text:
Total number of comments: 9696 (since 2009-07-31 13:50:35)
Showing comments 2800 - 2701
Page: 97 96 95 ... 30 29 28 27 26 ... 3 2 1
- ADL enlists city of Oakland to block Atzmon event
American February 29, 2012 at 2:29 pm
"Adam Horowitz says:
February 29, 2012 at 9:18 am
" but he refers to all Jews and Judaism. He believes Judaism is evil and Jews are not ordinary humans."
* I haven't read Gilad but I listened to his radio interview the other day and didn't get that impression. My impression was he was saying Jews can be just as evil as anyone else. Big difference. Do you agree that Jews as individuals or as a group can be as evil as a gentile individual or group, or a Hispanic or Catholic individual or group or not?
I think he was making the point that some or many Jews deny this universal truth about basic human natures applies to them.
Can Israeli Jews and US Jews as a group be held collectively as guilty for Palestine as the world judged ordinary Germans guilty for the holocaust? What are the numbers or percentages for holding a 'group' responsible? If 50 Germans out of a 100 supported the holocaust is that enough for total group responsibility? If a 1000 out of 10,000 Jews don't support Israel zionism if that enough to absolve the total group from blame?
If 50% of all Jewish synagogues fly the Israeli Flag at their religious institutions is that enough to say the Jewish community is Israel first or would you say it would have to be 100%?
You can't have it both ways---collectively blaming entire other groups and refusing to have it applied to your own. Or you can but no one will buy the hypocrisy.
"It's ignorant and clearly anti-Semitic in the same way that making a broad generalization about any group of people based on a shared characteristic is clearly racist."
*The most 'broad" generalization of 'others" ever made in the world by any people was Jewish zionism. And it continues to be propagated to this day. It is the ultimate racism against "All others". You can try to keep inverting that into your racism was a response and not an inherent attitude of Jews towards others in the way you claim that anti semitism is an inherent attitude of others and push the anti semitism and racism of others till your dying day but as I said people won't buy the pot calling the kettle black hypocrisy.
It works this way ...."It's ignorant and clearly anti-Gentile and anti- All Others in the same way that making a broad generalization about Jews people based on a shared characteristic is clearly racist."
What's clear cut is this..those who refuse to look at themselves and be honest about their own attitude and prejudices, will eventually have only their own small like minded choir to preach to and will be left out of the larger American and wider world conservation.
"'all goys are anti-semitic at heart, and cannot be trusted. "
This was after all the idea behind Zionism to begin with.
It would be an interesting study to list all the persecutions of Jews from day one in history and also list for comparions other persecutions of other groups that also went on from day one.
Every time I wander back into history I find all kinds of groups and religions besides the Jews that were persecuted/ discriminated against or in conflict with and massacered by others , particulary in early history.
In ancient days tribal conflict was a way of life.
In modern days there is no group except maybe Whites or Anglo Saxons that hasn't been discriminated against and even there they discriminated against each other - Irish vr Italians and so on.
American February 29, 2012 at 12:04 am
Very moving Danaa.
That is a question isnt' it?
It appears to me the man is saying to Jews, you should examine yourselves and your own 'ages old' prejudices.
I've said this before and I'll say it again...it would be comedy if they weren't serious about it, to claim or ask the world to believe that there exist a "people" who have been hated since time began for absolutely no reason by all other peoples of the world because all other peoples are evil haters except them, who have always been totally innocent of creating any animus toward themselves.
I don't know any sane person, much less any sociological experts, who would believe the fantasy that such a "people' exist or could possibly exist or the fantasy that 'entire' rest of the world was born united in a "universal", instilled at birth hatred of Jews.
And yet there are some Jews who claim this, many who believe this myth and to them if you don't believe this myth of mystical eternally innocent victims then you are a anti semite.
Utterly insane. So fanastical my mind literally recoils from imagining the kind of person or mentality that would subscribe to this kind of myth.
- Look over there! All eyes on Iran as Israel quietly devours Area C
American February 26, 2012 at 11:21 am
Who is it again that's controlling what you read or don't read in the press?"....Walid"
Ah yes...that is the question isn't it? I tend to think it's what the 1963 Senate hearings on the ZOA found wrt to their activities to infiltrate, influence and intimidate press and media. And obviously when you look at people in the press and media there are a lot of Israel firsters, either by ideology or paycheck, in their executive suites, pundits and reporters that are gatekeepers. And it's gotten worse over time.
A good example of the Israel first network would be Adam Crisely (sp?) who was fired from the CIA because of his supicious dealings with Israeli agents and then the tribe gave him job as 'producer' for CNN. So CNN has a Israel first news producer who was fired from the CIA controlling news content and who is allowed to speak on various news and other programs.
American February 26, 2012 at 10:57 am
I don't use Sayanim because it is a Hebrew word that connates sneaky Jews involved in deception and Mossad type activities for Israel. No doubt there are some Sayanims doing that but it's a word that because it is Hebrew goes too far into blanket ethnic smearing.
It is better to use Israel firster because it is generic, easy understandable by the public and keeps the issue political.
Why do they get away with it?...Bumblebye
Because the US zionist and Israel firsters 'buy' our politicians and dictate our Israel ME policy and the politicians force US taxpayers to then finance their crimes and prevent any other countries or institutions from doing anything about it.
Any other questions?
- IDF pushes law to give settlers another way of grabbing land-- unpaved roads
American February 25, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Piranhas don't need no stinking law. Nothing escapes their pre historic mindlessness of insatiable skeletonizing.
Israel nixes solar energy for Palestinians
By DALIA NAMMARI, Associated Press – 9 hours ago
AL-THALA, West Bank (AP) — Electricity from solar panels and wind turbines has revolutionized life in rural Palestinian herding communities: Machines, instead of hands, churn goat milk into butter, refrigerators store food that used to spoil and children no longer have to hurry to get their homework done before dark.
But the German-funded project, initiated by Israeli volunteers, is now in danger. Israeli authorities are threatening to demolish the installations in six of the 16 remote West Bank communities being illuminated by alternative energy, arguing the panels and turbines were installed without permits.
The German government has expressed concern and asked for clarifications — a rare show of displeasure from Israel's staunchest defender in Europe.
The dispute is more than just a diplomatic row. It goes to the core of mounting international criticism of Israel's policies in the 62 percent of the West Bank that remain under full Israeli control two decades after Palestinians were granted self-rule in a patchwork of territorial islands in the rest of the land.
The division of jurisdictions was meant to be temporary, but has been frozen in place as repeated peace talks deadlocked. The Palestinians claim all the West Bank, along with east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, for a state.
International monitors have warned that Israel is suppressing Palestinian development in the West Bank sector under its full control, known as "Area C," while giving preferential treatment to Israeli settlements. Most of the international community considers Israel's settlements in the West Bank illegal.
Israel's more than 300,000 settlers are already double the number of Palestinians in Area C, which would form the heart of any Palestinian state.
If Israel's policies are not stopped, "the establishment of a viable Palestinian state ... seems more remote than ever," European Union diplomats warned in an internal report last year.
More than 90 percent of the West Bank's Palestinians live in the self-rule areas run by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. The economist has won international praise for building institutions of a state like police and courts in the areas he governs. Fayyad has tried to branch out into Area C, but hit a wall of Israeli rejections.
Palestinian government spokesman Ghassan Khatib said the donors are increasingly aware of the problem, but that "unfortunately, there isn't yet action, such as holding Israel accountable."
Perhaps the most vulnerable Palestinians in Area C are the goat and sheep herding families scraping a living from barren hills of the West Bank. Israel does not recognize their tiny communities, saying the herders are in the area illegally. Residents say their roots go back generations.
The hamlet of al-Thala, a community of 80 in the southern West Bank, had no electricity until last August when the German aid group medico and Comet-ME, a group of pro-peace Israeli scientists, set up solar panels there as part of a campaign to provide 30 communities in the area with solar and wind power.
In al-Thala, 41-year-old Hakima Elayan used to spend four hours a day churning butter by hand. Now a machine does it for her, leaving her more time for her children and other household chores.
"It's as if we are living the city life," she said. "I can't live without it," she added as three of her young daughters watched a soap opera on TV. Her neighbors have also bought refrigerators, washers, TVs and butter churners.
But last month, Israel's Civil Administration — a branch of the military dealing with Palestinian civilians — issued "stop work" orders, a precursor to demolitions, targeting solar panels and wind turbines in al-Thala and five other communities.
The installations were set up illegally, without anyone having requested a permit, the Civil Administration said, adding that the cases will be reviewed by a committee.
"International aid is an important component in improving and promoting the quality of life of the Palestinian population but this does not grant immunity for illegal or uncoordinated activity," said Maj. Guy Inbar of the Civil Administration.
Elad Orian, a physicist at Comet-ME, said the group didn't ask for permits, feeling it would have been futile because Israel considers the communities illegal. He believes demolition is still months away, and hopes political pressure by Germany, which gave more than 400,000 euros ($520,000), will save the projects.
Germany's foreign ministry has expressed concern and said it is closely monitoring the situation in Area C.
In a similar case, deputy Polish Foreign Minister Jerzy Pomianowski summoned Israel's ambassador to express concern over the demolition of a well in a community near al-Thala that had been rebuilt with Polish funds.
Israel said those refurbishing the wells also failed to ask for permits and ignored calls to attend a hearing.
The international community has repeatedly urged Israel to halt demolitions in Area C. Instead, the pace has accelerated, according to a new U.N. report.
Last year, 622 structures, including 222 homes, were demolished, more than 90 percent of them in Area C, an increase of nearly 50 percent from 2010, the report said. More than 1,100 Palestinians were displaced, half of them children.
