat lower than the actual number, memories being what they are. So the number is probably somewhere in between the two figures, IMHO.

  • Israeli gov't used my image for propaganda purposes without my consent
    • not necessarily “adores” but might be ambivalent about experience with Israelis in general until she was pressured to reject any positive aspect to the GOI

      What "positive aspect" do you think she experienced? The 3 GOI military assaults on Gaza that she experienced since 2008? The repeated GOI rejections of her request for a permit to leave so she could study abroad ? The refusal of her request to visit her uncle in Ramallah before leaving? The fact that they didn't shoot her at the crossing?

      Why do apologists for Israel act as if there is some "positive aspect" to the GOI for Palestinians? Do they really think the rest of us are so stupid, or are they so brainwashed (or stupid?) that they believe it themselves?

  • Could Syria's revolution have been different?
    • Beezlebubelaroo..

      Really? You feel the need to resort to serial name calling to make your points? Give it up. You aren't impressing anyone here with your name calling and comparisons to Stalin. Why make this so personal? Either you have the facts or you don't. And right now your name calling only leads me to believe you don't.

  • 'NYT' misrepresents Iran's prediction about 'Zionist regime' to mean 'Israel'
    • And as for the ridiculous notion that AIPAC is (or was) the most ‘powerful lobby’ here is a LINK-[yes-i actually found cause to link] to a site that is most decidedly ANTI Israel ANTI Zionist and anti-everything that has to do with Israel-The Angry Arab citing a list of the top 10 nations paying for influence in the US government. So much for the protocols.

      I'm not sure whether your problem is poor reading comprehension or faulty logic. AIPAC is not a foreign country. Therefore it would not be on the list of top ten foreign governments paying for influence, or even on the list of bottom ten foreign governments. Its funny how lists work that way, but if your group doesn't fit the definition of the list, it doesn't appear on the list, no matter how much it spends.

      However, the fact that AIPAC et al spent some $40 million on just one issue this year means that if it was a foreign government it would be at the top of the list and the amount spent would be greater than the top 3 countries combined. If you add in all the associated pro-Israel lobbying groups' and PACs' 2015 spending it would dwarf that of all 10 of the foreign governments.

      P.S. you didn't link to the article you cited. You just copied and pasted. Here's what an actual link looks like:

      You can accomplish this yourself by copying the url for the article you wish to link and pasting it in your comment.

  • The Star of David is fair game
    • Sweetie, the flying pig in question had all 3 Abrahamic religious symbols on it, not just the Star of David. Only the Star of David on the pig received any vocal condemnation. So please explain how the 3 things are completely different and only the Star of David is found offensive, and also explain how you were completely clueless to the fact that the flying pig balloon had both the Crucifix and the Crescent and Star on it.

    • The Roger Waters flying pig not only had a Star of David on it; it also had a Crucifix, a Crescent and Star as well as a hammer and sickle, a dollar sign, a Mercedes symbol, a McDonald's sign and a Shell Oil sign.

      I can find no internet link to any objection to the Crescent and Star or to the Crucifix that were illuminated on the very same Waters' flying pig.

  • Racism in Arad: Mayor declares southern Israeli town off-limits to Africans
    • Lets be very clear that at the core of Jewish “ethnocentrism” is a great hatred/fear of Jews and non-Jews of a darker hue –

      But the level of fear of the non-Jew is much greater because the hatred of the non-Jew is greater. Jews of Arab or African descent are still considered Jews and thus not as significant a "demographic threat" as non-Jews are. Although the Ashkenazim might be disappointed to be outnumbered by the presumed "inferior" Mizrahim and Ethiopian Jews, in the final analysis they are all Jews and don't threaten the demographics of the Jewish State like the Palestinians, the foreign workers (including the Eastern European ones) and the African asylum seekers do.

      The mayor didn't ban Ethiopian Jews from the town of Arad. He banned African non-Jews. There's a difference in the level of discrimination one faces in Israel depending on the religious background of the person.

    • But its important to remember that the African Asylum seekers main "offense" against the Jewish State is that they aren't Jewish. Israel has been doing this kind of crap since its very beginnings, as did the early Zionists before its creation. They didn't need to "seize" an ugly American tradition (since abandoned thankfully) to do this. Its the nature of Zionism. Let's not try to morph this into white racism. Its Jewish ethnocentrism at its heart.

  • 'Jimmy Carter's cancer is God's punishment,' says leading Israeli newspaper
    • shorter yonah: ‘i’m the arbitrator of what is and is not news.’

      With addendum: 'I'm the expert on stupid.'

Showing comments 2234 - 2201