The Civil Administration said it has formulated master plans for legal Palestinian construction.
However, the U.N. said 70 percent of Area C is off limits to Palestinian construction, having been allocated to settlements or the military, and that development in the remainder is heavily restricted.
"In reality, it is almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain building permits," the report concluded.
In contrast, critics note that Israel has allowed rapid settlement development in Area C. That includes some 100 unauthorized outposts set up since the late 1990s. Instead of tearing them down, the government has linked outposts to the electricity grid, provided roads and infrastructure and is trying to legalize some retroactively.
At the same time, Israeli officials argue that the Palestinian herders of the southern West Bank are nomads with no legal claim to the lands they squat on.
In al-Thala, Israeli bulldozers last week demolished a well and two corrugated metal shacks of the Elayan family, one serving as a home and the second as an animal shelter.
The family has moved into tents, and on Wednesday, Hakima was hanging laundry from a rope strung between tent poles.
Her husband, Jamil, who was born in a nearby cave, said he will not leave his ancestral land, even if it means going back to living in the dark.
"It's my land, my country, I don't have another," said Elayan, 48
- NJ Star-Ledger runs 'dual loyalty' charge against Rep. Rothman supporters
American February 25, 2012 at 3:03 pm
"These folks will resort to anything they have in their manipulative bag of tricks. They go for the emotions and try to smear you as a Nazi in the process. Don't let them"
Do let them try. The show down at the O.K. corral is long over due.
"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
Thomas Jefferson
LOL...If the shoe fits beat him on his head with it.
- Hoenlein says irresponsible 'J Street' threatens Jewish unity (and survival)
That's all blah,blah.
Name an idea on Israel I/P that hasn't already been 'dialogued" on 21,840 times.
The only worthwhile dialogue left is dialogue telling people to quit wasting their time talking to Israel and start doing something about it.
Liberal or conserative is immaterial in the Israel issue.
Using liberal or conserative wrt Israel supporters is a diversion from the Israel first issue ---which is liberal and conserative supporters of Israel only differ in 'what' they want the US 'to do' for Israel.
Neither wants to end the 'special US relationship' that has financed Israel and protected it from international law and all accountability for it's actions.
American February 25, 2012 at 11:56 am
"treated as any other country"
Ditto teta, my long held position also.
And the snot nosed kids needed to be treated like snot nosed kids.
"Sadly, when we are divided, history records we have paid a heavy price."
That's a statement that doesn't even make sense. But it's typical.
You can take 99% of all zionist babble and there's nothing in them but statements without any basis or explanation, and jingoisms, and claims without any examples or evidence.
Dummies for the dumbos.
- Sunlight on the lobby: AIPAC's push for war exposed in 'Atlantic' magazine blog
American February 25, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Who ran against Baucus and what was his platform? I doubt Montana's love of Israel was what elected Baucus.
Montanan's love of the environment so Baucus plays that and is also Israel firster.
Montanan's love the environment so Candidate X plays that and is American firster.
Which one wins?
If you fall for the myth of AIPAC's impotence you will never mount a fight and always lose.
Why waste your time and breath if you think AIPAC and the Israel firsters are undefeatable.
Just accept your fate and go quietly into the night.
American February 25, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Doesn't matter if AIPAC funds their opponent if you've got a hot button issue and message- anti American - pro American that gets people riled and the fur flying.
This is not a white gloves fight.
"Have heard them also say that they know what would happen to them if they tried to take a stand. "
Again, this is why we need to go after politicians individually when they are up for re election to let them know what will happen to them if they don't take a stand...and get the numbers under a Pro America banner meme for the public to make the threat stick.
You only need to defeat one Israel firster once with a Anti -America Israel- first charge that their defeat can be 'credited to', to start frightening some of the other politicians.
The power of the lobby to take out politicians is overestimated. It only works in districts of heavy concentrations of Jews or extreme christian fundies.
I think the fundies are so dispersed geographically that most times they don't even matter except in some pockets of mainly the south and Texas.
My district is religious, mostly consertive and independent and my congressman is against foreign aid, including Israel and always votes against it and AIPAC would not be able to remove him.
The problem is Israel has become a 'party line' and candidates don't campaign against their own party line for obvious $$ reasons...so no one tries it.
link to turcopolier.typepad.com
I anticipate a continuing attack on General Dempsey, the CJCS by AIPAC/Likud and their Zombie media clients.
He will have a great deal of trouble defending himself in what is essentially a political arena.
We do not have such a problem. To paraphrase Sheridan again, "If you love your country, come up to the front..."
(pl) Col Pat Lang
Congress Toll Free ---1-877-762-8762
American February 24, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Exellent idea ritzl.
- Video: Protesters are attacked at an 'Israel Alliance' event at U of New Mexico
American February 25, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Why don't you just explain exactly what your position is on I/P and Israel as well as Israel-US relationship.
Are you for One state?
Are you for Two states?
Are you for Israel returning all confiscated land to Palestine?
Are you for the US continuing billions in aid to Israel.
You need to make your position clear if you want people to respond reasonably and accurately to your statements.
American February 25, 2012 at 1:01 pm
"At this point, the pro-Palestinian groups are free to organize and act in various ways. "...David
At this point I think you can drop the description "Pro Palestine" groups and trying to portray I/P as some fight between Israel and Palestine to try and capitalize on US familiarity with Israel and as one that has nothing to do with the US.
There's a reason Code Pink signs say End the Occupation. Everyone in the world knows occupation= bad, even if they know nothing about the country occupied.
American February 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm
I'm often 50-50 on disruption. If the venue is one where there are zionist vr anti zionist or Israel firsters vr anti Israel firster and they get equal time, fine, no disruption.
But you will notice zionist never put themselves in that position if they can help it.
Their purpose is to disseminate propaganda unquestioned.
So I think "intimidating" their propagandist, disrupting and shaking them up is a good tactic in a lot of cases.
Offense not defense is the key to beating them.
American February 25, 2012 at 10:50 am
And how does disrupting Darwish address this problem?"...David
It's a form of intimidation. If you're not familiar with that tactic ask AIPAC and the zio character assassins about it.
American February 25, 2012 at 12:37 am
"yelling out as a common tactic"
Watch the British Parliament in action , 'yelling out' is an old tradition.
"When we disrupted the Israel Phil concert at the Royal Albert Hall we had to be protected by Hall staff from determined physical assault"
That's sort of 'iffy' to me. I don't think I'd favor disrupting a concert since it isn 't a political speech event. Maybe standing outside and holding signs about the Israeli occupation would be better.
American February 24, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Objective observers cannot come to a objective opinion when one or either side lies about the facts.
Israel has the advantage of years of propaganda and outright lies in the US. I have personally observed 10 years of it. Israel firsters have as you know censored the truth about Israel, the US and I/P for 60 years. They and their supporters continue to lie.
Despite that, the facts about US-Israel and wrt I/P have started to break through. Although mainly because of the public's awarness and growing disgust with how Israel uses the US and Americans.
Nevertheless that has created an opening and advantage with the public I/P activist didn't have before and they are going for it.
Israel never allowed them a platform in the US why should they allow Israel one now, particulary when Israel uses the same propaganda they always put forth?
I don't see you have any grounds for complaint about anyone else tactics considering Israel's.
There is no hostility or arrogance here.
There is nothing personal in it here. Or toward you.
There is no insecurity among those in the I/P movement.
There are no gatekeepers here.
What you are seeing is simply the end of most people's patience.
It will not be 'debated' for another 5, 10, 15 or 60 years.
People have moved on to whatever action they can take to get a just resolution of I/P.
American February 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm
"So if you can't treat them in a civil way, ignore them"..David
When they quit doing their business in my yard and everyone else's I'll be happy to ignore them.
American February 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm
"One of the traits of non-Democratic regimes is the way they extinguish any form of dialog through bullying. These were the exact same tactics of the "protesters"...Izik
One of the traits of smart people and realist is not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
American February 24, 2012 at 5:02 pm
David Green says:
February 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm
"there is nothing to 'debate". The debate is over. "
Of course it is."
No...there isn't.
The world agrees, international law agrees, morality agrees, human rights agrees, real politics in ME stability agrees on Israel I/P.
What you try to call 'debate' is simply your insistence that Jews and Israel are a special case and all the above areas of world agreement don't apply to you.
American February 24, 2012 at 4:04 pm
"And exactly why did this need to be demonstrated at this point in history?
Documenting the fact they are 'still off the rails' would be my guess.
American February 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm
"So how do you feel about the Zionists disrupting pro-Palestinian events?"
I, for one, am all for it. Every time some zio thug attacks a woman holding up a banner in congress and shoves her to the floor or shakes his fist in someone's face or slaps a phone out of some woman's hand at a speech or protest or shouts epitaphs like anti semite or self hating Jew at anti AIPAC protestors it reaffirms for me our side has already won the public battle.
All that is left is getting the politicians.
American February 24, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Yea I saw that.
If I was a evil strategist I would encourage them to continue their violent behavior.
One day they could do it with the wrong crowd in the wrong area of the country that would create such a throw down that it might get them on network news or at minimun on local area TV news.
The Palestinian rights movement either has to have the confidence to ignore events like this and carry on with its campaign, or show up, ask questions, and debate"
David, there is nothing to 'debate". The debate is over. Israel lost. There is a world majority consensus on I/P. The 'protest' now are just to bring attention to their continuing propaganda for the public.
I have not read of a single instance where anti AIPAC or Israel, or pro Palestine or pro I/P peace protesters have used physical assaults against the Israel-firsters.
Have there been any?
American February 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Sounds like a joke to me.
- Sanity check on Iran
American February 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Such a comedy.
The US and EU put sanctions on Iran and went around the world strong arming other countries not to buy Iran oil.
So then Iran announced it would boycott oil to Europe.
So now Europe is offficially complaining about Iran boycotting them on Iran oil. LOL
Beam me up Scotty.
American February 24, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Doesn't make much sense to me either.
American February 24, 2012 at 3:26 pm
I don't buy it. And neither do the VSFPP (very serious foreign policy people).
There is no upside for the US to go from it's policy of off shore balancing of power and 'stability' ---to control by conquest. There is no financial or resource payoff for the US in oil considerations or any other.
"If' I wanted to 'control' a neighborhood for some purpose for example--which of it's neighbors would I make a pact with to do that ---the guy everyone in the neighborhood hates ---or the guy who has the most influence in the neighborhood I want to control?
If you look at it as risk and rewards business deal for ME US Empire --- you can see the irrationality of a oil and everything else disruptive war on someone you could simply entice with mutual benefits that would cost you nothing and achieve your own goal.
Anything else is irrational. War on Iran is the product of Israeli greed and hubris and Neo mad ideology. That is what this is all about. Nothing else, not even the pitiful "nuke threat" and proliferation excuse.
American February 23, 2012 at 8:51 pm
"I hope someone savvier and more organized than me comes up with some ideas to stop this march to war. I will jump in with both feet, even if I end up on a dreaded "list."
There are only 535 congressperps. They are all fat and slow. We could probably kidnap and hold them on some kind of citizens arrest indefinite detention thingy..LOL
American February 23, 2012 at 1:45 pm
An attack on Iran is entirely in Obama's hands. Everything else is just noise.
It's now a fight between Netanyahu with congress in his pocket vr Obama.
Israel and the US and Iran know Israel can't sucessfully attack Iran...only the US has the capability.
Here's a map of the route Israel would have to take to hit Iran for those who don't have one.
- Weir criticizes lack of diversity in NYT's Jerusalem appointments
American February 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm
The NYT appointing reporters who have or 'may' have a bisas for Israel is the same disregard for 'conflict of interest' in the press that we have in government appointments regarding Israel ----WS to Fed and many other areas.
Avoiding conflicts of interest or even the appearence of conflict of interest used to be the standard.
No such thing as neutral now, too many have a agenda---this is what has happened to the press, media and government and why no one trust any of them.
Personal and institutional ethics has gone the way of the doo-doo bird.
How did this happen?
First, why would you prefer a Jewish reporter?
Second, if a Jewish one was objective they wouldn't be shielded, they would get the same 'treatment' --self hating Jew, etc.---a non Jew would get from the usual suspects.
- Who's who behind the Olympia Food Co-op lawsuit
"Plaintiff Kent Davis: "I really don't think it's comfortable for Jews to live in the city of Olympia and be outwardly expressive Jews…I just don't feel comfortable discussing my religion or my beliefs in a mixed-group environment anymore."
Well I think that guy is just using a bulls*** hasbara whine, but my reply to his nonsense would be neither the US nor the world is obligated to make him 'feel comfortable'. We and it have created laws and numerous legal privileges to protect Jews and other religious and minorities. If that's not good enough he can stay out of 'mixed-group discussions' in the US or move to the Israeli nursery school for more comfort.
The US law against boycotting Israel has I think been used a grand total of twice in two very small incidents--which I am willing to bet were set ups just to set a precedent in law because the money and companies involved were so inconsequential. The law itself is so easy to get around it might as well not exist. You can't sue a company that buys from vendors that offer the best price...well you can but you would lose. Whole Foods could lose and then go right back to buying US gluten free instead of Israel gluten free on a 2 cent price difference.
But I would love to see the US try to tell US retailers who they had to buy from or that they had to buy a certain amount of Israeli goods (like the US imposed on Egypt having to use Israel goods in their cotton exports)----that would bring some hellish monied lobbyist out against Israel.
Yea, I'd love to see Walmart vr Israel.LOL
- Why young Palestinians chant the word 'thawra'
American February 23, 2012 at 2:33 am
Let's have a revolution here and save Palestine the trouble.
- Assault on Beinart begins with poll claiming young American Jews love Israel
"If young Jews are comfortable with Israel or not is, in the light of the brutal oppression of racial minorities, disgustingly trivial and arrogant. That is not and should not be the main focus of this debate."... Krauss
I agree. And the question of Israel -I/P --- the fact that Israel's actions and I/P falls under international law --should leave out of any I/P settlement and not depend on any other opinions of Israel's supporters or detractors.
I would be 100% in favor of applying the strict letter of the laws the world went to the trouble to create for just such conflicts as I/P.
Clinton justified NATO acting in the Bosnia conflict based on those same international laws and the trigger set for acting was the slaughter of 800 people. More than a thousand were killed in the Gaza assault alone in '08.
The moral hypocrisy should be more than Americans can stand.
- Foreign nationals willingly gave passports to Mossad
American February 22, 2012 at 1:41 pm
The question for the dual Israelis who turned over their passports would be did they know what it would be used for some covert Israeli activity. I'm guessing some did and some didn't. But no adult turns over their passport lightly considering the problems it could cause them if the user was caught impersonating the passport holder in some other country...some young kid might without thinking of consquences.
Israel not having the normal cushions other countries have is mostly their own making and mostly their 'continuing' refusal to act like a normal country. It acts like an outlaw. Israelis and Israel supporters may like Israel's Bonnie and Clyde outlaw act but no one else does.
- 2013 US budget: 'difficult cuts' for Americans, jackpot for Israel
American February 22, 2012 at 12:09 pm
"The solution is to ban all private money from the US political process."...frankier
Totally right. That would solve 80% of our domestic problems also. Somehow the calls for public campaign financing has dwindled. I don't know what it would take
to end the money corruption, but this election is a prime example of it with figures Aldeson and who knows what others in other special interest are doing. Israel is but one example but it's as good a wedge as any to use to start a fight over it.
Here's a mail I just received from CNI that may interest you. There have been too many former US congressmen and senators telling how Israel minons operate like the mafia not to believe them. Especially when the FBI backs up their story.
Council for the National Interest Foundation
Dear Friends,
We wanted you to be the first to see this explosive account by our board member, Senator James Abourezk (below). We'll be posting it publicly on the CNI Website tomorrow morning at 9 am (the 22nd) ET [ link to councilforthenationalinterest.org ].
At that time this link will become live; please consider sending it on to others.
Thank you so much for the support that makes our work possible.
Best regards,
*Firsthand Account: Israeli Plot to Murder Former US Senator*
James Abourezk represented South Dakota in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1971 to 1973 and in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 1979. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including Advise & Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S. Senate [ link to middleeastbooks.com ].
CNI asked Mr. Abourezk about his experiences with the Israel Lobby while he served in Congress. In his response he told of an Israeli plot against him that has received perplexingly little coverage in the U.S. press. Below is his description of this and other incidents:
Q: Despite such books as Paul Findley's They Dare to Speak Out [ link to middleeastbooks.com ], Edward Tivnan's The Lobby [ link to amazon.com ], and Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby [ link to middleeastbooks.com ], some people still tend to downplay the power of the Israel Lobby. Can you tell us about some of your experiences with it?
A: I'm an eyewitness to what the Lobby does to Members of Congress, including to me during the time I spent in D.C. I was threatened, marginalized, attacked, lied about, among other matters in an effort to silence my criticism of Israel's policies and of the Lobby.
At one time Bob Cordier, from the Washington FBI office, called me to tell me that, during the investigation into Alex Odeh's murder -http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/alex-odeh-murder-investigation ] (Alex was one of my staff people) - the FBI had uncovered a "plot" on my life. Not a threat, but a plot, but, he said it's OK now, as the guy who intended to murder me had now gone back to Israel. Alex Odeh's murder came not long after I had run four full page ads in the Washington Post asking for support against the Israel Lobby. My assumption was that, reading the ads had enraged the plotter, which led him to bomb the ADC office in Orange County, California.
I also assume that the Robert Manning in West Bank -
[ link to blockyourid.com,,0_18american_jewish_teens_go_to_isra.htm ] plotter was Robert Manning, a hit man who was later convicted [ link to articles.latimes.com ] of the murder of the secretary of a Jewish businessman in California. Apparently Manning had been hired by another Jewish businessman who was a competitor. They found the fingerprints both of Manning and of his wife on remnants of the letter bomb that was sent to his target, but was opened by his secretary, who died as a result of the explosion.
Manning and his wife were safe from extradition [ link to wrmea.com ] from Israel, due to Israeli policy of not extraditing Jews for any reason, until Peter Jennings on ABC nightly news did a story -
[ link to tvnews.vanderbilt.edu ] -on how Manning was running free in a West Bank settlement. The news story so embarrassed the U.S. government as well as the Israeli government that he was allowed to be extradited to California, but on the condition that he not be tried for killing Alex Odeh, but only for the Secretary. That condition was tantamount to a confession that he had murdered Alex Odeh. Manning's wife died of a heart attack in an Israeli jail while awaiting extradition.
James Bamford [ link to randomhouse.com ], now a writer living in Washington, D.C., and who was Peter Jennings' producer then, has film clips of the news story that he shows at lectures he gives on the subject. He went to the West Bank and filmed a machine gun toting Manning for the news story.
Lobby-engineered mud-slinging
I was under continual attack by the Lobby while I was in politics. Because I kept myself clean during my time of service, someone in the Lobby dug up a story designed to embarrass me by exposing my oldest son to ridicule. He was, at the time, living on an Indian reservation in South Dakota on food stamps. The Lobby got Spencer Rich, who was a political reporter for the Washington Post, to do a story on him. Rich several times called both my wife and me trying to get us to comment, but we refused. So he ran the story, headlined, "Senator's Son Living on Food Stamps." That set off a fire storm of criticism against the Post, and against Ben Bradlee, who was then Editor in Chief. Larry Stern, who was one of my friends, and an editor of the Post, complained bitterly to Bradlee.
One of the Style section writers, Tom Zito, whom I had never met, called me one day and told me the story about his protest to Bradlee over the story. Bradlee finally said, "Alright, go find some other famous people whose kids are living on food stamps and we'll run it." Zito told me that he had found that Bradlee's daughter was living on Food Stamps out in Oregon, causing Bradlee to kill the story on the spot.
Years later I ran into Spencer Rich in a store in DC. He confessed to me that he still felt bad about doing the story on my son's food stamp adventure.
"We're going to get him"
Si Kenen, who was then Executive Director of AIPAC, used to tell anyone who knew me, to tell Abourezk "we're going get him." And when I returned from a trip through the Middle East, I spoke about the trip at the Federal Press Club (reserved for women and blacks) and talked about how every Middle East leader I met with said they would be willing to sign a peace treaty with Israel if Israel would go back to the 1967 borders. A young fellow named Wolf Blitzer, who was Wolf Blitzer in 1990 [ link to wrmea.com ]then writing for AIPAC, rose to ask me several hostile questions. The next issue of the AIPAC newsletter headlined that "Abourezk Sells Out to the Arabs." That was the beginning of the war, as I failed to collapse after that broadside, and worked to make AIPAC sorry for their attack on me.
I used to take the lead in human rights legislation in the Senate. I once offered an amendment to a bill that would cut off American money for any country violating the human rights of their people. Before anyone would vote, I was asked during debate "whether the amendment would apply to Israel." When I said "no" I would get that person's vote.
I also had all kinds of pressure put on me by rabbis who would come to visit me. Once an Iraqi Jew, a woman, came to visit me to tell me how bad it was for Jews in Iraq, I suppose trying to get me to change my mind on the Palestinian issue. She said she was constantly beat up and called a "dirty Jew" when she lived in Iraq. I told her I knew her feeling, because when I grew up in rural South Dakota, other kids would beat me up and call me a "dirty Jew."
After I left the Senate, Art Meggido, a writer for the Baltimore Jewish newspaper asked me for an interview. When I asked him why I should give him an interview, he told me that the Jewish community would eventually have to deal with me when it came to making peace in the Middle East. So I agreed. When the article came out, he related a story that an unnamed Ted Kennedy staffer told him that I had approached Kennedy and asked for money to go to Iran and free some hostages to help him in his 1980 primary campaign against Jimmy Carter.
The truth of that libel was that Kennedy sent three of his supporters to me to ask if I would go to Iran to free some hostages in his name. One was Jan Kalicke, one was Thomas Dineen. John Culver and the other was Ted Sorensen. I supported Ted, so I agreed. The only thing I asked for was that they buy my ticket to Tehran, which they agreed to do.
When I read the article I wrote to Meggido telling him that unless they retracted the lie, I would sue him and the newspaper. They ran the retraction. Because we had agreed that we would not talk on the phone about this, we decided to talk only in person about the trip. No one knew about our deal except Kennedy and his staff, which included Tom Dine [ link to rightweb.irc-online.org ], who had been working for AIPAC earlier. It had to be Dine who talked to Meggido with the lie. And during the kerfuffle, I had a hard time getting Kalicke to call Meggido to verify my story, but it all came out in his retraction.
There are other stories that I could tell you at the risk of boring you to death, but the Lobby had every Senator, except me, scared shitless.
* * *
Since CNI does not feel that anyone will be bored by these other stories, we have asked Mr. Abourezk, who is a member of our board of directors, to provide additional ones, which he has agreed to do on occasion. He is a columnist for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs [ link to wrmea.com ], which has long published such commentaries and reminiscences. For an earlier article by Mr. Abourezk on this topic, see "Yes, It's the Lobby: 'Political Fear' Drives US Support for Israel. [ link to ifamericansknew.org ]"
Council for the National Interest Foundation
1250 4th St SW Ste WG-1
Washington, DC 20024
link to cnionline.org
"If we can win the war against our politicians, everything else will fall in place.
Without doing this, we will never be able to stop the flow of cash to Israel or the wars they initiate with our money and lives."
Exactly right Cloak and Dagger,......get the politicians. As I told someone else--I wrote to a congressman, not even my own, one from another state, back when talk of invading Iraq began and ripped him for his loudmouth support of attacking Iraq suggesting he was a 'traitor' to the US and influenced by foreign interest. I really hit his hot button because I got a personal two page letter back from him vehemently denying he was acting for other interest. I've never even gotten a one page letter from my own congressman,unless he was asking for money. LOL
I am committed to confronting any candidates that are campagining in my area on exactly who they want to serve us or Israel. And I don't mind standing up in front of a crowd and calling them traitors. In fact I look forward to it.
I hope every one, ever US citizen that is, who reads this knows what to do with it.
Copy it and take it to any civic or town or social meeting you go to and share it with people.
And keep a copy also to take any candidate campaign event you might go to and read it off to the candidate and his adoring followers and ask him to explain it.
- Khader Adnan ends strike and will be released in April, under reported deal
American February 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm
This also revealing excerpt from Alison's article:
"In her article Halsell quotes a revealing statement by an Israeli journalist following Israel's 1996 shelling of a U.N. base in Lebanon that killed more than 100 civilians sheltering in it: "We believe with absolute certitude that right now, with the White House in our hands, the Senate in our hands and The New York Times in our hands, the lives of others do not count the same way as our own."
Since 1984 New York Times bureau chiefs have lived in a house that was acquired for the Times by then Jerusalem Bureau Chief Thomas Friedman (now the Times' lead foreign policy columnist). The building originally belonged to a Palestinian family forced out in Israel's 1947-49 founding war. Israel afterward prevented the family from returning and reclaiming their home. Therefore, Times' bureau chiefs are in the strange position of living in a home that was stolen from Palestinians (acquiring property by violent conquest is illegal in today's world).
Yes thanks for link Les.
As I theorized, the NYT Israel problem is it's ownership and decisions makers.
They always appoint Jews and if the Jews they appoint get too fair or objective or critical of Israel it never passes an editors censorship or the reporters gets removed.
American February 21, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Is he now getting intravenous feeding? Which he will have to start off with. Are any NGO doctors allowed to treat him?
- Israeli spokesman Mark Regev grilled on CNN International over Khader Adnan
American February 21, 2012 at 4:48 pm
teta, excellent link and quotes to bring up.
More Freeman. And why I keep saying the real battle for I/P has to be aimed at our own politicians. It is they who allow and enable it. The days of US politicians working for foreign agents, interest and governments must end.
"The inability of the United States to build on the obvious shared interests of Palestinians and Israelis is, at best, damning testimony to the incompetence of those Americans who have made a career of processing peace without ever delivering it. At worst, it is compelling evidence of the extent to which they have functioned as "Israel's lawyers," rather than as mediators sincerely attempting to produce a mutually respectful and therefore durable modus vivendi between Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs. As such, it is a reflection of the inordinate influence of right-wing Israelis on American policies and the people chosen to implement them. I have had personal experience of this on more than one occasion.
In late November 1988, shortly after the election of George H. W. Bush as [United States] president, I was invited to lunch by a senior Israeli official with whom, in pursuance of U.S. policy, I had worked closely to expand Israel's diplomatic and military presence in Africa. I had come to like and respect this official. He wished to thank me, he said, for what I had done for his country. I was pleased. Over lunch, however, he asked me what I planned to do in the new administration, adding, "Tell me what job you want. We can get it for you." The casual arrogance with which this representative of a foreign power claimed to be able to manipulate the staffing of national security positions in the U.S. government was a stunning belittlement of American patriotism. Twenty years later, I was to be reminded that agents of foreign influence who can make appointments to national security positions in the United States can also unmake them. "
American February 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Bless Freeman.
THESE are the points we should be talking about.
International law as it applies to Israel and how gradually international law has also been ignored by the US.
I do think the myth of Israeli knowledege about "terrorism" has been incorporated or at least influenced certain US tactics because of the placement of many Israel first zionist individuals in various positions in government and as 'advisors".
In addition to the US going rouge in international law with the Bush-Cheney-Abrams and zio cabal at the pentagon, the US Military which is also bound to a code of conduct by international warfare laws as well as former US tradition has been forced or led into criminal outlawism with the use of drones and less and less concern for avioding collateral damage of civilians.
Alltogether it's a sickening turn for America.
- The end of the 'two-state solution' is the beginning of a more just future
American February 20, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Also Jeff, while I am sure your desire for a solution is sincere, it's very confusing.
Exactly what do you want/envision?
I've read what you said before:
"Even before the September vote, (at the UN on Palestine statehood) )it must be made clear that the Palestinian vision is not of a two-state "solution" but rather of a two-state stage in a process that will ultimately result in a single state – democratic, bi-national or part of a regional confederation. The very dynamics of two peoples sharing the same land in peace and mutual relations, together with the existence of a Palestinian community inside Israel and the right of the refugees to truly return home, lead to further evolution. It may take decades, but the idea is that both countries are transformed into a more inclusive entity on the entire land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan"
So it appears you weren't for Palestine getting a true 'independent statehood'. Why?
"And second, rejecting Palestinian admission to the UN puts an end to the "two-state solution." As long as the possibility of two states could be held out, any other option, including one state or a regional confederation, was effectively eliminated. Moving beyond that after September clears the way for the only genuine and possible solution: one inclusive state"
Again it seems you are stuck on Israel as One state of Israel, even when there was a possiblity of two states, and then also on a wider notion of some kind of 'regional confederation of states.
My confusion and question is this---in this collapse of Palestine government leading to some kind of revolt and world action that ends in One State--what do the Palestine get out of it? What exactly are the benefits to them?
Would the Palestine sections get more of their own water resources back...would Israel allow Palestines sections more the the 20% of their own water resources they get now while Israelis get 80% of it?
Who would profit from from the Gaza gas fields?
Would the taxes on Palestine goods that Israel now holds and turns over to Palestine when and if they feel like it be put equally back into Palestine sectors or used like Israel uses Palestine water..80% for Israelis and 20% for Palestines?
We all know the devil is in the details so what are the details of how this One State or confederation of states would work for Palestines. And exactly where would Palestine and Palestines fit in a confederation of states. Or when you say 'confederation of states' are you saying that once Israel and Palestine become the one state of Israel the goal is then to have this One state accepted by other ME states on the basis that Israel now has incorporated the Palestines?
I am confused here---I don't see what the Palestines have to gain in this.
Explain further with detail please.
American February 20, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Jeff, this is what you wrote/predicted in Nov 2010
"The first possible game-changer is already being discussed: a unilateral declaration by the Palestinian Authority of a state based on the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 "Green Line"), which then applies for membership in the UN. This, I believe, would force the hand of the international community. Most of the countries of the world would recognize a Palestinian state – including not a few in Europe – placing the US, Britain, Germany and other reluctant powers in a difficult if not impossible situation, including isolation and even irrelevancy. Indeed, a Palestinians declaration of independence within those boundaries would be a unilateral act but rather one done in agreement with the member states of the UN, who have accepted the 1949/1967 borders as the basis of a solution. It conforms as well to the Road Map initiative led by the US itself.
Such a scenario, while still possible given the deadlock in negotiations, is unlikely, if only because the leadership of the Palestinian Authority lacks the courage to undertake such a bold initiative. A second one seems more likely: in 2011, the Palestinian Authority will either resign or collapse, throwing the Occupation back on the lap of Israel. Given the deadlock in negotiations, I can't see the PA lasting even until August, when (sort-of) Prime Minister Salem Fayyad expects the international community to give the Palestinians a state. Even if the 90-day settlement freeze eventually comes into effect, Netanyahu will not negotiate borders during that period, the only issue worth discussing. Either fed up to the point of resigning – Abbas may be weak and pliable, but he is not a collaborator – or having lost so much credibility with its own people that it simply collapses, the fall of the PA would end definitively the present "process.">>>>
But the "Palestinian Authority lacks the courage to undertake such a bold initiative"...did take the initiative and go to the UN in Sept 2011.
And this:
"The end or fall of the PA would create an intolerable and unsustainable situation. Israel would be forced to retake by force all the Occupied Territories, and unable to allow Hamas to step into the vacuum, would have to do so violently, perhaps even invading Gaza again and assuming permanent control. Having to support four million impoverished Palestinians with no economic infrastructure whatsoever would be an impossible burden (and hopefully the "donor community" would not enable the re-occupation by stepping in to prevent a "humanitarian crisis," as it does today). Such a move on the part of Israel would also inflame the Muslim world and generate massive protests worldwide, again forcing the hand of the international community. Looked at in this way, the Palestinians have one source of enormous clout: they are the gatekeepers. Until they – the Palestinian people as a whole, not the PA – say the conflict is over, it's not over. Israel and its erstwhile allies have the ability to make life almost unbearable for the Palestinians, but they cannot impose apartheid or warehousing. We, the millions supporting the Palestinian struggle the world over, will not let it go until the Palestinians signal that they have arrived at a settlement that they can live with. Until then, the conflict will remain open and globally disruptive"
So if Israel violently retakes Gaza/Palestine after the fall of the Palestine government and no donors step in to prevent them from starving since Israel won't feed them--you think this would lead to massive Arab protest and then "We" meaning everyone who isn't going to be in Palestine to take the blunt of this will not let them give up till they get what they want.
Let me ask you why you think the 'world or the Arabs are going to do anything? And if Palestines massively protest?---well they get shot in the head and gassed.
If I was Israel I would adopt your recommendations, it would give me more excuses to kill more Palestines as terrorist, expell Gaza as terrorist, confiscate more land for 'security", put up more check points ,expand the wall---all the same things they have done while no one did anything about the '08 assault on Gaza or anything else.
Are you sure you're not a double agent or unwilling dupe for Israel?...:):)
American February 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm
"..., in my view, is to bring about the collapse of the present situation in Palestine in order to exploit its fundamental unsustainabilty. The elimination of the Palestinian Authority is one way to precipitate that collapse"
Sure go ahead and collapse Palestine and what little internationaly recongized government and attempts at some kind of unified government and unity Palestine has now---and lose any cooperation and support they have worked for with the UN and internationals.
That way you can start from stratch all over again and your Palestine hobby revolution can go forever and ever and even turn into a Aparthied movement for Palestines that Israel will never give equal rights to in one state and that will give you another 6 decades long activist hobby.
I don't give a rats ass about keeping Israel as a Jewish state but if no one will even enforce international law and it's protections against war crimes on Israel for Palestine now after all Israel has done and keeps doing, then you have squat chance of the world enforcing civil rights for Palestine internally in a Israel.
What you are asking Palestines to do is spend another half a century under Jewish rule. No matter how many Palestines you would put into Israel for numbers they would go up against a Jewish political system already entrenched that would change their so called democratic rules every time an Arab demographic made any headway politically or economically. If this is what Palestines want to do, struggle under the zios for 50 more years, another generation, fine go for it.
But it's gonna be long and nasty and in the end what will be the Palestine under class will have to take the zionist state like Egyptians or Libyans.
- In Jerusalem, the Nakba is a fresh memory
American February 20, 2012 at 2:21 am
LeaNder says:
February 19, 2012 at 11:19 pm
I think the difference in our view of term nationalism or nationalist is your average American doesn't associate it with the same definition a German or someone from another country might.
Annie 's comment was really excellent in explaining what a American would typically think of nationalism being. They wouldn't necessarily associate it with ethnic nationalism you're talking about. They might and most non neos do think of US neos and the right wing as being' excessively' nationalist about US Supremacy in their our way or the highway attitude about the world.
American February 19, 2012 at 10:32 pm
"that's my understanding of who we are as a people anyway."..annie
Mine too, Excellent reply. Explains it perfectly.
American February 19, 2012 at 10:11 pm
"american, i'm thinking perhaps she's made a broader distinction between nationalism and nationalist. perhaps"..annie
I think LeaN is more into, caught up in the "ethnic" nationalism.
I don't know if in modern history all nationalism or 'movements' called nationalism have been about un-mixing or rejecting all or certain ethnics in a country or not as it was in Germany. It's something I would have to research. May be.
American February 19, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Which of the definitions from the Oxford and Websters above would you like to use for nationalism?
I could be called a nationalist under 1.
Palestines could be called nationalist under 3.
Israelis have already been called nationalist under 1.,2. and 4.
I'm not trying to change to your mind, you can believe or use nationalism any way you want to. My point was and is, it's a word with several different interpretations.
American February 19, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Nationalist, nationalism can have a dozen meanings. Whether it's a good or bad or netural thing depends on whatever anyone claiming it or promoting it means by it.
If you're an older German it might have bad connations for you because of Nazi nationalist era.
A younger German might be proud of certain aspects or devoted to the interest of Germany as one of it's citizens today because he intends to stay there and will be affected by it's welfare.
na·tion·al·ism (nsh-n-lzm, nshn-)
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
4. The belief that one's nation is superior and comes ahead of all other nations.
American February 19, 2012 at 3:46 pm
I agree also Citizen. I don't think the Jews alone can do it. One problem is numbers, and in that they are up against decades of conditioning and propagandizing the Jewish collective and everything the Israel firsters will hurl at them as betrayers of the tribe. Americans have been conditioned the same way but don't have the personal emotional attachment and identity hurdles to get over, just the anti semite smear that comes with opposing I/P or Israel. And I think the power of that accusation has lost a lot of ground since the discussions on Israel-US and I/P have opened up considerably.
Practically speaking though, Jews should be the ones to lead the advance on the Jewish community simply because they will have more effect on other Jews. I see a lot of irrationally among Jews regarding Israel because of the holocaust and victim hood. So a Jew such as Phil and others, challenging or shaming them on their Jewish moral values wrt I/P would probably have more effect in reality than a logical rights-interest of Jews vr rights- interest of others argument by outsiders.
I've used that argument a lot with liberal zionist without much success, I run into their emotional firewall almost every time.
"The way you phrase it gives me the impression the Nabka isn't a historical event the West has to learn to deal with and somehow has to make amends for, but it is only a means to the end of Palestinians getting back their land with Israeli Jews moving back to wherever they came from."
LeaN, operating in a left brain world , consider a few things.
First, read UN Res. 181 (and the subsequent resolutions) to see exactly what the creation of Israel 'allowed' the Jews to do and "restricted" them from doing in the portion of Palestine they were awarded. Res. 181 had protections for the rights and property of Palestines 'within' the new Israel. We all know the zioinist violated "the agreements" in 181 and used violence to run Palestines out of the new Israel and seize their property. There are 259+ resolutions UN against Israel and most of them are based on Israel violating the agreement in 181 for the establishment of Israel.
If this were any other legal matter all Israel's violations of the 181 agreement would void the agreement or subject it to punitive measures to force compliance.
Second, what moral grounds would you have to object if Israel had to assume responsibility for what it did in 1948 to present even if it meant Jews had to leave or at minimum give up property considering everything that was done to correct the Jewish injustice and punish the Germans? After WWII, the US and allies occupying Germany carried out a huge program to return property of Jews, throwing out any Germans that were occupying Jewish homes or property....restitution of property continues to this day, 63 years later. Also the largest 'transfer' of people ever was 3 million Germans deported from the territories the Soviets transferred to Poland after WWII.
"If" Israel was judged as a country by the' same standards' the hasbara brigade is always asking us to judge Israel by, then it could be subjected to everything above that Germany and other countries have been subjected to.
I don't see it as practical to 'dissolve' Israel and created 7 million emigrees to other countries and don't think it will ever happen. I do see it as imperative to do away with the "Exception" to all law Israel claims and correct everything they have done, including the return of Palestines that were expelled from Israel, that doesn't comply with the agreement and conditions made when the UN established Israel and make them, not anyone else, financially responsible for reparations to Palestine and all affected Palestines the same way Germany had to be responsible for it's crimes against Jews and others.
Do you see any reason why the same standards, laws and remedies for the injured shouldn't be applied to Israel?
Looking at it with your right brain, if you were a Palestine or Arab would you want the zionist sent back to where ever they came from based on what they've done and --most importantly --refuse to stop doing?
I would if I were a Palestine.
Good piece Phil.
- Presbyterian investment committee recommends divestment from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola over complicity in the occupation
"is there any other religious organization who has spoken up about the Palestinian Israeli conflict "
The Methodist had something going on it, not sure where it stands now. will look.
- Video: right-wing groups attack U.S. professors over Ilan Pappe speaking tour
American February 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm
"The AMCHA Initiative asserts in the video that Pappe's scholarship violates "state department" restrictions against anti-Semitism, as well as university policies over political endorsements"
On what State Department definition of anti semitism are they claiming Pappe's scholarship is anti semitic?
Maybe someone has more current information but last I saw the only 'official' U.S. Department of State definition of antisemitism was in a 2005 Report which defined Anti-Semitism as "Hatred toward Jews, individually and as a group, that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."
There is a 'working definition' at the US Anti Semitism Dept. that is being pushed to be adopted by the State Dept., don't know where that stands. IMO it goes too far into censoring free speech, including 'political speech" about Israel or zionism.
I don't know how they would ever be able to enforce it. I don't think the US public would tolerate criminalizing speech, for better or worse, the way some countries have if that is the ultimate goal of this.
- Mark Perry: Israel and Iran's 'low-level war' is 'dangerous stuff'
American February 18, 2012 at 4:59 am
BTW....Here are Israel firster sponsors of the above Res.
"AIPAC is expected to make the resolution an "ask" in three weeks when up to 10,000 activists culminate its annual conference with a day of Capitol Hill lobbying....
This will be a war for Israel started by US Israel Firsters .....it will end our Israel problem in the end..but at a big price. Take names.
Efforts to change U.S. red line on Iran has Senate Dems worried about war
By Ron Kampeas · February 17, 2012
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Is America's red line on Iran moving?
A new bipartisan resolution introduced Thursday on Capitol Hill is part of a growing effort to shift the longstanding U.S. red line from Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon to having the capability to build one. Such a shift would bring U.S. policy in line with Israel's approach.
The resolution -- a nonbinding Senate statement backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – calls on the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring even the capability to build nuclear weapons.
It was introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Robert Casey (D-Pa.) and has 32 co-sponsors, roughly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. In order to garner Democratic support, the resolution's authors had toned down its original language.
"I'm trying to build a bipartisan consensus around something we all believe in," Graham said when asked by a reporter why he had removed language that seemed to threaten Iran with military force.
But the bill is already provoked jitters among Democrats anxious over the specter of war.
As it now stands, the resolution "affirms that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability."
The language that was removed would have affirmed "that it is within the power and capabilities of the United States Government to prevent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability."
Noting the "power and capabilities" of the United States seemed too close to saber rattling for some Democrats, insiders said. A number of senators asked Graham to include an explicit denial that the resolution authorized military action; he flatly refused.
Capitol Hill insiders say that if Graham had not changed the language at all he likely would have failed to garner more than nominal Democratic support.
"They couldn't find any Democratic co-sponsors until they addressed those concerns," said Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network, a think tank allied with foreign policy realists and liberals, and one of a number of groups that made representations to Democratic senators in recent weeks to tone down the resolution.
The threat of military action is key to the resolution's potency, Lieberman said, but he emphasized that the resolution did not seek to authorize such action.
"We 32 original sponsors of this U.S. Senate resolution want to say clearly and resolutely to Iran: You have only two choices -- peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear weapons program or expect a military strike to end that program," Lieberman said at a news conference Thursday.
Were it not for the back and forth over the language, the resolution would have been introduced a week ago. The delay and the sensitive negotiations over language may presage tensions with Democrats as AIPAC leads the drive among pro-Israel groups to ratchet up pressure on Iran this year.
Jewish Democratic insiders note that the Democratic party remains spooked over the political fallout of its acquiescence a decade ago in the buildup to the Iraq War.
"There are clearly plenty of people, especially in the Democratic Party, who are reluctant to drive to war with great rapidity," a Jewish Democratic activist said.
AIPAC is expected to make the resolution an "ask" in three weeks when up to 10,000 activists culminate its annual conference with a day of Capitol Hill lobbying.
As it is, the resolution has failed so far to attract the support of some key Democrats on the committees critical to its passage, Foreign Affairs and Armed Services. Among those missing are pro-Israel stalwarts like Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Fifteen of the resolution's 32 backers are in the Democratic caucus, a figure that includes Lieberman, who caucuses with the party.
An official with a pro-Israel group said that more senators are expected to sign on in coming weeks.
The resolution's sponsors seemed eager to suggest that the resolution reinforces Obama administration policy. Graham began the news conference by sounding a note that others among the eight senators present would repeat: "President Obama has stated that it's unacceptable for Iran to obtain a nuclear capability."
In fact, Obama has never used the "nuclear capability" phrasing, speaking instead of Iran "getting," "obtaining" or "acquiring" a nuclear weapon as a red line.
"America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal," Obama said last month in his State of the Union address.
There have been instances where nations like Brazil and South Africa have earned plaudits for renouncing weapons even though they likely retained capability to develop them quickly.
Senators sponsoring the bill said capability is the more sensible red line when it comes to a belligerent regime like Iran's. Casey said that an Iran with a nuclear capability would drive nuclear proliferation and could hand off know-how to terrorist proxies.
"The fact that they could give it to a terrorist and that it would lead to proliferation in that region is reason alone to support this resolution," he said Thursday.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government reportedly has pressed the Obama administration to adopt Israel's "capability" standard. According to media reports, Netanyahu refuses to give the United States advance warning of an Israeli strike unless the Obama administration agrees to make capability its red line -- to strike before Iran enters an "immunity zone," in the words of Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Graham suggested the utility of adopting Israel's red line would be to keep Israel from going it alone. He noted that he soon would be visiting Israel and meeting with Netanyahu.
"I will convey to the Israeli prime minister: We expect you never to lose control of your own destiny, but you need to understand there has been a sea change in Washington. Please understand that we share your view that Iran should not have a nuclear weapons capability," Graham said.
In recent weeks, there have been signs that the Obama administration has moved toward Israel's posture; Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now speaks of the "development" of a nuclear weapon as a red line.
Still, there are signs of gaps remaining between the Obama administration and Congress members. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier Thursday, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, made clear that the administration continues to perceive a substantive strategic difference between capabilities and acquisition.
"We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so," he said in written testimony. "We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."
Graham, in an exchange, pressed him on the point.
"You have doubt about the Iranians' intention when it comes to making a nuclear weapon?" Graham asked.
"I do," Clapper answered.
"So you're not so sure they're trying to make a bomb?" Graham asked.
"I think they're keeping themselves in a position to make that decision, but there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time," Clapper said.
"I guess my point is that I take a different view," Graham concluded. "I'm very convinced they're going down the road of developing a nuclear weapon."
American February 18, 2012 at 2:27 am
"Think anyone or anything can shake that joined at the hip part loose?"......Daniel
Yea, I think someone(s) could. I am a believer in the blowback to extremes. Something will happen eventually, the US Israel fetish is too extreme for something not to, and then things will change.
American February 17, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Ditto, excellent Alex.
False flag.
We knew false flags would be next.
- Wael Ghonim at Harvard: a key figure of the Egyptian revolution speaks truth to U.S. power
Just for info.
Here's another Israel errand and bill to pay on the US To Do for Israel list.
Fri 17 Feb 2012 | 20:33
US aid cut may force Israel treaty review: Egypt
Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:42pm GMT
CAIRO (Reuters) - The Muslim Brotherhood has warned that Egypt may review its 1979 peace deal with Israel if the United States cuts aid to the country, a move that could undermine a cornerstone of Washington's Middle East policy.
Washington has said the aid is at risk due to an Egyptian probe into civil society groups which has resulted in charges against at least 43 activists, including 19 Americans who have been banned from leaving the country.
Egypt has been one of the world's largest recipients of U.S. aid since it signed the peace treaty with Israel, and the Brotherhood, which does not yet hold the reins of power, said any decision to cut that aid because of the investigation would raise serious questions.
"We (Egypt) are a party (to the treaty) and we will be harmed so it is our right to review the matter," Essam el-Erian, a senior Brotherhood leader, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"The aid was one of the commitments of the parties that signed the peace agreement so if there is a breach from one side it gives the right of review to the parties," added Erian, the deputy leader of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the biggest group in the newly elected parliament.
His remarks are likely to increase pressure on all sides to resolve one of the worst crises in U.S.-Egyptian ties since the treaty was signed. In similar comments, FJP leader Mohamed Mursi said in a statement that U.S. talk of halting the aid was "misplaced," adding that the peace agreement "could stumble".
He said: "We want the march of peace to continue in a way that serves the interest of the Egyptian people."
The 1979 treaty made Egypt the first Arab state to forge peace with Israel and underpinned Washington's relationship with Cairo during Hosni Mubarak's 30-year rule, during which the Brotherhood was officially banned. Continued...
- BDS interview fallout: Finkelstein 'showed his own fear of the paradigm shift in discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict'
American February 16, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Tnaks fporn correction teta , too toired to spell.
"I just think the man is exasperated"..kathleen
I think that is most of it....he's plain out of patience, as most people are with this.
63 years, no improvement, everything Palestine does is deep sixed by the US.
Anyone who wants to help Palestine(and the US) should aim their guns at supporting their bid for statehood at the UN.
Don't know if it did any good but when the World Bank was considering whether to ditch Wolfowitz I sent 103 mails to the executives of the WB and all it country's member representatives and staff urging them to fire him as an embarrassment to the US and the WB...took me hours and hours to collect all their email addresses but I got replies from almost everyone of them. Conversely I have mailed the f***** US UN Susan Rice and never even gotten an automated drop dead reply.
Americans should start blitzing the internationals, the UN members, the EU heads and offices with our opinions to show them where the American "public" stands. Can't hurt might help. If they are undulated with where the US masses stand on Israel I/P as opposed to the 500 Israel firsters in congress might make them bolder on I/P settlement.
If AIPAC can blitz our congress we can blitz the other world powers...if we want to.
All these orgs. should start an American World Political Action Committee Lobby, AWPAC.
American February 16, 2012 at 1:46 pm
I don't care about what Norman says, or is or isn't for regarding one or two states or BDS.
All I want from the One or Two Staters is for them tell me how they are going to acheive either of those.
For example:
"in the Q & A I asked him a clear question: since there is no consensus on a 2-state solution or a 1 state solution, isn't it just fair to advocate for what holds a consensus; namely, the right of return? "
My question is this...why do they keep putting the cart before the horse?
Why are the movement for Palestine orgs advocating for things that can only come AFTER some renewed legal mechanism to uphold the original right of return in UN Res 191 and a ENFORCEMENT group is created to implement them?
Israel is not going to 'give' a right of return, not going to "agree" to two states, not going to give equal rights in a One state solution. Israel is not going to 'give' or 'agree' to anything.
Why is everyone expending all this energy on "advocating" and then internally arguing over their preference of one or two states or right of return when none of them have any way to implement them anyway?
So what if everyone in the movements and the citizen world agreed on One State...who you gonna get to enforce it on Israel?
That's all I want to know...How are you going to use BDS and other movements to get the people and powers that could do these things for Palestine to do them?
- Hadad (mourning)
Cannot imagine anyone saying those things about anyone's children
- Poland presses Israel over destruction of West Bank village supported by Polish charity
American February 16, 2012 at 6:20 pm
""All the wells that were destroyed were built illegally," he told us">>>>
Israel says as it destroy well on land it is ILLEGALLY occupying.
"The French Foreign Affairs Committee published a report in January accusing Israel of discrimination against Palestinians in the area, particularly of systematically destroying wells and cisterns and denying locals access to water. "Approximately 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank consume more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians living there," highlights the report.
The French identified the Israeli actions as "apartheid"
Good, but it's more than apartheid.
- 'A level of racist violence I have never seen': UCLA professor Robin D. G. Kelley on Palestine and the BDS movement
American February 16, 2012 at 1:59 pm
"Do you really want to start pissing contest between Israel and black Americans? It is so meaningless and absurd, that the only way to respond to your comment is to ROTFL.."
Here's a bet for you. Put your best zio propagandist up against this anti zionist Southerner who has lived intimately with Blacks for 6 decades and I guarantee you at the end of the debate they will be in my army and not yours.
- Rudoren responds to the Twitter kerfuffle
American February 15, 2012 at 11:17 pm
We'll never see this in the NYT..
"(AIPAC) is attempting to block a brief filed by Director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) Grant F. Smith"
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13, 2012 /PRNewswire -- The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is attempting to block a brief filed by Director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) Grant F. Smith in the DC Court of Appeals on February 3, 2012. The 78-page IRmep filing asserts "AIPAC has never abandoned its original role as an arm of the Israeli government in the United States." link to IRmep.org
Citing declassified criminal investigations, IRmep underscores the public's interest in the outcome of the case. "AIPAC's observable standard for employees is 'solicit, obtain and leverage classified information without being criminally indicted.' AIPAC is never held publicly accountable for these types of activities which harm governance and public perception of rule of law."
Exhibits include State Department files declassified on January 20, 2012 revealing in detail how former AIPAC Director Morris Amitay endangered US national security when he obtained Department of Defense secrets in 1974. The IRmep brief also analyzes ongoing financial damages from a 1984-1987 incident. The FBI investigated how AIPAC acquired an International Trade Commission report full of still-classified confidential business information.
AIPAC characterized the IRmep brief as "completely inaccurate portrayals of events that occurred decades ago" but seeks dismissal on procedural grounds. IRmep argues for its acceptance even though oral arguments begin February 14, because "AIPAC is an organization that has long 'had it both ways' in functioning as an agent of the Israeli government without registering, influencing funding flows to political candidates while claiming charitable tax-exempt status, and rewarding employees who obtained classified information--until they are criminally indicted."
Former employee Steven J. Rosen sued AIPAC and its board of directors for defamation in 2009. AIPAC fired Rosen after FBI wiretaps alleged Rosen had received classified national defense information. Rosen was indicted for espionage in 2005 though charges were later dropped. AIPAC claimed Rosen's behavior "did not comport with standards that AIPAC expects of its employees." Rosen immediately appealed after the defamation suit was dismissed in 2011.
IRmep has previously filed formal complaints seeking the revocation of AIPAC's tax exempt status and registration under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. In filing the appellate court brief, IRmep's director seeks to protect and advance growing popular demands that AIPAC be properly regulated. Major briefs filed in the Rosen v AIPAC et. al. court case may be viewed online at: link to IRmep.org
SOURCE Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy
Full IRmep Filing: link to irmep.org
Full AIPAC Filing: link to irmep.org
News Release: link to tinyurl.com Releted Court Filings: link to IRmep.org
American February 15, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Rudoren attitude sounds reasonable so far.
- New 'NYT' bureau chief Jodi Rudoren faces outcry from Israel advocates over Twitter messages
American February 19, 2012 at 12:05 am
"We Jews, not the goyim, will call you the most painful names, will threaten in various ways to label you as beyond the pale of your people, should you voice your critique"
The lady is right....from what I've observered the Israel first Jews are a hell of lot more vicious to their fellow Jews then the goyim are.
American February 15, 2012 at 5:15 pm
The thug brigade.
Humph, even I who have no faith in the NYT assignments to Israel did allow that this woman "might be objective"..didn't say she would, but allowed for the 'possibility'. de' thugs are trying to make sure she isn't.
I recall Tom Freidman saying how the NYT deep sixed some of his critical of Israel pieces early in his career.
American February 15, 2012 at 5:02 pm
BillM says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Shorter version
rotflmao...that's the description all right.
- Report: Last five years has seen a 315% rise in settler violence; this violence is 'structural and symptomatic of occupation'
American February 16, 2012 at 12:43 am
The settlers are doing what Israel wants them to do.
Otherwise they would stop them.
- Happy Valentines Day: Anonymous takes down web sites for tear gas company and Bahrain government
American February 15, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Last July 2011, the pentagon got hit 'again'...2,340 files were stolen.
They blamed China.
But 14 year olds have hacked the pentagon and military base computers and NASA and other gov computers dozens of times before.
The beauty of the hacker world is every time an entity designs another intrusion safe program there is a hacker out there who makes it his mission to break it.
It's a constant game of chess for the hackers.
American February 14, 2012 at 6:43 pm
I see huge, huge potential for Anonymous and other hackers.
Everyone knows don't they, that all missile defense systems are computer controlled.
Go get them boys.
No one is going a launch missiles and start a war if they don't have a working missile Defense shield for themselves.
- Norman Finkelstein slams the BDS movement calling it 'a cult'
American February 17, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Anti semitism and what it "really" is and what causes it seems to always be a evolving and expanding story.
I have never been able to find anything that shows anti semitism is different from "prejudice" except the term applies strictly to prejudice against Jews.
When you say..."but we also have a relatively stable basic layer of antisemitism. I think it would be speculative how much momentum it could gain again, but it shows it's not completely gone. It feels a much too rich and well-established myth; all it needs is little "anchors" in reality for the sheeple. Israel is a good one."
Let's look at that basic layer of anti semitism with facts.
In the US in 2010 there were 900 acts (FBI Source),... confrontations, defacement's of property... against Jews.
There were 2,570 acts against American Blacks, almost 3 times as many.
Considering the US population of 350 million people, 900 becomes a very minuscule number of anti semites.
Prejudice will always be a failing of human nature. It will never be entirely gone. All that can be done is preventing people from 'acting' illegally on their prejudices.
All I can say about this worry...."Israel and the hawkish pro-Israel mindset would challenge that view. It's pretty easy too, since we can never have a completely reliable and undeniable future prognosis."
Is... most informed people see that zionist, Israel-firsters and Israel exaggerate the prevalence of anti semitism and promote the view of non Jewish innate anti semitism because it serves their purpose.
There is nothing people can do about what Israel or zionist do to others and promote to Jews except publicly oppose and expose their propaganda and activities and this is why anti semitism is elevated to hysterics, to prevent people from doing this.
If some Jews want to worry about their future prognosis, instead of comparing reality to what they believe or are told, well then, they will just have to worry. The world can't reasonably do any more than it has done for Jews and anti semitism and it has gone to unreasonable lengths for Israel because of the anti semitism reason for it's creation.
We can't "preempt" all others or their human or political rights on the basis of Jewish fear of some future improbability or even possibility.
If the world set out to 'totally' eleminate all 'possible future happenings" to anyone in the world there would be no world left.
Well I think we have confused the Norman BDS, with Chomsky thrown in, issue enough now.
Can we just forget Fink and Chomie and recongize a few basics?
International law and enforcement of those laws is the way to deal with Israel that has and would have real world weight and consquences to Israel.
The problem is the US standing in the way of Israel being subjected to the law.
BDS alone cannot stop Israel. It can raise awareness and get more organizations and people involved in actively opposing Israel's occupation in a way that can generate enough heat be transfered into political pressure.
BDS should be about ending the Israel occupation and settlements in Palestine, period. BDS doesn't have the right to make choices or political decisions or decide on one or two states for Palestine-----that is up to Palestines.
American February 15, 2012 at 11:36 pm
"the leaders of the BDS movement rejected the idea and offered a number of patently absurd excuses, chief among which were the farfetched ideas that:
I was not aware the BDS did that.
Who the hell 'are' the leaders of the BDS?
There are obviously some foxes(or stupids) in the hen house.
American February 15, 2012 at 8:23 pm
I'm always fascinated when people say that applying international criminal law hasn't worked, when it has never been tried"...Hostage
That's what I'm saying....no one has ever tried or I should say succeeded. It's been "prevented."
International law is the venue for Israel to be dealt with..I've always said that.
But how and who will put Israel in the dock? And then enforce the legal remedies?
American February 15, 2012 at 7:56 pm
"Finkelstein worries that the international community simply will not accept the end of Israel, but refuses to talk about the end of Israel as a Jewish State.">>>>>
Er....what international community is Norman talking about? This one?
Not to be crude, but the US super power, who also has some negative approval, disappearing would be the story of the century, the disappearing of Israel might be the story of the week as far as the universe outside the ME is concerned.
17% of the sampled world likes Israel, 56% doesn't, the other 27% don't care one way or another.
I don't see the world caring that much if Israel stays or goes, or is Jewish or not, or is one state or two states, or the world putting up a fight to hang on to Israel as the bellicose trouble maker they see it as now.
This Univ. of Maryland -Kennedy Center World Public Opinion Poll was done before the '08 Gaza assault. I don't know if one has been done since. I will look.
link to worldpublicopinion.org
Israel and Iran Share Most Negative Ratings in Global Poll
March 22, 2007
Full Report (PDF)
Questionnaire/Methodology (PDF)
Published on 6 March 2007
A majority of people polled for the BBC World Service across 27 countries believe Israel and Iran have a mainly negative influence in the world with almost as many saying the same about North Korea and the United States.
Respondents were asked to rate 12 countries -- Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the USA, Venezuela -- and the European Union, as having a positive or negative influence.
Canada, Japan, the European Union, and France were judged most positively. Britain, China, and India received more positive than negative evaluations while Russia was viewed slightly more negatively than positively. Opinions about Venezuela were evenly divided.
(Details of the evaluations of the United States were released separately by the BBC on 23 January and are available here).
The BBC has been tracking opinions about countries' influence in the world over three years (2005 - 2007). Nineteen of the 27 countries have been tracked over the entire period. During that time most ratings have remained relatively stable. There has been improvement in ratings of India, a slight decline in views about Britain and a significant fall in positive evaluations of the United States. Russia, China, and France also lost ground over the period, mainly between 2005 and 2006.
"It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the use or pursuit of military power," said Steven Kull, director of PIPA. This includes Israel and the US, who have recently used military force, and North Korea and Iran, who are perceived as trying to develop nuclear weapons."
"Countries that relate to the world primarily through soft power, like Japan, France, and the EU in general, tend to be viewed positively," he added.
GlobeScan president Doug Miller said: "India is the only country that has significantly improved its global stature in the past year, and is now even with China. Britain, while slipping a bit since 2005, appears to be avoiding the steep decline that its war partner, the US, is suffering. And it is fascinating that Chavez's Venezuela seems to be appealing to as many people as it is displeasing."
The poll was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated the fieldwork between November 2006 and January 2007. Each country's rating is based on half-samples.
Global views of:
Israel, Iran, North Korea, United States, Japan, European Union, France, China, Britain, India, Russia, Venezuela
Israel is viewed quite negatively in the world.
On average, 56 percent have a mainly negative view of the country, and just 17 percent have a positive view, the least positive rating for any country evaluated. In 23 countries the most common view is negative, with only two leaning towards a positive view and two divided.
Unsurprisingly, the most negative views of Israel are found in the predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East, with very large majorities in Lebanon (85%), Egypt (78%), Turkey (76%), and the UAE (73%) having negative views.
Large majorities also have negative views in Europe, including Germany (77%), Greece (68%) and France (66%). Indonesia (71%), Australia (68%) and South Korea (62%) are the most negative countries in the Asia/Pacific region. Brazilians (72%) are the most negative in Latin America.
The two countries that tend to view Israel positively do so in modest numbers. Forty-five percent of Nigerians and 41 percent of Americans have positive views of Israel's influence in the world, while nearly one-third in each country has negative views. The Kenyan and Indian populations have divided views of Israel.
Because this is the first time the survey has included Israel among the countries rated, there is no evidence that its current ratings are better or worse than before.''
American February 15, 2012 at 4:43 pm
LeaNder says:
February 15, 2012 at 8:36 am
No other state claims a right to maintain an ethnoreligious majority population other than Israel.
There is a reason for this, don't underestimate it.">>>>>>
What's the reason, besides the claim of anti semitism?
The claim of anti semitism has frankly, outlived the reality.
But Israel and Israel firsters could provoke something they could 'call' anti semitism. Although we all know that's a zio smoke screen and not why people are opposing Israel behavior and the US Israel firsters.
In fact it would be ideal to leave anti semitism out of all discussions of Israel since realistically it no longer applies as a reason for the necessity of a Jewish state.
It detracts from the real world issues and facts about what Israel and US-Israel are actually doing today....and most of all Why.
"politics is not about changing public opinion, or bringing enlightenment to the benighted masses, it is about trying to get people to act on what they already know is wrong." Because two states is what has been accepted, by the UNGA, the ICJ, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conference, the Quartet, and basically every other international organization– as well as civilian populations throughout the world, including a plurality in the U.S.– this is what the general Palestinian solidarity movement should strive for."
Norman is right in thoery but not in reality. The thing he leaves out how we are, or who is, going to force people to do what they know is right and how we are going to force the law to apply the law.
Since 1948 the UN has tried to force Israel to live up to and go by the legal requirments of it's creation in Res 181. by condemning one violation after another for 63 years.
What has happened in these 63 years? Nothing but getting worse and worse.
For 63 years the US has prevented 2 states, the world powers have done nothing, the Arabs haven't done anything...all any of them have done is babble speak and toss Palestine a few coins while watching Palestines and Palestine disappear.
F*** 'em. Use whatever you can, BDS and anything else you can think up to throw at it. The people who 'supposedly" know what is right aren't going to do what is right until someone makes them by starting a big enough fight or causing a big enough stink they can't ignore.
- You won't have Ethan Bronner to kick around anymore . . .
American February 18, 2012 at 3:57 pm
The question we could ask is why he is being replaced.
If we take Howards remarks about Bronner trying to be fair we might conclude he was too fair and the Times didn't like it and replaced him.
Or we could believe the NYT gives a rip about all the complaints they and their reporters are Israel centric...which if that is the case, chalk one up for our side.
We'll just have see how Ruderon does.
But I doubt I'm ever going to see the NYT as anything but an organ for Israel in I/P and US-Isr relations.
Who could ever trust them after the Judith Miller trail of lies.
If that logic is extended, we wouldn't pay attention to Palestinians reporting from Gaza or the West Bank or East Jerusalem, "....
Howard, I don't know so I'm asking...Does the NYT have any Palestine or Palestine American 'reporting' from Gaza or Palestine or Israel?
I've seen occasional opinion pieces published for Palestine but never seen any Palestine reporting for the NYT on I/P.
But on Bronner once again. His son joined the Israel IDF during a time when he could have joined the US military and fought in a US conflict going on. I call a US Jewish citizen joining the military of Israel activism in the extreme for Israel. I don't know anyone who doesn't see it that way. Where did his son get his extreme activism for Israel? Most people would conclude it was instilled in him at home by his parent(s).
This to me is a huge red flag in Bronner's reporting. Someone dedicated enough to Israel to bless his son's serving their military would have to have super human compartmentalization abilities to be truly objective and unbiased in his reporting.
The NYT knew this when they assigned him...therefore the NYT has no credibility on Israel.
American February 17, 2012 at 7:23 pm
"I believe he did his level best to be fair, as he saw things, and he contributed to opening up the dialogue and the reporting in the New York Times on the issues that had never been covered by the Times with any sensitivity to a Palestinian narrative. I will miss his reporting as Bureau Chief."
Bronner is small potatoes, it is the Times executives who have the conflict of interest....that's why they appoint who they do.
They can't find one single non Jewish, identity neutral reporter to send to Israel?
The NYT has a conflict of interest. That's all anyone needs to know about their reporting on Israel.
Even if a Jewish reporter assigned to Israel should write something critical on Israel it will not be printed...as Tom Friedman can attest to because he said publicly that the Times deep sixed some of his Israel critical pieces in his early days at that paper.
Showing comments 2800 - 2701
Page: 97 96 95 ... 30 29 28 27 26 ... 3 2 1